The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody had decided not to see.
Um, on what grounds? Stupidity? Incompetence? Phony excitement? Or just general principle? (I watched a bit of the afternoon coverage yesterday. Any announcer who can work himself into a breathless frenzy while describing the biathlon has got Serious Problems.
Many years ago, one of the major networks broadcast an entire NFL game *without commentators*.IIRC, the response was overwhelmingly positive.So, obviously, the network needed to do something to celebrate -- and, the following week, the announcers crowed about how successful their absence had been.
I've noticed a distinct tone to the telecasts this year. The commentators don't really seem to be dissapointed that people don't win a medal.I mean they do the usual hype and shimmey and jive regarding the supposed fav. But then when the fav chokes or fails to deliver; its like, oh never mind. They are like, oh isn't that nice the fav participated.Weird.I remember when that old Olympic commentator, Jim McKay would be devastated if the fav got a bronze instead of the gold! And he didn't pull any punches in his analysis of the favs performance.Steveword verification=dapywa (kind of a nice word for the quality of the reporting of the Olympics)
Last night, while she was watching the skating, the current U.S. champion choked and did poorly in the short program. The camera showed him crying, and the announcer said, "It's just his worst nightmare."Really. Worst? I looked up and said, "Worse than being run over by a train? Worse than finding out your mom has cancer? Worse than house clearing in Iraq?" (I was reading.)C'mon, people, get a grip. It's a sport.
I miss the good old days when the Russian or East German judge would throw the whole proceedings with a loopy score. Back then we knew who we were dealing with and THEY showed it - now it's like some kind of Keith Olbermann does Project Runway-Olympiad.
Post a Comment