[TV orNotTV] Online Olympics

[PGage]

Correcting some misinformation I have been spreading in previous posts, it is *not* true that all of the online events are sans commentary. I had originally thought that because the first 2 or 3 I watched had only ambient sound. Subsequently I have seen some that did have only ambient sound, but included a clear and informative on-site announcer. I read last night a story on Deadspin (http://deadspin.com/5931440/fake-jingoistic-and-stupid-gymnastics-coverage-is-the-worst-part-of-nbcs-olympics) that notes the online gymnastics did have a dedicated announcing team, different from the (simply horrid) NBC announcing crew (1996 gold medalist Shannon Miller), who is described as being pretty good, and much less jingoistic.

BTW, the article linked above speculates that at least some of NBC's gymnastics coverage is of what I have identified as the most odious type - commentary added *after* recording the event. This is based on the observation that during the qualifying Miller online did not mention the possibility that Wieber might not make the all arounds until near the end (when this began to seem possible), meanwhile on the tape delayed NBC coverage they were talking about that possibility from the beginning.

[do...@flids.net]

But why is this odious if it's completely invisible to the end user?  (for that matter, why is it odious even if it *is* obvious to the end user?)  You have video of a sporting event and you audio of commentators adding play-by-play and color.  As long as they arrive on your TV screen simultaneously, what difference would it make whether they were originally recorded at the same time?  It shouldn't have any effect on the end user's experience whatsoever.

Doug Fields

Tampa, FL

[Joe Hass]

Because the commentator is playing with information that was unknown
at the time the event took place.

An outstanding example: the end of the EPL season this year. For the
unaware, there were two matches that would determine who would win the
league title. In one match, Manchester City was down 2-1 as they
entered stoppage time and Manchester United was up 1-0. Given that
scenario, Manchester City had to somehow score two goals to win the
title. And that's exactly what they did. If you listen to Ian Darke's
call on ESPN, it had *everything* you could possibly want: it sounded
deflated at the start of ST, then City scored the first goal, and he
perked up, and when they scored the second goal 30 seconds after the
ManU match ended, he lost it.

Now, imagine how you call that if you *know* that City was going to do
what they did. Do you tip off that it's going to be a wild ending?
You're not being honest with the audience because you know something
they don't. I'd think it's impossible to not let that color your call,
and it completely did with the Womens Gymanstics qualifier. If that's
all you're doing, then describe it as highlights, not a PxP call.

> --
> 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 tvor...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> tvornottv-...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en

[PGage]

On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 8:49 AM, <do...@flids.net> wrote:

But why is this odious if it's completely invisible to the end user?  (for that matter, why is it odious even if it *is* obvious to the end user?)  You have video of a sporting event and you audio of commentators adding play-by-play and color.  As long as they arrive on your TV screen simultaneously, what difference would it make whether they were originally recorded at the same time?  It shouldn't have any effect on the end user's experience whatsoever.

It is not odious if the "end user" (the home audience) knows the audio has been added later - in which case what they are watching is a highlight show. We get this every night on SportsCenter. When it is not obvious to the audience, and the telecast is being sold as coverage of a sports event, then it is deceptive and manipulative.

[do...@flids.net]

Okay.  You and Joe take your sports commentary *way* more seriously than I ever have.  :)

I see your point, but I think this is gonna be one of those "we'll have to agree to disagree" moments.  If I know the broadcast is tape delayed, it wouldn't bother me a whit if the commentary was recorded live or not.  

Doug Fields

Tampa, FL

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [TV orNotTV] Online Olympics
From: PGage <pga...@gmail.com>

--

[Darren Glass]

On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:36 PM, <do...@flids.net> wrote:

Okay.  You and Joe take your sports commentary *way* more seriously than I ever have.  :)

I see your point, but I think this is gonna be one of those "we'll have to agree to disagree" moments.  If I know the broadcast is tape delayed, it wouldn't bother me a whit if the commentary was recorded live or not.  

And I think right here is the crux of the problem, and the reason why I am willing to give NBC far more credit than many people seem to.  There are some viewers who want to view sports as a news-like event.  There are others who want to view it as entertainment.  Trying to please both groups (and everyone in between) is very difficult, if not impossible.  

