[Shaun]

Quite topical for TiBB I should think. (and yes it's probably been done before, blah blah blah)

But should producers be held accountable for the emotional, psychological and reputational (if that's even a legitimate field that can be assessed) damage done to the contestants/housemates (whatever you want to call them) - or should they know what they're letting themselves in for?

We've seen numerous lives 'ruined' by Big Brother - Nadia Almada being the latest example, Jade Goody being the most famous one. But were they genuinely 'bad' (I mean aggressive, abhorrent and nasty, rather than other criticisms such as lazy, vacuous or stupid ) people, or normal people exploited, under extreme conditions (let's not forget what they actually go through: weeks, months, of being locked in a house with strangers, unaware of the outside world, and subject to humiliating tasks in order to earn one's basic needs)?

[Omen]

You can be subjective about it, imagine it were you, and conclude yes it is totally immoral. On the other hand, you have to be objective. I always think of that Piers Morgan show about wannabes. It tells me people are very different, and what's torture to me is a pleasure/thrill for others.

They're grown-ups, they want it. It's fragile viewers like me who need protecting from it, or who did. It's about as real/fake as wresting though. Pure panto for show-offs.

[ILoveTRW]

The producers should be held responsible if they unfairly represent someone like the did Nadia.
That would never happen on The Real World.

[Zippy]

I think its had a dreadful influence on a whole generation. Kids now grow up aspiring to be useless celebrities with no talent whatsoever. Just famous.

Look at the success of Jersey shore recently in the US; a bunch of slobby, slutty, foul mouthed, violent scumfuks. Now all massive celebrities there; one of them set to be on Dancing with the stars. It's like they get rewarded for acting like pigs and setting a bad example.

But that sums up modern reality TV.

And the talent shows are all about sob stories and "being normal". Sorry but I dont want my idols to be mobile phone salemen or shoe shop workers! I want glamour and some mystery. Thats what music stars were about in the past. Now we see every step of their journey(from standing in the audition queues to performing on top TV shows) and learn every detail of their lives, even meeting all their families! It just drags everything down to being drab and ordinary when it should about fantasy and escapism.

So as much as I enjoy many reality shows I do feel like theyve been an extremely bad influence on society. And theyve also booted a lot of quality programmes of TV to make room for them. Theyve certainly had a massive impact on the music world too and its certainly not for the better! They basically celebrate karaoke and unoriginality.

[InOne]

I agree about it messing up our generation. People saying "It's my dream to be on Big Brother". Pretty sad aspiration for life if you look at it. But I think it takes a certain type of mentality to go on those type of shows anyway. Most people I know wouldn't, but to be fair anyone over the last 5 years knew what they'd be getting themselves in for. They've seen many downfalls, yet they still want that tacky fame, so it's their own fault what comes from it really.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by ILoveTRW

The producers should be held responsible if they unfairly represent someone like the did Nadia.
That would never happen on The Real World.

Umm, i guess you didn't watch BBUK 10 then. Isaac, from The Real World: Australia cast was on BBUK 10, and on Big Mouth he said he thought the editing on BBUK was far more fair and accurate than the editing on The Real World.

don't quote me, but i remember him saying something like "The Real World cut it up into confetti, BBUK is far more accurate, because it's in chronological order."

[Niamh.]

em, well personally I think that it's what they sign up for tbh, they're hoping to get rich/famous out of it and you can't get rich/famous for nothing, it seems that they do but in actual fact they have taken the risk of coming across badly and being hated by the public. I know I would never go on that show ever cos I would hate to be filmed 24/7, have my personal space and privacy invaded and being made to do stupid humiliating tasks. Anybody who has ever watched this show should be fully aware of what they're getting themselves into and only have themselves to blame if it all goes wrong.

[bananarama]

The concept of tightly regulated TV in the Uk and reality shows being called imoral could not be more ridiculous......Who judges morality any way.....Morality is subjective at the best of times depending on religious addictions and personal perspectives.

Any individual participating in a reality show only have themselves to blame if their gamble and it is their gamble goes pear shaped........Broadcasters are responsible for contestants safety during the show. Broadcasters are not super human and cannot and should not be expected to predict what happens to volatile loony bin characters after the event has finshed......

[arista]

"But should producers be held accountable for the emotional, psychological and reputational (if that's even a legitimate field that can be assessed) damage done to the contestants/housemates (whatever you want to call them) - or should they know what they're letting themselves in for?"

To many are now media savvy
look at at the recent Winner.
When Sam Pepper put it to Josie
she said 'I do not know what you mean'


She was telling us bollocks.
a mag Deal and a New ITV2 show soon.
she is a *****.

