On Aug 14, 7:34*pm, "tim....." wrote:
"allantracy" *wrote in message

...



The main reason for the empty seats is that a large percentage are given
away free to sponsors and national (as in "other nations") Olympic and
sports organisations.

The various sporting associations are allocated seats so their
officials (mostly volunteers) and competitors can get to see some of
the Olympics as well.

Obviously, at the start of the games, many of those are still busy
with their own events but, as the games progress and many of the early
events are concluded, they can find time to take in the rest of the
games and the problem of empty seats is then lessened.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------*----

Yeah,

what part of the above stops them saying to LOCOG,

"We can't use these seats, you can sell them to normal punters"?

Because to be allowed into the area where those seats are located
requires additional security screening. Provisions had not been made
to screen ordinary members of the public to that standard on an ad-hoc
basis.

Robin

"Robin9" wrote in message ...


tim.....;132229 Wrote:
"Robin9" wrote in message ...


Seemingly it did go well. I avoided the whole thing like the plague
and so I am going by what being declared on the radio by various
commentators who have forgotten the difference between a journalist
and a cheer leader.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And why shouldn't they? It's only for UK consumption, other counties
send
their own commentators to report the games to their country.

tim

To quote several Hollywood Westerns of the 1950s: "If you don't know, I
can't tell you."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh yeah, and that wins the argument - not!

This issue is a matter of option, not of fact and simply refusing to state
the basis of your opinion IMHO means "you lose"

tim






--
Robin9

If you pay a little attention, you may notice that neither of us has made an
argument. (I'm assuming you do know what an argument is).

The point of the quoted passage was - and this is why I'm not willing to waste
time making an argument - if a person is so obtuse, decadent or depraved
that they "don't get" an obvious principle, explaining that principle to them
won't do any good.

If you don't understand why a journalist, whose job it is to report news objectively
and without bias, should not reduce him or herself to a mere cheer leader, giving a
totally slanted view of events, then it is pointless trying to educate you.

"Robin9" wrote in message ...


If you don't understand why a journalist, whose job it is to report news
objectively
and without bias, should not reduce him or herself to a mere cheer
leader, giving a
totally slanted view of events, then it is pointless trying to educate
you.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah well that's the point isn't it.

I don't consider "live sports commentary" as journalism.

It's entertainment

tim