Slashdot Mirror
"Big Brother" And The Web
Last week, CBS expelled a male contestant from the reality show Big Brother for holding a kitchen knife against a female contestant's throat. The 26-year-old man, warned previously about threatening behavior, was kicked off the show, whose producers concede they sought out more aggressive contestants this year to boost the program's ratings. CBS can air what it wants, of course, but here's a neat twist: Though the knife-wielder has been deemed too violent to remain on the program, the incident was aired on TV and live online, with additional footage available at extra cost on the Web. The network is selling around-the-clock views from all the cameras in the "Big Brother" home -- more than TV viewers can see -- to Net users for a $10 a month fee.
If you each had pocketed $10 every time CBS News broadcast an online danger story about hackers, intellectual property thieves, the violent effects of gaming, online predators or child pornographers, you could retire. This is the network whose 60 Minutes aired an hour-long program the week after Columbine titled "Are Video Games Turning Your Kids Into Killers?" Big media have been among the leading advocates of the idea that the Net is a dangerous, de-civilizing place for children, that they will encounter all sorts of violent, sexually explicit and other unwholesome material there.
But when I went onto the Big Brother site, I found no age restrictions or warnings about who could buy or see the knife incident. Any kid with access to a credit card could, as is often true of sex and other "unwholesome" sites online. But it's one thing for a pornographer to do that, another a media conglomerate that purports to cover public policy issues, including technology, and that constantly spouts the most high-minded sense of moral purpose. Listen to what Big Brother's producer said of the show's ethics: "I have been lecturing my staff about using the West Point code of honor in making sure we keep to the truth."
The blurring of news, information and entertainment has been underway for years, but the use of the Net as a profit center for trash programming is very new to so-called serious news organizations. The real danger to kids going online is that they will soon have no way of differentiating entertainment from factual information.
The next level seems clear: to round up convicted murders and psychopaths and have them tear one another up, then sell the grisly pictures over the Web to anybody with $10. Maybe fires, traffic accidents, shootings, or the next federal and state executions could be broadcast that way, too, a new revenue source for embattled popular media. Believe me, it will happen.
Big Brother is already cheesy trash; now it's clearly exploiting the possibility of violence to draw viewers. It's also using the Net to cash in on crap the network doesn't dare broadcast on it's publically-owned airwaves. This notion of the Net as a target-marketed toxic waste dump for dubious content is significant, particularly if it makes money and other networks and giant content producers like Disney, or AOL/Time-Warner adopt it. It's not hard to imagine a scenario where the most ubiqutious producers of dubious content for kids are the big media companies that can produce this garbage with one division, while condemning the immoral impact of new technology with another.
Maybe when some pompous Congressional gasbag like Joseph Lieberman next holds hearings about violence on TV and the Net, he can call in a CBS executive and ask him or her if their vision of the Net and ask if the networks' vision is to use cyberspace as a medium for profiting from content not fit for commercial broadcasting. The committee can also ask if, in the news division's next report on online depredations, Dan Rather will include his companys own entertainment division. Don't hold your breath.
The original story by Richard Bachmann (aka Stephen King) was WAY better than the movie IMO. Also, there was another Bachmann story called the Long Walk, about a sick contest where contestants literally walked to death (they were followed by Army troops that would shoot them if they walked too slow, or if they fell down & didn't get up). I bet that show is in development at Fox right now...
Violence is bad
/. authors that I'll read.
Seeing violence will make you violent
13 year olds have access to credit cards and can see violent stuff
People make money off of creating violence, then condemning it
I really have to remove JonKatz from my list of
Secret windows code
Clinton made me a Republican. Bush made me a Libertarian. Trump is making me question reality.
- CBS went for agressive personalities (uh oh, Katz, you hear that? maybe you have another chance to talk about profiling!) but screwed up and got someone who was actually violent
- CBS, knowing that real[istic] acts of violence are not generally well accepted on broadcast TV, decided not to air the full detail of the incident
- CBS, knowing that censorship on the internet is significantly less prominent than it is on TV, and that the web is a much more content-on-demand based medium, decided to make the more violent material available online
- CBS decided to charge for some of its online content
- CBS declined to decide for other people what standards (i.e. age) its viewers should be held to in order to view their content
Problems with those:I'm not a smorgasbord.
