The primary difference between human right issues in Beijing and in
Vancouver, is scale. Beijing displaced an estimated 1.5 million residents
against their will in order to build Olympics infrastructure, while Vancouver
is only displacing a few thousand poor and mentally ill people.
Unfortunately, the pain is the same.
While the IOC and Beijing panic over torch protests related to Tibet,
the mentally ill and homeless in Vancouver continue to suffer and get
pushed from their homes. When the torch protests erupted Vancouver quickly
drew parallels that the same backlash could occur here. VANOC, their Olympics
sponsors, and local politicians know that once the Beijing 2008 Games
are over, the world will turn it's energy on the human rights abuses
in Canada respective of the 2010 Olympics.
It is not lost on Olympics sponsors, that being attached to human rights
protest harms their brand. It won't take long before average people connect
the dots and call for a boycott of sponsors like Coca-Cola or Visa. I've
always maintained that if you want to get to Olympics organizations, impact
their revenue stream, and the best place to do it is their sponsors. Everyone
looks the other way regarding human rights abuse until it impacts their
Money talks. If you want to send a message to the IOC and Beijing, send
it through Olympics sponsors like GM, Coke, HBC, RBC, or Rona. They have
a vested interest and great monetary incentive to listen.
It's shameful how we treat the mentally ill and homeless in Vancouver
while Olympics organizations and their partners continue to reap huge
It has to stop, and it has to stop today.
We all have to stop looking the other way.
Boycott Beijing 2008? - or Olympics Sponsors?
In early April 2008, 44% of Canadians thought a boycott of Beijing 2008
was a good idea, and the number is rising, not only in Canada,
but around the world.
However, boycotting Beijing 2008 is not the most effective solution. Instead,
I've promoted for years that putting pressure on Olympics sponsors would
have greater impact and also provide Host regions like Vancouver more
The big question today is;
How long can Olympics sponsors and athletes look the other way? The votes are in ... The Vancouver Sun newspaper and
John Furlong, CEO VANOC, think boycotting the Beijing 2008 Olympics
would be a bad idea, while those with a conscience think it would be an
effective way to send a strong message to the IOC and China that mother
earth's inhabitants won't tolerate human rights abuse in the name of sport.
It's not surprising that The Sun and Furlong feel this
way considering that both have such huge financial gain at stake respective
of smooth sailing for anything Olympics.
The Sun, which happens to be an official paid Olympics booster,
in a classic case of juxtaposition, buried a small piece
on page 19 (the second last page of section one - 03/20/08) supporting
the argument that sane people should boycott 2008, but it will hardly
have any impact considering that for two days The Sun ran stories on their
front pages arguing that an Olympics boycott would hurt athletes. The
following day they also ran a "Letter to the Editor" from a
reader who painted China as a bully, and thought a boycott was a good idea.
And a few days later they put a spin on a statistic from a poll they paid
for by publishing in a blaring front page headline that 56% of Canadians
oppose a boycott. By putting their biased twist on it The Sun fails
to communicate that 44% of Canadians, and a growing number btw,
think a boycott of some sort would be a good idea.
As I mentioned earlier, boycotting the Olympics directly isn't the best strategy, but The Sun apparently supports Olympics organizations over human rights.
It boggles the mind to think that such a large newspaper could be so morally
wrong, and it is especially disturbing that one of their best journalists, Miro
Cernetig could fall into this trap and so easily toe the company line.
He's a smart guy, and it's hard to fathom that he actually believes what
he wrote, but like many people in Vancouver, since 2010 hit the streets,
this city is very difficult to afford, and well paying jobs are hard to
A direct boycott of Beijing 2008 might not be the ideal way to send a message to China,
and it might have a short term negative impact on the revenue of 2010
organizations and for their partners like The Sun, but unless The Sun
can come up with a better solution a boycott is a good way to get the
message across effectively. We think making Olympic sponsors accountable is a better solution, but not a peep was heard regarding this solution from anyone at The Sun.
So Miro ... if you have a better solution please share it.
I don't mind that you criticize a boycott, but at least in the name of
ethical journalism if you're going to so quickly dismiss a viable solution
you could at least offer a way to fix this problem and an Olympics business
model that is seriously flawed.
Are you suggesting that we do nothing and simply look the other way?
Should we also continue to ignore the human rights issue of Vancouver's
mentally ill and homeless, and what do you think about the slaughters being committed in Darfur that China sanctions? Actor and activist Mia Farrow and a growing list of others refer to Beijing 2008 as the "Genocide Olympics," but so far The Sun hasn't picked up on this tragedy either, at least not in a way that gives the story context or merit.
