the filth and the fury
Jul. 5th, 2006 10:02 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
darren_strangerYou 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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-07-05 12:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-05 12:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-05 02:08 am (UTC)I don't think i've seen anyone in the discussions i've read getting anywhere near a "she asked for it" response (though i've only read a few threads on the subject).
Most of the opinions i've seen have been polarised to either "she wasn't that fussed, so it's no biggie" or "bullshit, that's sexual assault!"
The more i weigh it up, the more i'm finding myself coming to the surprising conclusion that maybe something can be sexual assault *and* no big deal*, which i'd never have even considered possible.
(*ie fitting the definition but not considered a big deal by the person concerned, though arguably still a big deal in terms of risk and precedent).
Fuck, did i just say something that could actually be contentious?
no subject
Date: 2006-07-05 01:09 am (UTC)australian television is sorely lacking , and there's a heap of fantastic writers, film makers and actors who could make stuff that will get you thinking about all sorts of stuff , but instead they go for the LCD and the cheapest option and make shite like this.
did you ever watch BB up late ?
a subjected my self a few time as you cant complain if you dont know right ...
now that was mind numbingly awful brain feeze, the host was just as vapid as the BB contestants (who were mostly asleep by then anyway)
and the "competitions" they run .. they weren't even trying any more
no subject
Date: 2006-07-05 01:29 am (UTC)Agreed - watching that was like slow torture, but again that was all the shit they surround the show with. If they'd just let you follow a conversation instead of cutting it off mid-sentence because it's time to extract more cash from viewers via another dodgy phone quiz, it could be something good.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-05 01:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-05 01:37 am (UTC)To be fair, SS/Endemol did amply prove that it could be worse: The Up Late Game Show with Hotdogs.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-05 01:40 am (UTC)The pain, the pain!!!
no subject
Date: 2006-07-05 02:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-05 09:25 am (UTC)