Simon Cowell's back track highlights fear factor

It was Halloween, in a grim twist of irony, when X-Factor tykes John and Edward's double act passed from the ridiculous to the ghoulish. Highly entertaining though their Ghostbusters... ’rendition’ was, it served on Halloween as a scary indication of the way the latest series of X-Factor is going. Losing sight of its apparent talent-finding objective, pandering to a public looking for some twist on Big Brother’s gormless reality TV format – which will finally die an ignoble death next year – Simon Cowell’s money-spinning programme has now jettisoned two genuine talents within its grasp in favour of far less talented, but more widely commercially appealing acts.


Admittedly, Rachel Adedeji's exit the weekend before last had less to do with John and Edward than Lucie Jones’s. Young Lloyd Daniels, who each week seems increasingly out of his depth, was suffering from a virus and virtually unable to sing in tune, yet despite Simon Cowell’s repeat assertions that he and the other judges base their decisions on the merit of the performance ‘on the night’ – something Cowell reiterated last week – it was clear that this is no longer the case. Rachel’s singing performance wiped the floor with Lloyd, only to be met with Cowell back tracking and putting her at the public’s mercy.


If viewers thought this was a one-off (and given their capacity shown so far to put up with childish nonsense on primetime television, they probably did), they were horribly mistaken. For the first time, last week John and Edward found themselves in the ‘bottom two’. It seemed a no-brainer. Louis Walsh would obviously stick by his boys. Cheryl Cole and Dannii Minougue would correctly support the talented singer Lucie Jones. And Simon Cowell would be only too delighted to oust the twins himself, ridding Louis Walsh of his only act, and ridding the competition of two boys who he himself had consistently maintained “can’t sing, can’t dance”. Cowell has always relished the role of X-Factor’s pantomime villain; here was his moment to kill off two main characters. Oh no he didn’t! Oh yes he did!


Except: oh no. He didn’t.


The X-Factor's twin publicity propellers have divided opinion like no other act in the six (yes, unbelievably, six) series of the show so far: even brother and sister combo Same Difference, for all their gut-wrenching, incestuous faux-romance shtick, were undeniably decent singers and capable performers. John and Edward (smartly shortened to Jedward by chortling Brangelina fans) have the capacity for neither. They’re High School Musical – without the music. The trouble is, that is the sort of snide putdown Cowell is renowned for. Yet this week he clambered clumsily all over his previous statements and intentions and, knowing full well that Jedward were never likely to be the public’s least favourite, gave his backing to the boys. On television, as Lucie Jones broke down in tears, the crowd weren’t even split 50/50: the boos far, far outweighed the cheers.


Simon Cowell is not stupid, however. He said himself that the twins won’t win the competition, and he’s right. There isn’t a Facebook campaign big enough to garner the twins that amount of support. So at a purely tactical level, Cowell is now holding the cards for three of the six remaining acts that could win this year’s competition. He has furthered his stronghold with the decisions that cost Rachel Adedeji and Lucie Jones, genuinely talented vocalists and rivals to his acts, their finalist places.


His wisdom runs deeper than beating the other judges, of course. Cowell knows that John and Edward attract a wider audience than a simple ‘talent versus talent’ shoot out would. He knows that the twins’ plight has given the programme itself an X-Factor. The twins certainly don’t have any, but they’re the twist the programme needs to stay fresh each week; their survival enthrals both the audience cheering them on, and the audience baying for their blood. No other act can command such attention in equal measures, and Cowell, fearful of losing such a massive audience segment, has acted. For once, the show has a bigger villain than Simon Cowell himself – and all the best stories need a villain.


But in replacing himself as the necessary evil, Cowell briefly lowered his guard. As The Guardian wrote on Monday, in prolonging the absurd theatre of this year’s X-Factor Cowell has cheapened its core values; the search for singing talent, and the dreams of those who enter. He has given in to public demand, dethroning himself as the pervading pop idol of X-Factor and put popularity measured in television ratings ahead of everything else: the programme’s integrity, the album and single sales, the record deals, the tours. And once the Jedward novelty wears off – about January 2nd 2010, I’d wager – it will be very difficult to claw that elevated status back.


