What's in a name?

Earlier this month the official slogan for the 2013 Eurovision Song Contest was unveiled. We Are One. Prior to the introduction of a generic logo for Eurovision in 2004, the logos for Eurovision were different each year which excited and exasperated fans in equal measure. Since 2002 a further slogan or theme was adopted every year (with the exception of 2009). These slogans and themes have become part of the branding of the event, a way for the host country to make their mark in addition to using the generic Eurovision logo. Whilst at first glance the slogans Modern Fairy Tale, Awakening and We Are One might seem somewhat innocuous, however, on closer inspection they can reveal much more about the country promoting the message and the wider political context.

Estonia's theme from 2002, Modern Fairy Tale, was used as a way of not only showcasing the country but also as an avenue for telling a story about the country itself. It is no accident that Sleeping Beauty was the choice fairy tale in the postcard leading up to the Estonian performance. The modern fairy tale can actually be seen as a metaphor for how Estonians see their own history:

If Estonia were a fairy tale, it could perhaps be likened to Sleeping Beauty. Having awoken from the ice cold slumbers of Soviet Rule, Estonia today is a bold, young country, vibrant with creative energy and eager to take its place in Europe (Rene Vilbre cited in The official programme of the 47th Eurovision Song Contest 2002)



Turkey's theme from 2004, Under the Same Sky, might at first sound like a fluffy slogan but given the wider political context it can be read as Turkey opting to promote itself as an equal, European country, under the same sky as the rest of Europe, namely the European Union, which Turkey first applied for membership in 1987. Turkey's victory in the 2003 contest and the opportunity to stage the event in 2004 were seen as important breakthroughs by the political elite in the country. 2004 also marked the first time that Turkey has voted for Cyprus in Eurovision. 

Kyiv in 2005 remains one of the more politically charged contests over the past decade (2012 aside) and their theme of Awakening was a very obvious point in hand. Given that the Eurovision Song Contest was taking place in a country which only months before had been the focal point of the world's attention as a result of political protests, it is perhaps unsurprising that the contest that year was tinged with political rhetoric. Whilst the theme was not overtly political per se, the developments going on behind the scenes in Ukraine in 2005 definitely were. The then President, Viktor Yushchenko planned to make a lengthy speech on the Eurovision stage. The EBU did not allow this to go ahead although Yushchenko did still appear to present Greece's Elena Paparizou with her winning trophy.

The EBU continuously reinforce the point that Eurovision is not a political event. This is strictly true but it has and does become politicised whether the organisers like it or not. These slogans can serve as a platform for articulating political message in a subtle manner. It's soft politics, however, it is still politics.

The theme for 2013, We Are One, is an interesting concept. It presents Europe and Eurovision nations as united entities. This is at a time when Portugal, Turkey, Bosnia Herzegovina and Slovakia have all withdrawn from the contest in the last year. It is also a time when Europe as a social, economic and political construct is fractured. Recent debates concerning the Euro, bailouts and the UK referendum on the EU highlight that Europe is anything but at one. This is where Eurovision is powerful. For one night only, Europe sits down and watches a television programme in unison. It is unique in the television year and an opportunity for escapism. Despite some pretty naff slogans along the way, Eurovision has continued as a format for nearly 60 years and given the wider developments going on in Europe today, it appears that is it an event which is stilled needed just as much as it ever was.



A long time ago, was it? A look back at the 1998 Eurovision Song Contest

The UK waited 16 years for a victory in Eurovision after Bucks Fizz won in Dublin in 1981. In Dublin in 1997 history really did repeat itself and Katrina and the Waves stormed to a landslide victory which meant that the honour of hosting the 43^rd Eurovision Song Contest was bestowed to the BBC. There are many reasons why 1998 was a landmark contest so let’s take a look back to the last time the BBC hosted the Eurovision Song Contest.

