... just wondering as its negative story after negative story. The media interest in SCD (although overwhelmingly negative) is MASSIVE this year... its been in the press almost daily for over a month now and we've still got a month till the show starts...

WHY so much attention on this one show?? Is it the media's obsession with kicking the BBC any opportunity they get?? (see the Daily Wail...) or is it just cos its the silly season??

I know that the Alesha thing was a bit controversial but theres just wave after wave of bad press....

Yet Simon Cowell is lauded and to be frank I dont think hes got a lot to be lauded over tbh. He just drudges up some 5 minute wonder every year, everyone goes apes**t and buys loadsa their records then loses interest 5 mins later and off we go again next year with the same routine...

Whats your take on this??

I think they're loving it, all the controversy will give them more viewers.

I think it is all part of the hype for the show actually, Not hearing that much about X factor at the moment, so maybe SCD are already winning the first round.

What a very sensible post. There's lots more to be said about this (like the Wail owning 25% of ITV)

I didn't realise that! No wonder they're putting such a negative spin on everything Strictly related. Although who was it who said All Publicity is Good Publicity. I suppose it will make sure that people will at least watch the first show to see what all the shouting was about!!

The Mail and the Murdoch-owned newspapers want to bring the BBC down, whatever it takes - obviously because they feel threatened by it and think they could make more money if the BBC was 'cut down to size'.

That is why you read daily stories about the BBC which are designed to diminish people's opinion of the Corporation.

Most of the people they bitch about are either of minority interest (Ross/Brand) or behind the scenes (take a bow, Jay Hunt) - but Strictly is a high-rating show everyone knows, and so trashing it is an effective way of rubbishing the BBC.

Unfortunately for the BBC, it has played into its enemies' hands in the most idiotic way possible, thanks to its Achilles' heel: appalling management and bad communication.

What we are seeing now is just the start: expect endless scrutiny of the the viewing figures once the show starts airing and headlines about declining audiences. And woe betide Strictly if we have a repeat of Sergeant-gate (courtesy of Johnny Vegas, perhaps? ) - it'll be like a tsunami of negative coverage ...

PS The Daily Mail doesn't have a stake in ITV - but BSkyB does (around 17%, I think ...).

The media might be enjoying kicking the crap out of SCD, but to be fair, the BBC/SCD production team have helped by providing them with some good reasons to start with, by way of some bad decisions, and a lack of proper communication.

All publicity is good publicity for the show - people are gonna tune in to see whether everything is going to be a disaster or not - I expect the first live show, if stories about ageism etc continue to have the biggest audience of a 1st live show in SCD history

Exactly we would be naive to think the BBC didn't leak a lot of this stuff to the press,the fact is any publicity is good publicity.I think also with some of the pros who find themselves in the press involed in not so good personal situations, it has done them no harm atall,and in fact seems to get them noticed and more popular through exposure . A bit of scandal does nothing to harm the show or the pros in the end they know people love the show and will tune in whatever,although i myself find some of it distastefull but it seems no such thing as bad publicity.

I think I fit into that category, I love SCD and genuinely look forward to the costumes, the music, the ups and downs and the judges comments - I'm not too fussed about who the judges, dancers or celebs are, it certainly doesn't make me furiously angry as it seems to do with some viewers. I feel curious about the new dancers and judges, I wish them well and don't consider the fact they've replaced old favourites undermines the validity of their presence on the programme. And I feel intensely curious about who the clebs will be, and don't want to prejudge any of them on their exising reputations, I want them to surprise me! I am really looking forward to the whole thing, new faces and old, I'm just a tad surprised that other don't seem to feel the same way.

As I've said elsewhere we get this tabloid nonsense every year, it's all part of the BBC's "pre-series publicity spin."
Mandleson is a rank amateur compared with the BBC.

Most of the negative press seems to be coming from the Mirror.

There are sections of the media which are rabidly anti-BBC and will pounce on anything as an excuse to put the boot in...but I suspect the BBC itself is conniving at a lot of the 'negative' publicity to hype the show.

The problem is that too much negative press can have a detrimental effect in that some viewers will simply turn their backs on the programme rather than stick with it.

I think the BBC puts the stories out knowing they're probably going to get a negative reaction, given the rather desperate nature of the press to scrape out a negative reaction about everything ("REMEMBER THAT GIRL FROM LAST YEAR? NO NOT THAT ONE! THE OTHER ONE! THE ONE YOU DIDN'T REALLY LIKE! WELL SHE'S NOT HAD HER CONTRACT RENEWED! SHE HAD IT NOT RENEWED IN AN E-MAIL(!!!!!!!) SHE WANTED TO COME BACK! BE OUTRAGED!) but knowing they can probably take the hit.

I don't think that's the same as deliberately courting negative publicity in the way that say, The X Factor does.

"Are the newspapers having a 'Kick the crap out of SCD' fest?"

No love, the BBC are the ones doing that.

That is exactly what the Mail/Telegraph/Sun etc are banking on. It is an old trick: keep repeating what is essentially the same story over and over again. Fling enough mud at a wall and some of it will stick.

Sorry, but the BBC isn't intelligent enough to leak the kind of stories that have appeared recently and turn it into good publicity for Strictly. They've been reactive pretty much throughout and have no coherent justification yet for the way management decisions have been communicated. The fact that the issue so many folk are up in arms about can be very clearly linked to stated BBC agendas of [1] engaging more with younger audiences and [2] improving on-screen diversity only makes the Corporation look shallow and cynical.

Make no mistake, the target in all the reports is very clearly not the show, but the BBC itself: SCD is just a means to an end.

BBC management need to get to grips with this pronto - but, if history is any kind of barometer, probably won't. Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy ride ...

I feel that a lot of the 'negative' press has not really been aimed at scd, that has been incidental. What the newspapers are really "having a go at" is the beeb's apparent ageist policy.

Quote:
“"There is no such thing as bad publicity."”

Oh yes there is. Gordon Brown has had continuous coverage due to credit crunch. How is such exposure helping his popularity? The royal family was daily under the spotlight during the Diana years. How did the story of a family at war boost them?

Endless animosity and division may beat the drum for a boxing programme, but Strictly is a feelgood show not a punch-up. Non-fans who come to watch once out of car-crash curiosity will be outnumbered by fans who switch off because Strictly management have lost their way.

More than that: allegations of ageism can be used to attack the BBC.

The BBC is the target. Ageism is rife in many other media companies, but you won't see it given any press coverage.

I wonder why ...

Will fans who formerly enjoyed Strictly really not be watching it this time around?

Off course they will - if only to then come on here and slate it

A professional pollster questioned a nationwide statistical sample of 1,305 persons --
430 Strictly viewers said they would watch SCD7.
221 Strictly viewers said they would not.
The rest were not Strictly viewers or don't knows.

Anyone is free to declare it inconceivable that others will choose differently. Some declared Recession could never happen.

Ah, statistics! Fabulous! I need puzzle over my 'will they won't they?' query no longer! It's all wrapped up neatly and authoratitavely for me by those who understand these things better than I do.

I think that the newspapers are simply reflecting the concerns of the majority of the public.