2014 Jury Transparency Revamp!

[CC92]

^ But it is not required to be famous.

 

[LalehForWD]

But the risk of getting caught is considerable. Surely a person who has been proven to be corrupt cannot be trusted with anything important, he/she will be finished for all foreseeable future. Even if you are not a celebrity, your honor and reputation must be crucial to be able to continuing working. Just think, who would want a corrupt journalist or police? Completely worthless. OK, a say corrupt music manager isn't completely worthless, but who would want to work with them?

 

[A-lister]

I thought these people in the juries were music business professionals, or? I can't imagine anyone would risk he/hers/hens work and reputation for a one time bribe. It got to be pretty big and tempting then. A million EURO? Then the crucial question: Who would be willing to spend that kind of money and for what purpose?

The Azeri and Russian governments

 

[anto475]

But the risk of getting caught is considerable. Surely a person who has been proven to be corrupt cannot be trusted with anything important, he/she will be finished for all foreseeable future. Even if you are not a celebrity, your honor and reputation must be crucial to be able to continuing working. Just think, who would want a corrupt journalist or police? Completely worthless. OK, a say corrupt music manager isn't completely worthless, but who would want to work with them?

Desperate people to answer your little bit about corrupt music managers. Famous people have been getting away with a lot worse than trivial things like throwing the Eurovision for years!

Also, did anyone else see esctoday's interview with Sietse Bakker? If the Eurovision fanbase was a country and the EBU our government, I think that interview is just a load of spin. I mean he actually said

We have not received a single complaint about the running order from anyone.

!!?? Is he deaf?! Is he blind?!

 

[DanielLuis]

Desperate people to answer your little bit about corrupt music managers. Famous people have been getting away with a lot worse than trivial things like throwing the Eurovision for years!

Also, did anyone else see esctoday's interview with Sietse Bakker? If the Eurovision fanbase was a country and the EBU our government, I think that interview is just a load of spin. I mean he actually said
!!?? Is he deaf?! Is he blind?!

He's probably talking about the delegations. Not a single one complained.

 

[Jeansy]

I'm sorry but what is this really? nothing has changed many countries released the names and votes given by the juries, the only thing different is the EBU will tell us instead of my local broadcaster.

 

[CC92]

I'm sorry but what is this really? nothing has changed many countries released the names and votes given by the juries, the only thing different is the EBU will tell us instead of my local broadcaster.

This year about a fourth of the broadcasters revealed their final 'jury' scores (means that 75% did not), only one disclosed their televoting results (97% did not) and not any published their individual 'jury' member votes. For the first time the EBU did not even put out the overall public and 'jury' split.
So this will be going to make quite a difference.

 

[CC92]

Desperate people to answer your little bit about corrupt music managers. Famous people have been getting away with a lot worse than trivial things like throwing the Eurovision for years!

Also, did anyone else see esctoday's interview with Sietse Bakker? If the Eurovision fanbase was a country and the EBU our government, I think that interview is just a load of spin. I mean he actually said
!!?? Is he deaf?! Is he blind?!

He's probably talking about the delegations. Not a single one complained.

But even if this was the case, he probably wouldn't admit it in a public interview. However, this statement corroborates that entirely the fact that the cheating accusations made it to mainstream media is what brought the rule changes and not fan complaints.

 

[LalehForWD]

Desperate people to answer your little bit about corrupt music managers. Famous people have been getting away with a lot worse than trivial things like throwing the Eurovision for years!

Also, did anyone else see esctoday's interview with Sietse Bakker? If the Eurovision fanbase was a country and the EBU our government, I think that interview is just a load of spin. I mean he actually said
!!?? Is he deaf?! Is he blind?!

My "little bit"? Seriously, I can't imagine an Irish music personality who could carry on after getting caught taking bribes as a jury member. I think it would be a true scandal and the person a laughing stock forever.

 

[Mickey]

I'm a little sceptical as to how this transparency helps the jurors vote impartially.

Say you're an Azerbaijani juror. Your tyrannical and repressive government has openly criticised last year's votes for not awarding anything to Russia. They have a known track record for arresting televoters who voted the wrong way. They also control the media and have the power to ruin your career in music.

They can now see your individual votes. Who do you give top marks to?

