# NBC skips tribute piece in Olympics Opening Ceremony



## phrelin

If you didn't already read about the controversy, you didn't get to see a moving piece in the Opening Ceremonies so you could watch a taped Ryan Seacrest interview with Michael Phelps.

Things like this make me angry, so I won't comment further. Here's access to the BBC video of that segment, at least until NBC suits get huffy and block it as it might take a buck away.


----------



## James Long

Perhaps NBC underestimated the value of that segment to their American audience. As an edited presentation the minutes needed to air the Michael Phelps piece could have been taken from anywhere in the broadcast (they could have skipped more countries during the parade of nations or the gymnast interviews at the beginning of the show) but I suppose in NBC's wisdom they thought we might care more about what they aired than what they didn't.

As it was part of the opening ceremony (although not specifically a remembrance of 7/7) it probably should have aired ... but it seemed to be something aimed at the British audience remembering people who had died before the games, regardless of how they died.


----------



## Maruuk

A clear case of corporate censorship involving perceived political overtones that NBC wished to avoid. Disgusting and un-American. But then, what mega-corporation ever has American interests held over its own narrow, predatory capitalist agendas? It was by far the best and most powerful segment in the entire Opening Ceremony. Props to Danny Boyle for the courage to bring this to the world. The world minus America that is.


----------



## phrelin

OK, I can't let this go by.

:rant:
I recognize that NBC doesn't give a crap about the Brits, but the combination of...

airing Bob Costa's fit over not having a moment of silence for the murder of 11 Israeli athletes and coaches 50 years ago _then_
not airing the British memorial which included pictures flashed up on big screens around the Olympic Stadium of the faces of spectators' loved ones who have passed away, including at least some if not all of the 52 victims of 7/7
...reflects on all Americans, reinforcing an image of ignorant disregard for others.

For those who don't remember (which apparently includes most folks at NBC) from Wikipedia:


> On the morning of Thursday, 7 July 2005, four Islamist home-grown terrorists detonated four bombs, three in quick succession aboard London Underground trains across the city and, later, a fourth on a double-decker bus in Tavistock Square. Fifty-two civilians and the four bombers were killed in the attacks, and over 700 more were injured. The attack happened 24 hours after the city was selected to host the 2012 Summer Olympics.


To say that this bit of insensitivity angered some Brits is an understatement.

Of course some were already angered because the memorial wasn't limited to 7/7 victims, so the Brits have their own nitwits.

But American television coverage (yes, it's viewed as American, not "NBCian") then became the headline in UK news and the US Blog on the Guardian site felt compelled to run a story NBC's opening ceremony mess: the top six cringeworthy moments. In that we discover among other things that:


> NBC co-host Meredith Vieira failed to do her homework and thus did not recognise the importance of the inventor of the world wide web. "If you haven't heard of him, we haven't either," she said. "Google him," joked co-host Matt Lauer.
> Most nations have their unfortunate figures from history that it is best not to mention at events like Olympics opening ceremonies. So it is with Uganda and former dictator Idi Amin. Sadly no one told NBC host Bob Costas who cracked out an Amin reference at the sight of the Ugandan team.
> For those overseas it might not be the best known moment of British history but the arrival of the Windrush in 1948 was also cut. The Windrush brought the first major wave of West Indian immigrants to Britain and, given the heavy multicultural leaning of the entire ceremony, its omission from the NBC broadcast left a hole.


Because of the nitwits at NBC, the issue on the twitverse in Britain rapidly became one of we American's think the only important deaths in the war on terror were the deaths in one attack on the U.S. (which resulted in a huge outpouring of sympathy in Britain) and those 11 Israelis deaths [strike]50[/strike] 40 years ago.

To me, NBC management and staff behavior was rude and ignorant well beyond acceptable.
:rant:


----------



## Karen

It was embarrassing. You can be sure that if the British left out a memorial to 9/11, we wold have been outraged too. I can't believe how very stupid and insensitive NBC is...


----------



## trh

phrelin said:


> To me, NBC management and staff behavior was rude and ignorant well beyond acceptable.


+1

"Unprofessional" also comes to mind with many of the comments they made last night.


----------



## tampa8

Great posts from all of you, though I take exception to the 50 years ago post about the Israeli deaths, 40 years ago. It is relevant since it happened during this same event, the Olympics.


----------



## SayWhat?

Another reason I quit watching this.

It got way too political. None of this stuff should be mentioned at all.


----------



## renbutler

Maruuk said:


> But then, what mega-corporation ever has American interests held over its own narrow, predatory capitalist agendas?


Lots of them.

But you get big-time props for the most careless blanket statement I've seen yet today...

:nono2:


----------



## Davenlr

SayWhat? said:


> Another reason I quit watching this.


+1


----------



## Hoosier205

"Maruuk" said:


> A clear case of corporate censorship involving perceived political overtones that NBC wished to avoid. Disgusting and un-American. But then, what mega-corporation ever has American interests held over its own narrow, predatory capitalist agendas? It was by far the best and most powerful segment in the entire Opening Ceremony. Props to Danny Boyle for the courage to bring this to the world. The world minus America that is.


It was stupid for them to omit it, but you've gone full tin foil/black helicopters with your conspiracy theory.


----------



## Maruuk

Oh right, it was "just a coincidence" that NBC precisely, to the second, blacked out the one potentially controversial segment in the most-watched part of the entire Olympics with some old, canned regurgitated crap. Remarkable! Such bad luck for us! Bad go of it, old boy! Better luck next time!

PT Barnum, where are you when we need you?


----------



## Hoosier205

"Maruuk" said:


> Oh right, it was "just a coincidence" that NBC precisely, to the second, blacked out the one potentially controversial segment in the most-watched part of the entire Olympics with some old, canned regurgitated crap. Remarkable! Such bad luck for us! Bad go of it, old boy! Better luck next time!
> 
> PT Barnum, where are you when we need you?


It was controversial to omit it. However, there was nothing at all controversial about the segment itself.


----------



## James Long

NBC could have just as easily skipped the 7/7 tribute and gone straight from the torch traveling on the Thames to the athlete's parade.

When NBC started the Phelps segment they showed the stadium changing from flags in the audience to a "Welcome" banner, cut to a shot of the Americans walking toward the station and introduced the interview. When NBC came back from the break after Phelps they showed the same stadium shot with Welcome spelled out in the crowd and then Greece entered. The dancers from the tribute segment were running off the stage.

The Phelps segment including introduction and wrap up leading to the next break was three minutes. The tribute was six minutes. Something else would needed to be cut to fit in the tribute. The two hours of people walking in could have been more compressed.

From the British rebuke posted above it seems that more segments of the opening were also cut. Perhaps NBC went with the things that they believed most of their audience would understand.


----------



## Hoosier205

"James Long" said:


> NBC could have just as easily skipped the 7/7 tribute and gone straight from the torch traveling on the Thames to the athlete's parade.
> 
> When NBC started the Phelps segment they showed the stadium changing from flags in the audience to a "Welcome" banner, cut to a shot of the Americans walking toward the station and introduced the interview. When NBC came back from the break after Phelps they showed the same stadium shot with Welcome spelled out in the crowd and then Greece entered. The dancers from the tribute segment were running off the stage.
> 
> The Phelps segment including introduction and wrap up leading to the next break was three minutes. The tribute was six minutes. Something else would needed to be cut to fit in the tribute. The two hours of people walking in could have been more compressed.
> 
> From the British rebuke posted above it seems that more segments of the opening were also cut. Perhaps NBC went with the things that they believed most of their audience would understand.


Just watch the 3D broadcast and you can see exactly what was cut from the NBC 2D broadcast.


----------



## James Long

Hoosier205 said:


> Just watch the 3D broadcast and you can see exactly what was cut from the NBC 2D broadcast.


Odd. I've read complaints about how messed up the 3D broadcast was as well ... with commercials cutting in and Sir Paul's song chopped off?


----------



## pablo

I don't understand why important events like this can't be shown commercial-free. Or why anything needed to be cut or compressed (like the Parade of Nations) if it wasn't live anyway.


----------



## phrelin

tampa8 said:


> Great posts from all of you, though I take exception to the 50 years ago post about the Israeli deaths, 40 years ago. It is relevant since it happened during this same event, the Olympics.


When you get to be my age, it seems like everything occurred over 50 years ago. But it was indeed foolish of me not to instantly recognize 50 years is not a multiple of 4.


----------



## James Long

pablo said:


> I don't understand why important events like this can't be shown commercial-free. Or why anything needed to be cut or compressed (like the Parade of Nations) if it wasn't live anyway.


BBC's coverage was nearly four hours ... NBC's was 4:30. With the typical commercial load NBC's coverage would have been six hours.

Starting national prime time 30 minutes early on a Friday afternoon helped fit what they did in before midnight. NBC would have had to start earlier to fit it all in by 1am. That is a long time to ask an audience to sit and watch to get to the lighting and Sir Paul.

Asking for it to be aired commercial free ... the ratings are too high. When a network has that many people watching they need to try to sell them something. Selling ads helps pay for the program. The BBC can do commercial free as they are paid for by the government via taxes.


----------



## Davenlr

Then let PBS have the rights


----------



## phrelin

I don't think people realize how much money is involved in the Olympics. A bidding war goes on over TV rights world wide and many billions of dollars are involved.

I long for the days when we had our C-band dish and watched open CBC coverage. It was great, balanced coverage with no jingoistic rhetoric. Today, of course, a privately-owned commercial network, CTV, won the bidding war and is providing coverage in Canada. My guess is that while it is neither as obnoxious nor as thorough as NBC, it would not remind me of the CBC coverage.


----------



## James Long

Davenlr said:


> Then let PBS have the rights


And who pays the $1.18 B for the rights to air the game? A special tax bond? (That is before paying to produce and air the games.) It would also be a very limited coverage. One HD channel?

BTW: NBC has the broadcast rights through 2020.


----------



## Alebob911

"Hoosier205" said:


> Just watch the 3D broadcast and you can see exactly what was cut from the NBC 2D broadcast.


I too am watching the 3D broadcast and saw it.


