Celebrity Big Brother 2007

[tekla]

perhaps you could explain the difference between arrestable racism and celeb big brother racism.

The former breaks the criminal law. The latter (apparently) does not. I say 'apparently' because if Jade and pals had broken the criminal law they should have been arrested. Or if they broke the criminal law but were not arrested, a Chief Constable is going to get a roasting.

If we applied your logic to the world, there would probably be no such thing as racism at all.

Why? A premise is missing from your argument.

 

[exosculate]

LOL. No. But I'm interested in how this pans out.

Something don't feel right.

 

[tekla]

Something don't feel right.

You sound like Jade. On spotting Shilpa for the first time.

 

[exosculate]

You sound like Jade. On spotting Shilpa for the first time.

No she would most probably have said

Sumfin don smell write

 

[tangerinedream]

That's the British public's fault for failing to elect politicians pledged to change those laws. Sure, there's trouble with the House of Commons being unrepresentative but there are countless examples of public pressure causing unpopular laws to be changed should the voting population feels strongly enough.


No I’m not. I'm mounting a free speech defence of BB against those who wish to prevent me from choosing to watch it (or not).


By all means do so. Send me a ticket. I'd then report you to the police, together with your production company. You're free to break the law should you wish.

You can sit in your prison cell and say what you want.

I think that would be very silly of them. They shouldn't give in to pressure from latter-day Mary Whitehouses who believe they know best what consenting adults are permitted to view, and do, on the telly


An Arab version of BB is planned. Sounds good. Baghdad's the obvious venue.

As rocketman has pointed out - behaviour in BB has transgressed the laws of the nation - yet you'd ring the police and have me imprisoned but mount a 'free speech defence' of BB?

As I have pointed out - I am not advocating censorship, yet you talk about 'latter day Mary Whitehouses'

So let me get this straight - if I exploit racist and/or aggressive behaviour for my profit that's wrong, yet if endemol do so, by allowing it to continue that's ok.

How do you come to that judgement - cos you've got me absolutely baffled.

As employees (which they all are) of endemol, they have a statutory right to a workplace (which, ultimately the BB house is - they are getting paid no?) free from intimidation and clearly from behaviour that is likely to cause offence/upset on the basis of race, disability, whatever - It's called the law and it applies in that house or my workplace or yours (whatever the BB rules say)

so, your values are - lock up individuals doing something wrong, but big corporations, no siree... Do you work for the government by any chance ?

 

[Guineveretoo]

One of the things that is bothering me about all this is why there wasn't such a fuss in previous BBs, when someone was bullied. I don't think there is much doubt that Jodie Marsh was bullied in last year's CBB, but we all just sat around and kept quiet, as did the press, by and large.

Was that because Jodie Marsh is unattractive and unpleasant, whereas Shilpa Shetty is beautiful and dignified?

I do hope not, but I can't help wondering. It's kind of difficult to emphasise with Jodie Marsh when she is, herself, so completely foul, innit?

 

[Treacle Toes]

.

Was that because Jodie Marsh is unattractive and unpleasant, whereas Shilpa Shetty is beautiful and dignified?

?

Jodie Marsh is ugly? Not at all....
I suspect people didn't like her and partly held her responsible because of her brash ladette behaviour...equally she went out very quickly so it was over relatively fast IYSWIM.

 

[Louloubelle]

Allo this stuff about arrestable racism and CBB racism...

you'd have to ask detective boy for clarification re this but

AFAIK the police are duty bound to investigate complaints of racism if the person at the receiving end of a racist attack / assault / anti-social behaviour says that they feel that the attack on them was racist.

I think this was why the press were getting so excited about whether or not Shilpa thought that she had been attacked in a racist way.

One minute a headline screams "Shilpa - it's not racism!" the next "Shilpa - It is racism" and so on.

The whole thing is pretty ridiculous as Shilpa was probably the last person to be able to judge whether or not the bullying directed towards her was racist as so much of it wnet on behind her back and without her knowledge.

For the OB to have inestigated it they would have needed to interview shilpa, and given that she was inside the CBB house that would have been rather difficult

At the time it seems to me to be yet another expamle of a way not to think about something. Shilpa says it is, shilpa says it isn't, we don't really have to think about it ourselves, just listen to what shilpa says, even though she'd the last to know about what's happening behind her back.

 

[Apathy]

Jodie Marsh is ugly? Not at all....
.

she is when you see her on GMTV whilst your on LSD

 

[Treacle Toes]

she is when you see her on GMTV whilst your on LSD

That is just wrong...LSD and morning TV especially on a weekday...

 

[Apathy]

It happens mate, remember 'the Salon' reality show on C4 that used to be repeated in the mornings? That was unpleasant to watch on acid Vain fashion freaks with 'just woke up' styled hair are really bad news, it all becomes clear on drugs

 

[Loki]

Channel 4 appears to be in crisis - they even refused to find someone to interview on C4's own flagship news programme.

 

[newbie]

As rocketman has pointed out - behaviour in BB has transgressed the laws of the nation -

which laws?

 

[Guineveretoo]

Jodie Marsh is ugly? Not at all....
I suspect people didn't like her and partly held her responsible because of her brash ladette behaviour...equally she went out very quickly so it was over relatively fast IYSWIM.

I didn't say she was ugly, but I do think she is unattractive.

This is my question really - do people think it is okay to bully someone so long as they don't like the victim?

 

[rocketman]

I spent a little quality time today looking at Channel 4's broadcasting license and the 2003 Communications act.

Interestingly, Ch4's broadcasting license requires the channel to spend 25 per cent of its programming budget on independently produced content.

What I am curious about - and don't yet know - is if the 10 per cent of Channel 4's entire programming budget the channel has agreed to pay Endemol over the next few years qualifies as part of that commitment to independent content, as Endemol is independent of Channel 4.

Since that requirement was put in place to protect cultural diversity, spending two fifths of the cash on Big Brother could arguably be challenged as going against that commitment to diversity. But then again, I don't know what I'm talking about on this yet, as I don't know where in the budget Ch4 places this spending, it's possible the BB money is a separate category and that 25 per cent of the budget continues to go to generate independent content other than Big Brother.

Many have noted the way BB changed a few years back. I'd like to draw attention to the 2003 Communications Bill, which removed a restriction on UK broadcasters that they "do not offend good taste or decency … or offend public feeling", which had existed as a restriction since 1954. I suspect the change in BB after 2003 may have reflected the removal of that limitation.

I'm not an expert on this, and these points I am making could be misquoted or misconstrued - so don't take them as gospel, as I am not saying they are gospel. But I don't buy the 'it's just entertainment' line on these matters, nor do I accept the defence that the channel can get away with its actions because it had the effect of 'sparking debate'. That way live executions lie. So I'm looking at the law.

For MPs, the issue may be to revise the communictions bill to reintroduce the 'offend public feeling' clause in future, or some variant of that which has the effect of protecting the public - and future housemates - from such excesses.

While I'm generally no fan of censorship, I do believe that with freedom comes responsibility, and in this case a bunch of well-heeled corporate executives are prostituting freedom for profit without showing responsibility.

I'm posting this in hope that someone out there is an expert on these things, and can offer some more tangible information as regards where in the law or in the Channel 4 charter the broadcaster may have made a serious error of judgement.

 

[tangerinedream]

I suspect the truth is that BB changed after that really boring one with the Scottish bloke who was quite nice, but actually a homophobe or something, but he never said owt about it so he seemed quite sweet but actually he owned a whale gutting factory or similar.

Cameron?

Anyhow, since then, it's seemed really nasty cos the housemates seemed to just get together and think 'fuck it - lets just enjoy the experience together and not row' in that series and everyone turned off and now, it seems BB has a divide and conquer policy.

I really should go back to the football forum....

* very interesting stuff about the broadcasting license!