True, Azerbaijan is an extreme example. However, if a juror is put under pressure to vote in a certain way, whether by government, their tv channel (who might be important in promoting the juror's music), or by someone with a big bag of money and low moral fibre, the new system allows the person putting on the pressure to keep tabs on whether a juror does as they are told.

 

[Matt]

I'm a little sceptical as to how this transparency helps the jurors vote impartially.

Say you're an Azerbaijani juror. Your tyrannical and repressive government has openly criticised last year's votes for not awarding anything to Russia. They have a known track record for arresting televoters who voted the wrong way. They also control the media and have the power to ruin your career in music.

They can now see your individual votes. Who do you give top marks to?

True, Azerbaijan is an extreme example. However, if a juror is put under pressure to vote in a certain way, whether by government, their tv channel (who might be important in promoting the juror's music), or by someone with a big bag of money and low moral fibre, the new system allows the person putting on the pressure to keep tabs on whether a juror does as they are told.

The televoter situation has been already dealt with and rule changes have been implemented in addition to a fine that had to be paid. The new system will give us (and the EBU) a greater insight on how each juror voted. It would be highlys suspicious if all jurors voted the same (Russia 12 points, Ukraine 10 points, Armenia 8 point etc) and with the new transparency added to the voting process it's much easier to call out those jurors.

Those who believe their career may be at stake would not accept a position on the jury knowing that their votes were made public. The EBU isn't concerned about anyone's career in Azerbaijan, their main purpose is to ensure that the voting isn't rigged. With the new system it is becoming increasingly more difficult for anyone to "buy" votes unless all jurors buy votes from different countries so their voting patterns aren't completely identical.

It certainly is a step into the right direction but we will have to see how this will all play out next May.

 

[AdelAdel]

Aha I get it! I guess I misunderstood Adel's post then if he talked about allocations... hehe I guess that happens when you read something too quick

Actually, I was talking about both semi allocations and running order. Didn't SVT decide this year which country gets to perform when in the final? Yes, they did. There were also a full discussion on this subject on this forum.

 

[Mickey]

The televoter situation has been already dealt with and rule changes have been implemented in addition to a fine that had to be paid. The new system will give us (and the EBU) a greater insight on how each juror voted. It would be highlys suspicious if all jurors voted the same (Russia 12 points, Ukraine 10 points, Armenia 8 point etc) and with the new transparency added to the voting process it's much easier to call out those jurors.

Those who believe their career may be at stake would not accept a position on the jury knowing that their votes were made public. The EBU isn't concerned about anyone's career in Azerbaijan, their main purpose is to ensure that the voting isn't rigged. With the new system it is becoming increasingly more difficult for anyone to "buy" votes unless all jurors buy votes from different countries so their voting patterns aren't completely identical.

It certainly is a step into the right direction but we will have to see how this will all play out next May.

Well, I'd be very surprised if any Azerbaijani juror leaves Russia outside their top ten or awards anything to Armenia. You'd have to be a fool to do otherwise.

The point is that it's not just the public who will be able to see each juror's votes. If someone pays or pressures a juror into voting in a certain way (they needn't ask all five to vote exactly the same), they can now make sure they get what they want.

Even with this greater transparency, it only requires fixers to be a little bit cleverer. Two first places, a second and a couple of fourths would probably be enough to win a jury vote without raising too many suspicions.

 

[Matt]

Well, I'd be very surprised if any Azerbaijani juror leaves Russia outside their top ten or awards anything to Armenia. You'd have to be a fool to do otherwise.

The point is that it's not just the public who will be able to see each juror's votes. If someone pays or pressures a juror into voting in a certain way (they needn't ask all five to vote exactly the same), they can now make sure they get what they want.

Even with this greater transparency, it only requires fixers to be a little bit cleverer. Two first places, a second and a couple of fourths would probably be enough to win a jury vote without raising too many suspicions.

Doh, scratch Armenia...no clue why I put that in there but you get my point. As you said, you'd have to be a lot more clever in order to properly "cheat". They could technically pre-plan all votes and make sure that based on the average Russia would still be Number one. I'll say let it play out and learn from it, this was a great big step and I'm glad they did it. Whether or not it's going to make a difference remains to be seen.