Tag Archives: television

Eurovision Is Not A Serious Song Contest



Semifinal 1 EUROVISION 2008
Originally uploaded by proteusbcn

Dear Sir Terry

This weekend was the Eurovision Song Contest; the annual spectacle of music, strange traditional costumes & dubious musical interpretation of songs (and, as you might say, that’s just the interval acts). It was as it has ever been: a pile of unconnected international pop pap presented as serious content. The most important thing, you must agree, is to remember your sense of humour. Over the years, you have urged us not to take it too seriously.

I wasn’t around for the 60s Brit-winners such as Sandy Shaw or Lulu. I don’t really remember the song contests of the mid-70s when classics from Abba and the Brotherhood of Man were born. I do remember Johnny Logan, Bucks Fizz and Bobbysocks in all their 1980s glory. When Ireland went on a winning streak in the mid-90s, we were holding Eurovision parties in our University flats. It was fun and an excuse – if one was really needed – to get very drunk and laugh at rubbish songs. Which we did with an international feel.

So, what happened this year? Why are you so frustrated? Why are we suddenly upset about the bias? Simply because we did not do well? That’s a little childish, isn’t it?

The Scandinavians always voted for each other (as they did this year). For goodness sake, we always expect Ireland to vote for the UK and vice versa (and we hope Malta does too) while we know the French won’t. Call it political, call it similar musical tastes, but that’s how it’s always been. It’s not going to change. But that doesn’t stop it from being wonderfully silly entertainment in the best sense.

The last 10 contests have been won by Sweden, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Turkey, Ukraine, Greece, Finland, Serbia and Russia. If we take the 90s as the point when Eastern Europe started to enter the content, then that makes it five wins to the new countries (Estonia, Latvia, Ukraine, Serbia & Russia) and 5 wins to the older entrants (Sweden, Denmark, Turkey, Greece & Finland).

Seems pretty fair to me. So, why have you started to lose your sense of humour?

Musak

Update on the voting from Popbitch: “If only traditional Western European countries had voted this year, the UK would have been third from bottom, rather than one of three with the lowest points”.

On this day…

No other posts on this day.

What’s Happening on Channel Four?

In 2002, Kate won Big Brother 3. I started the summer with little interest and then, gradually, watched more and more of it. Last year, I seemed very aware of Big Brother 4 from the beginning. Then I grew to support Fed despite the bad press, and gradually, you get sucked in.

next week is a big night for channel 4

So, this time next week – in a clever bit of scheduling – we will see the last episode of Friends and then watch as the new contestants enter the new house for Big Brother 5. Perhaps I will try to avoid it again this year. Still, it means interest in Dermot O’Leary will pick up again, and that tends to go hand in hand with the beginning of summer. It’s a good time of year!

Channel Four will have a big night next week, but C4’s boss Mark Thompson won’t be celebrating with them as he’s just jumped ship back to the BBC.

On this day…

2003: Gone Fishing

A Bit Ratty

For those not in the UK, Greg Dyke, is Director General of the BBC. It’s the top job and one which carries great responsibility. The BBC, you see, is an institution that the British public has a strange relationship with.

The BBC is funded by a license fee. If you own a device capable of receiving television pictures, you have to cough up the money. It funds, however, not only two terrestrial networks (with regional options), several other cable/satellite services and a whole host of radio stations (digital, local and national networks), but also the excellent online services.

Personally, I love the BBC and believe they are a fantastic resource providing tremendous value for money. In my younger days, they used to pay me to empty coffee cups and answer telephones at the local radio station. Better than serving fries by my, shallow, standards.

Greg Dyke’s position is tricky. Being a publicly funded body, he must strive to be seen to be politically impartial (although, of course, all major political parties believe they are not getting their fair share of airtime). He must be public-service driven because, as we all pay for the BBC, we all expect something of it. It has a unique position amongst broadcasters in that its funding mechanism provides opportunities to make programming that would not be made if the BBC had to commercially fund all its projects. Similarly, it has to be commercially focused. It has to compete. If the audience share dips too much, then we will start to hear cries to abolish the license fee because nobody is watching (or listening).

Now I think Greg Dyke does a good job. He was, if memory serves correctly, a big cheese in commercial television in the UK (in fact, I think he made rather a decent sum of money at it). He seems to have adapted to the less commercially focused BBC well (at least, they can’t admit to being as overtly commercially focused as their rivals).

There is one thing that, however well he does, will follow Greg around forever. It makes easy copy for lazy journalists. Greg Dyke’s sin, you see, is that he was responsible for the introduction of Roland Rat to British TV screens. Roland Rat, a children’s TV puppet, is regularly cited as having saved commercial breakfast television – TV-am, anyone? – in the UK. You see, that’s lazy. Of course, it was a kids’ ratings winner and certainly helped pull audiences to that channel, but then so did Anne and Nick and all those other sofa-bound people. But Greg Dyke and the rat are linked forever. He may be very proud of the rat, I don’t know, but I wish people – nay journalists – would stop pulling this fact out as though it was a revelation to the rest of us. Moreover, I wish they would stop using it in serious articles about the BBC.

This week’s Economist is a case in point. There’s an interesting article on a speech given by Greg Dyke about the BBC’s coverage of the conflict in Iraq and how BBC journalism was impartial and balanced compared to the flag-waving of some American networks. It makes some interesting points on the BBC’s positioning of its news services. But the unnamed writer has to mention the bloody rat: “Mr Dyke, whose background is in commercial TV and who brought Roland Rat, an irritating puppet rodent, to British breakfast TV …” And there I stopped caring about anything else in the article.

So, this is my call to all journalists about to write about the BBC. Forget the dratted rat. He was irritating, but he probably wasn’t aimed at you. Please stop mentioning him. Greg Dyke was successful running commercial TV – that point is now proved, and the rat isn’t, as far as I am aware, a criminal offence. Write about what’s happening with the BBC so that all of us license payers can pontificate about it for hours, but please, please, please stop talking about the rat.

On this day…

2004: Fantastic London