http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...8922_1,00.html

I totally agree with this woman...

I think we are all clever enough to realise that those VTs are heavily edited. So she might not have made all the comments on the same day, but the words still come out of her mouth.

Putting bits together is something you have to do when you edit a weeks worth of footage into 1 minute. It makes sense to have two bits of audio on the same subject running together.

If she didnt want to be nasty, she shouldnt have said nasty things.

Yeah she said on her video diary that her husband was encouraged to say nasty things about Craig. I don't think it hurt or harmed her position. She did very well to get as far as she did

I tottaly agree aswell, i liked Carol but she was obviously jealous [rightly or wrongly] of Emmas scores.It was pretty obvious anyway without the film,when she talked about scoring on it takes two.I wonder if she'll turn up for the final.It could be like Carol Vodermon all over again

Can't remember what exactly Carol was shown saying in the VT on SCd, where she appeared to be complaining about overmarking. So let's say that the VT showed her saying "There IS a lot of overmarking".

That seems pretty cut and dried, doesn't it?

But, if what she'd actually SAID was:

"I've heard people say that there IS a lot of overmarking, but I simply don't agree."

If that was what happened, you can understand why she looked horrifed at the way it had been edited, and rightly so. And, it doesn't matter how media savvy you are, it must be very difficult to avoid that kind of editing (unless you say nothing, and then you'll be portrayed as glum, dull and boring!).

I dont think shes talking about that.

I'm assuming she has talked about Emma, then seperately talked about the judges marking and is complaining that its been put together to make it look like she said it directly about Emma.

To be fair to Carol, creative editing can create something out of nothing. Witness the article not many weeks ago featured on here that tied several Lilia comments together, mostly about Matt being undermarked, threw in a bit of speculation, and created an article saying that Lilia felt Emma was getting off lightly. The quotes themselves said no such thing, and what Lilia actually meant is moot - the fact is, that it's perfectly possible to take a few fairly innocuous comments and create a "story" that seems reasonably plausible. Washboard has pointed out a scenario in which this could happen with editing of VT etc. It's also possible that for example unconnected comments like "We get good comments and then 7s", "The judges have their favourites" and "Emma got good marks on Saturday" (or even just "Emma did well on Saturday") - could be edited together to create a VT of Carol seeming to say "We get undermarked and Emma gets overmarked".

So it's not at all out of the realms of possibility that Carol feels comments which weren't "nasty" have been edited together and put together in such a way as to cast her in a bad light. Maybe she should've been media savvy enough to know that was likely, but assuming that she "must've been nasty cos otherwise they couldn't have done it" is at least equally as naive.

I quite agree, Sarah. Carol comes across as very chatty (whether she is or not I don't know as I've never met her). And the BBC are becoming quite expert at 'creative editing' (and twisting things to suit their purpose - which, by the way does not mean I've bought into the conspiracy theories on this board!).

Making assumptions about Carol being nasty isn't fair, in my humble opinion.

You also cant assume she was being nice then..

I thought the article was ok. I certainly agree with her comments on reality shows etc. It is so easy to manipulate ANYTHING someone says. Did any of you see the humerous 'ITT preview' video someone on here made? It goes to show no matter what happens, and I believe the BBC have been biased towards Emma (though it's not conspiratorial), you can say anything and it can be misconstrued/ altered to sound bad/ good. She could have said: Emma Bunton is great. People say she is overmarked but I don't think she is. I love this show and my partner is great.' It could have come out as : Emma Bunton is overmarked. I don't think she is great. I love my partner.' Really, don't assume or defend anything!

If you're so determined to think the worst of her then nothing anyone on her says is going to change your mind.

But why are you so eager to think so negatively of her?

Nope, I can't. But assuming she "must've said nasty things cos I saw em on telly", or that for her to have appeared to say nasty things, she must've been being nasty, ("...she shouldn't have said nasty things...") is naive. It's become clear as this series has progressed that the beeb has outdone itself in terms of creative editing, so basically anything you see that isn't live, you really can't assume that the impression being given is really true to what was said/how it was said.
Last edited by sarah-flute : 17-12-2006 at 02:44

[[B]QUOTE=batmobile2]I
. She could have said: Emma Bunton is great. People say she is overmarked but I don't think she is. I love this show and my partner is great.' It could have come out as : Emma Bunton is overmarked. I don't think she is great. I love my partner.' Really, don't assume or defend anything![/quote][/b]

I dont think shes giving out about 'deleberate' editing like that in the article,what i think shes complaining about was the bringing together of 2 comments on the same subject said at different times.Personally i think its fair to edit 2 things together if they're releated to the same subject and mentioned by Carol in an short period of time
Last edited by tom green : 17-12-2006 at 02:47

I voted for her every week!

