91Èȱ¬

Is it true that a select group of journalists will get to swim a length of the Olympic pool on Wednesday July 27th? Is anyone from 91Èȱ¬ Sport going to do it?

Has any decision been taken over who will be providing commentary for the Opening & Closing Ceremonies - a sports commentator (e.g. of the Davies, Coleman build) or a news commentator (e.g. Edwards).

Additionally, will the 91Èȱ¬ be listening to feedback on what fans want from the Ceremonies commentator?

Unless the 91Èȱ¬ win of course!

Good to see the games getting their rightful place on 91Èȱ¬1 - though I'd hope ratings more than match Beijing, though whether the Opening Ceremony could top the Royal Wedding I don't know. The internet plan is nice and ambitious, though BT and other ISPs still lagging behind which means people in rural areas like myself aren't up to speed enough to always receive adequate streams.

Interactive still needs to be sorted, especially on Freeview, so coverage at least matches Beijing. I would hope to the 91Èȱ¬ are not afraid to have the games on both 91Èȱ¬1 and 91Èȱ¬2 when necessary.

Clearly Wednesday is a day to listen to CDs in the car and get some DVDs in for the evening. Not everyone is interested in this over-hyped tub thumping.

I expect it's far to much top expect a balanced and proportionate level of coverage...

Interactive still needs to be sorted, especially on Freeview, so coverage at least matches Beijing. I would hope to the 91Èȱ¬ are not afraid to have the games on both 91Èȱ¬1 and 91Èȱ¬2 when necessary.

Yes, would I be better upgrading to freesat? There is so limited interactive covereage with Freeview, however I do not wish to subscribe to pay TV.

@4 sorry did not give you credit, as you have asked the same question I wanted.

The mascots still freak me out. I clicked through on the link with the small picture of one of the mascots eyes behind a child... why can't we just have a lion instead of some 'all seeing eye'? I don't for one minute pander to conspiracy theorist nutters but they are disturbing creations all the same.

Roger

Any chance you can fix the Feeds into the 'Latest from' on the Olympics page for

London 2012 Blog
London 2012
Inside the Games

As they are all dated 10:17/18 on the 15th July 2011!


As to #3 and the commentator - Roger - please tell whoever it is that less is more and we don't need to have constant wittering on. Indeed can you confirm that there will be a commentary free feed on channel 301 (and that it remains free as this has not always happens e.g. Melbourne Commonwealth Games)

#4 The 91Èȱ¬ should also be able to use Channel 81 the Parliament Channel too as Parliament will be in recess. They did this (? got permission from Parliamant) during Beijng and would be ridiculous if 81 could not be used for the 'home# games.

Finally some programmes about the actual organisation of the games would be interesting to many people. Some people have absolutly no idea of the complexity of what is going on.

@4

Unless I misunderstood what you mean but my understanding is 91Èȱ¬ lost their right to be the Olympic Broadcaster. Channel 4 will instead be broadcasting the games. The Beeb will be confined to highlights like the rest of the lot.

I wonder, how many adverts will C4 be allowed to throw in every now and again e.g b4 Bolt wins the 100m final.....again?

@10 You are confusing the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games; the 91Èȱ¬ lost the Paralympic rights to C4 - it retains the Olympic rights.

Mr Mosey

Does the British Media (including the 91Èȱ¬ to a certain extent) believe that British people are so lazy, smug and self-satisfied that nothing short of running a never-ending series of articles denigrating the games, trashing the costs, smearing the delivery team and generally destroying the self-esteem of those backing the project is the only way to get the project delivered on time and on budget?

To those of us neither in the media nor in the delivery team, it has been clear for 5 years that this operation is a global best practice benchmark.

Something therefore to encourage rather than trash. To celebrate landmarks, rather than acknowledge them in a curmudgeonly fashion. To trumpet to the world in an understated manner, rather than suddenly go gung ho OTT. And to use to further British business and British sport through building success from success, rather than thinking that everyone knows everything about London so no benefits will accrue from the Business Community coming here in 2012.

It does seem now that the commentaries are becoming more positive. But it sticks in the craw that journalists from newspapers which ran trash op-ed after trash op-ed will be seeing events live, whereas those like myself and no doubt thousands of others, who have consistently supported the project from its inception in 2000, will be watching things, most likely, on the TV.

Do you think that there should be some behaviour-based ticketing system for the media and, if not, why not????

rjaggar - very well put.
I have commented in the past, and written several letters, on the 91Èȱ¬'s sneering and denegrating attitude towards anything which could be deemed a British success or which could make British people proud of their country. The opacity of the 91Èȱ¬ ensure that the reasons for this sinister attitude remain cloaked in secrecy, but I look forward to the day when the whole, rotten structure of our 'national' broadcaster is dismantled.
My second point is the excruciatingly bad sports coverage provided by the 91Èȱ¬. Luckily, one-by-one, the 91Èȱ¬ is losing the rights to broadcast major sporting events - unfortunately, they still seem to curry favour with the IOC.
So we can all look forward to the most magnificent British sporting event since 1966 accompanied by the witless chatter of Hazel Irvine and the ignorant musings of John Inverdale.