In the mid-1990s the BBC invested heavily into the Eurovision project which in turn, for a time, reversed the fortunes of the popularity of the contest and led to the UK entries becoming credible chart hits. Love City Groove’s eponymous entry from 1995 reached number seven in the UK singles charts and of course Gina G had massive number one with “Ooh Aah… Just a little bit”, which was even nominated for a Grammy. The new approach at the Beeb also spawned some further hits from the Song for Europe show itself; Deuce’s “I Need You” became a top ten hit in 1995. The BBC wanted to win Eurovision in the 1990s, not because of the musical merit but because they wanted to host the event. Eurovision is of course, first and foremost a television format and allows the host broadcaster the opportunity to pioneer new broadcasting techniques. The 1998 contest did exactly that.

1998 is memorable to many fans since it is the last year that the orchestra was present at the event. Many lament the demise of this tradition arguing that the show has lost some of its unique ambience whilst others have barely noticed that the musicians have left the building. In the past many Eurovision fans have criticised the BBC for their apparent aloofness towards them and yet it was the BBC’s Terry Wogan who specifically welcomed the “thousands of fans and supporters” who had gathered in the National Indoor Arena in Birmingham. Whilst fans with flags had increasingly become part of the show, only two or three years before the event felt like almost like a black tie affair. The acknowledgement of the fans in 1998 was a watershed moment in Eurovision history, since this point the show has incorporated fans as very much as part of the show, so much so that they formed the interval act in 2010!

The 43^rd Eurovision Song Contest is also notable because it remains the last year that there was a restriction on the language of performance. 1999 saw free language introduced which saw many countries opting to sing in English, dip in and out of English and other languages or in the case of Belgium making up a language of their own (2003, 2008). Finally, the 1998 contest stands out because it was the first year that televoting was introduced en-masse. This one rule change injected new interest in the contest and new controversies and continues to have a lasting impact on the way in which the contest is analysed by fans, critics and academics alike.

The voting in 1998 was perhaps one of the most thrilling sequences since Celine Dion’s narrow one point victory over the UK in 1988. With the leader changing almost with every country voting, it was a race to the finish. By the time the final country voted, the debuting Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the contest could have been won by three countries. The voting patterns from 1998 appear to be contradictory since it could be argued that they marked a turn towards more explicit “neighbourly voting” which has recently dogged the contest.  On the other hand, Malta, with no neighbours scored consistently whilst the UK notched up its 15^th second placing, receiving votes from every single participating country. Certainly the outstanding moment in the voting that year was Ulrika Jonsson’s “a long time ago, was it?” gaffe. Personally I think it would have been a whole lot better if Conny, the Dutch spokesperson, had taken offence. Of course Ulrika was merely repeating what had previously been said, the audience in the arena, however, heard differently. It remains one of the highlights of 1998 for me and is a testament to the enduring appeal of live television.

Of course the contest really was Dana International’s. Not only did she win the event, she won the publicity game. Months before the competition the Israeli singer was causing a stir in the European press, Eurovision’s first transgender singer. The selection of Ms International as Israel’s Eurovision entry caused outrage amongst orthodox Jews who viewed her as peripheral to their understanding of national identity. Death threats ensued and the headlines grew. From an academic perspective the controversy concerning Dana International is interesting. According to one esteemed colleague of mine, Professor Brian Singleton, this was the moment that Eurovision itself “came out”, from that point onwards it could be read as an openly queer event. For many fans Dana International’s victory represented a struggle over adversity, in essence a reflection of the very personal journey many people make when they come out as gay.

From a technical perspective the 1998 contest was a triumph for the BBC. The corporation has endured criticism from Eurovision fans for as long as I can remember however their moves toward modernising the contest are a legacy which continues to be felt today. In 2012 the BBC and the UK proved that when they host large international events, they host them well. I personally think it’s about time that the Beeb were responsible for organising Eurovision in the very near future. The challenge is of course finding a winning song for Europe. It seems that when it comes to the UK, hosting the contest is the easy part, winning the damn thing is the real challenge.

