You cannot compete in swimming wearing a fucking burka. Ditto gymnastics and track. And it was so cold in London that most of the women's sand vb players were in tights and long sleeve shirts, and it still got covered, and it was great.

The original Olympics was all male and all nude.

they were wearing sort of bikinis. Google for pics.

Great venue too. Horseguards Parade ,converted for the occasion , which most abroad would only see for the annual Trooping of the Colour each year on the Queens birthday.

Can you imagine nude men's gymnastics
with all the hotties on our current team.

Whoo

socks, shoes. Normal athletic attire and (with the exception of shoes/socks) very similar to what the MEN wear in both indoor AND beach volleyball.

Now contrast that to women's beach volleyball, where bikinis are the "uniform" (with the exception of "colder weather" when they can don more clothing).



Look, I have nothing against the human body--male or female. But the focus really ought to be on the athleticism (and consistency).

The same sports that men participate in - do they wear more clothes?

Gymnastics and figure skating. Both fucking boring and not much in the way of baring all.

All told NBC will "invest" over $1 billion in rights and expenses in carrying the Olympics and they want the most bang for their buck. So do the advertisers who make the Olympics go now (amateur sport... :rofl and those who are putting money in the networks coffers.

The jury is out on how much is covered this year...on my cable I'm getting more Olympics than I know what to do with...men and women. The other day there was women's rowing, ping pong, dressage, cycling, soccer and basketball on my teevee...I was getting dizzy trying to keep up.

The deal is sex sells...and decades of telecasting Olympics means the networks know what people want to see and what are "loss leaders". I was joking with a female friend who was "concerned" about us "sexists" watching women's beach volleyball or swimming (it really doesn't do much for my libido) while I asked her if she liked watching men's swimming (in those tight speedos) and track? She sheepishly admitted guilty.

This is entertainment...nothing more.

They have been falling all over the gymnasts, swimmers, and track and field stars, as they tend to have the "pin-up" qualities. On the other hand, who is sponsoring weightlifter Sarah Robles, who is touted as "the strongest woman in America"? She was living on $400/mo. until Solve Media started sponsoring her just 2 weeks before the games started. Why? Her abilities are as impressive as anyone's, but she's 275 lbs. and built like a man. That's why you won't see her in all the Proctor & Gamble ads with all the "beautiful people", nor will you see her on prime time NBC.

And, I find it laughable that some here are pointing out that the beach volleyball players had shirts on the other night. You know damn well that event was scheduled for prime time because people were going to watch, expecting that they'd be in the bikinis, regardless of the temperature. You aren't going to see the female wrestlers on the broadcast network in prime time. I don't have cable or satellite. My exposure to wrestler Elena Pirozhkova will be limited to the photos of her lifting Michelle Obama. And, the only time I got to see Kimberly Rhode was when she was on the medals stand--not doing what she did to earn that medal. But, I sure get to see an awful lot of Jordyn Wieber, Natalie Coughlin, and those beach volleyball players, and every fucking, little detail of their lives, no matter how irrelevant. And, I think that sucks.

She's medalled in every Olympics she's been in and is still young enough to go in 2016. She had a 99 out of 100-unheard of! She deserves tons of coverage.

Jordyn Wieber-it needed to be covered. She's the reigning world champ and came in fourth overall, yet cannot compete in the all-around due to rules now stating that only two from each country can compete. Her story will be heard over and over in the next few days, showing how unfair the ruling can be. A number of coaches, not just from the US but from other countries, are not happy with this rule. They've stated that the top 24, period, should be in the all around, not two from each country to make the 24.

Natalie Coughlin-I'll give it up to her. She deserves the coverage, as does Missy Franklin. Then again, I have a swimmer in the family and we've put in our time with meets. They'll still never have quite the same coverage as the mens, not even in the swim magazines, which show up on our doorstep every other month like clockwork.

Personally, I'd love to see more coverage of other sports. Women's weightlifting will have little to no coverage and that's just wrong. Wrestling-we're lucky to have men's coverage in prime time. They usually show it as late night filler. There's no way they'll show women, even if the US takes home gold in every class.

I am saying that coverage of them is excessive, and at the expense of other athletes. Yes, it's sad and unfair that Jordyn Wieber won't be going to the finals. But, do they need to beat it like a dead horse? The same with Michael Phelps 4th place finish. They're analyzing it and reanalyzing it to death, while ignoring the all of the wrestlers, weight lifters, shooters, kayakers... Instead of spending 10 minutes discussing the latest theory on why Phelps didn't win on Saturday, they could have easily shown a minute or two of Kim Rhodes' medal-winning performance.

except a late night mention. She deserved prime time for an event that I've always been surprised wasn't more popular in the US. After hearing about her medal I called a friend. He said he had no idea that was even an event and wanted to see it. He then said maybe he'd find out a bit more about how to get his daughter involved-she's a heck of a shot.

Phelps fourth place finish-it could have stopped. It was too much.

I'm not big into gymnastics but the Wieber fiasco is going to get lots of coverage. The Russians, Chinese,and Romanians didn't look all that strong and she beat all but one of them out, yet they are fielding others in the all around. I do feel bad for her but NBC throwing a stink isn't going to do much. I don't care if every single American called the governing body for Olympic gymnastics and complained-they won't budge. Heck, they'd probably try to find a way to penalize the US. (Then again, they did that with Wieber. Sure, she was off but she was also consistently underscored last night.) Her story will be huge here because we, as Americans, love a good fight. Besides, the coverage is there because we're also good-we should easily take the gold.

The American men's gymnastics will get huge coverage because we are expected to take the gold for the first time since 1984.

