Drudge is going ga-ga over the fact that famously acerbic American Idol judge Simon Cowell rolled his eyes after contestant Chris Richardson — fresh off a notably bad performance of the Rascal Flatts song Mayberry — offered his condolences to Virginia Tech last night. Here’s a video of the incident. Here’s another.
I didn’t notice Simon’s eye-rolling when I was watching live, but my initial reaction to Chris’s statement of condolence was: “while I have no doubt that his Virginia Tech comment was genuine, I think it will hurt him with the public. People are cynical bastards, and some of them will see that as an attempt to shore up votes by exploiting a tragedy to change the subject after a bad performance.”
Simon Cowell, of course, is the most cynical bastard of them all, and his reaction was precisely the one I anticipated, according to a Fox executive: “Simon felt Chris was cynically deflecting his criticism. It was unfortunate… he clearly was unaware the camera was on him when he rolled his eyes, and he was hardly making a rude gesture to the victims.”
Look, on the one hand, I think Simon’s cynical reaction was uncalled for. Chris is a Virginia native, and there’s no reason to believe he was being anything but genuine. Unless you’re the sort of person who always ascribes people the worst possible motives for their actions, you gotta believe that Chris’s decision to extend his condolences immediately after the judges’ criticisms wasn’t an attempt to deflect those criticisms — it was simply a consequence of the fact that that’s the only opportunity he has to speak directly into the camera during the show. (Ryan Seacrest awkwardly opened the show with a statement of condolence, and Simon added his own, equally awkward statement later — perhaps in reaction to the first wave of complaints about his eye-rolling earlier in the show — but Chris was taking advantage of his only chance to personally say something about the tragedy.)
But on the other hand, I can easily see this erupting into a massively exaggerated Imus-like controversy — Drudge is obviously pushing the story, and I expect the 24-hour news networks to pick up on it throughout the day, because Drudge moves stories and because Idol is a cultural phenomenon and this is a topical angle on today’s dominant story that’s easy to punditize about — and the fact is, it shouldn’t. Simon wasn’t rolling his eyes at the tragedy or disrespecting the victims, he was rolling his eyes at what he saw (wrongly and unjustifiably, in my view) as a cynical ploy for votes by an American Idol contestant. That’s unfortunate, but it’s also vintage Simon, and it certainly isn’t a national news story, nor worthy of the top line on the Drudge Report. Anyway, I wonder if tonight’s Idol results show will address this issue, in order to try and make it go away. And if they do, I wonder if that will just add fuel to the flames.
Some good may come of all this, though. Immediately after Chris’s performance, I thought he was doomed to be voted off tonight (in spite of Sanjaya’s bloody awful attempt at faux-karaoke) and that his condolence statement would only hurt him. Now, though, I think he’ll be saved — not so much by the statement, but by Simon’s reaction to it. If it’s true, as Drudge says, that “fans were enraged and FOX affiliates were fielding complaints” about Simon’s reaction, I suspect a fair number of those fans will have voted for Chris in defiance of Simon. So the end result of all this may be that Sanjaya actually gets voted off tonight. Wouldn’t that be wonderful?
UPDATE: More from an update to the Drudge article:
Nigel Lythgoe, Executive Producer of ‘IDOL’, says Simon was not reacting to Chris.
In a statement given exclusively to the DRUDGE REPORT, Lythgoe explains:
“This is a sad time for everyone, so it is especially disheartening that a quick camera cutaway could have been misinterpreted. We’re sorry for any grief caused by this misunderstanding, but Simon was not reacting to Chris at that point. He had turned to speak to Paula and didn’t actually hear Chris’ final comments.”
Lythgoe continues: “Everyone at ‘AMERICAN IDOL’ feels compassion for those affected by this tragedy. We opened the show with those thoughts and Simon later expressed sincere condolences on behalf of the judges, recognizing the challenges we all face in dealing with this horrible event.” …
A backstage source defends Richardson: “Chris decided earlier in the day that he was going to give a shoutout to his friends.. he is hurting.”
UPDATE: Simon defends himself on the air.
|
Categories: American Idol, News
|
April 18th, 2007 at 10:15:07 am
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2007/04/court_rules_att.html
Supreme Court upholds partial-birth abortion ban.
Just announced at 10.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:18:13 am
Please. I watched the video a bunch of times and couldn’t even notice Cowell rolling his eyes. At the end of the show Cowell said something laong the lines of how his heart went out to the families and whatnot.
I think this is just a case of Drudge being Drudge.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:18:38 am
I don’t think this even qualifies as an “eye roll.”
I think Chris Richardson should have his ass voted off of the show for trying to exploit somebody else’s loss. It’s one thing to dedicate a song to your dead grampa or to your daughter who you haven’t seen. It’s totally something else to jump on a national tragedy.