Personally, with the Olympics, I *like* the "show everything in a curated manner, edited to just see the exciting parts and tape-delayed to my time zone" approach, and I am actually more annoyed with the people who seem to have jobs that let them watch everything live and then post online about the results spoiling it for those of us who want to treat it as a primetime television event.   For these events, I don't care if an announcer knows ahead of time.

On the other hand, if you were talking about Braves baseball games I would feel very differently, and I treat those as 'news' -- I want journalistic integrity (or some variation thereof) from my reporters and I am the annoying one who posts in real time when I am watching live.  

Is this intellectually consistent? No, but it is how I feel.  

d

[PGage]

On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 9:36 AM, <do...@flids.net> wrote:

Okay.  You and Joe take your sports commentary *way* more seriously than I ever have.  :)

I see your point, but I think this is gonna be one of those "we'll have to agree to disagree" moments.  If I know the broadcast is tape delayed, it wouldn't bother me a whit if the commentary was recorded live or not.

If it doesn't make any difference, then why doesn't NBC just make it clear when the commentary is real time and when it is added later? I suspect because to most people it does make a difference.

I guess in Nigeria they are showing yesterday's basketball game against the US on delay, edited to show mostly Nigerian highlights, with a commentary added after the fact to make it sound like the outcome was in doubt until the end. It would only be 15 seconds long, but I guess it would get higher ratings in Nigeria.

[PGage]

I can accept that NBC wants to treat their primetime show as entertainment in order to earn back as much of their huge financial investment as they can - they need to attract more than just sports fans if they are going to do that. But at its core the Olympics *are* sporting events - there is a line that bounds basic integrity that, if crossed, makes the whole thing meaningless, even from an entertainment point of view. If not, NBC could save a hell of a lot of money by just airing an extended version of "So You Think You Can Dance?".

There must be a lot of people who feel the same way about baseball that you feel about the Olympics. Indeed, it is possible that they could significantly increase ratings for Braves games if they played all games during the day and then broadcasted them, edited, in a one hour slot during primetime. They could edit out all of the "boring" stuff, like when there are no hits, or the Braves opponent scores runs. They could add commentary after the game to hype the Braves performance, and foreshadow later drama or the success of the home team, or favored players. Of course real baseball fans would be screwed, but if more viewers, who really didn't care much about baseball but liked the nightly reality show tuned in, then what difference would it make?

Your position is not just intellectually inconsistent, it is practically inconsistent, in the terms that you identify as important to you - namely spoilers. In the dark days when NBC first took over the Olympics they would regularly add commentary in post-production. One of the problems with that practice was that it was almost always obvious from the beginning of an event what the outcome was going to be - either from indirect cues like tone of voice, or direct cues, like what the commentators focused on.

In this case, *if* portions of the gymnastics had commentary added later, it would be particularly odious, since Bob Costas, in his opening remarks the first night of primetime coverage, looked into the camera and promised the viewers that, while all of the coverage he would be showing over the fortnight would be tape delayed, it would be presented by announcers who were commenting in real time, without knowing the outcome in advance. I suspect Costas at least cares enough about his sports journalism credibility that he would not be happy if he was later proved to be a liar.

Note that I am not saying the gymnastics commentary was added later - that is a speculation from the writer at Deadspin. This has just been a discussion about why it would matter if it were.

[do...@flids.net]

One possibility is because they honestly feel (as I do) that it really doesn't make a difference.  So, by definition, they can announce that or they don't...and it doesn't make a difference, either way.  Why don't they announce it, then?  *shrug*  Because it doesn't make a difference.  

But, I would say the much more likely reason is because, as you're pointing out (to a degree that is making me even start wondering the meta-question of why is it necessary to point out so vehemently why it matters that the commentary be live...but that's a different topic altogether), there *are* people to whom it matters.  So, they don't announce it, so that those don't know the difference.

If they're doing their job right, you'd never know in the first place, so what purpose would it serve them to announce it, if the only possible outcome would be to piss off some of their audience?

Doug Fields

Tampa, FL

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [TV orNotTV] Online Olympics
From: PGage <pga...@gmail.com>

[do...@flids.net]

"But, I would say the much more likely reason is because, as you're pointing out (to a degree that is making me even start wondering the meta-question of why is it necessary to point out so vehemently why it matters that the commentary be live...but that's a different topic altogether), there *are* people to whom it matters.  So, they don't announce it, so that those don't know the difference."