What's not right is that prime time doesn't offer at least clips of wrestling, badmitten, other water events, more equestrian, etc. They all deserve more attention.

The women's swim teams' bathing suits come down to their knees and cover everything up top. All of the gymnast uniforms are modest. They are all athletes, they have to have freedom of movement.
The 2 American beach volleyball women wore long sleeved shirts with a bikini bottom. After they won the match against Australia, they were asked about this. They said that they train that way and feel more comfortable in the bikini bottom.
I'm sure that there are a lot of ways via the intertubes or BBC on tv that you can get coverage of every event. I watched women's weight lifting and rowing.


Here --
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021044841

Hell, they're more modest than the men's bathing suits. Ryan Lochte's is a few inches short of "banana hammock" status.

had some teeny tiny bathing suits as well.

... not the athletes. It suggests that the networks shows those sports that can be sexualized.

Some people could work up a poutrage over watching somebody eat a bowl of oatmeal.

This has little to do with NBC and more to do with what people demand.

That aside, I've seen all three events on TV already.



Do they mean more likely to show during prime time? Are they ignoring all the channels NBC is using for the Olympics except the "NBC Network" channel?

The NBC Network is the only one available to everyone. I don't have cable, so I don't get all those other channels, nor do millions of others. And, not all packages carry some of the networks, like NBC Sports. If you look at the schedule, you'll note that the prime time NBC events are the same damn stuff every day. It's all gymnastics, swimming, track and field, and diving. There are a few other token events in there, too, but it's all the supposedly more popular events. No badminton. No kayaking. No weightlifting. No fencing.

There, you can see whatever you want.

And, if I have the time and ability to sit in front of my computer to watch. A lot of people don't have access to the Internet, or have slow connections. That, and the lack of cable/satellite are the reason the study concentrated on the broadcast network. It eliminates the bias in the study. Everyone with a TV has access to broadcast TV. Not everyone has access to cable or satellite. Furthermore, not everyone with cable has a package that carries everything. People in my town who don't have the more expensive digital cable package don't get NBC Sports, Telemundo, or the the NBC Basketball network. I'm not sure they even get them in the digital package. A lot of cable networks carry MSNBC in higher tiers, as well.

I really don't care about the study, as it is common sense - the network is providing what we, the public, demand. I hate swimming and gymnastics, so I am in the same boat as you.

Except our new television has 3d and there is an Olympics 3d channel and I could stop watching the swimming on it.

women's water polo is on MSNBC.

MSNBC's morning programing is irrelevant to it.

Most people in this country have cable or satellite TV service. That means they have a number of options from which to choose for Olympic coverage. Limiting the study to prime-time over-the-air TV programming doesn't really present a clear picture. Of course NBC programs the sports likely to get the largest audiences for its prime-time coverage on the primary channel. It would be stupid not to do that. However, the audience can also choose other coverage of more minor sports or to fine-tune their Olympics viewing.

We don't just have three channels any longer. I remember when we did.

My sister doesn't have cable. My brother doesn't have cable. I have several friends without it. There are numerous people here at DU who have stated that they don't have cable. We have 10-15 broadcast channels. There are a lot more of us who don't have it than you seem to think. Lots of us do not get to see the "more minor" sports. That also includes those with cable/satellite packages that lack some of the networks, like NBC Sports.

And, yes, prime-time coverage DOES present a real picture. Most people are at work during the day. They are not watching any of the daytime coverage.

I'll have to stop and gawk. I'm a heterosexual male. It's what I do.

I've seen many comments on here about others admiring the men. No different.

This overanalyzed poutrage should be an Olympic sport.

Hell yeah.

Seek and ye shall find.

No one has yet said, 'This thread is useless without pictures.' DU must be having an off day.

We are sooo prudish in this country. It's the human body. Get over it.

I'm just guessing NBC is showing sports people want to watch. Since when did rowing and fencing draw TV ratings? Gymnastic draws female fans. Isn't the study totally useless without rating figures and asking people if they want to watch more women's air rifle?

If folks got to see more of the "minor" sports, they might find that they like them as much or more than the same events the network keeps showing night after night. Are certain events popular because the media and corporate sponsors hype them? Or, does the media hype them, and corporations sponsor on their popular athletes because they are popular?

You could force all NBC stations to broadcast wall-to-wall badminton, but I really doubt it is going to make a dent in the popularity of watching people run.

It would be interesting to see a similar analysis with respect to the winter games, which are dominated by ballerinas on ice.

ESPN and other channels show these fringe sports for years now. Every once in a while you get a break out sport like snow boarding, MMA or poker. Things like rowing and fencing are hardly "new" sports, they just don't appear to be popular viewing events. Other sports like boxing are waning in popularity. I think NBC has a pretty good guess at what people want to see. Between the on line chatter, twitter chatter, on line downloads, my guess is they have more information on what people want to watch than ever. Plus with so many ways to see the Olympics, it isn't like you can't find these sports covered if you want to see it.

and let us see the competitions.

U.S. women's skeet won a gold medal. The woman, Kim Rhodes, has medalled in every Olympics since 1996. I saw a two minute clip about it at the very end of the evening.

Why is this? It's not because it's skeet because Americans supposedly love their guns and would be fascinated with someone scoring a 99 out of 100. (This score has never happened before-she actually hit 99 out of 100 of her shots.) The women in skeet are not glamourous, and they wear "regular" clothes-polo shirts, pants, sometimes jackets.

I wonder if she had worn a bikini-do you think that her accomplishment in a bikini would make news? I think there'd be nonstop coverage.

Hockey is a 2-3 hour long prime time event with known athletes. That will get a lot of prime time coverage.