DS Forums

 
 

Harry Hill / Eoghan


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-12-2008, 11:33
Black Rain
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 334

Can't wait to see Harry Hill's show this Saturday. I wonder what he will make of Eoghan's Blubbing. Should be funny to watch and if Eoghan ever does make it big (which I doubt) I'm sure that Eoghan will look back on that moment the same way Boyzone look back on their dancing introduction to TV.
Black Rain is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 09-12-2008, 11:41
Europa666
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sidcup
Posts: 1,074
Can't wait to see Harry Hill's show this Saturday. I wonder what he will make of Eoghan's Blubbing. Should be funny to watch and if Eoghan ever does make it big (which I doubt) I'm sure that Eoghan will look back on that moment the same way Boyzone look back on their dancing introduction to TV.
You just know Harry has got something crude lined up!
Europa666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 16:26
_Zd_Phoenix_
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Herts
Posts: 4,925
Harry Hill's great, but I do find it concerning that people don't think twice about the slamming of a 16 year old boy in the media, or a 17yr old girl for that matter, just because they're on TV. :/
_Zd_Phoenix_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 16:33
DanClegg
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,894
Harry Hill's great, but I do find it concerning that people don't think twice about the slamming of a 16 year old boy in the media, or a 17yr old girl for that matter, just because they're on TV. :/
Maybe they should make the minimum age 18 again? Unless, we propose that only contestants of a certain age can be gently ridiculed.

Or young contestants who go on these shows probably need to bear in mind they're opening themselves up to a world of scrutiny by applying.
DanClegg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 16:39
_Zd_Phoenix_
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Herts
Posts: 4,925
Maybe they should make the minimum age 18 again? Unless, we propose that only contestants of a certain age can be gently ridiculed.

Or young contestants who go on these shows probably need to bear in mind they're opening themselves up to a world of scrutiny by applying.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like the mass bitching that goes on in the media or this forum for ANY of the contestants and wish people didn't become so bolshy when sniping at public figures - but there's just something so wrong in slagging off school kids (and I don't mean just criticising the singing, I mean laying into them for other stuff).

I know that there are many cruel people who'll do that on the internet, that's a given, but I'd hope that people on TV and in the media might think twice about such a thing.
_Zd_Phoenix_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 16:43
Love Bear
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: In an Audi Quatro.
Posts: 7,971
Don't get me wrong, I don't like the mass bitching that goes on in the media or this forum for ANY of the contestants and wish people didn't become so bolshy when sniping at public figures - but there's just something so wrong in slagging off school kids.

I know that there are many cruel people who'll do that on the internet, that's a given, but I'd hope that people on TV and in the media might think twice about such a thing.
I'm pretty sure they're savvy enough to know what they're getting into. Kids these days are so much wiser and I think it's safe to say that XF probably wasn't their first experience of the audition process. I think Eggnog was on a model agencies books wasn't he? (Christ knows why....)

Harry is brilliant - he doesn't have to ridicule Egg - he does that all by himself!

And yes, I am a nasty sod!
Love Bear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 16:45
DanClegg
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,894
Don't get me wrong, I don't like the mass bitching that goes on in the media or this forum for ANY of the contestants and wish people didn't become so bolshy when sniping at public figures - but there's just something so wrong in slagging off school kids (and I don't mean just criticising the singing, I mean laying into them for other stuff).

I know that there are many cruel people who'll do that on the internet, that's a given, but I'd hope that people on TV and in the media might think twice about such a thing.
The problem is, it's a competition and anyone who enters surely needs to be on a level playing field? I don't see why one could be treated differently from the other and if Eoghan gets upset about this now, how would he cope if he continued to remain in the public eye. On the contrary, I think its best that everyone experiences what its like to be open to criticism now because it'll only be a bigger shock if it starts further down the line.
DanClegg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 16:47
Love Bear
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: In an Audi Quatro.
Posts: 7,971
The problem is, it's a competition and anyone who enters surely needs to be on a level playing field? I don't see why one could be treated differently from the other and if Eoghan gets upset about this now, how would he cope if he continued to remain in the public eye. On the contrary, I think its best that everyone experiences what its like to be open to criticism now because it'll only be a bigger shock if it starts further down the line.
Quite.

If you want to put your head in the oven you have to be prepared to get burned.
Love Bear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 16:49
_Zd_Phoenix_
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Herts
Posts: 4,925
I'm pretty sure they're savvy enough to know what they're getting into.
I think that's rather optimistic. I know there are lots of adolescents that are really mature for their age, but there are still many that aren't and I'm not so sure that seeming mature and being mature are anything like the same at that age.

I think there are people much older who could be very negatively affected by these things, but it's just startlingly bad that we're targeting people who haven't come of age and criticising them on looks and the like! I think that's pretty bloody shameful.
_Zd_Phoenix_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 16:52
DanClegg
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,894
I think that's rather optimistic. I know there are lots of adolescents that are really mature for their age, but there are still many that aren't and I'm not so sure that seeming mature and being mature are anything like the same at that age.

