Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Athletes Can Blog at Olympics - with Restrictions

Posted by Zonk on Sat Feb 16, 2008 03:58 PM
from the can't-stop-the-signal dept.
Hugh Pickens writes "The IOC has given athletes the right to blog at the Beijing Games this summer, a first for the Olympics. They're allowed, as long as they follow the many rules it set to protect copyright agreements, confidential information and security. The IOC said blogs by athletes 'should take the form of a diary or journal' and should not contain any interviews with other competitors at the games. They also should not write about other athletes. Still pictures are allowed as long as they do not show Olympic events. Athletes must obtain the consent of their competitors if they wish to photograph them. Also, athletes cannot use their blogs for commercial gain."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • So basically... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Nemilar (173603) on Saturday February 16 2008, @04:00PM (#22447700) Homepage
    From the summary, the rules are basically, "you may blog at the Olympics, but you may not blog about the Olympics. Unless you are blogging about what you had for breakfast at the Olympics, and you do not include pictures."

    Woohoo, freedom of the press!
    • Re:So basically... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by TubeSteak (669689) on Saturday February 16 2008, @04:08PM (#22447750) Journal
      Are athletes going to be allowed to blog about Chinese human rights issues?
      IIRC, "Free Tibet" is not a message that will be welcomed in the Olympic Village or Olympic venues.

      BTW - I get a registration link for TFA
      http://news.google.com/news?q=ioc+blogging [google.com]
      • by Joe The Dragon (967727) on Saturday February 16 2008, @04:11PM (#22447778)
        China can't just come in take athletes way to political prisons so what does the athletes have to lose?
      • If they aren't boycotting the games already, then there is very little chance they would have any real concerns about Chinese human rights issues.
        • Re:So basically... (Score:5, Interesting)

          by flyingsquid (813711) on Saturday February 16 2008, @06:19PM (#22448642)
          If they aren't boycotting the games already, then there is very little chance they would have any real concerns about Chinese human rights issues.

          How much impact do you think Stephen Colbert would have had if he'd said, "the White House correspondent's dinner? But I hate the White House, I'm going to boycott it!" Instead, he took that as an opportunity to criticize the president, to his face, in front of all his staff and in front of the media. And there wasn't a damn thing the president could do.

          Not showing up to the Olympics is pointless. You're throwing away years of hard work, and for what? China isn't going to suddenly stop supporting Sudan and Burma, or stop oppressing Tibetans just because a few athletes don't show. Or, you could show up, win a medal, get a moment in the spotlight, and use it to shed light on China's abuses, in China, with the entire world watching (of course, it might be a good time to bring attention to some U.S. human rights abuses as well).

          I could be wrong here, but I don't think that the Chinese have the slightest clue what they're in for. The government can't simply crush dissent under the treads of a tank, like they did during Tienanmen, there will be witnesses everywhere, all with wireless laptops, Blackberries, blogs, cell phones, cell phone cameras, digital video recorders... everything will be covered by a dozen cameras and thousands of well-connected witnesses; it's the perfect time to make a statement, and it will be almost impossible for Beijing to stop you or retaliate. In a way, they're a little like our Bubble-Boy president, George W. Bush. He and his advisors inhabit a reality-proof bubble where dissent is not heard, so he was utterly unprepared for the idea that Colbert might use the opportunity to criticize him. Likewise, the Chinese leadership lives in a bubble where open dissent is not permitted, censorship is everywhere, and people will only criticize the government in private. After all those years of living in a heavily censored society, I think the idea that someone might actually stand up and speak out, publicly and in full view of everyone, is just inconceivable to them.

      • by Airw0lf (795770) on Saturday February 16 2008, @06:07PM (#22448564)

        Are athletes going to be allowed to blog about Chinese human rights issues?
        If you're an athlete from New Zealand, probably not. They seem to have been asked to sign an agreement that prevents them from making political comments about the Chinese regime. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/02/14/sports/OLY-New-Zealand-Free-Speech.php [iht.com]
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          That's the case in the US too. I had the impression it was for every country when I read it in the Economist.
    • Re:So basically... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by TheMeuge (645043) on Saturday February 16 2008, @04:13PM (#22447788) Homepage
      Not quite... it's more like:

      You may blog at the Olympics, as long as you don't write anything that anyone wants to read.
    • No Commercial Gain (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Blue Stone (582566) on Saturday February 16 2008, @04:28PM (#22447920) Homepage Journal
      I love this bit: "Also, athletes cannot use their blogs for commercial gain."

      Never mind that the modern Olympics has become rife with corporate sponsorship and bribery allegations. Just as long as the people who are supposed to count in all this - the athletes - don't make any money! Blech.

