katt said:

Interesting read: http://society.guardian.c...59,00.html

Reverse psychology

If Big Brother's expert psychologists' main role is to help create scenarios likely to result in 'entertaining' - read abrasive - behaviour, should ethics compel them to quit the reality TV show, asks David Batty

Friday August 12, 2005

Racial tension, sexual harassment, masturbation with a bottle - this year's Big Brother has plunged to new depths in reality television. From self-loathing gay hairdresser Craig groping drunken geordie Anthony, to wannabe footballer's wife Saskia telling Zimbabwean nurse Makosi her Afro hairdo looked like "a fucking wig". All of which prompts the question: just what are the programme's psychologists doing?
According to the British Psychological Society's code of conduct, psychologists should "hold the interest and welfare of those in receipt of their services to be paramount at all times and ensure that the interests of participants in research are safeguarded". But can this duty ever be reconciled with the entertainment values of reality television? How is it in the "interest" of Kinga to allow her to masturbate with a wine bottle on television while drunk? What benefit is there in someone so ill at ease with their sexuality as Craig - dubbed the "camp crimper" by the tabloids - being allowed to get away with fondling Anthony, the object of his increasingly obsessive affections?

None of the psychologists working on Big Brother are prepared to publicly defend their actions - and, more to the point, their inaction during the more worrying incidents in the current series. But a spokeswoman for Big Brother insisted that the psychological and physical welfare of the contestants is taken "extremely seriously". She said: "All housemates go through a thorough psychological assessment for the show by a chartered psychologist with postgraduate degrees in clinical psychology and psychotherapy. In addition enquiries are also made about their medical history, recent prescriptions and illnesses.

"All the housemates are deemed fit, well and psychologically robust enough to cope with the intense environment of this game show. The systems in place to protect the housemates include rigorous vetting procedures, 24 hour monitoring and on-site psychological and aftercare support. The identity of the psychologist is not divulged in order to protect the confidential relationship between them and the housemates."

To give them the benefit of the doubt, the Big Brother production team may have provided valuable off-camera counselling and advice to the housemates. But what we have seen on screen does raise concern about whether the priority has been to help the producers create entertainment or to safeguard the contestants' wellbeing.

David Wilson, professor of criminology at the University of Central England, claims that the Big Brother psychologists are effectively little more than casting agents, using their expertise to identify contestants with personality traits likely to spark conflict within the house. Prof Wilson, who briefly worked on last year's Big Brother, believes psychologists should refuse to work for reality TV shows unless they have an independent ethics committee to safeguard the contestants' wellbeing.

Prof Wilson quit last year's Big Brother after an outbreak of violence on set which triggered a police investigation. He was chosen to work on the series because of his experience as a prison governor but decided he could not be associated with a programme that provoked violence for entertainment.

The Big Brother producers dubbed the series "Big Brother gets evil" and redesigned the house to create tension and trouble. Endemol hoped that Prof Wilson would provide expert commentary on how the housemates were dealing with being locked in the smaller house and being divided into privileged and disadvantaged groups. But he objected to an experiment in which two of the evicted housemates were allowed to spy on their fellow contestants and then return to the house.

Prof Wilson says that that this went against good prison management, which dictates that cellmates who have fallen out should be separated to prevent further violence erupting. In the event reuniting the housemates provoked a fight with trays thrown, plates smashed and tables overturned.

He said: "I realised very quickly that they were putting housemates in situations that one would never have been able to do in academic research. On the first day when I went into the Endemol studio at Elstree, a psychologist came over and said, 'we've chosen a far more interesting bunch this year'. They had to react against the universally derided "boring" housemates from the previous series.

"It was like they were casting a play in which characters were chosen on the likelihood that they would clash. They are casting people who are exaggerated versions of normal - who are more verbal, physical and dominant. When you put them together then give them alcohol it is inevitable there will be conflict."

Prof Wilson is also critical of the way Endemol used his expertise as a prison governor. He said: "They had previously asked me about the design of the house - whether that influenced behaviour. As a prison governor I'd used design to give a sense of space, reduce noise pollution, pipe quiet calming music into the rooms to cut out disruptive background noise. But Endemol wanted to turn that on its head."

The criminologist admitted he got caught up in the glitz surrounding the programme. He said: "I was quite flattered to be asked to do it. One tended to ignore the more hardnosed questions about the show's ethics."

