For the first time, The Network brings you live, unprecedented coverage of The XXX Summer Olympiad, But it doesn't include the Opening & Closing ceremonies. The Opening Ceremonies were shown live at 4PM EDT, 3PM CDT, & 9PM London Time, and where was NBC? Showing "Dr Oz" & The News. It was shown LIVE on Canada's CTV, and The Olympics' Host Network, The BBC. This really does suck. and it was a total disappointment for The Peacock.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
NBC Sucks Again... For NOT covering the Olympic Ceremonies LIVE.
- Thread starter TroyG
- Start date
Troy Goodwin said:
Another #NBCOlympicFAIL.
Found out a few days ago that CTV in Canada planned to and did carry it live. NBC once again, showing contempt for its viewers whom are forced to watch their monopoly.
I like this:
I like how NBC says they paid a billion dollars for the Olympics and they need to protect their investment.
Fair enough, but then I thought, "Why did you pay a billion dollars for something that is being seen for free by the rest of the world." ;D (Yes, I know the billion isn't just for the opening ceremonies, but you see my point)
I like how NBC says they paid a billion dollars for the Olympics and they need to protect their investment.
Fair enough, but then I thought, "Why did you pay a billion dollars for something that is being seen for free by the rest of the world." ;D (Yes, I know the billion isn't just for the opening ceremonies, but you see my point)
Troy Goodwin said:
The BBC shows everything commercial free, because it is funded by a compulsory TV tax of circa 230 bucks a year on each household with a set. At that price, people wouldn't stand for commercials as well.
Like I say, the ceremony was a non-stop event so wouldn't have been well suited to live transmission on a commercial channel, unless they could have got sponsorship or something.
Every two years we have an Olympics and every two years, the same complaint. ALL of the prime time stuff will be delayed.
Here's a simple fact: The major events need to air at a time when most people can watch. Live TV is ancient TV. People today watch at their convenience, not in real time. So the network helps by delaying until a reasonable time, but the fact is that most people will watch what they want when they want. Most people don't care that it's not live.
Here's a simple fact: The major events need to air at a time when most people can watch. Live TV is ancient TV. People today watch at their convenience, not in real time. So the network helps by delaying until a reasonable time, but the fact is that most people will watch what they want when they want. Most people don't care that it's not live.
The Guardian newspaper has a rather scathing review of Matt Lauer and Bob Costas for their performance during the parade of nations: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/us-news-blog/2012/jul/28/nbc-olympics-opening-ceremony
M
Mario500
Guest
If NBC had broadcast the ceremony live with special sponsorship, there would have been less of a chance of any portion of the ceremony being left out or interrupted by an a prepared segment such as an interview.
Since I understand that NBC's coverage also is being spread out over other cable networks such as USA and NBC Sports, could NBC have offered live opening ceremony coverage on one of those channels? Also, I wonder why NBC could not offer a live stream on its website. Indeed, there are quite a few ways the opening ceremonies could have been televised live in this country that would not have interfered with the late afternoon talk shows, newscasts and whatever else local NBC stations would offer -- such as a feed that could have run on an affiliate's HD subchannels. Locally, for instance, the Cox NBC outlets in Pittsburgh, Johnstown and Steubenville all have HD subchannels -- and the Pittsburgh station also has a cable news channel.
I think the entire live vs. tape argument is kind of irrelevant. It only gets ugly when the network is flagrant about continually teasing stuff coming up in the show that has already happened. I think they realize in this day an age that if people want to know how an event turned out, they can just look it up online. Better to just let the show unfold, live or on tape, without a lot of teasing of what's ahead.
The time difference means some big stuff will have to be on tape if it is going to be saved for prime time -- that's been true since the modern era of Olympic TV coverage began. People accept that, along as it isn't abusive -- teasing stuff for hours in prime time and saving it for 10:30 pm Eastern when it happened 7 hours earlier, or more.
ABC wrote the Bible for how to cover the Olympics with its coverage of the Munich games, and almost everything was on tape.
The time difference means some big stuff will have to be on tape if it is going to be saved for prime time -- that's been true since the modern era of Olympic TV coverage began. People accept that, along as it isn't abusive -- teasing stuff for hours in prime time and saving it for 10:30 pm Eastern when it happened 7 hours earlier, or more.
ABC wrote the Bible for how to cover the Olympics with its coverage of the Munich games, and almost everything was on tape.
microbob said:
You mean "CTV"? They had the rights to the games in Canada, instead of the CBC.
TheBigA said:
I disagree -- many of us would like to see all of the ceremonies, without edits, commercials or inane commentary. And the 2005 London bombings was indeed major news that made front-page headlines worldwide, which merits its inclusion.
- Status