2012: A year to remember

A new year, a new Eurovision season. 2013 is already shaping up to be an exciting and interesting year. However 2012 will go down in Eurovision history as the most politically charged year in the history of the contest. I am delighted that I experienced Eurovision in Azerbaijan, it was a setting like no other. Now that the dust has settled, let's take a look back to May 2012, a contest which will be remembered for years to come.

 

In previous blog posts I have written about the political situation in Azerbaijan with regards to freedom of the press, freedom of expression as well as the on-going tensions between neighbouring Armenia. In the summer it was reported that those activists who held peaceful protests in Baku at the time of Eurovision had been put on trial. Eurovision 2012 was nothing other than a facade for the Azeri government to present a friendly face to the world. There are some particularly nasty regimes governing countries which are members of the European Broadcasting Union, of which Azerbaijan is far from the nadir. However if action is to be taken against countries which do not uphold basic human rights then the EBU needs to look a little closer to home. Belarus is one obvious example.

 

All of this does not mean that the contest should not have gone to Baku though. Azerbaijan won the contest fair and square, it would have been wrong to deny them the opportunity to host the event. The time to take action against Azerbaijan was in 2009 when the government called people in for questioning over voting for Armenia. This blatant violation was against the contest rules and yet the national broadcaster got away with it. If anything Eurovision 2012 backfired for the Azeri government since all of the allegations of human rights abuses came to the foreground. In front of the world's media. People were talking about the situation in the country when only a year previously it barely raised an eyebrow or got a mention in the press. This can only be a good thing.

 

Sweden does not need to play the same game that the Azeris did last year or the Russians in 2009. Eurovision is first and foremost a television show. The venue next year will be smaller, accreditation is likely to be restricted and the first week of rehearsals will be behind closed doors. They're even making the fans stand! Eurovision is changing. Whilst the arenas will stay, we are unlikely to see such spectacles like 2009 (largest LED screen in the world) or 2012 (brand new venue built specifically for Eurovision and making hundreds homeless in the process) for a long while, if ever. Eurovision in Azerbaijan was an excercise in public diplomacy, albeit an expensive one. The Swedes are taking the show back to basics in 2013. This is probably just as well considering that several countries have announced that they will not enter the contest this year. Some were not surprising - Poland and Portugal are both feeling the pinch and some of the smaller countries in Eurovision are continung to stay away - Monaco, Andorra and the Czech Republic. However the two big shocks were Bosnia Herzegovina and Turkey.

 

Bosnia and Turkey have incredibly successful records in Eurovision, the former having qualified to every single final and the latter scoring its best ever placings over the past decade including that all important victory back in 2003. The Turks appear to be in a strop about the Big Five rule as well as the return of jury votes. This is curious as Turkey came second in 2010 and fourth in 2009. These are showings that many countries would love! Moreover the Big Four/Five rule has been in place since 2000! I suspect that there are other issues at play here. The Turkish government appears to be slowly turning its back on Europe - economically, politically and in the case of Eurovision, culturally. Of course for many countries the burden of the participation fee has led to many questioning the value of entering the contest. For the most part, the participation levels have remained reasonably steady and in the case of Malta, Greece, Estonia and Latvia, sponsorship has been sought which has allowed them to fly their respective flags once more. Eurovision usually takes a while to catch up with whatever is going on in the wider world and it appears that four years after the financial crisis hit Europe, austerity has come to Eurovision. Interesting times ahead, watch this space.

 

For me personally 2012 was an amazing year. Visiting Azerbaijan for Eurovision was an experience I'll never forget and was an extremely fertile ground for my own research interests. The everyday people I met in Baku were wonderful and it just goes to show that it's the citizens not the government which make a country. I think valuable lessons have been learned at the EBU. To those brave and inspiring people who risk their own safety to bring greater freedom to Azerbaijan, I wish all the very best for their journey ahead. As the German spokesperson, Anke Engelke said during the voting, it's good to have a vote and to have a choice, good luck on your journey Azerbaijan!

