Should Graham Norton have stepped down as host of Eurovision over gay rights abuses? Or spoken up? Or done something?

The tactics are apparently desperately needed as not even the show's host — out Irish comedian Graham Norton — seems to know how badly Russia treats its gay citizens.

^ well....not even I knew about how russia treats its GLBT citizens til now...I guess it's ignorance, but I don't recall hearing or reading about the treatment anywhere and if i did, i may of read it only once....whereas i know more about how gay people (men really) are tortured in Iraq.

I don't know if it's ignorance because i never really heard about it and simply assumed "oh well it must be okay in russia..." or maybe the coverage wasn't enough. i mean, i want to be educated on such topics....but reading all this now, i feel pretty stupid.

as for Graham Norton, I am assuming maybe he wasn't allowed to bring it up....and was he getting paid for this? If so, then that could be another reason. I'm not trying to make him sound selfish, but hey...most people like their big paychecks and maybe if he did speak out on it, they wouldn't of paid him. Or....maybe he didn't want to create controversy at all.  we even have some celebs here who are gay, etc who don't speak up as much about issues unless they are practically forced to....so in a way, this whole thing doesn't surprise me about Graham...i actually shrugged my shoulders when i read about it and thought "this is not that surprising to me..." -- i'm not saying he's right, but....i'm not surprised by him not speaking out about it.

He had two choices that I think would have morally made his actions the correct action: a) Condemn the attacks against gays on the show or b) Not have gone on the show. As the old saying goes, and as we learned from 'Hilter's Willing Executioners," all it requires for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing. More importantly, I do not believe he did not know. I am really disappointed in him. Part of the problem is that gays do not see their own cause all to often as important enough to take a stand on. We can be beat up and killed, and they will shrug it off as no big deal. I really like him as a talent, but this is so disappointing.

Well, there are people who are completely ignorant about engaging in dangerous behavior (e.g., that guy from Big Brother & his sex practices), so I'm not surprised that people aren't aware/don't care what goes on in other countries.

and of course the photo that one of the Toronto newspapers choose to run with this story was the man wearing a wedding dress. :(

 

I waited to read whether Norton had done or said anything.  It's disgraceful that he didn't, but it's equally disgraceful that Eurovision did nothing, and nobody -- not a single participant, as far as I'm aware -- walked out or boycotted.  The Nazis made a pretense for the Olympic Committee of letting Jews vie for places on its Olympic team.  They didn't hold a Krystallnacht in Berlin on the opening day of the Olympics.  If they had, would every athlete have gone right on and competed?  Maybe, but we've seen what comes of letting countries do things like this with no international protest.  Why did Britain's entrant perform when Peter Tatchell was dragged away on camera that very day?

I don't care at all about Eurovision itself, but it is disgraceful that Norton didn't use his position to make a clear and explicit statement.
He's just like all the other celebrities who are happy to take the money and don't give a fuck about what happens to ordinary people.
Frankly, I'm disgusted by his behavior (and the behavior of everybody who's participated this year in the contest). 

François
---------------
http://gaycomicslist.free.fr

Yes, Norton should have skipped lunch, called the protest organizers and told them when and where to pick him up so he could lead the parade. If they locked up the host of Eurovision for attending a peaceful protest, I think the world might get an idea of what is going on over there. Norton should be ashamed of himself.

I wish there had been a visibility campaign, like the red ribbon. Perhaps a big purple star (instead of a red one) or a rainbow star. Norton could have led that campaign and worn a star on his suit at the show and handed them out to contestants back stage as well as people in the audience.

How many contestants participated in the demonstrations? I would have liked to have seen a separate march for contestants in Eurovison to show their solidarity with the GLBT community, even if they walked along the sidewalk, single file.

