http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/helen-george-claims-strictly-controlled-7071519#rlabs=1%20rt$category%20p$1

The BBC thought Jamelia was the worst of their worries? Enter Helen.

So, as usual, it is all the tabloids quoting (or more likely 'interpreting') something attributed to someone in another tabloid. Really need to see the original to see whether it was an actual interview or 'it is reported that' type of quote.

Also, I think Helen is far too intelligent to have spoken to the Sun directly

deleted

What did she say I cannot get it up to read.

Here is the link:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/h...category%20p$1

I agree that it's just the DM "creatively" re-interpreting Helen's response to something else.

What Helen said is not derogation.

The Sun article is actually quite a reasoned piece

Helen says Strictly is a prime time show so the producers need to create drama and story lines

The article is mostly about Helen going out in the dance-off - she says she would have liked to stay longer, but it's TV, it's a show and she enjoyed her time.

She thought it's reasonable to have a mixture of the judges and the public deciding - dancing is an art form so the decision is subjective. The public invest in it so they'll want to take part in deciding.

She said Jay was a 'worthy winner' who 'deserves this'

(Can't believe I've just read a Sun article again - rolls eyes at self - don't like the tabloids as they bullied people in the phone hacking scandal)

I can't either, I'm wondering what she has wadded into.

Just done a very short precis above - searched on Google for the original Sun article.

NO ... a prime time entertainment show is possibly 'produced' to a certain degree?!? Sorry, i'm not believing this for one second!!

Waken up people, anything you're watching that is supposedly 'real' and/or spontaneous even down to things like 'arguements' between judges or stars might have been pre-planned at least to some extent.

It's telly for goodness sake.
It's entertainment.
It's show business, what's the saying 20% show and 80% business.

So as I suspected the other tabloids have done a spoiler and twisted the words around.

Definitely. I just feel that the tabloids and gossip magazines like OK and Closer fail to truly understand people like Helen. She is too sophisticated for them, but she goes along with it and tells them exactly what she thinks they should know, that it is primarily an entertainment show with dance content and that she felt she could have stayed in a bit longer on the show. (I hope I have said the right thing here )

A right classy bird, her.

I know and a very smart woman she is too.

To be fair she's probably not used ti the tabloids ways of twisting things to invent controversy otherwise she would probably have kept her mouth shut!! Really what she's said is just good sense but she probably regrets saying anything at all now!!

I hardly think she waded in, she said it's an entertainment show and as such has to be a bit controlled to work as a good show, duh

I doubt anyone at the BEEB will worry , seriously does anyone but the tabloids think the result was fixed. I don't understand why the judges were just miserable and made the final a gloom fest. If Kellie had had enough votes she would have won , she didn't , she lost.

Ok

I was only joking about the BBC worrying

was gonna post about this in the Broadcasting forum, but glad I checked here first!! having heard a few things from people who've worked for the show over the years, I'm sure I'm not the first to have always known it's "controlled" but that's because it's "reality TV" and as we all know, nothing is "real" about "reality TV"

you're right, Strictly is entertainment, which is why they have a comedy character each year, and the same sob-story segments leading into each "character" performance in their routine - no the judges are not told who to vote up/down each week, but there is a question mark hanging over the results of the audience polls - comedy characters may outstay their welcome, but sometimes that's because the audience didn't do what the producers expect, but no comedy character has ever made the final, despite the volumes of votes, the producers always end up with the final few weeks being about "the real dancers" - I've been told many times, by many people involved in the show, that this is not purely down to chance or coincidence, it's quite concerning that no-one has investigated further too!

however as it's considered "entertainment", it falls under slightly different governance terms to the quiz shows debacle, although if they're taking calls/votes from the public, I can't see how

Surely sooner or later the comedy act will end up in the dance off and the judges are well within their rights to 'save' the couple who dance better - which is exactly how it should be.

Also, however 'popular' a comedy act, surely at some point their votes get outweighed by the combined votes of people who would have voted for better dancers who have been voted off. I would have thought that their votes are far more likely to transfer to decent dancers than the comedy participant in most cases.

Anyway, quite a serious allegation you are making there.

Would you count Chris Parker as a comedy character? If so, he wasn't very funny! Also it was the first series so the public probably didn't know what to do!

Many producer/manager types think they have more influence than they do. It's part of the taking credit for anything that works even if it's chance or other people's skill. It's partly the way employment is set up these days. Frequent performance reviews mean interventions have to be made whether they work or not, just so there is something to write up on the paperwork. Some of the manipulation of song choice, running order, imposed theme, props and costume is rather ham fisted in an attempt to reduce the casual vote. In every case I can recall, it's not really needed. There is always a surge of voters in the later rounds for the more skilled dancers, all the producers actually have to do is wait.

After a few years of enquiries around ignored or overruled public votes, I don't think anyone running the show would contemplate simply making up the numbers. As such, the governance holds - the opportunity to vote for each is equal and the real numbers are used as far as technically possible. I say technically because some knowledge of the process makes me think they are doing some legitimate filtering for suspected fraudulent votes, much as political polling companies di routinely. The financial aspect is ruled out, no rewards for voters or even cash prize for dancers so the rules say the vote numbers don't have to be published. Much as I'd prefer to see the figures, it does protect the show in a way. If it was obvious Jay was top of the poll every week and only had to turn up to win, that's not only kept some public interest alive, but the other dancers don't think "why bother?"

What question mark? What have you been told?

If there's a part of Strictly that I trust completely, it's the veracity of the public vote results.

The producers have plenty of controls to steer things if they wish to.

VT's, judges, music choices, themes, and many other options which can have an effect.

I don't think there is any messing with the public vote, but knowing the pattern of voting in previous weeks is useful information if you want to steer things a particular way.

It's an entertainment show and the main target is viewer numbers.