 

[newbie]

While I'm generally no fan of censorship, I do believe that with freedom comes responsibility, and in this case a bunch of well-heeled corporate executives are prostituting freedom for profit without showing responsibility.

in what way is your position different from this bunch?
http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/Press/press024.html

 

[rocketman]

in what way is your position different from this bunch?
http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/Press/press024.html

Well, I think an international outcry and 50,000 viewer complaints says an awful lot. As I said, I'm not in favour of censorship, but I want Endemol and Channel 4 to act with responsibility, and believe they have failed to do so.

I'd welcome another positive suggestion, but bullying and racism shouldnt be used to raise audience figures, should they, really?

 

[rocketman]

* very interesting stuff about the broadcasting license!

Want to see it?

 

[8ball]

This is all terribly bizarre - I was 'watching' when the comments were made and I was quite shocked at the time but haven't watched for a good few days and most of the last week seems to have been the media hanging some poor thick girl out to dry when, as far as I saw, she ws the one of the three that didn't say anything racist.

Funny old world

 

[newbie]

Well, I think an international outcry and 50,000 viewer complaints says an awful lot. As I said, I'm not in favour of censorship, but I want Endemol and Channel 4 to act with responsibility, and believe they have failed to do so.

I can't remember how many xtians complained about jerry springer- the opera. Lots. Playing the numbers game in the age of internet excitements is all a bit futile.

the question still stands- how is the offence you have taken over what you saw, and your proposed remedy, any different from the offence they took and their proposed remedy? How does any of it differ from Mary Whitehouse being offended by sex on TV?

Is society really to be denied television that might offend?

I'd welcome another positive suggestion, but bullying and racism shouldnt be used to raise audience figures, should they, really?

No, they shouldn't. Not unchallenged, and they have been challenged long and hard.

Should war, death and brutality be used to raise audience figures? or serial killers? or rape? or psychopaths? because those are entirely unremarked, week in week out!

 

[tangerinedream]

The debate over J Springer is a totally different one - who could possibly be harmed by J Springer? No-one with an off switch on their TV - turn if off, ignore it, it's fiction, it's art, it's singers and actors doing what they do.

However, the matter of fact is, that turning off BB doesn't actually fully address the issue of endemol exploiting REAL people in a contrived situation, placing them under a microscope and then not intervening when things become really nasty, to a point when people could actually start to suffer serious psychological scars as a result.

Whether or not Shilpa laughed it off, rose above it, whatever is irrelavent. The arguement that BB has had it's day is not motivated by a concern over any personal morals being offended - more a sense that actually, when you view it as a single incident, in the full context of the issue, there is a great deal of wrongness involved, mostly as has been said time and again, centering round a large company profitting from the suffering of some fairly unstable individuals.

That process, by which individual incidents can be viewed seems a great deal more mature than simply bleating 'no, mary whitehouse, censorship, boo,' if anyone dares to question whether or not the great God TV has got it right.

Brass Eye, Jerry Springer, anything you care to name, I'd have it on CBBC all day, I don't care - but broadcasting what seems to be real people being actually bullied by each other, racist or not, is just about next to 'police, camera, action' in the list of objectionable TV programmes for me.

What next I ask? 'It won't be alright on the night bus - Dennis Norden presents 100 best attacks on random people on late night busses as filmed on mobile phone cameras'

Stop pretending BB is some kind of torch of freedom and get real.

It's creepy, it's gone to far and the right thing for C4 to do is at very least accept it was wrong and promise to review the format, if not cancel it all together. It is a cheap TV format that has exploded in its face because for too long they have been trying to extract maximum drama for minimum cost - Something has to change seriously at very least for the channel to put that show back on and maintain its position as a respected broadcaster.

The whole point is, C4 showed a complete lack of responsibility towards the people in the house, therefore in its care - the audience were treated to some ugly stuff i believe, but I don't think that's the point to which i actually object.

It's not about the product, but the process.

 

[tangerinedream]

Want to see it?

Ooh, you tease me sir, yes please!

 

[tangerinedream]

No, they shouldn't. Not unchallenged, and they have been challenged long and hard.

As I understand, they weren't challenged by the programme makers were they?

 

[newbie]

Stop pretending BB is some kind of torch of freedom and get real.

who said that? It's a gameshow.

It's creepy, it's gone to far and the right thing for C4 to do is at very least accept it was wrong and promise to review the format, if not cancel it all together.

Creepy possibly but so what? Who judges what is too far? you?? Christian Voice??? who? Above you claimed the law was broken, but I still don't know one.

The whole point is, C4 showed a complete lack of responsibility towards the people in the house, therefore in its care - the audience were treated to some ugly stuff i believe, but I don't think that's the point to which i actually object.

It's not about the product, but the process.

interesting. so your concern is about the effect of on-air arguments on the consenting adults involved? Why do you feel that you or anyone else should be an arbiter of the dynamics between adults?

Can you define what behaviour is unacceptable, or should the programme be banned in case someone transgresses your decency threshold?

 

[newbie]

As I understand, they weren't challenged by the programme makers were they?

do we know that? were the harpies not given any indication of boundaries in the diary room- I don't know but I thought someone suggested they had been.

In any case, so what? They'll know as soon as they come out what the 50,000 complainers thought, what the government and the great and the good and the newspapers and all that thought.

Their behaviour has been challenged far more powerfully than them simply being told off by Big Brother, but only Jade knows that as of yet.

 

[rocketman]

The question still stands- how is the offence you have taken over what you saw, and your proposed remedy, any different from the offence they took and their proposed remedy? How does any of it differ from Mary Whitehouse being offended by sex on TV?

Sex is an inherent natural part of all animal life; you can legislate all you like, but it will never go away. Racism and bullying are choices, they aren't required for the continuation of human life. We can choose not to support them.

Free speech isn't a defence for the indefencible, racism and bullying exist, and must be stopped.

The BB represented reality has done nothing to prevent them - and C4s failure to act actually says we have only weak control of such situations. Furthermore, this wasn't just a reported situation, it was a created one, created by C4 and its agents. They are ultimately culpable.

Is society really to be denied television that might offend?

But is that an excuse for mismanaging a situation?

No, they shouldn't. Not unchallenged, and they have been challenged long and hard.

Then why stop challenging them now?

Should war, death and brutality be used to raise audience figures? or serial killers? or rape? or psychopaths? because those are entirely unremarked, week in week out!

I want to respond there, but I am hesitant to widen the discussion. I don't want to be rude, and while there could be corrolaries here, I'd like to confine it simply to a discussion of CBB, as that is the thread title. But it's clear that corporate interests will stop at nothing to achieve advertising dollars and viewing figures.

What do you think should be done as regards this CBB incident, and do you feel the affair has been competently managed by C4 and Endemol? If you do, fine, I disagree; if you don't, then what recourse do people have to ensure better crisis management in future?

Is it right that the media is allowed to chase ads spending and viewing figures through these grotesque depictions of reality with no one regulating them to ensure they do so responsibly? At present, free speech is exercised on a very one-sided basis - as individuals we can type freely in places like this one, but we don't have equal access to broadcasting media, so 50,000 of us are clearly not as powerful - in terms of affecting a manufactured situation - as a few suits in the BB production office.

 

[tangerinedream]

who said that? It's a gameshow.


Creepy possibly but so what? Who judges what is too far? you?? Christian Voice??? who? Above you claimed the law was broken, but I still don't know one.


interesting. so your concern is about the effect of on-air arguments on the consenting adults involved? Why do you feel that you or anyone else should be an arbiter of the dynamics between adults?

Can you define what behaviour is unacceptable, or should the programme be banned in case someone transgresses your decency threshold?

Fine, obviously you value the freedom of large corporations to profit from exploitative formats above all. I'd have a lot more time for your argument if it was actually worth having, the idea we live in a 'free' media world is just ludicrous, no public access TV for one thing, no genuine community stations, no real access to the airwaves for you and I

But that's just fine, because we can watch a bit of bullying therefore we are free.

Now, to get back to the point - I presume you are familiar with notion of anti discriminatory legislation and with the idea that people have been sued and convicted for bullying at work, and companies for allowing an atmosphere of intimidation to prevail?

As i said below, what have endemol done?

what would you say if we transposed Shilpa and the others to say a textile mill? Would you say 'oh, it's fine for the management to allow this to happen, no it's entirely acceptable for the supervisor not to intervene, absolutely' would you approve if a group of people stood round everyday on the edge of the canteen to watch the bullying take place - would you fuck I hope. So why, just because it's on telly is it suddenly fine?

I suppose in the above, the workers at the mill, well they've signed up to work there, so what can they expect *shrug* S'got nothing to do with the boss has it?

My decency threshhold is not about what I see for the 6545325th time, it's about the process, the method, the thinking behind the programme which i find insiduous - I can't comment on what I saw because I DIDN'T SEE IT.

I HAVN'T ACTUALLY BEEN OFFENDED BY JADE OR ANYONE ELSE - What I DO find offensive is that some people seem to think television and BB is above the principle we apply to our own everyday lives and that by questioning the morality of it, somehow I am being sanctimonious or censorial.

I say again - Should C4 come up with either a totally reinvented and reinvigorated BB/scrap it in favour of something new OR just churn out another series of high intensity, high pressure 'popularity contest' TV?

Which is more inventive, which is more interesting?

Oh, and the participants in brutal, violent porn films very often get paid and also often seriously injured and occaisonally life threateningly so. They give their consent though. I presume you support that too, or is that wrong because 'it's illegal?' - If not, how dare you draw the line!

 

[Orang Utan]

Jade is apparantly 'on the verge of suicide' according to the sun (i think it was the sun)

Now, this may or may not be a PR stunt and yes, part of me thinks, well - y'know, she is going to feel a bit shit and mabe she'll learn something but the point is

a) if it is real, fuck me - that would be awful and make C$ seem to have blood on their hands

b) if (as is seemingly obvious) a contricous and deliberate public statement, then that's equally worrying for me because

- BB is turning into the soap opera of our day, but with one crucial difference, - it involves real people - in good old Corrie or Eastender, we debate how Mike or Grant would/should/could react to certain situations which are of course fictional. We can deride or laude soap as we wish, that's not the point - it's a popular medium, capable of creating role models, tackling issues and just like BB create heroes and villains. But it is just a soap, just a drama, just a fiction

- When this idea of BBs 'characters' real life behaviour become public debate, I honestly think it's a bad thing, I think we all start to think more about 'public image ltd' and more about how Jade or whoever should behave 'to win' - we don't tend to think about moral acts, about what is the responsible things to do - because, hey - we're all so post-modern now, it's not about that, don't you see, it's a game and like, they win or, like lose - That guy's nice but dull, throw him out - she'll make sparks fly, keep her in...

- With a soap, we like evil characters, we dislike boring ones, we understand motivations, we address issues but with that crucial distinction, it isn't real therefore no-one gets hurt and it hasn't got that horrible element of 'who wins, who loses'

It's like comparing the film 'crash' with C4 or whoever actually filming car crashes and wanking over the victims...

It's like people below who said (maybe it was tekla?) it's the roman colliseum for a modern age... maybe I'm wrong but I don't think that I particulally want a colliseum for the modern age, I am suffering the perhaps misguided belief that watching people (remember - people first, slaves second) being gored to death is possibly not a good thing...

We can disregard BB as just entertainment, but actually, no it's not just that, and especially not anymore.

These are people playing roles, without scripts, without directors, without the ability to go home at night and wind down, without a character to hide behind other than the one they try to maintain for themselves and it has gone for long enough - C4's remit is supposed to be to innovate, to experiment, what's left with BB? - We've had sex, racism, gender politics, disability, it's done a lot of good, it's shown us the other sides of a lot of 'freaks' and led to a lot of debate.

honestly Tekla, what is left for it? - A stabbing? a genuine breakdown? Suicide? Bigger prizes? Executions?

time for something new, time for something that is fresh - Forget C4's 'responsibility' and it's still time to pull the plug...

I think you're almost entirely spot on here tg. Bravo. It's certainly given me pause for thought and I work in the medium. <strokes beard>

 

[tangerinedream]

<strokes beard>