Whoops, sorry about that. I guess my coffee didn't really kick in at the time.
Next will be shootings, accidents and executions.
Stile Project. 'Nuff said.
According to Muslim law, stoning is done this way: you are wrapped all around in a sack and buried tightly to your waist. Then people throw stones at you that are around the size of a tennis ball. If you climb out of the pit while the stoning goes on, it is a sign from God and you are spared and released. Sounds like fun, no?
I think, if you read it, he doesn't have a double standard, he's merely complaining about Big Media's double standard. In fact, I think it's fairly obvious that's what he's doing.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
In Rome. Gladiators, Slaves, Collisieums, Ampitheater in every town, mass audience.
Nuff said...
...the movie The Running Man will become reality. Why not? If this kind of trash is so popular in this day and age, how low can the American television audience go? I could see it now, gather a group of rough and tough guys and gals on death row. Promise the winner life while the others would die. The jail system wins, the viewers win. It would be a blast. Plus, every year, you could get the top ten winners and have a pay-per-view event. I bet McMahon would be all over that. For my money, the Net is much more wholesome.
Bryan R.
Bryan R.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, or $12.50 as seen on eBay.....
Except there is no problem, but the government pretends that it is horrible and that air pollution is killing people.
I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
The so-called "Reality TV" shows are faked. They are populated by wannabe actors and others with ties to the entertainment industry.
Hardly a new idea, it isn't unknown for "guests" on radio talkshows to actually be station staff. It wouldn't suprise me if the likes of "Jerry Springer" have plants both amongst guests and in the audience.
There should be laws about saying a movie is "based" on a book when the movie doesn't even TRY to follow the story in the book...
There are an awful lot of these.
One thing to remember is that the average length novel would equate to at least a 2 hour movie. So even if the film makers tried they'd usually end up snipping bits (also novelisations frequently have to be padded even beyond the bits of the script which wern't used otherwise you'd have a very thin book.)
Maybe there should be various catagories.
1) realistic attempt to follow plot and characters
2) book and film are somewhat similar
3) book and film differ radically
4) the only thing they have in common is the title.
You'd have a tough time finding catagory ones...
I am from the Netherlands. Big brother orignated from here. (It is from "john de mol"). Now we are going into the 3th season. It is called: BIG BROTHER / the battle. With the calling for new people some of the most extreme clips they got from various country's got shown. I expect a lot of nudity (what is not illegal here).
The diffrence is that this is the US version of the programme. In general violence is acceptable on US TV, nudity isn't.
>
> <BILL_AND_TED> Excellent! </BILL_AND_TED>
Damn, you stole my one-line-thunder.
But for those who think "The Running Man" (movie, TV, or the already-mentioned, and totally awesome, "Smash TV" video game) is fiction, have you turned on FOX recently?
"America's [Wildest|Most-Dangerous] Police [Videos|Chases]" and COPS are real shows.
I admit it - I watch. I like to call it "The Senseless Violence Hour -- on FOX!" I know exactly what I'm there for, namely to munch on popcorn and watch dumbfucks roll their cars after a high-speed pursuit and then try desperately to convince the cop that the six empty beers on the roadway (and the half-empty one still leaking) weren't theirs.
The only difference between these and "Running Man" is that in the current crop of "cop shows", the studios aren't allowed to show the dumbfucks that get themselves killed. So most of the time, even the ones who get ejected from the vehicle get up and walk away with a few scratches. (Presumably it's very expensive to get the releases from the family for the dumbfucks who get themselves killed, whereas the dumbfucks who live don't have much say in the matter...)
Old joke:
Q: Did you hear that it's now legal to broadcast live executions on TV? I wonder if FOX is gonna do it!
A: Naah, FOX would never show a live execution. Live naked executions, on the other hand...
Yeah, God forbid we show 'em reality on a reality show.
(Personally, I disagree. I'd be willing to bet the CBS execs collectively creamed their Armani suits when the near-knifing happened, until the CBS legal department showed them that they'd be sued into the stone age if they knowingly allowed a contestant to be murdered/assaulted. Whereupon, the execs then shat their pants, turfed the contestant, and gave some New York dry cleaner a Very Bad Day.)
