• 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.

The Big A is apparently the official NBC apologist for this thread...big A is going to have a busy 2 weeks.
There is a huge difference between watching and event live and tape delayed. live, you are part of the audience and anything can happened. Tape delayed, it's another show you already heard what happened (and I did on the Internet) before the tape playback began.
And that's all I'll see of their coverage. Count on Michael Phelps drama and hardly anything on athletes from other countries. I barely got through the prelude to the opening ceremonies. People like Brokaw added nothing to the show.

I don't know how they would have covered it now, but I remember a lot of excitement watching ABC's coverage in the early days live,and staying up late night to see it. Really wish we could get CTV on our overpriced cable...we seem to get everything but.
 
azumanga said:
The one thing that many of us agree with is that the commentary should be kept to a bare minimum, outside the parade of athletes -- you wouldn't go see a KISS concert and have Matt and Meredith talk incessantly as they play, would you?
Click to expand...

Broadcasting an event is not supposed to be the same as attending it. That's not the purpose. The goal of a broadcaster is to provide context, and also tell the story that those in the arena can't see or don't know. The prime time stuff especially is supposed to be a SHOW, not just a feed of video from a venue. That's not a show.

benwolf said:
The Big A is apparently the official NBC apologist for this thread...big A is going to have a busy 2 weeks.
Click to expand...

This is a broadcasting board, and I'm a professional broadcaster, so I'm obviously going to view this from the POV of broadcasting, not as a fan.
 
That's why there's gray-market subscriptions from Shaw and Bell TV in Canada that some U.S. people have. Then you can watch CTV's coverage, live, with less blabbing. Last night around 9PM KING-5/NBC was showing Ryan Lochte winning the gold medal, HOURS after it was announced.

-crainbebo
 
TheBigA said:
Everyone likes to complain.
Click to expand...

Bingo!

Every four years (two years counting the winter games), its the same gripe about how (insert name of TV network here) is mishandling its coverage of the games. From what I've seen so far, NBC's coverage isn't appreciably better or worse than what's been offered to the American audience in previous years. Nowhere near as good as hyped....nowhere near as bad as alleged by the harshest professional and armchair critics.
 
The one thing I'm noticing today is there's a lot of live stuff. I saw the US basketball team beat France live on NBC Sprts Channel. There was live soccer on MSNBC. And lots of other live stuff.

The two key sports they want to milk for ratings will be gymnastics and swimming.
 
crainbebo said:
That's why there's gray-market subscriptions from Shaw and Bell TV in Canada that some U.S. people have. Then you can watch CTV's coverage, live, with less blabbing.
Click to expand...

How is it along the Mexican border? I've noticed that Televisa and TV Azteca both broadcasted the opening ceremonies live, which is neat if you live someplace like San Diego (where XEWT carried the ceremonies). Are those networks also showing sports coverage in a similar manner as CTV?
 
PirateJohnny said:
Roger said:
...As far as wanting to watch it for free online, you need to stop thinking of Comcast and NBC as one and the same. NBC has agreements with other television providers (i.e. Time Warner, DirecTV, Dish Netork). They cannot just go put things online for free because you want to watch it for free. Sometimes to get what we want, we have to pay for it. I want to watch Phillies games, so I pay Comcast for that privildge.
Click to expand...

I never said they were one and the same. in order to watch online from NBC.com you must enter your cable or satellite membership information. If I already have cable/satellite, why would I need to go online? It's the same with TNT. There are shows on TNT I would like to watch, when I'm home, online, but i can't because I didn't have cable/satellite. I live alone and the spare time I have just isn't enough to justify paying for cable/satellite. I don't have time to watch all the shows I want that I can get with an antenna. I know about the shows on TNT because I have seen them on the weekends at work. Over-the-air TV and radio is free because advertising pays for it.
Click to expand...

But not all of NBC is free over the air. They own a multitude of cable channels. Additionally you cannot be upset because a company sarched for a way to maximize their "profits". Or atleast in this case minimize their losses.
 
azumanga said:
The one thing that many of us agree with is that the commentary should be kept to a bare minimum, outside the parade of athletes -- you wouldn't go see a KISS concert and have Matt and Meredith talk incessantly as they play, would you?
Click to expand...
Absolutely agree! I was watching the coverage with the wife, thinking, "why don't they ever shut up!?!?" :mad: I also remember saying, "I hope they are smart enough to stop talking once Paul McCartney takes the stage!" (McCartney was about the only reason why we were watching the opening ceremonies.)

The positive part about the tape-delay is that it probably "sped up" the "parade of nations," which would probably would have (at least seemed to) gone on forever. Inserting commercials during the parade of nations was not particularly difficult for them to do.
 
firepoint525 said:
Absolutely agree! I was watching the coverage with the wife, thinking, "why don't they ever shut up!?!?"
Click to expand...

