´óÏó´«Ã½

I thought the idea of reality TV was to show reality? If racism is a reality, and it is, then why is anybody blaming the programme for it? Further, why would anybody be surprised to hear it?

(By the way, Leo Sayer's Big Brother walk-out was some of the most entertaining television I've seen in weeks.)

John ... so you think the broadcasters should show ANYTHING that happens on the show?

If someone gets violent, that should be shown?

I thought you'd blame the churches for racism Alan. You're nothing if not predictable.

Christine- Why shouldn't it be?

Come on John, you're beng silly now. You think that a TV company should simply keep the cameras running if someone kills another person on tv in a heated exchange in the Bib Brother house? That's bizarre.

Big brother is execrable dross for the intellectually stunted.

The debate points out the difference in cultures. In the United States, the right to speak very offensively is protected by the Constitution. When speech is offensive that is when free speech needs defending the most. The law is not unlimited. It draws the line at clear cut incitement to violence in the committal of a specific crime. You cannot tell people to go out and assault or kill someone you don't like. You also cannot shout fire in a crowded theater. You cannot advocate the violent overthrow of the government, which is why the brand of Communism prevalent in other countries is illegal in the US. And you cannot publish details of how to build an atom bomb. Other than that, the Supreme Court treads very carefully when it nears the imposition of censorship. It is very leery of what it calls "the slippery slope" which might lead incrementally to full censorship of the press. The constitution acknowledges the role of the press as the "fourth estate" not quite equal to the three branches of government but necessary to keep them in check if and when any or all of them become corrupted. Broadcast of pornography on the public airwaves under priveleged government issued license has certain restrictions laid out by the FCC. Private cable companies are free to broadcast pretty much what they want. The US uses a parental contol channel blocker system and Parental Guidance ratings of programs to allow parents to restrict what their children see on TV. In times of war, the government may try to impose additional restrictions. Usually they end up in court.

James Lee- Who's talking about anybody killing anybody else on TV?! All I said was that racist remarks are part of a reality that I'm sure Big Brother producers wouldn't want to lose. What's next on the cutting room table? Sexist remarks? Sizeist comments? Comments that express disdain for people with excessive acne? Before long you don't have a show. I just cannot understand why anyone would want to watch a reality show that was so 'safe' and sterile. Surely the reason is that it's real conversations and real people?

It gets exhausting, Christine, when these discussions so frequently descend into these false dichotomies like you present here.

I think Endemol is engaged in a very cynical exercise. I imagine that inclusion of an Indian star (who is much bigger in India than any of the needy former small-time performers ever were in the UK or US) no doubt was meant to stir things up. You can bet that the production company is anything but appalled by the turn of events.

If you put a group of vain and not very bright people together in a competitive situation they will act badly. Shame on them and even more so, shame on the people who cannot stop themselves from watching this car crash of a show.

racism is alive and well in the uk....

and all over the world...

lets not pretend it is only WASPs engaging in it.

A friend of mine visited india last year and had to travel in blacked out car for fear of his life.

He was to go back this month but it was called off because his life was in danger.

Ethnic people in the UK also engage in racist murder, just like WASPs;-

Lets tackle racism, but lets not pretend only white people engage in it - that would be racism!

PB

I think when people even of the same race live in close proximity, their personal habits which offend other people will get on each other's nerves. You'd be surprised at how some people don't like it when other people eat with their hands and then use them to dig in to dole out more food to themselves and come into contact with the food other people are going to eat. A few days of that and I think I'd be calling people names too. And if my nerves were raw enough, they might be rather nasty and calculated to hurt the other person's feelings as much as possible. I'm not sure that's the same thing as racism.

has big brother recieved more complaints than jerry springer the opera in which the bbc recieved over 15,000 complaints

Hi anonymous (you're probably PB!):

Big Brother so far has raised nearly 40,000 complaints to Ofcom. So, yes, it beats Jerry Springer.

Ofcom- What a meddling, pompous, farcical, pontifical idea of a government body, based on the idea that you and I are not capable of filtering what we would like to watch ourselves and need Quango Central to do it for us. The net-curtain-twitchers who regularly complain to Ofcom need to find something worthwhile to do with their lives.

Now come to think of it, recently a reality TV Survivor on in the US maybe around three weeks ago which deliberately pitted four teams one caucasian, one black, and one oriental, and one Latino against each other in the US? It was construed to create some sort of racial tension and confrontation. The whole thing blew over quickly. Apparantly the whole idea was a dud. I wonder if that's where BB got its idea to try this mixed cultural experiment from.

