Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Exploitation of people for TV ratings aloneFollow

#1 Jun 20 2004 at 5:20 AM Rating: Excellent
Big brother is a game show in that started in the UK and has been replicated all over the world.

Here is a link to the current edition this year Big Brother

For several years the premise was simple. Put so many people in a huge house, and each week one is voted off by the audience. The last person left, wins 50,000 pounds. This all happens over 12 or so weeks.

This program exploits people enough but this year they have taken it to a new level. The producers have deliberately made the house smaller than before, grouped diametrically oppposed people in the house and made up games and tasks that will purposefully set the housemates at one anothers throat.

The most recent 'game' has resulted in the police being called in to the house after a fight in the house. The first time EVER. Why did this occur? Well, 2 girls were 'evicted' from the house but were not. Instead they were put in a bedsit and for several days given a screen to watch and allowed to see and hear what all the housemates had to say about them, good and .... bad. Well, you can imagine what this did? The girls were released back into the house and that night a fight erupts. The latent distaste brewing to all new levels. It has created a public storm and massive publicity for Big Brother but I have to question the humanity of such a show.

Is it morally correct to deliberately set people at each others throats? Is it fair to exploit people in this way for one reason, TV ratings? I think not.

Feel free to discuss.

Dread Famous is a book by the comedy writer Ben Elton that is based on this rather peculiar show. It is about a murder in the house and is very well written showing all the angst among the housemates. I wonder if the the Bog Brother producers read this and decided to take a note out of the books producers methods Smiley: banghead (if not as extreme)

Edited, Sun Jun 20 06:27:32 2004 by JennockFV
#3 Jun 20 2004 at 5:54 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
If people are willing to subject themselves to it, and people want to watch it, it doesn't strike me as "immoral". At this point reality TV contestants know what they are getting into. That may not have been as clear in the early days, but I imaigne everyone realizes that the "reality" in the teram "reality TV" is just a catch prase, not an adjective.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#4 Jun 20 2004 at 5:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Well that may be true Smash. At least you would never be accepted to a show like it. There would only be room for yourself and your ego in the house, no other contestants Smiley: clown
I wonder who would win, does your ego have a name btw? Smiley: laugh

Btw, you are one of the last posters I like seeing on this board. Too many sockpuppets here, hence my not posting recently. Much too much.
#5 Jun 20 2004 at 5:59 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Quote:

Btw, you are one of the last posters I like seeing on this board.


I can't tell if that's an insult or a compliment...You're one of the last people I like to see posting to!!
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#6 Jun 20 2004 at 6:20 AM Rating: Decent
****
8,619 posts
1.Only one of the two girls that where put into the Bedsit was involved in the fight, this particular individual was put into the house solely because she is the least intellegant individual they could find. Seriously she have to have simple words like Disgression and comeupance explained to her.

2. The 'Fight' was over the mess after the immature members of the house had a food fight <after being warned by other housemate that it was not acceptable>. One house mate came in and told them to clean up and the main instigator of the foodfight <a 5'6" 7 stone momma's boy> started giving attitude and hell broke loose.

If it had happened to all bar 1% of the population they would have beat the skinny little sh*t to a pulp.

3. This was the 5th series of the show, in none of the other series had any incedents like this occured.

4. it is pretty obvious that none of the people in the house are in it for the prize fund, money maybe but the finacial rewards for being in the house are from media contracts, stories sold to newspapers etc rather than the prizemoney <£100,000 by the way not £50,000>

5. If you don't like it don't watch it.
#7 Jun 20 2004 at 7:00 AM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
5. If you don't like it don't watch it.


I don't Smiley: laugh

However the reading matter/TV programmes and reading materials are a reflection on society as a whole. When we consider those that do watch it and support it, that is a large section of society.
What does this say about us, that we (in general) watch and support this type of programme? I think that is more the question, not my or anyone elses specific views. The question is to a larger audience about the larger implications of a programme such as this.
#8 Jun 20 2004 at 7:47 AM Rating: Decent
****
5,372 posts
Quote:
Dread Famous is a book by the comedy writer Ben Elton that is based on this rather peculiar show. It is about a murder in the house and is very well written showing all the angst among the housemates.


Dead Famous had as one of it's main characters a political activist called Swampy. This series of Big Brother had....a political activist called Kitty. My eyes rolled.
#9 Jun 20 2004 at 7:53 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
It's only 100,000 pounds? It's $500,000 in the US.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#10 Jun 20 2004 at 8:38 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,453 posts
Quote:
Is it morally correct to deliberately set people at each others throats? Is it fair to exploit people in this way for one reason, TV ratings? I think not.



Is it fair to exploit people for profit? Whether its fair or moral is meaningless. It has been standard procedure since the dawn of humanity.
#11 Jun 20 2004 at 9:20 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
As Smash said, anyone getting into a reality television show at this point has to know there's a catch. No one is going to tune to NBC to watch other people sitting on the couch and watching television so they have to liven it up, create conflict, etc.

