Even those of us who deal with very serious matters daily can have hobbies.
ESC historian Kato Hansen visits me in Aftenposten on May 15th. In a defense of the Eurovision Song Contest jury system, he criticizes me for even being involved in the debate that arose after this year’s final. With deep sarcasm, Hansen writes, “The novelty of this year is that politicians are getting involved now, probably due to a lack of more pressing issues to deal with.” He brings up topics such as inflation and the climate crisis, which I should rather get involved in.
First of all, the undersigned was in all the media in the country the day before the ESC finals and expressed his unease with precisely inflation and how the revised national budget would affect it. I also questioned the Prime Minister on climate policy at the Storting the same week.
Second: Even those of us who deal with very serious issues on a daily basis can have leisure. In terms of society, it doesn’t matter who wins the Eurovision final. About as unimportant as who wins a football game. But I was still in the arena cheering on Finland this weekend, and I’m going to Ullevaal to cheer on Brann in the cup final next weekend.
To the point: Should we continue to let anonymous juries take precedence over the public’s favorite at Eurovision?
Hansen supports the jury system and writes:[Juryene] also had the effect of reducing migrant votes, which, among other things, secured a whopping 189 viewer points for Ukraine’s contribution.” If Hansen’s opposition to letting the people decide is due to fears that Ukrainian war refugees will support their own country, I may not think it is the undersigned who has the greatest challenge in getting his priorities straight.