No longer can he claim, as he did last weekend, that the programme is made for the dreams of people like Leona Lewis: this year’s strongest female singer is already out of the competition thanks to Cowell. Maybe the lifecycle of X-Factor is drawing to a close, and Cowell’s short-term gain at the programme's long term expense is already in full flow. Perhaps Cowell’s mind is turning toward the infinitely more empathetic stories that drive Britain’s Got Talent. But whatever might happen, X-Factor has suddenly been reduced to pure spectacle. Cowell has tarnished the programme’s mission statement, and possibly its reputation; for good.

The Resistance: is futile? A track-by-track reaction

GIITTV deputy editor Tim Miller goes through Muse's new album 'The Resistance' track-by-track. But is the Resistance futile? Or not?

Uprising –

Hang on, this can’t be right, the CD’s playing Kasabian’s ‘Shoot the Ru –’ oh no, this is actually it. Now it sounds a bit Dr. Who theme-ish; spacey and wishy-washy. Matt Bellamy’s wailing about being ‘victorious’ again. For the third album in the row. Sigh. Bellamy’s chord progression expertise is here, that’s evident, and it’s a passable romp, but where are the guitars?

More...

Da Silva lining

UEFA's lightning U-turn on their own decision to ban Arsenal's forward Eduardo for diving would raise many an eyebrow and derisive snort, were it not for the fact that that had been the majority reaction to the initial decision in the first place. With, as usual, impeccably ham-fisted timing, UEFA waded into a minor, irrelevant subplot from the one-sided Arsenal versus Celtic Champions League qualifier, and blew it out of all proportion.

Matters weren't helped when Scottish FA chief Gordon Smith needlessly and publicly criticised Eduardo for his 'dive' that won Arsenal a penalty, resulting in one of the five goals they scored against Celtic. Deception or not, Celtic's own players and manager admitted it was immaterial to the tie, but such was the furore drummed up by Smith and the media - probably due to the lack of other talking points from a match that thoroughly highlighted the gulf between the English and Scottish top leagues - that the incident took centre stage.

As dives go - if it was a dive, that is - it was hardly blatant, hardly the sniper bullet-suffering theatrics that are seen across Europe and occasionally creep into England's top flight. Sure, Eduardo is guilty of leaving his body there to allow for contact with the goalkeeper, as Wayne Rooney did against Arsenal a couple of weeks ago too. But how severe the level of gamesmanship is no longer the issue.

Referees have the power to - and do - punish players they deem to have dived, handing an on the spot yellow card. When UEFA got clumsily involved, this should have been the extent of their remit, to give Eduardo a retrospective yellow card. After all, if an off-the-ball sending off offence occurs in a match, which the referee does not see, the Football Association can go back and decide to ban the offending player for three games, the equivalent of a straight red card - as is likely to happen in yet another event involving Arsenal, Emmanuel Adebayor's stud on Robin Van Persie's face from the weekend. But in the case of Eduardo, UEFA took it further and rightly garnered furious criticism from Arsenal, and many points across football.

The reaction was justified, largely because while UEFA and FIFA condemns diving, this was the first occasion a retrospective and severe punishment had been handed out for the offence. Television cameras have been catching players diving every week for years and years, and yet UEFA chose to 'set a precedent' by punishing an inconsequental dive that paled in comparison to the out and out cheating that has gone before it, and that ultimately made no difference to the game it came in.

If their choice in timing was ill-judged, then their involvement at all was bizzare. UEFA would have had no reason to revisit the incident had Gordon Smith not voiced his futile annoyance. So in their effort to affect the game for the greater good, UEFA's precedent essentially became this: 'moan enough about an alleged dive in a football match, and we'll go back and ban each player for two matches if it can be reasonably proven'. Of course they've now overturned it; the very idea is a non-starter. That UEFA could have even begun to uphold the standard they would have set had they allowed Eduardo's ban to stand is clearly impossible.

