BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


I hate big brother

 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
 
Smoothly
00:59 / 24.01.07
For me, there's also the fact that it's a shared viewing experience of a type that's vanishingly rare with TV these days. Big sporting tournaments have a similar appeal, but I don't really get much out of watching sport. Also, something like the World Cup also requires some grounding to get the most out of it (eg. it helps to know the game, who the players are and how the teams perform) while BB assumes no prior knowledge. We all sit down to the opening episode the same.

And although I watch quite a lot of reality TV, I still like BB best. For one thing, the coverage is much better (and not just here, although it's indicative), and the fact that it is distinctly not task-fucussed means that the characters can be observed not doing very much. This has it's own appeal because that's when people feel unobserved and tend to let their guard down. It's notable, for example, that BB housemates scrub up when (a) they are about to be given instructions by Big Brother, (b) when they are carrying out a task or (c) there's a live show. The rest of the time it's as if they don't think anyone's watching.

The conceit of the faceless Big Brother character is also clever and interesting; playing the role of parent, tormentor, gaoler and saviour by turns. The Stockholm Syndrome stuff aside, Big Brother is unique TV character - ze's the only established TV character I can think of who isn't also a TV personality (the only 'ze' on TV in fact). And because Big Brother is unknown and unknowable to the viewer as ze is to the housemates, it's easier to empathise with them. Ant & Dec chumming around with the contestants on I'm A Celebrity just reinforces the fourth wall between the viewer and the programme. Sitting at home, it's much easier to put oneself in the shoes of a BB Housemate. At least, that's how it feels to me.

being addicted to BB is like being addicted to Macmuffins - just because they get you hooked doesn't mean to say they are any good.

I'm interested in this because if you love scarfing down McMuffins, on some level they must be good. Or do you mean not good for you? Is that what you're getting at?
 
 
Ganesh
06:42 / 24.01.07
Additionally, the "shared viewing experience" phenomenon has relevance with regard to the question

ganesh, what have you learned from viewing big brother?

because the post-Big Brother discussion has taught me rather a lot about my colleagues (and, perhaps to a lesser extent, family and friends) with regard to their attitudes toward race, sex, etc. At the moment, the question "do you think those girls were being racist to Shilpa?" is being asked of me by people who'd never engage with or contribute to a discussion of racism in the abstract, yet it's possible to go on to talk about what we individually recognise as racism, the difference between conscious and unconscious (ignorant/unexamined) prejudice, the degree of overlap of racism and bullying, etc., etc. etc. In the absence of Big Brother I don't think I'd be having these conversations with these people - so it's facilitated my learning about them as people and presumably their learning about me.

This is inevitably a feature of any Big Brother featuring gay people. During last year's run, I was frequently asked, "why don't Richard and Michael get on?" which then lead onto discussion of 'coming out', degrees of self-loathing in gay men and how we cope with that, individual construction of masculinity... and I'm pretty sure at least some of this was enlightening to people who, never having seen groups of openly non-heterosexual people onscreen, imagined that a gay man would automatically like and want to have sex with another gay man (see also Brian and Josh). The fact that I was able to have fairly nuanced discussions around this subject was satisfying to me and, I like to think, a source of 'learning' to others.
 
 
Peach Pie
09:00 / 24.01.07
i see belatedly that the title of this thread is not helpful. it was intended to be more a sort of discussion of what, if anything, is the value of big brother.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:12 / 24.01.07
Well, I can change that. How about "The value of Big Brother?"
 
 
Quantum
10:19 / 24.01.07
this thread will suffer from requiring people to talk about not liking something they don't watch, and I don't see much mileage.

Well, I welcome it as a place to discuss the effects of BB beyond the show itself, it's impact on non-watchers, how pervasive it is etc. rather than detailed discussion of the racism of housemates, what racism is etc.
I want a place to talk about hating BB. If it should be in convo rather than TV (did the World Cup haterz thread move?) fair enough, as it's about the wider effects rather than the show itself.
 
