Tag Archives: van2010

“The Vancouver 2010 Olympics and social media, will they be awkward bedfellows?” Wes/thirdi

2010 Olympics and social media, will they be awkward bedfellows? [archived link] Inspiring reportage by @thirdi – not sure how to feel yet

##

Archived Link:  The Vancouver 2010 Olympics and social media, will they be awkward bedfellows?

By Wes | September 27th, 2009

Yesterday in my RSS feeds was a little tidbit from the Canadian Press regarding social media and coverage of the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics. The article describes an IOC pretty much acquiescing to the uncontrollable forces of social media nature, quoting head of communications Mark Adams as saying “We can’t ignore them. They are there and people are going to talk with you or about you, you might as well talk with them.” essentially what sounds to me like a classic -if you can’t beat’em join’em- approach. Because it seemed like the IOC was trying to beat them for a while (and by them I mean us, the public).

Late last year Dave Olson, formerly of Raincity Studios in Vancouver and now with MovieSet, wrote an open letter to VANOC laying out quite eloquently the need for the Olympics to recognize the utility and inevitability of social media, blogging, and other modes of communication now prevalent in media. It was amicable, proactive, and totally necessary in my opinion; simply asking for inclusion and cooperation between the IOC machine and multitude of bloggers in Vancouver. Up until earlier this year the IOC had serious reservations about blogs and social media in regards to the Olympics, and many in the blogging and internet community had to push for inclusion and for recognition of our legitimacy. The IOC still does not recognize blogging as a legitimate form of journalism and rather paints it as a form of personal expression. So we’re akin to those crazy guys standing at speakers corner in London. Rule 49 of the Olympic Charter states that, “Only those persons accredited as media may act as journalists, reporters or in any other media capacity.” Bloggers, we’re just a bunch of punks I guess. But the IOC has been loosening up, or maybe giving in would be a better expression.

According to www.sportsjournalists.co.uk there are new media guidelines being implemented for the Vancouver Games “The guidelines are the latest development in IOC rules which have had to evolve rapidly, reflecting the growing appetite for first-hand accounts from Olympic competitors, and they mark a sea-change from the rules issued from Lausanne ahead of the 2000 Sydney Olympics, where athletes were banned from blogging altogether.”  People really want to hear firsthand accounts of the athletes as soon as they can have it. And sorry to say, Twitter and Facebook are a more efficient way than a room full of clamoring reporters, to get the real emotional content inside athletes out into the world after a victory or defeat.  Yes, it might not be objective journalism- by definition a personal expression of experience won’t be objective, but it will be honest and real; and it’s what people want to read and hear. SO I’m glad that athletes are now able to blog about their experiences- it was ridiculous that they weren’t allowed before. But the IOC also has other issues to consider beyond the athletes, and that’s guys like me.

The relationship between journalists and the Olympics and the Olympics and bloggers is directly related (or how about inversely proportional) to the relationship between networks, advertising revenue and the Olympics. And while I could go on some Marxist rant about the risks and damages of the Olympic games and all about how it’s an elitist money making scheme I won’t; not because I’m not a Marxist but because this is about blogging, control of content, legitimization of our medium and the old way of thinking that is crystallized in the IOC and its great reluctance to welcome social media, or fear that it will run amok throughout the games. (So maybe I’ll go on a Marshall McLuhan-esque rant instead) The fact of the matter is that the Olympics also has positive benefits too.

the Olympic Village has gone insanely over-budget and in fact the entire Olympics are over budget. So of course the IOC, Vancouver, BC, and Canada all need to make some dough off this fiasco. So shouldn’t blogging and social media be viewed as a revenue stream to them- a huge one? And not just a bunch of hacks with laptops posting useless drivel; which is what the rhetoric tends to make me feel they view it as. Where other large events like the Academy Awards and Grammies welcomed bloggers into the fold, the IOC has been unwilling to welcome the public observer into their mix. And I truly believe it comes down to advertising revenue, licensing, and control of the Olympic image. But I’ll end it there. I look forward to blogging extensively throughout the Olympics and reading the other Senses posters as we proudly watch a piece of history unfold in our sleepy little logging town.

##

This entry was posted on Sunday, September 27th, 2009 at 3:03 pm. 

Comments:

DaveO
My colleagues & I have covered several Olympics as social media-makers plus reached out to VANOC, IOC and other acronyms for 4+ years and spoke to numerous groups and trad. media but not been included in any manner by the official orgs. We received a meaningless response from VANOC from the open letters but moved ahead anyhow because we know the way people get news has changed.

As such, we are rallying up the TrueNorthMediaHouse.com project to provide a “home” for alternative coverage so I’m a little bit surprised that *finally* less than 6 months to the Games, they sorta jump on board and say all the right things. Uhh welcome to the 21st century, pull up a chair.

DaveO
Wes, thanks for this great piece of reporting. It’s been a long road and frankly i am exhausted, disappointed and frustrated by the slow adoption of new media by IOC and the non-inclusion by VANOC. This is good news – i guess – but the timing is odd. At this point, i am more concerned about finding Latvian hockey fans to party with ;-).

