The Media's attack on Susan Boyle

Ok I'm sorry to do this, but I want to comment again on Susan Boyle and some of the stuff going on in the press, because it's actually gone out of control now, and it's starting to look ridiculous.

There's a considerable effort going on to manipulate this into something else from all quarters of the media which really concerns me. The level of rhetoric around this is actually frightening.

The Guardian has serious problems with Susan Boyle as we've already seen, so today let's start with Amanda Platell in the Daily Mail, assuming she actually wrote this article it's so extraordinary.

In a shocking commentary, Platell suggests that it was inevitable that this "middle-aged woman with learning difficulties" (again constantly reminded about this -j) would "unravel before our very eyes" , that she would 'break down' (really not sure what this means) and that this would create more 'freakish' spectacle. Ultimately Platell concludes, it was "wrong to take an awkward, 48-year-old virgin with a good but not great voice, (but clearly demonstrating worrying signs of stress) and thrust her on to the national stage ".

Does this sound like someone normal, someone reasonably comfortable with themselves and their life writing this ?

Platell even says that isn't it good that "David Wilson, Professor of Criminology at Birmingham City University, warned in last week's Mail that Susan was too fragile to take the pressure."

Professor of Criminology ? What was Susan's crime ?

And I find it mindboggling that Platell suggests that Boyle is 'not qualified' or you have to be a certain sort of person to be allowed to perform or something and that certain sort of person will be able to deal with the stresses of fame afterward.

There's many top name celebrities who really haven't been able to deal with the rigors of incredible success either, long before Susan Boyle came along. If Amanda Platell had a memory longer than a few minutes she might like to check the Daily Mail's archives. I'd say Boyle is doing rather well.

A tiny bit of what Platell is saying about Cowell is true. No question that Cowell and his researchers knew exactly what was going on very early on, and loved what they saw and went with it. No question there's been 'presentation' shall we say. But you know something ? That's not the crime here. And as far as I can tell from what I've read, that presentation, although by no means should be seen as the entire person, seems reasonably in accord with Susan's background.

And I should say as well, if it's that crooked in the way Platell suggests, then guys, you can't help but ask the question, why not make it so crooked that she just wins ? You see that's what's missing here. That's what's conspicuous.

Of course the other thing that's very conspicuous are these pages and pages of astonishing vitriol written about this woman. Which as far as I can see, a lot of journalists want to deride Susan Boyle through various articles designed to not look like they are trying to do that, by seemingly chastising others for doing so. The mysterious: 'them', 'those people', 'them out there' are doing it. Or in particular 'we' did this to Susan or 'we' did that. I'm not aware I've done anything. Amazing. And they don't think anyone is seeing straight through it.

You see, if you really think she is pathetic, why are you writing this stuff? That would say a lot more about you than Susan Boyle. There's a clue guys to one of the big issues in this.

They want us to believe Simon Cowell is bad, for in their analysis, creating a 'freak show', which I think is a seriously unpleasant injection, and just not correct in Boyle's case. I'm just not aware of Susan Boyle being a 'freak' in a 'freak show' other than the likes of Amanda Platell wanting to tell us that.

And what Amanda Platell in the Mail, Tanya Gold, Joan Smith et al in The Guardian and others like them don't seem to understand is Simon Cowell's not putting a gun to your head making you repeatedly write this shit over and over. And folks I'm not defending Cowell who's clearly a very slippery and shadowy character.

He's not making you tell us again, and again and again and again, how she 'should' suddenly be defined at the outset by her alleged learning difficulties. And then you tell us she is 'cracking up', 'breaking down' and we are failing our 'duty of care' then you repeat stuff about 'hairy angel', 'spinster', 'vulnerable', 'insecure', 'wanting to fit in' (which I don't agree with) and the that whole thing has been a 'freak show after all' and all about humiliation, is akin to 'bear bating', and presumably she's the freak either way even if the creation of the freak show is not her fault. Platell tells us the dream has become a nightmare. Apparently she can't win.

I just find this extraordinary. It's so utterly vile, so difficult to disguise as anything other than bitter poisonous vitriol it really makes we wonder about those writing this stuff, apparently trying to feel better about themselves at Susan Boyle's expense.

And what's fascinating is Platell is effectively asking us to believe Susan Boyle doesn't exist, but guess what folks ? Platell starts her article by telling us how Diversity (with that name to boot) does.

You see this is what's wrong guys. You can't have it both ways.

Part of Platell and the others must also really think Simon Cowell is wonderful, as his evil machinations have created such an easy target for them to bash. Platell and her ilk thinks it's safe territory and won't reflect on them, and because everyone is doing it in the media that makes it ok.

