why are the media saying Britain is ahead of China in Olympic medals. China has 70 Britain 67?

The IOC have been at pains to say, more than once, that any medal table is unofficial. There is NO correct way of compiling such a table.

There are three logical ways it can be done.

1) Rank by gold medals, with silver medals as tie-breakers only, and bronzes only considered if two nations finish with identical numbers of both gold and silver medals.

2) Rank by total medals won, regardless of colour.

3) Rank by weighted average with (for example) a gold medal being worth three points, a silver two, and a bronze one.

All three methods are correct, but none of them is definitive.

Method one is by far the most common. The British media has been using that method consistently for as long as I have been following the Olympics, which goes back to 1972.

This is in marked contrast to the US media which generally used method one, but switched to method two part-way through the Beijing games as it was the only way in which they could rank themselves above China.

You are, however, perfectly at liberty to rank the medal table in any way you see fit.

It doesn't go by total medals it goes by most gold won. If two countries are tied for gold then it goes to the country with more silver.

Because some think it's rated or ranked by gold medals, not total medals,neither view is right or wrong, it;s just an opinion

I was confused about this but gather it's all about the number of GOLD medals first, and then the lesser medals next.

https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20...

Its measured in the number of golds first.

maybe it is the gold count they are talking about