Russia’s Ban from the Olympics
The International Olympic Committee (I.O.C.) recently deemed Russia ineligible to compete in the 2018 winter Olympics in Pyeongchang, South Korea. The committee came to this decision due to several reports of doping in the previous Olympic games. However, Russia has found a way around the ban, allowing 168 Russians to compete as Olympic Athletes from Russia (OAR) under a neutral flag. This story was covered by The New York Times, CNN and The Guardian, all with a unique perspective. Each of the sources has something different to offer, allowing the audience to cultivate different opinions and perceptions.
The New York Times focused its piece, entitled “The Puzzling Olympic Ban on Russians: Gone Today, They May Be Here Tomorrow” on the decisions of the IOC and its alleged wrongdoing of allowing Russian athletes to compete in the Olympics. The article makes it overtly clear that they don’t believe any Russians should have been able to participate. The author includes phrases such as “The I.O.C. propped open a side door for Russian athletes.” This exemplifies the Times condemnation of the I.O.C., by making it appear as though they made special accommodations for Russian athletes. The article repeatedly reminds the reader that Russia has been banned from the Olympic games, yet is somehow still competing. When answering “How many Russians will march in the opening ceremony on Friday?”, the Times responded definitively “Too many”. Rather than criticizing Russia for having athletes that dope, the article criticizes the I.O.C. for failing to deal with the matter in a more prompt time frame. Although banning Russia from the Olympics could have been a warning sign for all future competition against doping, the article notes that the I.O.C. is failing to do so by still allowing Russians to compete. In large, The New York Times covers the news piece in a condescending manner, reprimanding the I.O.C. for its inconsistency and allowance of athletes from a banned country.
CNN wrote a piece entitled, “IOC refuses Russian athletes’ request to join winter Olympics”. The article written by CNN takes a different route, focusing rather on the athletes the I.O.C. didn’t allow to compete. The article presents the story in a more factual matter, while not blaming Russia or the I.O.C. for the absence of the Russian flag from the 2018 winter games. The article also includes the role of the Swiss-based Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). CNN largely places blame on CAS for making the final decision on which athletes are allowed to participate. The article written by CNN is much more concerned with the idea of athletes doping, than Russia’s participation in the games as a whole. It touches on anti-doping campaigns and why it is necessary to take these accounts more seriously. As CNN presented the issue in a more objective manner, without imposing opinions on who is “right” or “wrong” per say, the reader is able to garner their own impression.
The Guardian’s article entitled “Russians’ last-minute Winter Olympics appeal rejected” speaks about the instance in regards to the view of the United Kingdom, who are in favor of the decision made by the I.O.C. The article repeatedly discloses that athletes of Team Great Britain were relieved to know Russia had been excluded from the Winter Olympics, as they only want to compete against “clean” athletes. A quote included in the article reads, “But the decision is reassuring. We want our athletes to be competing against the very best but in the knowledge they are facing clean athletes.” This reiterates the United Kingdom’s position against the issue. The Guardian doesn’t necessarily condemn the I.O.C., CAS or Russia, just rather express their gratitude that the situation has been handled justly. The article ends on an encouraging note, encouraging British athletes to focus on their sport, instead of the competition. The piece written by The Guardian offers a unique angle from that of a foreign country, opposed to the viewpoint of the United States.
It is evident that The New York Times, CNN and The Guardian have presented the issue of Russia’s ban from the 2018 Olympics in very different manners. While the articles were both subjective and objective, the reader is left with varying descriptions of the events that occurred. Different perspectives allow the audience to see the issue from all sides, regarding the involvement of Russia, the I.O.C. and other athletes.
