The JURY Recepy for Eurovision success ... good or bad?

[A-lister]

Those do not represent the majority. I was referring to casual folks, not hardcore fans

Well, atleast now you can't blame me for being the only one in here using subjective ideas and observations as "facts" any longer

 

[AdelAdel]

I think the failure of Armenia, Gerogia and Serbia in televoting this year sort of dismiss your theory...

This year we had juries, I was talking about the era before the juries were re-introduced.

And if you somehow think that juries are "unbiased and fair", then think again...

Not all of them (take Moldova for example), but most of them are.

Oh and for your info, countries that doesn't have a strong network of "neighboring helpers" or diaspora managed to qualify thanks to televoting alone (Netherlands, Belgium, Malta, Switzerland, Bulgaria, Ireland...)...

Of course people also vote for songs they like, I never said they don't. But the number of "I vote for my neighbor" voters is still ridiculously high, remember how it was before the juries came back? Croatia 12 to Serbia, Serbia 12 to Bosnia, etc.

So what's your point? That public are dumbed-down and need guidance from so called "musical experts" that premier countries that import some dated cheese ballad in English over countries sending something genuine or different? ... well if that's your definition of "fair and unbiased", then I don't want a fair contest then!

I appreciate the fair televoters who vote for songs they LIKE, and not "because I like my neighbor country". Also, I do care about the quality of the song, and not if it's "genuine or different". Not all "genuine" songs are good.

 

[Matt]

Well, atleast now you can't blame me for being the only one in here using subjective ideas and observations as "facts" any longer

what are you referring to? If you're talking about me I'm only referring http polls and articles. It's hardly subjective. But whatever makes you feel better, I can be that for you.

 

[A-lister]

@ AdelAdel

What are you on about??? Countries that usually managed to qualify based on diaspora help FAILED!!! On contrary the juries actually stepped in to save some of them (like Armenia and Georgia)...

On the other hand countries who doesn't have many "friendly votes" got support by televoters aswell (some which the juries didn't give support) ... all of these countries made it to the final based on televoting alone (countries that tend to struggle because lack of "friendly votes"): Netherlands, Belgium, Malta, Bulgaria, Switzerland, Ireland and Hungary.... so PLEASE enlighten me why we need juries then to "prevent bloc and diaspora voting" when fact proves that the public are grown enough to actually vote with an open-mind?

 

[A-lister]

what are you referring to? If you're talking about me I'm only referring http polls and articles. It's hardly subjective. But whatever makes you feel better, I can be that for you.

I don't see the "jury love" you're referring to

I've always found it a 50/50 case...

Actually, for once I think you're doing the exact same thing you tend to blame me for, you make your opinion a universal truth

 

[AdelAdel]

What are you on about??? Countries that usually managed to qualify based on diaspora help FAILED!!! On contrary the juries actually stepped in to save some of them (like Armenia and Georgia)...

They failed in televote? If you mean that they failed to qualify in general, then it's only because the juries were there.

On the other hand countries who doesn't have many "friendly votes" got support by televoters aswell (some which the juries didn't give support) ... all of these countries made it to the final based on televoting alone (countries that tend to struggle because lack of "friendly votes"): Netherlands, Belgium, Malta, Bulgaria, Switzerland, Ireland and Hungary.... so PLEASE enlighten me why we need juries then to "prevent bloc and diaspora voting" when fact proves that the public are grown enough to actually vote with an open-mind?

This year and what about past years? (The years with no juries). ESC experienced some of the most visible diaspora/neighbor voting.

 

[CC92]

I am interested in these polls for casual viewers. Where can I find them?

 

[Trece]

I would ok with only televoters. See
neighbors vote each other because "i love my neighbor country" it gets 12/10/8/7 but what with 1-6? here placed others "random" songs (see years before jury)
and country which get exactly these 1-6 from all countries + 12/10/8/7 from neighbors wins

 

[CC92]

@ AdelAdel

What are you on about??? Countries that usually managed to qualify based on diaspora help FAILED!!! On contrary the juries actually stepped in to save some of them (like Armenia and Georgia)...

They failed in televote? If you mean that they failed to qualify in general, then it's only because the juries were there.

Last year Georgia failed to qualify by televotings (it came last) and by the 50/50 split but would of passed had it been up to the 'jury' votes alone.

 

[AdelAdel]

Last year Georgia failed to qualify by televotings (it came last) and by the 50/50 split but would of passed had it been up to the 'jury' votes alone.

Georgia doesn't have diaspora in as many countries as for example Turkey, Romania or ex-Yugoslav states.

 

[CC92]

Last year Georgia failed to qualify by televotings (it came last) and by the 50/50 split but would of passed had it been up to the 'jury' votes alone.

Georgia doesn't have diaspora in as many countries as for example Turkey, Romania or ex-Yugoslav states.

Fine. Bosnia failed to qualify by public votes in 2010 (saved by the 'jury'), one year later the same occured to Serbia (again, saved by the 'jury'). I do not need to go on about the other ex-Yugo states for obvious reasons. Even Turkey did not reach the finals in 2011 by televoting when you do not count the San Marinese jury in.
Of course I don't deny that there is significant diaspora voting in the game and true, unfortunately it might decide about borderline qualifiers but never about the winner and its impact on the final overall results is almost nothing compared to the jury's. I know you agree with their tastes (fair enough) but still the reasoning for them to stay is pretty selfish.

