TURKEY 2013 - not taking part

[A-lister]

I'm am speculating on that, but I'm saying if. If that's the case then this applies, if not, then forget about it. If Turkey pays more, then they should be part of the Big 5. If not, then they shouldn't. But people are blindly assuming they don't pay more when we don't really know if they do or not.

In any case, the Big 5 sucks.

Maybe because so far nothing has been proven that they actually pay more? TRT themselves didn't even state anything like that in their "reason" for withdrawing, and they should know right?

The last sentence is true though Not the countries though, but the system

 

[evilperson]

Maybe because so far nothing has been proven that they actually pay more? TRT themselves didn't even state anything like that in their "reason" for withdrawing, and they should know right?

Nothing to the contrary is known either though. The EBU is always adjusting fees. From what I've read, they are assigned based on the population of the country.

 

[A-lister]

Nothing to the contrary is known either though. The EBU is always adjusting fees. From what I've read, they are assigned based on the population of the country.

Actually, the official reason by EBU for the system is that these countries do pay more. Now, EBU might be lying and all, but until some proof is given that they are making this up (and not just rumors) then I guess I have to trust them by now.

 

[evilperson]

Actually, the official reason by EBU for the system is that these countries do pay more. Now, EBU might be lying and all, but until some proof is given that they are making this up (and not just rumors) then I guess I have to trust them by now.

Never said it wasn't, but that still doesn't prove that Turkey isn't paying as much or more than any of the Big 5, which is what was under discussion. Their complaint now might stem from the fact that recently, their fees have been increased to a point where they are paying on the same level as the Big 5. If the reason for the status of the Big 5 is financial, then it only makes sense for Turkey to be included as an automatic qualifier. It's not really being a "sore loser" when you want what you're paying for and you're not getting it. Of course this is IF they are actually paying more.

Anyway, until we know what everyone pays, I can't really say Turkey's complaints are unfounded about the Big 5. And as for the juries, Turkey is looking out for their interests in the contest just like some of the Big 5 did when they advocated for the juries. If Turkey is a sore loser, similarly, France, Spain, UK, Italy, and Germany are just the same.

 

[A-lister]

Never said it wasn't, but that still doesn't prove that Turkey isn't paying as much or more than any of the Big 5, which is what was under discussion. Their complaint now might stem from the fact that recently, their fees have been increased to a point where they are paying on the same level as the Big 5. If the reason for the status of the Big 5 is financial, then it only makes sense for Turkey to be included as an automatic qualifier. It's not really being a "sore loser" when you want what you're paying for and you're not getting it. Of course this is IF they are actually paying more.

Anyway, until we know what everyone pays, I can't really say Turkey's complaints are unfounded about the Big 5. And as for the juries, Turkey is looking out for their interests in the contest just like some of the Big 5 did when they advocated for the juries. If Turkey is a sore loser, similarly, France, Spain, UK, Italy, and Germany are just the same.

But then you are suggesting that EBU is simply liying about the Big 5 paying the most right? Because if Turkey would indeed pay more than any of them, it'd simply mean that EBU is making the whole thing up so until we got any proof of that there's not much to say.

Every country got their fee risen this year btw, not just Turkey, so even if they now pay as much as a Big 5 one did past year, it'll still be lower if the Big 5's fees also rose.

Yeah, they surely look out for their own interest, but then again two wrongs doesn't make one right. I mean what do you want? Anarchy in ESC? Everyone wanting special treatment for whatever "wrong-doings" have been made against them? It's not as if Turkey is the only country, and again being in Big 5 is not even that beneficial to begin with. I the Big 5's indeed pay more than the others (and so far that's all we officially know), yet they don't benefit from presenting your entry twice... which I think is better than being qualified directly. Sure, there's always a risk with not qualifying, but in the case of Turkey that happened just once and it's not as if Turkey is more worthy qualifier than the rest of 35+ entries entering the semis... shouldn't this be about the entries?

The only good solution that could come out of this is getting rid of the Big 5 system and giving more power to televoters again, but if the solution will be that Turkey will become a "big" country WITHOUT actually paying equally as much as the others, then it's just giving in for uncalled whining. If it does turn out that Turkey indeed pay more than some of the big ones does (and again that's just speculating), then I totally agree that it's unfair.