Sorry, I didn't make this point as clearly as I wanted.  I meant to contrast your statement about it making a difference to "most people" by saying it probably matters to *some* people, but even if it were only a few, why would the network want to point it out to those people, if all they'd do would be piss them off?  They wouldn't gain any points with any of the rest of the audience, so it's just a lose-lose situation for them.

DF 

[Darren Glass]

On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 1:24 PM, PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Darren Glass <dgl...@gmail.com> wrote:

And I think right here is the crux of the problem, and the reason why I am willing to give NBC far more credit than many people seem to.  There are some viewers who want to view sports as a news-like event.  There are others who want to view it as entertainment.  Trying to please both groups (and everyone in between) is very difficult, if not impossible.  

 

I can accept that NBC wants to treat their primetime show as entertainment in order to earn back as much of their huge financial investment as they can - they need to attract more than just sports fans if they are going to do that. But at its core the Olympics *are* sporting events - there is a line that bounds basic integrity that, if crossed, makes the whole thing meaningless, even from an entertainment point of view. If not, NBC could save a hell of a lot of money by just airing an extended version of "So You Think You Can Dance?".

But here's the thing -- it doesn't make the whole thing meaningless to me.  Or rather, if there is a line that would do that then NBC is still well on the good side of that line.  Your mileage clearly varies.  But I would guess that I am actually somewhat in the middle of the viewing audience in these regards.  

Put another way, I think that a significant portion of the NBC Olympics audience is perfectly happy to treat it as "So You Think You Can Dance" and gets annoyed at people who put the results out in real time just as they would get annoyed if the NY Times went ahead and printed the winner of next season's SURVIVOR.  Are these people right or wrong for feeling this way?  That question doesn't have any real meaning to me.  But I would guess that they exist in significant numbers and you (and others) trying to badger me into caring isn't going to do any good.

 

There must be a lot of people who feel the same way about baseball that you feel about the Olympics. Indeed, it is possible that they could significantly increase ratings for Braves games if they played all games during the day and then broadcasted them, edited, in a one hour slot during primetime. 

They could do this.  And it would upset me just like what NBC is doing upsets you.  I'm guessing that someone has made the calculation that this would alienate more people than it would attract and that is the reason that they don't do this.

 

Your position is not just intellectually inconsistent, it is practically inconsistent, in the terms that you identify as important to you - namely spoilers.

 

I don't really understand what you mean by this.  All I am saying is that if all anyone cared about was what I wanted then all news outlets and everyone online would refrain from putting the winners out until primetime in whatever time zone I am in, so that I have a chance to watch spoiler-free.  I am, however, an adult who realizes that the media world doesn't revolve around me or people who think like me.  And therefore I tolerate (and dont even really whine about too much) the fact that lots of people are watching these events earlier than I am and wanting to talk about them.  

Whether you think these Olympic spoilers are "fair game" or not does depend on whether you think of the Olympics as a news event or an entertainment event (or somewhere else on that spectrum), and my point is simply that there are people in both camps.   NBC is trying to have its cake and eat it too by compromising to both crowds.  And I think that with a few notable missteps they have been doing a pretty good job considering the degree of difficulty.

dg

[PGage]

On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 11:57 AM, <do...@flids.net> wrote:

"But, I would say the much more likely reason is because, as you're pointing out (to a degree that is making me even start wondering the meta-question of why is it necessary to point out so vehemently why it matters that the commentary be live...but that's a different topic altogether), there *are* people to whom it matters.  So, they don't announce it, so that those don't know the difference."

Sorry, I didn't make this point as clearly as I wanted.  I meant to contrast your statement about it making a difference to "most people" by saying it probably matters to *some* people, but even if it were only a few, why would the network want to point it out to those people, if all they'd do would be piss them off?  They wouldn't gain any points with any of the rest of the audience, so it's just a lose-lose situation for them.

Of course, my point is that it does make a difference, because it allows the broadcaster to distort and manipulate the event to maximize drama and audience interest, at the expense of what actually happened. But even if that only made a difference to a few, is your argument really that it is okay to lie as long as you don't get caught? And yes, I am saying that if (and again, this is only "if", as I have no direct evidence that it is actually happening this year) NBC were broadcasting sporting events with commentary added after the fact in post production without informing the audience, that would be a lie.

