ABOUT TEST PATTERN

Don't touch that dial: Test Pattern tunes into television, movie, music and pop culture links, as well as gossip and idle chat from around the Web.

Every week, msnbc.com entertainment producers Gael Fashingbauer Cooper, Denise Hazlick, Paige Newman, Kurt Schlosser and Anna Chan weigh in on topics ranging from TV commercials to movie hype to the latest celebrity blunder. We're not ashamed to admit our love for bad TV or reveal what's on our iPods, and invite you to join the conversation via your comments.



Bravo, 'Idol,' for granting judges veto power

Posted: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 6:15 PM by Gael Fashingbauer Cooper
Filed Under:

"American Idol" has announced a new vote change that takes a little power away from the viewers. And that's a good thing.

The new rule allows the judges to save one person from elimination once during the season, up until the final five are announced. Their decision must be unanimous, and then two singers will be booted off the show the next week. So even if the judges save someone for seven days, he or she could still go home the very next week if the viewers continue to dislike him or her. (I'm already mentally dubbing this "The Jennifer Hudson Rule.")


Fox
Giving the "American Idol" judges a veto is a good idea.

I imagine that a lot of "Idol" fans are going to complain about this change. Sure, it takes some power out of the viewers' hands, but is that necessarily a problem?

One of the loudest debates among "Idol" watchers is this: The show's a popularity contest! No, the show's a singing contest! Well, the show is supposed to be a singing contest, but it's really a popularity contest!

The new rule seems to hit right at the heart of that problem. It's inevitable that someone will catch the fancy of the voters for reasons other than his or her voice. This year is jammed full of singers with exceptional personal stories -- widower Danny Gokey, blind Scott MacIntyre, tornado victim Lil Rounds. Many of the singers -- more than I remember being in previous competitions -- are young parents, and some are single parents. It's tempting to vote for someone for reasons other than vocal abilities.

But in a perfect world, the "Idol" winner would be the best singer, not the cutest boy, or the funniest entertainer, or the person with the saddest past. The "Idol" judges are far from perfect (is it just me, or is Paula Abdul starting to make even less sense than usual?), but I trust their experienced musical judgment a little bit more than I trust the texting power of the audience.

Yes, it didn't really hurt Chris Daughtry to finish fourth instead of first on the Taylor Hicks season. (Our "Idol" reporter Craig Berman points out that the new rule wouldn't have saved Daughtry, since he left after the final five.) And Jennifer Hudson's Oscar isn't any less shiny because she didn't win "Idol." But who knows how it will affect current or future singers? 

If the show wants to maintain the facade that it's more of a singing contest than a popularity contest, the judges' one-time-only veto is a good start.

Share your thoughts on the new rule in the comments.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

It's just you on the Paula question. Unlike much of last season, she's actually quite coherent this season. Randy's even saying more tha "Yo, dawg, It aight." I guess Kara scared the crap out of them, so they shaped up.

Tim (Sent Wednesday, March 11, 2009 9:47 PM)

Can we just vote Paula off and call it a season?

john lennon, new york, ny (Sent Wednesday, March 11, 2009 10:31 PM)

I'm glad, I think it sounds like a good rule.  There have been a few times when some really good singers were booted off too early, while the bad ones stuck around.  I think it will be really interesting to see if the judges use this veto!

Kate, Utah (Sent Wednesday, March 11, 2009 10:36 PM)

to me, this is all revisionist history. the judges weren't smitten with daughtry OR jhud. in fact, the judges have had more cows over adam alone this year, than daughtry or jhud put together. and they've completely manipulated the proceedings this year. take randy complaining about not liking "band songs" like tonic -- and then he spazzes over adam singing a rolling stones song. psst randy -- the rolling stones are a BAND.

lisa, fort worth, tx (Sent Wednesday, March 11, 2009 10:55 PM)

This seems like a very manipulated season of American Idol.  The judges directly placed 4 singers into the Top 13, and pimped 3 others so hard that there was little doubt they would be in there too.  Calling the show any kind of democracy at this point seems a stretch, though perhaps the interest is in trying to make it more of a meritocracy.

Kevin Denelsbeck, Melbourne, FL (Sent Thursday, March 12, 2009 12:11 AM)

This rule is dumb. Of the four people they mentioned on the show as people that could have been saved - Tamyra and Daughtry both left in the 3rd or 4th spot so it wouldn't have helped them anyway and really is it a big shame that Tamyra didn't stick around? They probably would have saved Michael Johns but he wouldn't have won either. And Jennifer Hudson - I promise you they wouldn't have saved her. I know everyone's gaga over her now but she was nowhere near the best on on Idol that season. It wasn't until after she got much more practice and exposure that she got better and is now damn good.