 

[evilperson]

But then you are suggesting that EBU is simply liying about the Big 5 paying the most right? Because if Turkey would indeed pay more than any of them, it'd simply mean that EBU is making the whole thing up so until we got any proof of that there's not much to say.

Every country got their fee risen this year btw, not just Turkey, so even if they now pay as much as a Big 5 one did past year, it'll still be lower if the Big 5's fees also rose.

Yeah, they surely look out for their own interest, but then again two wrongs doesn't make one right. I mean what do you want? Anarchy in ESC? Everyone wanting special treatment for whatever "wrong-doings" have been made against them? It's not as if Turkey is the only country, and again being in Big 5 is not even that beneficial to begin with. I the Big 5's indeed pay more than the others (and so far that's all we officially know), yet they don't benefit from presenting your entry twice... which I think is better than being qualified directly. Sure, there's always a risk with not qualifying, but in the case of Turkey that happened just once and it's not as if Turkey is more worthy qualifier than the rest of 35+ entries entering the semis... shouldn't this be about the entries?

We don't have proof either way though. I don't know the reason why the EBU would or wouldn't add Turkey to the Big 5. Again, I'm just hypothetically speaking as if Turkey was paying more. We don't know if they do or they don't. And maybe the EBU is lying? I mean the fact that this whole subject is pretty opaque when it comes to information isn't reassuring of anything.

I'm not speaking about other countries. I'm talking about Turkey. We don't know how much the fees were raised or adjusted for each country. If you're going to insinuate that every country had their fees raised over the years at the same rate, then you'll need proof for that, which again, we don't have.

Maybe anarchy is what ESC needs to be more fair. Surely, the EBU continuing to shape and mould the contest to the Big 5's benefit won't be any better.
Being in the Big 5 is very advantageous to broadcasters as the final is what brings in the biggest ratings. The semifinals reach a very limited audience. If Turkey isn't in the final, like with any other country, less people will watch.

The only good solution that could come out of this is getting rid of the Big 5 system and giving more power to televoters again, but if the solution will be that Turkey will become a "big" country WITHOUT actually paying equally as much as the others, then it's just giving in for uncalled whining. If it does turn out that Turkey indeed pay more than some of the big ones does (and again that's just speculating), then I totally agree that it's unfair.

This is what I've been saying.

 

[GRE]

A-lister !!!
bla bla bla
You never get bored!

 

[Matt]

A-lister !!!
bla bla bla
You never get bored!

It's not nice to just post insults without any constructive criticism. Alister is articulating his opinion and position which I can't really say about your most recent post.

 

[Matt]

Since the EBU already revelaed the official list of participants, it is highly unlikely going to change the line-up at this point.

I personally did not appreciate or agree with the Turkish broadcaster's decision and attitude and have a feeling the EBU didn't care for it either, at least according to their official statement. Sitting out a year is nothing earth shattering and I'm not worried about their withdrawal at all but hope to see them in 2014.

 

[GRE]

It's not nice to just post insults without any constructive criticism. Alister is articulating his opinion and position which I can't really say about your most recent post.

You missed my point,
i was teasing him.

 

[Nikkita]

Sitting out a year is nothing earth shattering and I'm not worried about their withdrawal at all but hope to see them in 2014.

I'm scared to say it but i don't think that will be a ''1 year stop''.Our government is just being more and more Arabic,if Turkey goes back to contest in 2014,that will be all because of people but in here,government never listens people.
I hope another channel(like NTV,they kinda care about Eurovision) will be a member of EBU.

 

[A-lister]

We don't have proof either way though. I don't know the reason why the EBU would or wouldn't add Turkey to the Big 5. Again, I'm just hypothetically speaking as if Turkey was paying more. We don't know if they do or they don't. And maybe the EBU is lying? I mean the fact that this whole subject is pretty opaque when it comes to information isn't reassuring of anything.

I'm not speaking about other countries. I'm talking about Turkey. We don't know how much the fees were raised or adjusted for each country. If you're going to insinuate that every country had their fees raised over the years at the same rate, then you'll need proof for that, which again, we don't have.

