Because the commentator is playing with information that was unknown at the time the event took place.
An outstanding example: the end of the EPL season this year. For the unaware, there were two matches that would determine who would win the league title. In one match, Manchester City was down 2-1 as they entered stoppage time and Manchester United was up 1-0. Given that scenario, Manchester City had to somehow score two goals to win the title. And that's exactly what they did. If you listen to Ian Darke's call on ESPN, it had *everything* you could possibly want: it sounded deflated at the start of ST, then City scored the first goal, and he perked up, and when they scored the second goal 30 seconds after the ManU match ended, he lost it. Now, imagine how you call that if you *know* that City was going to do what they did. Do you tip off that it's going to be a wild ending? You're not being honest with the audience because you know something they don't. I'd think it's impossible to not let that color your call, and it completely did with the Womens Gymanstics qualifier. If that's all you're doing, then describe it as highlights, not a PxP call. On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 10:49 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > But why is this odious if it's completely invisible to the end user? (for > that matter, why is it odious even if it *is* obvious to the end user?) You > have video of a sporting event and you audio of commentators adding > play-by-play and color. As long as they arrive on your TV screen > simultaneously, what difference would it make whether they were originally > recorded at the same time? It shouldn't have any effect on the end user's > experience whatsoever. > > Doug Fields > Tampa, FL > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [TV orNotTV] Online Olympics > From: PGage <[email protected]> > Date: Fri, August 03, 2012 11:09 am > To: [email protected] > > BTW, the article linked above speculates that at least some of NBC's > gymnastics coverage is of what I have identified as the most odious type - > commentary added *after* recording the event. This is based on the > observation that during the qualifying Miller online did not mention the > possibility that Wieber might not make the all arounds until near the end > (when this began to seem possible), meanwhile on the tape delayed NBC > coverage they were talking about that possibility from the beginning. > > -- > TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "TV or Not TV" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
