Earlier this month, the stage was set for a big day for fans of insane theatrical performances: the final of the world’s biggest Eurovision Song Contest, the Eurovision Song Contest.
After a nerve-wracking tally of votes from both the people and the jury, Swede Lorraine (39) ran away with the trophy for the second time.
As a result, the people’s favourite, Käärija (29), finished second.
On the same night that Lauren was announced as the winner, He started a heated discussion on social media. Many believed that the victory was not deserved, as people clearly stated who they preferred. However, a professional jury put an end to it.
– a surprise
At Eurovision, there is a professional jury from each country, as well as the viewers, who vote for the winner. Each jury consists of five hand-picked people with connections to the music industry. They hold 50% of the power.
Behind closed doors, they sit with voting forms to assess contributions, except for their country’s performance.
One of those who has kept this power on his lap is Avisa Oslo’s debate editor, Fuad Ashraf. He was a member of the jury in 2014, and at the time was a cultural journalist at Aftenposten.
He internalized the debate that arose as a result of this year’s final. Like the viewers, Ashraf questions the outcome:
Not a single country gave its 12 audience votes to Sweden, but Sweden still won because of the jury’s lead, even though Finland had the highest viewership ever.
– It’s a little scandal, and the EBU should clearly ensure that this doesn’t happen again and give the public more power.
Ashraf believes that it is a positive thing for many people to participate in the discussion.
– I think it’s okay for people to be upset. And it’s fun, because there’s a surprising number of people who think it’s too important to be a competition that no one really cares about. It shows that politics and big politics have already entered Eurovision.
open to change
Ashraf understands the arguments that a jury can have too much power.
– A jury can have too much influence, and I can understand the argument against five people deciding with nearly half the state vote. But people have very short memories.
– In the mid-2000s, when the Balkans and Eastern European countries fully entered the competition, there was a lot of criticism that they voted for each other, and that the Nordic countries and Western Europeans did not have a chance. He explains that there were a few years when Norway also missed the World Cup finals.
It is important to remember why the jury system was introduced in the first place. It’s not a perfect system, Ashraf thinks, but I also don’t think people would have been satisfied if I’d left absolutely everything to the votes of the public.
At the same time, he believes there is nothing in the way of evaluating the jury’s authority.
– What you can probably look at is whether the jury decides about half. Could it be 30/70, where the people decide with 70 percent of the vote? Is there some budget that needs to be changed?
Ashraf is clear about who is the real winner in his eyes.
– The heart of the competition is still the douche points for the public (twelve points in French, daily newspaper). It does not reflect Sweden’s victory.
– You will pass the jury
Melody Grand Prix project manager Stig Carlsen also weathered the storm caused by this year’s Eurovision final. After repeated attempts to get the head of the MGP to speak up, he comments on the controversy that has raged on both social and traditional media.
The jury system will definitely be evaluated at Eurovision, and debate is very welcome, he assures Se og Hør.
– Will there be new rulings on jury power?
– It is up to the EBU and Eurovision reference group to consider this in more detail. If I were to guess, I think there will be some adjustment in the balance of power between the jury and the people, but the jury is out, Carlsen thinks.
– I do not know what the basis of the 50/50 distribution is, but it is worth asking whether a jury of 185 people should have the same power as millions of television viewers.
Carlsen, like Ashraf, notes that the professional jury function was introduced as a counterbalance to a trend in which people from neighboring countries vote for one another. However, this is not the only argument of a professional jury.
– The professional jury has been introduced so that the quality of professional music is evaluated by experts, and serves as a counterweight to popular voices that perhaps lean towards great and entertaining music.
Also read: And the viewers got angry: – Embarrassed
“Infuriatingly humble web fan. Writer. Alcohol geek. Passionate explorer. Evil problem solver. Incurable zombie expert.”