Free Subscription! 
iTunes 
Our podcast will keep you up to date...
The Media & The Olympics
Senior members of the IOC have been in London today giving a final inspection of facilities prior to the Olympics.
Jacques Rogge (the head of the IOC) said that London 2012 was on track in delivering a legacy. Oh sure a hefty tax bill & a lot of white elephants.
I've noticed recently that when it comes to the Olympics the media hasn't been reflecting differing opinions as it often does with other issues.
You hear plenty of enthusiasm for London hosting the Olympics but you don't hear from anybody who objects to London hosting the Olympics & the consequence of London 2012.
we still do have a fairly free press in this country & though you might not hear opinions from what some people would describe as from the political fringe (such as anarchists). You will usually hear differing opinions on any one issue at least with the broadcast media in this country, with the exception of the Olympics.
Okay mainstream media is owned by corporate interests & the Olympics are a corporatist gang bang so its in the interests of corporate media to big up the the Olympics; but even so I'm surprised they still haven't wheeled anybody opposing London hosting the Olympics with the agenda of somehow making them look stupid to big up the Olympics. What I'm saying is that there has been no debate at all in regards to London hosting the Olympics & that is troubling.
Its not good for democracy when you hear no opposition to whatever the government is instituting which is what having a free press is suppose to assist with doing
__________________
Sophia,
The time for debate on the Olympic games was over years ago when London was chosen as the site way back in 2005. Raising the issue now and questioning the wisdom of those who wanted it will only get you branded as trouble maker who does not have London's best interest at heart. Oh wait, you are on this forum, never mind that last statement, they already have you on the list.
If your experience in London with the Olympics is anything like that of the summer games in Atlana, Georgia or the winter games in Salt Lake City, Utah, you can expect a bunch of hype, traffic gridlock, media attention, and empty promises of big money coming into the city/country. Oh, the money does come, but in the case of Atlanta, virtually all of it "disappeared" to cover the cost of set-up, maintenance, security, etc.. and the net effect of being a host city was nothing more than a big headache for the people who live and work there.
It's too bad, like so many other things in this brave new world, the modern Olympic Games WAS a great concept with a legitimate history. Over time, some who seek power and notoriety have been successful at politicizing the games and making it less about the athletic competition between nations and more about them. Hell, the media's favorite Republican candidate for President is still bragging about his involvement (as a politician) in the Salt Lake City games 10 years ago! Seems to me like his ego left more of a lasting impression than the event itself.
My advice, don't bother with trying to engage people in a debate right now. What's done is done and they are coming to London like it or not. After the dust has settled and the last politician has left along with the media machine, then start to question what was gained by it all. Ask the ones who wanted there to "show you the money". Let's hope that London is not like the high school kid who had a wild party while his parents where out of town. The friends all came, the house got trashed, he got grounded, and had to pay for the damages himself. That would be unfortunate.
static free
an update to my post above:
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/0767327a-da6d-11e1-902d-00144feab49a.html#axzz229ooegmh
Again, great sense. After it's over, and months or years have passed, one can begin to show people the emptiness of the "economic boon" promises linked to spending on the Olympics.
I wonder if the "national pride" phenomenon is something that will ever be overcome. It's a strange paradox, wherein a series of games that are supposed to bring people of different nations together actually gins up nationalistic ferver and patriotism, people crying when they hear their national anthem, etc.
If games like that were completely privatized, and gubment were completely out of the picture for the facilities, funding, everything, would people still root for the athletes from their nations? Peobably. It does seem to be a natural inclination for folks to root for people who come from their "area", ranging from towns/cities, to states, to nations, etc... personally, I like to cheer for the best athletes or underdogs. I go back and forth. It doesn't really matter what nation someone is from, but perhaps I'm an exception to the norm...
If it were completely private, I can imagine even more sponsorship, team owners, different leages...now it's looking more like the professional sports all over the world today.
I think, humans naturally want to belong to a group, even if only in thought. Teams, rivalries, traditions, logos, chest thumping, chanting as a crowd, it's all a very natrual outcome of sports. In team sports, there litteraly has to be an "us" and a "them".
The liberty minded people that I know can enjoy a sport without needing "sell their soul" and be totally invested in the success or failure of any team (or area for that matter). I know some not-so-liberty minded people that can have their entire day ruined by a game they didn't see that took place in a far away place. My humble opinion Gard, but it's just one of the ways that liberty conspirators such as ourselves continue to be "an exception to the norm" as you put it.