Maybe your solution Miro is to continue to talk about it
until the Olympics pass and the issues become moot.
While I'm on the topic of ethical journalism, in the future, when The
Sun publishes anything even remotely Olympics related, can you please
also print a notice at the beginning of each article stating that The
Sun is paid by the IOC to boost the Olympics. Your readers should be aware
of your economic affiliation. Anything less is unethical.
[In 2009, The Sun finally, after much haranguing from us, decided to put the 5 Rings on the front page of each issue to identify their bias. Ideally, we'd like to see it at the top of every Olympic related article, but we'll take what we can get even though it is way-too-late coming and only incorporated after the damage was done. Timing is everything.]
If there was ever a time to fix some of the problems civic leaders have
ignored for so long it is now while the spotlight of the Olympics is on
us and our communities have some leverage. I wrote a book about the process
Olympic Momentum. You should read it.
Unbelievably, Olympics organizations once more feel no shame in trotting
out and putting athletes on the front line when they need someone to justify
their corporate greed.
Ironically, Olympics organizations use athletes as pawns regularly, but
if a community endeavors to manage a similar strategy local mainstream
news media and Olympics organizations shoot it down and try to convince
us that Olympic athletes are more important than oppressed Tibetans or
mentally ill homeless people in Vancouver. It's clearly a double standard
that has gone on for way too long.
To add insult to injury, The Sun also states that Olympics corporate sponsors
would be hard pressed to scuttle multimillion dollar investments over
something apparently as trivial as human rights abuse.
You want us to look the other way.
I'm betting that athletes and corporate Olympics sponsors like RBC, HBC,
and Visa will eventually change their tune when the world revolts against
them through social networking sites like Facebook and independent blogs
like this or through publications like The Tyee and Epoch Times.
Is it any wonder the IOC wants to keep athletes from blogging?
Boycotting the 2008 Beijing Olympics will be the least of an athlete's
worries after they realize consumers will refuse to buy products
endorsed by Olympics gold medallists and all the other products sold by
multinationals who choose to look the other way. You can pay us now or
you can pay us later, but you will pay. I'm not sure who coined this phrase,
but I have a message for Olympics athletes and sponsors; Never let
your short term greed get in the way of your long term greed.
I'm disappointed Olympics athletes have not spoken out strenuously
in support of human rights issues in Beijing, Tibet, and Darfur, and also in Vancouver regarding
the homeless situation in our Downtown Eastside.
What are you thinking? Does the IOC have you so intimidated you've lost
your moral compass, or is it just plain greed that causes you to look
the other way? Please tell me it isn't greed.
Chinese leaders oppress Tibetans, they poison our pets, poison our children,
cause overwhelming pollution and global warming, execute tens of thousands
of their citizens every year, and muzzle news media, but still VANOC and
their partners like The Vancouver Sun feel it is OK to look the other
way. Not only do they feel this way, they endeavor to convince the rest
of the sane planet to think in terms of greed like they think.
I wrote a couple of weeks ago that the greatest value to Chinese leaders
for hosting the 2008 Olympics is to convince their citizens that they are a fair and stand up nation.
Contrary to what most people think, China is not hosting
the Olympics primarily to convince the rest of the world how civil they are, because
most Westerners already know their communist regime is barbaric.
Chinese civic leaders want to use the Olympics to fool their own citizens
into thinking they are changing, and that they take human rights seriously. The
truth unfortunately is that China has refused to follow through with the
promises they made to the IOC regarding human rights issues, while the
IOC and their partners like VANOC and The Sun all choose to look the other
way. The 2008 Olympics haven't even begun and already China is cheating,
and the IOC is allowing them this license.
I'm all for leveraging Olympic momentum and using the Games to propel
our city and country forward in the name of sport, but this is way to
much too ask of any rational moral person.
You can line up behind The Vancouver Sun and VANOC ...
... or over here behind Stephen Splieberg, Mia Farrow, me, and
the rest of our planet who refuse to sell out humanity.
Choose your side wisely though because the world is watching.
Here's an interesting video of a reporter and "live" news show
host arguing on air about how to conduct an interview. Even though this
was recorded in the '80s, Vancouver news companies could take a few pointers
today. Thanks to Peter
Shankman for turning me on to this video.
