A major sports event is always accompanied by a mishap or two and the fear of a major security incident, but US reporting of Sochi 2014 has been dismissed in Russia as a 'dampener' and against the spirit of the Olympics.
Many Russians were dismayed by the pre-event reporting on US news networks, following warnings of terror and calling the area a "war zone". The coverage was described as dampening the excitement preceding the event.
There was nothing too remarkable in itself about the warnings of bombs in toothpaste tubes. The London 2012 Olympics event was also carried out under high security amid similar fears. Russia had already reacted to security concerns by restricting liquids and pastes on flights. It is also accepted that Russia will need to continue the security standard already set.
However, it is argued that some media outlets in America were overly creative when expressing their fears, with the warnings of war on the streets totally unwarranted. While it is true that Russia has had a recent struggle with terrorism, if anything it demonstrates that Russia's problems are not that different to America's.
It is felt in Russia there has been a cultural assault on the games for months. Television viewers in both the US and Britain were treated to imagery of poorly constructed toilets, sparsely-furnished hotel rooms and hotel accessories with components falling off. (Presumably by people who have never had the pleasure of staying or living in a "new build" home or hotel in the UK!)
There was also the moment which amused some, when there was a problem with the firework display at the opening ceremony. Russian TV was criticised for switching to footage of the faultless rehearsal display. It is unlikely that anyone else's media would have dealt with the glitch quite so efficiently.
American media lashed out at the firework display coverage as an example of how secretive and window-dressed Russian society remains.
The relative petty nature of pre-Sochi posturing distracts from an issue that many people, especially EU citizens, are concerned about - the status of homosexuality in Russia. The Russian President, Vladimir Putin, argued that while Russia accepts that "non-traditional" relationship activity takes place, it is against providing information on it to children. A new law has criminalised the presentation of information on homosexuality to children.
Critics say that the new law effectively prevents gay rights protests and educative communication regarding sexuality. Many competing nations appeared to respond the concerns at the opening ceremony of Sochi 2012 by wearing highly decorative suits, with the Germans looking particularly colourful.
Showing posts with label Olympic Games. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Olympic Games. Show all posts
Tuesday, 11 February 2014
Sunday, 29 July 2012
The left certainly not suckered in by the Olympics
'The London Olympics are the most right-wing major event in Britain’s modern history', proclaims Andrew Gilligan. In his article about the event, he correctly argues that the London Olympics provide advertising space for large corporations, that unsubstantial protests have been squashed and people have been kicked out of their homes. However, contrary to his claims, by having the audacity to actually enjoy the event, the left have not been "suckered in" by the Olympics.
The part of the event that Gilligan refers to that had us captivated (much more preferable to the phrase "suckered in") was the opening ceremony, brilliantly conceptualised by the director Danny Boyle. I enjoyed every minute of it and tweeted my delight during the latter hours of the event, therefore I missed parts of it. I will watch it again when time allows and I am looking forward to it already.
The opening ceremony was particularly outstanding because it provided an account of British history which meant something to the viewers. People I know from both the right and the left of the political spectrum loved it. There were few dissenters, despite my rather cynical network of friends.
My favourite part was the emergence of the industrial revolution, accompanied with lights, fireworks and high-energy music. Sadly, there was no Margaret Thatcher figure to smash it to pieces at the end of the episode to add to the accuracy of the proceedings.
The deliberately extended section celebrating the NHS told the world that our health service is something to be celebrated. After witnessing that, it is entirely up to the present government if they wish to smash that to pieces as well. If there is only the possibility that the show would make the coalition government think twice about dismantling the NHS, then it has contributed to the future of our nation in a small way.
The celebration of Britain's multiculturalism was sufficient to have some far-right politicians tweeting with rage, generally embarrassing themselves and playing a game of roulette with their careers in the process. And as for the appearance of Liberty's Shami Chakrabarti, I imagine that would have been the straw which broke the camel's back for many Tories.
It was the opening ceremony that had the lot. It had the lights, the pyrotechnics, tributes to my favourite bands of the past few decades, Dizzee Rascal, our finest sportspersons, Mr. Bean, animals, the Queen and James Bond.
Looking at the bigger picture, I appreciate the claims made by Gilligan. While I agree with his distaste about the influence of corporations, I warn him against selectivity. There is much to celebrate, particularly the inclusiveness encouraged. To witness Saudi Arabia shamed into including female athletes as part of their team is consistent with the Olympic spirit.
To witness countries I have never heard of bringing with them small teams, however nominal their performances turn out to be, delivers to people something that FIFA has never been able to achieve with football.
The leftists are right to celebrate this, yet we have not taken our eyes off the ball. Between appreciating the opening ceremony, there were also plenty of online updates about the plight of protesters in and around the Olympic event.