I'd liked to see norton meet with the mayor on the issue, perhaps their meeting, even if private, would be noted in the press. Seriously, to throw a 'party' and festival while human rights protesters are be beaten and jailed is decadent, like fiddling while Rome burns. The organizers of Eurovision (and anyone who phones in a vote) need to pause, raise their head above the glair of the disco-ball and look around at the injustice that surrounds them.

 

First of all, Graham Norton was not the 'host' of Eurovision. The hosts were a former Russian contestant and a Russian actor. He was one of several dozen national commentators, in this case for the BBC. In many countries - including Germany - the commentators are out gay men, so it is a little unfair to make it seem in this article as if Graham Norton is the 'voice' of Eurovision - he is only to those viewers who choose to watch the event on the BBC, if they can receive its signal.

The spirit of Eurovision is to be non-political - I GUESS there was a request by the European Broadcasting Union, which is responsible for the event, not to bring it up.

By the way, DURING THE DAY, RTE in Ireland, the BBC in the UK and Dutch and French newscasts I watched online ALL brought up the demonstration repeatedly and linked it expressly to Eurovision, so it is not like broadcasters turned a blind eye. The German official website for EUROVISION had information about the violent behavior up and the Dutch public broadcasting service threatened to pull out of the broadcast at the last minute, but eventually aired the event.

Graham did make a third statement during a short clip that allowed some stations to cut to commercials. In this clip, a 'reporter' for Channel 1 wanted to show viewers across Europe that Russians like to sing. She was surrounded by police, who yelled 'No filming here, move away.' at her. Graham said 'It is kind of ironic to show this so lighthearted after today's events'. 

What is far more disappointing than commentators not speaking out is openly gay artists on stage (here's looking at you in particular, Germany) presenting their performance unaltered. A T-shirt, a simple rainbow pin, or subtle changes to the lyrics could have made a poweful impact.

All in all, hosting an event like this in Russia is just like having the Olympics in China... You're basically giving human rights violations the thumbs up. That's not Graham's fault, though. It's the EBU who should come forward and speak out clearly aganst this and issue a stern warning to its members that in case of human rights violations, the event will be canceled at short notice. Luckily, with it moving to Norway in 2010 something we won't have to worry about is the mistreatment of LGBTs.

--

The Gays Of Daytime

Going over the top again...

Yep, I totally agree with the criticism against Norton. DId you know that Lloyd Webber (who penned our terrible UK entry) was asked about it to, and he said he thought it had something to do with traffic...dear me.

 

I actually ranted about it a bit on this weeks "Gay in the UK", but unfortunately it seems the powers that be have yet to post our last weeks vlog!!

 

As for Norton's responsibilities as commentator? i think it's not his duty as a gay man to speak - it's the duty of any decent person priveledged enough to have a platform like that.

Graham Norton stepping down from his post would have had little effect as he didn't host the entire show, he only commentated for the British viewing public.  The BBC would simply have slotted someone in. 

Yes, he may have been given a media platform to say why, but on the contest itself and on the image of the Russian Government, it would have had little effect.  As you say, these events have been well documented for years now and still nothing changes.

Sorry to play Devil's Advocate but I think Graham Norton should be given a little less stick for his part.

I think there is a mistaken idea of Nortons role in Eurovision. As Wolfi said, there is a general feed that is hosted by presenters from the host country and each country adds to that with their own commentator, that is what Norton was. Whatever he could have said or done during broadcast it would only be seen in the UK he had no power to do anything else.

And if you are waiting for a reaction from Eurovision, keep waiting. The whole thing is supposed to be "above politics" and it would never get involved, I dont think it has taken a stand on anything and never will. From that point of view, anybody who is involved is required to be apolitical. So I dont know what or ow much he would have been permited to do.

Having said that, I find it hard to believe that he knew nothing of where he was going into and what have been happening before the contest, during the contest I dont know, one cant get pretty isolated in those kind of events. Anyone who keeps current with the news has to have seen a story about this, I saw many sources that cover it before and through the weekend. The BBC, Nortons employer, has done a particular good job of it, so I dont believe he knew nothing.