----------



## Davenlr

It was a joke. Seriously, however, its a shame the other major countries dont have to put up with the nonsense you Olympic fans are putting up with. I watched Nascar.


----------



## Davenlr

phrelin said:


> I long for the days when we had our C-band dish and watched open CBC coverage.


Hint: Satmex. Mucho Espanol  
Hint2 if you can see the bird: Intelsat at 20W...Full international feeds in HD.

Edit: See you are in Cali...guess you can ignore the sat at 20W  Might check out the Pacific birds.


----------



## Maruuk

Why would these particular Olympics make any reference to a 40 year old terrorist attack? Except to satisfy the incessant din from the Israelis for "special" attention and consideration. 

The 7/7 attack came as a direct response to London landing these games. It happened in LONDON. The Olympics are in LONDON. The opening ceremony was about English history featuring London as the centerpiece. It's fully relevant. The Israeli event is ancient history which happened long ago and far away. It had more than sufficient coverage at the time, and over the subsequent years. Trotting it out yet again at an incongruous venue smacks far more of politics than humanitarianism. 

The whining comment made about including it by the American bobblehead Friday night was bizarre and oddly contentious, almost like he was pushing an agenda. But how could that be?


----------



## Fraaaak

I managed to find a good torrent of the BBC broadcast - the whole ceremony, start to end with no commercials. Extra Arctic Monkeys song, the Frankie and June number was about 4 times longer than NBC showed, and there we're a bunch of other items you missed in the NBC one. 

And while the BBC commentators only seemed to have the runs and needed only a little bit of Kaopectate for the mouth, it was nothing like the explosive diaherria of the mouth that the NBC announcers seemed to be suffering.

If you think you were pissed at NBC's coverage before, you'll be even more upset at NBC once you see the BBC broadcast.


----------



## SayWhat?

pablo said:


> I don't understand why important events like this can't be shown commercial-free.


A. It isn't important.

B. Money Rules All. All Hail the Great Money. Thou Shalt Not Slight the Mighty Money.

As to whatever it is that seems to have people's panties all bunched up ...... anything that even MIGHT have caused any kind of controversy should not have been included at all. This is about playing games, but not playing mind games.


----------



## txtommy

Fraaaak said:


> I managed to find a good torrent of the BBC broadcast - the whole ceremony, start to end with no commercials. Extra Arctic Monkeys song, the Frankie and June number was about 4 times longer than NBC showed, and there we're a bunch of other items you missed in the NBC one.
> 
> And while the BBC commentators only seemed to have the runs and needed only a little bit of Kaopectate for the mouth, it was nothing like the explosive diaherria of the mouth that the NBC announcers seemed to be suffering.
> 
> If you think you were pissed at NBC's coverage before, you'll be even more upset at NBC once you see the BBC broadcast.


Agreed, it would have been nice to hear the music that the announcers were telling us was playing. I do believe I could have recognized The Rolling Stones and Kinks without some self-centered announcer describing how she remembered them playing in her youth. I wonder how those at the ceremony knew what was going on without such announcers to describe the event in such complete and sickening detail.


----------



## dpeters11

"SayWhat?" said:


> A. It isn't important.
> 
> B. Money Rules All. All Hail the Great Money. Thou Shalt Not Slight the Mighty Money.
> 
> As to whatever it is that seems to have people's panties all bunched up ...... anything that even MIGHT have caused any kind of controversy should not have been included at all. This is about playing games, but not playing mind games.


Someone can make some sort of controversy about a lot of the ceremony, including the Industrial Revolution, National Health Service, Rowan Atkinson, the Queen stunt double etc etc. The Beijing ceremony was very highly regarded, but extremely controversial. But if the test is, could it possibly cause any sort of controversy, there always will be some group that would oblige.


----------



## RunnerFL

Funny, if I hadn't seen this thread I wouldn't know there was a controversy at all. Doesn't seem to me like a big outrage except right here.


----------



## tonyd79

RunnerFL said:


> Funny, if I hadn't seen this thread I wouldn't know there was a controversy at all. Doesn't seem to me like a big outrage except right here.


Don;t read the news, huh?


----------



## tenholde

pablo said:


> I don't understand why important events like this can't be shown commercial-free. Or why anything needed to be cut or compressed (like the Parade of Nations) if it wasn't live anyway.


Commercial free? You are kidding, right? What do you think is paying for all of that 'free' streaming you have access to on all of your digital devices, much less the 'on air' broadcast themselves?


----------



## Carl Spock

tonyd79 said:


> Don;t read the news, huh?


I read the news but this is a small controversy, played large here and elsewhere on the Internet. It only has legs because it fits into people's preconceived notions: "NBC is liberal so they left out a tribute to the dead." - and - "Americans are insensitive and self centered so they don't care about the rest of the world."

Do I really need to point out that both opinions are oversimplifications of reality?


----------



## RunnerFL

tonyd79 said:


> Don;t read the news, huh?


I certainly do. That was my point, I only heard about this here so clearly it's not some huge world outrage thing.


----------



## Hoosier205

RunnerFL said:


> I certainly do. That was my point, I only heard about this here so clearly it's not some huge world outrage thing.


Well, we are the only country to omit the broadcasted tribute. It has been featured in the news here, substantially so.


----------



## klang

Seems to me some folks are looking too hard for something to be offended about.

Personally, I nodded off right after the US team came into the stadium. :zzz:


----------



## SayWhat?

I don't watch network news, but I haven't see any mention of it (yet) on the web news pages. But then again, I have anything sports related more or less excluded.












> Seems to me some folks are looking too hard for something to be offended about.


Exactamundo Kimmosabee.


----------



## Hoosier205

SayWhat? said:


> I don't watch network news, but I haven't see any mention of it (yet) on the web news pages. But then again, I have anything sports related more or less excluded.


https://www.google.com/search?hl=en....,cf.osb&fp=afd5217aff60facb&biw=1366&bih=650

2,480 results there. Many others that aren't captured.


----------



## Davenlr

tenholde said:


> Commercial free? You are kidding, right? What do you think is paying for all of that 'free' streaming you have access to on all of your digital devices, much less the 'on air' broadcast themselves?


Ah, the monthly subscription fee perhaps? Surely that could cover a 4 hour show. Since it was delayed, they could have even showed the commercials without cutting out any of the ceremony.


----------



## James Long

7/7 was not mentioned in the London 2012 Olympic Games Opening Ceremony Media Guide (PDF) for the event. This is how the segment was described (pg 32):

*Abide With Me*
Duration: 00:05:51

The beautiful hymn 'Abide With Me' was written by Henry Francis Lyte in 1847 on his deathbed. He passed away three weeks after finishing it. Its honest expression of the fear of approaching death has made it popular with people of all religions and none.

*Memorial Wall*
Spectators have been invited to present images of loved ones who couldn't be with us tonight. In a moving moment, those who are absent from us are digitally present.

*Akram Khan and Emeli Sandé*
Emeli Sandé sings 'Abide With Me'. Fifty dancers, including the choreographer Akram Khan, dramatise the struggle between life and death using such powerful images of mortality as dust and the setting sun.​Described as spectators presenting images of loved ones ... not "a moving tribute to 7/7". At least not in the official media guide written by games organizers.


----------



## Hoosier205

James Long said:


> 7/7 was not mentioned in the London 2012 Olympic Games Opening Ceremony Media Guide (PDF - pg 32) for the event. This is how the segment was described:
> 
> *Abide With Me*
> Duration: 00:05:51
> 
> The beautiful hymn 'Abide With Me' was written by Henry Francis Lyte in 1847
> on his deathbed. He passed away three weeks after finishing it. Its honest
> expression of the fear of approaching death has made it popular with people
> of all religions and none.
> 
> *Memorial Wall*
> Spectators have been invited to present images of loved ones who couldn't be with us tonight. In a moving moment, those who are absent from us are digitally present.
> 
> *Akram Khan and Emeli Sandé*
> Emeli Sandé sings 'Abide With Me'. Fifty dancers, including the choreographer Akram Khan, dramatise the struggle between life and death using such powerful images of mortality as dust and the setting sun.​Described as spectators presenting images of loved ones ... not "a moving tribute to 7/7". At least not in the official media guide written by games organizers.


Still doesn't excuse the absence of it from the NBC broadcast.


----------



## SayWhat?

Hoosier205 said:


> Still doesn't excuse the absence of it from the NBC broadcast.


Excuse it? They need you to excuse them?


----------



## RunnerFL

Hoosier205 said:


> Well, we are the only country to omit the broadcasted tribute. It has been featured in the news here, substantially so.


Not on the news here, haven't seen it on the national news, cnn.com or foxnews.com. *shrug*


----------



## SayWhat?

:: Double shrug ::


----------



## tonyd79

"RunnerFL" said:


> I certainly do. That was my point, I only heard about this here so clearly it's not some huge world outrage thing.


I doubt most of the world knows about it as they all saw it. So no outrage.

Everyone who has heard about it is outraged.

Kind of hard to be mad about something you don't know about.

I am ticked because they edited someone else's art and had the balls to say that it was a good show because they didn't have to edit much. Nothing political in that. Just hubris.


----------



## tonyd79

"RunnerFL" said:


> Not on the news here, haven't seen it on the national news, cnn.com or foxnews.com. *shrug*


Good. Stay uninformed and then say it was okay because you don't know about it.

I've seen it all over the Internet. I don't watch tv news.


----------



## Hoosier205

"SayWhat?" said:


> Excuse it? They need you to excuse them?


Me? I never said any such thing.


----------



## Hoosier205

"RunnerFL" said:


> Not on the news here, haven't seen it on the national news, cnn.com or foxnews.com. *shrug*


Yes it has been.


----------



## RunnerFL

tonyd79 said:


> I doubt most of the world knows about it as they all saw it. So no outrage.


From the posts here we're lead to believe there is world outrage.



tonyd79 said:


> Everyone who has heard about it is outraged.


I'm not, please don't speak for me.



tonyd79 said:


> I am ticked because they edited someone else's art and had the balls to say that it was a good show because they didn't have to edit much. Nothing political in that. Just hubris.


It was edited for time, you knew that going in.


----------



## RunnerFL

Hoosier205 said:


> Yes it has been.


