This analysis is solid, but I didn't really get much out of it in the end. The China-Fatigue idea is worth exploring more from a pure media criticism perspective, but this is not done here. Also, the architectural angle isn't sufficiently expounded upon

Informative multimedia article discussing the labels applied to past Olympics and what label may be applied to this event. Speculation if this event will be remembered for smog, China’s economy, human rights, architecture, China fatigue or to the Chinese people coming together to showcase their country. No mention that this event could be remembered for the security system installed and lasting impact to the Chinese. I enjoyed the slide show showing Olympic highlights starting with the 1960s.

This and other coverage doesn't capture my reaction to the opening ceremonies. I began in amazement, progressed to mild irritation, and ended with a TV OFF in a disgusted huff after two-plus hours. The mix of gargantuan production far too frequently punctuated by commercials grew to be an extremely tiring and irritating mess. It's taken me a couple of days to figure out the reasons for my reaction and with some reluctance I'll offer them. Whatever their intentions, organizers and corporate entities managed to produce little more than an astounding example of politics and commercialism gone wild. Could anyone honestly argue that this was the epitome of taste and human values? -that bigger and more is always better? What ... More »

Although the subtitle includes smog, new power, and architecture, the article focuses almost exclusively on comparisons between this Olympics and past Olympics—some, Moscow and Berlin, were were negative for the West—in a futile attempt to classify it, rather than just enjoying the games for what they are. The article’s real message is that everyone's ambivalence and difficulty trying to define this Olympics actually reflects the West’s ambivalence about China, itself, and its emergence as a world power—perhaps even the next world leader.