What I am saying is that he must have known, but there is not really much he could have done to make an impact, if the organization of the event had done or could do something, well that would be another matter.

I dont know about then, but he can do something now. He has a medium where he can do whatever he wants an call atention to what happened. I hope he does and would be disappointed if he didnt.  

OK, about 90% of the time I tend to agree with the random polemics and opinion pieces that appear on this site, but this one is just ridiculous.  By completely misunderstanding Norton's role in the whole thing you've written an entirely skewed piece overestimating what kind of role he could have had in bringing more awareness to the problem of gay rights in Russia.  All he did was commentate on the event from England; it'd be like a commentator at the Olympics stepping down because they took issue with human rights abuses in China. A nice sentiment, maybe, but pretty ineffective in the long-run.  As it was, Norton took multiple swipes at the Russian stance on gay rights throughout the show (certainly more than the single comment you quoted) and went as far as he could without outright criticising the host country which, to be fair, isn't his place.

The Eurovision is designed as an apolitical event; much like the Olympics, the idea is that once the music starts, politics and current affairs get sidelined.  There's an argument that Russia shouldn't have been chosen, but the counter-argument is the same as the reasoning behind allowing China to host the Olympics; the more you open a country up to outside views, the more likely you are to change it, or at least expose its worse parts. How many people honestly realised how bad the situation for gay people in Russia was before this Eurovision? So no, Norton didn't kick up a fuss, because it wouldn't have achieved anything - he couldn't exactly hold a press conference over in Russia, and back in the UK, the BBC were already broadcasting footage of the marches, so what would it have achieved?

 

Honestly, what annoys me most is that this piece reads like one or two angry cranks sent you e-mails about Norton and you wrote up a form polemic based on what they said, taking the excuse to vent some general outrage without actually bothering to research the issue in any way. Saying things like "many viewers didn't know what Norton meant" when you very evidently didn't watch the show and have no real clue about the hosting format, or offering suggestions for what Norton should have done based on a poorly-formed view of his role is bad journalism,plain and simple. Articles like this do nothing but reflect badly on the site as a whole.

I posted a long rant about Norton on the Eurovision pictoral blog yesterday morning and and even as I posted it, I wondered if I'd calm down any over the course of 24 hours. I haven't. Norton is still a spineless creep.

He has no excuses. As soon as he and Lloyd Webber landed in Moscow a couple of days before the main competition they were directly asked by journalists for their view on gay rights and the gay rights demonstration on Saturday. Even if they were ignorant of the situation before they arrived in Moscow, they both had enough flunkies to do the research and give them a briefing at any time in the two days before they went on air. Norton cannot claim ignorance of the situation - unless it was wilful. In which case the man is an utter disgrace.

I also don't agree with the argument about Eurovision being a-political. Although it claims to be above politics, politics is written into its genetic code. Apart from the voting system, one only has to look at entries like Israel's Arab-Jewish call for peace to see that Eurovison and the European Broadcasting Union are more than happy with politics - so long as they agree with them.

And I still don't buy the idea that Norton was under strict orders to say nothing. He is simply too big a star at the BBC for them to order him around. Even if they fired him because he'd dared mention the word 'gay' in his commentary, the BBC would still have to pay him millions to break his contract - and it's not as if he wouldn't immediately be picked up by one of the other TV stations.

But what really gets me angry, is that Norton only has that job because he's gay. Any number of other commentators could have got that job, but the BBC recognises the gay quotient of the show and opted for the openly gay and camp Norton.

The irony of all this is that had the commentary been done by Norton's predecessor (Terry Wogan - a thoroughly witty, Irish, Roman Catholic, straight, pensionable aged national treasure) or someone like Jonathan Ross (who was chastised for homophobic comments earlier in the week), they wouldn't have thought twice about mentioning the irony of the police busily beating up and arresting gays on the same day as Eurovision. Enough straight men and women were pointing it out in the news that day, so why a gay man in a job given to him because he's a gay man decided to ignore it is simply beyond me.