 
Peach Pie
16:53 / 24.01.07

I suppose it's the way it's used in society. some nobody says something dumb and racist. it makes the front pages of at least four newspapers. given the power of the televised image and the printed word, we're being told impliedly that this is one of the most important things going on in britain. that's my beef. tv should be a public service - is the public really bast served by 'reality' shows that.... 'nowhere man' always floats around my head after i've been watching BB for long enough.
 
 
Ganesh
17:41 / 24.01.07
Well, I think the whole question of what "best serves" the public shades again into the idea that television must include some sort of 'moral' dimension - or, at least, be 'improving' in some unspecified way. I've given examples of ways in which this particular member of the public has been rather well served by Big Brother, and I could provide several more. It might be a good idea to refine the question.
 
 
Peach Pie
08:45 / 25.01.07

You're right. My chief two beefs with this programme are:

1) the way reality shows have supplanted other forms of 'realit tv'. have you noticed that documentaries are shown much less frequently than they were, say, a decade ago? they were my favorite form of tv.

2) nothing to do with the programme itself - but the way it's used by the media. there's *never* sufficient shortage of news in the world for jade to be on five front pages. did you hear, for example, about this news item?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1769371/posts

This story broke around the same time as the 'jade racism' row, and is far more worthy of front page attention IMO. Even on it's own terms, the programme's claim to be committed to stimulating debate is insincere. They know the racism debate will be short lived.
 
 
Ganesh
09:30 / 25.01.07
Does Big Brother itself claim, sincerely or otherwise, to be stimulating debate? I was under the impression that, generally speaking, the programme is now promoted pretty much squarely on the basis of being entertainment rather than because it stimulates debate.

I think it does provide a lead-in to wider issues - and is now a cultural phenomenon in its own right - but I'm not sure that the show itself makes this sort of claim.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
09:39 / 25.01.07
I don't think the show has ever "claimed" this until now, when to be fair they seem to be using it more an an excuse rather than saying it was an actual objective.

Andy Duncan's statement:

The debate has been heated, the viewing has at times been uncomfortable but, in my view, it is unquestionably a good thing that the programme has raised these issues and provoked such a debate. These attitudes, however distasteful, do persist – we need to confront that truth.
 
 
Ganesh
09:42 / 25.01.07
Endemol/C4 may be using the 'stimulating debate' thing as an excuse in the current situation but that's still some way from the spectre of them claiming that they're "committed" to stimulating debate in a more general sense.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
09:50 / 25.01.07
That's kind of what I meant in my first sentence, only you put it a lot better.
 
 
Smoothly
10:11 / 25.01.07
have you noticed that documentaries are shown much less frequently than they were, say, a decade ago? they were my favorite form of tv.

I just don’t think this is true, donnie. Given the proliferation of digital channels, the sheer volume of documentaries currently available to the average viewer dwarfs what was offered 10 years ago. And to be honest, I’d need some hard stats to convince me that Channel 4 is showing less traditional factual programming than it did in 1997.
But then I think it’s pretty standard to believe that TV was better 10, 20 or 30 years ago. Everyone thinks TV was best when they were between 16 and 20. I strongly recommend getting a back issue of the Radio Times from whenever you think the golden age was and behold! Hours and hours of utter crap that you’d completely forgotten about.

nothing to do with the programme itself - but the way it's used by the media. there's *never* sufficient shortage of news in the world for jade to be on five front pages. did you hear, for example, about this news item?

It’s good that you admit that this has nothing to do with the programme itself, and your complaint is that newspapers print things you’re not interested in. But again, how much of a problem is this? Compared with 10 years ago, do you struggle to find coverage of the events you are interested in? It was only the red-tops that were pages deep with Big Brother. The broadsheets covered your story. Not to mention the internet.