Quote:
There is nothing real about it, and with these new games or tasks or whatever, that's even worse
Amen. I haven't had a TV at my place since last August (well, I have one, just never got the cable hooked up since I never watch it anyway and the aerial doesn't work) but I'm loving the radio commercials for the latest Paris Hilton "reality" TV show. Something about her and some twit friend making it across America "on their own". Yeah, I'm sure there'll be footage of Paris sleeping in a ditch or an alley because she didn't budget peoperly Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#12 Jun 20 2004 at 9:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
It's only 100,000 pounds? It's $500,000 in the US.


You have more viewers = more revenue base Smiley: smile

#13 Jun 20 2004 at 9:57 AM Rating: Decent
There is nothing wrong with reality shows exploiting people dumb enough to sign up for it. The participation in the show is a choice and if a person makes the choice to sign up for the money they deserve what the producers do to them. It is also expected for the producers to spice up the shows more as the sequels come in. After all you cant make money if people dont watch it, and the average person is into the shock value of this type of show.
#14 Jun 20 2004 at 10:12 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The average person is an idiot. I wouldn't be at all suprised to find out most "reality" programming is as scripted as an episode of Jerry Springer, Jenny Jones or pro wrestling.

Of course, reality programming is basicly Jerry Springer in prime time anyway.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#15 Jun 20 2004 at 10:42 AM Rating: Default
Quick comment

Someone like Smash wouldn't be on reality TV because they wouldn't have him. They don't want intelligent people. It's like jury selection.
#16 Jun 20 2004 at 10:49 AM Rating: Good
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,674 posts
What can i say 10 months with absolutely no Television or Commercials or anything, just the internet it feels like im in another world.
____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#17 Jun 20 2004 at 11:01 AM Rating: Default
Me too man. Except for CSPAN really. No commercials though.
#18 Jun 20 2004 at 12:44 PM Rating: Decent
****
5,311 posts
"Reality Television" translates to "Hey, we don't have to pay script writers and we can still make tons of money. Sweet!"
#19 Jun 20 2004 at 2:28 PM Rating: Good
***
1,702 posts
Quote:
Is it fair to exploit people for profit? Whether its fair or moral is meaningless. It has been standard procedure since the dawn of humanity.


Yeah. Allowing oneself to be exploited for profit is still the definition of a ***** last time I checked.

#20 Jun 20 2004 at 2:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
Yeah. Allowing oneself to be exploited for profit is still the definition of a ***** last time I checked.


You do realize you left yourself wiiiide open by saying that?

But(t) I'm too nice of a guy to take advantage of you. ;)
#21 Jun 20 2004 at 2:55 PM Rating: Good
***
1,702 posts
While I appreciate your attempt at humor, Stock, it leaves something to be desired. Go fix me a mocha or something :)

My point was that these people know exactly what "exploitation" they're getting themselves into -- and they're doing it for a price. Or the chance at $$.

Can't say that I'd fit the bill using that definition, anyway.
#22 Jun 20 2004 at 6:19 PM Rating: Decent
*
168 posts
I was glancing at the TV guide channel the other night to see what was on, and the little blurb above the TV listings had some women who had featured on two "reality" shows I'd never heard of. They were asked about their reactions in certain "dramatic" points in their respective shows, and they both intimated that in fact those reactions had nothing to do with the situations in question, but were recorded weeks earlier in response to something totally unrelated and edited in to make the scenes more dramatic for the viewing audience.

To paraphrase their statements, "Reality TV is all about taping real life and editing out the reality."

To be fair, a lot of the people who are exploited by these reality shows get some pretty sweet promotion deals afterwards. I guess there's more than one way to break into TV these days, if you can pocket your ego for a while. :)
#23 Jun 20 2004 at 11:58 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
I despise "reality" programming myself. I call it "humiliation TV". Its proliferation these days is just another reason for me to stop watching TV Almost altogether.

Reality tv for me used to mean "Crocodile Hunter", or Jeff Corwin. You can't really give a croc or a giant python a script, or expect it to do what you want. These days it's American Chopper, though those guys are playing up the drama too.

If I want to watch some idiots living in a house, I'll get a telescope and start watching neighbors. Smiley: sly
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#24 Jun 21 2004 at 12:01 AM Rating: Decent
****
7,861 posts
Quote:
If I want to watch some idiots living in a house, I'll get a telescope and start watching neighbors.

^^^Smiley: lolSmiley: lolSmiley: lol^^^
____________________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

Sedao
#25 Jun 21 2004 at 1:56 AM Rating: Good
**
450 posts
Dalliance wrote:
Quote:
Is it fair to exploit people for profit? Whether its fair or moral is meaningless. It has been standard procedure since the dawn of humanity.


Yeah. Allowing oneself to be exploited for profit is still the definition of a ***** last time I checked.



I work for a company. They pay me, but make a much bigger profit off my labor. So I get the title of *****, but without any of the fun. Well that sucks.
#26 Jun 21 2004 at 3:41 AM Rating: Good
***
1,702 posts
Quote:
I work for a company. They pay me, but make a much bigger profit off my labor. So I get the title of *****, but without any of the fun. Well that sucks.


Semantics, with a side of sarcasm.

Tasty.

I'd call it being gainfully employed, but if you prefer the other description, it's all yours.
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 265 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (265)