And that isn't even to say what the precedent would have set for challenging ANY refereeing decision. Take one of the most common problems in football - an offside goal. These errors can be proven within 10 seconds, never mind post-match. So for example, a team loses 2-1 with the winner being an offside goal: given that the losing team can prove they've suffered at the hands of a poor decision, do UEFA now go and cancel out that goal? Change the outcome of the match and award both teams a point? Where do you draw the line, UEFA? Rather than try and answer the question, sensibly the governing body for European football have overturned their ridiculous Eduardo Da Silva decision that got them into the predicament in the first place.

Every cloud...

Following in Freddie's footsteps? As long as it is Broad...

There was never any doubt, of course, that Andrew 'Freddie' Flintoff could possibly allow the fifth and final Ashes Test match of 2009 - and his last for England - to pass him by. Though he offered two indifferent innings with the bat, and huge, gargantuan heart and effort with the ball for no reward, the pivotal moment of the deciding Test nevertheless fell to Flintoff - in the field.

Australia, chasing an improbable (and would-be record-breaking) 546 to win, were making a decent effort of it. Mike Hussey and Ricky Ponting had shared a third wicket stand of 127 runs when Hussey chanced a quick single to Flintoff at mid-off, presumably thinking he would be the one in danger as they ran. But Flintoff, so often in his career the big man for England in big moments, had his eyes on the big prize: the potentially match-winning wicket of Aussie captain Ricky Ponting. And, in one 30-yard throw, as though of pure lightning, Flintoff had done it. The single second on which the Test, and ultimately the 2009 Ashes series, hinged, was a moment of magic from Flintoff. As he has done more recently (as he's got older), Flintoff stood basking in the adulation of the crowd, awaiting his teammates to envelop him hugs and high fives. The key moment of the Ashes 2009 series had fallen to the key man, and he had, as ever delivered.

Following the ecstasy of the series win, the talk swiftly fixed upon where England are going to find Flintoff's replacement. He had always been considered the 'Botham' of his generation - who would be the next one, or more pertinently, the next Flintoff? Up until his announcement that he was retiring from Test cricket, it hadn't really been a problem. Suddenly, it was a panic. It was fitting, then, that the fifth test's Man of the Match, Stuart Broad, should properly step up to the plate in Andrew Flintoff's final Test match for England.

Broad, supported by Graham Swann, stole the show over the first two days. An entertaining quickfire 37 ensured England nudged a first innings total of 325+, but then came his starring moment. A majestic, unanswerable 12 overs of quick, accurate and clever fast bowling blew apart the Australian batting order, and gave England an advantage from which it would soon become impossible to lose. This, to many watching, was where Stuart Broad finally delivered on the potential he's been showing for the last two or three years, and proved he is capable of individual match-winning performances.

Without doubt, Broad has always had the talent to be a top performer for England. But critics have pointed to his temperament - think back to his dreadful over just in June in the T20 World Cup against Netherlands, where he literally threw the match away - and his bowling has often been expensive, a sign of inexperience and lacking concentration. With the bat, Broad has regularly shown his natural talent - elegant strokeplaying, attacking mindset, able to score quick runs - but his bowling seemed to let him down in the 'all-rounder' takes.

Not anymore. As well as scoring two fifties, contributing important runs in the final match and averaging better than recognised batsmen Alistair Cook, Paul Collingwood, Ian Bell and Ravi Bopara, Broad also became England's most potent bowler. Broad took the most wickets, including two 'five-fors', at the best average. And contrary to his previous problems with expense, Broad's economy rate was a smidge over 3.5 an over: compare that with Jimmy Anderson who was at 3.4, and generally recognised as England's best bowler before the series, and it seems more than decent.

The Ashes 2009 was the biggest series of Broad's life and across the five tests he has performed. After an inauspicious start too; following the first two tests Broad was in the firing line to be dropped. But Andrew Strauss, Andy Flower and the England selectors stuck with their precocious pin-up - and it paid dividends. England have now got to be patient with the star Englishman of the Ashes 2009. Broad is far from the finished product: consistency is what separates the greats like Brian Lara from erratic genius like Kevin Pietersen, and Broad is only just learning now how to use his talents tactically: when he does, he has proven he can be a match-winner. For sure, Stuart Broad can be nurtured into one of the best English all-rounders of recent generations - he is after all still young and, touch wood, not injury prone. But to be the next Andrew Flintoff, he will need careful handling, support and persistence; enough time to bloom, enough matches to become a regular England performer, enough opportunities to win matches for his nation. Because when England expected, Flintoff would deliver. If Broad is given the same treatment as Freddie, he will deliver too.