Again I've searched CNN, nothing... They only thing they are doing, and it's ticking me off, is announcing medals before we get to see the event.

Same with ESPN as I sit here watching NASCAR.


----------



## James Long

Hoosier205 said:


> Yes it has been.


Bloggers have picked up on it ... but national news? CNN? FoxNews?

BTW: Meridith and Bob noted the tribute in last night's prime time coverage in a review of the opening ceremony. They mentioned it as a tribute to Danny Boyle's father (who would have been 91 on Friday) as well as the family of spectators who died before the games.


----------



## Hoosier205

"James Long" said:


> Bloggers have picked up on it ... but national news? CNN? FoxNews?
> 
> BTW: Meridith and Bob noted the tribute in last night's prime time coverage in a review of the opening ceremony. They mentioned it as a tribute to Danny Boyle's father (who would have been 91 on Friday) as well as the family of spectators who died before the games.


Yes, national news. I have no idea why you are arguing about this given the incredible amount of backlash.


----------



## RunnerFL

Hoosier205 said:


> Yes, national news. I have no idea why you are arguing about this given the incredible amount of backlash.


What backlash? Where? That's what we're getting at. There's nothing on CNN, FoxNews, etc.


----------



## SayWhat?

I'm more appalled at the people that are appalled and trying to make something out of nothing.


----------



## RunnerFL

SayWhat? said:


> I'm more appalled at the people that are appalled and trying to make something out of nothing.


I'm not appalled, just confused as to where this "outrage" and "incredible amount of backlash" are. I'd think if both were true CNN would have nothing but coverage of the issue on.


----------



## Hoosier205

"RunnerFL" said:


> What backlash? Where? That's what we're getting at. There's nothing on CNN, FoxNews, etc.


You must not be looking. Local and nation news sources in both the UK and US.


----------



## sigma1914

RunnerFL said:


> I'm not appalled, just confused as to where this "outrage" and "incredible amount of backlash" are. I'd think if both were true CNN would have nothing but coverage of the issue on.


Not to be political, but you'd think Fox News would be allllllllll over it.


----------



## Hoosier205

"SayWhat?" said:


> I'm more appalled at the people that are appalled and trying to make something out of nothing.


Just as I am appalled by your earlier offensive comments about Israel.


----------



## RunnerFL

Hoosier205 said:


> You must not be looking. Local and nation news sources in both the UK and US.


I did a search on cnn.com, foxnews.com and I've tuned to both channels. Nothing...


----------



## RunnerFL

sigma1914 said:


> Not to be political, but you'd think Fox News would be allllllllll over it.


Exactly, and they aren't. That's what leads me to believe that either there's no "outrage" or "incredible amount of backlash" or this thread is just someone's attempt at humor or someone's attempt to get people riled up.


----------



## Hoosier205

"RunnerFL" said:


> I did a search on cnn.com, foxnews.com and I've tuned to both channels. Nothing...


I have watched segments regarding this on both.


----------



## RunnerFL

Hoosier205 said:


> I have watched segments regarding this on both.


A news "segment" does not equate "incredible amount of backlash". They give more than 30 seconds to things that involve "incredible amount of backlash".


----------



## Hoosier205

"RunnerFL" said:


> A news "segment" does not equate "incredible amount of backlash". They give more than 30 seconds to things that involve "incredible amount of backlash".


We are talking about thousands of news agencies. You boil it down to news coverage on two to sum up your entire argument. It has come from many different sources and forms.


----------



## sigma1914

Can we get some links to real articles and not bloggers, please?


----------



## RunnerFL

Hoosier205 said:


> We are talking about thousands of news agencies. You boil it down to news coverage on two to sum up your entire argument. It has come from many different sources and forms.


Ok, well clearly you're in this just to argue. I was only trying to figure out how it was something worthy of world outrage and an "incredible amount of backlash" and it's not.

I'm not going to argue with you over this. It's insignificant and has no affect on how people will live their lives so I'm done.


----------



## Hoosier205

"RunnerFL" said:


> Ok, well clearly you're in this just to argue. I was only trying to figure out how it was something worthy of world outrage and an "incredible amount of backlash" and it's not.
> 
> I'm not going to argue with you over this. It's insignificant and has no affect on how people will live their lives so I'm done.


It has already been explained to you and you haven chosen to ignore it.


----------



## RunnerFL

Hoosier205 said:


> It has already been explained to you and you haven chosen to ignore it.


Your paranoia has been described, yes. Proof of the world outrage and "incredible amount of backlash" have yet to be provided.

Sigma1914 asked for links, you chose to ignore him and come after me. That only backs up my point.


----------



## Hoosier205

"RunnerFL" said:


> Your paranoia has been described, yes. Proof of the world outrage and "incredible amount of backlash" have yet to be provided.
> 
> Sigma1914 asked for links, you chose to ignore him and come after me. That only backs up my point.


US and UK, not world-wide. Why would it be world-wide? Links were already provided. More can be sought out by anyone who chooses. Don't make a silly claim and expect someone else to prove or disprove it for you.


----------



## sigma1914

Trending on foxnews.com has nothing... Huge backlash huh?
http://www.foxnews.com/trending/


----------



## RunnerFL

sigma1914 said:


> Can we get some links to real articles and not bloggers, please?


Apparently not.

I searched and all I can find are bloggers, The Huffington Post, time.com and a couple of UK news agencies. Hardly the "incredible amount of backlash" we're led to believe.


----------



## Hoosier205

"sigma1914" said:


> Trending on foxnews.com has nothing... Huge backlash huh?
> http://www.foxnews.com/trending/


Two news cycles ago.


----------



## Hoosier205

"RunnerFL" said:


> Apparently not.
> 
> I searched and all I can find are bloggers, The Huffington Post, time.com and a couple of UK news agencies. Hardly the "incredible amount of backlash" we're led to believe.


Thousands of news sources and you only managed to find a few of them. I thought you were done with this?


----------



## sigma1914

Hoosier205 said:


> Two news cycles ago.


If it's that big, it'd still be trending.


----------



## Hoosier205

"sigma1914" said:


> If it's that big, it'd still be trending.


No.


----------



## SayWhat?

Hoosier205 said:


> Just as I am appalled by your earlier offensive comments about Israel.


Que?


----------



## sigma1914

I found 1...the rest were blogs like Daily Kos.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olym...-tribute-to-victims-Michael-Phelps/56556494/1


----------



## RunnerFL

sigma1914 said:


> If it's that big, it'd still be trending.


Exactly... If there was "incredible amount of backlash" it would be on constantly.


----------



## James Long

sigma1914 said:


> Can we get some links to real articles and not bloggers, please?


CBSNews.com had a brief article yesterday ... Choreographer angry that NBC cut segment so that is one outraged person. 

The other national media sites seem to be reflecting complaints about the tape delay and not mentioning the edit. At least American national media. The UK sites seem to care more but that isn't our nationality.


----------



## pablo

tenholde said:


> Commercial free? You are kidding, right? What do you think is paying for all of that 'free' streaming you have access to on all of your digital devices, much less the 'on air' broadcast themselves?


Okay, maybe not commercial-free, but surely with limited commercial interruption it's possible? And, again, if it's not live, why the need to skip anything? And why were some countries during the Parade of Nations simply "caught up while you were away" if it's recorded? There shouldn't have been any of this. Inserting commercial into an ongoing live event, I understand the need to "catch up", but on a 4-hour delay?


----------



## SayWhat?

James Long said:


> 7/7 was not mentioned


I'm more concerned with the lack of a 7/11 around here. But nobody else is, so I have to get my Slurpee fix at wannabees.


----------



## RunnerFL

pablo said:


> Okay, maybe not commercial-free, but surely with limited commercial interruption it's possible? And, again, if it's not live, why the need to skip anything? And why were some countries during the Parade of Nations simply "caught up while you were away" if it's recorded? There shouldn't have been any of this. Inserting commercial into an ongoing live event, I understand the need to "catch up", but on a 4-hour delay?


They only had from 7:30pm Eastern to Midnight Eastern for time. They had to cut it down to fit in that time period.


----------



## Hoosier205

"RunnerFL" said:


> They only had from 7:30pm Eastern to Midnight Eastern for time. They had to cut it down to fit in that time period.


No they didn't. Haha...that time restraint was self-imposed.


----------



## RunnerFL

Hoosier205 said:


> No they didn't. Haha...that time restraint was self-imposed.


It was not self-imposed. On Fridays primetime is actually 8pm to 11pm, any other time belongs to their affiliates. Their affiliates were nice enough to give them the extra 90 minutes.


----------



## Hoosier205

"RunnerFL" said:


> It was not self-imposed. On Fridays primetime is actually 8pm to 11pm, any other time belongs to their affiliates. Their affiliates were nice enough to give them the extra 90 minutes.


It was self-imposed.


----------



## RunnerFL

Hoosier205 said:


> It was self-imposed.


Hardly


----------



## James Long

pablo said:


> Okay, maybe not commercial-free, but surely with limited commercial interruption it's possible?


Sure ... find sponsors who are willing to pay twice as much and one can cut half of the commercials. From a business perspective perhaps fining sponsors who are willing to pay twice as much means sell more commercials.



RunnerFL said:


> They only had from 7:30pm Eastern to Midnight Eastern for time. They had to cut it down to fit in that time period.


It is an audience based restriction. National prime time is 8-11 (7-10 central) for a reason. That is when most of the audience is available to watch. Some might be home earlier - early enough to watch the evening newscasts at 6:30pm - but starting earlier would mean that more of the audience would miss the beginning. (And while DVRs are popular they are only in 43% of American homes. The live audience is still the key.)

Push the program later and the audience gets annoyed. The torch lighting was aired at 11:45pm ... how many people wanted to wait until 12:45am?

And it should be noted that the show itself ran over scheduled time by 45 minutes ... something had to be cut.


----------



## phrelin

Actually, Sunday night prime time is considered by the nets (not me) to be 7-11 pm.

It's easy to second guess, but there was adequate time from 6-7 to interview Phelps, allow Costas to talk out his ***, allow Vierra to do some research, etc. Then they could have run the show from 7 to 12 cutting out some marching in athletes we don't care about and who we'll never hear.