Contrary to what Jon stated, the actual knife incident was *not* broadcast on the TV show. The events leading up to that point were shown, but the clip ended just prior to the knife being placed to the throat. Had this event not been shown over the Internet to viewers as it happened, you have to wonder if CBS would have even bothered to boot this contestant. Heck, the other houseguests *still* don't know that this happened as the female involved in the incident hasn't mentioned one word about it to anyone, either because she was so drunk that she doesn't remember it or because she didn't think it was a big deal. In fact, she cried for a few days after this guy was booted because she says that he treated her better than any other guy she's known (she's been married twice). IMO, CBS removed this guy only as damage control knowing that the incident was being broadcast across the Internet and that the media would have a field day with yet another reason to bash the show. And don't think that the Internet broadcast is uncensored. There have been many, many instances where the feed is either cut or switched to a different camera when "controversial" situations arise.
http://www.real.com/partners/bigbrother2/?src=cb sa ds
The live and on-demand content (the "Content") may contain elements offensive to some users and inappropriate for users under 21. Certain Content may be delayed, edited and/or blacked out at various times at our sole discretion. You agree that we shall have no liability whatsoever relating to the Content and you waive any claims you may have, now or in the future, against us relating to the Content. You agree to comply with our Terms of Service.
That's a pretty bold warning, i don't know how Katz missed THAT one... oh wait.
check out my comic: Essential Tremors
What I don't understand is why this is yet another rant about big media taking over our lives. The real issue is the fact that people buy this stuff. The networks sell the things that make money and people want to see sex and violence.
There is another big hypocracy here. That is this article. Katz says that the Net is not so bad, which is true there is a lot of misconceptions and paranoia. But he also implies that protecting children from say pornography is bad. Now I agree there is no good way to do it yet but my point is that porn on the net is no different than Big Brother (i.e. sex appeals to people) so why is one trashy and the other not? It seem to me that Katz himself has a double standard.
The real issue here is that people choose to believe what's on TV, they choose to install filters on their home computers (which I don't understand what your beef is there, not everyone thinks the same way and if they own the computer then its their right to but whatever they want on it.). And people vote to pass laws that install them on public computers. Is it stupid and paranoid? Yes. Does it violate your rights? Not really. Can it been changed? Yes if you quit whining and go vote!
And Jon's attack on Senator Lieberman is completely destroys any shread of credibility he may have had. If you don't like him don't vote for him but lets not get into personal attacks.
Nothing like a good Jon Katz rant to brighten my day or waste some time at work :)
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
The Anti-Blog
...of being unable to see this double standard by CBS?
First off, I have to say to Katz that this is a good article. Really...I've been losing hope for a while, but I thought that the ideas here actually came together.
Second, it seems like Knox here has gotten lost in the Katz-bashing to realize the truth of this. It's pathetic now that they're portraying violence on Big Brother strictly for ratings and $$$. It's a show whose ratings have dropped dearly from the very beginning, but during the show where the incident occured, ratings spiked.
Why? Well, who was the first to report about the incident BEFORE it was aired on Big Brother? CBS.
It's completely unnerving that CBS aired violence for ratings, when they bomblasted the video game market for causing violence. And I assure you, kids who know these are adults IN REAL LIFE who are doing this kind of violence are going to be far more influenced that this is normal than if they were to see it in a computer game.
Granted, it doesn't surprise any of us, because we've been imagining it for years. But just because we've imagined it doesn't mean that it's right for them to go ahead and do it.
But what I liked best about the article isn't so much about, "Oh my gosh, they're creating violent TV shows for ratings." What I liked was, "They're creating violent TV shows for ratings when they've complained over and over in the past about how violence in the media leads to violence in real life."
It's a double standard. They say media violence is influential on children, but then sell it to make money anyway. We've already collected billions of dollars from big tobacco because they've been doing the same thing for the past hundred years. It's a dangerous game that they shouldn't be playing.
<BILL_AND_TED> Excellent! </BILL_AND_TED>
Y'know, I think that Jon Katz is actually Bob Greene in disguise.
--
My hope is that the censored "big media" includes any outlet stupid enough to give Katz money for his ramblings.
Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
This movie got there years ahead of Katz. Why do we waste time reading his dross?
This is a prime example of hypocracy. The web is so bad, but when they can make money, they just jump in. Its too bad to broadcast on TV, but they broadcast it on the web for a fee. If they had more of it, they might have done it on pay-per-view.
Fight Spammers!
You mean... Big Brother is still ON?
This sig is xenon coated, and will glow red when in the presence of aliens
I think that they should do kind of an Ultimate Survivor kind of thing. They can take all the survivor candidates and lock them in a house with no food and massive ammounts of weapons. Then we can find out who the true "survivor" is. We also would get the added bonus of only having to deal with one self righteious prima dona trying to make something of his 15 minutes of fame.
--------------------------------------
If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.
Visa has setup a way for teens and kids to get cards, where anyone can put more money on them. They're not exactly debit or credit cards, but they act in the same way.
Instead of handing your kid $10 a week in allowance, just tell Visa to add $10 a week on their card and take it off your card or out of your checking account.
The card's name is Visa Buxx, and their site is here: http://www.visabuxx.com/
This is why places like Adult Check, etc., are no longer viable. Any kid can now have his or her own credit card that would work fine, and they can be of any age. No need to steal them, no need to apply for them themselves...
So yes, 12 year old kids can go to the Big Brother Site and legally get an account to see into the bathroom or bedrooms of the show. Thanks, Visa!
Dragon Magic
Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
The hole in his logic (and yours) is that "the media" is not a single sourse. It is the vehicle by which lots of people, with diverse opinion, transmit their ideas.
First, you have the people who seem to be saying, through the media, that "the Net is a breeding ground for thieves and degenerates" (as Mr. Katz puts it with his usual hyperbolic flair). People like Sen. Lieberman, and various talking heads on the news.
Then, you have the TV executives who decide to air shows like Big Brother, or the game designers who ship games like "Carmageddon" (a favorite of mine, btw), or the various on-line porno merchants.
Just because a TV executive allows somebody like Bill Bennett to rant about violence in the media during a "Meet The Press" interview doesn't mean he endorses that opinion.
The typical media mogul puts violent shows on his network because there are viewers who want to watch them. He puts anti-violence rants on the news shows because there are also people who want to watch them. For pretty much anything where there are enough people who want to see it, he puts it on.
Therefore, it has nothing to do with hypocracy. If Turner or Eisner were campaigning against the Internet as beeing too exploitative, you could make that case, but I see no evidence of them holding such positions.
Don't mistake diversity for hypocracy.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
I totally agree. My 9 year old daughter brought home an Internet Acceptable Use Policy form that I had to sign, which said, in effect, that I was responsible for whatever my daughter did on the internet. It relieved the school of any responsibility for monitoring my child's activities. It was basically some lawyer trying to cover the school division's ass.
But why should they be more concerned about covering their asses where the internet is concerned? Shouldn't they have a similar acceptable use policy for the school library or the playground? It is because everyone hears the word "Internet" and thinks "Ooohh... internet bad". It's really no worse than a myriad of other things my daughter might encounter while at school. The only difference seems to be the mystique of the internet.
I think Katz is probably right that the media have a vested interest in whipping us into a frenzy of fear about the internet. The internet is too free for their purposes. It's much harder for them to control the flow of information. They can't deal with anything interactive because it can't be controlled. That's why they talk out of both sides of their mouth. They don't want you using the internet to look at anything besides Corporate Authorized Content. Even if it is the same kind of crap that they try and create hysteria about.
Could it be that we are struggling to see ourselves as victims in an era when the memory of earlier successes fade?
The Katz Argument: The media seeks to perpetuate the idea that hackers/crackers are thugs- but what do they know because they are just low-level pornographers.
I'm glad to see the level of logical argument on /. raised to the next level. It may be time to retire the notion that we have anything interesting to say anymore.
That said, I find it interesting that Katz is railing on CBS about corrupting children when this is clearly a matter of parental responsibility. He brings up the info-tainment program (I refuse to call it "news" or "journalism") about video games - sorry Katz, but you're committing the same cardinal sin - blaming a corporation for something that really falls in the domain of parental responsibility.
While I think these reality TV programs are a colossal waste of time and only appeal to the most base standards of quality, I won't begrudge CBS for selling it. Some people can't get enough of that pap show. It's like the outtakes or deleted scenes offered on a DVD - some people want to see the fat that was trimmed off the steak.
