Ok, I may be waaaaayyyy out-to-lunch on this, but I have to comment ... I am watching the Olympics ... coverage provided by American NBC monopoly ... and there are two things I notice ... because they are soooooo painful ... Number One ... if it ain't American, there is NO attention paid, regardless of any nod to the amazing efforts ALL athletes put into their performances ... and Number Two ... regardless of whatever event, NO male athletes are captured on video with ANY photocomposition below the waist on the TV cameras ... I can only assume that ALL american male athletes do NOT have cocks or balls ... which is bizarre to me, to say the least ... why do you American viewers put up with this shit ?????????????????????????????????
US Network Crap
- Thread starter ck85x65
- Start date
No choice. NBC bought the rights to telecast the Olympics here in the US. Yeah it sucks. Not nearly as good as ABC used to be.
mattsrod7
Expert Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2004
- Posts
- 1,561
- Media
- 17
- Likes
- 168
- Points
- 268
- Location
- United States
- Sexuality
- 100% Straight, 0% Gay
- Gender
- Male
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2007
- Posts
- 2,246
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 2,404
- Points
- 443
- Location
- Houston, TX, USA
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- 60% Straight, 40% Gay
- Gender
- Male
I disagree. ABC had national favoritism as well, it's a bit different when the sport is being shown live vs. tape delay, when the choice of what is shown can be more selective. Live events must show what's actually occuring... except for the commercial breaks.
Yes, NBC is airing a lot of footage LIVE, however they are bouncing back and forth between venues, and they are limited in prime-time coverage to cram in as much coverage as they can and still pay for it with commercials. That means making sure that the home country gets to see their athletes participate, whenever possible- and it can look like a whole lot of selective coverage, yes indeedy.
Before you make your final judgement, I'd suggest watching some of the streaming coverage of the various sports online, and see if you feel that the coverage is only featuring the American team. What's the difference? Streaming coverage of a specific event would ideally show each and every competitor, because the venue is being covered completely for coverage to insert the "highlights" into primetime coverage, that is, when time allows.
I know I sound like I am defending NBC- and I'm not. I do see moments of natural favoritism, too- and places where I'd rather see coverage of the Italian team, or the Swedes, or whatever... but I realize that I'm not in control of what I see. Programming choices are being made for the greatest number of viewers. Twas always thus- and always will be....
As American television goes digital and current broadcast television transforms into an internet-driven medium with multiple levels of interactivity, I forsee a day when technology brings us multiple cameras at every venue, and unlimited bandwith when every sport can be viewed online-just as good or better- than being there.
Rather than pointing towards the programming choices, I'd be much more ready to ask if the on-air talent (venue color commentators, and Bob Costas) are remaining impartial and attempting to also feature non-American athletes- and I honestly would say that I feel that they are- again, if you take the other choices being made into account.
I'd be much more ready to throw stones if we were limited to only 4 hours of prime-time programming per day, and we have a great deal of choice across multiple networks, as well as internet coverage. I'd say that NBC has thrown an immense effort towards their technology and their improvements.
But I would like to hear from more non-Americans on this issue.
Yes, NBC is airing a lot of footage LIVE, however they are bouncing back and forth between venues, and they are limited in prime-time coverage to cram in as much coverage as they can and still pay for it with commercials. That means making sure that the home country gets to see their athletes participate, whenever possible- and it can look like a whole lot of selective coverage, yes indeedy.
Before you make your final judgement, I'd suggest watching some of the streaming coverage of the various sports online, and see if you feel that the coverage is only featuring the American team. What's the difference? Streaming coverage of a specific event would ideally show each and every competitor, because the venue is being covered completely for coverage to insert the "highlights" into primetime coverage, that is, when time allows.
I know I sound like I am defending NBC- and I'm not. I do see moments of natural favoritism, too- and places where I'd rather see coverage of the Italian team, or the Swedes, or whatever... but I realize that I'm not in control of what I see. Programming choices are being made for the greatest number of viewers. Twas always thus- and always will be....
As American television goes digital and current broadcast television transforms into an internet-driven medium with multiple levels of interactivity, I forsee a day when technology brings us multiple cameras at every venue, and unlimited bandwith when every sport can be viewed online-just as good or better- than being there.
Rather than pointing towards the programming choices, I'd be much more ready to ask if the on-air talent (venue color commentators, and Bob Costas) are remaining impartial and attempting to also feature non-American athletes- and I honestly would say that I feel that they are- again, if you take the other choices being made into account.
I'd be much more ready to throw stones if we were limited to only 4 hours of prime-time programming per day, and we have a great deal of choice across multiple networks, as well as internet coverage. I'd say that NBC has thrown an immense effort towards their technology and their improvements.
But I would like to hear from more non-Americans on this issue.
Agreed. Given the heft of NBC's investment into exclusive Olympics coverage, extensively showing events in which US athletes are absent or don't stand out would be economically suicidal.
