Americans would say that they won the Beijing Olympics. With 110 medals, it's hard to question that claim. Unless, of course, you have 15 more gold medals.
I often find a clear disconnect in the presentation of certain issues and news between the American media and the media at home. The rankings on both the official Beijing Olympics Web site and China Central TV placed the People's Republic of China at the top, with 51 gold and 100 total medals. CNN, on the other hand, had the United States as the clear winner with 110 total medals.
There was an article online earlier in the summer that discussed how the Chinese media handled the Olympics. In the article, the writer accused the Chinese media of solely focusing on Chinese athletes, providing only live feeds of events when they were competing, and switching away when participants from a different nations were about to take their turns.
I definitely had my fair share of this at home. With two major TV broadcasters in Hong Kong (there are more, but the average family doesn't own cable), each with an English and a Cantonese channel, I found that the Chinese channels tended to focus on Chinese players, rather than their fellow competitors, and I got quite frustrated. I wanted to hear something about the Australian diver, or the German marksman, or even the Argentinean basketball team.
After talking to my friends about the Olympics here at BC, however, I realized that the same was true here in the United States. NBC favored broadcasting events that Americans were participating in, sometimes preferring to show obscure sports with an American representation rather than relatively more popular sports absent from American participation.
While the patriotic fervor such broadcasting decisions brought about was definitely welcome for an international competition, perhaps a little moderation was needed on both sides to allow people to fully enjoy and watch the games. Not only did it prevent me from seeing my beloved Aussies dominate the women's 4x200-meter freestyle, but it also painted an upsetting picture of a war, of sorts, between the Chinese and the Americans, at a time when tensions between the two countries were already running high.
Granted, not all international news and issues are usually greeted with such disparity by the media. However, it's a little disturbing when it seems as if the media has an overwhelming impact on how their respective peoples perceive the world beyond their national borders.
Earlier this semester, my professor introduced the class to our subject matter - China - by asking us what we felt about the Olympics opening ceremony. A few hands went up, and people mentioned how they thought the many performances, with generous use of manpower, were impressive and breathtaking. Then, another hand went up.
"I thought it was kind of weird. I mean, were the Chinese trying to scare us with their numbers or something?"
Talk about a difference in interpretation. What I saw as a moving show of unity and solidarity for my people, following a year of incredible hardship, was essentially taken as a declaration of power, even aggression.
And it's not only the Olympics. From the minimal coverage of the Sichuan earthquake in the American media to the lack of news reports on Hurricane Ike in the Chinese media, international news and media networks need to provide more cohesive and extensive global exposure. Misunderstanding, conflict, and even stereotypes can easily arise when the media gives overly biased accounts of stories and issues. While there is definitely a need for free speech and differences in opinion to move societies forward, I feel that there are also times when the media must be responsible in knowing what effect their broadcasts and publications can have on people. Competition and rooting for the "home" team is one thing, but why cause unnecessary tension?
Be the first to comment on this article!