Eurovision 2010 - 25/27/29 May 2010 - Norway

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. IMO Turkey's song was truly sublime, fantastically well produced and phenomenally performed whereas Belarus was old-fashioned, boring and had such bad pronunciation that it became a laughing stock (well that and the wings). I much, much preferred the original 3+2 song that was supposed to represent Belarus in the first place.

I agree with all of them apart from the Netherlands which I still believe is one of the worst Eurovision songs of all time. And I'd rather Sweden, Bulgaria and Croatia had qualified over Russia, Belarus and Ireland.

I'd hardly say closing your eyes for a few seconds during the Eurovision Song Contest is discrimination. Aren't there special goggles you can get that block out light effects or something? I read the bloke out of the Ting Tings wears them during gigs as he has a similar condition.

Anyway, don't worry, I had my eyes open during the chorus and I can tell you that it looked great.

That was the 80s when Eurovision was a formal (and frankly boring) event. Times have changed and the EBU has refocused the contest to become modern and up-to-date in order for the event to survive. Strobe lighting can enhance the visuals of a performance significantly and as such it has been used for a few entries. It only effects a very tiny amount of people and if a warning to the audience that there is going to be strobe lighting used then it's going to hurt no-one. The pros outweigh the cons really.

I thought Belarus were good, and the winner of Eurovision 2006 Lordi had wings too. Did Lordi's wings work the same way as Belarus's wings or were they animatronic? I think if Belarus's wings worked by remote control/electric it might have been better though it might be too noisy?


I think that was quite a good song too.

Isn't there some sort of video test that they are supposed to run video through to make sure it doesn't flicker too much eg. for people who have epilepsy or don't like/are sensitive to flicker? I think if they wanted to lessen it after it would be better as some sort of video processing thing. I thought there were rules against a certain amount of flickering/strobing, and they do put warnings at the start of some programmes because of strobe lighting.

I think Netherlands was quite a good song, and deserved to qualify. It was their best song since the introduction of semi-finals.


Actually Belarus and Russia were in the first semi-final, whereas Ireland, Netherlands, Sweden, Bulgaria and Croatia were all in the second semi-final. I'm so glad that Belarus qualified, but Russia definitely didn't deserve to qualify. I feel that Slovakia or Finland (who were in the first semi-final) should have had the final place taken by Russia.


Well it still means some viewers can't see the action that goes on during that time.

If the show were produced and staged specifically by a UK broadcaster then it is likely that the effect wouldn't be used. Ofcom compliance means that you have to do all you can to avoid sequences like this - and only where you don't have control (or the ability to fix) the effect is an apology OK.

The BBC used commentary (and subtitles) to warn a couple of times during Eurovision - as they also do during Glastonbury I think - because in both cases they don't have overall control.

The issue about warnings is that not everyone with a photosensitive condition knows that they have one - so a warning won't help them. It's a controversial area - with many in the UK broadcast industry thinking the Harding FPA (which is the industry standard tool to test for sequences likely to cause issue) is overly conservative, and creatively limiting productions.

When you are weighing up risk - you have to rate both the likelihood of the event and the severity of the event. If an event could cause someone major harm - then even if it is pretty unlikely (but not impossible) - you have a duty to minimise the risk, and if you can't minimise it to an acceptable level you shouldn't proceed.

Do you mean to say, if the UK won the ESC, and hence the BBC produced it the following year, they wouldn't allow strobe lighting?

Absolutely - if the BBC produced the contest they would be in breach of Ofcom rules if they used lighting that strobed in a manner that would breach those rules. (That doesn't mean no strobe lighting - just certain limits on the frequency and/or intensity resulting on a viewer's screen) I don't have a Harding FPA at home, and neither have I analysed the Turkish entry carefully. My guess would be that it WOULD fail an Ofcom Harding FPA test, but I can't say for certain.

The issue is control. If the BBC have control over the event, then they have a duty to control it in a manner that meets Ofcom rules. If they are covering an event staged by others, and have no control, then they must provide reasonable warnings if such content can be foreseen.

Right now I'm listening to Iceland's entry "Je Ne Sais Quoi" by Hera Björk on the ESC 2010 CD. It did quite badly in the final this year: 19th place and 41 points.

In my opinion, it was grossly underrated as it was a good song, which deserved to be in the top ten. I wonder if other countries were against Iceland because of the problems caused by the ash from Eyjafjallajökull in April. I hope not, that was a natural disaster, which could not have been prevented, therefore that ought not to have put other countries off voting for Iceland.

ooh Show off!

It's easy to copy and paste, less so to pronounce.