American Idol Voting Controversy

Status
Not open for further replies.

Aaron62

Contributor
Staff member
#1
Looks like Kris Allen had help getting votes by American Idol's biggest sponsor, AT&T.

New York Times is reporting that AT&T may have swayed votes by,

by providing phones for free text-messaging services and lessons in casting blocks of votes at parties organized by fans of Kris Allen
Also,

There appear to have been no similar efforts to provide free texting services to supporters of Adam Lambert, who finished as the runner-up to Mr. Allen.
Doesn't seem that bad, but, a little bit further down the article,

Representatives of AT&T helped fans of Mr. Allen at the two Arkansas events by providing instructions on how to send 10 or more text messages at the press of a single button, known as power texts. Power texts have an exponentially greater effect on voting than do single text messages or calls to the show’s toll-free phone lines.
 

TonyT

DTVUSA Member
#2
Not another voting controversy, and AT&T is involved again. Remember the Reuben Studdard - Clay Aiken voting scandel which corrupted like 1/4 of the votes. Just the fact that they had those phones at Kris Allen voting parties and not Adam Lambert says it all.
 

Orrymain

, Blogger: Orry's Orations
#5
That's exactly what I was thinking. Let's remember this isn't Kris Allen's doing. If there's been a wrong done, it's AT&T, and they are the ones that should be the center of the focus. I like Kris and Adam both and was fine with either of them winning, though I was certain Adam would. Last year, everyone thought David A. would beat David C. I wonder if anything happened there? In the end, it doesn't matter. Lambert is a star. He's not a kid, and he's got a good head on his shoulders, too. He's a nice guy, and he didn't need to win to go further. Did you see him on Regis and Kelly on Tuesday? When they went to break so not part of the interview, Kelly was talking to Adam and you could just hear her telling him he was going to go places.
 
#7
Actually, there is nothing criminal about it, but it does make AT&T look bad.
Heck, the best contestant once came in fourth. I wouldn't put too much stock in #1 versus #2.
If AT&T did this, and they're a major advertiser, it has to make you wonder.

My conspiracy theory? A Adam Lambert win/Kris Allen second place makes Simon Cowell and the American Idol franchise less money than a Kris Allen win/Adam Lambert second place outcome. This crap has probably been going on all along with American Idol, and it wouldn't surprise me to hear that Simon Cowell or the shows producers have had a hand in it.
 

bicker

DTVUSA Member
#8
I think that's a bad theory. A Lambert win would have almost surely made more money for 19 Entertainment. That's one reason why, right after the episode aired, there were conspiracy theories launched that asserted that Lambert deliberately undershot, so he would have more leverage to negotiate his own terms, instead of being forced to go with 19 Entertainment for his first album subject to the producer-biased terms of the standard American Idol winner's contract.
 
#9
I think that's a bad theory. A Lambert win would have almost surely made more money for 19 Entertainment. That's one reason why, right after the episode aired, there were conspiracy theories launched that asserted that Lambert deliberately undershot, so he would have more leverage to negotiate his own terms, instead of being forced to go with 19 Entertainment for his first album subject to the producer-biased terms of the standard American Idol winner's contract.
Your theory makes much more sense based on the fact that 19 entertainment doesn't force the second place contestant to release a record with them. I'm surprised they don't have an agreement with the top 3 contestants actually. Would be guaranteed money.
 

Piggie

Super Moderator
#10
I will probably step on someone's toes here.

But you take a banal theme, add a commercial entity, what else would someone expect?

Does it really matter? ATT is ripping off it's customers left and right for millions, not offering naked DSL until forced by the courts. They rebuilt their empire going around loopholes created by new technologies that Judge Green broke up about 25 years ago. They do not have more bars in more places, Verizon/Alltel have more. ATT turned off cell towers and lost a lot of cell customers (like me) when they merged with Cingular.

So they cheat on show that's as shallow as a mud puddle in the Sahara, it it creates a national stir. It shows the me where Americas priority exist.

Now, this is just my opinion. I am not here to be the final judge or voice, so talk my pork loins down!
 

bicker

DTVUSA Member
#11
I agree that the interest in this "controversy" is silly, but the rest of it really isn't the issue you make of it. AT&T is supposed to be operating in the best financial interests of its owners, not of the courts, not even of its customers. Wherever serving the best interests of their customers supports their paramount mission (to serve the best interests of their owners), then they should serve the best interests of their customers. Wherever serving the best interests of their customers degrades their performance with regard to their owners, then they shouldn't be doing those things. Only the law should compel them to disrespect their owners like that, and only an actual existing law excuses such disrespect of owners.
 
#12
I will probably step on someone's toes here.

But you take a banal theme, add a commercial entity, what else would someone expect?

Does it really matter? ATT is ripping off it's customers left and right for millions, not offering naked DSL until forced by the courts. They rebuilt their empire going around loopholes created by new technologies that Judge Green broke up about 25 years ago. They do not have more bars in more places, Verizon/Alltel have more. ATT turned off cell towers and lost a lot of cell customers (like me) when they merged with Cingular.

So they cheat on show that's as shallow as a mud puddle in the Sahara, it it creates a national stir. It shows the me where Americas priority exist.

Now, this is just my opinion. I am not here to be the final judge or voice, so talk my pork loins down!
I'd rather talk turkey. ;) No matter the value of the show or AT&T's other corporate tactics, I still think they acted in bad faith by showing people AT VOTING PARTIES how to power text and boost votes for Kris Allen up to 40,0000! I'm sure we could open up a can of worms and talk about their monopolistic business practices sometime as well, but voting fraud is my immediate issue with them now. Ticks me off to no end! :yell:
 

Piggie

Super Moderator
#13
I'd rather talk turkey. ;) No matter the value of the show or AT&T's other corporate tactics, I still think they acted in bad faith by showing people AT VOTING PARTIES how to power text and boost votes for Kris Allen up to 40,0000! I'm sure we could open up a can of worms and talk about their monopolistic business practices sometime as well, but voting fraud is my immediate issue with them now. Ticks me off to no end! :yell:
I apologize for hijacking the thread. I don't think it's right to freep a pole either. But with some elementary instructions, you can teach even a near novice user to freep results.

I watched it done over and over by both sides in the 2008 election to the end that news stories were slanted because the news people were not aware. Some where smarter and showed the results and laughed, then explained it was obviously tilted.

But I could also say without reserve that the mindless shallow world of political campaigns begs people to freep.

Now you have to understand the difference in thinking something is ok or moral vs understanding the mindset that leads to an activity.

Just because I understand why someone robs a bank, doesn't make it right to rob a bank in societies over all ethics nor mine.

====

So what I am saying is just like the average Roman didn't think it was wrong to visit the Coliseum to watch fights to the death doesn't make the entire act or even participation in viewing it something that is good for a society.

It is also much the way we have become a country that watching cooking for entertainment, instead of cooking.

Even to that end, I can't decide what is right or wrong as much as I can observe things happening.
 

Piggie

Super Moderator
#14
I agree that the interest in this "controversy" is silly, but the rest of it really isn't the issue you make of it. AT&T is supposed to be operating in the best financial interests of its owners, not of the courts, not even of its customers. Wherever serving the best interests of their customers supports their paramount mission (to serve the best interests of their owners), then they should serve the best interests of their customers. Wherever serving the best interests of their customers degrades their performance with regard to their owners, then they shouldn't be doing those things. Only the law should compel them to disrespect their owners like that, and only an actual existing law excuses such disrespect of owners.
This is indeed off topic, so I will keep it short. What you are saying is the way one looks at things from a business stand point. In an arena where there is competition the customers view point of not shopping if a company puts it's interests first past the desires of the customers to part with their money.

However we mega mergers there are 4 cell companies now to choose a phone? It doesn't take much for them to match prices and plans, and understand unspoken between them higher prices helps all of them. Now that model falls apart when you even double that number to say 6 to 8 cell companies. Then one of them will go rouge and lower prices.

