ThisisBigBrother.com - UK TV Forums - Mental health charity founder slams Big Brother

ThisisBigBrother.com - UK TV Forums (https://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/index.php)

- BB7 (https://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=57)

- - Mental health charity founder slams Big Brother (https://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18417)

Mental health charity founder slams Big Brother

Quote:

Big Brother: Worse than bear baiting
by MARJORIE WALLACE, founder and chief executive of the mental health charity SANE

08:22am 1st June 2006

Anorexia, confused sexuality, Tourette's and even suicidal depression.

Five of Big Brother's contestants show acute psychological problems. MARJORIE WALLACE asks if this is the sickest TV show ever...

Victorians flocked to Barnum and Bailey's freak show to see a little girl called Krao whose body was entirely covered in thick black hair. Poor Krao suffered from a medical condition we now know as hypertrichosia.

She was well-educated and spoke several languages, but the crowds who stared and pointed believed she was half-human, half-animal. They thought she did not care about being the subject of taunting and ridicule.

A century of progress later, the producers responsible for the 21st-century freak show we call Channel 4's Big Brother should know better than to exploit human frailty for the purpose of entertainment.

But their treatment of people facing mental health problems in the latest series suggests they do not. Big Brother contestants such as the apparently anorexic Nikki Grahame and Lea Walker, who has body dysmorphic disorder (a condition in which the patient becomes preoccupied with a non-existent or minimal cosmetic defect), are being exploited in a deeply disturbing fashion.

When I was a psychology student in the 1960s, behavioural experiments were all the rage. Since the 1920s, when the Russian physiologist Ivan Petrovich Pavlov proved that you could drive a dog over the edge, by conditioning it to expect one thing and offering another, there has been widespread interest in seeing how much stress animals - and human beings - can take.

We also wanted to know what humans could tolerate before going mad or becoming deeply depressed. We quickly found that randomly rewarding or punishing learned tasks is the quickest way to turn a cat that would normally choose milk into an alcoholic, and a lively hamster into a ball of despair.

Another favourite subject at that time was sleep deprivation. Human guinea pigs would be kept awake to see how well they could perform a series of tasks.

Then there was sensory deprivation. Students were placed in tiny cubicles, deprived of all visual and aural stimuli, until they became totally disoriented. These experiments in creating neurosis are similar to techniques used in military interrogation when the need to extract information is urgent.

There is not a lot of difference between these psychological experiments of my youth and the manipulations being imposed on the current Big Brother contestants.

And the trouble with Big Brother is that, far from helping scientific research or obtaining information, the experiment taking place is being masterminded for entertainment alone. Financial greed and viewer ratings are the driving forces.

Meanwhile, the contestants are being exploited to win the unthinking attention of viewers.

The sad thing is that the experience of watching mentally fragile people being tested to breaking point not only causes potential psychological damage to them, but to the viewers as well. Paying customers at those Victorian freak shows left degraded as well as entertained. So did the spectators who cheered as slave gladiators were thrown into the Roman arena to be torn to pieces.

Behaving like voyeurs of other people's confusion and distress may bring short-term gratification, but in the long term it, too, can be corrupting.

Children may be lured into believing that the sight of people under mental duress is harmless fun. The truth is that viewers of all ages are having their sensitivities to genuine human suffering blunted.

I do not want to be a killjoy or a nanny. We are told that contestants have volunteered to appear. Some may genuinely find that a moment of fame can restore lost self-esteem.

The fact that someone has a history of mental health problems certainly should not deprive them of their hour in the limelight. Being vulnerable should never deny anybody their moment on stage.

We are also aware that Big Brother's producer, Endemol, employs a screening process to choose contestants and that a psychologist is on hand to counsel them. It is not known how rigorous that process is. What we do know is that this is an extremely risky business.

Assessing who is, or is not, at risk in the conditions created inside the Big Brother house would take years and great skill. The techniques required to do it properly simply do not fit with the production schedule of a primetime TV show.