"I've worked with some of the most dangerous and violent offenders in the country and when I stood back from the excitement and questioned what Big Brother was doing, I thought it was absurd," he said. "My work has been about reducing tension and violence, now here I was involved in a programme designed to do the opposite. There was homophobia and crass insensitivity in terms of Ahmed having to wear combat fatigues when he'd fled the civil war in Somalia."

Despite his resignation, the criminologist received several offers to work on other reality TV series. He said: "One I remember was a cable TV programme about celebrity prisoners called "Heir Today, Con Tomorrow", which would have featured the likes of Lord Brocket and Jonathan Aitken."

He did work on the BBC2 reality series, the Experiment, which re-enacted an infamous psychology experiment where contestants were divided into guards and prisoners. But he said the participants' welfare was safeguarded because the show had an independent ethics committee and a team of counsellors on standby.

The professor is also critical of reality shows such as How Clean is Your House and the House of Obsessive Compulsives because he believes that they exploit emotionally vulnerable people. "Many of the people featured in How Clean is Your House clearly suffer from post traumatic stress or depression. Simply tidying their house is not going to deal with their underlying problems and exposing them to public censure could well make them worse. I think we have to ask the question: is it acceptable to present people who are damaged as entertainment? In my opinion it isn't."

He said: "All reality TV shows should have an ethics committee who would look dispassionately at what was being asked of the contestants to ensure it was fair. In the case of Big Brother that could include psychologists, counsellors, Ofcom regulators, and former contestants from the programme and other reality TV shows."

The professor said this should help to prevent some of the more disturbing and distasteful episodes seen in the last and current series of Big Brother. He said: "Big Brother was the kind of thing we could watch together as a family. I wouldn't even let my 14-year-old son watch it now. The masturbation with the bottle was a new low. It's reinventing itself as soft porn - presenting behaviour we'd condemn as antisocial if we saw it in Faliraki or on the high street on a Saturday night as entertainment."

katt said:

Yeah definately agree Katt. Last year left a distinct nasty taste in the mouth, although I did find them all very interesting people - especially Daniel who I really warmed to and would have liked to have seen a lot more of outside of the house, but I guess that he stuck to his guns and went back to his day-to-day life in Hull.

This year has been the same to some degree, although erring on the right side of the fence with regard to violence etc. However, seeing people break down on TV constantly really doesn't sit well with me - and that goes for Craig too. As much as I thoroughly dislike the guy (and self-loathing sums him up perfectly - how can you sit and state on national televison that you are quite happy in your sexuality, yet can't bring yourself say the words "I am gay"? And this guy wants to be seen as a role-model for people? For what?!? Quite ridiculous...) you could tell that the house itself was getting to him just like anyone else.

I think the way the house has been designed this year (to appear expansive, when in fact it is actually very compact with nowhere to hide) has been quite unnerving. Especially the glass partition wall - that to me is quite an evil concept in the way BB have been able to manipulate and engineer situations to their advantage. I particularly feel for Eugene who is obviously in way over his head, and doesn't feel he can trust anyone. He may be geeky, but he's a loveable guy for being so genuine, and as such, I now think deserves to win. I hope he walks off with the other £50,000 (has he twigged yet that he can possibly do that? I don't think he or any of the others have yet have they?) Especially so after seeing Anthony's reaction which was far from genuine and really surprised me. (Saying he wanted to win, but the money meant nothing "I'd do it if it was to win a toothbrush", and then seeing how he reacted to the whole £50,000 incident was more than a little interesting/revealing)

It's all gotten very Stanford Prison Experiment.

1) Eugene to win

2) Ant second

3) Makosi third

4) Kinga out first tonight.

I seem to remember hearing the original inspiration for Big Brother came from an interesting experiment in prison where they put aggressive prisoners in rooms with one way mirrors. The prisoners didn't know if they were being watched or not, but it resulted in them feeling very self-aware and actually quietened their behaviour.

In Big Brother, the opposite happens, people exaggerate their behaviour, but that is because of the cameras and they know the public is constantly watching. The first series will never be bettered, simply because the contestants had no idea how it was being received in the outside world or if anyone really was watching in big numbers. Now contestants are very savvy that it is a massive media event and often tailor their behaviour to suit. Plus they know they will make a fortune out of newspaper deals - more than the prize money at stake.

I think this series has been fantastic, because of the unusual mix of people (for a while it seemed like they just kept putting in potential young tv presenters) and the fantastic twists, turns, secret missions and interesting tasks that managed to keep them all slightly on edge and constantly paranoid.

