Eurovision: the biggest disappointment was the commentary

PBS’s commentary during the semi-finals of the Eurovision song festival must have been scripted in a political war room. I admit I am not a Eurovision fan. Nevertheless, like many others I do sometimes engage with this annual popular ritual that has now turned into a regular festival of national self-flagellation.

Like the blatant propaganda that is churned out of war rooms, this year’s PBS commentary demonized and devalued ‘enemies’ and magnified the perceived virtues of ‘friends’. The blatant way in which the presenter was leading televoters was pathetic and verged on the ridiculous.

While I am aware that patriotic fervour and national interest may have led PBS to encourage people to vote strategically, I was shocked by the kind of the commentary which the national station broadcast during the live transmission from Dusseldorf.

My jaw dropped as I heard the Maltese presenter making her remarks on the Hungarian participant, a mother of two. It was clearly implied that Kati Wolf was putting the Eurovision experience before her little children, who were turned back home ‘brokenhearted’ because mama-singer was far too busy rehearsing. What was that supposed to mean?

The selection of the Icelandic song was attributed to public sympathy. The group Sigurjón's Friends was almost portrayed as a team that used the untimely death of their main singer as a springboard to qualify for the semi-finals, instead of another favourite song that was penned by a Maltese composer.

It was revealed that the Polish singer Magdalena Tul and her team shared the same hotel with the Maltese, but lo and behold they only spoke to Glen Vella’s group whenever TV cameras were rolling.

Then we also heard accounts of almost accidental entries, singers who did not make huge efforts to participate. These included the Finnish singer who was merely trying his luck and the Swiss singer who was spotted by the composer while she was street busking. How can we forget the Russian hunk who “ghamilha fatta” that he was going to be selected for the finals as he had spent thousands of euros to promote his song across Europe and even bought airtime on Maltese stations?

While it was indeed very clear which competitors were supposed to be culprits, Ms Eileen Montesin's script also pointed out the nice and friendly nations who deserved to be considered by our "wise" and discerning televoters. These included the wonderful singer from Serbia (“sabieha barra, sabieha gewwa” [beautiful inside and out]), the grateful Azerbaijanis (we have them 12 points last year), the bubbly Croatians (“bhal Glen taghna” [just like our Glen]), the Malta-loving singers from San Marino, Lithuania and Georgia.

We do not know how the Maltese public and jury actually voted and whether they were influenced by this running commentary.

Yet, we do know that Malta did not qualify for the finals and we all acknowledge that Malta was probably left out because of ‘political’ games that put small nations at a huge disadvantage. This is something we have long-been aware of and I admire the Maltese team for appearing to be sober and resilient throughout the whole exercise.

Nevertheless, to me such TV commentaries were almost a bigger disappointment than the festival result itself as whoever did the scripting was assuming that Maltese viewers are willing to be led by the nose. For comments on this blog follow this link: http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/national/eurovision-the-biggest-disappointment-was-the-commentary