Eminent psychiatrists admit that they cannot gauge with certainty whether such exposure will be good for their patients. It is extremely difficult to predict who will benefit and who will become a casualty.

The kind of triggers that precipitate illnesses such as anorexia include feelings of failure, not living up to expectations and social rejection. We know that refusing food can be a last-resort means of controlling a frightening world.

But these are precisely the types of emotion being elicited for public delectation by the Big Brother experience. What could be worse than being thrown out of the house when you are already desperate for acceptance by your peers?

And we are talking here about life-0threatening damage. We are led to believe that two of the contestants in the present series have attempted suicide before. We know that the best predictor for 'completed suicide' is evidence of previous attempts - i.e. that people who have previously tried to kill themselves are more likely than others to take their own lives. Big Brother's producers need to be very careful, for they are playing with people's lives.

Then there is the problem of what happens after the show is over. Every performer knows that sudden sinking feeling that occurs as the adrenaline begins to dissipate and the applause fades. How much more agonising is that for a person who has failed to achieve their dreams of fame or whose ambition to be a celebrity has ended in ridicule and trial by newspaper headline?

Big Brother contestants are given access to a showbusiness consultant, but such advice on how to profit from their exposure cannot begin to substitute for the support that ejected contestants will naturally need.

Only the most mentally robust among us can handle such extremes of emotion and the pain of being forgotten.

In previous series, Big Brother has pushed to breaking point the boundaries of taste with displays of explicit sexual behaviour, drinking and verbal abuse that have offended many viewers. Despite this, millions have tuned in to watch the antics of previous contestants such as Jade Goody, Kate Lawler and George Galloway MP.

However, playing with the minds and lives of people at risk, as the present series does, is a very different and much more dangerous game.

"We don't want to see people who need help, and who seek help, being made fools of in public," says Alan Jamieson, deputy chief executive of the British Association For Counselling And Psychotherapy.

At SANE, we receive hundreds of calls every week from people struggling to keep a tenuous hold on their minds, people who are living perilously close to the edge.

We just hope that identifying with the "on- screen traumas" of the Big Brother contestants will not push too many of them closer to the precipice.

Mental health is too serious and sensitive to be exploited for cheap enjoyment.

www.dailymail.co.uk

i think basically big brother is big brother... if you cant take the show as fun! then dont go for it. I dont understand all this i went for big brother or bfore i went in 'i was depressed anyways and it made me worse'

why go for it?

there are some good points there - sure its voluntary - but not everyone always knows whats best for their health. it can make them more vulnerable sometimes - i think this year big brother has maybe played on that a bit... when picking contestants....lets face it, its definatly contributed to whats gone on in the house.
Im glad they put pete in though - i think he will have helped in shattering some stereotypes of tourettes sufferers.

hi by the way this is my first post :wavey:

hey bigbrotherskeptic you alright?. nahhh im positively serious, the housemates should be aware that big brother can do anything and once they sign up for it thats their fault! he can do absolutely anything and i mean ANYTHING, no sympathy soz like.... like every1 says dont underestimate big brother.... silly people who winge im going to see a paychiatrist after being in there its ruined me etc etc, they should have known what to expect!!! Yeah i do kind of agree i suppose, it depends on peoples opinions really on the situation, not every1 does know whats best for their health... but can big brother be the evilest thing ever NOPE!!!!! its all fun and a laugh they need to sort out their heads man and laugh these things off!!!

easy to say krissybabe06. But some people don't realise how vulnerable they are, and despite all the warnings they are (allegedly) given by the program makers, they cannot forsee the effect that it will have on them. BB is supposed to have psychological assessments of potential housemates and surely they have a duty not to put people in if it could cause them problems. It didn't take an expert to see that Shahbaz and Nikki are extremely vulnerable - same with Jason (BB5) and Sam (BB6). The point is - yes okay they might put themselves up for the show, but the program makers should not select them for it. It's obvious that BB does not care about the housemates' welfare, otherwise certain housemates would not have been picked. It's all very well to say "no sympathy" but people don't always understand the way that things will affect them. Besides which, it is the duty of the program makers to ensure that the housemates are able to cope with being in the house; it is not the duty of the housemates themselves.