      The thing that really gets me, though, is that althletes are not allowed to make political statements in the stadium - a stadium which is a political statement in itself: 'Hey guys! China's really quite nice! Never mind us raping Tibet, killing our own people and all that - look: Shiny Olympics! We're part of the civilized world! See!'

      • by coppro (1143801) on Saturday February 16 2008, @05:35PM (#22448362)

        I love this bit: "Also, athletes cannot use their blogs for commercial gain." Never mind that the modern Olympics has become rife with corporate sponsorship and bribery allegations. Just as long as the people who are supposed to count in all this - the athletes - don't make any money! Blech.
        The IOC does it's very best to keep the Olympics non-commercial. As an example, you will see zero corporate logos on athlete equipment - it's completely forbidden at the the Olympics, though this form of sponsorship is quite common anywhere else. Preventing the athletes from commercializing their experiences at the games is important - it's true to the founding ideals of the games, and keeps it a competition, rather then "I got to the Olympics, so now I'm going to make $2 million writing about it." Look at the entertainment industry. It's sick and disgusting how much anyone in any form of entertainment (including professional sports) gets paid. They can go say how great some random product is, and they'll get paid millions for that endorsement. Imagine what would happen if athletes could use blogs in the same way: "I got up this morning to eat my Kellog's Corn Flakes Cereal because I really enjoy it and it helps me compete" and then get a massive dumping of money. The IOC is correct in banning commercial gain. I agree to a lesser extent as to the other policies - it makes sense to say that the athletes can't say stuff about each other, because blogs tend to be much more personal than interviews, and so some sexist or racist comments or drug accusations or whatnot might slip through, and the backlash would be much worse than these restrictions are.
    • Woohoo, freedom of the press!
      This is a repeat of the 1936 Olympics. The less we know and care, the better. Really.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Uh, the IOC is surely not a corporation, and especially not the athletes employer. They're merely the organizers of the Olympic games.

        Their infringement on athletes' rights is a scandal on its own!
  • Still pictures are allowed as long as they do not show Olympic events
    Who copyrighted the Olympics?!? Why is it that I cannot take pictures of events and share them with friends if I am there? These freaking events have existed for centuries, how can you copyright that?!?!?!

    Or is this a security issue? If it is, then they need to get over it. This is getting ridiculous.
    • Re:Copyright?!?!?! (Score:5, Informative)

      by FooAtWFU (699187) on Saturday February 16 2008, @04:30PM (#22447940) Homepage

      Still pictures are allowed as long as they do not show Olympic events
      Who copyrighted the Olympics?!?
      The IOC. Then they sell out the rights for a massive profit.

      It's also trademarked to Hell and back.

    • Or maybe it's about different techniques (legal ones) athletes use or equipment they use (again legal ones)?
  • Olympic Oxymoron (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LingNoi (1066278) on Saturday February 16 2008, @04:05PM (#22447734)

    Olympism is a philosophy of life, exalting and combining in a balanced whole the qualities of body, will and mind. Blending sport with culture and education, Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy found in effort, the educational value of good example and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles.
    (Olympic Charter, Fundamental Principles, paragraph 1)

    I guess they forgot to add the clause, "except when in China".
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      No doubt! This will last less than 24 hrs (if that) before china's censorship kicks into high gear. All it should take is oh, one picture of a picture of an entrant taken as he participated in Tiananmen Square...
    • by Lally Singh (3427) on Saturday February 16 2008, @04:19PM (#22447846) Journal
      Very fair.

      However I'd like to add that to make ethical progress (as a species), we have to bring in those we disagree with (e.g. the ones who are really wrong). Bring them in and push for incremental change. It's messy and boring, but it's the best way to do it. If we require china to play by all the rules at once, they're unlikely to participate -- no progress made. If we ease them, then we can start a process which (hopefully) will get us somewhere.

      Messy, boring, and deeply unsatisfactory, yes. But it often works, and I personally can't think of a better solution that would work as well.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      ...the educational value of good example and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles.
      Just redefine ethics to fit China's unique situations and the problem disappears[/sarcasm]. Economists have no issue with doing that by saying it's "opportunity cost".
  • After all the censorship, you might get to say two words and show a picture of your socks, assuming they're generic....
  • Boycot (Score:3, Insightful)

    by zmooc (33175) <zmooc&zmooc,net> on Saturday February 16 2008, @04:09PM (#22447762) Homepage
    *boycots olympic games entirely*
  • Dear Diary (Score:4, Funny)

    by zappepcs (820751) on Saturday February 16 2008, @04:14PM (#22447808) Journal
    I woke up in China this morning. The place smells funny.
    The group went to a sporting event today, kind of exciting.
    Hopefully tomorrow I'll hear some music I like
    Goodnight
  • What would happen? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Frosty Piss (770223) on Saturday February 16 2008, @04:15PM (#22447814)
    So... What exactly would happen to an athlete who violated this "rule"? Would they lose any medals? Be banned from competing? It's one thing to make such "rules", another to enforce them.
  • by mangu (126918) on Saturday February 16 2008, @04:17PM (#22447834)
    Olympic athletes used to be *amateurs*! I once met Lasse Viren, a gold medallist in the 1972 and 1976 Olympics. He was a police officer in Finland, was never paid to run, didn't make any commercials, was never sponsored by anyone.


