Paralympic Discrimination?

[Team Fail]

So, who here watched the 2010 Winter Olmpics?

... Ok, so what if you did. That's beside the point. What I'm talking about is the Paralympics. I noticed something. During the Olympics, they were extensively comered on all of Canada's and the US' major networks, like Sportsnet, TSN, CTV, CBC, ABC, and NBC. Than comes along the Paralympics. They are only broadcast on Sportsnet. The only way any other station covers it it by breaking news in the sports section of the news or Olympic Alerts. I don't think it's very fair that the Paralympics aren't covered as much as the Olympics. In fact, I think it's discrimatory. What do you think? Should the Paralympics be more watched, like tje Olympics, or shouldn't they?

[IceSage]

Originally Posted by Team Fail

So, who here watched the 2010 Winter Olmpics?

... Ok, so what if you did. That's beside the point. What I'm talking about is the Paralympics. I noticed something. During the Olympics, they were extensively comered on all of Canada's and the US' major networks, like Sportsnet, TSN, CTV, CBC, ABC, and NBC. Than comes along the Paralympics. They are only broadcast on Sportsnet. The only way any other station covers it it by breaking news in the sports section of the news or Olympic Alerts. I don't think it's very fair that the Paralympics aren't covered as much as the Olympics. In fact, I think it's discrimatory. What do you think? Should the Paralympics be more watched, like tje Olympics, or shouldn't they?

It's not covered as highly because it's NOT the Olympics. It's something else, although the same premise. It's exactly in the same field as why your local high school basketball tournament isn't being aired on prime time... They're both basketball, they're both actually rather important, but they're just not in the same field or category.

Another way to view it is that the Olympics are for the "best of the best," and the Paralympics are for the "Best of the completely underpar."

[Feign]

Originally Posted by IceSage

It's not covered as highly because it's NOT the Olympics. It's something else, although the same premise. It's exactly in the same field as why your local high school basketball tournament isn't being aired on prime time... They're both basketball, they're both actually rather important, but they're just not in the same field or category.

Another way to view it is that the Olympics are for the "best of the best," and the Paralympics are for the "Best of the completely underpar."

Not the reason at all... It is the Olympics, it's just for different people.

Simply put, the paralympics, does not generate as much viewership, and thus does not contribute to much monetary gain, so networks have little reason to have extensive coverage when they would not be making as much money on that.

That and they are not obliged to have to cover it. There could also be exclusive coverage rights as well. That is to say, only x network paid so that they were the only ones [needed] to cover it.

Basically, it's not about whether or not it is the Olympics or not, but rather it boils down to if it will generate much viewership and as the end, money.

[Luck]

Question.

Would it be discrimination for non-handicapped people if the Paralympics got more coverage than the Olympics?

[Feign]

Why wouldn't it be?

But that isn't the topic at hand.

[bmah]

I think it's going too far to say that the meager view coverage of the Paralympics is discriminatory to paraplegics alike; I think the reason's due to a combination of not being directly enough associated with the main Olympics, and the fact that it occurs well after the main Olympic events. It IS a part of the Olympics as a whole, but it's still treated as an entity separate enough to leave viewers less interested. So the decrease in viewership as already mentioned leads to a decrease in advertising since revenues won't be generated on the same scale as the main Olympic events are.

I also think it's just as much going too far to describe the Paralympics as "best of the underpar". There's got to be a better word than "underpar" to describe Paralympians, because "underpar" is a broadly defining term that means more or less "undercapable" rather than a term that simply divides Olympians from Paralympians.

[Lightning]

I don't know whether this should stay here in Other Chat or head over to Other Entertainment. It's more of a discussion regarding the ethics/discrimination behind the event['s coverage] than it is the sports or the event itself so... it kind of fits in both. :/ I'll leave the decision to someone who is not falling asleep at her keyboard at 2am.

But this thread made me think of a related article that I came across the other week. I thought it was an interesting read.

edit: The poll kind of needs an "I'd watch the Olympics more than the Paralympics" option if it has one of the opposite. :/

[bmah]

Oh, right. I forgot to mention in my earlier post that yes, the Vancouver Paralympics was the most successful Paralympics as of yet, so I think there could be a turning point in the number of coverage hours and viewership. Many views on the Olympics this year has changed for the better, so perhaps subsequent Olympics will continue with the positive trend.

