Making the IOC a Laughing Matter DRAFT

the order and transitions are really sketchy... but the ideas are there.

In today’s economy, it seems like money has found a way to the center stage of almost every major event in the world. The election of the location for the 2016 summer olympics is definitely no exception. Major countries from all over the world spent millions of dollars just to be considered for the bid. With such a troubled world economy, is that kind of spending worth it? This is the question that Jim Caple, a senior writer for ESPN.com, raises in his article “Bidding war? What is it good for?” He effectively uses a relaxed and humorous tone to relate with his audience of sports enthusiasts and athletes. He then uses this connection to spark debate about whether or not it is worth the money and effort to move the olympics to a new location every 2 years. By using mixed media and including an interactive box where readers can post comments about the issue, Jim effectively creates an alluring page that keeps the reader actively engaged in the issue. He argues that it is not worth the money spent and that the olympics should be held at the same two locations every time. While he does suggest a solution and defends it, he does admit that there will probably be no easy solution to the problem.

One of Jim’s most effective tools was the tone that he chose to use throughout the article. Using jokes, humorous allusions to scandals of past olympics, and clever figurative language, he was able to relate perfectly to the common sports fanatic. To open the article he says, “Chicago's bid for the 2016 Olympics reached its peak this week when the most respected, influential and famous person in the United States traveled to Copenhagen to make the Windy City's case before the International Olympic Committee: Oprah. Oh, and President Obama will be there as well.” He also says, “Attending an Olympics is the most rewarding experience there is for a sports fan, especially if you can get inside the Dutch Heineken House.” By keeping to this light, joking tone, he not only relates better to his audience, but he also gives the whole issue a humorous, even ridiculous shade. By keeping the article funny and almost in a mocking attitude, he was able to increase the effect of his argument that the bidding war has become, in itself, ridiculous.

Part of the humor that Jim incorporated into the article used allusions that referred to controversies in the sports world both past and present. He mentioned that Sochi, the location for the 2014 Winter Olmpics, might spend $33 billion dollars on the Olympics and parenthetically joked saying, “what, are they using the same folks who built Yankee Stadium?” This reference will be effective for those who remember that the Yankee Stadium cost nearly 1.5 billion dollars to build, the second most expensive stadium in the world. This linked his argument with a past, but relevant, controversy. Many of his intended audience would be familiar with this and would get a good laugh from it, further helping him connect with his audience. He includes multiple allusions similar to this one. Whether it be a reference to the Tayna Harding incident in Lillehammer, Norway, or to the human rights violations in Beijing, he found ways to keep the article in a comical light.

As a suggested solution to the issue, Jim proposed that the Olympics should be held in the same two places, eliminating the costly competition of countries vying for the IOC bid. To support his position he argues that hosting the Olympics really isn’t worth it. He supports this statement throughout the article by applying different connotations to words and makes it obvious to the reader that he is doing so by using quotation marks around the word. At the beginning of the article he says, “sending your head of state to the IOC is considered as much of a prerequisite in an Olympic bid as a well-placed ‘contribution.’” He also uses quotation marks around words such as “volunteer” and “honor” to sarcastically emphasize his point that hosting the Olympics isn’t worth the cost, both financially and logistically speaking. He also uses irony in a few instances to further convince the reader that hosting the Olympics isn’t worth all the money being spent. Referring to the cities that are not chosen to host the Olympics, he writes, “These cities are the winners. The loser is the city chosen to host the Olympics.” By convincing people that hosting isn’t worth it, he supports his argument that it would be better to keep the Olympics in a set place; if people don’t mind not having it in their country, they won’t mind keeping it in the same place either.

Just keeping the article humorous and informative would not have been enough to start any real sort of debate however, and Jim realized this. He chose to incorporate a box at the bottom of the website that would allow readers to comment on the article and express their opinion. This made the article fluid in nature--it changed every time someone would visit the page. In essence the page was inviting people to start talking about it right then and there.

As with most ESPN.com articles, Jim also incorporated a short video clip at the top of the article showing part of a commentary about the issue. It included different authorities in the sports and olympic world giving their opinion on why President Obama should or should not back the effort to bring the Olympics to Chicago. It argues some of the same issues that Jim argues. Namely, is it worth the trouble for the honor of hosting the Olympic games?

Overall, Jim’s major appeal was to pathos. He effectively creates within the reader an emotional response to how much money and effort is going in to merely selecting the location of the Olympics. While he does use humor, the main response he tries to create is that of shock. He mentions that in the process of choosing the location for the 2014 Winter games Russia transported an entire skating rink to Guatemala as part of its bid for consideration. He used facts such as this to paint a picture for the reader of just how much money goes into this process. The kairos of the issue makes these facts all the more effective. In the middle of recession, should we be spending this kind of money? Also, at the time the article was published, the IOC was making it’s decision for the 2016 Summer Olympics, further adding to the maturity of the kairos. Naturally ethos and logos were in play as well. His appeal to ethos was mainly that he was a senior sports columnist at a world renowned sports network and that he had covered multiple olympic events over the years. His appeal to logos was evident his his explanation of why it would be better to keep the Olympics in the same locations.

While he was successful starting debate among his audience and bringing people’s attention to the issue, if he truly wanted a change to occur, he chose the wrong audience to convince. Convincing the average sports fan that the olympics should always be held in the same place will do to create awareness of the issue, but the members of the International Olympic Committee (i.e. the people he would need to convince) are far from being the average sports fan. They consist of military leaders, royalty, influencial members of major corporations, and political leaders from all over the world--a group not well represented among avid ESPN.com patrons. So if his purpose really was just to inform the sports fan community of the issue and to start a debate, then he was effective in his purpose. If he actually wanted to persuade people to change the way the Olympics are organized, he needs to aim a little higher.