Stephen Colbert Can't Cover The Olympics Without Getting Sued

It is too bad that the Olympics doesn't have the loyalty of the Colbert Nation that stepped up to sponsor the US Speed Skating Team then they wouldn't have to worry about kowtowing to networks since it would be funded by the public

I watched that interview when it aired and Ebersol spefically said "We want you to cover the games as part of the NBC team" he didn't say he was allowed to do it for Comedy Central.

I thought that was the point of Ebersol giving Colbert the vest from NBC Sports

Ebersol also said about covering Shauni Davis that Colbert could come into where Bob Costas when doing the braodcast and give his take on the speed skating.

So the part where Ebersol said he could cover it for his network was probably meant as the Vancouverage that Colbert has been doing with the crowds and the international houses.

I'm sure Ebersol didn't envision that Bob Costas would be doing some "Canadian History" with a moose named after him on TCR

Well, no offense, but NO coverage of ANY sport sounds nice to me. :o)

oh wow, what an elightened individual!
have you not noticed all the camera equipment at the olympics? all the high-tech snazzy images they capture, with motorized cameras, and all those photographers?

who bought those cameras, paid for them to be installed, bought the software to run them and all the effects needed to provide a top-quality production? Who employs the cameramen and all the soundmen? who pays the salaries of the announcers?

NBC, that's who.

that's done with advertising sponsors. companies pay milions for their ad spots, that pays the cost of the images. it also pays the sponsorships of the athletes, who will be able to parlez their hard work and athletic success into economic success, which is their right and they deserve it.

if other networks can just lift the images, then NBC loses money and who in the hell will go to the expense of covering olympics in the future? We'd all lose, if you had your way.

Two words for you: grow up.

Thanks for providing another example of the lack of imagination of a conservative. NBC and most of the huge media corporations share that lack. Only a fool would think that they stand to lose money by having other networks hype the material that they own the rights to.

That's not capitalism...

that's statist backed corporatism.

Peace

yet another socialist who doesn't understand that without corporate sponsorship, there would not be enough money to afford to cover the olympics and we wouldn't be able to watch the games at all.

how do you figure it's "statist"? do you even know the definition of statist?

"The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy"

where is the centralized state control of the economy in the Olympics coverage.

you might consider buying a dictionary. or if you don't want to contribute to any corporation's bottom line, find one online.

although I'm sure they will have ads and you'll end up supporting them anyway, unwittingly.

NBC is the worst rated network of the big four, but last week they had 8 of the top 10 for ratings according to Nielson. You have a point, but desperate people get real anal real quick.

I can see why they think they need to do this, but they're really just kind of wasting their time and energy being concerned. Again, desperate people tend to be irate and do stupid things. Like get rid of geniuses like Conan O'Brien

no, NBC is worse. it's been a corporation for ever, just like Fox, so your complaint is rather pointless. but it's become worse because now it is owned by GE and has become a propaganda tool of GE and the Obama administration.

+^d

stop shouting

i think your misinterpreting the first amendment..

Nah, Colbert having to work around the legal restrictions is infinitely funnier: NBC just made his life easy, by handing him a comedy gold-mine....

YES!

lol true

+^d

yeah, I remember when Steve Carrel was on The Daily Show, too. That was awesome.

But Colbert won a Grammy and Stewart hasn't

stewart also never put out a record...

yeah, but what do Grammys mean anyway?

What does better mean when you don't define it?

EXACTLY!

So pointing out a difference does mean something to show the advantage when the term is not defined.

Since Colbert has something of value that Stewart doesn't that shows the mistake you made

Ahh, but it depends on how much value you place on a Grammy. We cannot forget that Colbert wouldn't have gotten that Grammy had Stewart not had him on his show. Stewart could win a Grammy, he just doesn't want to. haha

The value of the Grammy is that Colbert won one and Stewart didn't that gives Colbert an obvious advantage

It doesn't matter whether Stewart wanted one or not. it is something to point to show the difference between them since you wanted to make one.

That is one thing Colbert is better at that can be proven

Like I said, how valuable is that Grammy? Colbert could have a pile of dead hookers in his garage, but that doesn't give him an advantage over Stewart who doesn't, I hope. It all depends upon the value you place in that Grammy.