    Today, the commercial spirit is so strong they have to carefully delimit anything that's published, pictures or words, about the event. Blogs must be carefully examined, lest there's something in there that might diminish the profits of the advertisers...


    As they used to say when the Olympics were performed in the interests of sport alone, "O Tempora, O Mores!"

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      I can just picture those blogs now

      When I got up, I had a cool refreshing *Pepsi* while I put on my Ultra-Performance *Nike* shoes and my *Fruit of the Loom* running uniform.

      Make it one paragraph to describe every little thing and then have your blog run like 10 pages a day so that you can maximize your advertising revenue.

      That sounds like the Olympics of today!

    • by Deadstick (535032) on Saturday February 16 2008, @04:55PM (#22448118)
      Olympic athletes used to be *amateurs*!

      Yes they were, when Avery Brundage was running the show. He also kicked the Jews off the US team in Berlin, and fought to keep the female events "decorative"...he'd be right at home in China.

      rj

      • by mangu (126918) on Saturday February 16 2008, @05:15PM (#22448254)

        when Avery Brundage was running the show. He also kicked the Jews off the US team in Berlin, and fought to keep the female events "decorative"

        Well, Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner. Apparently he fathered one or more children by one of his slaves. This can be labelled as rape, since the slave, willing or not, wasn't in a position to say "no".


        A man can have the right idea about something, yet be a total son of a bitch about something else.

  • by Ranger (1783) on Saturday February 16 2008, @04:17PM (#22447836) Homepage
    The insane restrictions of the IOC has really killed my interest in the Olympics. And along with the timeshifting the broadcast of events ruins my enjoyment.

    The pre-Disney ABC coverage of the Olympics and their Wild World of Sports was the best coverage of the Olympics and no one is ever going to be that good again. Especially with the ironfisted control by the IOC. So fuck you, International Olympics Committee.
  • First having the Olympics in China, now this. My family plans to attend the winter Olympics in Canada in a few years, and I told them in no uncertain terms that I will never again in my life watch, even on TV, the Olympics.

    Even aside from the absurd profiteering, human rights violations, etc, when will people grow up and realize that we aren't monkeys anymore? Like a few weeks back when they told the guy with the prosthetic limb that he could not compete. Why is it alright for someone to dedicate their life
    • Like a few weeks back when they told the guy with the prosthetic limb that he could not compete. Why is it alright for someone to dedicate their life to trying to run faster, but not alright to use actual innovation to do so?

      Of course this has zero to do with the Olympics, but this fellow was banned from competing in certain competitions because the technical innovation of his mechanical leg gave him an unfair advantage over those who did not have such a leg. If such a thing was allowed, where would it stop

      • by schnikies79 (788746) on Saturday February 16 2008, @04:33PM (#22447962)
        Olympic sport is supposed to be about human pure ability/endurance, not technical innovation. It's the same reason that steroids and such are banned.

        If we go by your thinking, why can't athletes use those motorized, piston-powered leg attachments that make you run faster? I feel bad for the guy, but he does have an advantage.

        I am a runner myself and running is my life, so I can see where they are coming from.
      • Sorry, my post was meant for the original poster. I hit the wrong reply, blah.
    • Actual innovation? But where does that stop? Is it OK for someone to use steroids in the Olympics? I would consider steroids to be as much of an innovation as an artifical limb. It's unfortunate that this person can not participate in the Olympics but I think most people would agree that his prosthetic limb puts him at an unfair advantage.
  • by Khyber (864651) <khyberkitsune@gmail.com> on Saturday February 16 2008, @04:22PM (#22447870) Journal
    How I wish the Greek gods existed, so they'd blast China and any corporation involved with the Olympics to hell. The Olypmics used to be a free public event for the 'known world' at that time to compete for fame, honor, and glory. Now it's compete for sponsorship dollars, advertising dollars, and getting your picture on a Wheaties box.

    I certainly won't be paying any attention to the Olympics, now. I'll be paying more attention to my cats in competition to see which one can get the little red dot that flies around every so often.
    • It's not just the Olympics, it's everything. From architects having copyrights of any picture taken of his building empire state building, copyrights over dance moves and the blood sucking music industry with its hold over the "Happy Birthday" song.