Fabulous FIB - Benicassim 2009 in review

Hey to everyone who does read this: sorry it took, and is, so long! Great memories...

There are better ways to spend a Friday night than hiding from gale-force winds huddled in an empty paddling pool at 2am while horizontal torrents of sand and dust whip the skin from your face and loose tents fly overhead. Preferably, you’d be getting pissed round a campfire having cheered on Kings of Leon earlier, given that’s why you’re out in the Spanish seaside town of Benicàssim in the first place. But, as has been well documented, the Friday night of Benicàssim Festival was something of a disaster.

Luckily, it was a minor blip in an otherwise stellar journey...

More...

For Iran, citizen journalism is the only journalism

Twitter has courted its fair share of news headlines since the turn of the year – many for its novelty factor, in truth – but this time it was different. When online news sources began reporting that the service had rescheduled technical maintenance in order to allow a crucial daytime period for Iranian users to go uninterrupted, it highlighted not only that Government restrictions are clearly oppressing communication from within the state, but also the very real power that sites like Twitter, YouTube and Facebook now possess.

More...

Relegation, relegation, relegation

As Newcastle's 'best fans in the country' will be counting to their cost, the high profile calamitous collapse through the trap door that was the Magpie's relegation brought the curtain down on one of the best English Premier League seasons in recent years. The title chase was a genuinely exciting two/three horse race for much of the season, extended perhaps by United's timely dip in form after being trounced 4-1 by Liverpool, while the bottom half of the table resembled chaotic turmoil until the very end, as gradually one by one teams hauled themselves away from the yawning chasm into the Championship.

While the gulf remains between the top four and the rest - painfully so for Villa, who saw a seven-point lead over Arsenal crumble to a ten-point deficit in just 13 games - the relegation of Newcastle and Middlesborough, plus close shaves for Blackburn and Sunderland, only goes to highlight the narrowing gap between the lower regions of Premiership football and the Championship. Middlesborough have flirted with relegation and promotion for over 10 years, while West Brom have also been classic bouncers between the divisions recently, and Birmingham sealed automatic promotion just a year after losing their Premiership status.

But a deeper look into the Championship explains why the two divisions are drawing nearer in quality. The top four teams have all been in the Premiership within the last three years. Between positions 6 and 20 there are eight clubs who enjoyed decent Premiership spells since the league's inception: QPR, Crystal Palace, Sheffield Wednesday, Ipswich and Coventry to name a few, not to mention Nottingham Forest. But most intriguingly, the three relegated teams from the Championship this season were all in the Premiership four years ago, and in Southampton and Charlton's cases, well established, if unspectacular, top level sides.

In all, 16 of last season's 24 Championship teams have graced the Premier League in its 18 years. Scattered around leagues One and Two are more examples of others - Swindon, Oldham, Leeds. Rarely are the Premiership's relegated teams all obvious candidates - consider examples of Leeds and West Ham, and Newcastle, being considered 'too good to go down'. With the competition as fierce as it is, that old adage just doesn't wash.

But if the likes of Hull City, Stoke and Burnley seem odd in the Premier League, it only reinforces the strength of the second tier of English football. Ex-Premiership sides don't get promoted by right anymore, as a short on form Reading discovered, despite missing out on automatic promotion on the last day. And, as Norwich, Southampton and Charlton can testify, it is quickly possible to struggle in the Championship even with years of Premiership experience. Ultimately, if you can't adapt quickly to the Championship, aspirations of a promotion chase can easily turn to fearful glances over your shoulder (something Derby can also sympathise with, after their indifferent Championship season).

And so it will be for Newcastle, Boro' and West Brom that relegation isn't just relocation, a change of scenery for a year (the Baggies are probably well aware of this anyway). Unless they take seriously the burgeoning strength of English football's most competitive league, and prepare in the right way for a long and difficult season, fighting for the right to harbour Premier League hopes rather than assuming they deserve them, the harsh reality of life in the Championship may just have a couple more major scalps to make.