I just dislike what she is doing now - selling her story to the paper, saying she was "manipulated" for ratings.

I, personally, dont think she was and have stated my case why not. I dont mind that you disagree.

I dont think there is anything creative about the editing of 2 comments together releating to the same subject.The BEEB didnt put the words in her mouth

Editing words together to make new statements is wrong.
Editing statements together is not wrong.

Depends what you think they have done. I dont think Carol is claiming they have pretended she has said things, just that they have edited it to make it look like she has said the things about specific people.

E.g. Showing a clip of Emma and Darren rehearsing while Carol says "The judges overmark their favourites".

In my mind, she just shouldnt have said that if she didnt want to look bitchy. Its not the BBC's fault.

As I said in a previous post, it's perfectly possible to edit together two innocuous (even unconnected) statements, and create something out of nothing.

eg: Carol definitely DID say that they got good comments and then 7s - as I recall she and Matt got to the stage where they thought it was quite funny.

That simple statement or an edited version of it could be combined with any number of other comments like something as innocent as "Emma did well on Saturday" - even if it was said at a different time - and with the appropriate bit of VT, could easily come across as "Emma did well but so did we and we got less marks". Neither of those statements is in any way nasty, but it'd be easy to combine them in a way that came across as "I'm jealous of Emma's scores". It's a looooooooong way from being implausible.

She wouldn't even have to say that the judges overmarked their favourites - someone could say "the judges have their favourites" (which would be a fair comment - it's been noted from early in the series that Arlene is keen on Mark, Bruno had a soft spot for Louisa, etc, and it doesn't always mean that those favourites get overmarked... Arlene has made no bones about Mark being a favourite, and yet has given him lower marks than other judges on several occasions), slap that over a bit of Emma and Darren footage and hey presto, instantly that person is bitching about Emma and Darren, even if the comment was 1) fair and 2) not actually about Emma and Darren. It ain't rocket science. I'm not saying that's what did happen - just pointing out a couple of examples of how creative editing can pretty much create controversy out of nowhere.

Given that we don't actually know exactly what Carol was referring to and that even if we did, we've no way of ascertaining in exactly what context any comments WERE made, we can't really judge whether what she said was manipulated or not. But it's certainly possible...

...and talking of manipulation... I'd like to think it was less likely in a respected broadsheet such as the times, but who says she "sold her story"? We have no way of knowing whether all the quotes in that story were made at the same time, or meant for public reproduction. The longest quote, and one that sounds most like a "for the papers" quote, is the "no sour grapes" one. We've no way of knowing whether they were all from one interview or if some were off the cuff (I can't find any indication, anyway), etc etc. And that's not taking into account the fact that a lot of "spin" can be put on an article by the surrounding paragraphs that have little or nothing to do with what the person actually said, and how their quotes/the additional information/other quotes are put together.

For a good example, look at this article that I mentioned.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds40301.html

Lilia's quote could easily be taken as "The judges expected Emma to be good, but she's not done real dancing before so she is in the same boat as everyone" or "The judges are prejudging that Emma must be good because she has danced before" or "The judges expectations of Emma were too high because they think she should be good having danced before"... or probably several other readings.

Lilia's quote isn't, as far as I can see, being negative about Emma, and is more likely saying that the dance experience she had is irrelevant; but in the context of that article, juxtaposed with the quote about the harsh marking of Matt, they made it appear she was saying something that she didn't. They actually wrote "The Russian professional said the rugby union star was getting harsh treatment while other "favourites", namely Emma Bunton, are let off lightly" - clearly, she didn't actually say that, otherwise they'd've quoted her directly. Such a juicy comment would not have been missed, surely!