Admittedly far fewer would be watching the Phelps interview and hearing Costas, but NBC would be doing what IMHO is it's job. And from a sports enthusiast standpoint, the taped Phelps interview would have been far more interesting after he placed 4th.


----------



## Hoosier205

"RunnerFL" said:


> Hardly


It was. No know forced them into it.


----------



## RunnerFL

phrelin said:


> Actually, Sunday night prime time is considered by the nets (not me) to be 7-11 pm.


Yes, but the Opening Ceremonies were on Friday, not Sunday, where prime time is 8pm to 11pm.


----------



## Hoosier205

"RunnerFL" said:


> Yes, but the Opening Ceremonies were on Friday, not Sunday, where prime time is 8pm to 11pm.


A creation of the networks. Self-imposed time restraints.


----------



## RunnerFL

Hoosier205 said:


> A creation of the networks. Self-imposed time restraints.


Perhaps you should call your local NBC affiliate and ask them what time is theirs and what belongs to the network. That way you'd get your facts straight.


----------



## Hoosier205

"RunnerFL" said:


> Perhaps you should call your local NBC affiliate and ask them what time is theirs and what belongs to the network. That way you'd get your facts straight.


I am already well aware. Feel free to so the same.


----------



## RunnerFL

Hoosier205 said:


> I am already well aware. Feel free to so the same.


I've been good friends with the man who is the current Program Director at my local NBC Affiliate since we were in High School. He's worked there for 20+ years and I've helped him out on various projects there over the years. I'm well aware of how the system works.


----------



## Hoosier205

"RunnerFL" said:


> I've been good friends with the man who is the current Program Director at my local NBC Affiliate since we were in High School. He's worked there for 20+ years and I've helped him out on various projects there over the years. I'm well aware of how the system works.


It doesn't appear so.


----------



## pablo

Another thing that bothers me about the way NBC is covering the Games is that there appears to be daily highlight show to catch up everyone on everything that happened that day, maybe I'm just missing it, and also, no medal ceremonies, unless, again, I missed them all, but there have been lots of medals handed out already. No medal ceremonies vidoes on NBCOlympics.com either, it seems.


----------



## anleva

> When asked why NBC didn't show the memorial, NBC spokesman Greg Hughes on Saturday said only that "our programming is tailored for the U.S. audience. It's a tribute to (opening ceremony producer) Danny Boyle that it required so little editing."


http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/london/story/2012-07-28/NBC-tribute-to-victims-Michael-Phelps/56556494/1


----------



## James Long

pablo said:


> Another thing that bothers me about the way NBC is covering the Games is that there appears to be daily highlight show to catch up everyone on everything that happened that day, maybe I'm just missing it, and also, no medal ceremonies, unless, again, I missed them all,


I saw two swimming medal ceremonies in last night's coverage as I skimmed through the evening broadcast. I believe the late night has highlights.

This is probably better discussed in the other thread ...


----------



## RunnerFL

Here's your "outrage" and "incredible amount of backlash". At least this story made the headlines on cnn.com and is being talked about on every broadcast I've heard.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/29/sport/empty-seats-olympic-venues/index.html?hpt=hp_c1


----------



## maartena

James Long said:


> Perhaps NBC underestimated the value of that segment to their American audience. As an edited presentation the minutes needed to air the Michael Phelps piece could have been taken from anywhere in the broadcast (they could have skipped more countries during the parade of nations or the gymnast interviews at the beginning of the show) but I suppose in NBC's wisdom they thought we might care more about what they aired than what they didn't.
> 
> As it was part of the opening ceremony (although not specifically a remembrance of 7/7) it probably should have aired ... but it seemed to be something aimed at the British audience remembering people who had died before the games, regardless of how they died.


7/7 was England's 9/11. Regardless of who died, and/or how many, that event is as important to London as 9/11 is to New York.

Look at it this way, if New York would have hosted the games and implemented a 9/11 remembrance in its opening.... that would subsequently be cut out by e.g. CBC or BBC as "not important", I would think a whole lot of Canadians and/or Brits would be just as upset.

Lastly, the United States was the *ONLY* country (as far as I know) cutting out pieces out of the ceremony. Why does NBC get to decide what we can and cannot see? Why does NBC feel the need to censor their coverage?

It really just adds insult on top of it not being live.


----------



## maartena

RunnerFL said:


> They only had from 7:30pm Eastern to Midnight Eastern for time. They had to cut it down to fit in that time period.


If they had shown it LIVE, however, they could have shown it all.


----------



## John Strk

If they could have just not shown one or two of their 5000 commercials then they would have been able to show more coverage! :nono2:


----------



## renbutler

maartena said:


> Why does NBC get to decide what we can and cannot see?


They got that power the day they wrote a $4.8 billion check.


----------



## James Long

maartena said:


> Look at it this way, if New York would have hosted the games and implemented a 9/11 remembrance in its opening.... that would subsequently be cut out by e.g. CBC or BBC as "not important", I would think a whole lot of Canadians and/or Brits would be just as upset.


If it were promoted as a 9/11 tribute. The BBC announcers mentioned 7/7 over the beginning of the piece but the stadium announcers and guide did not refer to 7/7. (The exact description provided to NBC was posted earlier in this thread.)

So ... the audience was asked to provide pictures of loved ones that did not make it to the opening. The director added his own father's picture (the father's 91's birthday would have been the day of the program). And apparently the 52 victims of 7/7 were included - without mention in the program or by the stadium announcers. Then after a rousing crescendo in the show everything stopped - the wall of pictures were shown and then a virtually silent group of people in leotards moved around the stage for a while. Then someone started singing and apparently a young boy was welcomed into death. Sounds like something for PBS or Classic Arts Showcase ... if it had aired in the US it probably would have been the most ridiculed portion of the opening (with the foreign audience annoyed at Americans for "not getting it").

I like the arts ... but by the time we got to that part of the presentation I was wondering when they'd light the caldron so I could get on with my life.

If it had been explicitly a tribute to 7/7 and noted that way in the guide NBC might have carried it ... but it was not presented that way. If the program had not run long NBC might have aired it and the other cut content - but they had limited time to fill and would not have known how long the program was going until they had already committed to the 7:30-12:00 time frame.


----------



## maartena

James Long said:


> If it were promoted as a 9/11 tribute. The BBC announcers mentioned 7/7 over the beginning of the piece but the stadium announcers and guide did not refer to 7/7. (The exact description provided to NBC was posted earlier in this thread.)
> 
> So ... the audience was asked to provide pictures of loved ones that did not make it to the opening. The director added his own father's picture (the father's 91's birthday would have been the day of the program). And apparently the 52 victims of 7/7 were included - without mention in the program or by the stadium announcers. Then after a rousing crescendo in the show everything stopped - the wall of pictures were shown and then a virtually silent group of people in leotards moved around the stage for a while. Then someone started singing and apparently a young boy was welcomed into death. Sounds like something for PBS or Classic Arts Showcase ... if it had aired in the US it probably would have been the most ridiculed portion of the opening (with the foreign audience annoyed at Americans for "not getting it").
> 
> I like the arts ... but by the time we got to that part of the presentation I was wondering when they'd light the caldron so I could get on with my life.
> 
> If it had been explicitly a tribute to 7/7 and noted that way in the guide NBC might have carried it ... but it was not presented that way. If the program had not run long NBC might have aired it and the other cut content - but they had limited time to fill and would not have known how long the program was going until they had already committed to the 7:30-12:00 time frame.


They didn't commit to anyone though to show the Phelps interview. They could have shown that on day 1 of the competitions. And ironically, that interview lasted about as long as the 7/7 memorial piece.

Maybe you are right..... that Americans are so over-entertained by all the mass-media around us, that we no longer CAN enjoy such a thing, and it would be ridiculed by the press. But NBC shouldn't have to decide that FOR US.

The United States is the only country in the world where a big media corporation really decides what you can and cannot see in the Opening Ceremony of the Olympics.

They were even shown LIVE on Chinese State Television (And in Australia, Japan) even though it was early in the morning.

The NBC reply was also laughable:

NBC spokesman Greg Hughes said, _"Our programming is tailored for the U.S. audience. It's a tribute to (opening ceremony producer) Danny Boyle that it required so little editing."_

In other words: "Oh Mr Boyle we thought that it was good enough that we didn't have to censor it even further to appease the American audience, you should be happy!"

That is really not going to bode well for the Rio opening, which is very likely going to feature some very scantily dressed carnival girls. We can't have THAT on national television!


----------



## Hoosier205

James Long said:


> If it were promoted as a 9/11 tribute. The BBC announcers mentioned 7/7 over the beginning of the piece but the stadium announcers and guide did not refer to 7/7. (The exact description provided to NBC was posted earlier in this thread.)


You believe that the only information NBC had about what would be included in the ceremony was a guide? Really?


----------



## SayWhat?

The bigger scandal hitting the mainstream press is NBC trying to silence critics from other media outlets:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ol...C-to-British-journalists-critical-tweets.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19061032

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/07/gadgetlab_073112_twitspeech/


----------



## phrelin

The Wired story is an eye opener:


> Today, however, the Telegraph reported that, according to Christopher McCloskey, NBC Sports vice president of communications (and as Twitter itself has subsequently confirmed) someone from within Twitter itself contacted NBC proactively, pointed out the tweet, and showed the network how to file a complaint. (Wired has reached out to Twitter for a confirmation on this and the company is still investigating NBC's claims.) That fact makes Twitter's actions an entirely different matter.
> 
> Here's an interesting thought experiment. Imagine that instead of going after an NBC executive, Adams' target was a dictator. Imagine that Adams tweeted, say, Syrian president Bashar al-Assad's email address, along with a call to action to protest his policies. Had Twitter worked back-channel with the Syrian government, showing it how to have Adams' account taken down on a technicality, it would clearly be an indefensible act of censorship. Heads would roll.
> 
> But even though the issues at play are smaller when someone criticizes Olympic coverage, Twitter's actions are no more defensible. Especially because Adams broke none of Twitter's rules.


