> Not exactly a blunder, but I was a little disappointed last night (I guess, > early this morning) when I started watching events live online that they > don't have any announcers. At least this was true for events like badmitten > and the shooting events that I watched. I guess this is understandable, in > that they would have to have a hell of a lot of announcers to have some at > every single event, but while I don't really need announcers for football > or basketball or baseball, I do for most of the (to me) arcane Olympic > sports (and the main point of the Olympics is to watch arcane sports).
I think Kevin had this right. The IOC makes a clean feed of everything available to all of its licensees, who can then show whatever they want, and add whatever commentary they want. Since NBC pays tons of money, I'm sure they have the ability to put their own announcers and a couple of cameras at major events, but there isn't room for 100 national broadcasters to each put their own people in most venues. And rather than put together a roster of announcers to call every badminton match, it's easier for NBC to put that clean feed on the net, and then add announcers (whether they're at the media centre in London or back in the States) to whatever they choose to broadcast. I remember seeing stories from previous Olympics about how some announcers for events like table tennis were back in an American studio basing their call on the video. Today, the main point of the Olympics seems to be selling sponsorships and TV rights. For some viewers, it's about watching arcane sports. For many others, it's about the big events. -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
