Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 3972188)

Yeah thats a bit of as stupid reason.

I do think the singoff was planned now though, once the rage has gone. However I think it was planned as a safety net for cher, so that they could make sure she was in the final. Since she had been bottom before and obviously wasnt as popular as they originally thought.

Originally Posted by Zippy (Post 3972222)

I agree they wanted a get out clause in case certain contestants came bottom. But until we know for sure that Cher got least votes then nobody can say it was an unfair outcome.

and they did both get least votes so the public did have a large say up to a point. Both have been bottom two recently so they were equally un/deserving really.

Originally Posted by Zippy (Post 3972222)

I agree they wanted a get out clause in case certain contestants came bottom. But until we know for sure that Cher got least votes then nobody can say it was an unfair outcome.

and they did both get least votes so the public did have a large say up to a point. Both have been bottom two recently so they were equally un/deserving really.

Originally Posted by joeysteele (Post 3971667)

The same reason they kept Katie despite 4 times in the bottom 2 against anyone up against her, to please Cheryl Cole,the main and only reason, for some reason this year the whole X Factor has been altered to accomodate the errors of her and save her acts week by week.
Katie was at the very least guaranteed a place on the tour and Cher was Cheryls great choice, somehow they had to do all they could to get one or both to the final.

Its actually obvious to most people now something is dodgy here now, no one I have spoken to this morning believes that Cher wasn't last in the voting now and are stunned at a sing off in the semi final with no detailing that would happen the previous week or indeed when the phone lines opened on Staurday.

If you don't inform people then you are likely hiding something. The viewers knew all that was happening on previous X Factors, but not this series,no way.

Originally Posted by JackFrost (Post 3972284)

I fully understand the unfairness of having a sing-off in the Semi-Final, of course, and, generally speaking, I'd have rather they not had one. However there's no way it wasn't 'clear' what was happening, as some people seem to be suggesting. Okay, so there wasn't enough clarity as to whether there would be a sing-off or not, but as Dermot never said there wouldn't be one, you cannot assume that there won't be one. Not until he has said it. And vice versa, too. You just cannot make assumptions until something has been clearly stated. That's how they've covered their tracks here, at least from what I can see. It's all been very cleverly worded so that they can cover their backs - so fair play to them.

I'm glad they had a sing-off in the end, as like others I do believe Cher received the least votes. That may sound biased or unfair, but hey, I'm not exactly going to complain when someone I feel deserves a place in the Final more than another contestant gets a place in the Final.

Originally Posted by JackFrost (Post 3972284)

I fully understand the unfairness of having a sing-off in the Semi-Final, of course, and, generally speaking, I'd have rather they not had one. However there's no way it wasn't 'clear' what was happening, as some people seem to be suggesting. Okay, so there wasn't enough clarity as to whether there would be a sing-off or not, but as Dermot never said there wouldn't be one, you cannot assume that there won't be one. Not until he has said it. And vice versa, too. You just cannot make assumptions until something has been clearly stated. That's how they've covered their tracks here, at least from what I can see. It's all been very cleverly worded so that they can cover their backs - so fair play to them.

I'm glad they had a sing-off in the end, as like others I do believe Cher received the least votes. That may sound biased or unfair, but hey, I'm not exactly going to complain when someone I feel deserves a place in the Final more than another contestant gets a place in the Final.

Originally Posted by NingleBells (Post 3972312)

Well, Louis did say on a radio show in Ireland that the viewers would be deciding this week and they no longer had a say.

But anyway, I think for alot of people it's not just this one thing though, it's yet another rule twist and manipulation to get what they want. In my eyes this show is supposed to be about what the public want but it seems the judges are happy to take the publics money but then basically say ****** you we'll do what we want anyway.

Originally Posted by Baby Zeesus (Post 3972361)

I don't even think I'm annoyed about the outcome of the sing off, just the fact it was there in the first place. The final should be consisting of the top three (or four in the case of this year) contestants by virtue of how many votes they received. Adding a sing off in the semi final means that the least popular contestant can still go through, even if it turns out that Cher was more popular than Mary this weekend, it's still unfair to give Mary false hope like that/put Cher through that worry and vice versa. Not very happy with the X Factor but I'm still going to watch the final and I'm still not going to have a favourite, I just think this series has been a bit of a farce all round - bad presenting (mostly from Konnie Huq but Dermot's been pretty bad too), bad judging (Dannii Minogue's the only one whose opinions I'd say are valid criticisms more than half the time - the other three either snipe at each other or don't actually give any kind of criticism of the performance) and awful last minute changes. It's been controversial for the wrong reasons this year, I hope next year's show is a bit better.

Originally Posted by NingleBells (Post 3972312)

Well, Louis did say on a radio show in Ireland that the viewers would be deciding this week and they no longer had a say.

Originally Posted by NingleBells (Post 3972312)

But anyway, I think for alot of people it's not just this one thing though, it's yet another rule twist and manipulation to get what they want. In my eyes this show is supposed to be about what the public want but it seems the judges are happy to take the publics money but then basically say ****** you we'll do what we want anyway.

Originally Posted by JackFrost (Post 3972404)

Louis is Louis, let's not take anything he says as gospel now... :p



Well, technically the public will get what they want in the end - they're going to pick the eventual winner. So it's not all doom and gloom.

All TV shows similar to this are all manipulated to some extent anyway, in order to engineer results and certain scenarios which will benefit the show in various ways - be it profit, media attention or viewer satisfaction, etc etc. Some of it is subtle, other bits are quite obvious. But it's generally always there, whether it's editing contestants in a good or bad light, structuring a certain performance order, even more subliminal things such as referring to certain contestants more, praising them more or even the other way round. It happens on most TV shows - Big Brother, X Factor, IAC. A large majority of it will all be done for viewer satisfaction, some of it will be done to ensure more profit, whilst other bits will be to attract media attention. If people fall for all of this, it's their problem...but then again, that is sort of the point. At the end of the day - if people don't like this sort of manipulation which occurs on most TV shows, be it minor or major - then they shouldn't watch, or shouldn't vote.

I have to say though, thinking about it, I don't think this could've been a last minute decision, as there are only a couple of people who know the voting percentages each week. And none of these people are part of the production team, and none of these people are any of the Judges or presenters [yes, that inclues Simon]. They're independent adjudicators. So it's not at all possible, really, that anyone would've known that Cher would be bottom. So I imagine the only realistic scenario would've been that the sing-off was acting as a safety net, incase the outcome occured, which it did.

Originally Posted by jesus christ (Post 3972415)

you have got to be joking if you think simon and louis dont know how the votes are going.