But please, don't start crying about the children, when all you are trying to do is make a point. Doing so makes you no better than the Liebermans who exploit children for political mileage.
-------
We want some answers and all that we get
Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat
- Ministry
You know what ? There's already lots of game shows in the West in which the contestants get hurt and where that constitutes a significant portion of the shows' appeal. Let me think...boxing, football, Ultimate Fighting...
For as much bile as you harbor for Big Media, you're just asking for trouble in suggesting that they be held to standards other than that of Little Media. No matter how much good you think it could do, it is the exact same line of reasoning that you have derided on countless occasions in the past regarding things such as video game violence, censorship, and preferential treatment of big companies.
How do you define Big Media, Jon? Is AOL Big Media? How about NBC? Easy, no? Well than, what about CNN? PBS? MP3.com (back in it's glory days?) OSDN? The Onion? A bit less easy, seeing as we're starting to take aim at "good guy" sites now, isn't it? And even if you can confidently draw your line in the sand to partition the "good" from the "bad", you most certainly won't be the only person drawing lines in the sand, and your word is highly unlikely to be final.
Don't advocate double standards. Don't think of the children, dammit. Don't be so quick to throw equality by the wayside.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
They already have reality game shows in Japan in which the contestants get hurt. It's futher along there and it's hugely successful. My question is, is that so wrong? If the contestants know that they could get hurt or killed, but do it anyways, is there anything wrong with that? There was one game show in which a guy was literally locked in an apartment, and given postcards and magazines, and a pen, and that was it. He was supposed to see if he could live by entering sweepstakes. He lived, but just barely. He nearly started to death.
Katz-bashing aside (fun though it is), I don't see where it comes as a surprise that a major media outlet would do this. If they thought they could get away with it, they'd be airing the knife incident thrice nightly and charging Superbowl prices for ad time. They apparently don't think they can get that past the FCC and the angry parents, though, so they'll do it on the 'Net, and charge what the market will bear.
The only way to stop it, of course, is to either censor it - a bad idea, I'm sure most of us agree - or somehow get people to tune out such trash in favor of better programming.
Yeah, right.
OK,
- B
--
http://www.bradheintz.com/
- updated
How many parents give credit cars to their young, impressionable children and leave them in front of the computer to wander the web unsupervised? That's what it would take for some kid to see the material mentioned by Jon Katz.
I don't have kids and my world should not be child-proofed just because other people had them. Having a kid does not give someone the right to censor every library, web site, and newstand on the face of the Earth because they are afraid that their little Timmy will see violence or sex or violent sex. Parents either have to (over)protect their children through constant vigilance or they have to accept that their kids will occasionally see material unsuitable for children. Besides, most kids see porn and violence and are not screwed up for life by it.
I also do not feel that it is the web site's responsibility to raise your children. If your under-18 year old kid steals a credit card and uses it to buy access to a web site, it's not the web site's job to police your child. Jon's chastisement of the web site for not having age restrictions is ludicrous. How many kids who steal credit cards are going to click on the I-am-not-old-enough-to-view-this button?
That being said, the scene in question holds no fascination for me and I find it offensive that the show filmed it rather than intervening on behalf of the young woman. But it's not my place to determine what should, and should not, appear on someone else's screen. If that's what they want to see, so be it. The networks should have the freedom to put what they want on their web sites, for free or for profit, and the market should decide whether it stays or goes.
- Dan I.
I agree to some extent with how the line between news and entertainment is being blurred by today's 'news' coverage. However, what I see as a bigger problem is the way news casts more and more tend towards efforts to draw more viewers with feature articles. I can understand that newscasts need to find some way of funding themselves, but seeking news stories based on what they will do for the programs ratings is not the way to go.
I think what really set me off on this was the huge fallout after the Columbine shootings. Suddenly every news station had around the clock coverage on the aftermath and endless editorials on why these things happen. The entire over coverage of the incident really went beyond integrity into the realm of cashing in on the ratings that a Columbine special piece would bring. And don't even get me started on the people who decided to cash in with books and articles on how video game companies were immorally cashing in on violence, regardless of the results. The hypocratic nature of someone selling a book about such a tragedy, in which they condemn others they percieve to have been profitting from the tragedy is apalling. Dr. Liberman added a chapter to a book of his dedicated to how video games make kids into killers. Tell me it's pure coincidence he added this chapter after the shootings, and not as a means to increase the books sales. How distastefull is that! I'm getting too upset just writing this now.
