I hate bullying and hypocrisy.
Now that the furore is dying down, I feel compelled to vent my feelings about the John Sergeant debacle that has dominated the UK press in the past week.
[YouTube=http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=HP_DXrr4cWA]
For those of you who don’t know, John Sergeant started life as a comedian when an undergraduate at Oxford, and grew into a well-respected political journalist. This portly and gamely retiree agreed to be a contestant in BBC’s most successful light entertainment show Strictly Come Dancing.
The rules of the show allow both a panel of experts AND the general public to vote. The combined scores from the two determine which contestant has to leave the show each week.
Clearly the producers thought John would be a good contestant. He is a jolly character who was unlikely to be able to compete with any seriousness. He was almost certainly included in the show to give it an appeal to older viewers, and was meant to be voted out early on.
But things went badly wrong. Week after week the public kept him on the show and voted off more able dancers. Initially this may have been because the public tend to feel sympathy for an underdog and because his early dancing was relatively so awful (in comparison to the other contestants and professionals) that there was a curious sadism that kept bringing him back just to see if it could get worse.
However, as time went on, two things started to happen. First, people really started to like him. His gentle charm, humility, and wit, and the warm relationship with his professional partner (Kristina Rihanoff), made him very appealing. You knew that he took it seriously, but you also knew that he knew that it was only ‘light entertainment’ and it wasn’t worth getting worked up about (whereas everyone else was).
Secondly, the expert judges started to pour out unprofessional bile - not just legitimate criticism, but arrogant, sneering remarks and personal attacks, clearly implying that John should leave the show and make leave the way clear for the other dancers. “After all,” they kept reminding us, “it is a dance competition!” And the more they sneered, the more the public voted to keep him in. John was gracious enough to thank them, after he had withdrawn from the show, for “whipping up public support for him.”
John withdrew from the competition last week, saying that he always thought it was best to leave a party before the fighting started. He was at pains to say that he wasn’t pushed, but there was implicit pressure put on him by the judges and other professionals - clearly the fighting at the party had already started.
The injustice of the whole incident annoyed me for the following reasons:
- John had done nothing wrong. He played by the rules. He rehearsed, learned the dances, and performed to the best of his ability. He won votes fairly. If there is criticism to be made it should be made of the producers who set up the voting rules in the first place, and of the judges for being personally abusive on occasions.
- The judges were so hypocritical. I gasped with unbelief when Len Goodman, the Head Judge, was invited to comment on John’s voluntary departure. He said he reflected the opinion of all the judges in saying how sorry he was that John had gone! Clearly the show’s producers needed him to say that. Clearly those same producers were banking on a large proportion of the audience being gullible and not being able to see broad-faced lie when presented with one.
There are plenty of ‘reality TV’ programmes out there that rely on a certain degree of nastiness and cruelty to have an appeal. One of the more pleasant things about Strictly has been that, up to now, it has taken people and put them in stressful situations but without having too much structural abuse built into the show. The whole John Sergeant debacle has started to change that perception. It will be interesting to see if either the rules are changed or the judges’ comments are toned down in any future series.
Now that he has left Strictly he clearly needs a new purpose and challenge. I think he should win “I’m a celebrity. Get me out of here!”
I have only caught clips of the programme so I am not in a good position to comment on this one.
However, I thought about this situation the other day and a few points come to mind.
Strictly Come Dancing is about dancing talent, charisma, effort and the determination to improve each week. The end result being a winner not only talented but have shiined most in people’s hearts. People can vote, but of course that vote is open to subjective feelings, bias and a whim on the night.
Then you have the judges. Their comments are there to guide us in our decision and to aid the dancers in constuctive comments. I don’t know what comments have been said but as I understand from this posting, not all the comments for John were helpful or constructive.
We have to remember that these are amateurs and give them a little slack when it comes to technique. Ballroom dancing is a precision and creative art form, strictly disciplined and requiring much practice - like ballet.
When my father danced, he always believed it was the man who was pivotal in the dance routine success- the one who guided the lady through the steps; she would follow him. So John needed to be the main guiding force and from what I saw he wasn’t.
He was, in the end, in an impossible position. Stay or go gracefully. I think he did the right thing, as I suspect a man of his fine character would.
What needs to happen now is a rigours review of the rules and the way the competition is held to avoid this unfortunate situation arising again; when a competitor feels compelled to go because he/ she knows that the vote cast does not match the talent.
I admire John very much for being in good spirit, trying and doing his best. And from what I heard he was getting a lot better. I would love to see him win I am a celebrity.
I don’t watch these type of ‘talent’ programmes for a variety of reasons, partly because they tend to take over your life. I remember getting hooked on The Apprentice!!
I suppose from my point of view, these programmes are there to entertain. They don’t entertain me so I don’t watch them. But they are a TV broadcast - ie there for the viewer, and since they involve a public vote (another thing I don’t like! Oh aren’t I a grumpy old trout!!) then even more so. Since the public (for whatever reason) liked John then he should never have been put under any pressure to leave the show. I am disappointed in him to be honest for not standing his ground.
The whole notion last week that the viewers had been diddled and should get their money back seemed a little over the top to me but I can see why they felt a little aggrieved. The argument on the radio show I listened to was that if a horse you bet on fell down before the end of a race you wouldn’t get your stake back, but as one viewer pointed out, if your horse were shot during the course of the race, perhaps you might. It does seem that John was rather shot down.
But it is all just entertainment and I have to say that it amazes me that people get so worked up about things that happen on TV and do not involve them in the slightest. But I suppose these things are a welcome distraction from the stresses of every day living.
It is hard to see that John, who was a tough political correspondant, would ever be bullied into doing anything that he did not want to do though! So I wouldn’t feel too sorry for him.
I am with you on this one. I just hate violence of any kind, be it wars, verbal confrontations, or abusive speech, like that seen on some game shows. The American Idol show has that kind of abuse in it, when they tell people that they can’t sing in as rude a manner as possible.
Gordon Ramsey annoys me too. I just can’t stand the guy humiliating and swearing at people. Why is that acceptable on television?
Now, putting down a person who is beloved by the viewers, is beyond comprehension, because these judges were, by proxy, insulting all the guy’s fans. How insensitive and disgusting!