 

2012 was also a busy one since I did a lot of television and radio work which I really enjoyed. I am particularly grateful to the BBC Three crew for having me on their live coverage of the semi finals - I loved the experience and would dearly love to do it again. 2013 is shaping up to be a busy year since I have a publishing contract to write a book on Eurovision. Tartu University Press have given me a tight deadline to finish the manuscript so I had better get my head down!

 

As the 2013 season starts, I wish all of you a happy new year, thank you for reading and may the best song win!

 

 



Eurovision in (economic) crisis?

The Eurovision Song Contest has hit the headlines again. This time it’s serious. Austerity in Europe is apparently forcing countries to withdraw. Could this be the end of Eurovision as we know it?

Last weekend it was reported that Poland and Portugal have withdrawn from the 2013 Contest due to the ongoing economic crisis. True, the recession has had an impact on national broadcasters across Europe, however, is it really all down to economics?  Money is an obvious issue since participation itself in the competition is an expensive business let alone winning and hosting the event. Poland withdrew in 2012 since the national broadcaster TVP were concentrating on Euro 2012. However the economic crisis has not deterred all of Europe’s most cash-strapped countries, Greece being one example. There are other issues at play here.

Crippled financially by spiralling debts, Greece have continued to appear at Eurovision (and qualify to the final) every year. Greek participation in the event is paid for through private sponsorship – the record company picked up the bill in 2012 and not the public. Eurovision is one of the biggest shows of the year in Greece – participation in the event is almost a matter of national pride. This is also true of Estonia which faced with possible withdrawal in 2010. Enterprise Estonia, a government agency responsible for promoting Estonian interests abroad, stepped in and paid for the country to appear on the Eurovision stage. To some countries Eurovision is more than a song contest; it is an opportunity to promote themselves internationally, an opportunity that we take for granted in the UK.

Why didn’t Poland and Portugal follow the same blueprint then and get private enterprise to pay the bill? Could it be that their ratings were down which perhaps prompted this action? Poland’s best placing was 2^nd in 1994 and Portugal has never made the top 5 despite entering since 1964! Poland and Portugal aren’t the only countries to have withdrawn recently though. The Czech Republic, Andorra and Monaco have all walked away from the Eurovision stage in recent years. Again, given the financial climate in Europe this is perhaps unsurprising. However these are also countries that consistently failed to qualify from the semi finals. When there isn’t much of a new story, the viewers tend not to follow.

In the summer of 2012 it was reported that the BBC spent £350,000 on entering Eurovision. This might seem like a lot but in the context of primetime television broadcasting this is not a gigantic sum, it is all relative. One hour of Dr Who or Strictly easily runs into the millions. For its £350,000 the BBC got over seven and a half hours of live, primetime television and some of its largest audience shares of the year.

In terms of staging Eurovision, of course it is an expensive programme (costing in excess of £25 million). In 2010 Norwegian broadcaster NRK forfeited their rights to the World Cup in order for them to host Eurovision. In 2001 the Estonian government stepped in to guarantee funding for the 2002 contest in Tallinn after it was reported that the country was “too poor to host Eurovision”. Ireland’s RTE were rumoured to have faced difficulties in the 1990s after winning and staging four out of five contests and yet they did it, and they did it well. Why? Good old fashioned national pride. This is not something that will just totally diminish in a recession. In fact that resolve might even be strengthened as Greek tenacity exemplifies.