First of all: Eurovision is political, that's why the voting system was changed this year - there is a huge divide between East and West. That aside, a European event is about uniting Europe - a POLITCAL sentiment.

 

Yes, Norton was 'just' a commentator. But this reached a very large audience. he didn't explain the police action in Russia (I watched the whole darn thing). He did manage to say that the Germans were 'at a rally' and that Iceland had 'all chipped in to pay for the satellite link up' and other mocking poltiical statements. So why did I have to explain to my straight friends and family what was going on in Moscow?

I don't agree in boycotting, but there's no reason to deliberately leave people in the dark. And it is a huge issue - just look at how many comments are here and in other media!

Just getting a bit sick of certain channels using gay people and culture without properly representing them (but then I'm just a bitter writer with a chip on my shoulder, haha!)

Graham Norton is the first name that comes to mind

 

NOT!

 

Actually I didn't know he had anything to do with this year's Eurovision until coming to this site. Yes it would be nice if a "name" connected with the show said something. And yes it wouldn't have meant a damn. "Eurovision" may claim it's "apolitical" but nothing is anymore. Isn't that obvious? 

Geuninely weird to see important issues filtered through proxy events this way. First Carrie Prefab and "Miss Universe" now the Eurovision song contest. YIKES!

The ESC is not a political event. Just because there's some political voting going on doesn't mean the rules or the spirit of the show is meant to promote overt politics. There's no way to ban political voting short of removing the option of voting for your neighboring countries altogether.

 

As for the sentiment of bringing people together, that's not necessarily a political sentiment, it's also a human sentiment.

 

The rules of Eurovision expressively forbids overt political statements (at least in the entries). Terry Wogan's sarcastic joking aside, you cannot, for example, say "Israel should be sanctioned for what they did to Palestine this year!" (or vice versa), I'm assuming. In fact, Georgia's entry this year was disqualified because they entered with, in the wake of the South Ossetia debacle, a song called "We Don't Wanna Put In" (Putin). The lyrics of the Ukraine's 2005 entry had to be changed because they were too overtly political.

 

So clearly, there are rules against political expression in the ESC. Behind-the-scenes politics no one can control, well, no one can control that. But lyrics, on-stage statements and commentator comments? If the EBU rules you are being too political (such as couping in some political messages on-stage or possibly in the commentary), you might face a fine. The contest goes out of its way to be as non-political as possible seeing as how it's an international contest with entrants that might at times be at war with each other.

 

Graham Norton not speaking out is much less of a travesty than Oscar Loya not doing anything during his entry except expose his chest and grinding up against not one, not two but three scantily clad women despite being openly gay. There are rules against over-political messaging, but some political stances are acceptable. For example, in 2007, Switzerland (I think) competed with a singer featuring a giant Red Ribbon on-stage. So entrants could've featured the Pride Flag onstage during their performances. Graham Norton, as he was only heard and not shown (maybe during the breaks, I don't know) did not have that choice.

 

I really don't see why Graham is being singled out for criticism. One bajillion commentators for ESC are gay and didn't say anything specia about it. They might just not have wanted to marr the evening for the audience since it's supposed to be a fun non-political event. After all, if people want news, they can always watch the news.

 

I hear Sweden had the Pride flag in plain view when it came time for Sarah Dawn Finer to present the Swedish points (yay us!). I missed that as I was busy talking with friends at the time, but if it's true, yeah, we rule.

I have to agree with many of the points made by rms, and I'm confused as to why - considering that there were 45 companies taking the Eurovision feed broadcasting to 100million people in  42 countries - it is Graham Norton that is being singled out as a bad guy. Each one of those broadcasters employs their own commentater - Graham would simply have been the commentater for the BBC feed (which I guess also aired on BBC America). Graham stepping down would have acheived nothing, and his voicing his personal opinion would have achieved nothing other than a couple of million viewers thinking 'What the hell has that got to do with a singing competition?'