"Real journalism consists
what someone doesn't want published,
all the rest is public relations." George Orwell
Langara College hosted a Beers vs. LaPointe
debate that had the potential to stir up some serious news media muck,
but it never really dug deep enough to raise even the blood pressure of
any of the sixty-five or so people in attendance, except maybe for one
older lady sitting behind me who might have been a relative of LaPointe,
possibly his mother. When Lapointe started looking a bit anemic towards
the end of the debate she cackled aloud in no uncertain terms that she
thought he was good looking. It was a good save, because up until that
point, an affable Beers had easily scooped LaPointe on most of the big
David Beers, is editor-in-chief of TheTyee.ca, an
indie online magazine,
and Kirk LaPointe, is managing editor of The Vancouver Sun
Beers put forth many good arguments, one being that newspaper companies
kill millions of trees, but overall, when it came to hard issues like
newspapers losing trust of their readership, well … juicy tidbits
like that were not even broached.
It also became apparent that neither really knew where young people get
their news, and neither cared, mainly because youth are not part of their
target market. Jon
Stewart wasn't mentioned once the whole evening, and neither were
Meyers, Amy Poehler and the entire SNL cast and crew, The
Colbert Report, plus David Letterman, Bono, Geldof, and literally
millions of bloggers, and let's not forget Al Gore and Rush Limbaugh.
All these people count whether you like them or not, and they all compete
with newspapers, television and radio, and they represent just the tip
of the iceberg.
Beers and LaPointe both woo the 50ish-and-up crowd - the
faux rich sitting on huge sums of retirement capital, so I suppose I shouldn't
be surprised that they aren't aware of emerging trends respective of youth.
I am surprised however that some of the Langara journalism students
didn't jump up during the question period to educate the panel regarding
where young minds get their news, but once I heard the students' questions
it was obvious they were influenced by curriculums designed to funnel
them into the traditional newspaper business.
It should also be noted that The Sun co-sponsored this event.
... in the interest of full disclosure - I'm not a big fan of the
CanWest group, and if you are a regular OlyBLOG.com reader you
know I blog about them occasionally. Sometimes more occasionally
than I'd like. I have also critiqued their actions in my book, Leverage
Olympic Momentum. This debate was the first time I've seen either
man in person, although I do comment on The Tyee respective of
the 2010 Olympics, and have been slapped on the wrist by Beers' editor
for taking a personal, but a well-deserved shot at one of his writers,
who ironically, also happened to work for one of the CanWest companies.
As Stump said, I show no favorites.
[I stand corrected. Turns out I have actually seen Beers speak live in Squamish a few years ago. Thanks Tim for the reminder.]
LaPointe on the other hand, and no matter what I send to him directly
or via "Letters to the Editor," ignores me. He must be scared
that if he even acknowledges me it will be the beginning of the end, but
that could just be my ego nattering away. I know it's not because
the information I send him is incorrect, because almost every single one
of the predictions I made in my book and this blog is spot on, including
Place roof, and that The
would eventually become a paid Olympics booster. I made that call
way back in 2005 and it came to fruition in mid 2007. It's no wonder he
ignores me. I'd be pissed too.
Business relationships between Olympics organizations and mainstream
news media are often hurtful to a Host community.
Here's one reason why . . .
News media companies managing Olympics business relationships are privy
to vital information before groups that have stronger civic commitment,
and this uneven distribution of information gives unfair advantage to
business groups whose intentions
are driven by profit, even when it harms the region.
Keep in mind the IOC and VANOC thrive on secrecy.
LaPointe spent an inordinate amount of time assuring us his
newspaper has a strong advertising base, and strenuously maintained
it is why his newspaper would survive. (He must have thought the
room was full of potential advertisers - maybe it was.) To him, advertising
revenue demonstrates power and brute force, but to the informed it indicates
news companies have sold their loyalty and flipped to an advertorial
bias, as opposed to responsibly managing an investigative news ethic.
You can't do both, at least not well, although news media think they can.
Don't you give CTV or CBC a mulligan every time you see or hear them addressing
anything Olympics? They are official Olympics television sponsors, so
of course they are biased, although I have to admit sometimes the
CBC takes a shot at Olympics organizations that truly delights and surprises
me. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for other news media Olympics
partners. The CBC and CTV have good reason to be biased and we accept
it - they're being paid huge sums of money to boost the Games, but at
least they are up front about it and have the 5 Rings all over their brand.
For this negotiated privilege they generate incredible revenue and have
a legal obligation to make it work from an IOC perspective. For the most
part it's noble, and at the very least it's good business. The Sun on
the other hand does not place Olympics rings to brand their publication,
but they are also well paid by Olympics organizations. It's misleading.
