I've just been catching up on the rumour-mill surrounding this year's UK entry for Eurovision, with suggestions that Charlotte Church, Katherine Jenkins, Pixie Lott or even (weirdly) Madonna will be our representative. We can probably safely discount the latter possibility, but I must say I'm mildly encouraged by all this, because it presumably means the BBC are planning a return to the moderately successful 1992-4 arrangement of an internal selection of the performer, but a public vote to decide the song. As I've mentioned before, I'd much rather see a completely open selection, but the worst of all worlds is what happened last year, with everything resting on the judgement of a single songwriter who clearly didn't have a clue where the contest was 'at'. All we need to ensure now is that John Barrowman and his oh-so-helpful attempts to 'guide' the public's choice are kept well clear of the selection show!
As for the three songs to be selected so far, if the contest were to stop right now probably the Swiss entry - In Love For A While by Anna Rossinelli - would be the winner. That's not saying a great deal. The Romanian song is pleasant, uptempo, and utterly unmemorable, while the Albanian entry is a complete dog's breakfast - although admittedly that always seems to be the case at this stage in proceedings, so it would be rash to write it off altogether. Whatever radical surgery they perform, though, I can't believe it's going to be a patch on Juliana Pasha last year. Hopefully something more inspiring will be along soon from other countries.
Showing posts with label Madonna. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Madonna. Show all posts
Monday, January 10, 2011
Monday, August 24, 2009
The Daily Mail, aka the FHM edition for people who think Quentin Letts is funny
I've just crossed over to the dark side for the first time in many weeks - I actually read an article at the Daily Mail website. Yes, I know, I know, but I simply couldn't resist reading the latest on the supposedly imminent US boycott of Scotland, which will doubtless lead to kilts being rechristened Freedom Skirts (or, better still, someone suggested Salvation Skirts). Talking of Lockerbie, does anyone give the slightest credence to this rumour doing the rounds about the British Embassy in Tripoli handing out Scottish flags to those welcoming Megrahi home? My first reaction was that it was paranoid drivel (which indeed it probably is), but then I did just begin to wonder where the average Libyan would locate several large Scottish flags (in pristine condition) at short notice.
But I digress. What I was going to reflect on was the character of the Mail itself, which is something that always startles me when I have a peek at the website. Given the well-known disdain the paper holds for, say, the coarseness of the BBC, or indeed for anything that offends the 'decent' values of Middle England, I would have rather naively expected the editorial staff to...how can I put this...actually reflect those stated values in their own choice of content. Instead, scrolling down the list of articles, I'm always left with the impression that I'm in fact reading a 2-for-the-price-of-1 combined edition of Heat and FHM specially designed for people who believe that the pictures are justifiable, but only when they're essential to the plot. (And of course who think asylum seekers spread disease, worry about being liable for inheritance tax even though they're not, and think Quentin Letts is actually funny.)
Exhibit A - "Danielle Bux narrowly escapes a wardrobe malfunction while showing off her holiday tan"
I would elaborate on the story, but I think the headline may already have spoiled it for you slightly. Danielle Bux's breasts almost slipped out of her dress...but didn't. Oh, and a photographer from the Mail just happened to be present at the dramatic moment (thankfully he wasn't wasted on trifling matters like the Afghanistan war). That pretty much covers it. Put these two facts together and what have you got? Material that is apparently more than sufficient for a lengthy story accompanied by three exclusive pictures of the, er, incident happening. Or...not happening.
And for the Heat-leaning female demographic, turn to page 27 for our shocking world exclusive photos that show Madonna now looks even more like Gollum than when we did the same stunt last year. Don't worry, we need to show you these pictures - how else are we to judge whether she's fit to be a mother?
But I digress. What I was going to reflect on was the character of the Mail itself, which is something that always startles me when I have a peek at the website. Given the well-known disdain the paper holds for, say, the coarseness of the BBC, or indeed for anything that offends the 'decent' values of Middle England, I would have rather naively expected the editorial staff to...how can I put this...actually reflect those stated values in their own choice of content. Instead, scrolling down the list of articles, I'm always left with the impression that I'm in fact reading a 2-for-the-price-of-1 combined edition of Heat and FHM specially designed for people who believe that the pictures are justifiable, but only when they're essential to the plot. (And of course who think asylum seekers spread disease, worry about being liable for inheritance tax even though they're not, and think Quentin Letts is actually funny.)
Exhibit A - "Danielle Bux narrowly escapes a wardrobe malfunction while showing off her holiday tan"
I would elaborate on the story, but I think the headline may already have spoiled it for you slightly. Danielle Bux's breasts almost slipped out of her dress...but didn't. Oh, and a photographer from the Mail just happened to be present at the dramatic moment (thankfully he wasn't wasted on trifling matters like the Afghanistan war). That pretty much covers it. Put these two facts together and what have you got? Material that is apparently more than sufficient for a lengthy story accompanied by three exclusive pictures of the, er, incident happening. Or...not happening.
And for the Heat-leaning female demographic, turn to page 27 for our shocking world exclusive photos that show Madonna now looks even more like Gollum than when we did the same stunt last year. Don't worry, we need to show you these pictures - how else are we to judge whether she's fit to be a mother?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)