John on Ofcom ... you don't think there's any role for a broadcasting regulator in Britain and America? You'd allow Tv to just evolve without any restraints on content?

David- Actually the rules governing the FCC in the States are rather different. It's generally regarded that if you subscribe to something, eg. cable, or pay-per-view, or HBO, you accept whatever it is you're subscribing to and the FCC doesn't impose fines for content. That said, the channel operators are frightened to death by the current climate forged by Bush and Ashcroft, particularly after the Superbowl Boob a couple of years ago, in which the FCC has become more powerful, and since they don't want to invite the scrutiny of government upon themselves, generally TV in the States is much tamer than in the UK. (HBO gets away with more because one must subscribe exclusively to HBO. Sirius Satellite Radio is an example of unregulated radio, which is outside the jurisdiction of the FCC. So far, my family appear to be unscathed by any damaging content on Sirius.)

I personally think it's a shame that the governments of our countries feel that it's their job to 'protect' us from certain kinds of content. I'd be interested as to what regulations you would advocate? It would likely be regulations of one of two kinds: (a) regulations that match your moral standards, or (b) regulations that attempt to keep kids away from adult material.

In the case of (a), it should be obvious that not everyone shares your moral standards. Is it not better that we self-regulate in this case?

In the case of (b), a watershed will do some to achieve this, and I think it's the case that most broadcasters would adhere to a watershed voluntarily without the threats of government. But in the same way that an adult magazine should not be left around so a kid can get access to it (and really what regulations would you advocate to protect them from that?), families now have access to an array of technology which helps them regulate what their kids watch. In short, it's up to the parents, not the state, to regulate their kids.

I know we're on the website of a state broadcaster, which makes it a difficult environment in which to argue that the government should not be involved in television. But I'd certainly be interested in your worst-case scenarios of unregulated television.

Finally, since commentators appear to be largely anti-this and anti-that and have few solutions, I'd like to share with you my solution. Like most of the things I back, it has no chance of happening, but I'm that sadistic. I'd support for the UK the kind of thing I advocated for the USA in the wake of the Superbowl Boob: that broadcasters enter into an arrangement with the government whereby, in exchange for deregulation of television and radio, they would join an inter-network ratings system for each and every programme they intend to broadcast. This ratings system would inevitably make its way onto the cable set top-boxes and freeview systems, satellite recievers, TIVOs and the like, thus making it extremely easy to (a) recieve only programmes that you feel are appropriate, (b) recieve programmes that others may feel are inappropriate, and (c) protect your kids from seeing adult content.

I don't expect the commenters on this blog to agree with this, since it all sounds just a little too individualistic for most I'm sure. But I'm glad you asked the question, David- - it's a topic I'm passionate about (as I'm sure you've noticed!).

David- Sorry, one more point... Would you like to regulate the internet too? After all, it's evolved in exactly the way you describe in your question on television: without a 'regulatory body', per se. I'd be interested in your thoughts on that.

This was my original post, which was lost somewhere (this seems to be happening more and more for some reason)....

-----------------------

David- Actually the rules governing the FCC in the States are rather different. It's generally regarded that if you subscribe to something, eg. cable, or pay-per-view, or HBO, you accept whatever it is you're subscribing to and the FCC doesn't impose fines for content. That said, the channel operators are frightened to death by the current climate forged by Bush and Ashcroft, particularly after the Superbowl Boob a couple of years ago, in which the FCC has become more powerful, and since they don't want to invite the scrutiny of government upon themselves, generally TV in the States is much tamer than in the UK. (HBO gets away with more because one must subscribe exclusively to HBO. Sirius Satellite Radio is an example of unregulated radio, which is outside the jurisdiction of the FCC. So far, my family appear to be unscathed by any damaging content on Sirius.)

I personally think it's a shame that the governments of our countries feel that it's their job to 'protect' us from certain kinds of content. I'd be interested as to what regulations you would advocate? It would likely be regulations of one of two kinds: (a) regulations that match your moral standards, or (b) regulations that attempt to keep kids away from adult material.

In the case of (a), it should be obvious that not everyone shares your moral standards. Is it not better that we self-regulate in this case?

In the case of (b), a watershed will do some to achieve this, and I think it's the case that most broadcasters would adhere to a watershed voluntarily without the threats of government. But in the same way that an adult magazine should not be left around so a kid can get access to it (and really what regulations would you advocate to protect them from that?), families now have access to an array of technology which helps them regulate what their kids watch. In short, it's up to the parents, not the state, to regulate their kids.