There are times when protests and vocalising backfires and merely puts another brick in the wall instead of removing one, but on this occasion, I feel that the protest was admirably timed to coincide when there was a reasonable amount of focus on, and lots of media in Moscow, and was successful at drawing attention to the lack of rights of LGBT people, as it WAS covered by all of the major news channels.

By some of the arguments given, we should all be angry that actors, newsreaders, weathermen, etc in the U.S. do not change their scripts to voice their opinions on gay marriage, or employment and pension rights for LGBT workers etc.

I will however agree that the performers could have at least shown some support by wearing rainbow ribbons or something similarly visual.

What we SHOULD be doing now - considering that Russia has just taken over the presidency of the United Nations Security Council - is increase the pressure on our OWN leaders to address the hypocrisy that allows a member country that breaches the United Nations own Human Rights Charter to hold such a powerful position within the UN.

I know there are many gay men who just can not stand Graham Norton or John Barrowman or Simon Amstell just on principle.

Therefore, no matter what they do or say, whenever they take the stage, it's an opportunity to have a go at them. That's the risk they take by becoming performers.

I also get wishing Graham Norton had said something more or different.

I don't get the vehemence and personal attacking that seems so particularly focused on Graham Norton in this case.

It's not like this is his personal competition or that he has any power over the proceedings beyond just reporting to the UK about the events of Eurovision as they unfolded.

Maybe he should not have taken the job in the first place or maybe he should have quit once the violence started (and accepted the inevitable lawsuit which surely would have resulted).

But beyond those two choices, I don't see what else he could have done (despite what's written above) while in the employ of the BBC for this show.

We don't know what his person feelings were about what was happening as it was happening. We don't know what his contractual obligations were (we can speculate but we don't actually know)

He was one man, a comedian and talk show host, being paid to talk about the show on behalf of the BBC.

Folks are making him sound like the most powerful gay in all the world. As if, by sheer force of his voice, he could make the Russian government see reason and stop it's brutality and wake the world up to the plight of gay folks in Russia.

Clearly anyone who was interested in knowing what was going on in Russia outside of the Eurovision event could just pick up a newspaper, turn on the radio go to the BBC website or some other such news venue and inform themselves.

The riots and police actions weren't being heavily reported on in international media. I know I heard about it on public radio and cable news quite a bit.

I guess I'm tryinig to understand why it was so singularly Graham Norton's job to report on the anti-gay activities going on in Russia (which would have continued to go on even if he'd said something about it every 10 words) in the midst of presenting for Eurovision? Do we even really know what the reprecussions of his doing more or saying more than he did would have been?

I think it's fine to say to any gay person who is a celebrity and has the mic, "We wished you'd speak up for gay rights". As an activist, I wish every gay person of power and influence took the opportunity of their fame to speak out against bigotry.

But this particular calling to the carpet of Norton seems out of proportion to these particular circumstances.

The incidents in Russia are far too important to get bogged down in an argument about what folks wish a BBC presenter had done or said.

What about all the other Prominant, Powerful Gays and gay allies who weren't hired to be broadcasters who could have bought air time, bought ad time to say or do something while Eurovision was being broadcast?

Perhaps some of the ire and "How Dare You?!" could be directed at all the gay performers who chose to compete; the liberal, gay positive countries that agreed to participate knowing the competition would be held in Russia (regardless of the rules about winners getting to host); the networks that chose not to air coverage of the riots or provide a platform for the protestors; or even the advertisers who bought time during the broadcast?

 

"Heterosexuality is not normal, it's just common." (Dorothy Parker)

that doesn't change my criticism of him. By participating in the event and saying little and professing ignorance of the issue, Norton opened himself up to criticism.

