Sunday, March 11, 2007

Big Brother: We are watching you

The debate continues over whether big brother is watching us, but one thing is clear: We [the British public] are watching Big Brother. Viewing figures for the last series of the archetypal reality show peaked at 8.2 million viewers. That means at some point one in every seven British people was watching. If only democracy could compete with that kind of interest.

This year’s Celebrity Big Brother, which began on 3rd January 2007 and ran for 26 days, continued to satisfy public hunger for peek show spectacle. One-time 70s pop singer Leo Singer voluntarily left the house within days after discovering he had forgotten to pack clean underwear in his suitcase; Jermaine Jackson, of Jackson 5 fame, gave a bizarre performance in a Big Brother challenge as lead singer of a Jackson 5 cover band; and Donny Tourette, singer of punk band Tower of London, walked out after being told he was to be a servant to another contestant, saying “I'm not waiting hand on foot on some f**king moron and her family”.

However, one remarkable episode came to define this year’s Celebrity Big Brother. From auspicious beginnings, racial tension began to mount between contestants Jade Goody, Jo O’Meara, and Danielle Lloyd, on one side, and Shilpa Shetty, on the other side. The former group, all British, formed a catty alliance of gossip and behind-the-back slander against Shetty, a successful actress from India. On around 14th January, the British women began to talk together at length in a way that shocked the watching public. Amongst other things, fun was poked at Shetty’s accent, she was referred to as a “dog”, an accusation was made that she was bleaching her skin to appear whiter, and Lloyd stated on one occasion that she wished Shetty would “just f**k off home. She can't even speak English”.

The backlash outside of the Big Brother house was torrential. Despite viewing figures rising by over two million during the episode, the public reacted with horror. British media regulator Ofcom received over 50,000 viewer complaints – a record for a UK television program. Channel 4, the outlet carrying the show, received another 3,000 complaints. The media was similarly vociferous. Tabloid newspaper, the Daily Mirror, represented the common sentiment by decrying the "disgraceful racist bullying of Big Brother's Shilpa Shetty". Across the country, and the world, similar disgust emerged. According to the BBC, in all, the episode “generated 300 newspaper articles in Britain, 1,200 in English-language newspapers around the globe, 3,900 foreign-language news articles and 22,000 blog postings”.

It didn’t stop there. The political establishment made an unprecedented contribution to the flurry of interest. Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said “the racism towards Shilpa Shetty on Celebrity Big Brother is completely unacceptable”; Gordon Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, stated "I want Britain to be seen as a country of fairness and tolerance. Anything detracting from this I condemn”; Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell said "I think this is racism being presented as entertainment, and I think it is disgusting”. Even Prime Minister Tony Blair, who had not seen the program, stated “I would agree entirely with the principle that we should oppose racism in all its forms”. Abroad, Indian Minister for External Affairs Anand Sharma said “It has caused indignation, it is most unfortunate, and any kind of racism - or racist slur - is unacceptable in any civilised society”. To cap it all off, Hertfordshire police began investigations into the alleged abuses and the show’s sponsor, Carphone Warehouse, immediately suspended its support.

What are we to make of this incident, which so shocked societies, the media, and politicians worldwide? On this occasion, through Big Brother, did the media use its status as public forum for enlightenment, opinions and discussion constructively or did it merely expose foul behavior for cheap shock value? One thing is for certain: Big Brother is a program that capitalizes on the public desire to peer into people’s private lives and delight in the sensational. So the very format of the show, though it may not be intended as a regular showcase for racism and bigotry, facilitates the exposing of this sort of behavior. Besides that, children and adults alike witnessed socially unacceptable conduct; who knows how such examples might influence future behavior. For them, the image of Britain as a place of racism and division was surely reinforced by the incident.

The end result, however, may not be so gloomy. Whilst the actions of three Big Brother contestants were deplorable, their attitudes, the likes of which reside in minds and actions around the world, showed the public how horrific such conduct is. The racism that lays inside many was bared and enabled viewers to see the true nature of these sentiments. Moreover, the unanimity of the public shock was reassuring: despite the prevalence of racism, society as a whole disagrees with bigotry and fiercely voices this when necessary. Whilst this episode was uncomfortable, the media arguably acted in the public interest: it exposed racism for it is and reaffirmed public opposition to such attitudes.

It would be difficult to argue that the media does not bear some responsibility for acting in the public interest - enlightening, informing, and facilitating discourse – but it is naïve and simplistic to think that this responsibility is only acted out by portraying examples of correct behavior. It can be just as effective to show behavior detrimental to society that the public can clearly see as wrong, as this incident shows. For Celebrity Big Brother 2007, morality won the day.


(you won't bother to check. They could be anything. They could be porn)
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)