Thought Police attack Big Brother
I usually ignore all the moral panic that flares from time to time about Big Brother. It might be that I’m more easily irritated lately (which may explain why this is the second post in a row about television shows that I don’t even watch), but the latest bout of orchestrated hysteria over an incident in the Big Brother house which didn’t even go to air has really aggravated and concerned me.
I don’t watch Big Brother, don’t like the show and find the endless gossip about it that pollutes our newspapers tiresome in the extreme. But when politicians try to emulate the original Big Brother (from George Orwell’s book “1984”), I do start to get concerned.
The only time Big Brother ever caught my interest was when Merlin Luck used his eviction from the show to raise an important social issue – the incarceration of refugees – an act for which he was pilloried by the show’s host, the federal Immigration Minister and others. I can recall watching an episode of Rove Live where Gretel Killeen and Rove both seemed to go out of their way to bag Merlin Luck as a loser who wasted his moment in the sun by trying to make a political statement.
I am not a purist on this. I accept there needs to be limits on what should be screened on free to air television. I believe there also have to be limits put on what should be available through private, pay-to-access mechanisms (although how to police it is a vexed question). But to attempt to force a television show – however tasteless it is – off the air because of an incident that wasn’t even screened on television is simply beyond the pale and represents an excessive intrusion into the lives of Australians by moralising, preaching politicians who want to control how people live their lives.
If anyone in the Big Brother house broke the law in this latest incident, then it should be dealt with by the legal system. What was ‘screened’ through streaming on the internet at 4am in the morning is not going to harm the community, children or anybody else.
I find it hard to imagine what sort of person sits in front of a computer at 4am in the morning watching streamed footage of the Big Brother house on the internet. I suppose watching grainy, barely decipherable footage of nothing much happening might just beat enduring another nil-all draw in the soccer, but frankly, if you’re looking for entertainment on the internet, there’s a million more watchable things – savoury and not so savoury.
The only other people watching would be the very Thought Police that George Orwell wrote about in his novel.
I suspect many people have forgotten that the original Big Brother was a political leader in a book by George Orwell who used the power of the state to control every aspect of people’s lives, from what they said, did and watched, right down to their private thoughts.
This included a state apparatus known as the Thought Police who cracked down on any signs of people viewing material or acting in ways which were deemed to be socially (or politically) unacceptable.
To quote Wikipedia:
The Thought Police was the secret police of the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four whose job it was to uncover and punish thoughtcrime. The Thought Police used psychology and omnipresent surveillance to find and eliminate members of society who were capable of the mere thought of challenging ruling authority. Orwell’s Thought Police and their pursuit of thoughtcrime was based on the methods used by the totalitarian states and competing ideologies of the 20th century.
UPDATE: Not surprisingly, there’s lots of other commentary on this issue around the internet. You can find a good sample of it by going to the end of this post on Lavartus Prodeo.
For those actually interested in some context of the specific incident, I won’t link to footage of it which is around on the internet, but this link to the Behind Big Brother site gives a description and transcript.
I’ve only just realised that the Big Brother footage that gets streamed onto the Internet is only available by subscription. Leaving aside the question of why anyone would pay for this, obviously plenty of people do. The chances of somebody unwittingly and unwantedly being subjected to this sort of material in the online context is presumably very slim. There is a debate to be had about what is appropriate content on the internet, but if people believe that pornographic and other material that can be legally subscribed to is potentially harmful or dangerous, there is plenty of stuff a hundred times worse than Big Brother that they should be starting with.
Until I see politicians or other public figures take on the alcohol industry in a similarly strong and unequivocal way for advertising which encourages sexually predatory behaviour, and against the music and TV industry for screening – in prime children’s viewing time on a Saturday morning – innumerable music video clips which objectify, commodify and sexualise women in a one-dimensional way, then I can only assume those who are currently jumping on the ‘axe Big Brother’ bandwagon are just a pack of hypocrites trying to pick on an easy target to build up their ‘moral’ credentials.
(Note: Just to make it clear, I do worry about the impact of some of those advertisments and even more about the impact of those video clips in children’s viewing times. I genuinely don’t know what the best approach is to such things, but I do know that picking on an easy target at the low end of the scale while ignoring far bigger and more unequivocally problematic examples achieves nothing.)
A few other good articles on the Big Brother imbroglio:
- Christine Jackman outlines some of the ways the Big Brother producers push the housemates’ behaviour down certain paths:
“two days earlier, the show’s producers had designed a scenario in which sexual harassment was likely, apparently to inject some much-needed mid-season sexual tension into the house.”