No rules were broken because McCloskey's NBC email address is widely available on the web.

So it makes one wonder how Twitter administers it's policies. Do they have some minimum wage interns monitoring things with authority to take some action? It's a tough challenge when you get big and try to get rich using less than a thousand employees.


----------



## SayWhat?

Did you catch the point about the direct conflict of interest issue since NBC and the Twits are in a financial partnership?


----------



## RunnerFL

maartena said:


> They didn't commit to anyone though to show the Phelps interview. They could have shown that on day 1 of the competitions. And ironically, that interview lasted about as long as the 7/7 memorial piece.


No it didn't, the memorial piece was longer. Someone provided the stats earlier in the thread.


----------



## maartena

RunnerFL said:


> No it didn't, the memorial piece was longer. Someone provided the stats earlier in the thread.


Perhaps.... but 2 less commercials, and maybe quick-passing by a nation or 2, they could have shown everything.

But I guess most Americans are satisfied with not getting what the rest of the world gets.


----------



## maartena

Hoosier205 said:


> You believe that the only information NBC had about what would be included in the ceremony was a guide? Really?


Well..... granted, the organizers of the games and the opening ceremony will want to give out as little information as possible. The 20k+ volunteers were all sworn to secrecy even to their own families.

So while it might have been possible they did not know about the 7/7 tribute ahead of time, NBC had been given the time it would last from beginning to end. They must have known AHEAD of time that wasn't going to fit in the schedule because they had so many commercials to air, and needed to pass the torch (  ) to their locals at midnight. So they probably already decided to cut the opening in to pieces, and are covering it up under the guise that it needed to be "tailored to the American audience", where it really was "tailored to the time we had allotted to it in order to maximize our profits".

I can't help thinking that after the Israelis (and quite a few Jewish Americans!) were outraged they weren't allowed to commemorate the 30 year anniversary of the 1972 Israeli athletes massacre only to find out the Brits were doing their own memorial, that NBC deliberately chose to cut THAT piece out as "revenge" for not allowing the former. That of course, is nothing but an unsubstantiated thought. (Of course.... the previous CEO of NBC was, indeed, Jewish-American).


----------



## James Long

maartena said:


> They didn't commit to anyone though to show the Phelps interview. They could have shown that on day 1 of the competitions. And ironically, that interview lasted about as long as the 7/7 memorial piece.


The Phelps piece was at least half of the length of the tribute. I would not say that they had no commitment to air it - unless one happens to be in a position to KNOW the commitments than NBC has made one could only guess whether or not it had to be aired.



> Maybe you are right..... that Americans are so over-entertained by all the mass-media around us, that we no longer CAN enjoy such a thing, and it would be ridiculed by the press. But NBC shouldn't have to decide that FOR US.


They had to decide for themselves what to cut from the ceremony to make it fit the time allotted. Had the ceremony not gone over in time there would have been room for everything.

Perhaps NBC should have cut Sir Paul? It wouldn't be the first time one of his London performances was cut. (The last time was done live at a concert with Bruce Springsteen!)



> That is really not going to bode well for the Rio opening, which is very likely going to feature some very scantily dressed carnival girls. We can't have THAT on national television!


It depends on what the "community standards" are in 2016 ... but I expect we will be seeing more wide shots than closeups of jiggly parts.



Hoosier205 said:


> You believe that the only information NBC had about what would be included in the ceremony was a guide? Really?


Yes. That is what I believe. The media guide is there for a reason. If it was intended as a tribute to 7/7 they should have made it more explicit - and not have included pictures of people who were not directly connected to 7/7.

At the end of the show on NBC they interviewed Danny Boyle about what he thought about the best moments of his show. Meridith mentioned the bit with Bond and the Queen and they talked about that. Then Mr Boyle said: "What I'm really proud of is when Steve Redgrave run in we brought back 500 of the builders who built this thing seven years, five years ago, who were here in the wind and the rain and building it and we brought them back. That was one of my favorite moments when he run in and they were all applauding. From those guys to the queen everybody made themselves accessible. That is something that we can all take great pride in."

If he would have mentioned "the tribute to those who couldn't be here" (the way it was billed) the editing might have been different.

And as far as editing - there were other segments dropped for time. NBC viewers didn't see the symbolic (yet important) athlete's pledge to play fair and not be involved in doping and the official's pledge to judge fairly. I consider that an actual important part of the sport of the games - and recall seeing it at previous ceremonies. But it was lost.


----------



## James Long

maartena said:


> So while it might have been possible they did not know about the 7/7 tribute ahead of time, NBC had been given the time it would last from beginning to end.


They had the rundown, which was linked in an earlier post of mine. It states the running time of each segment and gives a description of what was to be seen. The hosts also mention that they were present during a final dress rehearsal run through of the show - which would have allowed the producers to see what the guide meant, IF it was actually announced as a 7/7 tribute.



> I can't help thinking that after the Israelis (and quite a few Jewish Americans!) were outraged they weren't allowed to commemorate the 30 year anniversary of the 1972 Israeli athletes massacre only to find out the Brits were doing their own memorial, that NBC deliberately chose to cut THAT piece out as "revenge" for not allowing the former. That of course, is nothing but an unsubstantiated thought. (Of course.... the previous CEO of NBC was, indeed, Jewish-American).


I don't believe it was a tit for tat. I believe they looked at the entire program and had to make some tough choices.


----------



## Quaker2001

As much as I'm defending much of NBC's decision-making, let me express again that I think their coverage of the Opening Ceremony was not good, and that had nothing to do with tape delay.

First off, folks from NBC were at the dress rehearsal, so it's not like they didn't know what to expect. NBC clearly knew there was going to be some sort of memorial in the show. Whether or not they keyed into the fact that it was specific to 7/7, who knows, but for once it would be nice for NBC to not edit out parts of the ceremony, and I don't just mean the 87 commercials shown during the parade of nations.

Then on the night of, the networks are made aware of certain details. They had to know at least some of what was going on with the cauldron lighting. The organizers don't actually wait until the last possible second because they don't want to risk commentators ms-identifying people and other elements of the show.

And as a side note, Rio 2016.. 1 hour ahead of the East coast. 9pm (London's ceremony start time) = 8pm in New York. So I'd say it's a pretty good bet at least half the country will get to see that live.


----------



## phrelin

SayWhat? said:


> Did you catch the point about the direct conflict of interest issue since NBC and the Twits are in a financial partnership?


Yeah. But I usually expect management level decisions to consider the potential foolishness of some things, like the foolishness of cutting a journalist off from Twitter. While I'm sure the NBC suit didn't have the full picture at the time, the Twit's "decider" should have.


----------



## Maruuk

maartena said:


> I can't help thinking that after the Israelis (and quite a few Jewish Americans!) were outraged they weren't allowed to commemorate the 30 year anniversary of the 1972 Israeli athletes massacre only to find out the Brits were doing their own memorial, that NBC deliberately chose to cut THAT piece out as "revenge" for not allowing the former. That of course, is nothing but an unsubstantiated thought. (Of course.... the previous CEO of NBC was, indeed, Jewish-American).


I certainly wouldn't rule that out as motivation. They even had their announcer whining about it, and that comment obviously was either approved or supported at a higher level since it came literally out of nowhere. It was most awkwardly injected into the dialog. The fact that 7/7 was in LONDON and was much more recent and was directly related to these particular games and these people in the stands was conveniently ignored by the Israelis and their rabid supporters. Dudes, it's not always about YOU.


----------



## Quaker2001

maartena said:


> I can't help thinking that after the Israelis (and quite a few Jewish Americans!) were outraged they weren't allowed to commemorate the *40* year anniversary of the 1972 Israeli athletes massacre only to find out the Brits were doing their own memorial, that NBC deliberately chose to cut THAT piece out as "revenge" for not allowing the former. That of course, is nothing but an unsubstantiated thought. (Of course.... the previous CEO of NBC was, indeed, Jewish-American).
> 
> 
> Maruuk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly wouldn't rule that out as motivation. They even had their announcer whining about it, and that comment obviously was either approved or supported at a higher level since it came literally out of nowhere. It was most awkwardly injected into the dialog. The fact that 7/7 was in LONDON and was much more recent and was directly related to these particular games and these people in the stands was conveniently ignored by the Israelis and their rabid supporters. Dudes, it's not always about YOU.
Click to expand...

I don't get the logic on that one. You think NBC cut out that piece of the ceremony as a screw you to the organizers? Based on their host coming out that he's mention something about the 40 (not 30) year anniversary of Munich that the IOC largely took care of in advance of the ceremony? And where the 2 weren't even related?

NBC shouldn't have cut down the ceremony, no question. But do we really need to be floating conspiracy theories because you think NBC is the axis of evil and you think there's a reason behind this one other than "we decided to cut some stuff out and didn't think anyone would care?" Pretty sure it's that simple. I don't think we need to read into it more than that.


----------



## Maruuk

You're not paying any attention at all. Try to absorb the words and their precise meaning, language is important, especially when folks conveniently rephrase everything to suit their rants:

"I certainly wouldn't *rule that out* as motivation."

Now, try to grasp what that means. Good.


----------



## Quaker2001

Maruuk said:


> You're not paying any attention at all. Try to absorb the words and their precise meaning, language is important, especially when folks conveniently rephrase everything to suit their rants:
> 
> "I certainly wouldn't *rule that out* as motivation."
> 
> Now, try to grasp what that means. Good.


I grasped it. I know you're not suggesting that's what actually went down, but I don't even get where anyone would put the 2 together in the first place. NBC did something to piss off the organizers of the Opening Ceremony for something they had no control over? I'm sorry, but that's a total fail of logic there. And not that you're the one who initially brought it up (and that's really who that rant was directed against), but my goodness.. NBC is that bad that now they're intentionally ruining coverage out of spite? You're entitled to your opinion, but to even bring that up as a possibility, to me is a complete fail of logic.


----------



## James Long

Maruuk said:


> They even had their announcer whining about it, and that comment obviously was either approved or supported at a higher level since it came literally out of nowhere.


Do you believe that every word that came out of the announcer's mouths was approved or supported at a higher level? Yes, they are responsible for the people they hire but the off the wall comments (inane babble at times) were certainly not a well managed scripted presentation.