Maybe anarchy is what ESC needs to be more fair. Surely, the EBU continuing to shape and mould the contest to the Big 5's benefit won't be any better.
Being in the Big 5 is very advantageous to broadcasters as the final is what brings in the biggest ratings. The semifinals reach a very limited audience. If Turkey isn't in the final, like with any other country, less people will watch.

What proof do you want? We DO have the official information that the big ones indeed pay more, whether we want to believe it or not is a whole different discussion, but you build your argument on a hypothetical idea that EBU has been lying to us all these years about the big ones actually being the biggest funders. Now, I'm not believing in all EBU does or say, but until any contrary information and actual proof has been given all we can rely on is the info we got right now.

Well, we know that fees have been risen for 2013 in general, exactly how much for each broadcaster we don't know, but if the rise have been proportional then there would be no actual change to the biggest funders list in proportion to the others.

I wouldn't argue that the final brings the highest viewing numbers, but what do you mean? That all countries with large populations should be directly qualified then because of potential viewing numbers? I mean Sweden has more viewers than many bigger countries in this, so that's not even accurate that large population = big viewing numbers.

As for the competition, it's more beneficial to present your entry twice than just once, and again Turkey managed good positions that most countries can only dream of 3/4 years with juries, so I don't really see the problem here? Also, if we're on the subject of viewing numbers, it's obvious better for EBU and the broadcasters if as many as possible would watch the semis aswell and not skip them to only watch the final, so more countries in semis will also lead to higher viewing numbers for them aswell.

Bottom line = skip the Big 5 system or make it a rolling schedule where the year's highest funders will be directly qualified (maybe in one year Turkey is, another France etc.).

 

[evilperson]

What proof do you want? We DO have the official information that the big ones indeed pay more, whether we want to believe it or not is a whole different discussion, but you build your argument on a hypothetical idea that EBU has been lying to us all these years about the big ones actually being the biggest funders. Now, I'm not believing in all EBU does or say, but until any contrary information and actual proof has been given all we can rely on is the info we got right now.

Well, we know that fees have been risen for 2013 in general, exactly how much for each broadcaster we don't know, but if the rise have been proportional then there would be no actual change to the biggest funders list in proportion to the others.

I wouldn't argue that the final brings the highest viewing numbers, but what do you mean? That all countries with large populations should be directly qualified then because of potential viewing numbers? I mean Sweden has more viewers than many bigger countries in this, so that's not even accurate that large population = big viewing numbers.

As for the competition, it's more beneficial to present your entry twice than just once, and again Turkey managed good positions that most countries can only dream of 3/4 years with juries, so I don't really see the problem here? Also, if we're on the subject of viewing numbers, it's obvious better for EBU and the broadcasters if as many as possible would watch the semis aswell and not skip them to only watch the final, so more countries in semis will also lead to higher viewing numbers for them aswell.

Bottom line = skip the Big 5 system or make it a rolling schedule where the year's highest funders will be directly qualified (maybe in one year Turkey is, another France etc.).

Fine believe the EBU, who said you should do otherwise? But at the end of the day that doesn't change that we don't have information on what each country pays.

And what if the rise wasn't proportional? We don't know.

I don't mean that all large countries should be included in the final, that is completely off-base. I'm saying that if Turkey pays more, then they should be a part of the Big 5.

TRT likely doesn't care to present it's entry twice. It just wants to be in the final and get big numbers there. More people across Europe watch the final as well and that's where they'll see the Turkish entry. There is no actual substantial proof that presenting your entry twice leads to a better result. It could just be that the songs that were performed once weren't as good as ones that came from the semi-final. That's just as logical an explanation as the one you're offering.

If the EBU want bigger viewing numbers for their semi-finals, maybe they should put their Big 5 there.

 

[A-lister]

Fine believe the EBU, who said you should do otherwise? But at the end of the day that doesn't change that we don't have information on what each country pays.

And what if the rise wasn't proportional? We don't know.

I don't mean that all large countries should be included in the final, that is completely off-base. I'm saying that if Turkey pays more, then they should be a part of the Big 5.

TRT likely doesn't care to present it's entry twice. It just wants to be in the final and get big numbers there. More people across Europe watch the final as well and that's where they'll see the Turkish entry. There is no actual substantial proof that presenting your entry twice leads to a better result. It could just be that the songs that were performed once weren't as good as ones that came from the semi-final. That's just as logical an explanation as the one you're offering.