[Team Fail]

Originally Posted by Lightning

edit: The poll kind of needs an "I'd watch the Olympics more than the Paralympics" option if it has one of the opposite. :/

That'd be the "No, I'd only watch the Olympics" option.

Originally Posted by bmah

Oh, right. I forgot to mention in my earlier post that yes, the Vancouver Paralympics was the most successful Paralympics as of yet, so I think there could be a turning point in the number of coverage hours and viewership. Many views on the Olympics this year has changed for the better, so perhaps subsequent Olympics will continue with the positive trend.

I think the tickets sold out within a matter of days, which is really good. That could boost ratings and have more people watching.

Above, I saw someone say that they were the best of underpar. I don't think so. I think they are the best of the best, in their ability and skill level. They are missing a few body parts, like a leg or an arm, but it doesn't make them "not the best".

[SwiftSign]

Over in the UK there is fairly good coverage of the paralympics I'd say, however there is a lot less content wise (far less competitors) and so it is bound to be less publicised as it is a smaller event.

Another way to view it is that the Olympics are for the "best of the best," and the Paralympics are for the "Best of the completely underpar."

That is truly offensive to all people with a disability. Just because they are disability doesn't mean they are -underpar/below average/bad- at ANY area of their life and the paralympians show quite clearly how skilled they are and how well they have compensated for their disability.

[I Laugh at your Misfortune!]

The way I see it, the majority of the world is not disabled. As such, they have a greater interest in things aimed at people who are not disabled. As such, the majority of the world is more interested in the regular Olympics. No discrimination, just simple logic.

Think of it this way. I am British and male. Therefore, I'm probably more likely to watch the men's events and I'm more likely to watch events that Britain is competing in. Once again, logical and natural behaviour. Not discrimination.

[Prince_of_Light]

Originally Posted by I Laugh at your Misfortune!

The way I see it, the majority of the world is not disabled. As such, they have a greater interest in things aimed at people who are not disabled. As such, the majority of the world is more interested in the regular Olympics. No discrimination, just simple logic.

Think of it this way. I am British and male. Therefore, I'm probably more likely to watch the men's events and I'm more likely to watch events that Britain is competing in. Once again, logical and natural behaviour. Not discrimination.

Alright. The only reason I'm even posting here was because I saw I Laugh At Your Misfortune's username attached to this thread and I was just like OMG LOL.



XDD

But anyways. Honestly I really don't think it's discrimination. If most people don't want to watch it, then it's not going to be covered very much. Media outlets aren't controlled by government entities, so there's really no argument for "fairness" except solely on moral grounds, not by legal ones. This is because the media outlets can pick and choose what they wish to air.

[Lightning]

Originally Posted by Team Fail

That'd be the "No, I'd only watch the Olympics" option.

But if it were more available, I would totally watch some of the events in the Paralympics. Just not to the same extent that I watch the (winter) Olympics. :/

[Rokusasu]

We do watch the Paralympics in my house like we do the Olympics, but this is because it's available to us (arguably not as much as the Olympics). For me, it's great seeing those with disabilities achieve what the 'normal' athletes can- really inspiring.

[TRIFORCE89]

Mmmm... it may be discriminatory, but I think the stations are somewhat justified.

It costs a lot to cover the games and put your shows on hiatus for a while. And the paralympic games don't draw in the viewers like the winter Olympics do. And as a broadcater, you goal is to get people watching so that people watch commercials. Bottom line. The winter olympics bring people in. Even channels who aren't covering it are affected and switch to reruns for a lot of shows because no one will be watching. The paralympics don't do that.

If the paralympics don't meet that objective, then they're better off on a speciality channel like Sportsnet where people you want to watch it will turn it. Just like how you have gardening shows of HGTV instead of Global. Niche market.

Not to say the paralympic athletes are talented. It's just the public doesn't care as much even though when asked they might say other wise. That's just the political correct thing to do.