Drudge’s “outrage” is way out of line. Frankly, I think this “war on white males” is going to backfire this time.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:24:11 am
…because I give a crap what Simon does with his eyes?!? This is beyond stupid.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:25:26 am
Angrier, I guess that means you are indeed “the sort of person who always ascribes people the worst possible motives for their actions.” How else to explain you totally ignoring the obvious alternative, non-exploitative explanation for Chris’s actions, which I outlined above? I mean, if you were a Virginia native with friends at Virginia Tech, and you were going to be on national TV the day after something like this happened, don’t you think it’s possible you’d want to personally address it? Indeed, don’t you think it’s possible you might feel it would be inappropriate not to personally address it? Or even if you wouldn’t feel that way, is it so hard to imagine that someone else might? Apparently it is, because you jump to the concusion that Chris was “trying to exploit somebody else’s loss,” rather than allowing for the possibility that maybe he just wanted to genuinely express his personal condolences, and he did so at the only point during the show where he’s allowed to speak directly to the camera.
I can sort of understand Simon’s knee-jerk reaction (”oh, he’s just exploiting the tragedy to get votes”) because it happened so quickly, but it disgusts me that you would sit there and, having thought it over, conclude that exploitation is indeed the best explanation. That says a lot more about your view of human nature than it does about either Simon Cowell or Chris Richardson.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:31:06 am
Gee, Brendan. I guess seeing this same kind of shit from these contestants week after week has made me a little cynical. It’s not like this crap doesn’t go on constantly on this show. I, and a lot of other people, are having the same reaction Simon did. Even if Richardson meant it, it was stupid for him to do it given how the contestants have been warned - by Simon on the air - not to do this kind of thing.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:33:19 am
I don’t even think Cowell had a “reaction”…when Richardson said that about Tech it was in the middle of Cowells criticism of his nasally singing…and Cowell did say something along the same lines later in the show.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:34:11 am
Okay, I retract saying that your opinion “disgusts me.” I just think it’s wrong and overly cynical. I did anticipate that lots of people would react the way you and Simon did, though, as my initial comment suggests. I just think it’s unfortunate that people are that cynical. It seems self-evident to me that Chris was being genuine. I mean, he would have to be a COMPLETE ASSHOLE to do what you’re suggesting he did — not just mildly self-interested, but a complete and utter prick. That’s an awfully big leap. And I’m not sure what other instance you’re referring to when you say “this crap…go[es] on constantly on this show,” but I don’t believe there’s been a national tragedy this big since American Idol has been on the air, so whatever you’re talking about, I don’t think it’s entirely comparable.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:34:21 am
Who’s Simon Cowell, and why would I care what he thinks about anything?
April 18th, 2007 at 10:42:45 am
Sanjaya - I sang this song in tribute to my dead grandfather.
Phil - I wasn’t home when my daughter spoke her first words.
Like I said, this shit goes on constantly on this show. As for Richardson, even if it were genuine, it was still exploitive given the circumstances and the fact that Seacrest already made a statement about it.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:44:11 am
…and Cowell did say something along the same lines later in the show
I suspect that later statement was probably the result of someone telling him that some people were upset about his earlier eye-rolling. Otherwise he would had said something at the beginning of the show instead of in the middle of judging a later contestant. The whole thing was awkardly done, frankly.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:44:49 am
Brendan, I guess I am that cynical, because I read it pretty much as Angrier did. I’m not saying that I KNOW Chris was being disingenuous (does spelling count on the blog?), but I think he should have known better than to open up this can of worms. You have to be insanely out of touch not to think that someone is going to question your motivations when you say something like that in that setting. Besides (and this is just my own personal opinion), had I been in that position, I would have been incredibly uncomfortable saying anything. It just oozes inappropriate…
April 18th, 2007 at 10:45:54 am
>
Who’s being cynical now, Brendan?!?
April 18th, 2007 at 10:46:00 am
even if it were genuine, it was still exploitive
How could it be “exploitive” if his intentions were genuine? That makes no sense at all. It could be inappropriate, but not exploitive. It’s only exploitive if he’s exploiting it to achieve some end, like getting votes. If he’s merely expressing a genuine feeling — however inappropriately — it’s not exploitive.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:47:14 am
Hehe, well, yes, I guess I’m being cyncial vis a vis Simon, but I think the circumstances bear out my cynicism (if Simon had really wanted to say something, he could have done so earlier, whereas Chris could not have).