Funny to read this on a radio chat board. Typically, most of the comments on R-I are about the need for more live & local DJs, all yakking about what they did during their time off. And when radio stations replace the DJs with more back to back music, everyone blames it on corporate greed. But I guess it's different when you get the same inane chatter from TV hosts.
 
TheBigA said:
The one thing I'm noticing today is there's a lot of live stuff. I saw the US basketball team beat France live on NBC Sprts Channel. There was live soccer on MSNBC. And lots of other live stuff.

The two key sports they want to milk for ratings will be gymnastics and swimming.
Click to expand...

And track.

They've offered live coverage of most other stuff for a while now. The one new thing I've noticed so far is that on cable, they'll tune to something live they weren't planning on in a less-popular event if an American has a shot at gold (ie archery, shooting).
 
BMR said:
Did BBC America show it?
Click to expand...

It was carried on the BBC One channel - if you're one of the lucky 1% that can get that channel, anyway...
 
TheBigA said:
firepoint525 said:
Absolutely agree! I was watching the coverage with the wife, thinking, "why don't they ever shut up!?!?"
Click to expand...
Funny to read this on a radio chat board. Typically, most of the comments on R-I are about the need for more live & local DJs, all yakking about what they did during their time off. And when radio stations replace the DJs with more back to back music, everyone blames it on corporate greed. But I guess it's different when you get the same inane chatter from TV hosts.
Click to expand...
Unless it was being simulcast over a radio station, the constant "play-by-play" is not needed. ::) We can see the visuals on our TV sets. Besides, Matt Lauer makes what, $17 mil a year? Show me a dj who makes that.
 
Unless it was being simulcast over a radio station, the constant "play-by-play" is not needed. ::) We can see the visuals on our TV sets. Besides, Matt Lauer makes what, $17 mil a year? Show me a dj who makes that.
[/quote]

I don't care how much people make. TV does play-by-play of everything, every day, regardless of the pictures. It always has. It's what they do.
 
DToTheJ said:
BMR said:
Did BBC America show it?
Click to expand...

It was carried on the BBC One channel - if you're one of the lucky 1% that can get that channel, anyway...
Click to expand...

The BBC terrestrial channels are actually available somewhere in the US? Or are you referring to people who have a grey-market subscription to a European satellite service?
 
The one question the NBC apologists have avoided so far is this: If live coverage of the opening ceremonies was good enough for CTV -- which operates in the same time zones as NBC and offered both live and delayed coverage(1) -- why wasn't it good enough for NBC?

(1) - In Canada, the opening ceremonies were live in English on TSN, SportsNet, and OLN, in French on V and RDS, and in Cantonese on OMNI.2. They were also repeated in prime time on TSN2 and RDS2. I seem to remember their online listings saying CTV would also air the ceremonies both live and tape-delayed, but the listings after the fact don't reflect that.
 
Well I'm Only watching the Boxing matches on CNBC I just think it more exciting than the other sports. I know in recent Olympics theres more hype in who took PED and who did not . I just think this year the USA Will suck in the Olympics simply because Theres too much hype over who took steroids from past olympics. Also US and China will be accused of Cheating the games its no surprise here.
 
EmBee said:
DToTheJ said:
BMR said:
Did BBC America show it?
Click to expand...

It was carried on the BBC One channel - if you're one of the lucky 1% that can get that channel, anyway...
Click to expand...

The BBC terrestrial channels are actually available somewhere in the US? Or are you referring to people who have a grey-market subscription to a European satellite service?
Click to expand...

I think he was referring to watching it online through special gray-market connections, as its online broadcasts are not authorised outside the UK. I don't believe the footprints of any of the European DTH satellites reach North America.

EmBee said:
The one question the NBC apologists have avoided so far is this: If live coverage of the opening ceremonies was good enough for CTV -- which operates in the same time zones as NBC and offered both live and delayed coverage(1) -- why wasn't it good enough for NBC?
Click to expand...

Simply so they can get viewers to watch during prime-time, as they feel that not many people will be watching during the day because of work and, for some, school. Also, limiting the ceremonies to tape-delay only would help maximize the prime-time ratings, as those who saw it live during the day would have no reason to watch it at night, affecting the prime-time ratings. Also, they can edit the presentation so they can remove any "dull" or "irrelevant" portions of the ceremonies, as well as add more fluff stories, commercials and promos for NBC's fall shows.
 
Let's just tell the truth, alright?

Twenty years later, the peacock is still plume-hurt that America would not getting behind its nifty Olympic Triplecast venture. ;D
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom