Reality TV
If you remember, Federico told me last year not to use these musings as some kind of social commentary. He?s right ? he usually is ? but, well, what the heck.
?Yeah, but am I bothered??
A few weeks ago I had the pleasure to meet Sir Trevor Phillips, Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality. That morning he had been on breakfast television to promote the CRE?s view that Big Brother has helped race relations in the UK. I understand the viewpoint, although I was still a little way from agreeing with it in my final article for Digital Spy last year. However, much like Jenni on Day 40, I tend to be more concerned about social divisions in the UK today rather than race issues that I rarely encounter. (With the usual apologies to the shortly-to-be-insulted, I have never been to Oldham and so can?t comment but we all have a decent chance of meeting a Lesley in the small hours of a weekend morning.)
I was on Radio 5 Live a couple of months ago, participating in a discussion about geek/nerd culture. One of the other participants didn?t know who I was, very correctly making the point that, given average viewing figures and patterns, a large majority of the population don?t watch Big Brother. Calm yourself ? it?s true!
I think that that is a real shame. The people who don?t watch Big Brother are rarely to be found on our inner-city streets in the early morning. In consequence, they are unlikely to come across Saskia, Maxwell and especially Lesley. They would not usually find themselves on the receiving end of a torrent of abuse ? only verbal if they are lucky ? for straying too near the sick-encrusted bin which is the only thing preventing Lesley et al achieving their lowest energy state with some rapidity.
I have two hypotheses: (i) that Endemol has gone out of its way to present us with the more undesirable elements of our society; (ii) that Endemol has relaxed its rules for Housemate selection* and that the Housemates are more representative of the population as a whole than has previously been the case. For different reasons, either prospect is somewhat depressing.
(* I was convinced in 2003 - and there was no small degree of hard evidence from the production crew to support this view ? that given Jade?s experience in BB3, Endemol?s primary concern was the welfare of the Housemates. If someone was thought to be lacking the mental well being to cope adequately with the BB experience, then they were not invited to take part, other factors notwithstanding.)
So what have we learned from Big Brother Six? What are the lessons that middle England and the ruling classes have missed? Here are a couple that the Housemates have communicated loudly and clearly:
It is considered acceptable to be rude, confrontational and objectionable, just so long as one shows some ?front?. It is OK to be anti-social as long as you don?t try to hide what you are doing. How many times have we heard the following rant: ?Yeah, I might have said that about you but I never said it behind your back. Everything I?ve said, I?ve said to your face.? (By the way, not everyone from Norfolk speaks like Craig. I could have picked on most of the Housemates though.)
Federico had it right again when he asked ?What kind of people argue within a few hours of meeting each other?? JK Rowling wrote (or Professor Dumbledore said, depending on how involved you get): ?Ah, Harry, how often this happens, even between the best of friends! Each of us believes that what he has to say is much more important than anything the other might have to contribute!?
Science is the best example of the type. Dumbledore might as well have been referring to ?entertainment entrepreneur? rather than our favourite under-age wizard.
The argumentative - they are all attention seekers, all. Why do they seek attention? Because they do not feel that anyone is listening. Why? Because the attention seekers themselves to do not have the tools to communicate effectively.
Big Brother 4 was a community. I remember sitting around the table each evening in the early days, each of us reaffirming our commitment to each other to make our time pleasant and not confrontational. Our little commune worked. Cameron provided effective, low-key leadership, Steph cleaned, Gos cooked, I tended the garden ? I could go on but each of us had a way to contribute to our society. It reached the stage where I resented what I saw as Big Brother?s intrusion into our lives as disruptive, unwelcome and undesirable.
(Indeed, one of the reasons that I failed to stir things up enough for some people in my second stint in the House was Scott?s reaction to a bit of my attempted Makosi-style gossip mongering. He looked so disappointed in me for trying to introduce some negativity into the House that I couldn?t bring myself to do so again. Without saying so explicitly, it was clear that he felt that I had broken the covenant that we had made at our family dinners all those weeks ago.)
Of course, we had argued at times ? what family doesn?t? However, we ate together, worked for each other and shared what we had. Federico might well have asked ?What kind of people don?t eat with each other? What kind of people can?t understand that Roberto was just trying to do his best for the House as a whole?? Unfortunately, it is the kind of people who can?t work together, can?t communicate with each other.
I attended a school prize-giving the other week (it?s been a busy few weeks). Having been asked to make a short speech at short notice, I chose to talk about the importance of ?Trust? and ?Respect? and how by embracing these concepts we can accomplish more than we otherwise would. The game that we played to demonstrate these values was only winnable if the values themselves were employed. I think that the message was understood at the end but it is saddening that school kids can get it but that the inhabitants of BB5&6 could not.
This is the problem on which the great and the good ? the Sir Trevors included ? should focus for a while. Saskia, Lesley, Maxwell, Science and the others who cannot communicate with those who are different from them, are no good for the rest of us. They add nothing to society. And with that, let?s dispense with the social commentary and get on with the rest of it.
Cave men to Housemates ? a backward evolutionary step?
Oh darn, not quite. Here we go again?
Ten thousand years ago, if you wanted food, shelter and warmth, you picked up a spear along with everyone else. You didn?t have a choice because the rest of the community wouldn?t have stood for long-term laziness. Life was hard and it was hard every single day, without fail.
Life is still hard. Fair enough, many of us have the luxury of two days off work per week, but there are always jobs to do. Living, just the simple act of living, is hard work.
Yet we seem to have created a large section of our society that believes that life can be easy. Your average BB5&6 Housemate believes that no longer does one have to pick up a spear in order to provide for oneself. Our culture has progressed sufficiently that is possible to hang around London having fun whilst someone unknown will take care of your material needs, presumably from the goodness of their own heart.
Kemal went on Chris Moyles? Radio One show and was on the receiving end of a line of Paxman-esque questioning about his future plans. The only answers that were obtained were to the effect that we?ll be seeing lots of Kemal as he takes part in some serious juge-ing. (The nearest English translation seems to be ?do nothing?.)
No Kemal, the way it works is that you do something for someone else and they give you money. It?s called earning a living and the emphasis is on the doing something, whilst, presumably, making a positive contribution to society. Chris Moyles? questioning was entirely justified. What are you actually going to do? How is your juge-ing going to improve my life or anyone else?s? If, as expected, the answer is not convincing, then no one is going to give you any money to do it. So, what are you actually going to do, Kemal? Am I the only person who is thoroughly saddened and a little angry that our young people grow up to think like this? Pick up a spear and start contributing to the hunt, damn your eyes!
Let?s get down to work. Ladies and gentlemen, the remaining Housemates?
Craig?s special, or so he thinks
So Craig thinks that he is special, does he? I can?t square the circle myself. On one hand, Craig tells us that he has not come out. On the other, he tells us that he has had to justify himself to everyone that he has ever met. With no modesty whatsoever, I?m going to claim that he read my column last year.
I have no problem with Craig?s choices in life. They are his own and whether he chooses to tell people about his past or not is entirely up to him. It?s really none of our business and shouldn?t be a factor when it?s time to pick up the ?phone on a Friday night.
Strangely, far from being a hindrance to his chances of winning BB6, Craig?s search for public acceptance seems to have given him a fighting chance. There?s a big ?aahh? factor: ?Craig?s obviously had a tough time in life and has come through it, and he deserves to win BB6.? You get the idea.
However, let?s not allow our eagerness to appear to be politically correct get in the way of the central issue: Craig must be an absolute nightmare to live with. If we do the right thing and ignore his confrontation with his sexuality (as he would wish us to do), then we?re left with someone who would fray the nerves of the most forgiving of any of us.
Of course, I have changed ?Craig? for ?Nadia?, ?search for public acceptance? for ?gender reassignment?, ?confrontation with his sexuality? for ?gender-issue?, ?BB5? for ?BB6? (you can read the original here, if you are inclined) Thankfully for many reasons, Craig isn?t Nadia, despite his attempt to play the same game and I?m thankful that he doesn?t stand a realistic chance of winning. Please don?t prove me wrong.
Anthony?s handling of Craig is masterful
Wouldn?t Craig wish that it were so? However, Anthony has been the one person to have broken the BB6 mould and has used a veritable arsenal of extremely competent social and communication skills to keep Craig at arms length. The lad deserves to win ? we owe him that much, don?t we? If the nice guy doesn?t win, we shall have to lie when we read our children bedtime stories and that would be a Very Bad Thing.
Eugenious?
Jon Tickle on smack, so they say. Like Craig, he must be nightmare to live with (I hope that I wasn?t too bad) but unlike Craig, underneath lies a decent ? if goofy and a bit naive, neither of which are cardinal offences ? bloke who doesn?t wish ill of anyone. At least he attempts to initiate conversation. That he fails is still better than not trying at all. Could he win? Unlikely, but I wouldn?t object.
Kinga
I give up. I can?t believe, refuse to believe, that we are watching Reality. As we are not, what?s the point in watching? To see how far people can debase themselves in public? I?d rather watch The West Wing, thanks all the same.
Makosi
The time was when Mr N Bateman was vilified for trying to manipulate other people?s nominations. Now, it seems to be the accepted norm. I don?t object too much, it?s a game show after all and ultimately, you are competing with your fellow Housemates. My objection comes when Housemates try to manipulate the public. Makosi thinks that I (and the other viewers) am stupid. I?m not, and like everybody else, I have lost track of the number of times I have shouted at the telly ?I can see through what you are doing, so what?s the point in doing it?? It hurts us, precious, it huuurts us. Thankfully the end is in sight.
BB6 ? whaddya reckon?
I haven?t enjoyed it very much, perhaps because I feel obliged to watch it nowadays, perhaps because of the unpalatable lessons that we have all learned about our society. Ho hum, hopefully the pain will subside in enough time for the next instalment.
Oh, of the Housemates not yet mentioned, Derek alone is worthy of note. Only, as it turns out, to say that he is not as clever as he thinks and has a mean streak a mile wide (poor Sam).
Editing ? unlikely to be the final word
In his first article Marco gripes about labelling and editing and tells us that he is entirely different to the public perception of himself. I agree ? I have met Marco the law student and not Marco the drama queen, much to my relief. Why then did we see the latter and not the former? We can only assume that Marco acquiesced to Endemol?s labelling. Why do so? Why not change the game itself? Plenty of other Housemates have done, why couldn?t you? No, you said the things that you said, you did the things that you did. You could have given us the law student and responsibility, although a burden, must be shouldered otherwise.
Anyone else ranting about editing? My last words on the subject: the Big Brother House is an emergent dynamic. Go and look it up and then stop your moaning, all of you.* (Love you really, but honestly!)
* Not you, Dean ? I look forward to your e-mail
See you again soon*,
JT x
* New series of Brainiac: Science Abuse on Sky One in a few weeks, as it happens
?Yeah, but am I bothered??
A few weeks ago I had the pleasure to meet Sir Trevor Phillips, Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality. That morning he had been on breakfast television to promote the CRE?s view that Big Brother has helped race relations in the UK. I understand the viewpoint, although I was still a little way from agreeing with it in my final article for Digital Spy last year. However, much like Jenni on Day 40, I tend to be more concerned about social divisions in the UK today rather than race issues that I rarely encounter. (With the usual apologies to the shortly-to-be-insulted, I have never been to Oldham and so can?t comment but we all have a decent chance of meeting a Lesley in the small hours of a weekend morning.)
I was on Radio 5 Live a couple of months ago, participating in a discussion about geek/nerd culture. One of the other participants didn?t know who I was, very correctly making the point that, given average viewing figures and patterns, a large majority of the population don?t watch Big Brother. Calm yourself ? it?s true!
I think that that is a real shame. The people who don?t watch Big Brother are rarely to be found on our inner-city streets in the early morning. In consequence, they are unlikely to come across Saskia, Maxwell and especially Lesley. They would not usually find themselves on the receiving end of a torrent of abuse ? only verbal if they are lucky ? for straying too near the sick-encrusted bin which is the only thing preventing Lesley et al achieving their lowest energy state with some rapidity.
I have two hypotheses: (i) that Endemol has gone out of its way to present us with the more undesirable elements of our society; (ii) that Endemol has relaxed its rules for Housemate selection* and that the Housemates are more representative of the population as a whole than has previously been the case. For different reasons, either prospect is somewhat depressing.
(* I was convinced in 2003 - and there was no small degree of hard evidence from the production crew to support this view ? that given Jade?s experience in BB3, Endemol?s primary concern was the welfare of the Housemates. If someone was thought to be lacking the mental well being to cope adequately with the BB experience, then they were not invited to take part, other factors notwithstanding.)
So what have we learned from Big Brother Six? What are the lessons that middle England and the ruling classes have missed? Here are a couple that the Housemates have communicated loudly and clearly:
It is considered acceptable to be rude, confrontational and objectionable, just so long as one shows some ?front?. It is OK to be anti-social as long as you don?t try to hide what you are doing. How many times have we heard the following rant: ?Yeah, I might have said that about you but I never said it behind your back. Everything I?ve said, I?ve said to your face.? (By the way, not everyone from Norfolk speaks like Craig. I could have picked on most of the Housemates though.)
Federico had it right again when he asked ?What kind of people argue within a few hours of meeting each other?? JK Rowling wrote (or Professor Dumbledore said, depending on how involved you get): ?Ah, Harry, how often this happens, even between the best of friends! Each of us believes that what he has to say is much more important than anything the other might have to contribute!?
Science is the best example of the type. Dumbledore might as well have been referring to ?entertainment entrepreneur? rather than our favourite under-age wizard.
The argumentative - they are all attention seekers, all. Why do they seek attention? Because they do not feel that anyone is listening. Why? Because the attention seekers themselves to do not have the tools to communicate effectively.
Big Brother 4 was a community. I remember sitting around the table each evening in the early days, each of us reaffirming our commitment to each other to make our time pleasant and not confrontational. Our little commune worked. Cameron provided effective, low-key leadership, Steph cleaned, Gos cooked, I tended the garden ? I could go on but each of us had a way to contribute to our society. It reached the stage where I resented what I saw as Big Brother?s intrusion into our lives as disruptive, unwelcome and undesirable.
(Indeed, one of the reasons that I failed to stir things up enough for some people in my second stint in the House was Scott?s reaction to a bit of my attempted Makosi-style gossip mongering. He looked so disappointed in me for trying to introduce some negativity into the House that I couldn?t bring myself to do so again. Without saying so explicitly, it was clear that he felt that I had broken the covenant that we had made at our family dinners all those weeks ago.)
Of course, we had argued at times ? what family doesn?t? However, we ate together, worked for each other and shared what we had. Federico might well have asked ?What kind of people don?t eat with each other? What kind of people can?t understand that Roberto was just trying to do his best for the House as a whole?? Unfortunately, it is the kind of people who can?t work together, can?t communicate with each other.
I attended a school prize-giving the other week (it?s been a busy few weeks). Having been asked to make a short speech at short notice, I chose to talk about the importance of ?Trust? and ?Respect? and how by embracing these concepts we can accomplish more than we otherwise would. The game that we played to demonstrate these values was only winnable if the values themselves were employed. I think that the message was understood at the end but it is saddening that school kids can get it but that the inhabitants of BB5&6 could not.
This is the problem on which the great and the good ? the Sir Trevors included ? should focus for a while. Saskia, Lesley, Maxwell, Science and the others who cannot communicate with those who are different from them, are no good for the rest of us. They add nothing to society. And with that, let?s dispense with the social commentary and get on with the rest of it.
Cave men to Housemates ? a backward evolutionary step?
Oh darn, not quite. Here we go again?
Ten thousand years ago, if you wanted food, shelter and warmth, you picked up a spear along with everyone else. You didn?t have a choice because the rest of the community wouldn?t have stood for long-term laziness. Life was hard and it was hard every single day, without fail.
Life is still hard. Fair enough, many of us have the luxury of two days off work per week, but there are always jobs to do. Living, just the simple act of living, is hard work.
Yet we seem to have created a large section of our society that believes that life can be easy. Your average BB5&6 Housemate believes that no longer does one have to pick up a spear in order to provide for oneself. Our culture has progressed sufficiently that is possible to hang around London having fun whilst someone unknown will take care of your material needs, presumably from the goodness of their own heart.
Kemal went on Chris Moyles? Radio One show and was on the receiving end of a line of Paxman-esque questioning about his future plans. The only answers that were obtained were to the effect that we?ll be seeing lots of Kemal as he takes part in some serious juge-ing. (The nearest English translation seems to be ?do nothing?.)
No Kemal, the way it works is that you do something for someone else and they give you money. It?s called earning a living and the emphasis is on the doing something, whilst, presumably, making a positive contribution to society. Chris Moyles? questioning was entirely justified. What are you actually going to do? How is your juge-ing going to improve my life or anyone else?s? If, as expected, the answer is not convincing, then no one is going to give you any money to do it. So, what are you actually going to do, Kemal? Am I the only person who is thoroughly saddened and a little angry that our young people grow up to think like this? Pick up a spear and start contributing to the hunt, damn your eyes!
Let?s get down to work. Ladies and gentlemen, the remaining Housemates?
Craig?s special, or so he thinks
So Craig thinks that he is special, does he? I can?t square the circle myself. On one hand, Craig tells us that he has not come out. On the other, he tells us that he has had to justify himself to everyone that he has ever met. With no modesty whatsoever, I?m going to claim that he read my column last year.
I have no problem with Craig?s choices in life. They are his own and whether he chooses to tell people about his past or not is entirely up to him. It?s really none of our business and shouldn?t be a factor when it?s time to pick up the ?phone on a Friday night.
Strangely, far from being a hindrance to his chances of winning BB6, Craig?s search for public acceptance seems to have given him a fighting chance. There?s a big ?aahh? factor: ?Craig?s obviously had a tough time in life and has come through it, and he deserves to win BB6.? You get the idea.
However, let?s not allow our eagerness to appear to be politically correct get in the way of the central issue: Craig must be an absolute nightmare to live with. If we do the right thing and ignore his confrontation with his sexuality (as he would wish us to do), then we?re left with someone who would fray the nerves of the most forgiving of any of us.
Of course, I have changed ?Craig? for ?Nadia?, ?search for public acceptance? for ?gender reassignment?, ?confrontation with his sexuality? for ?gender-issue?, ?BB5? for ?BB6? (you can read the original here, if you are inclined) Thankfully for many reasons, Craig isn?t Nadia, despite his attempt to play the same game and I?m thankful that he doesn?t stand a realistic chance of winning. Please don?t prove me wrong.
Anthony?s handling of Craig is masterful
Wouldn?t Craig wish that it were so? However, Anthony has been the one person to have broken the BB6 mould and has used a veritable arsenal of extremely competent social and communication skills to keep Craig at arms length. The lad deserves to win ? we owe him that much, don?t we? If the nice guy doesn?t win, we shall have to lie when we read our children bedtime stories and that would be a Very Bad Thing.
Eugenious?
Jon Tickle on smack, so they say. Like Craig, he must be nightmare to live with (I hope that I wasn?t too bad) but unlike Craig, underneath lies a decent ? if goofy and a bit naive, neither of which are cardinal offences ? bloke who doesn?t wish ill of anyone. At least he attempts to initiate conversation. That he fails is still better than not trying at all. Could he win? Unlikely, but I wouldn?t object.
Kinga
I give up. I can?t believe, refuse to believe, that we are watching Reality. As we are not, what?s the point in watching? To see how far people can debase themselves in public? I?d rather watch The West Wing, thanks all the same.
Makosi
The time was when Mr N Bateman was vilified for trying to manipulate other people?s nominations. Now, it seems to be the accepted norm. I don?t object too much, it?s a game show after all and ultimately, you are competing with your fellow Housemates. My objection comes when Housemates try to manipulate the public. Makosi thinks that I (and the other viewers) am stupid. I?m not, and like everybody else, I have lost track of the number of times I have shouted at the telly ?I can see through what you are doing, so what?s the point in doing it?? It hurts us, precious, it huuurts us. Thankfully the end is in sight.
BB6 ? whaddya reckon?
I haven?t enjoyed it very much, perhaps because I feel obliged to watch it nowadays, perhaps because of the unpalatable lessons that we have all learned about our society. Ho hum, hopefully the pain will subside in enough time for the next instalment.
Oh, of the Housemates not yet mentioned, Derek alone is worthy of note. Only, as it turns out, to say that he is not as clever as he thinks and has a mean streak a mile wide (poor Sam).
Editing ? unlikely to be the final word
In his first article Marco gripes about labelling and editing and tells us that he is entirely different to the public perception of himself. I agree ? I have met Marco the law student and not Marco the drama queen, much to my relief. Why then did we see the latter and not the former? We can only assume that Marco acquiesced to Endemol?s labelling. Why do so? Why not change the game itself? Plenty of other Housemates have done, why couldn?t you? No, you said the things that you said, you did the things that you did. You could have given us the law student and responsibility, although a burden, must be shouldered otherwise.
Anyone else ranting about editing? My last words on the subject: the Big Brother House is an emergent dynamic. Go and look it up and then stop your moaning, all of you.* (Love you really, but honestly!)
* Not you, Dean ? I look forward to your e-mail
See you again soon*,
JT x
* New series of Brainiac: Science Abuse on Sky One in a few weeks, as it happens
More: Reality TV, Big Brother
