According to conservative pundits, the "Idol" finals tonight are shaping up as a classic High Noon shoot-out. Kris Allen is hyped as the good guy in the white hat, and Adam Lambert is the bad guy in the spangled black hat. After all, Adam does wear black a lot. And he's rumored to be gay. That makes him a bad guy, right?

Last week, just before the "Idol" semi-finals, Newsweek entertainment writer Ramin Setoodeh got going on Adam Lambert, and compared his wardrobe to Marilyn Manson's. Manson wears black too, right? And he's another bad guy, right? If Marilyn Manson didn't exist, certain Americans would have to invent him so they can have someone "dark and demonic" with to compare new rock musicians.

Setoodeh's column was titled "Religion and Idol: Could Adam Lambert Be Heading Home?" Throughout, he wove all kinds of negative insinuations around Adam. He even made it seem like a black mark that Adam has gotten more attention than any other "Idol" contestant in the show's history. (Uh, isn't getting attention the purpose of the show?) Then Setoodeh showed where his own sympathies lurk, as he lovingly listed the Christian credentials of the two other semi-finalists, Danny Gokey and Kris Allen. LIke mentioning they both labor in the vineyards of faith ministries, etc. etc.

All in all, according to Setoodeh, the lurid Manson glow around Lambert meant that he might get run out of town by Gary Cooper.

Setoodeh was wrong, of course. It was Gokey who had to leave town. Which left Lambert and Allen to face each other this week, with microphones in their hands instead of six-guns. And it left the question of which way Gokey's fans would now be voting.

The O'Reilly Factor

Meanwhile last night, Bill O'Reilly, who never misses a beat when it comes to Main Street showdowns around gays, invited Setoodeh on his show. He wanted to discuss if there is a "Christian vote" in the mix. Though he insists that he never watches "Idol," O'Reilly did admit to knowing that there are alleged photos of Adam "smooching up guys on the Internet." He even put the alleged pics on-screen for the whole world to see!

As the two chatted cozily about Lambert and Allen, Setoodeh conceded that Adam is the "better singer" of the two. But he hastened to mention some other considerations, which were not confined to what he called their "different techniques of performing." (Uh, isn't the show supposed to showcase talent?)

The implied upshot of their chat was this: Adam might be the acknowledged frontrunner, but he doesn't deserve to win. Why? Because he is a "might-be gay guy" (O'Reilly's words) and "hasn't said anything about his faith" (Setoodeh's words). Plus they didn't like the fact that Simon Cowell had said on the air that everyone should vote for Adam. Whereas Kris Allen should win, because "at the beginning of the competition it was announced that he is a Christian," and "he sometimes wears a cross when he performs," and he "appeals to younger voters." In the two commentators' eyes, these factors made Allen the all-deserving underdog.

Indeed, according to Setoodeh, five of the seven past "Idol" winners have "talked about their Christianity." Which suggests that there IS a possible influence of "Christian vote" on this show.

So Bill O'Reilly did what he could to influence the voting outcome tonight.

Strange Ironies

I've been wondering when Billo (as Keith Olbermann of MSNBC calls him) would weigh in on Adam. And it's significant that O'Reilly waited till this all-too-sensitive moment.

To me, there are several strange ironies worth noting, about this apparent attempt to turn the finals into a High Noon of hetero outgunning homo.

  1. The show may be owned by a media corporation favoring conservative Christianity -- but it's definitely not a Christian show. If it were, "American Idol" wouldn't have enjoyed such popularity for so many years. The producers have been canny enough to position it close to the edge of ideological ambiguity. The show's enormous audience thrives on fascination with all the different shadings of talent -- thousands of hopeful artists who go through the meatgrinder of auditions and competition, who come from every ethnicity and every walk of life. "Idol" has to be a show where Li'l Rounds can sing a gospel song, and Adam can sing "Born to Be Wild."
  2. The "Marilyn Manson" look is the result of packaging decisions by "Idol's" stylists and producers -- from the haircut to the jackets to the jewelry. In fact, the "Idol" website has a complete rundown every week on every detail of the stylists' decisions on Adam and the other contestants. Surely, if Setoodeh is an "entertainment writer," the Newsweek guy knows this basic fact of the entertainment industry. So his characterization of Adam's look as something sinister and demonic is the extreme of disingenuous.
  3. Even the show's guest entertainers and celebrity mentors are not necessarily picked off a Focus on the Family short list. As I noted in my previous post, Lady Gaga was invited to perform "Poker Face" a few weeks ago. I wonder if Setoodeh or O'Reilly bothered to listen closely to the lyrics. As a celebration of sexual-orientation ambiguity, "Poker Face" is as far from "Amazing Grace" as you can get.
  4. And yes, Fox News showed the alleged kissing photos. Okay, so they cropped the image just above the spot where the two guys' lips lock. But if being gay is so objectionable, so Manson-ish, why are they flashing even half of these pictures? Did Fox do this because the buzz is consistent with how the network positions "American Idol" -- to exploit people's tabloid curiosity about a wide range of "Idol" performers' personal lives? To have that broader appeal that reaches a larger audience including liberals, instead of the narrow conservative appeal of O'Reilly's show (whose ratings aren't all that high)?
And why was O'Reilly allowed to try rocking the "Idol" vote anyway? Don't the top decision-makers have some say about what subjects O'Reilly covers? They know he's a loose cannon, especially when it comes to gays. Or was this Fox's way of having their cake and eating it too? Pleasing their conservative Christian political base by taking a few swats at the "might-be gay," but also feeding the curiosity and excitement of their conservative-into-liberal entertainment base by flashing the now-famous photos?

After all, Fox has a sizable investment in this young blinged-out gunslinger by now -- millions of dollars spent on supporting, grooming, training and mentoring him. Why would they deliberately try to shoot him down in the final moments? Does Fox care at all if Adam wins? Or are they just squeezing him for what they can get, and using him to boost ratings?

The way I figure it -- having their cake means that Fox can't lose either way. As history has proven, not every "Idol" winner goes on to a big career, and some of the losers go on to very big careers. Even if Adam loses, he'll be touring with the rest of the contestants this summer. And whether he wins or loses, he'll surely have the major career that all the "Idol" judges have predicted.

So in a few hours, the big shoot-out at the "Idol" corral will be history. Maybe the spangled black hat will go down in defeat. But maybe he won't. It all depends on whether last night's public-relations maneuver creates a backlash of indignant voter sympathy for the owner of that fabulous hat.

« What's the difference between Michael Savage and Fred Phelps? | Home | "Yasmin Nair: Eat This!" Or: How to Leave Comments Without Going up In Flames »