nutmeg
Well-Known Member
Apologies in advance for a long post, but ...
I’ve found the whole uproar about Helen winning hilarious. Extreme fury, threats of law suits, conspiracy theories … the fallout is almost as good as watching the show.
The vote rigging theories are the most fun, and considering how appallingly the current producers have respected the program/HMs and the fans, it is tempting to believe this is true. But while it is certainly possible, I would think it is highly improbable.
Why? Well, once punters are paying to vote, there are several legislations that cover the legitimacy of a vote. Channel 5 would need to have a really good reason to risk large fines and/or appalling publicity to bother vote fixing. Is Helen’s rumoured upcoming RTV show a good enough reason? Not likely. Would the fact that the former owner has signed some of the HMs to his PR firm be enough reason? Again, not likely. There’s also rumours that the betting syndicate that controls the BB voting app could have orchestrated the fix, which is a theory I like. But realistically, those guys know their business and just don’t offer odds that would allow them significant losses, so why would they rig BB voting when it would surely be a fairly small part of their income.
What is undoubtedly true and we all know, is that BB is heavily edited to cater to particular storylines, which favours some HMs and disadvantages others. This is absolutely a form of rigging that occurs in every season, but this year’s production team is guiltier than most with their meddling (e.g. bringing evicted HMs into the house for an eviction party where they can talk freely about outside perceptions, with most of the guests being from the ‘cool kids’ group). But IMO, that’s as far as it goes, and it is probably more (but not entirely) about ratings than it is about securing a predetermined result. So while I accept that BB is rigged in the edit (which is a big reason as to why we should still have live feeds), the other rigging rumours are just speculation. If evidence emerges to back up the rigging theories, I will be as furious as the next person. But until that happens, I don’t buy it, and I think that Helen won fairly and squarely ... well, within the context of a program that gave an unprecedented amount of outside info to the HMs, and it is arguable as to whether all of this year's HMs were in the same boat in that regards.
Additionally, lots of people have said that the lack of visible Helen fans is further proof of the voting fix. But I think that the reason for this is really complex, and like the rigging claims, speculative. Potentially:
Helen wasn’t the winner I wanted (although I did think she was really funny, often at her own expense), but I’m happy for her anyway. I believe she felt diminished by her very public past shame, and that shame made her even angrier than her background and previous lifestyle had already made her. Therefore, winning might help her to feel proud of herself, and help her to heal (although I think coming second would have probably had the same effect). AND I’m really happy for her son: now mum isn’t just a publicly-hated former prostitute, she is proven to be a publicly-popular former prostitute. Ok, not everyone watches (only 1.53 million for the finale apparently) and even fewer vote, but that’s got to give him some ammunition against his detractors in the playground, despite the furore.
I also don’t think that her win rewards bullying. We all know that without the fast pass she would have been out on her ear early, during the height of her bad behaviour. And even when her behaviour improved she still relapsed, which is normal, people don’t change overnight; self-improvement is a work in progress, especially for someone as damaged as Helen. But I think the win was largely because she acknowledged a desire to change, and was working on it, which many voters liked. Was it real? Well I’ll admit I am generally not a good judge of that, so I can’t comment. Suffice to say, if it is real, good job; and if not, good game.
I’ve found the whole uproar about Helen winning hilarious. Extreme fury, threats of law suits, conspiracy theories … the fallout is almost as good as watching the show.
The vote rigging theories are the most fun, and considering how appallingly the current producers have respected the program/HMs and the fans, it is tempting to believe this is true. But while it is certainly possible, I would think it is highly improbable.
Why? Well, once punters are paying to vote, there are several legislations that cover the legitimacy of a vote. Channel 5 would need to have a really good reason to risk large fines and/or appalling publicity to bother vote fixing. Is Helen’s rumoured upcoming RTV show a good enough reason? Not likely. Would the fact that the former owner has signed some of the HMs to his PR firm be enough reason? Again, not likely. There’s also rumours that the betting syndicate that controls the BB voting app could have orchestrated the fix, which is a theory I like. But realistically, those guys know their business and just don’t offer odds that would allow them significant losses, so why would they rig BB voting when it would surely be a fairly small part of their income.
What is undoubtedly true and we all know, is that BB is heavily edited to cater to particular storylines, which favours some HMs and disadvantages others. This is absolutely a form of rigging that occurs in every season, but this year’s production team is guiltier than most with their meddling (e.g. bringing evicted HMs into the house for an eviction party where they can talk freely about outside perceptions, with most of the guests being from the ‘cool kids’ group). But IMO, that’s as far as it goes, and it is probably more (but not entirely) about ratings than it is about securing a predetermined result. So while I accept that BB is rigged in the edit (which is a big reason as to why we should still have live feeds), the other rigging rumours are just speculation. If evidence emerges to back up the rigging theories, I will be as furious as the next person. But until that happens, I don’t buy it, and I think that Helen won fairly and squarely ... well, within the context of a program that gave an unprecedented amount of outside info to the HMs, and it is arguable as to whether all of this year's HMs were in the same boat in that regards.
Additionally, lots of people have said that the lack of visible Helen fans is further proof of the voting fix. But I think that the reason for this is really complex, and like the rigging claims, speculative. Potentially:
- Many of us, and many non-fans included, had mixed feelings about Helen, so showing outright support was emotionally and culturally complicated.
- The majority of comments about Helen were passionately disparaging, as is everyone’s right, but this makes it harder to be a lone voice of support, especially given the above point (and full marks on this site to Dystopia for defying popular opinion, including my own).
- How we (the UK in particular) pick a winner has changed over the years. We still vote out ‘big characters’ but after years of cynicism we are now more prepared to think outside the box when picking winners.
- There might be a backlash against last year’s winner, who many people thought was an undeserving ‘pot plant’ winner, while the entertaining fan favourites (who, interestingly, each had controversial aspects to their personalities, but were popular nonetheless) lost.
Helen wasn’t the winner I wanted (although I did think she was really funny, often at her own expense), but I’m happy for her anyway. I believe she felt diminished by her very public past shame, and that shame made her even angrier than her background and previous lifestyle had already made her. Therefore, winning might help her to feel proud of herself, and help her to heal (although I think coming second would have probably had the same effect). AND I’m really happy for her son: now mum isn’t just a publicly-hated former prostitute, she is proven to be a publicly-popular former prostitute. Ok, not everyone watches (only 1.53 million for the finale apparently) and even fewer vote, but that’s got to give him some ammunition against his detractors in the playground, despite the furore.
I also don’t think that her win rewards bullying. We all know that without the fast pass she would have been out on her ear early, during the height of her bad behaviour. And even when her behaviour improved she still relapsed, which is normal, people don’t change overnight; self-improvement is a work in progress, especially for someone as damaged as Helen. But I think the win was largely because she acknowledged a desire to change, and was working on it, which many voters liked. Was it real? Well I’ll admit I am generally not a good judge of that, so I can’t comment. Suffice to say, if it is real, good job; and if not, good game.
but because you have touched on the subject I have been wondering on how to break to the rumbustious, freethinking community here.
cheers.
