The Globe and Mail's Bruce Dowbiggin has this assessment:
" . . . The best
decision made by the Canadian consortium, of course, was to continue the
tradition of going live with events. Canadian viewers are again
afforded the luxury of watching live events combined with NBC’s slick
evening packages.
"More than halfway to the finish, how has the broadcaster done? So
far, it’s mixed. The consortium’s decision to go live has been a boon,
but it has a downside. There is nothing more difficult in television
than riding the tiger of live TV. For that reason, NBC prefers its
safety net of taping events. All the mock sessions in a studio can’t
simulate absorbing the frantic pace of events and synthesizing them into
a coherent narrative. Especially when the announcers have little or no
résumé covering their events before.
"Unfortunately, many of the
consortium’s on-air talents – particularly the analysts– are attractive
former Canadian athletic heroes parachuted into their chairs instead of
the veteran voices that typified CBC coverage. Growing your own timber
is fine, but don’t ask your pitchers to start their careers in the World
Series.
" The most problematic area for the consortium has been in the field. In
the hurly-burly of breaking events, analysis has too often been replaced
by a noxious mix of cheer-leading and banal self-realization pap. . . "
Full story
No comments:
Post a Comment