From: petrescd@acf3.nyu.edu (Deivy Marck Petrescu)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.olympics
Subject: Re: American Arrogance - US Monolopy?
Date: 14 Aug 92 18:41:36 GMT
Organization: New York University



>In <1992Aug11.155002.14661@cmcl2.nyu.edu> petrescd@acf3.nyu.edu (Deivy Marck Petrescu) writes:

>>It  seems to me that the point of view shared
...
>>anything about their home country if there isn't a major
>>problem there?  Be it a war, earthquake or the like.

>What would you like them to say, Nothing major happened in Brazil today.
>The news media in general, reports only the major events, good and bad.
>I suspect the media in other countries are the same way.

Sorry if I was not clearer, but it seems to me that there is more
to a country than major   natural or man made accidents.  It seems
to me that it is really strange not to mention a country when there
are major political events going on, even though no one is wounded or
dead, or there is no famine. 
Also, we could discuss at lenght the concept of "major event".

>>Someone called my attention, on a plane crash they
>>say :"There were 3 Americans on board". What about the
>>rest???

>Every time I hear of such an accident they usually say "There were 20
>people on board, including 3 americans."  What did you expect them to do
>give a full break down of the nationalities of all the victims.
>BTW, if one of the american victims was from the same state, they will
>usually say, "There were 20 people on board, including 3 americans, one
>of whom was from Georgia."  If that victim were local, then they would
>also try to have some quotes from the grieving family.

Not really, but sometimes it sounds as if no other nationality
really matters. You know , it just sounds weird!

>Fact of life, the more local connections there are to any story, the more
>interesting it is.  This is true in other countries as well.
>So *please* give it a rest.

Only if you think that your country is the world. There are  parts of
the news that cover the nation and parts that cover the world, and  in
every other nation, the world means the set {the countries of the 
world - the country it is being broadcasted} ,except here where
the set   tends to be the complement.

>>I used to be like that. In France last year when Lewis broke the
>>wr for the 100m the newspaper ONLY wrote about him and how great
>>he was. I am not a frenchman. I  happened to be there and I witnessed
>>the event. Don't forget that the french people are considered #1
>>in chauvinism here.

>Were there any french atheletes who had a chance of winning.  If not
>I do not think your analogy holds.

I think that by the time the french team had the world   record, is this
good enough???

>>I do not   thing it is wrong to be biased or to show the sports
>>that are popular here or the ones   the "Americans" dominate, this
>>is normal and all countries would do it.
>>What is wrong is not to show something that would otherwise be
>>shown if the "Americans" are not there. This is wrong, and I
>>dont understand how this could  be acceptable.

>Excuse me but you just contradicted yourself here.  You seem to be saying
>that it is alright for countries to cover events in which they dominate
>but it is not alright for them to not cover events in which they do not
>dominate.

Sorry if I was not clearer, again! What I meant was, it is allright to
cover sports where the US dominates, or sports that are popular here.
What is VERY, VERY strange is the fact that if  you start covering a
sport like water polo or  volley ball, you do not cover  'til the end,
that is, the stations did not broadcast the gold medal competition of
those sports, which I believe it would be shown if the US had advanced
to the gold medal round.
You see, it gives us, mortals , the impression that the sport itself is
not  popular, what is really popular is to show your country wining (or
whining, depending on the sport). 
You should recolect what i've said about football, no one would think
about a network not showing the final of a world cup even if Brazil
had been eliminated. And, mind you, we are really big when it comes to
soccer.
Was I clear?

>To satisfy the second part, you would have to cover all sports equally,
>but then that would violate the first part.

See above!

>I think part of the problem is based on the size of the American team.
>You have admitted that all countries tend to cover their own athletes first,
>especially if those athletes are doing well.
>After covering their own athletes, the other countries move on to athletes
>in general.
>For the US, by the time the media has finished covering our athletes,
>there is not much time or space left for anybody else.
>Do you feel that our media should spend less time on each of our athletes
>than other countries media spend on theirs.

Part is answered above, the other part follows:
The US team is not only large, it is also excelent. So the
media here and almost all over the world would cover them.
Brazil has little tradition in T&F (but have!) if it would be
shown to us only the things that we had some chance, most of the
excelent US team (and some others, for that matter) would go totally
unnoticed. A great loss for us Brazilians, don't you think so?
So, show the athletes, but show them competing, not "soap" based on
their lifes and show the other countries athletes, may be you would
have the opportunity to see the people who would inspire you, and happen
not to be fromthe US. 
Be part of the world   (the set that i described including the country
excluded)!

>>The level of bias in the coverage of any event in the media
>>here in the US it is of such magnitude  that eventually things 
>>that are acceptable tend to become unacceptable.

>Please explain what you mean here, what things?

Sometimes, some of us get fed up with the fact that there is nothing
excluding those catastrophes mentioned above that would make the
media here show something about "us", not even a gold medal.

>--Mark

      Deivy 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.olympics