The Jeremy Hunt affair in the context of Olympic marathons

The interest in the Jeremy Hunt saga/scandal/witch-hunt is lessening by the day. But oddly enough, this has nothing to do with any sense among the public that it might be victimisation…in the sense of being a wicked Left Wing Plot to get the dear boy. Rather, it’s because everyone is now so double-dog certain the bloke is a piece of work, there isn’t much stimulation or desire to click when yet another piece tells us this yet again.

All of us engaged in reporting upon decadent depravity become case-hardened, hard-bitten, cynical or inured – whichever description you prefer. But it’s a worry when Jason on the Clapham pc begins to think in the same way.

While the boredom factor worries me, however, the inability of the political class (personified by Dave Scameron) to grasp that Mr Hunt is a serious liability worries me a great deal more. It concerns me because there are only a limited number of conclusions one can reach on the basis of that reality: (1) They think we’re stupid (2) They really think they might have got away with it (3) They don’t give a monkey’s either way (4) They have something so much more awful than the continued presence of Jeremy Rhyminge-Slange to hide, they dare not get rid of the little sh*t…or worst of all (5) They think he’s a nice bloke really. (Don’t laugh at that last one: more than one Lobby correspondent referred to *unt last week as ‘the popular MP for SW Surrey’).

Personally, my money’s on (4), and I’ll tell you why. I’ve been investigating a Newscorp/Hunt media connection for some weeks now, and it’s firming up rather well. But the thing is, some of the arrangements involved in all that predate Jezzer being given the brief to approve the BSkyB bid come what may rule on the probity of the Newscorp bid for the remaining shares in BSkyB. Which might suggest that Jeremy Brighteyes has merely decided to cash in on something that was well under way anyway…but I couldn’t possibly comment on that, as it’s scurrilous gossip and not the sort of thing a family site like this would indulge in. Until it had proof.

———————————————————-

A loyalist Slogger (good on yer Stevie) has kindly sent me the complete bollocks on what the Olympics are supposed to be all about. I confess to being more than mildly amused by some of the content at The Olympic Marketing Factfile.

One bit in particular trumpeted the desire ‘To protect and promote the equity that is inherent in the Olympic image and ideals’ alongside ‘To control and limit the commercialisation of the Olympic Games’, not too far away from ‘Olympic sponsorship is an agreement between an Olympic organisation and a corporation, whereby the corporation is granted the rights to specific Olympic intellectual property and Olympic marketing opportunities in exchange for financial support and goods and services contributions. Olympic sponsorship programmes operate on the principle of product-category exclusivity.’

Doncha just love that control of commercialisation……..and maximisation of Olympic marketing opportunities?

Here’s another one:

‘Sponsors develop advertising and promotional activities that help to promote the Olympic ideals, heighten public awareness of the Olympic Games, and increase support for the Olympic athletes.’

This from Huffpost today: ‘Big Macs, fries and milkshakes will be part of McDonald’s exclusively branded menu at the Olympics and the fast-food giant will soon be opening its largest franchise in the world, a two-story cathedral-like restaurant that seats 1,500 customers, at London’s Olympic Park. McDonald’s will be the only restauranteur allowed to sell brand-name food at the games and there will also be a separate McDonald’s within the athletes’ village – in addition to three others at the Olympic Park. Alongside McDonald’s, Coca-Cola has the exclusive right to sell non-alcoholic drinks at Olympic venues. Heineken has been named the games’ official beer.’

It’s all about the healthy ideal, y’all. But stick with me here, because it gets better: no less than a brief history of control of commercialisation from the IOC:

‘1952 Helsinki The first Olympic Games to launch an international marketing programme. Companies from 11 countries make contributions of goods and services ranging from food for the athletes to flowers for medallists…..1976 Montreal With 628 sponsors and suppliers, domestic sponsorship generates US$7 million……2000 Sydney The OCOG develops the most financially successful domestic
sponsorship programme to date, generating more revenue (US$492 million) than the domestic sponsorship programme of Atlanta
1996…..andonandonandon.’

And finally:

‘To promote the ideals of Olympianism, and heighten awareness of the work of the Olympic Movement’.

Right then. Weren’t the original Olympians merely amateur patriots who ran about with nothing on and carried messages without payment? Sorry, rhetorical question there. But, um, how many of us have a heightened awareness of what the IOC does, apart from generating vast amounts of money which are – let’s face it – the antithesis of the Olympic ideal?

We need to fess up here: it’s all a load of bollocks. Of the last eight Olympic Games staged by various countries, only two turned a profit for the host nation, so I suppose we should see that as part of the philanthropy of the whole shebang. However I doubt very much if (a) many schoolkids know what the IOC’s aims are and (b) any of the Games’s sponsors felt they lost out. (Trust me, if they had, they wouldn’t keep coming back for more).

But let me finish with the funniest ideal of the lot: ‘To ensure that the maximum number of people around the world can witness the Olympic experience’.

Do you know anyone in Britain who got a ticket for any event in the 2012 Olympics that was vaguely related to the event they wanted to see?