- Gemma Connell writes on Online Opinion, asking “is whether or not the show should be cut really the issue?”
- Peter Craven writes in The Age that “Big Brother is an entertainment that always has the potential to veer into dark or serious places for the very reason that it does feed on life. But we don’t ban a sport just because people can get hurt and sometimes behave like pigs.”
41 Comments, Comment or Ping
Marcus
Look, Senator Barlett, you really hit the nail on the head. Our prime minister is leaving it a bit late if he wants to delete sexuality or even sexual inuendo from our broadcast media. Boy, I have sex and like it. I don’t even mind if other people do too.
It is not the first show to acknowledge that humans have sex, won’t be the last, and certainly isn’t the worst. It might be the only chance some people get to work it out, if their parents were like Mr Howard and wanted to keep the whole thing hush-hush. I feel it is even encouraging restraint in young people by actually having policies that say “you can’t do it on our show in front of the public or we kick you off”. Despite that rule, a couple did it. Just goes to show making ubiquitous policies don’t make for an interesting human life.
Big Brother, the show, is laughing at Mr. Howard. They got what they want; a rise out of those in the upper echelons of power to give them more publicity, and better ratings.
Get a grip, Mr Howard. We aren’t alive for your pleasure. Is that too racey to say in an email?
Jul 3rd, 2006
arty
thanx Andrew… finally some sense…… thank god you dont live in the 50s like johnny the little dictator….
Jul 3rd, 2006
Auslady
Senator Bartlett … what an incredibly succinct and clear view of the situation. I will be emailing Mr Beazley, Mr Howard and Ms Coonan as I totally disagree with how they have treated this situation. As a member of the public that has been voting for 20 years I have never felt more strongly that they are jumping on the bandwagon about an issue which should be left alone. I strongly disagree with what they are doing and commend you on your views. Thank you for standing up for freedom of speech and not being a sheep politician following the other silly politicians.
Auslady
Jul 3rd, 2006
Daniel Gilbett
Absolutly awsome view on the BB situatuion. Yes the major pollies are just grabbing easy votes for people that don’t like the show. Well i’ve got a simple solution.. If you don’t like the program don’t watch the bloody show!! SIMPLE!!
Jul 3rd, 2006
Ashley Cox
It is all very well for you to type on a blog that no-one reads, but how much will you say about this in The Senate?
You are too afraid of upseting people who have not even seen the video internet stream footage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JH8eXhF116I
Jul 3rd, 2006
Simon Hemsworth
Congratulation Sen. Bartlett
Liking the show or not is not the issue.
Being able to watch and decide for yourself is much more important.
Jul 3rd, 2006
Andrew Bartlett
Ashley
It’s a bit hard for me to have said anything in the Senate about it when this incident has only just happened. The Senate doesn’t resume until August – I may say something then.
Also, this blog might not get millions of readers (although it does get thousands), but I’m not sure the numbers of people who would hear a speech I make in the Senate or read it in the Hansard would be very much greater.
Jul 3rd, 2006
Mark Montgomery
Congratulation Sen. Bartlett.
I find it startling that the PM can admit that he has not watched the BB show, not seen the offending footage, and yet call for the show to be axed. I admit I do not watch BB but I 100% support the freedom for me to do so if I wish. Someone needs to tell Sen. Connan to stop meddling with free to air commercial networks and concentrate on what she does best (forcing the ABC into a government agenda).
It’s time for the government to start doing what the people want, and stop telling us what we want.
Jul 3rd, 2006
Graham Bell
Andrew Bartlett:
I agree with your opinion of the Big Brother show – I don’t bother watching it and I do wonder about people who do. If others want to watch it, that’s their problem …… and they are at liberty to do so.
That is the heart of the matter: even though I dislike the show, my opinion should not prevent others from doing so. So too for the government. If there are citizens and residents who insist on wasting their time watching silly shows and harm only their own reputations by doing so, where is there any need whatsoever for the government to be involved.
Isn’t there enough real work for government to do without squandering time, effort and the taxpayers’ money on this sort of ratbaggery?
Jul 3rd, 2006
ken
now Now graham – a bit of tolerance please. Don’t denigraet the simple for simplmy being simple. You might be accused of elitism.