Quote:

Originally posted by krissybabe06
they need to sort out their heads man and laugh these things off!!!

Well that's just about the most short sighted thing I have ever read. So when someone is suffering from manic depression, or clinical depression or anorexia, they should just sort their heads out? Honestly - do you think that people enjoy feeling like that? Don't you think that they wouldn't just sort their heads out if they were able to?

If you ever suffer from depression or suicidal feelings, I hope you won't take it personally if someone says "Oh just sort yourself out and laugh it off."

You've made some valid points there Ruth, but I'd have to disagree with some of them. Housemates have seen previous Big Brother series, and should understand fully the risks and mental strain that they've witnessed. It's up to the people ho come to audition for the show,to be aware of themselves and to know their boundaries and mental stability.. afterall noone knows you better than yourself. Big Brother is a lighthearted show, and I think the article from the reporter was a bit dramatic, It's unfair to single out people with Mental instability, (and plus I'm sure 80% of the population aren't exactly 100% stable anyway) they are worthy human beings too, IMO its discrimination to state that people with Tourettes, anorexia etc can't make decisions for themselves,and shouldn't appear on a gameshow. And plus I wouldn't call Tourettes a mental health problem, for example Pete has to live with his Tourettes for the rest of his life, but he's still a well rounded lad,and capable of making his own decisions. I do agree though, that It's dangerous for the evictee, especially if they have mental health problems, but as i say they knew the risks..although I do have some sympathy for them.

And to compare BB to a victorian freak show is ridiculous. That little girl was made to do those things against her will, BB has not, that little girl was gawked at,and her personality and character were completely overlooked,and ignored, BBs' contestants personalities have not. And if we did choose, some pretty unstable housemates, it's not because we picked them out specifically for that reason, or so we could satisfy ourselves with watching peoples difficulties and struggles. Its because they happen to be interesting, complex people.

But the program makers have a duty to not put people in who it could be harmful to - and people do not always know what's good for them, or how they will react in certain situations. The program makers have a responsibility. And let's face it, if everyone coped wonderfully in the house and never got upset, the program makers would not like that - they want people to struggle and have conflict. People getting along wonderfully and loving the experience would not make for good tv, and Endemol know that. So they deliberately pick people who will cause/endure conflict and struggle - because they think it makes for better viewing figures.

They have fulfilled thier responsibility,they warn the potential housemates of the risks involved and evaluate them. They cannot do any more than that. These people put themselves in that position,they line up and audition over and over again,because they want it so badly, you can't deny them the right to make decisions for themselves,it's unfair and discrimination. Just because they have...say...tourettes,doesn't mean they can't make decisions for themselves or handle rejection, they're humans and they'll go through trials just like us, so we can't sheild them from life...

I'm not saying that anyone should be the right to be denied making their own decisions. What I'm saying is that if the BB psychologists deem someone to be vulnerable (and you don't need to be an expert to see that some of the housemates are vulnerable, they should not put them in the house. It's not enough to say, well they've evaluated them and warned them, so that's good enough.

They can warn them as much as they like, but if they (the program makers) feel that being in the house would be detrimental to somebody, mentally or physically, then they should not put them in.

You know what? If you think it's boring, don't bother reading the thread.

What would happen if one of the housemates had a breakdown that was caused by the show. Would the production company be legally answerable for the breakdown or do the housemates sign a get out when they go on the show?

depends on what they were doing on the show, depends really on the situation. the housemate signed something no doubt at the audition to become a contestant and they signed the declaration to say yes i want to take part on this show. i dont think endemol are involved with breakdowns and stuff, they can refer them to counselling and stuff like that. If bb (the company endemol) does something the housemates did not sign up to do then yes, as thats their fault and not the individuals