There is very little 'real-life' behaviour in Big Brother, but it still affords an interesting glimpse into the psychology and body language of people. I particularly love how people convince themselves things went a certain way when in fact the cameras reveal the opposite. I wish the interviews were longer after evictions, I would love them to really pin contestants down on their lies and self-deceptions, showing them the truth and watching them squirm. For instance, you just know full well that Davina will go easy on Makosi about all this 'pregnancy' thing when really we would all like her to be made to face upto her lies.

It's easy to laugh or be revulsed at the characters in there, but I often think, I wonder how me or my friends would come across in there?! Probably just as bad.

Two Interesting read's: http://news.independent.c...305345.ece

'Big Brother' faces up to the reality of TV ratings - its viewers have switched off
By Ciar Byrne, Media Correspondent
Published: 12 August 2005

When one of the female contestants on the latest Big Brother series appeared to perform a sex act with a wine bottle, her actions were seen as a low point in a show that was starting to lose its lustre.

Viewing figures for the reality television show, which finishes tonight, have dropped and commentators have warned that the channel is in danger of relying too heavily on a tired format.

The sixth series has plumbed new depths, the 20-year-old Kinga Karolczak's actions following other scenes such as sexual fumblings in the hot tub between two contestants and plenty of groping between others. All have been seen as increasingly desperate measures to gain the viewers' attention.

Yesterday the show's makers, Endemol, were on the defensive again after claims that another female contestant, the self-confident Zimbabwean nurse Makosi Musambasi, was a jobbing actress. They denied the story.

Channel 4 has committed itself to at least two more series of Big Brother after its current contract with Endemol runs out at the end of 2005, with the option for a further two years after that.

The current series has averaged an audience of 4.4 million, a 22 per cent share of viewers.

While the series' average will be boosted by tonight's final - and with anything over the four million mark being eminently respectable for Channel 4 - this unofficial average is lower than the consolidated viewing figures for any previous series. Even the fourth Big Brother, dismissed as the dullest yet, was watched by an average of 4.6 million, while last year the show enjoyed a renaissance with average viewing figures of five million, a 25 per cent audience share. Channel 4 has played down the significance of Big Brother, maintaining that while it is an important part of its commercial success, generating funds for less-watched drama and current affairs, it is only a small element of its overall offering.

But it has not addressed, in public at least, the issue of what will happen when audiences lose interest in a bunch of youthful extroverts engaging in ever-more lewd antics in a quest for instant fame, causing the lucrative telephone voting to dwindle.

It is not just the contestants who have resorted to gimmicks to sex-up the series - the producers have also been up to some tired tricks. "Surprise" evictions are now a regular occurrence, while a sequence in which one of the housemates, Eugene Sully, was faced with the no-brainer decision of whether to take half of the prize money (no one told him that if he had resisted, the pot would have doubled) looked distinctly lacklustre. David Elstein, former channel Five chief executive, said Channel 4 had invested too much in the show to relinquish it soon. "Channel 4 is certainly heavily dependent on Big Brother," Mr Elstein said. "[The digital channel] E4 is hugely dependent on spin-off programming - it probably gets about a third of its revenue from Big Brother. I don't think we'll see Channel 4 giving it up any time soon. The risk you run is that it may burn out on you."

Conor Dignam, editor of Broadcast magazine, agrees that Big Brother is a banker for the channel, but warns this is unsustainable in the long term. "They will only have come to rely on it too heavily the year that it finally fails to deliver," Mr Dignam said. "While it still brings in the viewers, they're not going to reduce it. It's a bit like saying ITV relies on Coronation Street too much. There will come a year when finally the wheels come off Big Brother, when viewers become tired of it, or they miscast it."

The current series did not enjoy the same marketing push in its first week as in 2004, when the opening show coincided with the farewell episode of Friends.

Just before the launch of this series of Big Brother, Channel 4's chief executive Andy Duncan admitted the show had done the broadcaster few favours with politicians. "A lot of politicians don't watch telly and if they do, they tend to watch the news. The sense that Channel 4 was doing Big Brother and not much else was a bit of a lazy perception. Among its audience it's absolutely loved, but it's one of the most polarising things we do," Mr Duncan said.

Who's watching the programme?