Eurovision is undoubtedly changing. Gone are the days of lavish parties and massive LED stages ala Moscow 2009. The Swedes are working on a more streamlined format, back to basics. It is first and foremost a television show. The contest in 2013 is unlikely to rival Azerbaijan’s show in 2012 or Moscow’s in 2009. In the past countries have tried to beat the previous host and produce ever more lavish contests. In the current economic climate this is simply not sustainable. Eurovision will however, ride out this storm, as it has every storm since 1956. It continues to draw in viewers and capture the public imagination like no other format. People love it or they hate it. There is no apathy when it comes to Eurovision and that is what is really powerful. It is unlikely that formats such as X Factor will still be around in 50 years.  Surely we need Eurovision just now as much as we did in 1956? It unites us like nothing else and given the scale and the severity of the economic crisis in Europe, the contest provides us with some much needed light relief. Recession or no recession Eurovision will endure.

There must be another way, surely?

Social media is a funny old world isn't it? Facebook, Twitter and everything else in between really does put us in touch with the world like never before. We now see so much of each other's lives and seem to know more about each other than ever before. Politics is one example. Before social networking took off I didn't really have much of a clue about who my friends voted for, what their thoughts on abortion are or indeed their views on gay marriage. It's a totally different ballgame now. People often seem so willing to share their thoughts on the issues of the day (myself included at times). However all too often people fly off the handle and resort to personal remarks or even fall out when they don't agree on something. If it wasn’t for Facebook then they might never have had that conversation, either online or in person. Politics is a tricky business and outlets like Facebook and Twitter have brought this into our lives like never before.

The current escalating conflict between Israel and Gaza highlights this perfectly. It's not something that I know a great deal about to be honest, nor is it something I wish to discuss in great depth for that very reason. It is interesting reading the posts on Facebook though; the apartheid of opinion is striking. These are certainly troubling times for the people in the region and indeed for the world as a whole. The on-going tensions and violence in the Middle East has also had an impact on Eurovision.

Controversy is never far away from Eurovision in any given year and even more so when Israel's participation is considered. Israel debuted in the Eurovision Song Contest in 1973 and over the years their appearances have often been politically sensitive. Several Arab states do not enter Eurovision despite being eligible to do so. Israel is undoubtedly the main reason. Many Arab states do not recognise Israel as a sovereign nation state. Eurovision rules state that each country must broadcast the contest in its entirety, for many of these countries this would mean broadcasting the Israeli song and therefore providing a platform of sorts for Israel. Take 1978 for example, when it became clear that Israel were winning, Jordanian television cut the transmission. Indeed Morocco is the only Arab and African state to enter Eurovision, in 1980, when Israel was absent. In 2005 Lebanon were due to make their Eurovision debut yet when it emerged that they would screen commercials in place of the Israeli entry they were forced to withdraw. The controversy between Armenia and Azerbaijan in Eurovision highlights the difficulties of enemies coexisting on a Eurovision stage and if Israel's neighbours were to enter then Armenia-Azerbaijan issue would seem miniscule in comparison.

Even Israel's Eurovision entries have proved to be hot potatoes over the years. In 1983 Israel's Ofra Haza performed "Hi" which is widely interpreted as a metaphor for Israel. Despite the attempts to destroy the modern Jewish state or the Jewish community, Israel is still alive. This was a significant entry not only because it was performed in Germany, for obvious reasons, but also because the Eurovision stage was in Munich, the scene of the 1972 massacre of Israeli Olympians. Remember though, Eurovision is not a political contest according to the European Broadcasting Union.

In 1998 the Israeli Broadcasting Authority (IBA) selected a trans-gendered artist, Dana International to represent Israel at Eurovision. This caused uproar in the country with ultra-Orthodox Jews, who considered Dana International to be peripheral to their ideal of national identity. Others such as composer Svika Pikk highlighted the fact that it was a chance to promote Israel as a liberal and tolerant country, changing the way the Middle East is imagined. Politician Shlomo Ben-Izri claimed that the decision“symbolised the sickness of a secular Israel”. Such discourses show how seriously some nations approach the Eurovision Song Contest; a Eurovision entry is seen as representative of the entire nation.

