Can this really be true about Britain's Got Talent?

After a blog post (now removed) claiming to be from a Sony Music executive, the national newspapers now report on behind-the-scenes allegations about Britain's Got Talent.

There are several allegations that, if true, are truly unpleasant. We all know when we watch a show like Britain's Got Talent or X-Factor that we are being manipulated. They tug on our heartstrings with sob stories that have nothing to do with talent, and have been shown in the past to be using electronics to 'fix' bad singing. However, what this article suggests goes much deeper than manipulating emotions.

There are two allegations I want to cover. One is that all the winners of Britain's Got Talent and X-Factor have been specially invited, rather than waiting in line for auditions. They are people the producers and/or Simon Cowell's company already knew about and were asked along to timed auditions with the panel, rather than having to queue with the rabble and be pre-auditioned by the producers. It is definitely true that there are such 'special' auditionees, which is not something the show tells us. But if they truly have always won, then it makes a farce of all those poor people queuing for hours to get in, and it misrepresents the process to the viewer.

The other allegation is that one of the contestants on this year's Britain's Got Talent was signed by Simon Cowell's company two years ago and his appearance on the show has been manipulated throughout with the aim of pushing him towards winning. If this is true (and I stress that I have not seen any evidence, but it ought to be possible to establish whether the contract exists), then this is intensely deceitful to the audience and surely must be very close to illegality, if it doesn't cross that line. This would change BGT from a talent show to a profit-making advert.

Some say this is just what you should expect from a show like this - get real. But I don't think that's right. Millions of pounds are being spent on voting, and this means any manipulation of the truth has to be taken very seriously. I very much hope that we will see these allegations clarified by an investigative journalist very soon. And if any of this is true, that appropriate action will be taken by the authorities. If it's not true, someone is engaging in serious muckraking - which is entirely possible. Either way, there is clear public interest in discovering where the facts lie.

Edited as original source disappeared and quoted now in national newspapers

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...

Search This Blog