It seems inevitable that every two years the Olympics become the center of some type of controversy or scandal, and this year’s summer games in China are no exception. So far, we have experienced a drug scandal with the Greek weightlifting team, questions about China’s air pollution causing harm to the athletes, and protests directed at China’s policies regarding Tibet and Darfur. The drug scandal could be considered a legitimate news story and the athlete’s health concerns are of interest to most sports fans, but what about Tibet and Darfur? Chapter 12 in The Handbook of Sports and Media suggests that the mainstream media trivializes anti-Olympic activists at the behest of corporate sponsors and the IOC.
Even The New York Times, one of the most liberal newspapers in America, has been reluctant to take a stand with the activists. Times writer George Vecsey goes so far as to agree with President Bush that any boycott of the opening ceremony would be counterproductive.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/sports/othersports/16vecsey.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=sports+scandal&st=nyt&oref=slogin
Vecsey also suggests that the Olympics have always been shrouded in controversy and scandal and that corporate America is to blame. Do you think that network television will shield their corporate sponsors from political controversy during the Olympics? Does it matter where the games are held, or should they be treated as a totally separate entity, immune from political controversy? Should the President bow to political pressure and boycott the opening ceremony?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think network television will shield their corporate sponsors from political controversy because they can’t risk not having that kind of support from the sponsors. I am on the fence about the role the Olympics should or has the ability to play this year. It shouldn’t matter where the Olympics is held, but it does. There were always going to be issues, people will always find something to complain about. But in this case, I think there are two legitimate issues at hand- the air quality and pollution will affect the athletes and their ability to compete (better stock up on extra steroids) and the political controversy.
On the one hand, the Olympics is one of, it not the biggest sporting events watched internationally and would be an excellent opportunity to clue the rest of the world into the political/social problems going on. There are a lot of ignorant and unaware people out there and this could be the introduction to a whole other world. But, that said, it is not the responsibility of the Olympics to do that. It would be more convenient than anything else. We should just be celebrating the sports and nothing more. There is a time and a place for everything, and since they planned an entire event to celebrate the international sports, then it should be that and nothing more.
To boycott the ceremony would be a shame and overshadowing what this event is about. The politicians should be happy that the Olympics was able to shed light on the political and social unrest that is going on in that, and other parts of the world, and not boycott it- because really, little good comes from protest; a lot more comes from action. They should now use the media coverage the Olympics as a stepping stone to take responsibility for certain issues that have garnered attention to maintain people’s involvement AFTER the ceremonies have taken place, not in place of them.
While loosely related to politics, there is a part in the Handbook on page 214 that reads “admittedly, confronting the powerful Olympic industry puts these groups in a David-and-Goliath situation,” referring to the “local and global justice organizations.” (214), that are competing with the Olympics to change their ways. Judging by George Vecsey’s article as well as all of Chapter 12 in the Handbook, the Olympics looks like it has a host of its own problems that need to be cleaned up before it can get involved with cleaning up politics.
It seems like the world we live in today is far different from that of Ancient Greece, where the Olympics originated. There is so much competition surrounding the Games, and not just among the athletes. Countries spend a lot of time and money to be chosen as host, in what Helen Jefferson Lenskyi refers to as a "cutthroat competition" (Handbook 205). But, things are not so different. In Ancient Greece, various groups competed in a similar "cutthroat" fashion to be in control of the Games. The term is even more appropriate because they often resorted to violence to gain this control. Just like today, control was a symbol of political power. So, even then, the Olympics were not immune to political influences.
Also, this is certainly not the first year that there has been political tension and controversy surrounding the Olympics. When all of the countries of the world are coming together in one place, it's impossible to put aside political agendas. Although we'd like the athletes and their talent to be the only focus, it's not realistic.
Though boycotts have occured before, it's not surprising that President Bush is resistant to the idea. Deciding to boycott makes a strong poltical statement. It also elicits extreme negative and positive responses from the people of your country. The media also plays a large role in the Olympics and has influence on the President. If he were to decide to boycott, there would be serious ramifications on a number of fronts, and long term impact would have to be considered.
I don't think that a boycott is necessarily the best way to send out whatever message President Bush wants. The protests that have been going on throughout the world have already made the world more informed on the issues of Tibet and Darfur. Without these 2008 Olympic Games, I personally wouldn't know about these issues, and I don't think I'm alone in that.
With that being said, it is not the responsibility of the Olympics, or anyone involved, to highlight these problems for the masses. It is simply a personal choice on whether these issues are so important to someone that they feel the need to make it known to the public.
One of the main issues is whether the right to do such things will be denied in China. Chapter 7 of MediaSport states: "Freedom of expression includes both the right of the citizenry to know, the right to speak or communicate through other modes of expression without acquiring the permission to do so from authorities, and the right to express opinions without the risk of the law forbidding citizens to do so."
As we've talked about in class, athletes like Tiger Woods and LeBron James have been criticized for not taking public stances against the topic or racism. Will these same critics stand up if U.S. athletes don't take a stand against the crimes that are being committed around the world? Probably not. But they should at least keep the right to do so, despite what the Chinese government or the IOC says.
I personally think there should be a seperation between politics and the Olympics but that's just me.
In addition to pointing out the ignorance of the mainstream media towards anti-Olympic activists, Chapter 12 of the Handbook also points out how Olympic studies specialists/researchers also fail to legitimize anti-Olympic activists. I don't have a problem with that.
I freely admit that more often than not, the host country of the Olympics has a major (if not multiple) political conflict that concerns the rest of the world. However, when I think of the Olympics, I think of a world-wide competition and not so much about the host country itself.
Sure, the host country benefits greatly from the exposure and interest in the games but the Olympic games are such a great tradition that our world has celebrated for many of years.
If we spend more time focusing on the political issues rather than the games themselves, then we've sabotaged the games and what they stand for. In fact, I look at the Olympics as a time for all the participating nations to put aside their differences and come together for the good of competition and national pride.
Boycotting the opening ceremonies, the games themselves, or protesting against the games may have a short-term effect, but the problems will still exist no matter what. Why waste an opportunity that only comes along every 2 years to take a stand on something that has nothing to do with the Olympic games?
There's a reason that countries around the world have political leaders who spend their lives addressing political issues facing their nation. The Olympics shouldn't be about that. It should be about putting aside our differences and celebrating a great competition between the most gifted amateur athletes representing their respective nations.
Post a Comment