I agree that recent 91Èȱ¬ sporting coverage, notably Wimbledon, has been poor. However, to suggest that the 91Èȱ¬ does not celebrate success in the sporting arena is complete nonsense. Indeed, there have been complaints BECAUSE the 91Èȱ¬ has spoken so much about British participants and winners at events like the Olympics. 91Èȱ¬1 viewers have moaned about schedules being affected by Andy Murray's matches at Wimbledon.
The 91Èȱ¬ was also among the major cheerleaders for the Olympic bid, and also England's unsuccessful World Cup bid. If you want to find an Olympic naysayer, look no further than Mick Dennis.

Re: ceremonies. I've made my views clear on Huw Edwards before - he ruined both Beijing and Delhi as he makes the most basic of errors - he doesn't let the pictures tell the story.

The commentary team should be sport led - Hazel Irvine was excellent in Vancouver and has always had great input during the athletes parade. Outside of that the commentators really should do little more than introduce each sequence, especially as for London in theory most viewers should be aware of any cultural or historical significance pieces may be trying to illustrate.

One thing I was wondering about though were the 91Èȱ¬ guests for the event as obviously you'd suspect our top Olympians may be otherwise engaged that night, either as part of the torch relay or carrying in the Olympic flag - although I guess you could have Steve Redgrave in at 7pm when it won't be until 11pm at least until he lights the flame - but then difficult to ask him to speculate over who might be lighting it!

Presumably, with all of the methods of delivery, coverage will be extensive but, could your producers please try and remember that athletics includes track and FIELD events. Too often we are forced to sit through all thirty laps of a track race plus replays then, if we are lucky we will be shown the winning throw in the javelin or the shot. Yes, we do want to see the superstars in the 'Blue Ribband' events but, we also want to see the other people that have spent years honing their skills in a field event. Too they are all but ignored. I like millions of others will be relying on the 91Èȱ¬ for all of my Olympic coverage. Don't let me down.

I hope you're thinking about the presentation aspects already, and fingers crossed that you can come up with a theme tune as iconic as Barcelona for 1992. It should be easier for you to come up with something that sounds memorable and good to British ears as that tune did without having to try to shoe-horn in allusions to some other culture like you did with the "Monkey and Pigsy" malarky for Beijing. It can't be coincidence that the only tune that lasts in the memory from the last twenty years is the Stone Roses one for the Commonwealth Games in Manchester; perhaps that might be some sort of indication of a potential approach to consider.

Interesting looking sports documentaries? can you clarify what these will be
I remember Euro 96 had football, fotebal, voetbal or something which was superb.
an Olympic history with great action would be right up my sports geek tree

Roger - kudos to you for continuing to reply to our comments; some other bloggers could do well to learn from your example.

In #17, you responded to Brekkie, "... you hit on the point about Beijing in particular that it was an unusual event because of the country it was being held in and most people's unfamiliarity with Chinese history. Hence more analysis than usual at certain points. So the style for London will be definitely be different, even if the personnel aren't."

One could say the same about Greek civilisation and history; very few people knew all the details behind it and Barry Davies let the pictures and his excellent descriptions do the talking in 2004. No one is suggesting that expert 'extra analysis' shouldn't be used, just simply that the lead commentator should be a commentator, not a news journalist; someone who understands the virtue of letting the pictures do the talking rather than talking over the pictures all the time. Do we take that "the personnel aren't" means that a News journalist/presenter will be used again, and that decision has been taken despite clear feelings by views to the contrary?

Mixed views on today's coverage - kind of felt a bit flat to me, and as I've said all along the wrong personnel involved - I don't get ditching the passion Claire Balding has for the games (very evident this afternoon) in favour of a part time newsreader. And lets face it, the Trafalger Square event wasn't much to shout about - though Boris is hilarious, and I agree with all these venues seemingly ready it seems cruel to make us wait.

Also am I the only one not a fan of the Aquatics Centre (though with a crowd tonight that did kind of give me goosebumps). I just think for a ridiculous £240m (the Velodrome was just £93m - and I'm no money moaner when it comes to the Olympics, but no way the pool should cost half the amount of the stadium!) it looks kind of cheap - and certainly could do with a lick of paint!

And if the sitelines are OK at the back, why were the 91Èȱ¬ not allowed to give us a glimpse - even if you can see the pool, would you see the diving board?

May I beg that, amongst all the hype, the 91Èȱ¬ would bear in mind that in a recent poll, apparently only 4 out of ten of people were interested in the Olympics. The other 6 were either not interested or not very interested. I am one of those who are bored rigid by the whole thing and shall be going away and switching off next year. Meanwhile, those 6/10 of us must endure constant adverts, pictures of people in vests and shorts, the appalling "mascot"- HAH -and logo for the next year. Please have a care for the rest of your licence paying viewers.

Olympophile gives no examples of the sneering and denigration of which he accuses the 91Èȱ¬ yet his own post is no more than sneering and denigration in itself. He accuses the 91Èȱ¬ of opacity yet is unable to even to begin to explain what he means by that. The rest of the post suggests he knows nothing about sports broadcasting, the sports rights market or the IOC. Its this kind of bilious contribution which I suspect deters 91Èȱ¬ executives from blogging more often.