Biased juries ??? Tss... one year, one country is favoured, one year not... It was said it would benefit only for Big-5 and western countries... Indeed, one of the countries that benefited most of the jury vote is Ukraine... Juries loved Alyosha, Gaitana, and they will love Zlata also... Though before juries Ukraine was on top also...
Or for instance as for us :
2009 (Patricia Kaas) : public : 17 / jury : 4 / both : 8
2010 (Jessy Matador) : public : 8 / jury : 22 / both : 12
2011 (Amaury Vassili) : public : 15 / jury : 11 / both : 11
2012 (Anggun) : public : 26 / jury : 13 / both : 22
Public remains sovereign but it gives fairer things. And it gave us less freak shows in the semis... And for instance, I preferred to see Getter Jaani qualifying rather than "I love Belarus"...
As for the Big 5, we already debated abouut it, it will never disappear, or Eurovision would disappear with it. France wouldn't broadcast on a main channel a Eurovision final without France... And to be broadcasted on a little channel it would be too expansive. And the same goes to the whole Big 5. It's not all about the fees... It's also that in our Big 5, TV represents a lot of money. Viewing figures in France are important and looked at every day. Because it means advertisement, et cetera. In France, ads are not like Albania or Malta, with commercials for your hairdresser... It's hundreads of thousands of euros the minute, if not millions sometimes... Too low viewing figures would put in danger the broadcasters...
Already, the viewing figures of Eurovision are low in France. And it will probably be a massacre this year as the private TV who used to not attack Eurovision will broadcast the final of the Voice on the Eurovision evening...
And there is a level where Eurovision will be too expensive for too low ratings...
It's the same problem with JESC : too bad for main public channels, too expensive for small one...