Jul 3rd, 2006
Ben
Senator & others
I don’t buy the response “You don’t have to watch it – just turn it off”. Media and politicians have a responsibility, a civic duty, to respect community standards. The majority of people dont think it’s ok for a man to sexually harrass a woman by dangling his penis in her hair (even if she’s too stupid to realise she is being degraded).
I dont think the programme should be banned but it does need to reflect community attitudes on important issues like sexual harrassment.
Do we want pumped up 15 year olds thinking there are no boundaries? Some might say thats what parents are for but not all kids have 2 parents to watch over their kids all the time.
Senator please come down as heavily on sexual harrassment as you have on censorship.
Ta
Jul 3rd, 2006
Lesley de Voil
We are presently being exposed to information about the sex- and drugs- charged environment that played a large part in the death of an otherwise unremarkable woman. In both cases, the message that gangs of men can succeed in subjugating women where one man would fail, is, in this day and age, unacceptable.
Jul 3rd, 2006
Lee Kear
A point of detail first; the Thought Police were not an Orwellian invention. Japan’s ultra-nationalist Government of the 1930s had legislation to punish ‘thought crimes’ enacted and set up ‘thought police’ to enforce it. The difference between reality and literary invention is important.
I don’t watch Big Brother; but I am not so dull as to think that ‘choosing not to watch’ is the issue. This program, and other reality-TV programs purport to represent CURRENT SOCIAL REALITY or at least, current mores, attitudes and acceptable social behaviours. What they present, condone, encourage and pander to is lapped up by teenagers (in particular) across this country.
That this is so does not depend on whether you or I watch it.
While I agree with your concern over the apparently pro-censorship posturing of various politicians, none that I could find have called for the program to be banned, only for Channel Ten to drop the show.
Predictably Ten won’t drop Big Brother. This vile incident will only be used to sell the program and it’s advertising even more. It will become that favourite marketing term ‘a sex scandal’ not an assult on a woman.
I’m not an anti-intellectual. I’ve read all of Orwell’s works. But today’s Big Brother is not an intellectual idea, or a character in a book, it’s a TV Show. A real ‘Reality TV Show’ which tells us what we can and can’t do to each other, what we can and can’t get away with, what’s just a laugh, and what’s not really sexual assault, just a bit of fun.
Big Brother doesn’t tell us what to think, it encourages us not to think. Just because it isn’t what Orwell wrote about doesn’t mean it isn’t a serious social influence. The real Big Brother is Big Money – making more money by exploiting the venality, greed, gullibility, sexuality and prurient interest of as many people as can be captured by the pseudo-drama of this narcissistic goldfish bowl.
The supreme irony here is that Big Brother isn’t government gone mad, it’s business doing business. Money before humanity, bucks before dignity, a freak show where we can be the freaks, or at least vote for them, for a price of course.
Your blog-piece comes across as smug, vaguely pompous, morally superior, and intellectual snobbery. The tone is Senatorial only in that it’s the view from the first-class seats at the Circus maximus. Lift your game Andrew.
Jul 3rd, 2006
red crab
give me a break is this all you can talk about .
how dose it go small things amuse small minds .
suppose thats why howard had his say.
Jul 3rd, 2006
Graham Bell
Ken (post 12):
I’m trying very hard to be as elitist as I possibly can ….. by none of the simpletons will let me … :-)
Ben … and Lesley de Voil:
I can understand your points of view ….. but perhaps the incident seen on the Big Brother website (or wherever) was inevitable. So what do you do to rehabilitate all the people – of all classes – who, as kids, were dumped in front the “electronic grandma” for hundreds and hundreds of hours and have grown up with some rather unnice attitudes to responsibility, respect, violence, honesty, safety, work and a whole lot of other aspects of our society that they acquired and learnt from the dancing electrons on a screen? Not eveybody, of course, but enough to cause concern. And no, censorship, “tougher”(??) penalties, calls for more parental responsibility, etc. are not really practical answers.
Lee Kear:
Agree with much of your insight …. but disagree with you about smugness and intellectual snobbery. What should scare everyone are some of the possibilities that could arise a few years after the very successful Big Brother shows have gone …. anyone for Death Penalty by phone poll? Now you couldn’t get anything more democratic than that, could you?
Jul 3rd, 2006
jadesmythe
I’m not an anti-intellectual. I’ve read all of Orwell’s works. But today’s Big Brother is not an intellectual idea, or a character in a book, it’s a TV Show. A real ‘Reality TV Show’ which tells us what we can and can’t do to each other, what we can and can’t get away with, what’s just a laugh, and what’s not really sexual assault, just a bit of fun.