Who didn't dream of being an Olympics athlete when they were
a kid? The Olympics are not all bad, but about twenty years ago the IOC
ball sliced into the woods and they're still looking for it.
According to LaPointe, news is not about the news as much as it
is about tapping the wealth of apathetic old guys who could care less
whether the world goes to hell in a hand basket as long as they receive
their dividends. Tell them what they want to hear, not what they need
to hear. LaPointe places more import on following the money than
he does on adhering to journalistic integrity. At least I'm assuming he
does because he talked repeatedly about advertising revenue, and only
brushed vaguely on, and in the most esoteric
Is he wrong to want to save his bacon and the newspaper business? No.
But is his modus operandi ethical, and more importantly … can his version
of a modified business model still be called a NEWSpaper? We'll see.
Even he referred to The Sun as a small town newspaper, which to me conjures
up visions of a local community advertorial/tabloid. Considering the weight
they pull in Vancouver respective of the auto and real estate industries,
I think it's time they grew up and started acting more like a newspaper
befitting a city struggling to go global. They need a shot of Globe and
Mail to get them up to world class, or at least national speed.
I was hoping Beers would point out more clearly the level
of intellectual sophistication of the newspaper reader is being
steadily depleted at each fracture of the news market, and that the internet
is cherry picking the bright and intelligent viewer, but for some reason
he didn't, which surprises me because his online publication, The Tyee,
has some very good writers, plus highly informed readers who contribute
valuable perspective in the comment sections. In fact the comments at
the end of every article are sometimes more informative than the article.
Tyee writers know when to pull back and act primarily as a catalyst to
get the ball rolling, and that is where the real value to the community
lies. The Tyee gives people a platform and a voice to compare notes and
make intelligent choices, while a newspaper simply tells you what they
The Vancouver Sun has struggled since mid 2007 to get people to
comment on their blogs, but to little avail. I wrote a few comments there
months ago respective of the 2010 Olympics, but they never posted them
- probably because I wrote in the tone I'm using here, but I'll never
know why because no one from The Sun responded to tell me why my perspective
was censored. The Tyee doesn't edit unless it is for reasons of libel
or because a poster is attacking a writer instead of the issue, and when
they do, they don't edit the entire post, just the offending word or phrase,
and occasionally the paragraph ... and most importantly,
they tell you they're doing it, because for the most part your post
It's a ghost town at The Sun compared to The Tyee.
At The Tyee, almost every article attracts contributions from a variety
of people, including well-studied intellectuals, many of whom are ironically,
professional media writers that post anonymously because their mainstream
news media bosses won't allow them a unique voice. Pro writers who have
something to say beyond the bounds of the corporate comfort zone are forced
to skulk cloaked in anonymity.
The Tyee has grown to become the unofficial gathering place for writers'
writers, while the Sun's blogs flounder in oblivion. It's no wonder that
CanWest, The Sun's parent company, launched a frivolous lawsuit against
The Tyee and one of its writers, Rafe Mair.
The Tyee apologized profusely. Let it go.
Look what happened when the music industry started suing their customers.
Customers rebelled and drove the industry to its knees. Will corporate
executives ever learn?
Libel chill is an efficient way to smother a burgeoning online publication
that is doing what traditional journalists now only dream - to tell the
truth, the whole truth, and not the half truth, but it does nothing for
mainstream news media's image except to prove we are right.
During the debate LaPointe made a major blunder when
he boasted he built his first website in 1996.
1996? What took him so long?
By that time I had already designed and developed hundreds of websites
and online strategies for companies around the world. LaPointe's
admission of being late to the table reminded me that the newspaper industry,
for way too many years, tried in vain to derail the internet until they
could figure out how to control and monetize it. Instead of being progressive
and contributing to the health of our community, and the news industry
in general, news tycoons lurked in the shadows and undermined the internet
in a chaotic fit of desperation.
LaPointe made another blunder when he boasted about being the
last man standing in the battle to win industry market share,
but he quickly recovered to include women in the equation. Ah, the good
old boys club.
LaPointe eventually flat lined among the informed when he tried
in vain to convince the room there is no collusion between news properties
owned by his parent CanWest Global. He can spout whatever rhetoric he
wants, but when I watched Global news two hours after the debate, which
is also owned by CanWest, the front page of LaPointe's newspaper,
The Sun, was featured showing TV viewers what they would read in the company
rag the next morning. Yikes. It might not be collusion in the strictest
sense of the word Captain K, but it's a second cousin, and if you're not
careful your kids will look like Charles and act like Bubba.