I believe (as previously reported) Mr Costas felt strongly about the lack of an official IOC tribute and he mentioned it during the program. But when the time came for the Israeli athletes to enter Bob started his "moment of silence" and the network went to commercial.

Does that sound like a network that tightly scripted their announcers or one that let their broadcast team work without a script? Was their any on screen graphic honoring the 1972 team? Any hint that this was part of NBC's presentation beyond the action of one host?

NBC did not cut Mr Costas' comments from the program ... but at that point it would have been difficult as they were turning around a nearly four hour presentation just taped and trying to fit it into the time allotted between commercials and other content they intended to air.

I wonder if the announcers on site even knew what was eventually cut from the program. Who knows what inane babble we missed because the tribute was cut?


----------



## Fraaaak

In any event, there is a very nice torrent available of the BBC broadcast - no commercials, weighs in at about 3 1/2 gigs at 720p. Worth the download - it was awesome - you also get 2 songs performed by the Arctic Monkeys.

The BBC announcers also had the occasional case of verbal runs, but not the verbal explosive diarrhea of the NBC announcers. And the stadium announcers specifically mentioned the fact of the tragedies that followed the excitement of learning at the 2005 IOC meeting in Singapore that London would get the 2012 games, so the tribute was for 7/7 - and the pictures were those that died in the bombings, not those that "couldn't make it" to the 2012 games.


----------



## James Long

Fraaaak said:


> And the stadium announcers specifically mentioned the fact of the tragedies that followed the excitement of learning at the 2005 IOC meeting in Singapore that London would get the 2012 games, so the tribute was for 7/7 - and the pictures were those that died in the bombings, not those that "couldn't make it" to the 2012 games.


Incorrect. The clip is available at the beginning of this very thread. It was the BBC's announcers who mentioned the sadness "the very next day" - not the stadium announcers. The stadium announcers followed what was in the media guide ... "people who could not be here tonight".

If that isn't enough, why not go to the person responsible for the segment? As noted in the Deadspin article from the first post: _Metro reporter Cassandra Garrison told me the segment's choreographer Akram Khan did not mention 7/7 in his press conference on the performance, explaining it instead to be about "mortality."_

And as a reminder, from the media guide:
*Memorial Wall*
Spectators have been invited to present images of loved ones who couldn't be with us tonight. In a moving moment, those who are absent from us are digitally present.

*Akram Khan and Emeli Sandé*
Emeli Sandé sings 'Abide With Me'. Fifty dancers, including the choreographer Akram Khan, dramatise the struggle between life and death using such powerful images of mortality as dust and the setting sun.​
Calling this a 7/7 tribute is revisionist, intended to evoke the emotions Americans have for 9/11. "How dare they cut a 7/7 tribute" comes across much stronger than "how dare they cut a tribute to spectator's family who couldn't be here because they died for one reason or another."

When the choreographer doesn't call it a 7/7 tribute before the show and the media guide makes no 7/7 reference it seems odd to call it a 7/7 tribute after the fact. But it makes nice fodder for tabloids.


----------



## majikmarker

This is my favorite response from NBC, explaining why the Opening Ceremonies were not broadcast live in any form in the US:

"We are live streaming every sporting event, all 32 sports and 302 medals," an NBC spokesman wrote in an email to Show Tracker. "It was never our intent to live stream the Opening Ceremony or Closing Ceremony. They are complex entertainment spectacles that do not translate well online because they require _context_, which our award-winning production team will provide for the large prime-time audiences that gather together to watch them.

I read this as, "you, the American public, are too stupid to understand what is going on in this "complex entertainment spectacle",and it takes Matt Laurer and Meredith Vieira to explain every last detail in the most vapid manner possible for you to grasp this performance. Also, we will decide for you what is important for you to see and only show you those parts of the perfomance"

I feel sorry for those that attended in person...they must have been hopelessly confused with no one to explain what was going on in this "complex entertainment spectacle".


----------



## Maruuk

ANNOUNCER: "The excitement of that moment in Singapore seven years ago when England won the games was tempered the next day with *sorrow from the events of July 7 that year*. A wall of remembrance for those no longer here to share in this event." The pictures then include *the 53 souls lost on 7/7*.

Right, it had nothing to do with 7/7.

And NBC just cut it out, precisely, to the frame...randomly. Or just out of "convenience" to air some irrelevant canned garbage in the middle of the *most-watched segment of the entire games*.

Whatever guys, convince yourselves of whatever you like. Logic need not apply.


----------



## SayWhat?

Out of 120+ posts, there only seem to be a small handful of people (5? 6? ) complaining over and over again. Hardly a mass outrage.

The bigger issue is the censorship of Twits (journalists and private UK citizens) not only by the main TwitCorp, but by the UK government.

Some teen over there got arrested for his opinion.


----------



## djlong

NBC's response was "We tailor our broadcast for an American audience"

John Stewart's response (paraphrasing again): "You're NBC - last in the ratings. You DON'T KNOW how to make something for the American audience".


----------



## Quaker2001

SayWhat? said:


> Out of 120+ posts, there only seem to be a small handful of people (5? 6? ) complaining over and over again. Hardly a mass outrage.


Yes, thank you. People complain about NBC's Olympics coverage every time. This is hardly anything new. The only difference now is that Twitter has made all that complaining more vocal and public. Doesn't mean there's that much more of it than before. NBC is not ruining the Olympics for EVERYONE. Some people are actually enjoying the coverage. I managed to avoid spoilers all day yesterday and didn't know the results of the Phelps races or the gymnastics. That was extremely compelling television last night and I enjoyed every minute of it. I've seen a couple of websites where people (mostly female, for what that's worth) are following and treating the coverage as if it's live, full well knowing it isn't. I know some hate the idea of hearing about the ratings, but what it proves conclusively is that people are watching. And no one here or anyone else can say whether or not it's because they want to or because they "have no choice."

We've turned into a society that everyone wants what they want, when they want it, where they want it. So that NBC is not delivering is seen as a failure. And to those people, then nothing to do is right. You have every reason to be pissed at the coverage. But the IS plenty of coverage on the cable nets. There ARE events being covered live. And in spite of less than solid quality, everything is being streamed. There are positive aspects to NBC's Olympics coverage that are some people are enjoying. Not every one of those 40 million viewers last night were watching because they had to and were only sticking with NBC in spite of their efforts.

In short.. the Twitter crowd doesn't speak for everyone and only paints part of the picture. The ratings tell a story too and they wouldn't be as high as they are if NBC wasn't at least doing something right.


----------



## maartena

SayWhat? said:


> Out of 120+ posts, there only seem to be a small handful of people (5? 6? ) complaining over and over again. Hardly a mass outrage.


This forum is frequented by a "special"  kind of people. That is, people mostly interested in DBS Technology and related issues. Polls, for instance, to get some insight in what kind of stations should be carried in HD next on your favorite DBS providers seem to be vastly different than the national polls.

Basing the "outrage" on this forum alone..... is probably not a great plan. 

In the media in general, and on social media like Twitter, the outrage is more spread. Also, don't forget this forum is almost exclusively Americans, and NBC is "tailoring the opening ceremony to American audiences", so most of us have been lulled in a sense that this 7-7 was something we didn't need to see, nor do most of us know and/or care about it.



> The bigger issue is the censorship of Twits (journalists and private UK citizens) not only by the main TwitCorp, but by the UK government.
> 
> Some teen over there got arrested for his opinion.


Yep, ever since terrorism has hit the U.S. (and the U.K.) very hard, laws have been introduced that allow this in both countries, and in a fair amount of other western countries. Initially designed to find terrorists, under the guise "if you don't do anything wrong you have nothing to worry about", these laws are now abused by authorities to crack down on a lot more than just terrorism. In the United States, certain provisions of the Patriot Act allow this, in the United Kingdom, similar laws allow this.

Experts and analysts have warned us about these things, but people were more worried about finding Mohammed-with-the-Home-Depot-bomb than the potential side effects of such laws. Obviously, plots have been foiled over the years, but that had MUCH more to do with good intelligence than combing through social media. Because guess what.... a terrorist isn't going to tweet to the public about where he might find a potential ingredient for is garage-built bomb. But it is too late for that, the law is on the side of the governments now in this regard.

Corporations have a lot of power in its own right, they have the right to refuse any customer for any reason. "No shirt, no shoes, no service" basically. If they don't like person A for whatever reason, they can just jank person A's account without any legal recourse. And of course, it actually SHOULD be this way, if I was running a company I would want to be able to remove accounts, and Twitter, Facebook remove many thousands of accounts every day, 99.99% of them being spammers.


----------



## maartena

Quaker2001 said:


> I managed to avoid spoilers all day yesterday and didn't know the results of the Phelps races or the gymnastics. That was extremely compelling television last night and I enjoyed every minute of it


I managed to avoid spoilers till the east coast broadcast. Not that hard anyways when you are busy at work and only visit a site or two - like this one - in breaks. On social media such as facebook most of my friends don't comment on anything Olympics until they see the broadcast.

But as soon as the east coast broadcast was going everything went mad. So again, I got the results spoiled about 2 hours before I watched it because an east coast friend just had to talk about the swim races.

Whether you are affected by spoilers is also something personal. I personally don't like it, you don't seem to care much about it if you do get spoilers. But we here in the west coast really get double-shafted.

No option to watch it live. And while 75% of the country watches it and fills the internet with their comments on every site you can think about, 25% of us have to wait another 3 hours. And THAT is big BS.


----------



## maartena

James Long said:


> Perhaps NBC should have cut Sir Paul?


Perhaps NBC should not have cut ANYTHING and show it live.


----------



## maartena

Quaker2001 said:


> And as a side note, Rio 2016.. 1 hour ahead of the East coast. 9pm (London's ceremony start time) = 8pm in New York. So I'd say it's a pretty good bet at least half the country will get to see that live.


Behold the power of the local affiliates, right? NBC has 4 years to figure this one out.... if they can't show THAT opening live to the entire United States, they just don't give a dam.