Assuming that Carol must've been a bitch and is selling her manipulation story for a quick buck when actually she wasn't manipulated at all and is just having a whinge... well to be honest I don't see how any of us has enough information to make that judgement call. (Either for or against her - but me, I like to assume the best rather than the worst of people.)
Last edited by sarah-flute : 17-12-2006 at 03:37

Totally

Vorderman

Deliberate

Relating

I can't help but think that if someone doesn't have a basic grasp of the English language then the concept of the power of editing will just be beyond them...

By the way, the week after Carol was supposedly 'nasty' about Emma they watched the IACGMOOH final together in her hotel room over a bottle of wine... I think they both probably know more about the power of editing than any of the people that post on here...

sorry i forgot to edit, i never once said Carol was nasty

[QUOTE=sarah-flute]
Assuming that Carol must've been a bitch and is selling her manipulation story for a quick buck when actually she wasn't manipulated at all and is just having a whinge... well to be honest I don't see how any of us has enough information to make that judgement call. (Either for or against her - but me, I like to assume the best rather than the worst of people.)[/quote]
I already said i liked her,i never said she sold her story

Another similar piece from the same source.....


I don't want to be a bitch


As Carol admits, she should know better.

I don't have much sympathy for this kind of whinging. These celebs all know the score....or should do. In addition, they are being well paid to learn to dance whilst also being given the opportunity to revive flagging careers / establish themselves further in the media / put themselves in the 'shop window'. I'm not condoning it but a bit of creative editing is inevitable and a small price to pay IMO.
Last edited by Endemoniada : 17-12-2006 at 06:24

I just think Carol is telling the truth and we all know WE the public have been manipulated by the BBC with all this fuss about overmarking/judges fighting/ ITT over coverage of Emma and practically none of Matt etc. We have all fallen for it by all voting (over 2 million on Sat Night) so I am glad that Children In Need got a good cut of that!! I read about Carol's husband being approached to "fight" with Craig after he was nasty about Carol and he refused and that was widely reported. Anything to increase the ratings! Who knows perhaps Jan's mad moment was staged!! Actually I do not believe she has been back since, either on ITT or doing reports of Strictly!! Poor girl she must feel a real lemon now!!

Carol clearly explains her points on her CarolCam. She knows full well the media process, but was obviously shocked at the extent to which Strictly edited. As she says, what they showed her saying about Emma's scores was two seperate comments merged together to make it look negative. She also pointed out all of the questioning that ITT did to provoke negative responses and stories. From watching CarolCam and watching ITT - I think Carol's right. She was definitely heavily edited and after all the work she was doing, I'm not surprised it frustrated her so much!

Carol was definitely overcriticised and undermarked for a lot of the competition and I think she handled it all gracefully, as she did her exit!

Good on you Carol for saying something!

I agree she was over criticised and undermarked during most of the competition. In fact I do not remember any partnership treated so unfairly. However I am not sure it is a good idea to sound off in a newspaper. It could, to some people sound like sour grapes. Better to complain to the BBC in private.
Last edited by Sheila M. Dewar : 17-12-2006 at 13:40

Reading the piece, it seems to me that it could have been based simply on what was shown on SCD and Carol's comments on CarolCam. All of this is in the public domain and so the question of Carol selling her story simply does not arise.

In any case the broadsheets don't 'buy' stories from celebs in the same way as the tabloids - they attempt to take the higher ground (not particularly successfully IMO) by commenting on tabloid content.

As to the suggestion that Carol should have known how things would be - well why do they have to be like that? Surely the time has come to reject tabloidisation of human interaction and accept that motivations can be complex and contadictory without being 'bad' and that, by and large, people are pretty well intentioned. Perceptive viewers already reject much of the material they are fed by the SCD production team. Why don't the BBC 'brighten up' instead of 'dumbing down'? Instead of trying to spin a line all the time, why not let a little reality into a reality TV show?

I for one found CarolCam very illuminating and entertaining. It was something 'real' that gave a bit of insight into what it was like to be a competitor - at least more so that the over simplified and distorted coverage on the BBC. I did wonder if the particular bit of editing mentioned here was in retaliation for Carol not playing the game by BBC rules and actually mentioning the attempted manipulation of her husband.

I hope all of next years' competitors have a video cam. It makes it more difficult for the BBC to selectively edit in order to slant opinion.

I enjoyed the carol cam too .I think you got a better impression of the dance.
I agree it would be good if there was one for all the dancers.