 

[A-lister]

Georgia doesn't have diaspora in as many countries as for example Turkey, Romania or ex-Yugoslav states.

True, but they still belong to the group of countries that have enough diaspora to help them get decent results in ESC if they wanted to...

 

[AdelAdel]

Fine. Bosnia failed to qualify by public votes in 2010 (saved by the 'jury'), one year later the same occured to Serbia (again, saved by the 'jury'). I do not need to go on about the other ex-Yugo states for obvious reasons. Even Turkey did not reach the finals in 2011 by televoting when you do not count the San Marinese jury in.

These are only a few exceptions, but look at the overall of the voting, these few exceptions do not prove that ESC voting is fair overall.

 

[Trece]

ESC is a TV Show and we shouldn't so do care about results, voting etc. Watch, discuss and all.

One one hand it was producers' mistake fail Bulgaria, Montenegro, Croatia because in any show should be showed different styles of music and the more style will showed - the more ppl will watch it

One other hand is obviously why small countries like Albania, San Marino, Bulgaria, Switzerland, Montenegro don't pass into final. Why? For example Montenegro didn't passed and 50% of televoters will not watch Final. Less televoters - less money. But imagine if Russia, Greece or Romania will not pass? 50% of Montenegro is not 50% Greece. So better to have Greece in the final than Montenegro

 

[Venage]

I am interested in these polls for casual viewers. Where can I find them?

Casual viewers will most likely not care at all about the voting system. Why would they? They will certainly neither look at the split votes nor care about Eurovision a few days after the grand final. The only thing that casual viewers care about is diaspora voting, because it's the most obvious reason for a failing entry. Even if you were right about the juries destroying diversity and favoring diaspora countries, casual viewers wouldn't notice because all the big media say otherwise and casual viewers WILL listen to the media in this case.

 

[CC92]

I am interested in these polls for casual viewers. Where can I find them?

Casual viewers will most likely not care at all about the voting system. Why would they? They will certainly neither look at the split votes nor care about Eurovision a few days after the grand final. The only thing that casual viewers care about is diaspora voting, because it's the most obvious reason for a failing entry. Even if you were right about the juries destroying diversity and favoring diaspora countries, casual viewers wouldn't notice because all the big media say otherwise and casual viewers WILL listen to the media in this case.

That's why we need greater transparency with split results being displayed during the live voting.
What casual viewers do notice regardless is the decline in diversity and entertainment value and that their tastes are less reflected in both song choices and voting results. Whether or not they blame it on the existence of the 'jury' is secondary at the end of the day.
One also cannot ignore the fact that the whole obfuscation about the voting process detests or irritates at least some.

 

[ParadiseES]

BTW I see the juries are sort of biased against the ethnic entries every year, but they are NOT against national languages, just take a look.

2013: Moldova and Estonia were saved by the juries. Israel and San Marino got more support from the juries than televoting. Same goes for Italy in the final.

2012: Italy, Albania, Estonia, Spain and Serbia did better with the juries. Portugal and Croatia would have qualified with the juries.

2011: Not many non-English songs this year, but Serbia was favoured by the juries in the final, and so was Bulgaria in the semi.

2010: Israel got a lot of jury support and Greece got a quite decent results despite not being a typical jury song. In the semi, FYR Macedonia and Croatia did better with the juries than with the televoting.

2009: France was saved by the juries and juries picked Croatia in the second semi.

 

[Matt]

I don't see the "jury love" you're referring to

I've always found it a 50/50 case...

Actually, for once I think you're doing the exact same thing you tend to blame me for, you make your opinion a universal truth

I really don't know where you keep coming up with this stuff but I pointed out that the casual viewers don't care about juries and the reason why juries were brought back where due to the big complaint by those viewers. So let it go, you can throw your accusations against a wall and seeing what sticks but I'm not having this conversation with you anymore.

 

[A-lister]

I really don't know where you keep coming up with this stuff but I pointed out that the casual viewers don't care about juries and the reason why juries were brought back where due to the big complaint by those viewers. So let it go, you can throw your accusations against a wall and seeing what sticks but I'm not having this conversation with you anymore.

Fine, but again I don't see the overwhelming public support for the juries as you put it... it's mostly some bitter westerners that seems to be happy with it ... but maybe it's only their opinions that counts?

I still find it a bit odd that whenever I state something you make it sound like "oh you make your opinion a fact again!?"... well saying that a majority are happy with the juries can't really be proved either... so

Seems like some opinions are more "correct" than others...

 

[MrGerbear]

Fine, but again I don't see the overwhelming public support for the juries as you put it... it's mostly some bitter westerners that seems to be happy with it ... but maybe it's only their opinions that counts?

I still find it a bit odd that whenever I state something you make it sound like "oh you make your opinion a fact again!?"... well saying that a majority are happy with the juries can't really be proved either... so

Seems like some opinions are more "correct" than others...

Here is your proof.

Participating EBU Member Broadcasters overwhelmingly welcomed the introduction of professional juries in the Final as a positive development. At the same time, viewers, journalists and dedicated fans welcomed the introduction of over 200 judges from the music industry, and sent the EBU letters and emails to ask for implementation of the format in the Semi-Finals as well.

This was in 2009. Matt said that the EBU brought Juries back because of the public, and they did.