I know we're on the website of a state broadcaster, which makes it a difficult environment in which to argue that the government should not be involved in television. But I'd certainly be interested in your worst-case scenarios of unregulated television.

Finally, since commentators appear to be largely anti-this and anti-that and have few solutions, I'd like to share with you my solution. Like most of the things I back, it has no chance of happening, but I'm that sadistic. I'd support for the UK the kind of thing I advocated for the USA in the wake of the Superbowl Boob: that broadcasters enter into an arrangement with the government whereby, in exchange for deregulation of television and radio, they would join an inter-network ratings system for each and every programme they intend to broadcast. This ratings system would inevitably make its way onto the cable set top-boxes and freeview systems, satellite recievers, TIVOs and the like, thus making it extremely easy to (a) recieve only programmes that you feel are appropriate, (b) recieve programmes that others may feel are inappropriate, and (c) protect your kids from seeing adult content.

I don't expect the commenters on this blog to agree with this, since it all sounds just a little too individualistic for most I'm sure. But I'm glad you asked the question, David- - it's a topic I'm passionate about (as I'm sure you've noticed!).

I forgot to mention killings of female babies by indians on my previous post. Please add that in!

I guess my previous post was too offensive (which would have been number 20), so now I am posting a different version.

I agree with comment 10. The idea that it is only 'whites' that make fun of people and is regarded as racism is dumb.

Plus I read the link he gave. And in honesty, the killers should be burnt alive, but then their community will play the racism card.

Define racism? Simply put, it is taking the piss out of someone skin colour. It may also include religion, culture, country, but really, criticising someone’s culture or religion or maybe their country, in my opinion is not racism.

I have sent comments to the ´óÏó´«Ã½ about Jade not knowing anything about Indian culture and mentioning how 'coloured' people use the race card when feeling uncomfortable. (Which were not added into the comments section!)
The 'three witches' knew little to none of Indian culture, and the tone they used was like someone repulsed by what they saw and a reaction to something they didn’t understand.

Jade's mentality is like a spoilt brat not of a racist, like the KKK or extreme Right wingers or Nazi, which are better examples of racism and intolerance.

Jade needs to travel or lock herself in a library and read and improve her brain so that she'll know that the eyes on the peacock tail feathers are NOT real!

Perhaps due to her ignorance, people who want to play the racism trump card are finding it easy to do that.

I had also posted about 10 points about India and its culture that non-Indians have not been exposed to due to tourism. Also the language of my writing before was repulsive, but that’s due to knowing what is really happening behind closed doors. The language has been toned down:

1) Indians are living in a culture that has been influenced by British Victorian values and have them as law for the whole country.

2) Shilpa shetty got an arrest warrant because of indecent exposure, which was actually her abdominal area in her movies.

3) Not able to criticise Indian religion or culture, which will result in riots and an effigy of the person burned (like a witch trial).

4) Indian government is doing nothing about the sexual abuse allegations against Sai Baba which are still continuing and increasing today worldwide!

5) 'Low castes' are still being condemned. They have no basic human rights. The women are raped and burned alive, the men and children killed. Dr B.R Ambedkar challenged the upper and high class Indians and unfortunately had a mild effect to change India.

6) Indians did not complain about ‘the secret swami' shown on the ´óÏó´«Ã½, nor any complaints about 'dispatches: undercover mosque'.

7) Penn and teller showed a programme called 'holier than thou', showing Gandhi was racist towards Africans, Mother Teresa and the present Dalai Lama are not the people the world thinks they are. No complaints by any Indians, although the programme is only shown in America.

8) I forgot to mention on my other post, Indians are killing female babies, they are mostly the poor Indians who live in slums are not as rich as bollywood upper class Indians.

I am not too sure about the issue of calling someone Poppadum, Fish and chips, curry and rice, pork fried rice, chappatti is used in a racial context. Rather it is stereotypical of a persons' culture to make and eat it, therefore a person takes the mick out of food in order to get a reaction of some sort.

I think the definition of 'racist' needs to be made clear, but even then P.C will be going bonkers. If a 'white' British person says something offensive to another culture it is automatically racist. Yet other cultures are trying to impose themselves and their ways here in U.K. because 'we are tolerant'? Nope, it is highly likely that if 'white British people' say something it is automatically called racist!

Thanks for reading my post.