Much of your statement comes from the totally free market theory, of laissez faire. If you consider we were not a true United States until after the Civil War (prior more a collection of state that looked more like countries), we have now had three periods of laissez faire, each followed by an economic down turn. The second down turn, called The Great Depression was followed by laws that some owners consider to disrespect their them. It created an era where the wealth was spread amongst all workers much more equatable fashion.
 

bicker

DTVUSA Member
#15
This is indeed off topic, so I will keep it short. What you are saying is the way one looks at things from a business stand point.
And AT&T is a business, and so it is supposed to operate from that stand point.

However we mega mergers there are 4 cell companies now to choose a phone? It doesn't take much for them to match prices and plans, and understand unspoken between them higher prices helps all of them.
Especially when the price in question is the value of the service being offered. Charging what something is worth is what people should be expecting; it should not be a surprise.

Now that model falls apart when you even double that number to say 6 to 8 cell companies. Then one of them will go rouge and lower prices.
The problem with your logic is that there is nothing stopping people next week from claiming that competition is 25 competitors. :rolleyes:

Competition can be achieved with three competitors. Very effectively. If something is still expensive, then that's because it is worth a lot. This isn't a socialist country. There is no right to cheap stuff.

Much of your statement comes from the totally free market theory, of laissez faire.
No. My statement is the policy of the United States government. You are welcome to try to elect different people, but even the Democrats recently elected -- who weren't incidentally, the most business-friendly Democrats (the Clintons are far more business-friendly) -- administer the policies I outlined, not the ones you wish for.

And note that I haven't posted my preference with regard to economic policy - my preference is really irrelevant, and that's why I never inject it into these conversations. My interest is in social policy - getting people to acknowledge reality and work within reality instead of engaging in Entitlement Mentality.
 

Piggie

Super Moderator
#16
And note that I haven't posted my preference with regard to economic policy - my preference is really irrelevant, and that's why I never inject it into these conversations. My interest is in social policy - getting people to acknowledge reality and work within reality instead of engaging in Entitlement Mentality.
You didn't have to post your preference. You have stated it between the lines.

At one time I loved to read or hear Milton Friedman. However looking back I now see totally free markets don't work. If they worked the everyone calling their credit default swaps at once would not bring down the economy.

Talk about entitlements under a conservative administration the go ahead was given after started by Carter to give home loans to anyone breathing. That didn't work.

I certainly don't believe in Entitlement Mentality. It with the giving anyone breathing a home loan along with the lack of proper assets to insure those bad risks is where we are now!

What I believe is govt to stay out of business as much as possible, but not allow stupid things to occur. There has to be some regulation. It's just like to me pure capitalism and pure socialism doesn't work. The times in this country when we had a balance were the times of greatest prosperity.

I am very middle of the road leaning conservative in most of my beliefs. But I am not affiliated with either party nor will I ever be again.

Seems Obama is putting the banks back together like they were. Clinton business wise was a Rep in a Democrats clothing and did a darn good job of hiding it then and from much of history.

What is Obama doing so far that is not friendly to business? I am actually finding him too conservative.
 

bicker

DTVUSA Member
#19
You didn't have to post your preference. You have stated it between the lines.
Others have made it clear that this is the wrong thread for this discussion, however, as a point of personal privilege, you've said something here that is personally offensive to me. I said that I haven't posted my preference. You have no standing on which to say you know better what my preference is and indicate that the reality with regard to my preference is different from what I've said it was.

I will say it again, and please do let this be the last word about this: I have not posted my preference with regard to economic policy, nor have I provided you enough insight to even guess my personal preference in that regard. You're simply, utterly wrong.

If you want to discuss politics, go ahead and start up a new thread. I won't join you because, as I've made clear, I have no interest in discussing the economic policy. If you want to discuss the social policy aspects that I have raised, then please do start up a thread about that, and I'll be happy to contribute to it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top