Dear World - X Factor And Christmas Number One

Dear World.

"So this is Christmas, and what have you done?", as John Lennon famously sang in his Christmas song.

And, he is right. What have we done?

Granted, the reason why I chose this quote is for a totally different reason for his choice of words in that song.

Yes, I'm on about Christmas number one. Well, not just that, I'm kind of on about how the X Factor's dominating the top spot at Christmas.

If you haven't guessed yet, I don't like the X Factor. Scratch that, I rather dislike any form of reality show.

Why do I dislike it so? Well, it's obvious, really. Is it? Yes, why yes it is.

The main reason is the same thing that made a few people rather grumpy when I wrote about the new protest against this year's X Factor winner.

Since it started, the winner of the X Factor has always won the Christmas number one slot. Actually, all but one, thanks to Rage Against The Machine winning last year and raising money for Shelter at the same time.

But, though I totally agreed with the whole protest last year, maybe it should give up now. And I don't mean just mean the X Factor.

Look at it this way. For a while now, the winner of the X Factor has won the Christmas number one. This, last year, made someone rather annoyed and began a campaign against it and won. This year's no different, with an X Factor winner against a handful of songs in pursuit to dethrone another X Factor winner.

And what will happen next year? The same. Why? Well, to me, last year's campaign gave birth to a cycle.

Once the X Factor begins, someone plans on what could go up against the winner of that year. During the live stages of the show, the plans for the campaigners become more realistic. When the winner of the X Factor is known, the campaigners attempts to raise the awareness of the campaign. The winner of the top spot is named, then people talk about it for the weeks after. After a few months, the whole thing repeats itself.

Thing is, it's not just this cycle that I've grown to avoid at all costs. It's the fact that the winner's song is always a cover.

In the past, the song that earned the top spot on Christmas has always been by someone who actually wrote the song (well, the majority anyway). The X Factor winner only has to perform a song written by a band before them. Why? Maybe you can answer that.

I mean, isn't it a bit, y'know, a bit like cheating of sorts? All that Matt guy had to do is to ruin a Biffy Clyro song. A week later, he wins Christmas number one. Which part seems fair to you?

Oh, and to reply to anybody thinking 'he won the X Factor, he worked for months to win it'. How? The X Factor has turned from a singing contest to a competition of popularity, like a musical version of Big Brother. Why couldn't Matt, or everyone who won the competition, just write the winner's song? If they did, then I'd have so much more respect for them than I do now.

Which makes me question another thing about the X Factor. Why is it not shown during the summer? Why must it be shown during the autumn and winter months? Sales. It just gives money to the pocket of Cowell. Not only does he have everyone coming to him for auditions, at the end of it he has a list of ten or so acts that he can sign up. Most of the money from sales of the X Factor winner's single goes to Cowell. So who has really won this year's X Factor? Simon Cowell, like every other year.

I believe that's enough ranting for one day, World. I shall leave it here and ponder the answers to difficult questions, such as if penguins and dogs had arms and hands, who would win? Who knows…

I thank ye, world.

Dear World - Facebook's NSPCC Campaign

Dear World,

Before I even write this, I feel like this is going to be a controversial one.

Recently, there's been a campaign on Facebook.

It involves changing a person's display picture to raise awareness for the NSPCC, to stop child abuse.

Nearly everyone in my friends list has changed their display picture while changing their status to the following or to something similar…

'Change your Facebook profile picture to a cartoon character from your childhood and invite your friends to do the same, for the NSPCC. Until Monday (December 6th) there should be no human faces on Facebook, but an invasion of memories. This is a campaign to stop violence against children'

But this has got me to question something. How is this going to stop cruelty to children?

Sorry, but it doesn't stop violence against children. Granted, it is supposed to raise awareness of the NSPCC, but would it be even better if there was a link to the donations page of the NSPCC?

I can't see where changing your display picture to some cartoon character from your childhood will stop a child from being attacked in any way.

I don't think a violent parent will say "Damn you, son. You're going to regret that when I get my hands on you," and at that moment, he looks at his Facebook page, reads the message and thinks "well, since everyone's changed their display pictures to Squirtle and the gang from Recess, I won't hurt you today son"

No.

Not only that, but if someone was abused as a child, wouldn't the worst thing to do is to change all your Facebook pictures to a cartoon character of your childhood? If someone, who was abused as a child sees a picture of Bagpuss or Garfield, it might reignite memories of their bad upbringing.

Am I the only one that thinks that this could happen?

One thing that gets me is that this campaign (more like a meme) is that it's only until today, Monday 6 December. It seems to be that the weekend that just passed is the only time we can spread awareness of child abuse.

Charity is not a seasonal thing. Yes, World AIDS Day is in December, but that doesn't mean we only raise awareness of AIDS on that day and that day alone. Children In Need is in November, though people still raise money for it after the television side of things are over for another day. Why? No idea.

I know I risk ending up being someone who is pro-child abuse. That is totally wrong. I want to stop child abuse as much as the next sane person on this planet, I just cannot comprehend the advantages of this campaign.

All it is doing is making people change their pictures. No money is being given to the NSPCC (or any other charities against child abuse).

I read somewhere that people who wear red ribbons to raise awareness AIDS, but we do nothing when we wear them. That is untrue, at least there is money going to the charity.

I remember, about two years ago, the prefects of my school were going around, selling ribbons to raise awareness of AIDS. I only had a few coins, so I didn't have enough to buy a ribbon, but I still gave the money. There's not even a link to NSPCC's website to give people on Facebook a chance to donate to the charity.

I'll be honest, sometimes it feels that people are only doing this 'change your Facebook picture to raise awareness of cruelty to children' to be part of the crowd, or not to look like they don't care. I haven't changed my profile picture, but that doesn't mean I don't care about children.

I'd hate to find out that a child that I know is being treated unfairly, and by that, I don't mean having their Xbox 360 confiscated because they didn't do their homework.

Another thing I don't get is this. Someone's made a Facebook group that says something like, "Like this if you have changed your profile picture to a cartoon character in support of NSPCC <3." To me, that just feels like a brag than anything else. It seems to be that they are bragging that they've changed their display picture to support the NSPCC. Not only that, in one sense, they are belittling everyone who doesn't change their profile picture. You know what, world? Support the NSPCC in a much more productive way by donating to their charity. It not only makes more sense, it makes more of a difference. Also, I highly urge you to watch the video. Adverts like these are a much better way to raise awareness of cruelty to children than changing your Facebook profile picture for three days.


 

I thank ye, world.