I missed the initial furor about the incident - I had not turned into a hippy in the outback, rather a beach bum for a couple of weeks. The article and subsequent posts have been interesting. Some thoughts on the issue.

- I don't like censorship.
- It is my understanding that the kind of vouyerism that most of us are against is the one involving unwitting participants. To the best of my knowledge all the BB participants understand that there are camera's in the house and that most of what they do and say is at risk of getting broadcast. It's a different kind of vouyerism.
- Whenever I've looked the show is deathly boring. If it is 24*7 party it is a very very dull party.
- I have wondered about the stuff that seems to be treated as OK in the media but which would leave individuals open to all sorts of penalties in most workplaces. I've not listened much in recent weeks to The Shebang on Triple M but it used to include a lot of comments which sounded very much like sexual harrassment. Other TV and radio shows seem to play in that ground from time to time especially where the theme is comedy. Are the rules different for the media?
- Do the TV stations have a legal liability for the potential psychological harm that they may be doing to participants in so called "reality TV" shows?

I don't want to see additional censorship imposed and suspect that the solution lies in ensuring that those who promote this stuff are exposed to the legal and financial consequences of their actions.

R0bert

The debate on this issue seems to have calmed a bit here, I don't mean to reignite it, but will raise a few points.

For those who say that if you don't want to watch it you can turn it off: That is true up a point. However I sometimes want to watch the programs that are on after BB, and sometimes I will attempt to record these for later viewing. Here is the catch: BB ALWAYS runs over time, if anyone wants to try to watch the prgram after BB they cannot help but catch some of it.

Adds for BB are run though the day and evening, featuring the names and faces of the willing victims, I mean housemates, or maybe the people who watch are willing victims...

I cannot easily avoid these ads.

Lastly, have all those who support BB read the piece written by a BB contestant in yesterday's Age? You can find it at:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/tales-from-the-house/2006/07/07/1152240487474.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2

Two aparagraphs stand out:

"Three-and-a-half years ago, I signed a four-page contract forfeiting all my rights to personal freedom and absolving my new boss - Big Brother - from any responsibility or duty of care."

(I wonder if anyone has challenged those contracts yet? )

and

"Our grapevine is full of tales of depression, addictions, breakdowns, break-ups, backlash and trying to find meaningful work when a prospective employer calls you in to meet you, not hire you"

Hamlet - it would be interesting to see how well those contracts stand up. My general understanding is that you cannot sign away your basic rights, neither can someone absolve themselves of a duty of care.

Having said that I do think that those who sign such a contract should accept the consequences of doing so. No one is forced into this.

R0bert

Robert, that is one reason why I noted it.

Of more interest is the article on-line today at News.com

http://entertainment.news.com.au/story/0,10221,19726883-5000140,00.html

Of course this is the mass media reporting on the mass media, but it shows that BB could very well be the commercial equivalent of of gaining entertainment and pleasure out of watching a group of sado-masochists flagellating each other in order to win a prize.

Or maybe that is what our 'civilisation' has descended to: the circuses in our bread and circuses are not gladiatorial contests transformed into sporting events, after all, the spectators at sporting events are just spectators, they do not decide who wins and who loses. Instead BB, and its ilk, provide a way for the great unwashed to decide who 'lives' and who 'dies' in a figurative sense.

And how do the young contestants know about contract law? You can bet any number of telephone votes that legal students, and the widely read, are specifically excluded from becoming contestants.

So all you eager watchers of BB, congratulate yourself on gaining entertainment from other peoples discomforture.

Keiran: I thought you brought up some very interesting points. In their day, Shakespeare and Mozart were outrageous (as indeed many artists were), yet today, they're considered very much the establishment, part of the foundation of what makes western society so great.

As for religion...

The great irony I find in all of this is that people get upset with a stupid show, yet they're not appalled by the dominant cultural myth that promotes schizophrenic behaviour (eg. talking to imaginary friends); is at its very base, grossly misanthropic (original sin), not to mention grossly misogynistic (the whole attitude towards female sexuality, but especially the bizarre notion of immaculate conception); yet orgiastically celebrates as its central story a macabre and bestial psycho-sexual fantasy that in any other situation would be outlawed as the most perverse sado-masochism (the crucifiction); and has inspired its adherents to not only spend the better part of two millenia kicking the crap out of each other (eg. Thirty Years' War, Spanish Inquisition), or brutalising and destroying hundreds, if not thousands, of indigenous societies; and has done its best at every turn to stifle free thought and rational, scientific inquiry. Yet such people often can't see the incredible irony between claiming the bad influence of Big Brother whilst asserting the moral high ground of the religious right. Honestly, I don't know whether it's mental illness on a mass level (I'd like to hope that one day, psychiatric help will be available for all the religiously inclined) or part of a really sinister conspiracy that has left an indelible mark on humanity. Either way, I hardly think it should be out there in the public sphere. Its track record is appalling.

Yet here's the kicker. Despite history showing the despicable and dangerous nature of Christianity, I'm still opposed to outlawing it because I think people should make that decision on an individual basis for themselves only.

To Mr Shorbe.

If the history of the Christian churches (and every other religion) was written in blood, that hardly provides justification for the entertainment industries targeting children today, for programs which are violent, profane, and sexually explicit.

I find your logic mind boggling.

If you can see evil in historical settings, how is it you can not see it in the present day, when it is staring you in the face? Are you suffering from the same ideological doublethink that our religious leaders suffered from 700 years ago? This is not a debate about the free choice of adults, it is a debate about protecting children. It would be a pretty funny world if kids were allowed to do whatever they wanted. They would be eating nothing but lollies and McDonalds, running around with machine guns and gelignite, and having sex with each other in the playground.

Unless, of course, you are one of those intellectually challenged, who claim that it is entirely the parents problem to raise kids. Such an unrealistic idea could only come from a person too young to have kids themselves, or who's "partner" is biologically prevented from ever doing so.