----------



## anleva

Quaker2001 said:


> Yes, thank you. People complain about NBC's Olympics coverage every time. This is hardly anything new. The only difference now is that Twitter has made all that complaining more vocal and public. Doesn't mean there's that much more of it than before. NBC is not ruining the Olympics for EVERYONE. Some people are actually enjoying the coverage. I managed to avoid spoilers all day yesterday and didn't know the results of the Phelps races or the gymnastics. That was extremely compelling television last night and I enjoyed every minute of it. I've seen a couple of websites where people (mostly female, for what that's worth) are following and treating the coverage as if it's live, full well knowing it isn't. I know some hate the idea of hearing about the ratings, but what it proves conclusively is that people are watching. And no one here or anyone else can say whether or not it's because they want to or because they "have no choice."
> 
> We've turned into a society that everyone wants what they want, when they want it, where they want it. So that NBC is not delivering is seen as a failure. And to those people, then nothing to do is right. You have every reason to be pissed at the coverage. But the IS plenty of coverage on the cable nets. There ARE events being covered live. And in spite of less than solid quality, everything is being streamed. There are positive aspects to NBC's Olympics coverage that are some people are enjoying. Not every one of those 40 million viewers last night were watching because they had to and were only sticking with NBC in spite of their efforts.
> 
> In short.. the Twitter crowd doesn't speak for everyone and only paints part of the picture. The ratings tell a story too and they wouldn't be as high as they are if NBC wasn't at least doing something right.


Ah, there we go, the NBC talking points of 'its just a small twitter fringe minority that are unhappy with NBC's Olympic coverage' and 'because ratings are high everything is fine, nothing to see here'.

Funny, all the social media sites and forums and blogs I visit (not just twitter) are filled with folks who feel differently than that.

I hope you are getting hazard pay.


----------



## Quaker2001

maartena said:


> Behold the power of the local affiliates, right? NBC has 4 years to figure this one out.... if they can't show THAT opening live to the entire United States, they just don't give a dam.


You got that right. Affiliates (many of which are not owned by NBC) are chipping in to help pay for the Olympics, so they get some say. And if you read the articles about 2002, they asked their viewers what they wanted and the viewers responded saying they want a delay. That was for an Olympics held in this country. So yea, blame them for that one.



anleva said:


> Ah, there we go, the NBC talking points of 'its just a small twitter fringe minority that are unhappy with NBC's Olympic coverage' and 'because ratings are high everything is fine, nothing to see here'.
> 
> Funny, all the social media sites and forums and blogs I visit (not just twitter) are filled with folks who feel differently than that.
> 
> I hope you are getting hazard pay.


Nope, just highly amused that everyone *****ing thinks they're in the majority when the ratings say otherwise. Again, this happens EVERY Olympics. Social media sites and blogs and forums like this one are representative of the people who use them. Everyone else not blogging and discussing the coverage seems to be watching and Twitter can't speak for them whether they like what they're seeing or not.


----------



## anleva

Quaker2001 said:


> Nope, just highly amused that everyone *****ing thinks they're in the majority when the ratings say otherwise. Again, this happens EVERY Olympics. Social media sites and blogs and forums like this one are representative of the people who use them. Everyone else not blogging and discussing the coverage seems to be watching and Twitter can't speak for them whether they like what they're seeing or not.


Ratings don't equate to customer satisfaction scores in the absence of competitive alternatives.

No you can't jump to the conclusion that everyone not blogging or tweeting is happy. Yes they are watching because NBC has exclusivity.

If it happens EVERY Olympics perhaps instead of being defensive and combative NBC should try to give the viewer more of what they want.


----------



## Quaker2001

anleva said:


> Ratings don't equate to customer satisfaction scores in the absence of competitive alternatives.
> 
> No you can't jump to the conclusion that everyone not blogging or tweeting is happy. Yes they are watching because NBC has exclusivity.
> 
> If it happens EVERY Olympics perhaps instead of being defensive and combative NBC should try to give the viewer more of what they want.


So in other words, you think NBC with more than 2 decades of experience covering the Olympics doesn't know what they're doing? After they've made millions on the Olympics before the economy crashed? And that 40 million viewers dropped into their laps when all but the biggest of football games and maybe they Oscars couldn't even dream of hitting that number. The exclusivity argument is BS. ABC has exclusivity for the Oscars, but I guess if it's a bad telecast, we're all forced to watch it because we absolutely have to know who won the award for best foreign language film.

Again, Twitter is a subset of potential viewers for the Olympics. Even if every single person there hates NBC's coverage, that doesn't mean there aren't others out there who are content. And like I said earlier.. unless a value can be put on customer satisfaction, NBC and the advertisers are under no obligation to care if you're still watching. That sucks if you're a viewer, but it's the same thing as if there was only 1 Italian restaurant in your area and you really like Italian food so you kept coming back even if you hated it there. Enough with this nonsense about only having 1 rights holder for the Olympics. That's the way it's ALWAYS been in this country and I believe it's that way in many other countries as well.


----------



## anleva

Quaker2001 said:


> So in other words, you think NBC with more than 2 decades of experience covering the Olympics doesn't know what they're doing? After they've made millions on the Olympics before the economy crashed? And that 40 million viewers dropped into their laps when all but the biggest of football games and maybe they Oscars couldn't even dream of hitting that number. The exclusivity argument is BS. ABC has exclusivity for the Oscars, but I guess if it's a bad telecast, we're all forced to watch it because we absolutely have to know who won the award for best foreign language film.
> 
> Again, Twitter is a subset of potential viewers for the Olympics. Even if every single person there hates NBC's coverage, that doesn't mean there aren't others out there who are content. And like I said earlier.. unless a value can be put on customer satisfaction, NBC and the advertisers are under no obligation to care if you're still watching. That sucks if you're a viewer, but it's the same thing as if there was only 1 Italian restaurant in your area and you really like Italian food so you kept coming back even if you hated it there. Enough with this nonsense about only having 1 rights holder for the Olympics. That's the way it's ALWAYS been in this country and I believe it's that way in many other countries as well.


NBC knows how to serve and maximize their bottom line and their advertisers. It does not dismiss discussion from how they treat their viewers.

One billion dollars, exclusivity and monopolistic coverage of a high demand event allows them the privilege of not giving people what they want.

No exclusivity is not a BS argument to make. No it is not nonsense. It is the right economic model through which to understand the situation.

Yes it does suck to be a viewer of an Olympics that is covered by NBC.

Your analogy would make more sense and be appropriate to the situation if you were on the road and there was only 1 place to eat, you disliked the food and the service, yet you were hungry and couldn't go without food, so you ate there anyway.

I get it. So just because it is the way it has always been you just want people to shut up about it.


----------



## Quaker2001

anleva said:


> NBC knows how to serve and maximize their bottom line and their advertisers. It does not dismiss discussion from how they treat their viewers.
> 
> One billion dollars, exclusivity and monopolistic coverage of a high demand event allows them the privilege of not giving people what they want.
> 
> No exclusivity is not a BS argument to make. No it is not nonsense. It is the right economic model through which to understand the situation.
> 
> Yes it does suck to be a viewer of an Olympics that is covered by NBC.
> 
> Your analogy would make more sense and be appropriate to the situation if you were on the road and there was only 1 place to eat, you disliked the food and the service, yet you were hungry and couldn't go without food, so you ate there anyway.
> 
> I get it. So just because it is the way it has always been you just want people to shut up about it.


How many other countries have 1 exclusive provider for the Olympics though. Isn't that what Canada has? NBC paid for that exclusivity. Are they abusing it somewhat in an effort to make money? Absolutely they are. But they're a business and it's not like they're breaking any laws. And they wouldn't be the first country or the first industry to profit off of people's misery. In no way does that make it right, but your/my/everyone's wants and desires are not a priority for them unless they need to be.

And no, people don't have to shut up about it. But people need to give NBC a reason to change the formula in order for them to change the formula. Where the message is "we hate this coverage, it sucks" and 40 million viewers are tuning in, the message gets lost. But that's a big difference from "we have this coverage, it sucks, and we're not watching.. give us something better and we'll watch." If that was the message, NBC would be responding in kind to the situation.


----------



## anleva

Quaker2001 said:


> How many other countries have 1 exclusive provider for the Olympics though. Isn't that what Canada has? NBC paid for that exclusivity. Are they abusing it somewhat in an effort to make money? Absolutely they are. But they're a business and it's not like they're breaking any laws. And they wouldn't be the first country or the first industry to profit off of people's misery. In no way does that make it right, but your/my/everyone's wants and desires are not a priority for them unless they need to be.
> 
> And no, people don't have to shut up about it. But people need to give NBC a reason to change the formula in order for them to change the formula. Where the message is "we hate this coverage, it sucks" and 40 million viewers are tuning in, the message gets lost. But that's a big difference from "we have this coverage, it sucks, and we're not watching.. give us something better and we'll watch." If that was the message, NBC would be responding in kind to the situation.


Yes exclusivity exists in other countries but for many they seem to be able to better serve their viewers wants and needs than NBC in addition to meeting their financial targets and serving their advertisers (if they are private). Some of it is due to public vs private, some maybe has to do with amount paid.

No people are fans of the Olympics and will still watch. You know that and NBC knows that. Some will vote with their feet, but most are just willing to take what they can get even if they want more.

Yes, I understand that people not watching would send a stronger message, but I would hope that NBC is not so callous towards its viewers that that is the only way to bring about improvement.


----------



## Quaker2001

anleva said:


> Yes, I understand that people not watching would send a stronger message, but I would hope that NBC is not so callous towards its viewers that that is the only way to bring about improvement.


Don't forget, NBC has changed some things since the last Olympics. Online streaming of all the competition. Heavy increases in cable coverage. The primetime show is pretty similar to Beijing (minus the live events, of course), yet everyone wants you to believe all of a sudden it's now a major travesty. And in the process, they're not realizing that NBC has made positive strides since the last Olympics. There is plenty more room for improvement, no doubt, but the argument has to be made that if they did it another way, more people would watch. If that's not the case, then who is NBC really serving?