The "nationalistic" coverage may not be right but it is rational on their part. As a reminder, there is no state-sponsored channel shielded from the savage law of ratings in the US.
Of course they do; they just leave them in the locker room during events. :borladuck:
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2007
- Posts
- 2,246
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 2,404
- Points
- 443
- Location
- Houston, TX, USA
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- 60% Straight, 40% Gay
- Gender
- Male
and as for the other half of the comment=- well the Janet and Justin superbowl malfunction pretty much put the kebosh on any sports-related nakedness. STill there are occasions- like the fact that the cameramen like to watch olympic male gymnasts change from their shorts to their sweatpants on the sidelines- occasionally you will see an obscene bulge shot in rowing (and all of this brought to you in HIGH DEFINITION!!!) and most notably, how about senior Phelps rolling his suit down to below the equator! If it wasn't on super tight certainly he would have lost it the way that he was flailing about in his excitement!
If you watch that scene back, however, you will see the OP's point being made- the cameraman quickly adjusted his camera shot to keep Michael's shaved pubic area out of frame.
Yeah- and yet the Women's Olympic beach volleyball players can wear less-than-brief bun hugging bottoms while they dive chest-first into the sand? What's with that?
If you watch that scene back, however, you will see the OP's point being made- the cameraman quickly adjusted his camera shot to keep Michael's shaved pubic area out of frame.
Yeah- and yet the Women's Olympic beach volleyball players can wear less-than-brief bun hugging bottoms while they dive chest-first into the sand? What's with that?
boerkie
Experimental Member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2006
- Posts
- 277
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 7
- Points
- 163
- Location
- west hollywood
- Sexuality
- 60% Gay, 40% Straight
- Gender
- Male
one thing to remember, america is part of what is called "christian countries"
and the religeous right has such a stronghold on people's minds!!
to look at women's boobies and asses is straight, (read: natural)
ask jimmy swaggart, ask any of the many who have partaken of the forbiddden papajah! shit! even ask king david of old!!!
looking at a male body, in the chauvinistic judeo-christian mindset, is just sinful for males and females. we all are familiar with that double standard!!for its so GAY!!
god forbid they would feed what they perceive deviants anything that would be enjoyed!!
and the religeous right has such a stronghold on people's minds!!
to look at women's boobies and asses is straight, (read: natural)
ask jimmy swaggart, ask any of the many who have partaken of the forbiddden papajah! shit! even ask king david of old!!!
looking at a male body, in the chauvinistic judeo-christian mindset, is just sinful for males and females. we all are familiar with that double standard!!for its so GAY!!
god forbid they would feed what they perceive deviants anything that would be enjoyed!!
D_Jared Padalicki
Account Disabled
Weird culture/ideas but yeah, what to do about. I can watch proper tv, so I'm happy, but I understand the problem
It is not the Christian influence at work in USA, it is the Puritan influence. There are many Christian countries in the world that don't have the same narrow-minded standards as USA. I lived most of my life in one of the British Commonwealth countries, where a much wider range of views is accepted. We moved to the USA, which considers itself to be the pinnacle of freedom. It is far from that in reality. Freedom within a very narrow moral corridor that is based on Puritan beliefs is the reality on the East Coast.
Something you can thank the bulk of my ancestors for. You think living in a family of non-Puritans is bad, try living in a family descended from nothing but Puritans! The males of my family do not ever wear tank tops. Underarm hair is considered too sexual and unsightly outside of a sports setting.
You are watching it for free. If you don't like it, turn the channel. That's what's great about living in a free country. Next thing you know, peeps are going to gripe because they don't use completely naked men to advertise bath soap, and toilet paper.
While living in Australia, I was shocked to see to what degree male nudity was so accepted compared to the US. Sydney is just full of naked men. If you go the beach, you will see more men in speedos than women in bikinis -- by a long shot.
The male nude is still taboo in the US in certain contexts, but only moderately.
What what really offend the average heterosexual male in the US would be to have him walk in a room full of Tom of Finland pictures and http://www.gaysexcomics.com/pictures/big/gay_comics_by_etienne_big_6.jpg
I reckon that Abercrombie is leading the movement in the US to destigmatize male nudity in the public square:biggrin1:
On the USA East Coast opinion is that only gay men wear Speedos. In the Southern Hemisphere that is normal attire for life savers on public beaches, as well as being common for men of all sexual persuasions. I wore board shorts when surfing or a Speedo if swimming or lazing on a textile beach.
Yes, there are clothing optional beaches and many topless beaches. Those who are offended by naked human skin go to the beaches where the dress code is in line with their own thinking. That is freedom to dress as you want in areas designated for like-minded people. It is the same in Europe and many Asian countries, aside from Muslim countries.
Yes, there are clothing optional beaches and many topless beaches. Those who are offended by naked human skin go to the beaches where the dress code is in line with their own thinking. That is freedom to dress as you want in areas designated for like-minded people. It is the same in Europe and many Asian countries, aside from Muslim countries.