      The world has become more pro IP rights, extending them and including rights on things that shouldn't be copyrighted in the first place.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2008, @04:32PM (#22447954)
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/cs-080215-blogging-olympics-ioc,1,7510480.story [chicagotribune.com]

    Here is the link to the article without registration.
  • by Trojan35 (910785) on Saturday February 16 2008, @04:37PM (#22447998)
    Anyone else notice that as the Olympics has shifted from Nationalism to Commercialism it's viewership and worldwide interest has dropped dramatically? I wonder when the people who run the Olympics will notice that. My guess: once it starts losing money.
  • by blind biker (1066130) on Saturday February 16 2008, @04:39PM (#22448016) Journal
    Have you heard that the UK team could only go to the olympic games in China, if they signed (individually) a paper that they will not say anything against the regime? And that said regime has, instead of improving, further cracked down on human rights and democracy activists?

    Furthermore.... did you know that the air in most venues is too polluted to hold ANY outdoors competitions, let alone marathons?

    So why was China selected, and the other candidates dropped?

    Money and power? Naaaahh... never!
    • Have you heard that the UK team could only go to the olympic games in China, if they signed (individually) a paper that they will not say anything against the regime?

      Oh the irony.. one country that is famous for its human rights abuses, lack of freedom, lack of free speech, invasive surveillance of its people, aggressive unwarranted invasions of other countries is now forbidding its athletes from criticizing China -- a more liberal country.

      I'm (slightly) joking. At least today I am, ask me in a few mon

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      if they signed (individually) a paper that they will not say anything against the regime?

      That is not what the "paper" said. Indeed the "paper" is a contract all UK Olympic athletes have had to sign for the last 20 odd years, and all it is is a reaffirmation of some of the rules they are all bound by anyway. The purpose of it is to ensure the athletes are fully aware of the rules so they cannot plead ignorance if they break them, as they have signed a contract. In the case of the extra text that was added to the contract for the 2008 games, it was simply a reaffirmation of the rule that poli

  • I will be boycotting the Olympics this year. I refuse to support such an event in a country that has such disregard for human rights and democracy. China should not have been allowed to host such an event until they demonstrate that they can behave decently.
  • The Rules (Score:5, Funny)

    by owlnation (858981) on Saturday February 16 2008, @04:53PM (#22448104)
    The First Rule of the Olympics is:

    You don't talk about the Olympics.
  • by Alain Williams (2972) on Saturday February 16 2008, @06:57PM (#22448892) Homepage
    The Olympics is about money, not sport - that died some years back. These restrictions are NOT of Chinese doing, it is the IOC that is doing it for it's own profit and that of the sponsors. It would be interesting to see how much money changes hands in brown paper bags.

    I shall not be watching - so don't count my eyes when you work out what the TV rights will cost.

  • by 91degrees (207121) on Saturday February 16 2008, @07:07PM (#22448952) Journal
    The IOC said blogs by athletes 'should take the form of a diary or journal and should not contain any interviews with other competitors at the games.

    I see their point. They don't want their athletes using the event to springboard a journalism career. This does involve interfering with their freedom of speech though. What if they want to tell everyone about the games in a more dispassionate way? Why shouldn't they?

    They also should not write about other athletes.

    Privacy? A bit heavy handed.

    Still pictures are allowed as long as they do not show Olympic events.

    Seems the IOC has become a corporate enterprise. It used to be all about promoting sports for its own sake. It's a shame that things have gone this way.

    Athletes must obtain the consent of their competitors if they wish to photograph them. Also, athletes cannot use their blogs for commercial gain."

    Both of these are laudable. The first is about the privacy of the other athletes. The second is about keeping to the amateur spirit of the games.
  • by Phoenix666 (184391) on Sunday February 17 2008, @12:08AM (#22450504)
    into irrelevance that is the Olympics and its masters, the IOC. So rife with corruption, so lousy with commercialism, so compromised by professional "amateur" athletes.

    Really, the original intention of the Olympics has been completely sand-blasted away. The IOC not allowing the very people who are making the whole pageant possible to talk/blog about what the experience is like? It's the absurd cherry on top of one giant whopping sundae of hypocrisy.

    I will probably be shouted down by those who can't wait to wave the patriotic flag of country X at the games, but I say down with the Olympics, down with the IOC, and down with commercialized professional sports, for that matter.

    Wake me up if the world ever gets back to sports that are about community and excellence and human achievement. Until then, there are many better things to do.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      If you just think of it as twice every 4 years it's exactly the same as it was up until they separated the winter and summer games into different years.