Wrong. Everyone isn't doing it. Everyone isn't calling Susan Boyle every name under the Sun and thinking that behavior is normal. Same way everyone isn't saying how terrible the MP's expenses scandal is either. I'm not. And Platell who I who I once used to like, should be very careful of copying others, you may just fall off a cliff and embarrass yourself.

You claim that Susan Boyle was humiliated. Funny. I see it the other way round. I see journalists humiliating themselves over this in trying to tell us this stuff. You claim Boyle 'didn't know what she was doing'. Funny. I see it the other way round and you don't know what you're doing or you just wouldn't be doing it.

What Platell doesn't get, she really doesn't get, is who's being manipulated here. She just can't get it. They all think they are powerful and telling the 'truth'.

What happened with Susan Boyle was a phenomenal thing, perhaps one of the greatest pieces of entertainment media in a very long time. It was brilliant and astounding and an amazing global success, with a wonderful message to it. I just wonder if that message became a little bit dangerous, and later down the line there was an attempt to reel it back in at least as far as this show goes, with dubious headlines being leaked out about Boyle, and a new atmosphere that would be fed to the press. And I just don't think a lot of people in the media understand this.

The level of this everywhere from the Guardian to the Mail is what's really bizarre, and maybe it's because Boyle represents a complete rejection of most of these journalist's lives, and she makes them very uncomfortable. This is then spun maliciously into a list of flaws about Boyle, which we are now suddenly 'supposed' to see her through, despite her incredible achievements on that show.

I very much doubt Amanda Platell, Tanya Gold and Joan Smith are ever going to hold themselves up to that criteria, and would see it as 'completely unacceptable' and an outrageous 'moral abomination' yet they are quite happy to hold Susan Boyle to it.

I said this at the time. People like Boyle are not well liked because they are a bit quirky or whatever, I actually think they are seen as slightly threatening.

There is a strength in her image and meekness, and it's symbolic. And that initial performance that captured the imagination of the world reminds everybody that the world is a complex place rather than a world of brainless stereotypes. A little bit of that may be ok, but in the end it's not liked. Power wants a world of brainless stereotypes, and from any angle Susan Boyle doesn't represent one of their 'cool' ones.

And that's why she was punished in the final. And everything she stands for, her background, her Britishness, her independence and incredible popularity can all be trumped with a 'modern' meaningless nothing word like 'diversity' as a far more suitable message to everyone.

There is a mistake people make, especially people in the alternative news. Not everything the media does is bad. Sometimes light breaks through, but it typically doesn't break through for very long, and may indeed break through for other reasons that we can all easily be too cynical and circumspect about later on, but it breaks through nonetheless.

And in the end, the Simon Cowells of this world don't decide whether people have talent or have a special gift or not. Their talent, their gifts, their personality and their soul stand up all by themselves.

The things that are underhand, cynical, and outright twisted about all this are that Susan Boyle didn't win Britain's Got Talent and that the British media have been so easily manipulated into attacking her, and exposed as ridiculous, insecure bitter cretins in doing so.

BGT Final: Cruel PC joke to play on Susan Boyle ?

Ok, I'm sure I'll get criticised for talking about this, but I just wanted to comment on Britain's Got Talent again. I saw the front pages of the newspapers today and was almost flabbergasted to see that Susan Boyle didn't win it.

I said before I was always wary of Simon Cowell. I don't like the guy. It's more than just his pantomime bad cop part he plays on that show. Cowell's role as both producer and judge reminds me of a politician in government, presiding over something where his control or ability to influence a lot of variables outweighs our ability to give him the benefit of the doubt.

There's something both nauseating and sinister about his almost-camp denigrations of performers, and the way we are supposed to listen to what he's got to say about anything seems to be based around the fact he's simply on the panel.

After watching some of the clips of the Britain's Got Talent final that people have uploaded, there's seems me little question that Cowell knew exactly what was going to happen with Boyle.

Indeed, if we go back, a large part of that earlier show with her was constructed or produced shall we say around her image, and some people I know have said they thought it was incredibly cynical of the producers to do that, knowing this would initially get a certain reaction by the audience. The only I thing I would says is it's not a crime to create or facilitate new, uplifting and phenomenal entertainment that way, but I think it's playing with fire to then to turn the tap off right at last moment.

Obviously, which I didn't know at the time when I first posted about this, this woman has become a phenomenon across the entire internet. Even in the ultra-cynical circles of alternative news, John Stadtmiller of RBN dedicated a radio show to Susan Boyle at the time.

So anyway I had a look at this dance group Diversity's performance who did win. It's very good. And it's great achievement. But there's a lot of dancers who can do that kind of stuff at a very high level, in fact they had another act on the same series called Flawless. It's not that unusual or novel or lends itself that well to concentrated stardom.