They were both expelled from the show instantly, and the only reason charges are not being pursued is that the victim (God knows why) did not wish it.
Your blog-piece comes across as smug, vaguely pompous, morally superior, and intellectual snobbery.
That’s actually a pretty good description of your comment. To suggest that the show’s producers are responsible for what happened is totally absurd.
Jul 4th, 2006
wendy lewthwaite
Lee
I totally Agree with you. Actually just last night at 7.15 I walked into my bedroom and this crap was on. I was minding my neighbours children and they were sitting watching it while I had been cooking dinner.
I dont want that smutt in my home.
What On earth is this world coming to when this low life behavouir is put on in familt time with kids still up.
Apart from that it does not relect the real values of most parents.
It activley works against parents.
90 percent of the public have wanted this show banned from day one.
I should think that the 90s > have it !
Jul 4th, 2006
Evil Pundit
90% of statistics are made up on the spot.
Jul 4th, 2006
patrickg
Hi Andrew,
I believe this post got quoted by the SMH today, as a “lone voice of dissent”. Lol
Jul 4th, 2006
Sylvia Else
I have viewed the footage of the incident, unlike many commentators, it appears, and to my mind the guys could very well have thought they had Halliwell’s (a.ka. Camilla’s) consent for what they were doing. At worst it was a misunderstanding. It was definitely not an assault within the usual meaning of the term.
John Howard and Senator Coonan both seem to feel able to form a judgment about the program and the individuals without burdening themselves with the facts.
In replying to the original item, Ben has made a reference to “community standards”. While community standards probably are against the action as it has been portrayed in the media, it is much less clear that they are against the kind of conduct that actually occurred. After all, there are many appeals to community standards, but little in the way of concrete research into what those standards are.
Jul 4th, 2006
Aron
Nice quote in the Independent (UK) toady:
“However the opposition Democrat senator, Andrew Bartlett, accused the Prime Minister of unnecessary intrusion. “It is politicians trying to be Big Brother that we really need to be concerned about,” he said.”
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/australasia/article1159275.ece
So true.
It’s a bit rich to hear Howard protesting about anything on moral grounds given his public immorality. THe truth is he’d much rather people were watching and discussing ‘big brother the tv program’ than ‘big brother the state’ – govt cronyism, surveillance, terrorism, war, corruption. There’s only one eviction he worries about – and that’s his from Kirribili House!
Jul 4th, 2006
Ck
“To suggest that the show’s producers are responsible for what happened is totally absurd.”
Oh, do come off it!
Loads of alcohol, 4.00 am in the morning, sleep deprived, extreme boredom over an extended period of time.
The producers control every aspect of the setting, and manipulte circumstances when they’re not getting “interesting” footage for their daily shows.
The daily programs are heavily edited and the “good bits” (very few and far between) are replayed ad nausea. This is not “real”, nor is it “entertaining”.
Which part of this entirely fabricated situation (and a ripper of a money spinner for Channel 10, with very little investment cost – this is cheap teevee and high profit, thanks to primary school kids, amongst whom it is very popular) is NOT in the hands of the producers? Seriously.
I don’t care if the show continues or not: I’m all grown up, I don’t have to watch. I do think it’s an awful show, but there is a lot of really bad programing out there in teevee land.
Jul 4th, 2006
Marilyn Shepherd
I note that the media are reporting that Private Green of the 101st army of the US of A has stalked, raped, shot twice in the head and tried to burn the corpse of a 15 years old girl along with her 34 year old mother, 45 year old father and 7 year old sister.
Private Green was dismissed from the army due to a personality disorder.
I have not heard one politician mention this absolutely sickening atrocity. I have a 15 year old grand-daughter – anyone want to comment on this instead of the mindless boredom of BB?
Jul 4th, 2006
R
One issue you haven’t raised is the rights of the woman who was assaulted. Doesn’t she have the right not to have her assault seen by other people? I’m not arguing for the censorship of the show- only that this particular incident not be available to the public to protect the victim.
Jul 4th, 2006
Ck
Over at http://wildyoungunderwhimsy.blogspot.com/
Mel has posted a summary of the incident (with the dialogue), but far more important is her excellent summary analysis of the context of the “incident”.