There is already an emerging anger about how corporations have swallowed up tickets for events and not used them, resulting in empty seats for events that the general public were disappointed to have missed out on. This ties in beautifully with theory (and not just among leftists) that corporations and banks are monumental wrecking machines responsible for a vast proportion of misery, economic or otherwise.
I am now looking forward to enjoying the sport, yet I remain aware of the wider issues of which the Olympics are a symptom rather than a cause. If we are to change corporate discourse, we must do so at the root of it, not at the expense of life and events operating within it, such as sporting events or even our own purchasing decisions.
Despite their presence at the Olympics, I am not about to start guzzling jugs of Coca-Cola or bags of McDonalds, but I will remain partial to the occasional indulgence. Saying the Olympics suckered in the left is akin to saying Starbucks was an inappropriate choice of coffee shop for last year's London occupiers campaigning against corporatism, despite the fact London is a ruthlessly competitive place for business, where the strongest prevail, with the result of limited purchasing options.
So where else do protesters go for an emergency coffee fix? And where else would we go to find the excitement of the Olympics?
The part of the event that Gilligan refers to that had us captivated (much more preferable to the phrase "suckered in") was the opening ceremony, brilliantly conceptualised by the director Danny Boyle. I enjoyed every minute of it and tweeted my delight during the latter hours of the event, therefore I missed parts of it. I will watch it again when time allows and I am looking forward to it already.
The opening ceremony was particularly outstanding because it provided an account of British history which meant something to the viewers. People I know from both the right and the left of the political spectrum loved it. There were few dissenters, despite my rather cynical network of friends.
My favourite part was the emergence of the industrial revolution, accompanied with lights, fireworks and high-energy music. Sadly, there was no Margaret Thatcher figure to smash it to pieces at the end of the episode to add to the accuracy of the proceedings.
The deliberately extended section celebrating the NHS told the world that our health service is something to be celebrated. After witnessing that, it is entirely up to the present government if they wish to smash that to pieces as well. If there is only the possibility that the show would make the coalition government think twice about dismantling the NHS, then it has contributed to the future of our nation in a small way.
The celebration of Britain's multiculturalism was sufficient to have some far-right politicians tweeting with rage, generally embarrassing themselves and playing a game of roulette with their careers in the process. And as for the appearance of Liberty's Shami Chakrabarti, I imagine that would have been the straw which broke the camel's back for many Tories.
It was the opening ceremony that had the lot. It had the lights, the pyrotechnics, tributes to my favourite bands of the past few decades, Dizzee Rascal, our finest sportspersons, Mr. Bean, animals, the Queen and James Bond.
Looking at the bigger picture, I appreciate the claims made by Gilligan. While I agree with his distaste about the influence of corporations, I warn him against selectivity. There is much to celebrate, particularly the inclusiveness encouraged. To witness Saudi Arabia shamed into including female athletes as part of their team is consistent with the Olympic spirit.
To witness countries I have never heard of bringing with them small teams, however nominal their performances turn out to be, delivers to people something that FIFA has never been able to achieve with football.
The leftists are right to celebrate this, yet we have not taken our eyes off the ball. Between appreciating the opening ceremony, there were also plenty of online updates about the plight of protesters in and around the Olympic event.
There is already an emerging anger about how corporations have swallowed up tickets for events and not used them, resulting in empty seats for events that the general public were disappointed to have missed out on. This ties in beautifully with theory (and not just among leftists) that corporations and banks are monumental wrecking machines responsible for a vast proportion of misery, economic or otherwise.
I am now looking forward to enjoying the sport, yet I remain aware of the wider issues of which the Olympics are a symptom rather than a cause. If we are to change corporate discourse, we must do so at the root of it, not at the expense of life and events operating within it, such as sporting events or even our own purchasing decisions.
Despite their presence at the Olympics, I am not about to start guzzling jugs of Coca-Cola or bags of McDonalds, but I will remain partial to the occasional indulgence. Saying the Olympics suckered in the left is akin to saying Starbucks was an inappropriate choice of coffee shop for last year's London occupiers campaigning against corporatism, despite the fact London is a ruthlessly competitive place for business, where the strongest prevail, with the result of limited purchasing options.
So where else do protesters go for an emergency coffee fix? And where else would we go to find the excitement of the Olympics?
Wednesday, 6 June 2012
The Olympics - what could possibly go wrong?
Hopefully London 2012 will pass without incident, but anyone who has had the (mis)fortune of living in London at any time of their life will know the place is generally quite crowded and full of little traps. These days, my only experiences of London are typically as a commuter. To put it another way, my experiences of London are not particularly pleasurable ones. So what could possibly go wrong at the forthcoming Olympics? Here are some ratings of potential incidents that could ruin the big event.
