This is the Daily Telegraph Medals Table, as it stands:
| Gold | Silver | Bronze | Total | |
| 1 China | 18 | 11 | 5 | 34 |
| 2 United States | 18 | 9 | 10 | 37 |
| 3 South Korea | 7 | 2 | 5 | 14 |
| 4 Great Britain | 6 | 6 | 6 | 18 |
| 5 France | 6 | 5 | 6 | 17 |
More importance is attached to the number of gold medals, and after that silver, than the overall medal tally.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/
However, USA Today displays them as follows:
| Gold | Silver | Bronze | Total | |
| 1 United States | 18 | 9 | 10 | 37 |
| 2 China | 18 | 11 | 5 | 34 |
| 3 Japan | 2 | 6 | 11 | 19 |
| 4 Great Britain | 6 | 6 | 6 | 18 |
| 5 Germany | 5 | 8 | 5 | 18 |
The news paper attaches more importance to the overall number of medals. I wonder what would happen if China were to win fewer gold medals but more medals over all. Would USA Today put China in first place?
Boadicea's Chariot 