Western journalists document memorable accomodations in Sochi

[james_davis_nicoll]

The key thing about Potemkin villages is you don't let actually try to stay in one.

Comments

[viktor-haag.livejournal.com]

Oh please. That's like blaming the help for the antics of the corrupt thug host and his fat-cat dinner guests because after all, if they were servants with principles, they'd go and work in someone else's house. If you want to hold servants (or vastly underpaid athletes) responsible for the politics around the venues where they're practically forced to compete, that's your lookout, but I think that's pretty unfair.

EDIT: To be fair, I would also suspect that a great many journos are not exactly fat-cat dinner guests, either, and no doubt many are there because their bosses told them they had to, and they have about as much practical choice in the matter as the athletes do.

[glorin.livejournal.com]

This. Also, the vast majority of the athletes won't ever make it as pros or otherwise get rich and famous and they are aware of that when they choose to compete.

[sean o'hara (from livejournal.com)]

That analogy doesn't even begin to make sense. Servants are an important component of a dinner party, but they aren't the reason guests come; Olympic athletes are the sole attraction of the Olympics.

A more accurate analogy would be a band who's hired to perform at a venue whose owner has a publicly stated policy of beating employees. I think most people would agree that a band should boycott such venues, especially when the owner is using the concert to bolster his own public image.

[scott-sanford.livejournal.com]

If the venue is the only one in town, perhaps. The IOC has a de facto monopsony on 'insanely high profile international athletic events.' It's simply not an option to go down the street to a competing event of equivalent prestige; the athletes can compete in the Olympics or stay home. Athletes who wish to compete at this level have only the one venue.

[joenotcharles.livejournal.com]

Athletic competition is not a critical function for society, so I'm comfortable saying that not supporting corruption and oppression trumps an athlete's desire to compete at this level.

[viktor-haag.livejournal.com]

The trouble is that not joining in this competition might remove an athletes opportunity to participate meaningfully elsewhere as well.

[joenotcharles.livejournal.com]

Yes, my statement covers that.

[aboutlikepleats.livejournal.com]

Kind of blipped over the difference between "a critical function for society" and "a critical function for an athlete", didn't you?

Happen I agree with you in terms of the choice I would make, me, but I have nothing at stake in this particular choice. I'm a little reluctant to so blithely if not smugly make that choice for someone else.

Y'all do what y'all want to do, though. Obviously.

[viktor-haag.livejournal.com]

So, as long as it's the livelihood and food not coming out of your mouth, you can feel comfortable to make bold statements. That's fine for you. I'm not going to presume to demand those kinds of principles of others, but I suppose I'd applaud them when they manage to make such a stand in the face of grim circumstances.

[viktor-haag.livejournal.com]

Also, keep in mind that many athletes in Olympic events are not there on their own; they are there because their national sports programs wants them there, through which they get funding, training support, and (some) marketing. The athletes could say no, or raise a fuss, and they'd risk getting cut from their programs, and lose all the benefits deriving therefrom. Most of them are simply not the independent operators you'd like to paint them as.

[seth ellis (from livejournal.com)]

Well, the same goes for the reporters. They haven't been there to do sober exposés, they're there because their employing corporations expect them to generate the cynical, vulgar, intrusive sports coverage with a veneer of cheap sentimentality that their advertisers require. Tweeting their experiences as they happen, mostly from their private accounts, may not have the quiet dignity of the transparency you prefer, but to a degree, it's the transparency that's available to them, and to us. You're setting up a false dichotomy between the poor athletes and the sniggering reporters that isn't really there.

Also, if we'd prefer not to be the subject of poopbucket jokes, we should try to get the plumbing working before the guests show up.

[viktor-haag.livejournal.com]

I think if you check up-thread, I do go some way to avoid the dichotomy. And I'd probably object to the sniggering if it came from the athletes as well, it is just that I haven't seen any.

[scott-sanford.livejournal.com]

Good point. For the reporters it's more like, "Bob, you're going to Russia. Cover the stuff on the list there, and if possible say something nice about the American athletes." A feed from their private Twitter accounts is about as unfiltered and honest as we can hope for.

[viktor-haag.livejournal.com]

If they had "this is me in private" and "this is me at my job" twitter feeds, I'd buy that; but as long as their bosses use their twitter feeds as a means of corporate promotion (and they use these feeds as a means of self-promotion-in-a-professional-capacity to build an audience which is marketable to their bosses and other potential employers), then really, how "unfiltered and honest" is it? It's just another genre of public professional discourse, and not one I care much for, really.

[erikagillian.livejournal.com]

"I, I, I, I, ain't gonna play Sun City..."