#1 Airport check-in chaos: The government, whose policies threatened organised chaos at the Queen's jubilee celebrations, threaten the Olympics massively. Government cuts have led to a much-publicised shortage of border staff at airports. I hope the vast amount of people expected to fly over for the event are preparing themselves with sleeping equipment for the long wait at check-in. Likelihood of chaos: 9/10
#2 Train meltdown: I am hopeful that first and foremost, Britain's train drivers will be good sports and put any industrial action on hold until after the event. Public support is essential to the success of a good strike, so I am sure this would be the case. More of an immediate concern is specific to the London Underground and its incapability to handle the number of passengers the Olympics will generate. Anyone who has used the London Underground will be aware of the incessant line closures and miserable overcrowding. Anyone unfortunate enough to use the Piccadilly Line to Heathrow Airport may have experienced the frustration of having to unship all their luggage on to the platform of Northfields station, as an airport-bound train is unexpectedly terminated there. Transport for London will surely not close lines and clip services at times of such high demand. More alarming is the London Underground's tendency to break down. The grim reality is the system is bound to grind down at some stage of the event. Likelihood of chaos: 8/10
#3 Britain's athletes disappoint: In comparison to the other concerns listed here, this may seem a trivial point, but there is a serious aspect to it. The home nation's success at the Olympics would be great for national morale. The potential problem here is that our medal haul will be measured against the success of our last Olympics campaign in Beijing, where results exceeded expectations. Home advantage should keep the medals ticking over as long as we maintain realistic expectations. Likelihood of chaos: 4/10
#4 Terrorist atrocity: Relax, the government has got this! The military will be on hand to make sure that anyone wishing to mastermind an attack during the Olympics will not get an easy ride. Perhaps less encouraging are the private contracts given to security inside the arenas, therefore we will have to keep our fingers crossed that safety is not compromised over cost. It is a good thing that despite the permanence of fear generated by terror (which is the idea of terrorism, of course), actual attacks are rare. Such is the fear of terrorism though, the feeling that something could happen will not go away. Likelihood of chaos: 3/10
So there is my pessimistic outlook for the forthcoming Olympic Games in London. On a more positive note, win or lose, I am sure Jessica Ennis will brighten up the games with her presence. Good luck to all taking part.
#1 Airport check-in chaos: The government, whose policies threatened organised chaos at the Queen's jubilee celebrations, threaten the Olympics massively. Government cuts have led to a much-publicised shortage of border staff at airports. I hope the vast amount of people expected to fly over for the event are preparing themselves with sleeping equipment for the long wait at check-in. Likelihood of chaos: 9/10
#2 Train meltdown: I am hopeful that first and foremost, Britain's train drivers will be good sports and put any industrial action on hold until after the event. Public support is essential to the success of a good strike, so I am sure this would be the case. More of an immediate concern is specific to the London Underground and its incapability to handle the number of passengers the Olympics will generate. Anyone who has used the London Underground will be aware of the incessant line closures and miserable overcrowding. Anyone unfortunate enough to use the Piccadilly Line to Heathrow Airport may have experienced the frustration of having to unship all their luggage on to the platform of Northfields station, as an airport-bound train is unexpectedly terminated there. Transport for London will surely not close lines and clip services at times of such high demand. More alarming is the London Underground's tendency to break down. The grim reality is the system is bound to grind down at some stage of the event. Likelihood of chaos: 8/10
#3 Britain's athletes disappoint: In comparison to the other concerns listed here, this may seem a trivial point, but there is a serious aspect to it. The home nation's success at the Olympics would be great for national morale. The potential problem here is that our medal haul will be measured against the success of our last Olympics campaign in Beijing, where results exceeded expectations. Home advantage should keep the medals ticking over as long as we maintain realistic expectations. Likelihood of chaos: 4/10
#4 Terrorist atrocity: Relax, the government has got this! The military will be on hand to make sure that anyone wishing to mastermind an attack during the Olympics will not get an easy ride. Perhaps less encouraging are the private contracts given to security inside the arenas, therefore we will have to keep our fingers crossed that safety is not compromised over cost. It is a good thing that despite the permanence of fear generated by terror (which is the idea of terrorism, of course), actual attacks are rare. Such is the fear of terrorism though, the feeling that something could happen will not go away. Likelihood of chaos: 3/10
So there is my pessimistic outlook for the forthcoming Olympic Games in London. On a more positive note, win or lose, I am sure Jessica Ennis will brighten up the games with her presence. Good luck to all taking part.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)