The 1999 Eurovision Song Contest in Jerusalem was also dogged by controversy. The interval act featured Dana International singing below Jerusalem’s historic city walls caused further outrage to ultra-Orthodox Jews, who were also incensed at religious lyrics being used in the performance. The rules of the Eurovision Song Contest state that a full dress rehearsal must take place on the Friday evening before the contest. This violated the traditions of the Jewish Sabbath where all activity is forbidden from sunset on Friday through to Saturday evening, again provoking angry reactions from conservatives regardless of the fact that Israelis officially a secular state. A compromise was reached, the IBA held the rehearsal in private. The Israeli entrants of 1999, four-piece boy band Eden, with the song, “Happy Birthday”, was a celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of the foundation of the state of Israel.

 

At the 2000 contest Israeli representatives, Ping-pong, waved Syrian flags during rehearsals. Israel and Syria were officially in a state of war at the time and Israel’s then Deputy Education Minister, Shlomo Yahalom called for the group’s participation to be banned claiming that they failed to represent national values. The waving of the Syrian flag during rehearsals on Israel’s Independence Day May 10th, in particular, caused further upset to officials who publically boycotted the group leaving them to cover their own expenses. Despite threats from Israeli broadcasting officials to ban the group from performing altogether, they appeared at the 2000 ESC and waved the Syrian flag along with the Israeli flag in a call for peace. Again, Eurovision isn’t a political contest…

The case of Israel has shown how the Eurovision Song Contest often touches on sensitive subjects such as gender identity, sexuality, religion and politics. Indeed in Israel and Jerusalem, these issues often intrude in even the most unlikely of situations. The reaction of some officials in Israel has shown how seriously they regard Israel’s image. Such controversies therefore represent a struggle in Israel between secularism and religious freedom.

In 2009 Israel's Eurovision entry was called "There Must Be Another Way" and was performed by an Arab-Israeli duo, Mira and Noa. This was the first time an Arab singer had represented Israel and the first time Arabic had been performed under the Israeli flag at Eurovision. Whilst critics can argue that this was merely a clever public relations exercise, it is a significant entry for Israel and indeed for Eurovision. In particular the line "When I cry, I cry for both of us, my pain has no name", struck a chord with me when I saw the news this week. Given the current conflict in the region, which seems to be escalating by the hour, the message in that song is now more pertinent than ever.

You've got a friend

People often ask me why I like going to Eurovision and why I'm interested in it. It's funny, when you think long and hard, what is it that appeals? The music? Sort of. The excitement of visiting new places? Absolutely! The low costs? Absolutely not! The friends made along the way? Bingo! It's funny, Eurovision really is an exciting and interesting world. I managed to do a whole load of research for my PhD on the back of my attendance at the Song Contest. It's not just about that for me though. Yes it was a site of fieldwork, it was also a hobby, a bit of fun, an excuse to visit countries that perhaps I might not have otherwise. I do like a lot of the songs of course. However it's not really about these things when it comes down to it. It's really about the company. If I didn't have such fun with the people there, then I doubt I would enjoy it really. It's not about where you are, but who you're with. 

Eurovision is changing. The EBU have hinted that adjustments to the format may well take place in the future. To put it bluntly, Eurovision has grown too big for it's boots. Whilst the number of countries competing will undoubtedly still remain large, the length of rehearsal time (two weeks at present) and the scale & cost of the event (Baku will have that record for a while) look likely to be curtailed. This may well have an impact on the level and amount of media accreditation available for the contest as well. It looks like the days of lavish welcome receptions for all, aftershow parties and dare I say it, Georgian parties, are numbered.