April 18th, 2007 at 10:50:36 am
Vicki, I agree that Chris was dumb and out-of-touch to, as you way, “open up this can of worms.” It was a bad idea on his part. I just don’t think it’s fair or justified to assume that he didn’t have good intentions. As I said above, to assume that he would deliberately and consciously exploit a national tragedy to get votes (as opposed to merely exploiting, say, the timing of his child’s birth) is to assume that he’s a COMPLETE ASSHOLE — not just mildly self-interested, not just a bit of a jerk, but a complete and utter prick. I don’t see any reason to make that leap. Occam’s Razor suggests that the simple explanation is that he was being tonedeaf… not just in his singing (heh) but in his decision to make an inappropriately timed gesture.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:50:59 am
Brendan-
So you think Phil wasn’t genuine when he said those things about his daughter? And you don’t think saying them when he did was exploitive? If the whole reason for saying something is to get a desired action out of someone else, it goes from being inappropriate to exploitive.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:54:06 am
Whatever the story behind Richardson’s comment, I think it would a shame for Simon the receive the “Imus treatment” over what I consider to be a pretty mundane reaction. I don’t think what he did qualifies as “an eye roll.” I think people are making a lot out of nothing.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:54:08 am
Angrier, pay attention. I was responding to your comment that “even if it were genuine, it was still exploitive.” Now you’re abandoning the premise that it might have been genuine, so obviously my response to your previous comment no longer applies.
In case you’re unclear… the following things cannot both be true:
“it [was] genuine” and “the whole reason for saying [it] [was] to get a desired action out of someone else.”
April 18th, 2007 at 10:54:26 am
damn all you people who know how to put quotes into this comment thing…
anyway, re: if it’s genuine it can’t be exploitative
That’s completely untrue, Brendan. The act of expressing his “genuine” feelings can be exploitative. If he knew, regardless how true or untrue his sentiments were, that he would be garnering support for himself and enhancing his chances to stay in the competition, then he could have been both genuine and exploitative.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:58:16 am
1) I think Chris was being genuine.
2) If he was being genuine, then by definition, he wasn’t being exploitive.
3) If you think he wasn’t being genuine, then it would of course follow that he was being explotive.
4) But why would you assume he wasn’t being genuine? Isn’t the more natural and obvious conclusion that he was being genuine, but tonedeaf to how his response would sound? If he was thinking strategically and trying to get votes by exploiting the tragedy, he’s a total asshole, and moreover, it was a terrible strategy, because it was obvious a lot of people would react this way. It seems much more likely that he was just expressing what he felt, and didn’t think as much as he should have about how people would interpret it.
5) I don’t know whether Phil was being genuine or exploitive, but again, it’s either one or the other, it can’t be both.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:02:05 am
If he knew, regardless how true or untrue his sentiments were, that he would be garnering support for himself and enhancing his chances to stay in the competition, then he could have been both genuine and exploitative.
Now we’re getting into the murky territory of intent… look, I guess it depends on how you define “genuine.” For these purposes, by “genuine” I don’t just mean “he’s genuinely sad that people died at Virginia Tech,” because OF COURSE he’s genuine sad about that, unless he’s a monster. I’m talking about whether his intent in making the statement is “genuine,” not whether his feelings of sadness are “genuine.” Was his intent in making the statement genuinely to express his sincere condolences, or was it something else? To me, for the purposes that I’m using that term, if his intent was to gain votes, then the statement isn’t “genuine,” even though he is of course sad, like we all are. But I guess, if Angrier was defining the term as you are, then I suppose his statement that “even if it were genuine, it was still exploitive” isn’t contradictory. But I think it’s a somewhat banal statement, if so.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:05:45 am
do you ever think that perhaps you over-complicate these matters in your own mind, Brendan? I would just say “I’m right, you’re wrong…so there!”
*and seriously, someone must tell me how to do the quotes (and italics)?!?!?
April 18th, 2007 at 11:08:25 am
I thought the eye-roll was directed at the stupid singer’s blatant attempt to score points with the crowd. I don’t know that I’d immediately assume he was expressing an opinion about the tragedy.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:10:41 am
Vicki, I never over-complicate matters in my own mind. Ever. :)
April 18th, 2007 at 11:13:28 am
Oh, and um, to make italics, go like this:
<i>italicized word</i>
April 18th, 2007 at 11:13:38 am
Geez, Brendan. A statement can be genuine and exploitive at the same time. Don’t you ever tell your wife she is beautiful with the intent of getting laid? You mean it, but you aren’t necessarily saying it just to say it.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:14:51 am
LOL… okay, you win. :) I concede the rhetorical point.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:16:22 am
thanks!
April 18th, 2007 at 11:32:07 am
So anyone else think the VT administration is in for a world of hurt? Besides the problems with the lockdown, you have a student who:
-Is known as a stalker by girls on the campus.
-Gives an oral presentation that is so disturbing that out of a class of 70 students, only seven show up at the next session for fear this guy will shoot up the place.
- Tries to burn down his dorm.
- So disturbs his professors that several threaten to quit if he isn’t transferred out of their classes.
- Is reported to the police by the head of the English Department.
- Is referred to psychological counseling several times.
And the whole time VT and the VT police department know about this guy.