Unless you’re making some kind of moral case about why people shouldn’t be interested in Big Brother, I find it hard to distinguish your second beef from someone getting fucked off that political stories eat in to their paper’s Big Brother coverage.
 
 
Peach Pie
12:22 / 25.01.07

I’d need some hard stats to convince me that Channel 4 is showing less traditional factual programming than it did in 1997.
But then I think it’s pretty standard to believe that TV was better 10, 20 or 30 years ago. Everyone thinks TV was best when they were between 16 and 20.


fair enough, but i'm not aware of being dewey eyed for tv generally between those ages. i wonder where that sort of stat. info would be available... i *think* there's a particular perception that channel 4 has gone downhill... but again, i'd need to formulate my argument much more precisely to actually back this up.
 
 
Peach Pie
12:28 / 25.01.07

The broadsheets covered your story.

Well, blow me down with a feather. "microchips planned for the mentally ill" right there in the mainstream. do you know if there's a barbelith thread on this?

Unless you’re making some kind of moral case about why people shouldn’t be interested in Big Brother, I find it hard to distinguish your second beef from someone getting fucked off that political stories eat in to their paper’s Big Brother coverage



I suppose it is a moral case. Ganesh has made a good case for how BB might educate is in terms of psycholgy, group psychology especially, and may even be morally important for its ability to showcase the lives of people from who may be in a social "minority" in some sense free from the limitations of tokenism. But it still stops short of affecting our lives directly, as radical political decisions might. Accordingly I suppose I'm suggesting a greater quota of mainstream press ought to be given to the latter.
 
 
Smoothly
12:33 / 25.01.07
i wonder where that sort of stat. info would be available...

Well, if you take current affairs as indicative of Channel 4’s hard factual output and public service contribution, then this Ofcom report suggests that Channel 4 has actually increased its output in the last 10 years (eg. 96 hours in peak in 1998 vs 125 hours in 2005).
Just sayin’.
 
 
Smoothly
12:38 / 25.01.07
I'm suggesting a greater quota of mainstream press ought to be given to the latter.

Fair enough. But I suppose this would apply to anything from sport to, I dunno, lots of international news won't affect your life directly.
 
 
Ganesh
16:19 / 25.01.07
Ganesh has made a good case for how BB might educate is in terms of psycholgy, group psychology especially, and may even be morally important for its ability to showcase the lives of people from who may be in a social "minority" in some sense free from the limitations of tokenism. But it still stops short of affecting our lives directly, as radical political decisions might.

Depends who we're talking about when we say "our lives". I've already touched on the relative diversity of non-heterosexual people we see (and, to some extent, get to know) on Big Brother - and this sort of representation does tangibly affect the lives of people within those minority subgroups. I've read about (and, less frequently, talked to) young gay men who've used Big Brother as a means of coming out. I can relate to this myself: when I came out, maaany years ago, my mother's only gay acquaintance was an aged queen into 'straight' boys who fucked him, took his money and gifts, then beat him up and left. That's what she thought being gay was about. If I were to come out in 2007, my mother would have a plethora of BB Housemates by way of reference: she'd understand that Richard is different from Brian is different from Michael is different from Craigh is different from Dan is different from Josh is different from Shahbaz is different from Weeping Fagbangle. These are all real gay men she 'knows'. She has a frame of reference.

The same, I understand, is true of transgendered individuals and Nadia (and, perhaps to a lesser extent, Kemal and Sam). Nadia's appearance on Big Brother was hugely influential, and I'm aware of several young trans people who feel they owe her a debt, not least in helping empower them in realising their gender.

In these cases, Big Brother has directly affected the course of lives, arguably more so than any "radical political decision" might. Although I'm uncertain why we're evaluating a television programme in "radical political decision" terms in the first place.
 
 
penitentvandal
16:30 / 25.01.07
That reminds me, I must gather up some of that Weeping Fagbangle I have growing on my allotment. The seeds make quite a nice tea.
 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
  
Add Your Reply