![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
the filth and the fury
Jul. 5th, 2006 10:02 amYou know what i don't get?
People complain about the Big Brother show because it's lowbrow, vapid and pointless, yet as soon as something happens that raises an important issue and gets people talking, perhaps for the first time, about a topic like where you draw the line on what constitutes sexual assault, then suddenly this is held up as a reason why the show should be axed.
Getting an insight into how other people think and act, particularly when they let their 'polite company' mask slip, is Big Brother's *only* redeeming feature. For all its other faults, i'd hate for it to get the chop for actually doing something useful.
-------------
Edit: I also want to add in a comment i posted in another journal, on the topic of agreeing with John Howard's calls for the show to be axed:
I can think of plenty of things wrong with that show - the tacky manipulations to get people to backstab and play off against each other, artificially prodding social as well as sexual tensions for entertainment value, editing for sensationalism over observation, and especially the basic premise of it being a petty popularity contest focussing on selecting and punishing the least popular in the group.
But i'll be fucked if i'll give an ounce of support to calls to axe it from someone i believe is motivated primarily by deep-seated disdain for non-marital sexuality in general (or else the opportunity to appease the anti-sex sentiments of his conservative voters).
These days, i'm so wary of the drift towards conservatism that, even if i loathed Big Brother and dearly wanted it canned for all manner of other reasons, i'd probably be inclined to take the opposite position rather than than support a moral victory for the same wowsers who i suspect would like to see homosexuality criminalised and single mothers sent to convents.
People complain about the Big Brother show because it's lowbrow, vapid and pointless, yet as soon as something happens that raises an important issue and gets people talking, perhaps for the first time, about a topic like where you draw the line on what constitutes sexual assault, then suddenly this is held up as a reason why the show should be axed.
Getting an insight into how other people think and act, particularly when they let their 'polite company' mask slip, is Big Brother's *only* redeeming feature. For all its other faults, i'd hate for it to get the chop for actually doing something useful.
-------------
Edit: I also want to add in a comment i posted in another journal, on the topic of agreeing with John Howard's calls for the show to be axed:
I can think of plenty of things wrong with that show - the tacky manipulations to get people to backstab and play off against each other, artificially prodding social as well as sexual tensions for entertainment value, editing for sensationalism over observation, and especially the basic premise of it being a petty popularity contest focussing on selecting and punishing the least popular in the group.
But i'll be fucked if i'll give an ounce of support to calls to axe it from someone i believe is motivated primarily by deep-seated disdain for non-marital sexuality in general (or else the opportunity to appease the anti-sex sentiments of his conservative voters).
These days, i'm so wary of the drift towards conservatism that, even if i loathed Big Brother and dearly wanted it canned for all manner of other reasons, i'd probably be inclined to take the opposite position rather than than support a moral victory for the same wowsers who i suspect would like to see homosexuality criminalised and single mothers sent to convents.