If the EBU want bigger viewing numbers for their semi-finals, maybe they should put their Big 5 there.

As I said, until any more official numbers or proof are out, I guess I'll have to go with what we know.

I totally agree with you though that if any country outside of the "Big" ones do indeed pay more than any of the Big ones does, then it's unfair and they should be included in the Big system or like I said a rolling schedule with the top funders for the particular year gets into the Big 5, which might very well change for the next year. But all in all, I think for the better that the system just gets scrapped... and as I pointed out and you seem to agree with me on that one, including the bigger countries in the semis might lead to higher viewing numbers for those aswell.

So far, TRT have not said anything about paying more though, and I think they would be vocal about if that was the case? To me it just seems like they think they deserve the final and top spots more than any other countries, so therefor they simply want 100% televoting back (to get back more diaspora voting power) and if they don't get it they want to be qualified directly (and this without even stating any legit reasons for it like paying more or so).

Anyways this discussion is going around in circles, I'm trying to make something out of the information we got at the moment and that's it, none of us are actually in favor of the big system anyways so the best solution would just be to scrap it all together.

 

[evilperson]

Making sense of what we know and jumping to conclusions without all of the information leads to people calling Turkey a sore loser. In terms of the Big 5, maybe they are, but there is a possibility they aren't. There are arguments that make their claims completely justified. In terms of the juries, I can't agree that they shouldn't complain. The juries were put in place because UK and France discovered they were missing out on points from the juries who were ranking them high. So the EBU added the juries. Now Turkey is finding out that they are missing out on points in the televoting because of the jury. EBU does nothing. It's a bit one sided, no? Not to mention that the juries seem to be a completely unregulated voting system. Sure two wrongs don't make a right, but if no one says anything, we'll just continue to have the EBU pampering the Big 5. Why shouldn't Turkey get to feel privileged for once, or any other country with a similar complaint for that matter?

 

[Matt]

Making sense of what we know and jumping to conclusions without all of the information leads to people calling Turkey a sore loser. In terms of the Big 5, maybe they are, but there is a possibility they aren't. There are arguments that make their claims completely justified. In terms of the juries, I can't agree that they shouldn't complain. The juries were put in place because UK and France discovered they were missing out on points from the juries who were ranking them high. So the EBU added the juries. Now Turkey is finding out that they are missing out on points in the televoting because of the jury. EBU does nothing. It's a bit one sided, no? Not to mention that the juries seem to be a completely unregulated voting system. Sure two wrongs don't make a right, but if no one says anything, we'll just continue to have the EBU pampering the Big 5. Why shouldn't Turkey get to feel privileged for once, or any other country with a similar complaint for that matter?

Can you show me a source where it says UK and France were the countries requesting juries? I'd like to see that.
Also the UK hasn't been getting any love from the juries being ranked last in 2010, bottom 3 or 4 in 2011 and last again in 2012. You don't see the UK complaining about the juries when in reality have been receiving less love than Turkey.

Also, Turkey never brought up their concerns to the EBU prior to their withdrawal. So it's highly unfair of you to say the EBU isn't doing anything if they were never contacted by the Turkish broadcaster. How can they address something that hasn't been brought to their attention?

 

[DanielLuis]

Making sense of what we know and jumping to conclusions without all of the information leads to people calling Turkey a sore loser. In terms of the Big 5, maybe they are, but there is a possibility they aren't. There are arguments that make their claims completely justified. In terms of the juries, I can't agree that they shouldn't complain. The juries were put in place because UK and France discovered they were missing out on points from the juries who were ranking them high. So the EBU added the juries. Now Turkey is finding out that they are missing out on points in the televoting because of the jury. EBU does nothing. It's a bit one sided, no? Not to mention that the juries seem to be a completely unregulated voting system. Sure two wrongs don't make a right, but if no one says anything, we'll just continue to have the EBU pampering the Big 5. Why shouldn't Turkey get to feel privileged for once, or any other country with a similar complaint for that matter?

First of all, as Matt said, how do you know UK and France requested the juries?
Second of all, like Matt said, the UK has done much worse than Turkey in the juries, maybe even France.
Third of all, and last, if any country requested EBU to change the rules just because they feel bad, then every year the voting system would be different! This yeare the EBU changes to 100% televote because of Turkey. Next year, they change to 100% jury because of, lets say Austria. Do you see my point?