Dylan Chambers (Sent Thursday, March 12, 2009 12:12 AM)

I agree that there seem to be a lot of exceptional backstories this year.  And I also agree that a lot of the votes are coming from the heart.  And I almost agree that letting the judges "save" someone ONLY ONCE during the season might not be a bad idea.  They cited 4 examples tonight of how things might have changed if the judges had previously been allowed to do this.  Saving Michael Johns and Jennifer Hudson, who came in 8th and 7th respectively, would have been nice........HOWEVER, they also cited Tamyra Gray and Chris Daughtry who both came in 4th.  Under the new rules, there was nothing they could have done to save them.  I sometimes think that Idol is still stinging from Daughtry not winning.  But they need to get over the fact that Daughtry didn't just lose to Taylor Hicks.  He lost to THREE people (Taylor, Katherine AND Elliott).  So, please American Idol.  Get over it!!

Barbara, Chicago (Sent Thursday, March 12, 2009 12:49 AM)

This rule is awful, it kills a lot of the suspense, de-motivates people to vote, and doesn't accomplish much cause if you received the lowest number of votes, you obviously don't have much a fanbase so not much is going to change the following week.  Now the judges favorites like Danny Gokey, Alexis Grace etc. can relax a bit cause they know the judges will save them if they have a bad week, I'm not sure if that's a good thing.

Robert, Singapore (Sent Thursday, March 12, 2009 3:25 AM)

The fact that Ryan Seacrest and the judges were using Chris Daughtry as a prime example of someone who could have been saved by this rule shows that they don't remember the results of their own show or they think we don't.  Let's just call this the Lambert rule.  If he is not the lowest vote getter one of these weeks, the judges will not use the veto until the last show possible.  I don't think they will not use it.  I hope that whoever is saved is voted off the next week anyway.

Olesczuk, Hen Hud, NY (Sent Thursday, March 12, 2009 5:15 AM)

I would dub this "The Sanjaya Rule" myself, as someone with actual talent might get booted because of a childish website called "Vote for the Worst". Honestly, if you don't like the singers or the concept of the show, don't watch it,read about ir or buy any cds that the contestants might put out. It's that simple. What if we did that in politics? Oh wait, we did- in 2000 and 2004.

mary, toledo ohio (Sent Thursday, March 12, 2009 6:23 AM)

Simon took run decision last night, Jorge Nunez is best singer than Anoop....

Waldy (Sent Thursday, March 12, 2009 7:04 AM)

I wish they'd change the format to be like DWTS, where the judge's scores count for 50% every week.  Or allow one vote per number so it becomes less of a popularity contest.  Obviously someone that calls 30 times is not going to buy 30 albums.

Heather, Port Huron, MI (Sent Thursday, March 12, 2009 8:07 AM)

I think the new rule is a good thing. While I agree that Idol is primarily a singing contest, a voice alone does not an Idol make. A certain amount of charisma is also required. I have watched the show since it's debut and I've heard some fantastic voices from contestants I just didn't like and the same is applicable this season. (Sad for us Canucks - No Canadian Idol this year!)

Heather Taylor (Sent Thursday, March 12, 2009 8:22 AM)

Two words Michael Johns. This rule may have saved him. While he may have not won he could have finished high as second place. I am still not happy about last season especially the chick with all the mistakes and her political campaign call center calls. She should have been kicked off for those calls as a violation of policy

Marsha (Sent Thursday, March 12, 2009 8:26 AM)

I think it's a good change. Fans still will have the final vote.

Annette reston, Va (Sent Thursday, March 12, 2009 8:48 AM)

I think that this is a great idea.  There will always be that contestant that everyone thinks is safe because he/she is so talented.  And, there will also be that contestant that makes it through an elimination purely based on popularity or sympathy because Simon delivered them a tongue lashing during their performance (remember Kevin Covais aka "Chicken Little"?).  Hopefully, this rule will make America see the power of the vote....or how ridiculous it is to save someone because you feel sorry for them.  And, if America doesn't agree with the judges, that person could still be voted off the next week.  No harm, no foul.

