|
For two weeks, all I heard from indifferent Americans estranged to the spectacle of worldclass athletics was a resounding rallying cry: "I don't care about the Olympics. I haven't even been paying attention." Yanks, I'm here to tell you: It's not your fault. It's not that you're supposed to care about the Olympics but can't, it's that you don't understand why you're supposed to care about the Olympics when you're not allowed to. And why is that? Two reasons:
1) The television coverage sucks. CBC in Canada had over 200 hours of coverage, which included all the events live, in their raw, unedited form as they were actually happening in the wee hours of the morning, and then repeats during dinner hour and primetime for people who weren't nocturnal. America, meanwhile, had no live coverage, and what paltry events they did show were surrounded by ingratiating human interest stories trying in vain to capture that elusive "women 34-49" market, aka the market that doesn't watch sports but might watch figure skating if NBC tries really hard to make it look like something not resembling a genuine sport. The potential ad revenue is too lucrative to give up on it, so remember: Every time you have to suffer through a smarmy Bob Costas sob story about some speedskater's triumph over adversity by growing up in the sticks 10 miles uphill both ways from the only ice rink in town with no zamboni, keep in mind NBC is only doing it so cheesecake-eating midwest housewives raised on a diet of Oprah and minivans don't flood the station with angry calls because their Everybody Loves Raymond reruns were pushed off the air. In other words, they're doing it for their benefit, not yours.
And that's the prime problem with NBC: They still don't see the Olympics as a sporting event like they would March Madness or the Superbowl. They see it as a television show. With characters, lines of unscripted dialogue, a plot, and probably tons of prodding by production assistants vying to format the "show" into an actual story, with a beginning, a middle, and an end--hopefully culminating in some sort of thrilling "Miracle on Ice" climax--that will wrap up all the loose ends and make America happy. But the problem with sports is that it's not as controlled and predictable as reality television, making the Survivor comparison moot. To put it simply: The other countries haven't read the script, and so aren't disposed to lying down and letting the American guy win for the benefit of the home audience.
Because it's not enough that Americans can just enjoy the Games, they must enjoy Americans winning the Games. The decision to sell the Games, then, rests not on the Games themselves (as you might have guessed), but rather on individuals within whom NBC wants to make bigger than the Games. Once again: Not selling sports, but selling sporting personalities for that coveted old woman market. So there is a lot of attention devoted to names like Michelle Kwan and Bode Miller, both of whom had more airtime, were quoted more often and filled more magazine racks than the eventual winners of their disciplines. And when both come out busts, all the marketing that went into promoting them had ten days left to look rather foolish. It's hard to crack a smile when the television blares "Watch Bode and Michelle Go for the Gold!" long after they barely completed their events. Kwan injured herself during practice and dropped out of competition; Miller narrowly averted falling down the hill.
If these sort of anti-climaxes completely derail American interest in the Games, it's not America's fault, but rather the NBC coverage that insists on promoting only three or four athletes at the severe neglect of over two hundred others who proudly waived an American flag at the Opening Ceremonies, most of whom can say that they at least finished their events, unlike Miller, and all of whom can say that they at least competed, unlike Kwan.
Now, the Games are over. Despite winning 25 medals, most Americans still can't name more than five US athletes who participated, let alone won anything. And who's to blame for that? Not America.
2) The Olympics is a big deal to Europe, because it really is an international spectacle. It is a gigantic "my people are better than yours" contest between nations--chiefly European nations, who have adopted it as the heir apparent to war since they had more than their fill of it last century. Winning an important contest with your next-door neighbour means so much more than beating some anonymous shmoe from across town whom you've never met and won't see again. In Europe you can travel through ten countries and fourteen languages on one tank of gas. So for an international tournament, the Olympics really feels like the great sack race at the neighbourhood barbecue. Americans don't have any international neighbours. There is nothing someone from Nebrasks can relate to insofar as beating other countries is concerned, because there are no other countries around him to rub their faces in it. The closest US equivalent of the Sweden versus Finland hockey final would be probably Duke versus University of Kentucky in the NCAA Finals. In fact, if you substitute every major European country for a pac 10 or NCAA Div. 1 squad in any sport, you can see what this all means to Europe. The Olympics is their version of good ole' American college rivalries. Joe America won't ever see an Austrian in his lifetime, but he just might run into an Arizona Wildcats alum, and that's when he has to stand up for his alma mater and BRING THE PAIN!!!
Not that America has never had any international rivalries. Interest in the Olympics was at an all-time high during the Cold War, but that was fuelled by politics, not culture. And, accordingly, interest waned when the Soviet Union collapsed, because after defeating their ideology, what else were Americans going to fight Russians for?
So the Winter Olympics was a ratings disaster in America. That's okay. Most Americans are summer sport lovers anyway.
|
|
|
3 comments - join this discussion...
|
|
|
|
|
|
