Friday, February 19, 2010

The "worst Olympics ever".

Well we're still in the first week of the Vancouver Olympics and the international media is calling it the "worst Olympics ever" (over 7,000 Google references and counting).

The UK media is especially frothing at the mouth - denouncing everything about the games and calling them a total "disaster".

I find this fascinating. Not whether or not the games are the worst ever (though I would think Munich and the Nanzi games would probably be the worst), but why the media is saying this...

Fascinating. The British are hosting the London Olympics in two years, so why would they call Vancouver's the worst? To make themselves look better? Low self-worth? Trolling so they can sell more newspapers?

***

A couple interesting points and theories:

The exaggeration is incredible. To say that these Olympics are a nightmare and a disaster, using examples about a Zamboni breaking down and warm weather is a bit silly. The worst thing about the Games was the death of the luger and that wasn't really anybody's fault.

I think North American cities always get more criticism of the Games than European cities - possibly because we hype them more and so expectations are so high.

Every Games has problems: Salt Lake City = bribing the IOC, Beijing = pollution and human rights violations. Atlanta = logistical nightmares. Nothing works perfectly.

The Olympics is about competition between elite athletes. That's the true spirit of the games. The extras like the ceremonies and the concerts and just that - extras. You don't need them to have a good games.

The best way for Canadians to deal with the criticism is ignore it. The more we react, the worse we look.

No comments:

Post a Comment