I think there are people much older who could be very negatively affected by these things, but it's just startlingly bad that we're targeting people who haven't come of age and criticising them on looks and the like! I think that's pretty bloody shameful.
If they haven't 'come of age', then arguably they shouldn't be competing for a £1million recording contract on the highest rated UK TV show.
DanClegg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 16:54
_Zd_Phoenix_
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Herts
Posts: 4,925
The problem is, it's a competition and anyone who enters surely needs to be on a level playing field? I don't see why one could be treated differently from the other and if Eoghan gets upset about this now, how would he cope if he continued to remain in the public eye. On the contrary, I think its best that everyone experiences what its like to be open to criticism now because it'll only be a bigger shock if it starts further down the line.
He can't come on the Xtra factor after a certain time, because the law protects him (and I'm not sure why Diana at 17 is different tbh.

In the singing competition part it's only right that his signing and voting should be judged in the same way, but the 'fair playing field' is not justified imo in being extended to the media slagging off what many would consider to be children - possibly not me, but they are at least not of age in terms of the law, they are still dependants.
If you want to put your head in the oven you have to be prepared to get burned.
You're talking about kids ffs. People who're not legally adults. I know you've already said you're a nasty sod, but you can't fall back on that as being reasoning.
_Zd_Phoenix_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 16:55
_Zd_Phoenix_
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Herts
Posts: 4,925
If they haven't 'come of age', then arguably they shouldn't be competing for a £1million recording contract on the highest rated UK TV show.
Why? Protecting dependants does not mean that they can't perform without being harmed, and performing does not provide a rational foundation for people in the media to slag people off based on things other than performance.
_Zd_Phoenix_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 17:05
DanClegg
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,894
Why? Protecting dependants does not mean that they can't perform without being harmed, and performing does not provide a rational foundation for people in the media to slag people off based on things other than performance.
But you can't pick and choose what aspects of fame you want, no matter how old you are. I agree that being abusive is slightly underhand, no matter what age the contestant but I don't think Harry Hill has done anything particularly nasty or damaging.

I just don't buy that because he's 16, he should be immune from what every other person in the public eye goes through. If it's a serious issue, then I really do think they need to bring the age range back up to 18.
DanClegg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 17:06
Love Bear
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: In an Audi Quatro.
Posts: 7,971
If they haven't 'come of age', then arguably they shouldn't be competing for a £1million recording contract on the highest rated UK TV show.
Thanks, you beat me to it!

I respect what the other poster is saying but we are talking about stage school type kids here - a different breed to your run of the mill schoolkid (yes, a lot of them are savvy, a lot of them aren't). I'm not completely heartless but I know from experience that a lot of these kids have been round the block a bit, are tougher than you think and know how to turn on the waterworks at the drop of a hat!
Love Bear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 17:11
Syntax Error
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 19,941
Harry Hill hasn't said anything untoward.

He only highlighted how disingenuous Eoghan is with his 'vote for me' face.

The proof was there 2 weeks ago when he almost forgot to do it because he was too busy being tearful at the time.

Eoghan is probably subjected to worse scrutiny in the school playground as we all know how evil kids are!!!
Syntax Error is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 17:16
Kingsy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,656
I've never found Harry Hill funny, he just seems to come across as incredibly immature to me.
Kingsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 17:17
Love Bear
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: In an Audi Quatro.
Posts: 7,971
Harry Hill hasn't said anything untoward.

He only highlighted how disingenuous Eoghan is with his 'vote for me' face.

The proof was there 2 weeks ago when he almost forgot to do it because he was too busy being tearful at the time.

Eoghan is probably subjected to worse scrutiny in the school playground as we all know how evil kids are!!!


Very good point.

To be honest, I have far more sympathy for auditioneees who are quite obviously mentally ill but become exploited in the name of good tv!
Love Bear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 17:21
KBBJ
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,701
Harry Hill hasn't said anything untoward.

He only highlighted how disingenuous Eoghan is with his 'vote for me' face.

The proof was there 2 weeks ago when he almost forgot to do it because he was too busy being tearful at the time.

Eoghan is probably subjected to worse scrutiny in the school playground as we all know how evil kids are!!!
The big difference in the media and around here is that adults are doing it. It's a bit disturbing, tbh.

ETA: probably doesn't help that he looks about 12.
KBBJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 17:22
_Zd_Phoenix_
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Herts
Posts: 4,925
But you can't pick and choose what aspects of fame you want, no matter how old you are. I agree that being abusive is slightly underhand, no matter what age the contestant but I don't think Harry Hill has done anything particularly nasty or damaging.

I just don't buy that because he's 16, he should be immune from what every other person in the public eye goes through. If it's a serious issue, then I really do think they need to bring the age range back up to 18.
You're making it sound as if it's unfair to expect people not to lay into school kids and to expect certain standards in the media, but I really don't think that's unfair at all, in fact I really don't think that the 'if they're on TV, they're fair game' holds water in the slightest.

Fame has negative consequences that can't be avoided (because there's this perverse idea that it's ok to be bastards and judgemental about anyone in the public eye), but this does not mean that there shouldn't be standards on TV to prevent targeting young people (ignoring Love's fantasy world where all kids that age are smart and don't need protection - sounds like something from Skins).