DaveO
PS, not a huuuge deal but i spell my family name Ols”o”n rather than “e”

wesregan
Hey Dave, I’d love some more information on True North Media House. Is there space available for other bloggers still? How is it going to be set up? Where? When?

Wes

The Canadian Press: Social media bringing down the walled garden of the Olympic Games

The Canadian Press: Social media bringing down the walled garden of the Olympic Games

The Vancouver 2010 Olympics and social media, will they be awkward bedfellows?

The Vancouver 2010 Olympics and social media, will they be awkward bedfellows?

BC to force homeless into shelters for 2010…

My note: Yup happened in Atlanta, Sydney, Beijing, Athens etc. @corinn So no one is *really* surprised at this new draconian plot to ‘cleanse’ street

RT @Dave_Eby: BC to force homeless into shelters for 2010 Olympics. …

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/bc-wants-to-force-homeless-into-shelters-in-extreme-weather/article1295093/

Note: original link dead and not archived in Internet Archive – keeping post for placeholder for backfilling for archival purposes

Note: Original article by Frances Bula in Globe and Mail respectfully re-posted in full here for archival purposes to document civic issues during Vancouver 2010 Olympics / accessed via Internet Archive on Jan. 30, 2020 from capture Sept 21, 2009

##

B.C. wants to force homeless into shelters in extreme weather

Frances Bula

Vancouver — From Monday’s Globe and Mail
Last updated on Tuesday, Sep. 22, 2009 03:00AM EDT

British Columbia is drafting the country’s first legislation that would give authorities the power to compel homeless people to go to shelters or even jail during extreme cold- or wet-weather periods.

The plan has sparked intense discussions in Gordon Campbell’s government between the B.C. Housing Ministry and the office of the Attorney-General about Charter of Rights issues and liability problems, according to e-mails obtained by The Globe and Mail.

And the B.C. Civil Liberties Association is questioning the timing of the announcement, given the impending Olympic Games.

“This comes after seven years of a lack of concern about sleeping on the streets,” said executive director David Eby.

An internal ministry memo details potential roadblocks to the proposed Assisting to Shelter Act, noting that “requiring people to go to a shelter against their will may make the legislation vulnerable to a Charter challenge. A legal opinion is pending.”

Housing Minister Rich Coleman confirmed Sunday that he is planning to move ahead with the legislation, but it has nothing to do with the Games.

He said the catalyst for the bill was the death of a homeless woman on Vancouver’s streets in December. The 47-year-old woman, known to the police only as Tracey, burned to death while trying to keep warm with a candle.

The police had offered to take the woman to shelter three times during the night after temperatures fell below zero. On the same evening, officers from the Vancouver Police Department offered shelter to 101 people; only 12 accepted and six took blankets.

“I just think we have to do what we can to save people’s lives,” said Mr. Coleman, who is also working on plans for urgent-response facilities where people can be taken besides jail or shelters. “I just believe it’s worth a try.”

An internal ministry memo proposes the mechanisms that would be necessary to make the new law work fairly and efficiently. Police officers or others (which the memo did not specify) would be given the authority to force people to shelters – with a limit specified on the level of force allowable – once a region had declared that Extreme Weather Response plans were in effect. Extreme weather was described as low temperatures or excessive rain. That declaration is already set out in B.C. as the trigger for the opening of emergency shelters in many municipalities.

Outreach workers would give homeless people a written warning that the extreme-weather declaration is in effect and notify police. Police would then try to convince these people to go into shelters and, if they refused, police would contact “an official (to be determined) by telephone who would then issue an administrative order which the officer would then enforce,” the memo says.

“As a last resort and in order for the police officer to discharge their legal responsibility, the individual may be taken to police cells, either voluntarily or involuntarily, where they will be held until the extreme weather declaration is no longer in effect.”

Mr. Coleman said it’s possible that advocacy groups will mount a Charter challenge to the legislation, but he said the government is willing to accept that risk. He wouldn’t say when the legislation would be coming forward, but an internal memo noted that the deadline for the draft was Sept. 10, indicating it could be imminent.

The bill will be what is called an “exposure bill,” meaning it will be tabled and then responses will be gathered from police, homeless-shelter operators and others. It is not aimed at people with mental-health problems, who can already be apprehended under mental-health laws, but at any homeless people who refuse to go to shelters even in life-threatening weather conditions.

The B.C. Civil Liberties Association’s Mr. Eby said the legislation appears to be rife with legal pitfalls, including the Charter of Rights issue of whether you can force into a shelter someone who chooses to stay out on the street. Police will need to come up with ways to prove someone is homeless and that they’re putting themselves in danger.

“Whether we like it or not, staying out on the streets is their right,” Mr. Eby said.

As well, he said it appears ministry bureaucrats are aware that they’re leaving police open to questions of liability such as the ones they faced during a recent inquiry into their handling of Frank Paul, a native man who died after police picked him up for public drunkenness and then, when no agency took responsibility for him, left him in an alley.

The ministry memo states that there needs to be a clear endpoint to police officers’ liability if they pick up a homeless person but the shelters are full or won’t take that person.

Special to the Globe and Mail