I used to dance in an amateur capacity (very amateur) for some years, dance is incredibly tough and a wonderful wonderful thing, and I'm not knocking any of it, but it also somewhat strains reality to see Diversity or frankly any dance act trump Susan Boyle in the kinds of stakes that we would lean towards if this were being run properly.

Again I don't want to take anything away from them and their tremendous abilities and performance, but to me 'Diversity' winning is more about diversity winning, and you can't help but feel there could be a little sinister message being beamed out that it's all about multicultural, multiracial, pro-immigration beats little British quaint white woman Susan Boyle, in her little village which is presumably full of bigots.

That seems to be the message we are supposed to go away with, and which is also a really cruel and utterly inappropriate joke to make at Susan Boyle's expense, and at the expense of her global army of fans.

Also I didn't understand why Boyle was advised to sing that same song again. As good as it was in the final she had already given the performance of a lifetime with it once, no need to repeat it. She should have had a different song for the final, and people have dug up other wonderful things she's sung so it's not like she has to sing that song again.

I'm not too sure as I'm not familiar with these kinds of shows, I've read different things, but people I know who know this show better than I do tell me that the public voted in this final, and that Diversity were therefore the public's choice. Please correct me someone if that's not correct.

Personally, I just find that very difficult to believe. To me it seems to strain reality that she didn't win this show based on the incredible public support she's had. Of course she is a winner anyway with a fantastic career for her, multi-million pound record deal with Simon Cowell and an army of fans around the world so on, but still I just can't see how she didn't win the competion.

But Piers Morgan might have let the cat out of the bag.

People who only appeared on Earth in the last few years might believe that Piers Morgan is just a sort of celebrity socialite and personality in his own right. But of course he does have an impressive track record of being a rightly outspoken critic of the Iraq War, so outspoken he was effectively set up to take him out of being the editor of the Daily Mirror.

Morgan took the Mirror (one imagines kicking and screaming) from being a worthless moron's rag not fit to wipe your ass with, to become perhaps the most outspoken anti-War newspaper in living memory for the time he was editor.


And Morgan seemed to be aware that some sort of tide had been turning against Boyle, and suggested he knew a decision had already been made, and spoke out against that correctly, saying,

"Susan I'm not supposed to favour anyone in this competinon. As a judge I should be impartial. But you know what ? Forget it. That to me was the greatest performance I've seen in Britain's Got Talent history. You should win this competion, I loved it."



Indeed Cowell didn't seem to like it, saying "I don't know who's going to win". I don't believe that.

Susan Boyle should have just won plain and simple.

And I'd just like to comment on some of the commentary I've seen on this in the press today, particularly in The Observer, hard copy of which I was reading earlier, the level of which was actually outrageous.

The journalist started by repeatedly asserting Susan had some difficulties during birth, and therefore had learning difficulties. Unfortunately I can't find the article online on The Guardian's site today, it seems to be only in the hard copy of The Observer. But it was just gratuitous and he repeatedly kept referring to this. So what was the point of it ?

I mean is it ok to start by characterizing this Observer writer as middle aged, having a bald spot, a fat gut and small dick, and that everything he's writing about must be seen through that lens ? That's the level of it. Absolutely shocking, and I have no idea why they wrote what they did in the way they did. They should make a public apology.

Susan Boyle - Singer - Britains Got Talent 2009

This isn't what we usually talk about on here. But screw it. Let's talk about something fun for a change. Our friends at RickWrites have this posted, and amazingly I did see it at the weekend, and never normally watch these shows really, occasionally I catch a glimpse of them.

And occasionally, very occasionally television creates a great piece of television. It's very rare, and if anything, it's getting rarer. But occasionally it happens.

I guess I'm a little wary of this Simon Cowell guy and Ant and Dec etc, but there's nothing actually wrong with the format of the shows. But frankly this is a brilliant piece of television and a brilliant performance by this woman.

I don't know how 'constructed' her story and image has been for this show, and there must be some degree of management with this, some degree of presentation, and I would imagine she must have trained seriously at some point previously. But I guess it doesn't really matter.

The theme here is that we are disarmed because she looks kinda frumpy and middle aged, and 'isn't it quaint and quirky she's not yet married.' And I was just reading about this, apparently everyone from the Telegraph to ABC News talks about this in a tone as if it ought to be an 'issue'.

Well there's a reason the media don't like anything that's not part of their own putrid propaganda schema, and it's not because they think it's funny, it's because it's actually quite threatening to them.

This lady is an absolute sensation, with an astounding voice and delivery. Unfortunately every single YouTube version of this won't let you embed it presumably on the orders of Simon Cowell and his production company. So here's the link:

Susan Boyle - Singer - Britains Got Talent 2009