Comments on: “Never the Twain Shall (Track) Meet”: Jeffrey Sonnenfeld and Olympic Lies

By: J Chan

J Chan — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 00:16:12 +0000

“Manufactured perfection.” Can anyone tell us a perfection that is not manufactured?

By: Christopher Neil Payne

Christopher Neil Payne — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 00:41:52 +0000

Dear Morgan: True, very true. I agree with your points… it was just that it seems the net has been inundated by posts still talking about the Olympics sans politics, or in contrast, talking about how they are overtly political… and then (most distressing I feel) trying to assign values. I would like to suggest that instead of talking about how things can be without politics, isn’t it perhaps more constructive to acknowledge the politics and then find productive ways to work within that ideology as opposed to always railing against the system? Revolutions are healthy things now and then, but sometimes working within the ISAs we find ourselves in can be more effective (maybe).

In any event, no offence was meant by my previous post.

By: Jason Lee

Jason Lee — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 00:26:47 +0000

I think the whole notion of China manipulating the Olympics to perfection is laughable. Western media loves to demonize China… Why doesn’t the media ever mention the winter Olympics in Utah. Last time I heard, Utah “manipulated” IOC to award the city. Fake fire works, lip singing, and diapers are nothing compared to IOC bribes. As for the media’s role in all of this, I wish that it would uphold it’s responsibility to report news in a fair and balanced manner.

By: Morgan Pitelka

Morgan Pitelka — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 21:02:30 +0000

Hi Christopher – I think that was sort of what I was saying as well, no? That the critique of China for trying to mount a “perfect” games, and for manipulateing the whole event to perform a new version of Chinese culture and identity for the world, that this critique is simplistic. Many have noted that the games are inherently political. I didn’t at any point say I was offended or surprised to discover that broadcasts of the olympics were spun in different ways in different countries. I just don’t think most American analysts, including academics, pay enough attention to the “glocalized” faceting that occurs as the game is broadcast around the globe . . .

By: C. W. Hayford

C. W. Hayford — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 17:55:11 +0000

Good point. My objection was to judging “East” and “West” by different standards.

By: Christopher Neil Payne

Christopher Neil Payne — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 01:19:00 +0000

It seems odd looking at these posts and others, and seeing people surprised at the nationalistic perspective(s) given to the Olympic Games as broadcast in the various participating countries. Of course each national broadcast station is going to primarily cover its national team. Whilst I did not watch much, I live in South Korea, so it seemed like archery, baseball, and taekwondo were the only sports. But I am Canadian, and when I’d look at the CBC (Canada’s national broadcaster), the first week was all about the failure of Canadian atheletes as they couldn’t win any medals; how the whole Olympic programme was a failure; and about how embarrassing Vancouver in 2010 will be. Then the second week roles around and it is the reverse as the Canadian team won more medals in total than the last games in Greece. THE OLYMPICS ARE POLITICAL AND NATIONALISTIC, of course they will be. AND SO, TOO, WILL NATIONAL BROADCASTS BE NATIONALISTIC. To think otherwise is naive. And trying saying whether this is positive or negative, is equally naive. Let us stop deluding ourselves and thinking that the Olympics can be free from politics. Nothing is free from politics… and that too is neither good nor bad.

By: C. W. Hayford

C. W. Hayford — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 01:16:26 +0000

Nice point, Morgan — you take the discussion to a whole new level, one where Orwell, Marshall Mcluan,the Karls Marx & Rove, P.T. Barnum, and the Wizard of Oz dance around holding hands and laugh and trade insights into how best to mix politics, mastery of mass media, chicanery, and illusion!

By: Morgan Pitelka

Morgan Pitelka — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 04:18:28 +0000

Sonnenfield’s piece betrays his misperception of the games, namely, that they actually happen in one place in any kind of meaningful or authentic way. Of course a few million people attend the actual Olympic event, and Sonnenfield claims that his “behind the scenes” research reveals the truth about Beijing and other games. But far, far more people watch them on TV, in every country in the world, mediated by the state and corporate interests that filter the representation of the games that comes out of the boob-tube wherever you happen to be watching. The best attended Olympics in history, at least up until Beijing, was Atlanta in 1996, which sold a total of around 8 million tickets. 30 million people tuned in to watch ONE NIGHT of the Beijing Olympics in the U.S. alone; worldwide, it must have been close to a billion viewers. And all of these people are watching only the events that their network chooses to broadcast, with the particular spin offered by their national or channel commentators. How can anyone talk abotu the

In the summer of 1996, I was living in Beijing, and watched much of the Atlanta Olympics on Chinese state television. The view of the games that was presented to me was one in which China was completely dominant. Total medal counts were never presented, and events in which the Chinese were weak seemingly didn’t even exist. And to be honest, watching the Beijing Olympics here in the U.S. this year, I had pretty much an identical experience in reverse. Of course I could see all the obscure sports at which Americans suck by looking at the NBC website or staying up until 5 and watching MSNBC, but instead, if I watched the primetime show, what I saw was an ostensibly objective but in fact blatantly nationalist presentation of America’s fantasy version of the Olympics. Most nations offer a spin on the Olympics that suits the expectations and needs of their viewers; we all see “manufactured perfection.” So I agree with you that Sonnenfield’s explanation is too simplistic. He just hasn’t seen enough versions of the games.