Two articles from two countries’ most prestigious newspapers compare two television networks’ coverage of the Beijing Olympics opening ceremonies.
The Globe and Mail says NBC’s coverage “outshone the work of the CBC, mainly because co-hosts Bob Costas and Matt Lauer brought more information and enthusiasm to the show than did the stolid, rather dull presentation of the CBC’s Peter Mansbridge, who handled most of the commentary during the first 80 minutes.”
The New York Times: “how extraordinarily pleasant it was to be able to view that spectacle in Beijing without the annoyance of constant exclamation and endless recitations of trivia — just great swaths of wonderful silence from our narrators MacLean and Mansbridge between 8am and 9am or so, just letting the show at the stadium tell its own story with the least obtrusive economy of helpful footnotes, no urgency whatsoever to riddle the air with inane nattering and relentless fill.”
I guess it’s all a matter of interpretation.
You’re a riot Steve, you just called the Globe and Mail “prestigious”
……. what you meant it?
As for your post, well, it’s a typicall case of the grass is greener on the other side of the fence.
Great catch. Steve, have you emailed this to William Houston?
the Globe and Mail criticizing the CBC, surprise surprise.
Back when I did a stint at NBC some of the associate produces told me how much they watched CBC Sports (back before CBC decided to destroy it) as inspiration…
I appreciate having the CBC coverage over the American drivel. I think they do a fine job, but always good to have some competition, waiting to see what CTV does with the Olympics, I am not that optimistic however.
Ha! Yeah. Depends what you are in the mood for. Sometimes American Broadcasters seem to feel the need to talk like girls all the time and all I can think is STFU because I’m trying to focus. But on the other hand, I do love a good display of useless trivia-knowledge
National Post is the most prestigious newspaper in Canada not the Globe and Mail…