Inadequate Olympic coverage
Rather than provide any worthwhile analysis of the state of the Olympic movement and the Big Picture of the Salt Lake City Games, Yiannis Koukoulas provides us a hodgepodge of minutiae and unsubstantiated drivel. We pride ourselves on being the birthplace of the Games and their spirit, and we have our own Games coming in two years. Yet we ignored these Games. And when they’re over, we get a couple of paragraphs on food «quantity» at the village and and vague notions of «superficial tidiness» (did the Greek athletes discover dust balls swept behind the furniture?) What about the security? Or the transportation? Or the logistics? Or the atmosphere? Or the entertainment? Or the volunteers? Or the ceremonies? Or the attendance? Or even, heaven forbid, some analysis on the sport and athleticism? (Greek readers interested in some quality reporting and analysis must check in with the foreign media.) As to the charges of favoritism, they are absolutely ridiculous. Let’s remember that while the USA did splendidly well, the vast majority of the medals were still won by the Europeans. And though the Games were held in the USA, the judges were still foreigners from all around the world. So why would there be favoritism (considering how in vogue anti-Americanism is these days, you’d expect the opposite)? Let’s just hope that the foreigners who visit our Games in 2004 won’t be as petty and biased as we are, and leave the Games with a more expansive view. Eleni Poulos – Miami Beach, Florida Editor replies: Your comments are well taken. Our paper is published daily with the International Herald Tribune, which covered the Games extensively. Kathimerini’s correspondent also covered the issues you mention thoroughly, but, to avoid repetition, we selected pieces that looked at the Games from a Greek angle. Seeing only one side of our coverage on the Internet (as opposed to reading it with the IHT pieces) can create a distorted impression of how the Games were viewed here.