Jennifer, Birmingham, AL (Sent Thursday, March 12, 2009 8:58 AM)

I think this is a great idea, and I agree it's a singing contest not a popularity contest, I was upset when Malinda Dolittle got voted off. So I love the new rule!

Sunshine (Sent Thursday, March 12, 2009 9:12 AM)

Only until the final 5 is mistake here.  I can think of three people who were eliminated at a point no one thought they would be.  Tamara Gray(sic) in season one, Jennifer Hudson and Chris Daughtry.  Both Tamara and Daughtry would not have been helped by this rule.  Therfore in 7 seasons it may have been used once (note:  Even though Jennifer Hudson went on to bigger things was she really that far above the other contests her year that the judges definitely would have used the veto?)  So a rule that may be used once in 7 years is hardly a rule that needs to be used at all..

Chris, PA (Sent Thursday, March 12, 2009 9:24 AM)

I think the rule is a good idea because it will prevent "Vote for the Worst" from completely wrecking the show. But ultimately it will still be up to the fans - if a singer doesn't connect, they'll be gone. Jennifer Hudson is actually an example of this - if I remember correctly, during Jennifer Hudson's season, she was actually voted out and then brought back by the judges in a surprise wildcard pick. Then she was voted out again... no one denied she was a good singer. She just wasn't connecting with the fanbases. So I think the new rule makes sense and it doesn't really take the power away from the viewers - just buys the contestant one more week to somehow make their case to the viewers.

Nicole, New York , NY (Sent Thursday, March 12, 2009 9:36 AM)

I like the rule (even IF it wouldn't have saved Chris Daughtry :( ). Although the primary reason for the show is singing you do need to have some personality to get somewhere. I just wish they could have added one veto for someone staying - it would have been great if the judges could have kicked off Chicken Little or Sanjaya long before they actually left.

Kelli, Detroit, MI (Sent Thursday, March 12, 2009 10:01 AM)

I think the judge's score should be fifty percent of the total.This would help the popularity contest problem.

Jack Parker,Houston,Texas (Sent Thursday, March 12, 2009 10:03 AM)

Its a talent contest, not a beauty pageant.  You really have to try to ignore the backgrounds and concentrate on the talent.  Amazingly,  I find myself agreeing with Simon Cowell a lot of the time. I think it is a god balance that the judges have.  You have Simon Cowell on one end and Paula on the other.  By the way, I picked David Cook as last years winner and am proud to say he has lived up to all my expectations as a singer/songwriter.  I have yet to see a contestant this year who measures up to him.

I am a 60 year old rocker

William Bogart Crawfordville, Indiana (Sent Thursday, March 12, 2009 10:08 AM)

The new rule change is okay, but I have always wished this show was like others, where viewers call and vote, and then the judges decide who goes home from a bottom three. There are just too many teenage girls texting their brains out on this show, so you always end up with someone in the top three who shouldn't be there.

Sam (Sent Thursday, March 12, 2009 10:19 AM)

The new method has only created another layer of cruel torture.  Having anonymous people calling in (or not) in order to continue on the show is one thing.  To sit there in front of four judges (and millions of television viewers) and have them determine your immediate future is another.  If the feeling has suddenly come to the producers that great contenders are being voted off too early, then they should go to really the best method and that would be to call in for the person you think should be sent home.  Most people have felt since day one that would be the most appropriate method anyway.)

Barbara, Miami, FL (Sent Thursday, March 12, 2009 10:19 AM)

The producers have taken an otherwise simple show and royally assed it up.

If America went to the polls and voted Barack Obama President (which we did)...is it then fair for a group of judges in the White House to say, "Oh we're going to SAVE John McCain and bring him back. WTF?

This is the most assinine thing I've seen in a long time

Kelli, Rehoboth Beach, Delaware (Sent Thursday, March 12, 2009 10:41 AM)

The idea of saving Michael Johns is a joke IMO.  His fan base was no bigger than any other contestant in the top 8.  He was just okay.

Patricia Freeman (Sent Thursday, March 12, 2009 10:50 AM)

One person who might have been saved who has not been mentioned is Constantine Maroulis, who was voted out 6th in season 4.  He had never been in the bottom 3 before that night, and everyone in the audience, the other contestants, and especially Paula, was stunned.  I bet the judges would have saved him, and although I think Carrie Underwood still would have won the season, Constantine might have given her a run for her money.

Eliza, NJ (Sent Thursday, March 12, 2009 10:54 AM)

Paula Abdul is sooooooooooo annoying and spoils the show.  Someone at FOX Please boot her next season!