----------



## anleva

Quaker2001 said:


> Don't forget, NBC has changed some things since the last Olympics. Online streaming of all the competition. Heavy increases in cable coverage. The primetime show is pretty similar to Beijing (minus the live events, of course), yet everyone wants you to believe all of a sudden it's now a major travesty. And in the process, they're not realizing that NBC has made positive strides since the last Olympics. There is plenty more room for improvement, no doubt, but the argument has to be made that if they did it another way, more people would watch. If that's not the case, then who is NBC really serving?


NBC serves themselves and their advertisers. Thought we established that already.


----------



## majikmarker

Quaker2001 said:


> How many other countries have 1 exclusive provider for the Olympics though. Isn't that what Canada has? NBC paid for that exclusivity. Are they abusing it somewhat in an effort to make money? Absolutely they are. But they're a business and it's not like they're breaking any laws. And they wouldn't be the first country or the first industry to profit off of people's misery. In no way does that make it right, but your/my/everyone's wants and desires are not a priority for them unless they need to be.
> 
> And no, people don't have to shut up about it. But people need to give NBC a reason to change the formula in order for them to change the formula. Where the message is "we hate this coverage, it sucks" and 40 million viewers are tuning in, the message gets lost. But that's a big difference from "we have this coverage, it sucks, and we're not watching.. give us something better and we'll watch." If that was the message, NBC would be responding in kind to the situation.


Count me as someone who has been extremely fed up with how NBC covers the Olympics (and really all sports) for many years and yet begrudgingly watch during primetime.

Most of the other networks pull their programs during the Olympics so viewing choices are more limited (even more so than the regular Summertime schedule of reruns). Also, NBC has a "monopoly" on the Olympics. Its not like I can "vote with my remote" and watch on another channel. I'd love to see ABC and ESPN go head to head with NBC and offer an alternative. I think it is a mistake by NBC and other critics to just point at the ratings and assume everything is great and there is no compelling reason to change or update the way they broadcast.

NBC produces the Games like a reality show. It heavily edits the premiere events, showing only those teams or athletes that finish in the top 3-4, showing routines and outcomes out of order, omitting entire routines, etc, to help build a false sense of drama. I want to see a sporting event not the "Kardashian's".

For the most part, other countries (like Canada) will take an event like diving and show live, all the dives from all of the competitors, for all of the medal round, on TV (I don't want to watch it on a glitchy website on a small screen).

Lastly, the number of commercials are oppresive. Without a DVR and the ability to time shift through the primetime coverage, I would be watching way less (if I would watch at all). I have found I need to start watching at least 90 minutes into the evening coverage in order to catch up to "live" TV by the end of the night.


----------



## Quaker2001

anleva said:


> NBC serves themselves and their advertisers. Thought we established that already.


They increased streaming and added a lot of cable coverage from Beijing. Certainly there has to be an element of that where they're doing something good for the viewers and not just serving themselves.


----------



## anleva

Quaker2001 said:


> They increased streaming and added a lot of cable coverage from Beijing. Certainly there has to be an element of that where they're doing something good for the viewers and not just serving themselves.


Yes, that is certainly a step in the right direction, though the execution left a lot to be desired.


----------



## Quaker2001

anleva said:


> Yes, that is certainly a step in the right direction, though the execution left a lot to be desired.


Won't argue with that, although I've been watching live streaming most of the morning/afternoon and it's been pretty solid (I fully expect it to start crashing any minute now since I've said that)


----------



## tonyd79

Quaker2001 said:


> Won't argue with that, although I've been watching live streaming most of the morning/afternoon and it's been pretty solid (I fully expect it to start crashing any minute now since I've said that)


As I posted in the other thread, it has improved tremendously.

But, don't give NBC credit. This is an Olympic thing. Many of the events are just the shared Olympic feed. Since they have sponsors (many commercials plus the banner ads on larger displays, even a small citi bank logo on my iPhone), this is not the goodness of their hearts. They get a free feed and got sponors to pay for the transmission and more. Not one whit of that is NBC's initiative or production, really.


----------



## phrelin

tonyd79 said:


> As I posted in the other thread, it has improved tremendously.
> 
> But, don't give NBC credit. This is an Olympic thing. Many of the events are just the shared Olympic feed. Since they have sponsors (many commercials plus the banner ads on larger displays, even a small citi bank logo on my iPhone), this is not the goodness of their hearts. They get a free feed and got sponors to pay for the transmission and more. Not one whit of that is NBC's initiative or production, really.


I wouldn't call it a "free" feed when to be the U.S. network eligible get it they had to pay billions.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Unless you know something I don't, we can't be sure how much of the payment was for the streaming feeds and how much was for broadcast. 

Still, without stepping over the line on forum rules, I'll just say that being rich doesn't make you an innovator.


----------



## phrelin

I guess one could say the first second of the first feed cost billions, the rest was "free".


----------



## Quaker2001

tonyd79 said:


> As I posted in the other thread, it has improved tremendously.
> 
> But, don't give NBC credit. This is an Olympic thing. Many of the events are just the shared Olympic feed. Since they have sponsors (many commercials plus the banner ads on larger displays, even a small citi bank logo on my iPhone), this is not the goodness of their hearts. They get a free feed and got sponors to pay for the transmission and more. Not one whit of that is NBC's initiative or production, really.


So they were supposed to give all that content away for free? They PAID for the rights to be able to offer that content and then, yes, do whatever they want with it. They could have chosen not to offer all this content which is what happened with Beijing and Vancouver when they held certain events back. So yes.. you kinda need to acknowledge NBC is doing more here than they did before, even if they should have been doing it in the first place.



Stuart Sweet said:


> Unless you know something I don't, we can't be sure how much of the payment was for the streaming feeds and how much was for broadcast.


NBC paid for the rights to air the content, not for what medium to show it in. Media rights deals these day tend to cover all media. Especially in a case like this, it's basically the IOC giving NBC the rights to do whatever they want with that content. That's what the payment was for.. 1 sum giving NBC everything, not a split between TV and live streaming and on demand or whatever else you want to throw out there.


----------



## James Long

So ... other than complaints against NBC for not airing the ceremony in it's entirety ... what did the reviewers think of the ceremony itself?

Reviews collected by The Guardian ...

*London 2012: Opening ceremony - reviews*

Writers, critics and campaigners give their view of Danny Boyle's spectacular curtain-raiser to the sporting spectacular

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jul/29/london-2012-opening-ceremony-reviews?intcmp=239


----------



## Fraaaak

James Long said:


> Incorrect. The clip is available at the beginning of this very thread. It was the BBC's announcers who mentioned the sadness "the very next day" - not the stadium announcers. The stadium announcers followed what was in the media guide ... "people who could not be here tonight".
> 
> If that isn't enough, why not go to the person responsible for the segment? As noted in the Deadspin article from the first post: _Metro reporter Cassandra Garrison told me the segment's choreographer Akram Khan did not mention 7/7 in his press conference on the performance, explaining it instead to be about "mortality."_
> 
> And as a reminder, from the media guide:
> *Memorial Wall*
> Spectators have been invited to present images of loved ones who couldn't be with us tonight. In a moving moment, those who are absent from us are digitally present.
> 
> *Akram Khan and Emeli Sandé*
> Emeli Sandé sings 'Abide With Me'. Fifty dancers, including the choreographer Akram Khan, dramatise the struggle between life and death using such powerful images of mortality as dust and the setting sun.​
> Calling this a 7/7 tribute is revisionist, intended to evoke the emotions Americans have for 9/11. "How dare they cut a 7/7 tribute" comes across much stronger than "how dare they cut a tribute to spectator's family who couldn't be here because they died for one reason or another."
> 
> When the choreographer doesn't call it a 7/7 tribute before the show and the media guide makes no 7/7 reference it seems odd to call it a 7/7 tribute after the fact. But it makes nice fodder for tabloids.


The FACT is that the pictures of the people displayed on the in stadium video screens and the BBC broadcast WERE the victims of 7/7 along with others - how is calling that a tribute to the victims "revisionist" - it could be that both interpretations of the segment are correct - it can be a tribute to the victims of 7/7 as well as others who could not be there - the two are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## James Long

Fraaaak said:


> The FACT is that the pictures of the people displayed on the in stadium video screens and the BBC broadcast WERE the victims of 7/7 along with others - how is calling that a tribute to the victims "revisionist" - it could be that both interpretations of the segment are correct - it can be a tribute to the victims of 7/7 as well as others who could not be there - the two are not mutually exclusive.


But to paint it AS a 7/7 tribute only when they wanted to attack NBC for not airing it? Obscene and insensitive to the real victims of 7/7 and their families.

One site attacking NBC for not airing the tribute noted that two American soldiers who died this year were pictured on the "wall". 7/7 victims? Hardly.

And getting away from the anti-NBC angle of the story ... step back to the reviews I linked a couple of posts back. See what people who saw the whole event wrote about the opening ceremony and what they liked (and disliked). Do you see any mention of the (alleged) "7/7 tribute"? Any mention of the tribute at all? Even by one of the many critics quoted?

It was a tribute to the dead and a dance number dramatizing the struggle between life and death. But it got more press from it's absence than it did from it's presence.


----------



## phrelin

In starting this thread, I partly wanted to keep the discussion of this particular screwup by NBC - and that's what it is in my mind, a screwup - out of the general thread on the Olympics coverage.

What I was ticked about is that even though NBC made a business decision to pay billions for the rights to Olympic coverage in the U.S., sometimes even those running a multibillion dollar business have to think broader than their normal tunnel vision. One just can't always do whatever one wants because it's their money.

In this case, they represented Americans regarding a serious British endeavor. It's ok to delay for the time zone difference to allow more Americans to see it. It is rude to cut elements out - it's like getting up in the middle of a live concert and leaving because you're bored. You can do it, you may have a reason to do it, but if the reason doesn't border on life-or-death you don't do it.

It was worse because it was a tribute to the dead. It was made worse because Bob Costas got to spew on the air about not having a specific moment of silence over the Israeli athletes and coaches who were killed by terrorists 40 years ago. And it was worse because those giving the color commentary hadn't done their homework.

But mostly it was bad because NBC represented me and I just cannot tolerate rude and stupid. I'm now over it and am enjoying the athletes performances.


----------