 

[evilperson]

Can you show me a source where it says UK and France were the countries requesting juries? I'd like to see that.
Also the UK hasn't been getting any love from the juries being ranked last in 2010, bottom 3 or 4 in 2011 and last again in 2012. You don't see the UK complaining about the juries when in reality have been receiving less love than Turkey.

Also, Turkey never brought up their concerns to the EBU prior to their withdrawal. So it's highly unfair of you to say the EBU isn't doing anything if they were never contacted by the Turkish broadcaster. How can they address something that hasn't been brought to their attention?

I don’t have a legitimate source for the France and the UK requesting juries. That kind of information isn’t really plastered everywhere. I’m going on what I’ve read in the past and that was that the head of the delegation for France had said that they were advocating for the inclusion of juries. But if you’re interested in proving that this isn’t true, let me know if it wasn’t the UK or France, or any of the Big 4 that were requesting the juries back then. The EBU didn’t just do it out of thin air without anyone asking for it. Modifying a voting system is a radical change. Who is more likely to ask for it, Eastern Europe, who has been doing relatively well with the televote, or countries from the West who have been getting less desirable results?
The Big 5 have been benefitting from the juries on a yearly basis. It has backfired on some of them, but at least every single one has recently gotten a top 10 because of the juries. You can argue that they sent better songs but that’s purely subjective. The point was the reason that they wanted the juries in the first place.
We don’t have information regarding Turkey. It’s just he said, she said, they said, we said. Who’s to say Turkey didn’t approach the EBU last year or the year before? The EBU aren’t going to publicly admit that TRT complained and they flat out ignored them. Only an idiot looking for bad press would make such a statement. And this is just a possibility; maybe they didn’t complain and just withdrew. I’m just saying we don’t actually know what happened and while I’m choosing not to take the EBU’s word as the be all and end all, you and others may choose to do otherwise.

 

[A-lister]

Making sense of what we know and jumping to conclusions without all of the information leads to people calling Turkey a sore loser. In terms of the Big 5, maybe they are, but there is a possibility they aren't. There are arguments that make their claims completely justified. In terms of the juries, I can't agree that they shouldn't complain. The juries were put in place because UK and France discovered they were missing out on points from the juries who were ranking them high. So the EBU added the juries. Now Turkey is finding out that they are missing out on points in the televoting because of the jury. EBU does nothing. It's a bit one sided, no? Not to mention that the juries seem to be a completely unregulated voting system. Sure two wrongs don't make a right, but if no one says anything, we'll just continue to have the EBU pampering the Big 5. Why shouldn't Turkey get to feel privileged for once, or any other country with a similar complaint for that matter?

The only thing I'm going by is what we officially know, not some hearsay or hypothetical theories, I don't see how that is "jumping to conclusions"? I'd actually say it's quite rational to judge on what we know.

Turkey is missing out on biased diaspora votes, and even WITH juries they ended up in the top. 10 3/4 years so I really don't agree with you that Turkey has a reason for complaining based on results alone, and based on only this they (TRT) are in fact acting like sore losers imo. I'm totally against unfairness and will support broadcaster's calling out against injustice, but in the case of Turkey they are hardly losers in the new system and if they don't pay as much as the Big 5 then I don't see any injustice here...

So far it seems to me that TRT are just generally bitter about their overall GOOD results for the past 4 years.

 

[evilperson]

The only thing I'm going by is what we officially know, not some hearsay or hypothetical theories, I don't see how that is "jumping to conclusions"? I'd actually say it's quite rational to judge on what we know.

Turkey is missing out on biased diaspora votes, and even WITH juries they ended up in the top. 10 3/4 years so I really don't agree with you that Turkey has a reason for complaining based on results alone, and based on only this they (TRT) are in fact acting like sore losers imo. I'm totally against unfairness and will support broadcaster's calling out against injustice, but in the case of Turkey they are hardly losers in the new system and if they don't pay as much as the Big 5 then I don't see any injustice here...

So far it seems to me that TRT are just generally bitter about their overall GOOD results for the past 4 years.

You're taking what I'm saying out of context when it come to the juries. We'll just have have to agree to disagree on this.