Mel certainly does a much better job of providing insight into what it all means than anyone in the MSM, or on other blogs. She concludes her commentary thus:
“Rather, I’m wondering what I’d do if caught in that scenario. I’d probably be caught between feeling pleased that I was being invited to interact with two people who’d previously indicated that they particularly didn’t like me, and being suspicious that they were deliberately humiliating me.
I mean, if I’d spent the last week being sexually humiliated — by my own drunken admission that I wanted to “pash Ash”, by Ash’s subsequent play for Claire, and by Big Brother’s challenge to kiss the entire household in an hour — I would welcome any vague gesture that I belonged. And if the gesture did turn out to be an unwelcome turkey slap, I’d feel so acutely humiliated that I would just want the whole thing to go away.”
Jul 5th, 2006
Evil Pundit
R, one issue you ignore is the fact that the woman wasn’t assaulted in the first place.
This whole thing is one big publicity stunt, and you’ve fallen for it nicely.
Jul 5th, 2006
Aron
True Marylin, that story of the rape and murder in Iraq was hideous. In fact, the death and destruction in that country over the last year has been so horrendous – one cannot help but think its consequences for our own society will be far more serious than the more controlled forms of reality tv.
I do in fact notice, as you say, that the phoney christians and fake moralists ARE silent about this horrendous crime perpetrated in all our names. A bit off topic really, but thanks for the perspective. My only consolation is that these men may be brought to justice. There have been so many crimes in IRaq however, they can only be seen as part of a larger pattern – give vulnerable young men guns and power over a whole people, and lead them with a leadership that openly commends torture and spurns ideas of law and common humanity, and one can only expect all the brutality of which we have heard in that place.
Jul 5th, 2006
ken
Theres horrible crime committed all around the workd every day. So is the suggestion we should spend al our time discussing horrible crime – or selected horricle crime that suits another agenda?
Jul 5th, 2006
Graham Bell
Ken:
I can see your point of view …. but censorship can take many forms and flooding the agenda so that there is no room for anything else to be discussed (or even known to exist) is only one of them.
Aron:
There is a whole truckload of issues about which the fake moralists and the phoney christians are strangely silent …. the resettlement of the New Orleans families who have lived there for a couple of centuries; the fate of rural families in Australia where a member has been driven to suicide ….. the list goes on and on …. so does the silence of these usually noisy ratbags.
Marilyn Shepherd:
That was a horrifying series of crimes. As usual, the news media will put on a circus about the culprit and not a word will be said about the causes nor a word about preventing similar crimes.
Jul 5th, 2006
jadesmythe
Loads of alcohol, 4.00 am in the morning, sleep deprived, extreme boredom over an extended period of time.
Yup, a few drinks and it’s only inevitable that you would hold somebody down so your friend can shove his crotch in her face. They didn’t do it… it was Big Brother who forced them to do it… by giving them beer!
Jul 6th, 2006
Ck
No Jadesmythe – but the circumstances and context are manipulated and artificial.
If you look at the context of my comment, you would have noticed that I was responding to the suggestion that Channel 10 is entirely blameless. That’s not a complicated point to grasp.
Jul 6th, 2006
tanja
i’m not sure why about all this furore over Big Brother. Sure Diamond Dogs was a bit of a patchy album but i still think BB was a great Bowie song LOL.
;)
Jul 8th, 2006
wendy lewthwaite
Reply To M re your matter raised.
There are plenty of people around with personality disorders M
If hes in a mental hospital then i can not see what we can say except the army needs to lift its game.
Jul 9th, 2006
Xeno
I suspect many people have forgotten that the original Big Brother was a political leader in a book by George Orwell who used the power of the state to control every aspect of people’s lives, from what they said, did and watched, right down to their private thoughts.
This included a state apparatus known as the Thought Police who cracked down on any signs of people viewing material or acting in ways which were deemed to be socially (or politically) unacceptable.
Great point Andrew. The irony of the situation is quite delicious.
Jul 9th, 2006
Graham Bell
Xeno:
Not me. I read Orwell’s book at an early age. Only the date in the title of that book was inexact.
Jul 9th, 2006
Ashley Cox
Here are some more links to the footage of the “incident”, since the one above has been removed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4-ktkTbQj0&search=big%20brother%20turkey
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhV8oQiIwYI&search=big%20brother%20turkey
This footage has also been published on The Sydney Morning Herald site, and has been shown in edited form on other television networks apart from 10.
You be the judge as to whether the incident was “sexual assault”, considering the three participants had been kept in a house together for 70 days, and had previously discussed similar activities.
Jul 12th, 2006