The London 2012 Olympics Opening Ceremony and Its Polyphonous Aftermath

Abstract

Global mega-events are widely perceived as a tool used by host countries' elites to propagate national narratives. But how are the messages actually decoded by international publics? The article takes the case of the London 2012 Olympics Opening Ceremony to reveal the multifaceted character of mediated responses to a global event. This case is particularly important for both postcolonial studies and globalization studies because the British self-presentation silenced the country's imperial past. In the aftermath, there were varying degrees of both attention and interpretative depth. Most notably, the omission of the imperial past of the host country was not scandalized by most authors of the "global south." Instead, newspaper reports were characterized by affirmation, localization, criticism, or benign neglect. Empirically, the study is based on online versions of 26 newspapers from Argentina,

Olympic Ceremony and Diplomacy: South Korean, North Korean, and British Media Coverage of the 2018 Olympic Winter Games’ Opening and Closing Ceremonies

“…The artistic performance essentially includes the promotion of the historical legacy and the demonstration of the cultural identity of a host nation. In fact, the opening and closing celebrations are the only official programmes of the Olympics where a cultural exhibition plays a central role (Bryant, 2015;Oettler, 2015). This cultural spectacle can, therefore, be part of the host country's soft power campaign to promote a positive image of the nation.…”

“…Given its status as the largest mega-event in the world, the Olympic Games’ opening and closing ceremonies appear especially important insofar as sport diplomacy is concerned. These Olympic celebrations primarily consist of the representation of cultural heritage and the dissemination of a political message (Chen et al, 2012; Oettler, 2015). Also, they work as a powerful communication platform because they are premier media events which arouse immense global interest (Billings, Angelini, & MacArthur, 2018).…”

“…Their communicative power and ritualistic aura are so immense that both electronic and print media devote a large amount of resources to relay these special occasions to their domestic audiences (Billings & Wenner, 2017). Understandably, each national media filters this global event via its national prism, and it is through this media filtering that various, at times contested, cultural, political, and diplomatic meanings are added to the original content (Horne, 2017; Larson & Rivenburgh, 1991; Lee & Maguire, 2009; Oettler, 2015). This perception of the Olympic ceremonies as a global media event renders the aforementioned global sport diplomacy framework particularly appropriate for an investigation into the diplomatic ramifications of opening and closing ceremonies.…”

“…While their work provides useful insights into strategies and mechanisms for sport diplomacy, relatively few studies have exclusively scrutinised international politics being played out at the opening and closing ceremonies of a global sporting event. Also, most academic literature examining these ceremonial occasions is primarily concerned with globalism and/or nationalism being expressed through the rituals (Bryant, 2015; Chen, Colapinto, & Luo, 2012; Li, 2014; Oettler, 2015; Thomas & Antony, 2015). By contrast, the current study looks at diplomatic demeanours and gestures being displayed via three distinctive components of the celebrational events.…”

Reflexivity or orientation? Collective memories in the Australian, Canadian and New Zealand national press

“… 1. This was evident in Oettler’s (2014) assessment of the 2012 Olympic opening ceremony, whereby the legacy of the former British Empire was brought to light during ‘the parade of nations’ (p. 245). Here, ‘the parade of athletes mirrored the extension of the British empire, with many former colonies, protectorates, and dominions (as well as Commonwealth realms such as Barbados, Belize, and Salomon Islands) waving their flags’ (Oettler, 2014: 245). …”