Could and should other gay people there have done something as well? Absolutely, but none of them would have had the ability to bring attention to the issue that Norton speaking out. Could and should other companies participating be criticized? Absolutely. Should Eurovison have not placed the contest in Russia. Possibly and I said in the post it is their own fault for having held it there. 

As for the spirit of Eurovision being non-political, so what? That somehow outweighs gay people being discriminated against? Again, I don't say Norton could only have said something during the contest. I said he could have stepped down or held a press conference later. FYI, it's my understanding Graham was in Russia.

 As for what Norton's words could have done, I'm sorry -- even though he's not the most powerful gay in the world (something I never said or implied) -- in our celebrity driven culture, his speaking out could have brought more attention to the issue. And great, it was covered by some news outlets anyway. We're supposed to worry about this issue getting too much attention? Again, I don't get that.

Finally, this is a gay/bi site so you should expect our focus to be on the most gay aspect of a story and, sorry, but I find a gay man going to Russia and hosting a event such as this and saying nothing while other gays are being arrested to be pretty abhorrent. And Graham's joke last week about all the gays in Russia being in prison to be in incredibly bad taste.

I'm reminded of American black entertainers who performed in South Africa during apartheid. I just don't see that as being defensible. 

In Russia as they won it last year, they could hardly ban them for there stance on gay rights. As to Norton not speaking out, he mentioned the altercations he just didnt use the word gay, everyone back in Britain would have known what he was talking about as it was on the BBC and channel four news reports only a few hours before the event started.

Should he have mentioned it more vocally during the show? yes he should have, but he didnt and I doubt anything would have changed if he had.

Russia doesnt care what people think of there views, they proved this with Georgia and if they will invade a country against the world crying out for them not to I doubt they will give a second thought to allowing next years gay pride.

I have to agree with those defending Graham Norton here.  As several people have said already he was only the commentator for the BBC and wasn't even seen on screen.  Yes, maybe he could have said more about the protests but he was in a difficult situation balancing politics with commentating on an entertainment show.  Even if he had said more, his comments would have only been heard by us here in the UK and most people were already aware of the situation through extensive news coverage of it.

There is this, in the English-language German newspaper, The Local:

The night was overshadowed by a violent crackdown by Moscow police against a gay rights demonstration Saturday afternoon. Authorities arrested 40 protesters on the grounds that the march lacked official approval.

[Norwegian first-place winner Alexander] Rybak criticised the authorities response to the protest, saying “we’ve had the biggest gay pride demonstration right here in this hall tonight.”

 

 

The blog would like to thank Rybak orally for his support.

How many peole believe that Graham Norton might have actually been warned in advance to not make a scene? I think it is entirely plausible. I also believe that instructions like that might even have come from as high up as the foreign secretaries office. Nobody wants a full blown row with Russia least of all the UK, whose realtionship with the Russians is shaky to say the least. THis is pure speculation but I'm curious to see if people believe this might have happened. I firmly believe it within the realm of possiblity.

The reason Norton had to have known is because the Foreign Office issues travel advice which specifically warns gay men about the dangers of being gay in public in Moscow.

The BBC would have passed this on as a responsible (and liable) employer.

He may not have known about the gay pride's being banned or protesters being attacked but the idea that he didn't know about the situation for gay men in Russia is farcical.

People, people. As one of the most informed members on this site regarding the Eurovision Song Contest, please listen to what I have to say before further passing judgment on Graham Norton.

 

First of all, I want to ask you why you're railing against Graham Norton specifically? I haven't heard of any of the other commentators (from a total of 42 countries, most of which have more than one commentator, often two) overtly speaking about the anti-gay actions of Moscow police and politicians during the contest. So why are we targetting Graham Norton specifically?

 

Now, let me tell you a little bit about the Eurovision Song Contest. The Eurovision Song Contest was created as, and still is intended as, a continental friendly contest which brings countries from all over (and some outside of) Europe together in celebration of music. It is and has always been a family friendly show, suitable for all ages. It's meant to be a frivolous night where you forget about everything but the contest.