* BB1: 4.7m/26 per cent share

* BB2: 4.6m/24 per cent share

* BB3: 5.8m/28 per cent share

* BB4: 4.6m/22 per cent share

* BB5: 5.0m/25 per cent share

* BB6: 4.4m/22 per cent share (not consolidated, does not include tonight's final)

.
'Big Brother' producer cleans up with a £5m windfall
http://news.independent.c...305346.ece

The big winner of last year's Big Brother wasn't Nadia the Portuguese transsexual, but the show's producer Peter Bazalgette, who has collected £5m in bonuses over the past two years.

Endemol UK, producer of the reality TV shows Big Brother, Fame Academy and The Farm, made a loss of £5m for 2004, as an extensive bonus programme ate into profits. The company has paid out a total of £34m in bonuses over the past two years, under a seven-year scheme agreed in 1998.

The bonuses were performance related, following a year where Endemol produced more than 8,000 hours of television.

Mr Bazalgette, the chairman of Endemol UK, and his fellow directors do not own shares in the company, which is wholly owned by the Spanish telecoms giant Telefonica. It may not be the last bonus he and his colleagues receive, as the company is discussing more bonuses to encourage senior staff to stay on after a stock market launch of Endemol, expected at the end of this year or early next.

Endemol's bosses are extending their influence at the global Endemol group, which is based in the Netherlands, and active in more than 20 countries.

Its projects range from Extreme Makeover in the US to pro-celebrity cricket in India, but much of its success has come from franchising simple television formats around the world.

Big Brother has been a notable success from Australia to Brazil, but other programmes, such as Ready, Steady, Cook, have also been transplanted to more than 20 countries around the world.

Merrill Lynch is organising the stock market launch of a minority stake in Endemol group.


.
[Edited 8/12/05 10:07am]

And so, it ends. I'm not sure I'll watch next year. If they actually had people having conversations I might watch. Some of the articles above succinctly explain why I probably won't watch; ethical/moral reasons regarding watching a programme with psychologically challenged people (I have a tug of war going on in my head, part of me wanting to view, part of me thinking it is wrong). The best part of the viewing is what MetalOrange said,

"There is very little 'real-life' behaviour in Big Brother, but it still affords an interesting glimpse into the psychology and body language of people."

Hopefully I can do some real life psychological profiling by being able to go out more and meet people!

What a shame eugene didn't win, but at least he took the 50'000

I was a bit annoyed at anthony saying he wouldn't have taken it, until big bro told him he didn't know about it going up to 200'000 then ant said he would have taken the cash too, but to eugenes face and even to davina still said no way he;d have taken it what a contridiction.

One of the things that has amazed me, is how often the excuse of being drunk has been brought up as a way of excusing behaviour. Kinga got drunk and we know what happened, Anthony and Makosi got 'mortal' and couldn't even remember what happened - supposedly. Me and my mates have gotten drunk plenty of times but we've never had complete black-out periods the next day. I think when you get to the point that after a few glasses of wine you are so blotto that anything could happen and you won't even remember, it's time to cut back.

I mean, Davina asked Makosi if she had sex in the pool, Makosi's reply was not yes or no, it was, 'well I was very drunk' as if that explains away everything! She wasn't too drunk to make out she was pregnant. Boy, did she get booed!

Shame Eugene didn't win. None of the contestants this year was completely likeable, but I'd rather he have won than that poser Anthony.

omg I was clapping my hands so much when Makosi got booed.. stupid bitch, she deserves all bad that comes to her from now on..

I'm disapointed that Davina didn't tell Kinga that the 'alcohol' they were given the other night was NON-alcoholic. I SO wanted to see her face and explain that one away!

Couldn't help but sneer at my TV as Davina revealed to Anthony about Makosi telling BB she was pregant by him, and then Craig pointing over to Ant mouthing:

"SEE! I TOLD YOU!"

ME...YOUR BEST MATE!

Twat

I just don't understand why Makosi got a)such a bad reception from the crowd and b)why Davina singled her, out of all the contestants to 'have remorse' about her actions in the house. Err, hello? What about creepy
Craigs antics? What about throwing water over people and racism? I'm behind Makosi all the way. Why the hell should she have remorse? I don't think she played any dirtier than any of the others. What exactly did she do, that the others didn't do? What behaviour did she exhibit that was worse than any of the other housemates? They were all as bad as each other and actually, some were worse. I suppose that she got a bad reception due to BB's stupid non-selected crowd being in on the interview. Why they interview on stage on the final night is beyond me, can't hear the bloody thing properly anyways.