Hmmm.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:34:15 am
I just watched that video, and i have one comment and one question
First, the timing of the guy offering his sympathies is strange, it is right in the middle of a discussion over his poor singing, it would have made much more sense to me if he had done it before or after the song. In fact he almost came across to me like he said it real quick because he didnt want to forget.
Second, did he do the typical Idol contestant thing right after that where the phone number is displayed and they all try to get people to vote for them with a big smile and holding up their fingers? Because that would raise some issues of exploitation and genuineness in my mind.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:39:57 am
I’m not sure how he would have done it before the song, since the music starts even before the contestant comes out on stage. It would have had to be during the song, which would have been even weirder. (What does Virginia Tech have to do with “Mayberry”?) As for after the song, well, that’s exactly what he did. But if you’re suggesting he should have cut off the judges and made his statement before they even started their critiques, yeah, maybe that would have seemed more appropriate, but how would he have pulled that off? By grabbing the mike from Seacrest and saying to Randy Jackson, “Excuse me, dawg, but yo, before you criticize me, dawg, I’ve got something to say”? I’m not sure that’s a viable option. I stand by my belief that he said what he said at the only moment that’s practically available to him to say anything.
I don’t recall whether he did the number thing.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:01:55 pm
Whatever Richardson’s reason -
yo, check it out - I just wasn’t feelin’ it, Dawg.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:03:12 pm
I have a new question… can anyone tell me what Ryan was trying to say just before Chris made his comment? I listened a few times, but I can’t make it out.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:26:48 pm
I definately noticed the eye-roll and thought: If I were a producer, i’d signal over to Simon during the commercial break and tell him to make a similar statement of regret after the break so that no one claims American Idol is so full of itself that the show doesn’t care about VTech.
And sure enough, Simon came on after the break and gave his regrets to the victims of VTech. The fact that they didn’t start off with such a statement shows (in my mind) that it was an unscripted response.
Either way, if I were Simon, i probably would have rolled my eyes too. First, like an idiot, that whiney little brat talked back to Simon as though Simon didn’t know anything about singing…and then, after that, gives the shout-out to VTech, so as to prevent Simon from retorting without looking like an asshole. I would definately have rolled my eyes.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:35:23 pm
“Mayberry” is actually Mt. Airy, NC, which is about 90 minutes away from the VT campus, and has the same hometown, family feel that all SW Va’s hold dear in Blacksburg, despite the events of Monday. It’s hard to be a Virginian anywhere in the state and not know countless Hokies. Richardson should get a pass on this one. AI should of let him as a Virginian make a statement at the beginning of the show, instead of the awkward attempts by Simon and Seacrest.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:03:16 pm
Speaking of Imus, does anyone else get the feeling that if this shooting had occured about a week earlier, or Imus’ comments were made about a week later, that he would still be on the radio as we speak?
April 18th, 2007 at 1:23:02 pm
Richardson should get a pass on this one. AI should of let him as a Virginian make a statement at the beginning of the show, instead of the awkward attempts by Simon and Seacrest.
sorry, but American Idol is a talent competition, and it would be completely ridiculous to have one contestant separate from the pack to make any sort of response… it just puts everyone else in an unneccesarily awkward (and inferior) position. Seacrest needed to make some kind of remark on behalf of ALL of Idol and then move on with the show. Anyone who heard him say in the packge before he performed that he’s from Virginia was free to throw him a sympathy/support vote, but anything more seems wrong to me.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:33:46 pm
I’m Simon Cowell bitch, brace yo self!
April 18th, 2007 at 1:35:11 pm
We can debate this till the cows come home. All I can say is Simon Cowell doesn’t support people being murdered at Virginia Tech, despite what Drudge might want to imply.
As for Richardson, he isn’t going to win American Idol. If he is gone this week or two weeks from now, it makes no difference to me.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:43:26 pm
Minor point, but I don’t think American Idol really is a talent competition. (See, I can use italics now too! :) ) It’s a reality show, plain and simple. A lot of great singers don’t even get to audition in front of the judges, and even fewer make it out of Hollywood. They pick people based on how marketable they are, whether they’re going to develop a following, stuff like that. In order to succeed on the show, you have to have looks, personality, some singing ability (although that isn’t always necessary either, see Sanjaya, Kellie Pickler), and a good sob story certainly never hurt. Taylor Hicks, as much I as like him, won primarily on his personality. So although it may seem like a talent competition, I think that it is primarily a reality show.
April 20th, 2007 at 6:29:29 am
Jeezo, i’m from the UK and heard that America was apparently in ‘uproar’ over Simon Cowell’s eye roll.
After seeing the video i have to say that it is pathetic that anyone could take Simon’s actions as such. He merely just looks away to his side, not exactly the usual overblown eye roll he produces when his ears are being abused by another moron who thinks they can sing.
Simon didn’t do anything wrong, get over it.