2011 already saw a different approach to the party circuit at Eurovision. Accreditation did not guarantee entry to the Euroclub and certainly not to the official welcome reception. Many fans and journalists felt disappointed and at times, because of the actions of others who would have sold their grannie to get to the ball, I too felt a little frustrated. At the end of the day did it really matter? Not really. Having been one of the fortunate few to have attended the opening reception, as lovely as it was, I didn't have the usual banter with those around me, the vast majority of people I know were not there. Dusseldorf showed that it doesn't really matter what party you attend, it really is who you're with that counts. 

In July I was honoured to attend the civil partnership of Diarmuid and Willie, Irish friends of mine who held their celebration in Waterford castle. It just shows you that Eurovision really does unite people. It was a truly special occasion and I felt humbled to be a part of it. On the Friday the main reception was held with over three hundred guests. So many of the Eurovision gang were there and what a blast! I have honestly not had that much fun or laughed so much in a long time. A week later my throat was still sore from all the laughter. Of course it wouldn't a be Eurovision wedding without Eurovision stars performing! Niamh Kavanagh was the compere for the evening and what a fine host she made. Of course the lovely Nicki French was there and put on a superb set that had everyone on their feet. It was so lovely to see people outside of the Eurovision bubble, have conversations about real life and to meet so many of Diarmuid and Willlie's family and friends. It truly was a special event and the memories of which will last for a long, long time.

So basically going to Eurovision is really like going on a trip with a hundred mates. If you're with your friends, you'll have a good time. What's the point in being at a party with nobody to talk to when you could be down the pub enjoying the craic? As people turn their attention towards Sweden 2013, that might be worth remembering. When it comes to Eurovision, you've got a friend...

  

It's not about the money, money, money...

Oh dear. The cat is out of the bag. The BBC have revealed how much it cost for the UK to enter Eurovision this year. £310,000. The British media can always be trusted to report in a balanced manner of course. Hmm. The Daily Mail and The Mirror led with the "story" yesterday. You can almost hear the letters of complaint being written in haste to Auntie Beeb from Outraged of Tunbridge Wells. The Mirror even showed a deep analysis of the spending and divided this lump sum by the amount of television hours that the BBC had by screening the semi finals and grand finale. "The cost to licence fee payers works out at around £45,000-an-hour". Thank goodness that they're keeping watch! Funnily enough - they didn't report another fact, that it costs just 1.2 pence per licence payer. That doesn't sound as exciting as £45K does it?

Such coverage is yet another example of the cynical  and dismissive British attitude towards Eurovision.  Much was made of the fact that Engelbert Humperdinck finished in second last place. Does that mean that the amount spent and the value for money is only proportional to the UK placing on the scoreboard? That screams sore loser to me! Is the money really that much? Well since the articles in question do not provide a point of reference, most readers will probably have read them and been outraged at such vast amounts of money being spent in the midst of a global financial crisis. However the BBC are right, is IS extremely good value for money. A single episode of Dr Who is said to cost well over £1 million and just one hour of Strictly Come Dancing waltzes in at a whopping £370,000. Are there calls to cancel these shows? No. They are popular with viewers and so too is Eurovision. The Song Contest as a whole isn't cheap but it's international, primetime television so when it's broken down, like The Mirror so cleverly did, it is actually not so frivolous after all. 

Eurovision has also reflected a lot of the wider austerity going on in the rest of Europe. Long gone are the days of lavish parties and freebies paid for by national television stations. If countries do treat delegates to a party or a promo CD, the funding comes from sponsors and private donors, not the public purse. 2013 is rumoured to be on a smaller scale and the EBU stated in the 2012 press conference in Baku that the contest has become too large and too expensive. Should the BBC host Eurovision again I dare say that the costs will be scrutinised, just like they are with the Olympics. Of course this should be the case, they're a national broadcaster funded by the public. However, in the bigger picture of international, primetime broadcasting, these costs are not excessive. No broadcaster could afford to buy the amount of global airtime that hosting and taking part in Eurovision offers. It seems like it was yet another slow news day on Fleet Street and for the Daily Mail, yet another excuse to attack Auntie Beeb.