Now Producers gave her all the due care
then the Sneak Agent takes over
and gets his cut of her cake.

Josie on a farm with a aussie bloke
on ITV2.


Producers are Never to blame
Shaun.

[Iceman]

Originally Posted by arista

"But should producers be held accountable for the emotional, psychological and reputational (if that's even a legitimate field that can be assessed) damage done to the contestants/housemates (whatever you want to call them) - or should they know what they're letting themselves in for?"

To many are now media savvy
look at at the recent Winner.
When Sam Pepper put it to Josie
she said 'I do not know what you mean'


She was telling us bollocks.
a mag Deal and a New ITV2 show soon.
she is a *****.

Now Producers gave her all the due care
then the Sneak Agent takes over
and gets his cut of her cake.

Josie on a farm with a aussie bloke
on ITV2.


Producers are Never to blame
Shaun.

You look great up on that high horse of yours.

[Tom]

Its not reality TV thats immoral but its the public reaction to it. I think some people get too involved. We meet the villainous kind of people day in day out, some of us might even be them without realising, but when they're put on a big platform the public don't take well to it. There are far worse people out there than Nadia and shes a saint compared to some but because people get so involved, its as though they're the worst thing since Hitler. For example, who actually cares how much they hated Grace in BB7? At the time maybe, but I doubt anyone has that kind of strong feeling now. Jade is a good example to use too both in BB3 and in CBB5

[Mystic Mock]

of course reality tv can be immoral,they sent shabaz even more insane than what he already was and look at poor jade before she died.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Iceman

You look great up on that high horse of yours.

No Keep It Real.
Producers are not to blame.
Greed is.



Life In The Fast Lane.

[arista]

Originally Posted by jedward fever

of course reality tv can be immoral,they sent shabaz even more insane than what he already was and look at poor jade before she died.

Jade was doing well
in India Big Brother , no less.

She had a Sloppy Doctor.
Meaning she could have been saved with a better Doctor.



Keep It Real.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by arista

Jade was doing well
in India Big Brother , no less.

She had a Sloppy Doctor.
Meaning she could have been saved with a better Doctor.



Keep It Real.

im on about because the producers edit so badly on certain contestants that there lives get ruined when they come out,which is wrong.

[lostalex]

TV is TV. If you don't like scrutiny, don't go on TV.

i'd never go on TV, cause i know i'm far too sensitive and sensible.

I don't like honest criticism and i know i would react badly to it, so why would i subject myself to it?

Ignorance is not an excuse. Maybe it would be in 1990, but 20 years after reality TV started you can't claim ignorance or innocence.

[arista]

Originally Posted by jedward fever

im on about because the producers edit so badly on certain contestants that there lives get ruined when they come out,which is wrong.

No its the Job to Order Slick Edits.


Not Everyone out of Big Brother is in the press
many Choose not to.


So its all about what you Pick in Life.

You Roll your Own Dice.

[arista]

Originally Posted by lostalex

TV is TV. If you don't like scrutiny, don't go on TV.

i'd never go on TV, cause i know i'm far too sensitive and sensible.

I don't like honest criticism and i know i would react badly to it, so why would i subject myself to it?

Ignorance is not an excuse. Maybe it would be in 1990, but 20 years after reality TV started you can't claim ignorance or innocence.

Bang On Right.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by arista

No its the Job to Order Slick Edits.


Not Everyone out of Big brother is in the press
many Choose not to.


So its all about what you Pick in Life.

You Roll your Own Dice.

they still shouldnt edit people 100% bad or 100% good.

[arista]

Originally Posted by jedward fever

they still shouldnt edit people 100% bad or 100% good.

But they always will.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by jedward fever

they still shouldnt edit people 100% bad or 100% good.

If you don't act like an ignorant, bully, they can't edit you as one either

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Niamhxo

If you don't act like an ignorant, bully, they can't edit you as one either

if they like that person they can just show there good points.

and also yes they can edit people as bullies as its simple really,they just take things out of context and put parts of the arguments in different places,and just edit parts out that make the apprently bully in the right.

[lostalex]

To me, these people that claim "the editing is biased" would be like a smoker claiming "i had no idea it would give me lung cancer!"

GIMME a BREAK!

We all know smoking causes cancer, and we all know TV producers will make a story of it on a reality show.

NO MORE EXCUSES.

[Tom]

Theres no such thing as biased editing imo, I do think they miss bits out to give a better story but if they don't do it then it can't be broadcast, its that simple

[MTVN]

All editing will be biased in one way or another, it's inevitable when you have to cram 24 hours (or more) of footage into a one hour program