NBC taking drama out of Olympics with delayed coverage

BY ERIN K. O'NEILL

I knew Lindsey Vonn won Olympic gold in the woman’s downhill ski hours before it aired in the perpetual present on NBC. I also knew Vonn crashed in the super combined way before NBC even pretended it happened. Sports are not fun to watch on tape delay, especially in the Internet age, where we technophiles are constantly jacked into a stream of news.

I would even go so far as to say that even if you are not emotionally attached to your laptop and Twitter feeds, there is no escaping dreaded Olympics results spoilers. Between word-of-mouth and incidental media consumption, news of the Olympics can't be avoided if you engage in the modern world.

NBC, the broadcast network home of America’s Olympic coverage for as long as I can remember (that would be the summer games of 1992 in Barcelona, Spain), has not adjusted at all to this new media landscape. Which is funny, considering NBC achieved the first live color television broadcast via satellite by airing the opening ceremonies of the 1964 Summer Olympics in Tokyo.

A typical prime time night of Olympics is a mixed bag of live and tape-delayed sports, with Bob Costas in a studio with a fake fireplace trying not to get excited when Dutch speed skaters beat Shani Davis. But most annoying, and not to mention borderline dishonest, is NBC’s insistence on not quite telling the viewer if the event is live or not. I was frankly unsure if Shaun “The Flying Tomato” White’s victory in the snowboard halfpipe was live until I heard some language that is sure-to-be FCC-fine-inducing.

The figure skating is sure to be shown live, and every now and again there is a small icon telling you the viewer that you're watching in real time. But the skiing, a glamorous and therefore prime-time worthy sport, takes place during the day in Vancouver, B.C., and if you just watched the nightly NBC Olympic telecast, you would have no idea. Perhaps daylight is a dead give away on TV, but if you're watching ski jumping at 7 p.m. CST, it is 5 p.m. in Vancouver and before sunset. There is no acknowledgment that the sporting events being shown took place hours before. Full and constant disclosure of whether the event is live or tape delayed is crucial.

Sports are inherently dramatic. And NBC is killing it. There is no suspense, no drama, no thrill of the win and no urgency when most of the audience already knows the results. The disconnect between the audience and the broadcast presentation is a serious detriment to the coverage.

I get the appeal, for NBC, of having prime events in prime time. But that is a very old media approach. And sure, even if I already knew Vonn bit the big one in the super combined, I still want to see it happen (and even in prime time). NBC Universal has tons of networks between its free-to-air and cable television holdings, and the potential to have beyond amazing Olympic coverage. What if skiing was shown live in the morning on CNBC or MSNBC, with a highlight reel in prime time? Or what's wrong with showing live events on NBC itself; can’t “Days of Our Lives” have two weeks off every two years? I am infinitely frustrated when I turn my TV to NBC to see soap operas when a real-life athletic soap opera is going on, unseen by American eyes.

The Internet could be utilized to a much greater effect. For the Vancouver games, NBC is live-streaming all of the hockey and curling and offering replays of other events. But frankly, the video site is much like the broadcast production: flashy and confusing. And the video player made me download a new piece of software. The site lacks the simplicity and elegance of Hulu, a free Internet TV site, also owned by NBC Universal.

The Olympics are the most exciting sporting event in the world, with only the possible exception of the FIFA World Cup. One Olympic flame; two weeks; 82 countries; and 258 gold, silver and bronze medals to be won. This is the stuff that dreams are really made of.

If only NBC treated it that way.

Erin K. O'Neill is a former assistant director of photography and page designer for the Missourian. She is also a master's degree candidate at the Missouri School of Journalism.

Published in the Columbia Missourian on Wednesday, February 24, 2010.

Statistics show progress, 'Pride and Prejudice' in the women's movement

BY ERIN K. O'NEILL

“It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife.” ~Jane Austen, "Pride and Prejudice," 1813.

Some interesting statistics came out last week regarding the strides women have made as economic forces in marriage.  “A larger share of men in 2007, compared with their 1970 counterparts, are married to women whose education and income exceed their own ... A larger share of women are married to men with less education and income,” according to the study “Women, Men and the New Economics of Marriage" from the Pew Research Center.

The study found that among American men and women ages 30 to 44, 22 percent of married men had wives who made more money in 2007, as compared to just four percent in 1970. The study also found in 2007, 19 percent of married women had husbands with more education, while 28 percent of wives had husbands with less education.

It may not seem revelatory today that women have gained so much ground from 1970 to 2007.  Of course, to truly understand the current economics of gender roles and marriage, we must look to the past. Before the Women's Movement of the 20th Century, the economic progress toward equality for women in marriage was tortoise-like.

To wit, I offer the case of Miss Jane Austen, whom published four novels from 1811 to 1817, and two novels posthumously in 1818. Miss Austen’s six novels centered around maintaining England’s social structure through marriage. While political action takes place off stage in the novels, the Napoleonic wars, the War of 1812 and the establishment of a regent at the head of the monarchy, were all causes of domestic unrest in Austen’s lifetime.

But, the “truth universally acknowledged,” is that young women were seeking a single man of good fortune in order to secure their own economic and social security (not the other way around; Miss Austen is a noted ironist). A woman could not inherit money or property, and upon marriage any assets she may possess became property of her husband. Divorce was nearly impossible, and mothers had no custody rights.

It is very little coincidence that many of the marriages in Miss Austen’s novels are not only for love or passion, but are also financially advantageous for the woman. After all, Mr. Darcy is worth ten-thousand pounds per year (the equivalent of $6 million today), while Elizabeth Bennet’s family is in danger of losing their land because the family had no male heir.

All of Miss Austen’s novels tend to paint a rosy interpretation of the marriage state in the nineteenth century. It helps that Hollywood and the BBC have made a specialty of filming these stories so they are particularly attractive to modern women; after all, Miss Austen was the originator of the RomCom. But modern audiences tend to lose sight of the basic fact that it was once a woman’s only destiny to be a man’s possession.

Miss Jane Austen’s world is fascinating, but it would be badly done to foster any desire to emulate it.

Which is why the statistics on modern marriage are so telling. Laws guaranteeing equality in heterosexual marriage have been established—it has been generations since a woman has been considered the property of her husband. But this change in law didn't have nearly the material effect on the economic power of women in marriage as a sea-change in cultural expectations. Once the popularly-held belief that a woman's sole purpose was to be a man's wife was expunged, rapid progress has been made.

“This reshuffling of marriage patterns from 1970 to 2007 has occurred during a period when women’s gains relative to men’s have altered the demographic characteristics of potential mates,” the Pew Research Center reported. Americans are marrying less, and at later ages, and more women are now graduating from university than men. The strides women have made in education certainly account for much of the economic gain, with and without marriage vows.

Erin K. O'Neill is a former assistant director of photography and page designer for the Missourian. She is also a master's degree candidate at the Missouri School of Journalism.

Published in the Columbia Missourian on Wednesday, February 10, 2010.