Mungolian Jetset


MONDAY, JUNE 6, 2011

The Unsinkable Simon Cowell

UNTOUCHABLE SIMON COWELLRight, you daft bastards.

I've watched for the past week, and said little. But now I feel I need to state something obvious:


At least, you can't in the manner which seems to be the chosen one for blogheads and "campaigners" out there.

Last week, a young chap (12 years old) was the "means" to that "end." Didn't work. Accusing Simon Cowell of "cheating" (when is he NOT CHEATING, really?) is a pathetic approach to defaming the chap. That's like accusing the sun of shining. Pointless.

First of all: the 12 year old boy at the center of all of the accusations last week was the only person whose future might have been affected. A 12 year old boy. Got that? A kid who can sing, whether groomed or not. Why use a 12 year old boy as a weapon against Simon Cowell?

Frankly, some of my fellow "bloggers" out there have little sense of the hypocrisy of their position. The only potential casualty there was the kid, not Cowell. Cowell, if cheating as accused, was never going to leave himself exposed. The head of another was always going to roll. Maybe other bloggers view this as collateral damage, and worth it in the name of the war on Cowell. I disagree. The young chap DID have talent. And seemingly a damn bit more than Bieber ... but that's not what's important here. Attacking a child in the name of attacking Cowell is a truly pathetic thing to do, if indeed the attack was designed for that purpose.

To take down Simon Cowell does not require accusations without evidence, or campaigns to supplant his artists in the number one spots, or anything else so obvious. No. It'll take MUCH MORE than that. Discredit him? How, exactly? he's already gotten away with musical murder (Robson & Jerome? Seriously? If he can survive doing that ....)

Do I have a solution to "THE COWELL QUESTION"? No. Unless someone can bankrupt him for investment in child pornography, I doubt there is little else that will work. (Simon Cowell can be an adulterous lech at this point, and that is unlikely to hurt him ... In fact, the more TV I watch, the more likely it seems that had Adolf Hitler had a reality TV show about him during WWII, he would have lived to a ripe old age and graced countless warm TV sofas: "Oh! The Jews? Well, they seemed to own everything, and the science available at the time said they were genetically closer to pigs. That's why it was un-kosher for Jews to eat them, as it was a form of cannibalism! YES! That's REALLY what we thought at the time! Oh! We can laugh about it now, though! Do I feel stupid? GUILTY!" Much laughter from a plastic TV audience ensues as Adolf does jazzhands in a camp fashion ... despicable)

But this isn't what is making me a little giddy today. No. It's gullibility. Media gullibility. The media played into the hands of SOMEONE last week. Someone was bound to benefit from last week's nonsense. But who? Simon Cowell? Of course he did. Ronan Parke (the little boy in the beady eye of the storm)? Possibly a little (he certainly got a lot of attention, at least).

Well, let's look at it. Jai McDowell won BGT11. Well done, says I - seemed like a decent example of humanity, all things considered, and wasn't devoid of talent (taste, maybe, but not talent). Ronan Parke, the bookies' favourite, came second. Wait a second. What did I say there? "Bookies' Favourite". Hmmmm ....

From the moment the little guy appeared, he was the favourite to win. Bets were flying in, right from his first appearance until the Final on Saturday night.

In short, a "win" for Ronan Parke was a "lose" for bookmakers.

Hmmm ... do you think that .... No. But ... noooooo .... surely not. Why would bookmakers want Ronan Parke to be a loser ... they wouldn't have wanted to hurt a young boy's career, would they?

Accusations of conspiracy have been rife ever since Simon Cowell began his TV antics with these Talent Shows. But to be honest, the only people who have benefited are:

Simon Cowell and the TV channels and his company, Syco.

How many of these shows have managed to go on air WITHOUT accusations of scandal or double-dealing? Hmmmm ....

How many times have we now seen a "favourite" come second? Hmmmm ....

I must admit, I fully expected Ronan Parke to win BGT11. But I had a gut feeling about Jai McDowell from the moment I saw him. And as for the boy band ... well, they chose a stinkingly bad song for the occasion. As soon as I heard them start up on Bill Withers, I knew their chances were gone. Demonstrably as good as any boyband they most certainly were, but without a song that would carry them home, they were a lost cause.

Which only left a dancer to threaten them. No chance. Too many dancers in recent years on that show. A singing act was always the most likely winner in this competition.

The excessive publicity around Ronan Parke - both in terms of the allegations (which stank of falsehood from the moment they appeared) and in terms of his "most likely to win" status created that inevitable voter apathy that occurs when a "dead cert" is announced. The "Why bother voting for him when he's as good as won already?" factor kicked in.

Net result: bookies happy, and a talking point was created. Voila! Simon Cowell laughing all the way to the bank (the only real inevitable result of the show), newspapers having more fat to chew than can be found at a liposuction clinic, and bookmakers raking in a tidy profit.

Yes, there IS a conspiracy, and we're all a part of it. By writing this, I am a part of it. By watching it, the viewers have been a part of it. By reading about it (even reading about it here) you have been a part of it. By betting on its outcome, you have been a part of it. By discussing it at work (even if you have said something like "I don't watch those things") you have been a part of it.

I personally think that bookmakers have become too much a part of these things now. Their opinions (in the form of odds for each act) are given as "news" about the event. They have even found their way into these shows, being asked for their views. These shows have become moneymaking machines. And bookmakers have probably benefited most of all.

The only solution is to ignore these programs completely ... but can you do it?

I doubt it. I know that's an act of will that even I will have some difficulty with.

The Mungolian Web Gnome comments (0)

post comment

your name*

email address*


verification code*


I don't like you ... get over it.


Today is: (just in case you're a moron, or recently thawed out after a cryosleep)