http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8112630.stm
'mistakes were made over the treatment of Susan Boyle' - tell us something that we don't know Mr Cowell. Is it not a case that if you play with fire then eventually you are going to get burnt?
For years we have watched as show such as 'Britain's Got Talent' and 'X Factor' have churned out an array of acts that have been laughed at for 'believing' that they have some talent. Should these talent shows take more responsibility for the effects caused to these people that are arguably very vulnerable?
Arguably there is a huge difference between giving criticism to some aspiring stars who turn up for an audition and what is currently taking place on the so called reality television in this country.
The main case in point in the press at the moment is, of course, Susan Boyle. This is a woman who has been a semi recluse for years and clearly has difficulties with social interaction that could suggest for her to be placed on the autistic spectrum. Questionably, the show exploited this vulnerability to make the show interesting - shocking the audience with the image of an unattractive person who, shock alert, can actually sing (because anybody who knows anything about modern pop music can tell you that only the beautiful people have good voices).
This was bad enough and of course has made a lot of press, but a character that put this exploitation of the public in context for me was a young man who came on and attempted to do Keepy-Uppies on stage. Now this kid was obviously not the brightest, he wasn't very good at keepy uppies, but for some reason he thought that he was. Now, surely the honest thing to do would be to send this kid on his merry way and tell him to keep practising. Not for the 'BGT' producers who decided to let this boy go on stage in front of hundreds of people, not to mention the millions at home, and make a fool of himself. Something that has surely led to a great deal of teasing and bullying when the lad got back to school.
The question is should shows be allowed to take advantage of people who wrongly believe that they have a talent in this way? Do we need to put a stop to the shows? bring in rules on responsibility and limits on what they can do? Or is everything fair game in the name of entertainment?
Posts
I always think this is a case of the chicken and the egg - who is ultimately responsible? Susan Boyle, Britney Spears breakdown - even Princess Diana's crash. Collectively, we, the public buy the papers and read the stories. Reality TV - BGT, X-factor, Big Brother - feeds off the 'fame and fortune' that people seem to feel is so easily accessible through these programmes. This adds to your case - vulnerable people applygin to programmes - but what about the media and press' responsibility to foster a 'work-hard and achieve ethic' in society - opposed to a 'gamble for your dream ethic', which many programmes seem to try and push.
ReplyDeleteUltimately, the public dictate what makes it into the press. HEAT, The Sun, News of the World, etc sell to the masses. Maybe the argument should be turning television into an educational tool and informative tool - rather than cheap short-lived entertainment.
I told you about the Virgin Television offer - Virgin contacted me to say that the bill we currently pay means that for the exact same amount we could have however many channels for free - they would send the set-top box and everything free of charge. Clearly the money they would make off it would be the potential-sale of someone buying a bigger TV package, but for all intents and purposes, it was free TV channels. Sarah got me to turn it down, thank god, on the basis that most TV is shit so why even have the tempation to watch 'Little Brother' or 'More X-factor' when I already feel shit enough from watching the main programme itself? People should take responsibility and simply stop buying the tabloids and TV channels that they are fully aware are bullshit. That way, shows like BGT would just bomb - and the likes of Susan Boyle would not be put undr presure by '18 million viewers' or whatever.
True that.
ReplyDeleteJust wanted to add that the size of audiences these programmes garner and the advertising revenue they generate should mean solid investment in other more niche (aka less watched but more complex) television which makes the ITV whinging about the license fee and their cancellation of the South Bank Show very a very unpleasant state. It is a balancing act that I think Channel 4 generally do relatively well although E4 and 4music are increasingly ridiculous examples of television channels. Where's the variety?
Also it should be acknowledged that Susan Boyle is going to make some money. No doubt she was taken advantage of and no doubt Cowellypants will make more cash but still there is a reward for the nasty treatment she has received and I must confess I would take it. If only I could sing.
PtotheS I thought the following acts in the BGT final were absolutely awful:
Hollie Davis, 2 Grand, Flawless, Shaun Smith.
Aidan Davis, Julian Smith & Shaheen Jafargholi were pretty bad. SuBo was pretty boring.
If that's the best talent this country has to offer then I am deeply ashamed of this country (although don't expect me to enter). And of course the way we treat people like Keepy Up Kid is pretty shameful too.
Just to say ... Thanks for the input Jo - An interesting point to the use of the cash flow from the big money spinners being used on more niche programming.
ReplyDeleteThis, of course, is exactly what the BBC does - and why I will put up with the like of 'Strictly come prancing about' on a Saturday night as long as it allows the odd 'Office' and 'Life on Mars' to shine through.
ITV, in contrast, does not have the luxury of being allowed to play around with it's bugets irrespective of show ratings. Advertisers will require shows to have good ratings or they just wont hand over the Mulah.