I did not have sex with that woman.
Yea sure Bill. But you still came in her mouth.
Whether news executives swallow is hard to prove, but informed people
don't believe for a second that when the Aspers of CanWest want a hem
tailored with specific drape that their wishes do not permeate and are
not felt by all the subsidiaries under their leadership.
Conrad Black used to own The Vancouver Sun.Lord Black
set the tone and left a legacy at all the media properties he owned, and
it's no secret he cracked the whip and ran his own unique brand of
dog and pony show. He's now in prison convicted of fraud and obstruction
Compromised ethics is one of the most common complaints from professional
journalists around the world. They grumble constantly about being forced
to toe the company line, which all too often subverts the truth and goes
against everything they learned in journalism school, although lately
I've heard that many colleges no longer delve too deeply into the concept
of ethics. I can only assume it is because many schools have curriculums
sponsored by mainstream news companies, and as we all know, advertising
and ethics make for uncomfortable bedfellows.
When an organization like the Olympics makes a deal to buy the loyalty
of a newspaper, like they did with The Vancouver Sun, the deal impacts
all news organizations under the family umbrella. All for one and one
Beers reminded the room the internet is a two way street
that promotes inclusiveness through commentary from viewers, as opposed
to newspapers, a one-way medium that preaches instead of teaches.
I was also hoping Beers would tell the crowd that today, people
search for news in a new and completely different way than they did last
year, and the year before that too, but he didn't, at least not in enough
Today, if you choose, the news comes to you instantaneously.
Sometimes as it is happening.
Newsletters and automatic feeds are very powerful news mediums. When important
news lands on my desktop or cell phone, I don't view only one source.
In ten minutes I quickly scan Google and my other sources to see what
everyone is saying, and then I put my brain in gear to decide what is
accurate. I don't trust anyone, but I listen to what they're saying.
The days of a single news source are over. Who cares what one biased news
media company reports about the Olympics? I want to know what people half
way around the world who have already experienced it first hand think
too. Only then will I make up my mind about what is right for me, or my
Moderators and hosts from Langara also dropped the ball when they ran
an impromptu vote asking those in attendance whether they thought Canadian
newspapers are yesterday's news. The question was designed to inflame
instead of inform and it offered nothing of real value.
The bottom line is that newspapers will always be around because as LaPointe
said, I need something to read on Sunday with my coffee; warm fuzzy, nostalgic
, four sugars and lots of cream - not really, I hate fuzzy nostalgia.
It makes me sneeze. And also ... unfortunately, thanks to obscene real
estate prices artificially inflated as a result of condo fever driven
by Olympics hype in local newspapers, the homeless need a mattress, but
will newspapers continue to be a valued tool to dispense vital news seven
days a week?
Sorry, but no. For starters, I refuse to pay the carbon tax.
Plus, and this is important, ... civic leaders, politicians, and business
executives, the people who make the decisions about your lives, have breaking
news fed to them via Blackberry, and the last place they check, if at
all, is a newspaper. And when they do, it is only to see if they made
the front page and how they've been misquoted. Irony perhaps, but the
reasons have changed ... hence it's classed as evolution.
The media training industry is full of disillusioned and disgruntled ex-media
pros who now teach politicians and executives to manage mainstream news
media at an Ivy League level. It's an art. A skill that can be learned,
and these students, at places like Harvard Law School, where Canadians
participate and even lead in a meaningful way, these MBA students take
what they've learned and use the knowledge to run companies and countries.
This elite, educated, and well-informed group often consider mainstream
news journalists adversaries, not so much any more because they have something
to hide, but because news companies too often spin the truth to suite
their political or advertising agenda. It is the reason all smart people
in the public eye videotape their mainstream news interviews, and when
necessary, post their version online to set the record straight. Everyone,
including LaPointe knows that business and politics in the modern world
shifted long ago from advertising to promotion. And as you know, promotion
from a news company that is supposed to be non partisan is called propaganda.
News companies are not trusted. Period. Offline or on.
In 1985 only 34% of North Americans polled
(who have good internet experience as users and practioners)
felt this way, but in 1999 it shot up to 58% and hovered at 56% except
for a short blip in 2001 when Bush colluded with and bullied media into
selling his war and it dropped to 45%, but it shot right back up throughout
2002 and 2005 to 56%, and in 2007 it dipped back a bit to 53%.
