There is a conversation here about this, personally I think it should be the Olympic starter, not after the closing ceremony. Thoughts?
I'm not bothered which way round they are scheduled, but they should be before the closing ceremony (not explained well)
Opening, Olympics, Paralympics, Close
Opening, Paralympics, Olympics, Close
Another point is they should also get equal coverage. Will they get the 24 channels that the Olympics had on Sky, I think not
You need the massive interest generated by the Olympics to fuel the Paralympics.
The interest peaks by the close of the Olympics, and the Paralympics benefits from this massively, with people realising there is still a chance to get to events.
If you ran them the other way,, I'd imagine the interest would be pretty low, with people saying they're waiting for the real action, and saving their money and time.
It all a little too low key for my liking
It will hopefully build up when the events start but at the moment there is not enough of a build up. The Olympics started off bonkers and didnt let up until the Spice Girls left the stage. I fear the Paralympics are all a little too tasteful.
definitely lowkey and not sure it will get the same respect or audiences being on channel 4.
also, sure as f*cking f*ck it shouldnt have ATOS as sponsors
Agree with many of those above - without the Olympics preceding them they'd get a fraction of the interest they are going to get now. It'll be great for the athletes to compete in front of a full house and I bet the TV audiences and even the media coverage will be that much greater because there is still a bit of a buzz from the Olympics.
It wont get the same audiences as the Olympics of course but then why should it - the athletes work hard but then lots of people work hard at lots of things and don't expect whatever it is to be screened live on TV irrespective of whether there is a demand to watch it.
No, but I think that if you get the TV rights to broadcast the Olympics you should have to broadcast the paralympics. Did you know US TV isn't showing them? It's an outrage.
I'll hold thoughts on channel 4 until afterwards, if the coverage is as shocking as the World Champs last year... but the point was about US TV.
I'm really disapointed that the paralympics are on channel 4...I don't like any their presenters for athletics when they cover those and I found one of their ads (for a late night catch up of events) quite distasteful.
dancing in spikes
Not sure how you could force the broadcasters in a country to bid for TV rights to any event. If they thought their was an audience to watch it they would have bid, obviously they don't.
Why are the events separate. Why are they not one event? Why are they not held together? Are paralympians a sub species? Why is there discrimination?
Ignoring any argument about logistics. That can be overcome.
Perhaps that question, Mouse, should be put to the organisers of the paralympics, and to the athletes?
Maybe they want it to be separate?
On the TV issue, I didn't watch much of the olympics, and will probably not watch any of the paralympics. The part of the opening ceremony I saw last night was definitely poorer for being interrupted by ads, and the commentators were not up to much either.
But then, I don't much like watching sport on telly (I'm going to the stadium to watch athletics on Monday, though!)
T.Mouse, I get the impression that the Paralympians are very much proud of their event and, logistics aside, would be incredibly miffed if they were combined with the Olympics.
It is an entirely separate event, with very different origins and a completely different governing body.
Wouldn't it be a bit like saying, "why are the Winter Olympics not combined with the Olympics"? Again, logistics aside.
ATOS are only the messenger, really, on the benefits issue. They are acting on the government's decisions.
The responsibility for the changes lies with the Government, who have put a lot of (our) money into the olympics and paralympics.
If you're going to reject money-providers on that basis, the government should be rejected!
It's difficult because if someone offered me a highly paid job working for them I'd probably take it - but ultimately you are responsible for what you do and the fact the govt are paying you for it isn't an excuse.
Visit the official Runner's World page
Follow Runner's World on Twitter
Other Natmag-Rodale Sites
Run For Charity
About Runner's World
Runner's World is a publication of Hearst Magazines UK which is the trading name of The National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.
Website powered by: Immediate Media Company Ltd. | © Runner's World 2002-2013 |