Bobbie, Orlando, Florida (Sent Thursday, March 12, 2009 11:04 AM)

Allowing the viewers to call the shots was a dumb thing to do from the beginning.  The only person on the whole show who speaks the truth to these people is Simon Cowell.  Most of the winners I wouldn't walk across the street to listen to let alone pay money.  At best they are so-so singers.  I'd be happy if they took the darn thing off the air but then where would the grannies and the teeny boppers go for fun.

Miranda, Sacramento, CA (Sent Thursday, March 12, 2009 11:15 AM)

If they want to change things make if a 50/50% vote and PLEASE get rid of KARA she's awful, she drestroys the chemistry that has been there for seven years.

L. Aadnesen (Sent Thursday, March 12, 2009 11:37 AM)

If the show is only a popularity contest and has nothing to do w/ singing, then please tell me which show winner won because of their sad story, and lack of singing ability? I think FOX hoodwinks people with blowing personal stories big during commentary portions of the show to boost ratings... I think the new rule is good just in case a good singing gets lost. With Daughtry I believe everyone thought he was a lock for first so they began voting for their 2nd favorite and Chris was lost...the new rule will make sure no one is lost. Did someone in here really compare saving a singing contestant to a presidential candidate? Wow....

Matt, Rochester, MN (Sent Thursday, March 12, 2009 11:43 AM)

The problem I have with the voting is the fact you can vote as many times as you want.  WHY is this?  so the one that has the most psycho fans that don't have anything better to do but vote a bazillion times, moves on??

Debi, Raleigh, NC (Sent Thursday, March 12, 2009 12:18 PM)

I love the new rule.  A lot of good singers got voted off last year, and Sanjaya who couldn't sing a lick stayed.  He should gone after the first couple of shows.  this way, the better singers have a better chance of getting to the finale.

Weezie (Sent Thursday, March 12, 2009 12:23 PM)

The judges are a joke! Whats the point of having them around once the contestants have made it past hollywood.  The elimination should be like Dancing with the stars or So you think you can dance or Dance Crew. The new rule was hyped up so much its a big let down.

Jorge, Los Angeles, CA (Sent Thursday, March 12, 2009 12:32 PM)

Jennifer Hudson left early and it wasn't because of a lack of votes. If anyone remembers correctly, obviously no one is, the very night of voting, there was a huge storm in the midwest with tornados and the whole gamut. With that said, her likelihood of staying would have been greater had that part of the country not experienced bad weather, which probably kept many from seeing the show and being able to vote. Despite her being ousted, there were still several GREAT singers also in that season that could've easily taken the prize - LaToya London, Fantasia (The Winner) and/or Diana DeGarmo.

Now what ticks me off is when Sanjaya and Nick/Norm take spots from great singers that are not even brought to Hollywood or kicked off during the Hollywood Round that should've made it on to the top 12. There is no reason why Nick/Norm from this season made it, except he made ratings for his silliness. Heck, I even liked him, but knew he wouldn't make it. Now Jamar (Danny Yokey's friend) deserved to go further or even Ju'not, but that's just me.

Nicki, Memphis, TN (Sent Thursday, March 12, 2009 12:48 PM)

It is really too bad we didn't get to see the judges give their analysis of Kanye West.  He was horrible.  I can't believe people listen to that garbage or better yet even call it music.
HORRIBLE...  
Kelly did awesome and I am enjoying this season.  Megan and the blind kid need to go next round.
Thanks,

Rod, SC (Sent Thursday, March 12, 2009 12:49 PM)

While this new rule may help a deserving person stay in (as put earlier) for maybe one more week it does nothing to stop the less deserving ones from staying. One thing to keep in mind that may make this a plus is that if someone is saved who deserves to stay and the public keeps the undersrving one too, the next week 2 people will go. So...maybe that will be when the chips finally fall where they should. Not everyone may agree with this change, let it ride this season, see if it works. If not, most likely they will not bring it back next year. They have tried other things in the past that failed miserably and fortunately learned their lessons and dropped the idea the next season.

Tammy, Dayton, OH (Sent Thursday, March 12, 2009 12:53 PM)

We TIVO American Idol and watch it an hour after its over so we can fast-forward past ding-dong Paula's blabbering.

CMJ (Sent Thursday, March 12, 2009 12:56 PM)

It worked for Republicans in 2004 to ignore how America voted why not for Idol?

