A critical analysis of media pertaining to the 2010 Olympic Games
Calvin Chan
SOCI 430 99A
November 10, 2009
The Olympic Games to be hosted by the city of Vancouver this upcoming February have
proved to be a highly controversial topic of debate in recent years. Arguments over the costs
and benefits of the Games have spanned numerous issues, inducing opinions from a diverse
group of commentators. One such critic is Jane Sterk, leader of the Green Party of British
Columbia, who has, along with her caucus, “opposed the Vancouver Winter Olympics from the
start1.” A contrasting view is provided by advocators of the Games, epitomized in an article by
the Canadian Press, who remark on the improved state of the estimated expenditure for
Olympic security2. International significance of the Games is high – Vancouver, like all former
host cities, will welcome athletes, media, and spectators from around the world. How the city
chooses to act and the results from those actions will have significant implications for all future
Olympic hosts, with Sterk and the Canadian Press demonstrating very different, and ultimately
biased, interpretations on how they think Vancouver is doing.
In critically evaluating sources of information, Dombrowski suggests to discern “any
recognizable special interest... or other motive for conscious or unconscious deception 3.” On
the surface, the Canadian Press, who describe themselves as “Canada’s independent news
agency,” seemingly avoid any persecution under this particular section due to its selfproclaimed autonomous status. However, one needs to look no further than the front page of
the CP website, where they proudly declare their designation as “Host National News Agency”
for the 2010 Olympics. The Canadian Press, then, is a stakeholder of the Games, and stands to
gain by appeasing organizers; in particular, the International Olympic Committee, who were the
party responsible for officially bestowing the title to the CP4 and would likely not be overly
enthralled with negative or condemning articles regarding the winter spectacle.
Similarly, Jane Sterk’s affiliation with provincial party politics, which would be
recognized by many observers as a special interest, must be considered when evaluating her
commentary.
Political influence is made apparent through negative references to the
opposition – “neither the B.C. Liberal government nor the NDP would ever think to spend $6
billion on the common good” and “the Vancouver Olympics were built from the ground up on
broken promises and budgets” – as well as the positive appraisal of initiatives congruent with
the Green Party’s platform – “we are five weeks away from the Copenhagen conference on
climate change, the most important issue of our time.” These examples of politicking are
evidence that Sterk has a motive ulterior to providing an unbiased interpretation to the public,
an end which is achieved by the emphasis of slanted opinion.
In their article, the Canadian Press reports that “the cost of providing protection for the
2010 Winter Games shouldn't go over budget - and could actually be less than expected,”
remarking positively about how spending will likely not surpass “the roughly $1 billion already
budgeted.” The problem here, however, is the convenient use of omission. What the CP fails
to disclose is that the original amount set aside for security for the Games was a mere $175
million5, less than one-fifth of the number cited in their report. The Canadian Press, while not
outright providing false claims, commits what Dombrowski describes as “bias observable in the
selection of details” with the implicit goal to persuade rather than to report. The CP selectively
uses information in an attempt to characterize Vancouver’s expected security expenditure as
under budget, which is a perspective not consistent with other established sources.
Likewise, Sterk utilizes the approach of manipulating language in her commentary in an
attempt to persuade, albeit with a strategy different than that used by the Canadian Press.
Instead, the provincial party leader relies on numerous statements that appeal to emotion,
assertions that, by nature, are unable to be verified by an independent source. This includes
declarations beginning with “I accept” to demonstrate a graceful understanding of situations, as
well as “I commend” and “I applaud” to show sincere appreciativeness, in an attempt to
personify herself as an individual worthy of the reader’s time and trust. Sterk then uses this
positive impression to give credence to other emotionally affecting statements, including
“when I think about the Olympics, I feel a great sense of sadness” and “what is on your wish list
for your family’s future?” in an attempt to influence readers by evoking emotional responses.
