Emma is sticking to the script BB shoves under her nose . They pay her (probably) a disgustingly high amount to front the show and she will do as she's told and toe the party line . That's understandable . It's a good gig and must be very profitable for someone raising a little family .
However what REALLY rattles me is that even when the script she is following is basically positive she allows her own bias to seep through . If she decides she dislikes someone boy will she let it show, even if the person is the chosen one .
So yes, I understand her following the script but she can be quite nasty to those not in her favour . I don't like Jack, but if I had to choose one of the finalists as a winner based on recent weeks , it would be him. He took some shit in that house . They did stuff to him that they would NEVER have tried with Roland Rat or princess chloe and allowed what amounted to him being bullied over the case of money . I think the sight of it riled up the other 5 to be honest . Anyway he didn't deserve the treatment in the house OR in his exit interview and Emma's disdain for him was evident .
Princess tippytoes got the softly softly approach obv, just as she did from start to finish . For goodness sake the most traumatic thing inflicted on her was eating a chilli pepper . And that was it .

But there wasn't anything wrong with their reasons. As Emma pointed out, disliking it when Jack loses his temper is a valid reason to nominate him, yet he still complained in the Diary Room when Sam did just that. He also slated her another time because he presumed she had nominated him, even though he didn't know what reason she had given.

Don't they all get a bit cross and narky when they're nominated. Surely it's only natural - the only difference is that Jack blurted everything out - all the time. It was like he always thought out loud. I found that quite funny.

I'm glad he managed to turn things around and made it into fourth place. That would have been unthinkable a few weeks ago. Love him or hate him he was a good value house mate IMO

why should he feel guilt or remorse. they were put in a room firs one to push the button gets the money - all six had the same opportunity he was the fastest, he didn't think he was going to win so he would come away with something.

Jack was tormented for days over it - wonder what Chloe will do with the £5k and of course sam had £5k too

Wasn't the question BB put to her something along the lines of "Do you want to keep the money or put it into the prize fund?" The principle is the same, she kept it, therefore the prize fund was 5K down.

Emma is damned if she does and damned if she doesn't.

If she's too nice she's accused of ars* licking and bias if she's tough she's accused of going in too hard.

I think her job on finals night is vastly under estimated - anything could potentially happen and she has a baying mob in her ears at all times.

I think she did a pretty good job myself.

To be honest I don't think she is particularly biased, she's just not particularly good. I don't think she's sharp enough to conduct a good interview - she has her bullet points based on whatever narrative they're focussing on but if the housemates confound that narrative in their answers she can't adapt, so she just keeps repeating herself like a stuck record. Davina was the same.

Besides, Jack handled himself very well. Of all the interviews I think he came out the best (though I may be biased). Despite her gushing over Joel, for instance, he still ended up essentially admitting he was manipulative.

Personally l think any kind of interview is pointless on finals night, should be a" well done" for taking part, and here are your best bits.

To take them to task over something they said or did weeks before, isn't going to change anything, or are their wages dependant on them sitting there, to be told off like naughty schoolkids (for some) by some half baked clueless interviewer.

I agree, and I think it matters that this year the HMs usually knew what reasons had been used, either because the nominations were face-to-face, or because BB showed them to the HMs. It's a lot harder to calmly accept being nominated when you hear the reasons and think some of them are wrong or unfair.

Unfortunately, this happened at a time when the pernicious "entitled" idea is flourishing among viewers, so that Jack would inevitably have that label stuck on him.


That's why I began my reply to Lou17's post by saying "I agree with the general sense of what you're saying". Perhaps I should have said more about that side of it, to make it clearer that I wasn't arguing for Chloe or against Jack.

Not all of them. In fact, most of them took it on the chin. Jack reacted the worst out of everyone. He went out of his way to make it clear that he didn't think he should have been nominated, even when the reasons were fair, and was also often quite nasty towards the people who he thought/knew nominated him. Immaturity and entitled behaviour might be natural for him, but I prefer it when housemates deal with it like adults.

He was still booed quite badly so I wouldn't say there was a huge turnaround, and I don't think he was that good a housemate either, but it's good that he got himself some money out of it I guess.

I though Emma did a fairly good job this time, but for some reason was tougher with Jack than with anyone else, and was over-helpful to Chloe. I can understand her not putting the hypocrisy point to Chloe using that word, however, because the public had voted that it wasn't hypocrisy. Wrong-headed though that vote was, it created obstacles for that way of phrasing it. But I can't defend Emma's claim that Jack didn't get stick for what he did, or that Chloe got a lot of stick for taking £5k.

Re "damned if she does and damned if she doesn't" and similar "can't win" arguments, all they seem to amount to is that neither course would get universal approval. But it doesn't mean neither course was better than the other or that she got it right.

What did Jack say that you think made it "clear that he didn't think he should have been nominated"? You may think some of the reasons he complained about were fair, but that doesn't mean he has to, on pain of being labelled "entitled" if he doesn't.

Anyway, I think Chloe and Simon took being nominated at least as badly as Jack did; they just weren't nominated as many times.

Do you want exact quotes or can I just refer you to occasions? There are plenty.

He wasn't able to explain how they were unfair either. When Emma mentioned Sam's reason, he was unable to and ended up tripping over himself. Besides, for him to find so many reasons unfair simply points back to his entitlement. It shows that his bar for 'accepted nomination reasons' is placed spectacularly high in comparison to the rest. Other people managed to accept that reason very well (Simon, Sam, etc).

Even the ridiculous, petulant Simon often took it better than Jack. When Harry nominated him to his face because she didn't feel close to him, he accepted it. When Simon nominated Jack for the same reason, Jack simply couldn't accept it, and made a point to confront Simon about t. It's a sad day when you're less mature than Simon.

it's not an easy job, and she will always get complaints as she can't please everyone. However, I'm much less fussed about what approach she takes (too nice or too tough) I'd just like to see a consistent approach with all the housemates so that it's fair.

And I don't think I'm nitpicking because of my own bias with the housemates....I think her questioning, her whole attitude to an interview changes, depending on which HM she's interviewing to the point where one HM is treated as if they're a legend, the other one the complete opposite.

As I''ve mentioned on here before, two examples would be to compare Nikki and Helens interview and Chloe and Jacks. I wouldn't be bothered if she went soft on them all - let Nikki give her perspective on how she felt about Helens language and behaviour - then let Helen speak about her perspective on how Nikki and Brian behaved towards her.....or if she was more critical with them and put the counter point to them both. Same goes for Jack and Chloe. But Emma makes it clear in her questioning there's only one side of the story she accepts as she takes that side regardless of which HM it is.

More than that, with some she is seen practically gushing over, yet with others it's very different with constant 'jokey' digs at them. I do understand personality differences, and how some interviews are going to be more naturally fun than others, but it goes beyond this and I don't think it's professional or balanced. And I don't think it's particularly difficult to be more balanced either. And if she genuinely didn't see the context or reasons behind why Jack (and many of the viewers) were upset with the Chloe money thing, she's obviously hasn't watched the show well enough. I'm not saying she has to agree with Jack, but if she's putting Chloe's perspective on the money when she's interviewing her, surely it's only fair to give Jacks perspective when interviewing him? Or vice versa.

Great post, sums up my feelings perfectly.