JD Austin,TX (Sent Thursday, March 12, 2009 1:08 PM)

I don't really agree with the new rule because it's obvious that the judges have their favorites, and it was always the Callers that made the decision.  What I really am annoyed with this year is too many judges with too much to say about each performer after each song.  Keep it short, I watch it for the singing not the opinions.

CJ, North Wales, PA (Sent Thursday, March 12, 2009 1:09 PM)

As an Idol fan, I stopped watching the show a few seasons ago because it turned out to be a popularity contest rather than a singing contest, and it was quite frustrating for me. I tuned in to hear musically talented people. Maybe I'll give it another try!

Heather, Indiana (Sent Thursday, March 12, 2009 1:21 PM)

This season has been really lame, IMHO. I'm not particularly fond of any of the singers, so I'm not compelled to call and vote for any of them. The sob stories have gotten out of hand, and that turns me off, too. I think the judges' opinions shouldn't count for anything after the Hollywood round. And I don't think the new rule is very fair...what's the point of letting America vote if the judges are just going to overturn it? And then you know whomever they save will just be gone the next week, so why not save that person from total humiliation and let them go right away? You know they're only going to save that vote for someone they really love (Danny or Adam) and they've already decided should win. If they really wanted to make the show fair, they should let everyone vote a limited number of times and call it good. It's really turned into a popularity contest, more so than a singing contest, and I have a feeling this will be the last season I watch.

Megan, Des Moines (Sent Thursday, March 12, 2009 1:31 PM)

Paula was great in year 1 but it's definitely interesting to watching her trying to develop her thoughts and say them...strange. The coherence/incoherence even seems to fluctuate during the show.  Go figure.

One time veto should be interesting to see who they will save.

Kevin, Toronto, Canada (Sent Thursday, March 12, 2009 1:52 PM)

If nothing else the new rule allows the "possible" ousted contestant to hold it together for a last effort.  They can sing their last song without the finality that others have had to sing through.  It is difficult to sing while so disappointed.

DG, Connersville, Indiana (Sent Thursday, March 12, 2009 1:54 PM)

I think that this new "tool" isn't so much about saving someone from being booted too soon as much as it is about booting someone off the show who "deserves" to be booted at the right time. Taylor "Who" Hicks would have never made it to finals. It would have been Elliot and Katherine instead of Taylor. Taylor doesn't even belong in the same league as the other Idol winners or runnerups. He couldn't even sell half a million records. And if it weren't for his occasional come back appearances on Idol he wouldn't be seen or heard of at all.

Al, Houston, TX (Sent Thursday, March 12, 2009 1:59 PM)

If the program is intent on making appropriate and proper changes, then perhaps they should bar Abdul from the panel (program) each and every time she's whacked out.  

Tom Park Salem, Oregon (Sent Thursday, March 12, 2009 2:14 PM)

I like the new rule. Sometimes judges do know best. I have one comment though, does anyone else think Scott is making it thru on sympathy votes only? The guy has a weak voice and I have not seen any improvement. This is for the best voice, right??? I love, Danny, Adam and Megan. Hope Anoop has a better week this coming week. I LOVE Paula!!!! 3 judges only please...

Sheri Dublin, Ohio (Sent Thursday, March 12, 2009 2:35 PM)

The only time I can recall that I think it would have been nice if they had this is when Constantine Maroulis was voted off in season 4.  As another said, prior to that, he had never even been in the bottom 3.  I never recall Paula being that upset about someone leaving.  And I don't recall the audience ever booing that loudly because they did not like the decision.

Amy Brewer, Los Angeles, CA (Sent Thursday, March 12, 2009 2:37 PM)

I think the voters should be charged $1.00 per call and the proceeds could be donated to a worthwhile cause.  This would eliminate some of the people who vote over and over, creating a popularity contest instead of a talent contest.  In addition, I think the judges should have a percent of the vote as on DWTS.

MaryAnn, Fremont, CA (Sent Thursday, March 12, 2009 2:41 PM)

The fact that this show is still going... I agree with most that they have talented singers this year.  BUT!  Season 3 with Latoya, Jennifer, Fantasia and George was the MOST talented season of them all....  I hate the rocker gay dude.  

MIke, New York (Sent Thursday, March 12, 2009 3:17 PM)



SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.): 

 Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private)

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://testpattern.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=1832775

More Test Pattern

Recent Posts:

Archives:

Categories:

Links

Syndicate This Site

Add Test Pattern to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google

MSNBC Weblogs