There is no logical necessity that means that kids appearing on TV and performing need be open to malicious targeting from the media.

Harry's 'look at his stupid face' type humour is one thing, but then you get people like Charlie Brooker (who is imo a genius), fully laying into a teenage boy based on his looks. I don't care if they're talking about Eoghan and Diana's performing on the show, the entire point of the show is to critique that and sell it anyway, but taking it more personally than that is very poor indeed.

I have a history on these boards of rarely coming down on the sides of arguments that involve what I see as 'wrapping kids in cotton wool' and patronising them, but when it comes to saying 'well sod em, the media getting their jollies out of bullying school kids is ok', I just can't subscribe to that or think that it's ok and I think it's a shame that you might think it's acceptable.
_Zd_Phoenix_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 17:28
DanClegg
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,894
You're making it sound as if it's unfair to expect people not to lay into school kids and to expect certain standards in the media, but I really don't think that's unfair at all, in fact I really don't think that the 'if they're on TV, they're fair game' holds water in the slightest.

Fame has negative consequences that can't be avoided (because there's this perverse idea that it's ok to be bastards and judgemental about anyone in the public eye), but this does not mean that there shouldn't be standards on TV to prevent targeting young people (ignoring Love's fantasy world where all kids that age are smart and don't need protection - sounds like something from Skins).

There is no logical necessity that means that kids appearing on TV and performing need be open to malicious targeting from the media.

Harry's 'look at his stupid face' type humour is one thing, but then you get people like Charlie Brooker (who is imo a genius), fully laying into a teenage boy based on his looks. I don't care if they're talking about Eoghan and Diana's performing on the show, the entire point of the show is to critique that and sell it anyway, but taking it more personally than that is very poor indeed.

I have a history on these boards of rarely coming down on the sides of arguments that involve what I see as 'wrapping kids in cotton wool' and patronising them, but when it comes to saying 'well sod em, the media getting their jollies out of bullying school kids is ok', I just can't subscribe to that or think that it's ok and I think it's a shame that you might think it's acceptable.
Well I think I've made myself fairly clear already on this point - if you want to put yourself in the public eye then you should be prepared to handle every aspect, good or bad, and at 16 you should be able to make an informed decision about that.

Do you seriously propose we legislate against broadcasters not being able to say anything about anyone under 18?
DanClegg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 17:45
_Zd_Phoenix_
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Herts
Posts: 4,925
Well I think I've made myself fairly clear already on this point - if you want to put yourself in the public eye then you should be prepared to handle every aspect, good or bad, and at 16 you should be able to make an informed decision about that.
It's a silly point though, as the whole idea of being a dependant and not legally an adult is that you're judged not to be mature enough to make the really big decisions for yourself, and the idea that all kids at that age are mature enough to know what they're getting into is ridiculous.
Do you seriously propose we legislate against broadcasters not being able to say anything about anyone under 18?
No, I've very specifically being talking about the superficial kinds of insult that presumably would already be against BBC guidelines. That is nothing like not allowing them to say anything, it is saying that there should be reticence about targeting kids like that - you're basically allowing bullying from a distance.

If it's a censorship issue for you, then fair enough and you'd probably even get me to agree, but if you think it's the right thing to do to take the piss out of some boy for how he looks, just because we wanted to be a singer ... I don't get it.
_Zd_Phoenix_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2008, 00:04
DanClegg
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,894
It's a silly point though, as the whole idea of being a dependant and not legally an adult is that you're judged not to be mature enough to make the really big decisions for yourself, and the idea that all kids at that age are mature enough to know what they're getting into is ridiculous.

No, I've very specifically being talking about the superficial kinds of insult that presumably would already be against BBC guidelines. That is nothing like not allowing them to say anything, it is saying that there should be reticence about targeting kids like that - you're basically allowing bullying from a distance.

If it's a censorship issue for you, then fair enough and you'd probably even get me to agree, but if you think it's the right thing to do to take the piss out of some boy for how he looks, just because we wanted to be a singer ... I don't get it.
Look we're never going to agree, clearly. But I've managed to be reasonable to you so need to say my point is 'silly' just because you don't agree.
DanClegg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2008, 00:25
torktumi
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 332
Look we're never going to agree, clearly. But I've managed to be reasonable to you so need to say my point is 'silly' just because you don't agree.
posters who go on these forums probably need to bear in mind they're opening themselves up to a world of scrutiny by posting.

I'm kidding really, but maybe the principle is the same as your earlier post?
torktumi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2008, 00:31
_Zd_Phoenix_
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Herts
Posts: 4,925
But I've managed to be reasonable to you so need to say my point is 'silly' just because you don't agree.
You have been, I just really didn't think you'd take a mild word so badly, as if personally offended. I'm sorry you felt badly about the wording.
_Zd_Phoenix_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2008, 00:34
kyri
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 27,629
Harry Hill's great, but I do find it concerning that people don't think twice about the slamming of a 16 year old boy in the media, or a 17yr old girl for that matter, just because they're on TV. :/
It's all fun I suppose. His Diana and Eoghan impressions are very funny because they're so spot on.
kyri is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 18:27.