Further, in her manipulation of language, Sterk subtlety exercises many of the tricks of
persuasion described by Dombrowski. For instance, jargon – “technical terms” possibly used
“to dazzle or stun the audience” – is exemplified in Sterk’s employment of the word “tinnitus”
to describe sound. Innuendo – where “since the writer makes no direct statement, [s]he can
smear [her] opponent” with a “question that implies an answer or interpretation which the
writer does not or cannot prove” – is used multiple times, including where Sterk sarcastically
writes “will there be a legacy, a magical Olympic boost like the B.C. Liberals claim?” as an
affront to the provincial party in power. Also, padding of high sentiment – “expression of fine
values and deep concerns to create an impression of integrity and high-mindedness which give
no information but persuade by impressing” – is evident in aforementioned passages such as “I
feel a great sense of sadness” and the “I accept,” “I commend,” and “I applaud” phrases where
the specific verbs chosen “add to the lofty tone.”
Finally, we revisit the element of the Canadian Press classifying itself as an independent
news source, providing news and information to various organizations, publications, and
websites. Hence, the critical assessment of a media item such as the CP report is not simply a
function of examining the article on its own – rather, one must observe how the report is
employed by other parties. Searching for the title of the Canadian Press report via Google
produces a link to the article posted on CTVOlympics.ca as the first result. The use of the report
by this particular website is noteworthy, as CTV’s parent company Bell Globemedia owns the
broadcasting rights for the upcoming Olympic Games for the first time since 19946.
As
explained by Macfayden, “traditional mainstream media – especially commercial and state
television systems and major newspapers – tend to function in ways that maintain their
economic and political interests7.” With the report presenting an aspect of the 2010 Olympics
in a positive light, its use by CTV is exploitative in that it acts as a vehicle to sway readers as well
as to appease stakeholders such as Games organizers and sponsors.
The commentaries by Jane Sterk and the Canadian Press that pertain to the 2010
Olympic Games provide various examples of media bias. The evaluation of their work reveals
that these partialities stem from the selection of information, emphasis given, values and
emotions apparent, and seeming purpose in context as described by Dombrowski. Specifically,
both Sterk and the CP possess special interests that influence their writing, as well as use the
manipulation of language to their respective advantages. Further, Sterk utilizes numerous
tricks of persuasion in her editorial, while we must pay specific attention to the issue of media
ownership in the case of the CP article and its use by CTV. As highlighted by Macfadyen, “most
discussions about globalization and global citizenship ignore or simply gloss over the central
role played by media.” It is important that we recognize biases in sources such as Jane Sterk
and the Canadian Press in order to gain a balanced perspective on our world.
Works Cited
1
Sterk, Jane. “The inconvenient legacy of Vancouver’s 2010 Olympics.” The Georgia Straight, 3
Nov 2009. Web. 10 Nov 2009. <http://www.straight.com/article-268477/jane-sterkinconvenient-legacy-vancouvers-2010-olympics>.
2
The Canadian Press. “Olympic security may come in under budget, MP’s told.” CTV Olympics,
29 Oct 2009. Web. 10 Nov 2009. <http://www.ctvolympics.ca/about-vancouver/news/
newsid=18342.html>.
3
Dombrowski, Eileen. “Topics in Media Criticism.” UBC, Mar 2003. Web. 10 Nov 2009.
<https://www.vista.ubc.ca/webct/RelativeResourceManager/Template/module05/media%20ht
ml%20pages/index.html>.
4
The Canadian Press. “Vancouver 2010 Olympics.” Web. 10 Nov 2009. <http://www.
thecanadianpress.com/news_and_information.aspx?id=3466>.
5
The Vancouver Province. “Vancouver 2010 Olympic security will be over budget.”
Canada.com, 23 Jul 2008. Web. 10 Nov 2009. <http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/
story.html?id=73f3327c-21c4-434b-b190-523f3eccd2c2>.
6
CTV.ca News Staff. “CTV, Rogers win rights to 2010, 2012 Olympics.” CTV News, 8 Feb 2005.
Web. 10 Nov 2009. <http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/
1107803085350_103212285/>.
7
Macfadyen, Leah. “Module 5: The challenge of being informed: Media, communications and
critical thinking.” UBC. Web. 10 Nov 2009.