Percentage of people who feel news
reporting is inaccurate:
1985 - 34%
1999 - 58%
2001 - 45% - a scared America under
2002 - 56%
2007 - 53%
Why the dip in 2007? It's only speculation, but many believe bloggers
put so much pressure on mainstream news media they have no choice
but to start reporting in a more non partisan manner.
What if your car operated at only 47% efficiency, or the pilot of a jumbo
jet only performed at a 47% level?
According to the same PEW poll only 46% of people feel news organizations
are moral, only 44% feel they protect democracy, and a whopping 55% feel
news organizations are politically biased, but wait for it ... 66% still
feel news organizations are highly professional. My how they have you
fooled. They sell you a scooter, but you think it's a Harley.
Why does news media think it is OK to perform at such low rates?
Here's how informed people who are vital to the community
monitor the news in 2008;
1st - Internet - It's always on and ready to come to you via PDA,
print, video, and two-way commentary 365 days a year.
2nd - Phone or Face to Face - Yes, I know, no one ever thinks
of the phone, but what's the first thing you do when something catastrophic
happens? You call or text someone, pop into the next cubicle, or parade
to the water cooler.
3rd - Music Radio - News is an easy, short & sweet teaser
interspersed between music, but when was the last time you sat in your
parked car after arriving at your destination and listened to a news report?
A good tune will very occasionally hold me behind the wheel for maybe
8 more bars, but news? If it's that important I want to go online first
and skim Reuters, Associated Press, etc. If you do this first it will
help you see the bias of your local news media company, because more and
more lately, local news companies use international news agencies as their
primary source of information.
4th - Local News TV - It's full-on action, but only about 1mm deep
and on their timetable, not yours. The exceptions are news feature shows
like W5 or The 5th Estate, 20/20, Dan Rather Online and many more.
5th - Podcasts - upload and listen on the commute to or from work.
6th - Newspapers - old news printed a day late on dead trees.
7rd - Talk Radio - you might think this is news, but it's not.
- much of it is propaganda, although there are exceptions, and
a growing number of them too, especially Web2.0 stuff like PublicEyeOnline.com
8th - Now I've listed this last, but it's not really in last
News magazines must be what LaPointe refers to when he talks about
curling up with comfortable tactile reading material and a coffee. It's
bucolic, and vintage, but The Sun doesn't even publish on Sunday so why
don't you take advantage of the interlude and grab a news magazine that
really goes into serious depth, and in most of the cases does a great
job of reporting both sides of the story. BC
Business Magazine ran a March feature on Bob Rennie, real estate marketing
overlord. The Tyee's Monte Paulson did the interview. Brilliant work that
readers' interpretation of the condo King. If you like Rennie, the piece
will reinforce what you thought, but if you've had a sneaking suspicion
about him you couldn't put your finger on, it will confirm everything
you thought, and probably teach you a few new things too.
The valid question, and the one Langara should have posed is:
Can newspapers survive as trusted daily disseminators of vital news?
The clear answer is no.
It is no longer in their hands.
Newspapers are not relevant to people who
choose to be informed in a balanced manner.
Once you lose trust, you lose everything,
and newspapers lost trust of the informed long ago.
1st printing no longer available at CHAPTERS locations in Vancouver
Own the Podium?
The official creed (guiding principle) of the Olympics is a quote by the
founding father of the modern day Games Baron de Coubertin. He said, "The
most important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win but to take part,
just as the most important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle.
The essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well."
The Olympic motto consists of three Latin words Citius, Altius, Fortius,
which means, "Swifter, Higher, Stronger." The 1924 motto is meant to encourage
athletes to embrace the Olympic spirit and perform to the best of their
No where does it imply that winning the most gold medals for your country
is part of the agenda. In fact it implies exactly the opposite.
The IOC maintains that it doesn't actively encourage countries to collectively
win the most gold medals, but on the other hand they also don't institute
anything to ensure that the Games are not turned into corporate money
In fact, IOC sponsorship and partnership business models encourage a win-at-all-costs
mentality. It is the reason they have doping, fraud and bribery scandals.
The IOC invites young people to compete in the Olympics using the original
Creed & Motto. But when it comes to delivering on the promise they
fall incredibly short.
The Olympics today isn't as much about sport as it is about money and
Priorities changed over the years and so too should their Creed &
If athletes go for the gold, and the IOC goes for the gold, and corporate
sponsors go for the gold, and governments go for the gold, and considering
that you will have to foot the bill for their gold, why should
you be edged out of the race?
Move to the starting line.
Own the Podium?
Own Your Home?
Real journalism consists of
what someone doesn't want published,
all the rest is public relations." George Orwell