|
July 03, 2006
Catharine Lumby, Associate Professor of Media and Communications at the University of Sydney, writes in Crikey Daily that once again the Big Brother entertainment program is embroiled in controversy and there are calls to have it taken off air following an incident of sexual misconduct in the house.
The incident happened at the Gold Coast house where the show is filmed that was streamed on the internet but not televised. It showed that John lay down beside Camilla in a bed and held her from behind while a half-dressed Ash knelt over her and put his crotch into her face. Is this their way to seek fame and fortune?
Nicholson, Big Brother Uncut cut ACMA
Lumby, a friend of culture industry, defends Channel Ten by arguing that all is okay with the management of the incident. She says that:
Unfortunately, a lot of the criticisms [of Big Brother] conflate two very different issues. The first kind of criticism, which is frequently levelled at the show, is rooted in socially conservative moral objections to a show in which young people live together, shower together and talk in sexually explicit ways. The second, quite separate, issue is the question of what rules apply in the house and of how the producers manage any incidents of alleged sexual assault, harassment or bullying.
Only two issues? Let's put the first issue to one side--I have no brief for conservative objections to sexuality---and look at how she addresses the second---the theatre.
She says:
As someone who was involved in reviewing the house rules relating to sex, gender and ethics this year and who spent time working with the producers to discuss how they should deal with hypothetical misconduct, I was heartened to see that they acted quickly to remove the two men involved from the house. They also offered the woman full access to confidential counselling and an opportunity to take any action she wanted. Their response was important for two reasons. Firstly, and most obviously, it was critical that the woman involved was given every support. But just as importantly, the producers were telling the viewers that a line had been crossed and that there's never any excuse for uninvited sexual behaviour.
Okay Channel Ten acted properly. The libertarian response is that sexual behaviour by young people stimulates healthy debate as it is only depicting real life. Is the problem that the latest series was too real for some people? Should we say that it is an expression of conservative morality to say that we shouldn't show it on TV?
So why stream the sexual assault on the internet if Channeel Ten says it was wrong cos it broke the rules? Shouldn't a moral finger be pointed at Channel Ten for sanctioning what is wrong? After all, the household's occupants are monitored 24 hours a day. Lumby is silent about this ethical issue as she saying that Channel Ten is doing the right thing in managing the incident.
Lumby then introduces a favourite theme --since young audiences can learn from tabloid television--it cannot be dismissed as trash. She says:
Big Brother has an enormous audience of young men and women who actively debate the rights and wrongs of what goes on in the house. They're exactly the audience to whom we want to be getting the message out about the need to be really sure you have consent in sexual situations. If any good can come out of an incident like this, it's that the Big Brother audience will be contemplating this issue because it's one which directly affects so many of them.
Fine. But it is what else that is missing from Lumby's account that is of concern. Big Brother is run by Channel Ten and they push the edge to create controversy to get ratings. The producers---Endemol Southern Star and Network Ten--- have a track record in manipulatng the publicity for this program. It is how the issue is "contemplated" that is of concern.
Is the current situation being exploited for ratings? Well, what is "getting" an emotional Camilla ---the housemate allegedly sexually assaulted by John and Ashley--- to appear on national television to give a tearful explanation of the situation? The meaning of "getting" is vague because it is unclear to me whether Camille consented to appear on televison to talk about the alleged assault, or that she was coerced to do so. Lumby says nothing about this--or even addresses whether it can be interpreted as a cynical and exploitative way of contemplating the issue to achive ratings. We are dealing with the culture industry after all.
|
Gary, in fact Camilla did very specifically request ("plead" would probably be more accurate)that she be able to explain the incident to everyone else, and she was encouraged to do so.