|
Upright
|
"American Idol"
Voting Rights Drive ‘Idol,’ Not the Abuse or the Hair
Quote:
From The New York Times:
There are viewers who complain that there is something un-American about “American Idol” this season, and they may have a point.
The Fox singing competition that is under siege by supporters of Sanjaya Malakar, and “Idol” saboteurs like Howard Stern, has upset traditional fans who feel that the inventively coiffed but reedy-voiced Mr. Malakar is not talented enough to stay in the contest. But that is the risk “Idol” runs by giving viewers the final say.
“Idol,” now in its sixth season, has its selection process backward. In this country, people can vote for whomever they want — even Al Gore in 2000 — but the last word is left to the Electoral College and even the justices of the Supreme Court.
The most interesting thing about this season’s ado is not Mr. Malakar or Mr. Stern or even Simon Cowell; it’s the current obsession with voting on television shows and Internet sites like YouTube.
“Idol,” which began as a British hit, made its debut in the United States in 2002 — a scant two years after one of the closest presidential elections in American history. The talent show spawned a multitude of copycat shows with voter call-in gimmicks; even CBS News allows viewers to decide which story Steve Hartman will cover on his weekly segment, “Assignment America.” (This week, they chose the National Dog Agility Championships in Sunbury, Ohio.)
The high viewer turnout for “Idol,” which is on tonight, cannot solely be explained by technological advances or a regression in human nature. It cannot be a coincidence that television voting rights arose so soon after the 2000 election left slightly more than half the voting population feeling cheated. Those who didn’t go to the polls and fear that their abstention inadvertently made possible the invasion of Iraq may feel even worse. “Idol” could be a displacement ritual: a psychological release that allows people to vote — and even vote often — in a contest that has no dangerous or even lasting consequences. (Even losers win out in the end: both Mr. Gore and Jennifer Hudson ended up on the Oscar stage.)
Maybe the reason that more people didn’t turn out for the 2004 presidential race, despite the closeness of the tally four years earlier, is that they were still in denial and distracted by “American Idol.”
In this electoral process, voters have the final word, not Mr. Cowell, Randy Jackson and Paula Abdul. Once the early elimination process is over, the judges’ role is closer to that of panelists in a League of Women Voters presidential debate. They use their prestige and expertise to help viewers discern who is the most gifted and qualified contender, but ultimately, they cannot override popular opinion, even when it turns frivolous and favors Ross Perot or Mr. Malakar.
Mr. Cowell told “Extra” that he may leave the show if Mr. Malakar wins. His threat adds to the suspense, but it’s not very sporting. Mr. Cowell made a fortune giving the masses a voice, only to now complain that the voice selected by the masses isn’t good enough. Mr. Malakar, like Mr. Perot or more currently, Mitt Romney, has a dark-horse appeal that cannot be dismissed solely as a fluke engineered by Mr. Stern — or the frisky ponytail mohawk that Mr. Malakar sported last week.
“Idol” traffics in the thrill of counter-consensus. Mr. Malakar is the beneficiary of the same impulse that drives fans sitting in a row of a sports arena to rise together to perform a human wave. Sheer perversity seems to have prompted Mr. Stern to champion Mr. Malakar, urging his listeners to heed votefortheworst.com, a blogger lobby group that supports oddball, least-likely-to-succeed singers. That’s not a bad thing either, not even for “Idol,” which is not in any real danger of being ruined, but is instead coasting on a wave of Sanjaya-spurred publicity.
“Idol” is not just among the most popular series on television, it’s an institution, and an international one at that. When an Iraqi woman won the Middle Eastern version of the contest, “Star Academy,” her victory briefly united Iraqis, regardless of sect or creed. It’s sobering to learn that after all the Bush administration’s efforts to export American-style democracy to Iraq, the one element of American culture that Iraqis took to heart was a television reality show.
As “Idol” grows more stately and respectable, it’s only natural for viewers to chip away at its veneer. Outsiders always have an inside edge. Mr. Malakar, who is of Indian descent and has an atavistic teen-idol sweetness, is the ultimate underdog: he can’t sing or dance very well.
Howard Dean lost his chance at the 2004 Democratic nomination by letting loose an unseemly scream. The same could be true for the pet noir of “American Idol.” If not, it doesn’t really matter. That’s the reassuring thing about television democracy.
|
|