The media needs to start trying to get back some of it's integrity and thus the respect of it's viewers. As is most people I know are highly critical of the various biases that underly news stories these days.
The reality tv phase is going on right now simply because it's cheap and it gets pretty good returns. You want to fix it, watch a different channel. Watch Animal Planet, or TCM, or Bravo. Go on the internet and visit a good website, read a book. Vote with your eyes and this shit will be off the air.
D - M - C - A
If god had intended you to be naked, you would have been born that way.
Good news, TV lovers. You may no longer have to choose between watching "Survivor" or your favorite snuff film. That's because the latest installment of the reality series will be filmed in Kenya, where tourists are now targeted by terrorists, assassins, and armed assailants.
CBS has not undertaken security measures such as these since the 1998 quad cities "Diagnosis: Murder" convention, when 80-year-old Horace Watkins presented the cast with a rutabaga pie, and then couldn't remember whether he'd baked his gun in it or not.
As in previous "Survivor" installments, contestants will be competing for one million dollars so they can get the hell out of there, which, by the way, is the same thing rulers there have been doing for generations.
Kenya was the site of an American embassy bombing just three years ago, and U.S. officials report that American tourists are particularly at risk of kidnapping, assault, even assassination. To prepare the new survivors for these difficult circumstances, CBS has created the guidebook "how to defend yourself with a Bud Light, a bag of hot grits, two Dr. Scholl's insoles and a Pontiac Aztek."
i was angry:1 with:2 my:4 friend - i told:3 4 wrath:5, 4 5 did end.
i was angry:1 with:2 my:4 friend - i told:3 4 wrath:5, 4 5 did end.
i was 1 2 4 foe i 3 it not 4 5 did grow
I think it's fairly obvious that, no, Katz doesn't read the replies posted to his, er, articles. People claim that Katz has responded to points they've made, but I've yet to see Katz engage in a discussion.
In fact, I'd be willing to bet Katz has a queue full of articles -- a week's worth, whatever -- and is not a regular visitor of Slashdot.
That said, I find it baffling that Katz would call Lieberman a "pompous gasbag."
For a couple of reasons:
First, the obvious.
And second: Lieberman -- of all of our elected officials -- is far from "pompous". Granted, he's fairly critical of the media and its portrayal of violence, but this doesn't necessarily make him pompous. At least not any more so than any other, er, media crtic. Ahem.
Katz's comment about Lieberman -- a slight slip, perhaps -- is fairly revealing: it makes Katz's previous points less persuasive and suddenly gives Katz the none-too-subtle appearance of having, eek!, an agenda.
And really -- I say this honestly -- what's worse than a media critic with an agenda who engages in ad hominem attacks?
Not much.
Katz, you care to respond?
How many TV viewers and internet users, honestly, have the wit to realize CBS is being hypocritical. Of those, how many actually care? And of those, do any of them have the clout to do anything about it? Most likely not. Who do most people trust more, some guy on the street, or Morely Saffer (I know I misspelled his name, sorry)?
/. need to remember when we talk about incidents like this is that what may be painfully obvious to us can be completely invisible to the average person - yes, we are that much better well-informed about technology issues (although notr neccessarily by /. :-).
As for the lack of age restrictions on the Big Brother site, I'm sure CBS would claim "Well, only adults are able to get credit cards." Nonsense, but most people don't know better. What we on
I'm the stranger...posting to
Oh yah, I loved that novella. Parellels:
In "The Running Man", the world is horribly polluted, and air pollution is killing people, but the government simply pretends there is no problem. Sound familiar?
In "The Running Man", thousands of people line up for the chance to degrade themselves on a variety of game shows for the amusement of a sadistic audience. So it is today.
In "The Running Man", a huge corporation is at least as powerful as the government. In the real world, large corporations and special interest groups wield enormous power over elected officials, with campaign contributions, etc.
I'm the stranger...posting to