Anyone who’s been following the news in Britain in the past few months can’t have escaped the Big Brother racism rows. Firstly, ‘celebrity’ Jade Goody became a national hate symbol for her bullying of Bollywood actress Shilpa Shetty, calling her amongst other things “Shilpa Poppadom”. Channel 4 were roundly condemned by everyone from Gordon Brown, to a Bihari mob (who burnt effigies of executives), to Ofcom, Britain’s self righteous post-hoc TV censors. Then, in the next series of BB, Emily Parr was unceremoniously cast out of the house for using the “N word” (bizarrely quite innocently) to another contestant. The chastening effect of Ofcom’s condemnation and the media furore around CBB seems to have prompted the producers’ tough action.
But almost simultaneously, on the show Shipwrecked, ex-public schoolgirl Lucy Buchanan was busy declaring that black people were “bad”, that she hoped for the restoration of slavery and the British Empire, and that she didn’t like fat and ugly people (insert uncharitable joke here). Ofcom’s recently published reaction this time defended Channel 4’s right to include unpopular views in the programme (of course with the proviso that these were “in context”).
Whilst of course it’s always good to hear anyone attacking limits on freedom of expression, frankly what the hell is going on? To me, Lucy’s views are a lot more coherently obnoxious that the rather arbitrary faux pas committed by the other two; more reminiscent of the traditional racism of the elite, rather than the ‘chavtastic’ chauvinism of someone like Goody. However in a time where xenophobia is seen as a rather proley pursuit, and often as a tool to bash the white working class, Goody makes a good punchbag.
However I think incoherence is more of a motivation than class war. Without a clear idea of what it wants to censor or why (unlike for instance with Irish Republicans in the 1980s), Ofcom has made it up on the hoof, condemning displays of pseudo-racism one day, and permitting real displays on another. But as was noted previously on this blog, the encouraging part of this story was the reaction of the other contestants who argued against Lucy’s bigotry- they had faith in talking and arguing rather than shutting people up. If only the same could be said for Ofcom.
Robin Walsh
Showing posts with label reality tv. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reality tv. Show all posts
Saturday, 7 July 2007
Friday, 16 March 2007
Desert island discussions
More than any of its rivals in the reality TV market, Channel 4 has proved the most adept at stimulating and satisfying our taste for violent confrontation. Moments of explosive conflict between contestants have now become the primary aim of much of C4’s output in this field. The channel’s success owes much to the cherry-picking of individuals willing to speak their minds, irrespective of what ugly thoughts might spew forth. The latest of such gems, 18-year-old Lucy Buchanan, can be found roaming the desert island reality show Shipwrecked.
Fresh from public school and complete with Victorian perspectives on race and sex, she already stated, in one of the first instalments, that slavery ought to be brought back. On this past Sunday’s episode she once again obliged by commenting on women’s supposed inherent inferiority to men. When a fellow contestant, Jo Davis – an outspoken lesbian DJ – heard the comment, she gasped in horror before fiercely reproaching Lucy. The trailer for the episode predictably featured this tantalising glimpse, and viewers were promised the thrill of a fiery shouting match.
As it turned out, it didn’t live up to its promise. Rather than a verbal battering of the prim and privileged Lucy by the forceful Jo, viewers were treated to a thoughtful discussion between the two. Jo invited Lucy to explain her views before suggesting that these probably did not correspond with Lucy’s and her own experience, inherited as they probably were from her parents and grandparents. The discussion lasted about five minutes, at the end of which Lucy accepted the force of Jo’s argument and both went back to lounging in the shade.
The discussion may have been brief, but it was significant. Not because the ‘right’ view won out, but rather because of the exemplary attitude shown by Jo: she engaged with a position that she found abhorrent and self-evidently wrong, and rather than denying Lucy a voice by denouncing her as a bigot, Jo entered into dialogue and a constructive exchange of ideas ensued.
It is precisely this sort of attitude that encourages others less bold – or more circumspect – than Lucy to speak freely where they might otherwise have bitten their tongues and censored themselves for fear of giving offence or attracting censure. I say this not simply to encourage more people to air racist or misogynist views, but rather because it is only through doing so that such prejudices can be properly challenged. Jo provided a telling reminder of how fundamental such an attitude is to free and frank discussion and, more generally, to the establishment of a robust discursive culture.
Fresh from public school and complete with Victorian perspectives on race and sex, she already stated, in one of the first instalments, that slavery ought to be brought back. On this past Sunday’s episode she once again obliged by commenting on women’s supposed inherent inferiority to men. When a fellow contestant, Jo Davis – an outspoken lesbian DJ – heard the comment, she gasped in horror before fiercely reproaching Lucy. The trailer for the episode predictably featured this tantalising glimpse, and viewers were promised the thrill of a fiery shouting match.
As it turned out, it didn’t live up to its promise. Rather than a verbal battering of the prim and privileged Lucy by the forceful Jo, viewers were treated to a thoughtful discussion between the two. Jo invited Lucy to explain her views before suggesting that these probably did not correspond with Lucy’s and her own experience, inherited as they probably were from her parents and grandparents. The discussion lasted about five minutes, at the end of which Lucy accepted the force of Jo’s argument and both went back to lounging in the shade.
The discussion may have been brief, but it was significant. Not because the ‘right’ view won out, but rather because of the exemplary attitude shown by Jo: she engaged with a position that she found abhorrent and self-evidently wrong, and rather than denying Lucy a voice by denouncing her as a bigot, Jo entered into dialogue and a constructive exchange of ideas ensued.
It is precisely this sort of attitude that encourages others less bold – or more circumspect – than Lucy to speak freely where they might otherwise have bitten their tongues and censored themselves for fear of giving offence or attracting censure. I say this not simply to encourage more people to air racist or misogynist views, but rather because it is only through doing so that such prejudices can be properly challenged. Jo provided a telling reminder of how fundamental such an attitude is to free and frank discussion and, more generally, to the establishment of a robust discursive culture.
Beau Hopkins
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
