Media trickery: When someone "defends" it looks like the attacks are massive.

[andrewducker]

I've seen this twice in the last week - a newspaper talking about the BBC "defending" the new Doctor Who choice against "angry fans". And then this morning the Game of Thrones director "defends" the Ed Sheeran cameo.

And both times I'm left wondering how many people were actually attacking. Was half of the population of Who-dom out attacking this choice? Or was it actually about 1% of them being noisy enough on Twitter that the newspapers could manufacture a story out of it?

Similarly, I suspect that the vast majority of people don't really care if Ed Sheeran pops up for 10 seconds in the show, does a perfectly average acting job for his two lines, and is never seen again. But that's not a story. And the way to make it a story is to not mention how many people are upset at something trivial, and leave things vague enough that it _could_ be the case that half the population of the country are waving pitchforks outside the studios, rather than seven people having a rant on Twitter.

Comments

[avatar_1]

I was thinking the exact same thing about both incidents, I saw a lot of backlash about the naysayers, but I did not see many naysayers at all.

I figured I was just being ignorant about where it was really happening. Maybe not?

[danieldwilliam]

Right, firstly why is Ed Sherran messing about on Game of Thrones when he should be singing to my daughter. I didn't know about this until just now but now I do know I'm cross about it and I demand Jeremy Corbyn sort it out.

I'm not even sure that you need noisy people on Twitter to make a "X defends Y" snowclone story. I think you just need to ask a question of a spokesperson for the organisation "Are you defending yourself against Y?" It's like the question "have you stopped beating your wife?"

If you're not defending yourself then either you are incompetent or elitist. If you are defending yourself then you have ceded the argument space to the framing of the questioner - that this is a thing that needs to be defended, that it is legitimate to oppose the position of the organisation "defending" itself.

If you respond with a question "Defending ourself against whom?" then it's difficult I suspect not to be brushed off with a response along the lines of "We've been contacted by many fans / licence fee payers / people off the street.

Jings I'm not even sure you need to ask the question - just skip to the headline.

[momentsmusicaux]

I read several reviews that said Sheeran's presence broke the whatever it is (fiction? immersion? too early in the morning for words...). Which I think is bollocks -- because if it did, then Jim Broadbent's presence did just the same, as any famous actor would. When we saw him, we went, 'Hey, that's Jim Broadbent!'

[danieldwilliam]

I have certainly seem more social media posts crowing about man-babies crying manly man tears of man-rage about Jodie Whittaker than I've seen people actually expressing concern, reservations or anger about the casting decision.

[jack]

My impression is that a lot of people object to a cameo for a sake of a cameo: when a scene seems completely shoehorned in to say, "LOOK FAMOUS SINGER", as opposed to one someone is famous plays an actual character. I sometimes do find that over the top. I don't know if that's a fair description of what happened or if people are just angry for no reason; even if it was a mistake, I don't have a strong opinion, it's ok for shows to occasionally make mistakes.

[momentsmusicaux]

Yeah, that's a fair point.

But Sheeran wasn't shoehorned in as, say, some random person in King's Landing or at Winterfell. He was cast as 'some guy who we see singing'. It seems fair enough to cast a singer for a bit part that mostly involves singing.

[jack]

Ah, hm. I think I had the impression they put in that part to have an excuse to use him, rather than looking for someone to play that part (where I agree choosing a singer is fine). But now I read some of the articles in more details, it sounds like that probably wasn't the case, but maybe people thought it was.

[momentsmusicaux]

There have been songs throughout GoT, and this one was possibly hinting at various things: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2017/07/17/secret-meaning-ed-sheerans-game-thrones-character-song-sings/

[coth]

I wouldn't know Sheeran from a...someone else...without all the commentary. But we are a gossipy species. Better gossip about showbiz than politics.

[ironymaiden]

I saw only jubilation about the Doctor until I went to reddit, where there were manbabies on the crappy sub (expected) AND on the good sub (disappointing).

[calimac]

The non-ranting criticisms I've seen suggest that the cameo of a guy singing was pointless and egregious, not just the fact that he's it.

But it also said they've had cameos by well-known pop musicians in GoT before, so maybe there's a large element of "We just don't like Ed Sheeran" in this.

And the criticisms have been followed by the inevitable sequel in all such cases: an article is headlined "Ed Sheeran Deletes Twitter Account."

[jack]

Yeah, I think people felt *more* jarred by his presence, maybe because his public persona felt more at contrast to GoT and seeing him there was weird, maybe because it felt shoe-horned in. But I suspect "didn't fit" has a lot to do with "not really liking him".

(I know nothing else about him.)

[altamira16]

I thought the same thing about Dr. Who.
The American audience of Game of Thrones is very "Who is Ed Sheeran?" right now. coth, are you American?

[ggreig]

Wings over Scotland wrote about this (in typically combative style) in the context of Scottish politics a few months ago.

[andrewducker]

Ah, the Daily Express. Delightful people, one and all.

[ggreig]

Ugh, yes. Wish I could convince my Mum to read something else.