 

One of the strictest rules of Eurovision is also that the contest is entirely a-political. In 2004, Athena had to change their lyrics because the original lyrics of their entry was too political, even though it was merely an homage to a political figure (the then Ukrainan president) and not at all critical. This year, Georgia was faced with an ultimatum from the EBU: change the lyrics or face disqualification (their lyrics were anti-Putin). Georgia refused and were subsequently disqualified. Because of this, I'm inclined to believe there are rules about what the commentators can say on the air as well.

 

Breaking the rules may incurr your employer (the network for which you work) a fine and possible expulsion from this year's or next year's contest (or, as a lesser fine, deductions from your points).

 

But this does not change the fact that this is meant to be a celebration free from politics, positive or negative. It's not meant to be a political platform, that's what the news show before and after the program are for. And most Western countries publicized the anti-gay tactics of the Moscow mayor openly.

 

Also, by criticizing Russia, you might also be hurting Russia's chances in the Eurovision. And if gay people know something, it is that we should not judge an entire people by the actions of a few (or even many). Russia's entrant this year isn't even Russian! In fact, she's the first foreigner (she's never lived in Russia, AFAIK) to ever compete for Russia, being Ukranian (with half of her song sung in Ukrainian, which explains why she sometimes sings "Mamo" (Ukrainian) and sometimes "Mama" (Russian). She's not responsible for what's happening on the streets. Neither is her team of management, the people behind the entry, the organizers of the contest (the Channel One network), etc., etc., etc. But by linking the anti-gay knockdowns to the Eurovision Song Contest, not only will you marr people's impression of her performance, you'll also marr their impression of the contest.

 

You will also be ruining the joy of the people watching the contest. Entire families watch the contest together. "Daddy, what was that about violence and police brutality?". This is not the place for soapbox politicizing, it's a place for pure entertainment and fun.

 

People are criticizing the EBU and gay people working with the ESC for going to Russia for the ESC. But look at the greater picture, if the ESC hadn't been held in Moscow this year, very limited mainstream media attention would've been given to the crackdown. The ESC gave them a platform of sorts. They linked their protest to the ESC and got reporters from all over Europe to cover their story as well as ask the contestants about their views on the situation. Malena Ernman, Sweden's entrant, went on to declare on her blog that "I am not homosexual. But today, I will call myself homosexual in support.", a blog entry which was written about in one of Sweden's two biggest newspapers (even though it's a quasi-tabloid). People who would otherwise never have read about this travesty got the chance to when they happened upon them when reading about Eurovision.

 

A great number of gay men are involved in the ESC. They recognize the plight of Russian LGBTs... and they probably made sure their plight was covered in the mainstream press. But with a history of being a-political, a history stretching back 50+ years, they smiply deemed it inappropriate to bring the subject up during the broadcast. Notable gays in the ESC include out and not-so-out (at the time or ever) entrants over the years, such as Germany's Oscar Loya this year and Switzerland's entrant last year, many commentators across Europe and last but not least, Svante Stockselius, the Swede and openly gay man in charge of the entire thing.

 

But they recognize that not everything needs to be politicized. And that the actions of some should not be allowed to hurt others who might or might not be innocen.

I don't get why people wanted Graham (or any commentator) to mention the protests and their fallout during the ESC. What use was it to the ESC audience to know about them? What use was it to mention them during the program? Because it would've gotten more exposure, no matter how inappropriate and out-of-place it would've been? It might also have created backlash, ruining the spirit of the contest my politicizing it for no reason.

 

Not to mention the fact that the commentators had probably been told off by the EBU (the people running the contest) to not mention the protests on the air.

 

If people want the news, they watch the damn news. You don't bring it random politics into what is expressively mandated to not be political!

 

I can't help but think that so many of you are extremely biased. If it had been a racist crackdown of some kind, would you all have been so condemning of Graham's inaction?