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.
- 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.
Next will be shootings, accidents and executions.
Stile Project. 'Nuff said.
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.....
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
...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.
You mean... Big Brother is still ON?
This sig is xenon coated, and will glow red when in the presence of aliens
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.
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
There's more to his piece, though. He homes in on Big Media's two-faced behavior, but makes it very clear that he feels that Big Media's duplicity is a breed apart from Small Media's duplicity:
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."
He makes clear that it is indeed OK for a pornographer to be a pornographer, but then rips into Big Media (and Big Media alone) for being [duplicitous|multi-faceted enterprises]. The entire tone of the article is that this duplicity is a Big Media Problem, when it's honestly easily as applicable to Little Media "good guys". Hell, Slashdot has an alarming habit of posting front-page articles that flat out lie for the sake of advocacy; this goes on in spite of the "News" for nerds tagline. NPR has an ongoing scandal revolving around selling membership lists to third parties, despite their "privacy-friendly" enrollment. Major scientific journals soak research groups into paying thousands just to submit articles for publication, not to mention the prohibitive cost of such subscriptions; this in the name of furthering the general knowledge of mankind. One can even argue that Small Media is in some ways more prone to two-faced behavior, as they often tend to be niche outlets with clearly-defined target audiences and adgendas.
After reading this article, to uggest that Jon isn't exhibiting a clear anti-Big Media bias is disingenuous. Jon is most certainly drawing lines in the sand on this one.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
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.
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