[PGage]

On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Darren Glass <dgl...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

Your position is not just intellectually inconsistent, it is practically inconsistent, in the terms that you identify as important to you - namely spoilers.

 

I don't really understand what you mean by this.  All I am saying is that if all anyone cared about was what I wanted then all news outlets and everyone online would refrain from putting the winners out until primetime in whatever time zone I am in, so that I have a chance to watch spoiler-free.  I am, however, an adult who realizes that the media world doesn't revolve around me or people who think like me.  And therefore I tolerate (and dont even really whine about too much) the fact that lots of people are watching these events earlier than I am and wanting to talk about them.  

Whether you think these Olympic spoilers are "fair game" or not does depend on whether you think of the Olympics as a news event or an entertainment event (or somewhere else on that spectrum), and my point is simply that there are people in both camps.   NBC is trying to have its cake and eat it too by compromising to both crowds.  And I think that with a few notable missteps they have been doing a pretty good job considering the degree of difficulty.

You had asked me why I am critical of ex post facto commentary; I have given a couple of reasons, one of which I thought might resonate with you, since you had stated that you were irritated by spoilers. When NBC has done ex post facto commentary in the past, it has led to spoliers, in that the commentary tends to telegraph what is going to happen.

You may or may not have noticed that in another long thread I have actually been mounting a moderate defense of NBC's Olympic coverage against most of its critics. What we are talking about here in this thread is not something NBC is doing (as far as we know now), but a hypothetical possibility of adding commentary after the fact. Assuming NBC is not doing this, then my position has in fact been that NBC has been moving in the direction of a workable compromise between Olympics as athletic event and Olympics as reality show. The three prongs of this compromise are: 1) making live, real time viewing of every event available online; 2) televising a good mix of live and near-live events overnight and during the day, and 3) televising a primetime, 3 hour or so package aimed at the mass, general audience focused almost exclusively on a handful of events that have great appeal to American non-sports fans (e.g. gymnastics, swimming, diving, bikini-ball). I would like to see NBC go ahead and televise even these events live or near-live during the day, as I think it would only increase their primetime audience, but then I am not the one who has paid hundreds of millions of dollars for the rights. I am even a defender of NBC's tape delayed coverage of the Opening Ceremonies, as that seems tailor made for an edited for TV primetime package.

My only real outrage has been reserved for NBC's Gynmastics coverage - not at delayed commentary, which again, has not as yet been established, but at their gross and heavy handed editing of the actual competition that completely distorted its nature, falsely making it seem that the American girls were in danger of losing the Gold Medal so their last round of performances would seem more interesting, when in fact the poor performance of the Russians (the worse of which the primetime audience never saw or knew anything about) had already assured the outcome. I have also been a longtime critic of the tone of NBC's Gymnastics coverage, which is melodramatic and biased and jingoistic, and always has at least one eye on the downstream marketing potential of the various competitors rather than what they are actually doing in the event.

[Darren Glass]

On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 4:49 PM, PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote:

You had asked me why I am critical of ex post facto commentary; I have given a couple of reasons, one of which I thought might resonate with you, since you had stated that you were irritated by spoilers. When NBC has done ex post facto commentary in the past, it has led to spoliers, in that the commentary tends to telegraph what is going to happen.

Actually, I didn't ask you any such thing.  Perhaps someone else did.  I totally understand why you such a thing bothers you.  I was just trying to say that it doesnt bother me because (from what I gather) you and I have different goals and expectations and desires for our Olympic viewing, and neither of us seems to be staking out the extreme positions that others on the internet are.  Which makes perfect sense to me.  I just empathize the NBC execs who are trying to appease both of us and the millions of people with all kinds of varying goals and expectations and desires. 

- dg

[PGage]

I may have lost track of who it was who asked me why I thought the ex post facto commentary was odious, if that was not you then I apologize.

Again though, I want to clarify that, on the issue of ex post facto commentary, NBC is not (as far as we know) trying to appease both people like me who don't like it and people like you who don't care. NBC, as stated by Bob Costas in his first introduction to the first night of primetime coverage, has told us that while all the events shown in primetime are of course taped, the announcers are calling the action live, and did not know the results when they did the commentary. If (as the one article I initially linked to argues, based on speculation and inference) there was ex post facto commentary in the women's gymnastics, it would not a direct violation of what Costas had told the audience.