John Humphrys
John Humphrys recently made some very interesting points about the state of modern television. His comments on reality TV and the role of journalists in reporting on politics are particularly thoughtful.
I hate to admit it, but last year I watched quite a lot of Big Brother. It was just at the point when a new house-mate was introduced at the mid-point of the series, and I was sure that she was a plant. She seemed so ridiculously over-the-top that I couldn't get my head around the possibility that she wasn't there to seriously scare the veterans. I was expecting one morning for them to wake up and see her staring into space, chicken-blood all over her hands. 'I just... I just saw red... and when I woke up... there were bits of mutilated chicken everywhere!'
But I digress - I watched it, but I have never approved of it. My main objection is the elevation of these talentless mediocrities, who for a brief time occupy an unprecedented position in the public eye. The obsession with cheap and easy celebrity seems very harmful to my mind. Andy Warhol once said that in the future, everyone would be famous for fifteen minutes, and reality TV in all its various guises is part of the great push towards that hellish nightmare.
As a nation, we are obsessed with celebrity - but not with merit. It's a terrible state of affairs... we have 'newspapers' like the Sun attempting to push 'Becks and Posh' as Britain's new 'royal couple'. We get treated to lengthy articles about their daily activities, but virtually nothing about their accomplishments, such as they are. It's a case of being famous because they are famous.
This kind of news muzak drowns out the important issues, and forces us to immerse ourselves in the trivial. It's 'news' that people want to read, but what on earth makes that a justification? Of course, it's profitable... but the greater loss is that as a nation we have deadened minds and an inability to look beyond the superficial. Important issues are simply lost in a vast ocean of numbing banality. It's white-noise for the mind - a media equivalent of the deluge of useless information devised by Sir Humphrey to keep his minister uninformed in the television show Yes Minister.
Reality shows are just a new manifestation of that. There is some mileage in the format as a one-off oddity, but certainly not in the way it has been marketed. The social and psychological aspects of groups of people in captivity are very compelling - consider the Stanford Prison Experiment as an example. But this isn't about intellectual merit - it's about appealing to the lowest base instinct of a society obsessed with fame. The show screams out 'Look at me... I'm nothing. I have no skills, no charisma, no measurable abilities of any kind, but I am famous'.
The message is clear - we do not applaud ability. We applaud celebrity. We applaud those as mediocre as the rest of us, because it gives us hope that we too may be front page news for no firm reason. In such a society, merit falls by the way-side. It engenders arrogance without achievement. It teaches us that it is not necessary to reach beyond ourselves for something more noble or substantial. It is reflected in our attitude towards our friends, our celebrities, and our political representatives.
John Humphrys is an excellent journalist, and a man with a fine sense of ethics and integrity. He is a credit to the BBC, and to us all. If only there were more like him - he is an excellent example of someone who earned acknowledgement for their achievement. I'm sure his comments will be dismisses as the ramblings of an outdated dinosaur, but the world would be a better place if society looked more to people like him than to the latest instalment of big brother.
I hate to admit it, but last year I watched quite a lot of Big Brother. It was just at the point when a new house-mate was introduced at the mid-point of the series, and I was sure that she was a plant. She seemed so ridiculously over-the-top that I couldn't get my head around the possibility that she wasn't there to seriously scare the veterans. I was expecting one morning for them to wake up and see her staring into space, chicken-blood all over her hands. 'I just... I just saw red... and when I woke up... there were bits of mutilated chicken everywhere!'
But I digress - I watched it, but I have never approved of it. My main objection is the elevation of these talentless mediocrities, who for a brief time occupy an unprecedented position in the public eye. The obsession with cheap and easy celebrity seems very harmful to my mind. Andy Warhol once said that in the future, everyone would be famous for fifteen minutes, and reality TV in all its various guises is part of the great push towards that hellish nightmare.
As a nation, we are obsessed with celebrity - but not with merit. It's a terrible state of affairs... we have 'newspapers' like the Sun attempting to push 'Becks and Posh' as Britain's new 'royal couple'. We get treated to lengthy articles about their daily activities, but virtually nothing about their accomplishments, such as they are. It's a case of being famous because they are famous.
This kind of news muzak drowns out the important issues, and forces us to immerse ourselves in the trivial. It's 'news' that people want to read, but what on earth makes that a justification? Of course, it's profitable... but the greater loss is that as a nation we have deadened minds and an inability to look beyond the superficial. Important issues are simply lost in a vast ocean of numbing banality. It's white-noise for the mind - a media equivalent of the deluge of useless information devised by Sir Humphrey to keep his minister uninformed in the television show Yes Minister.
Reality shows are just a new manifestation of that. There is some mileage in the format as a one-off oddity, but certainly not in the way it has been marketed. The social and psychological aspects of groups of people in captivity are very compelling - consider the Stanford Prison Experiment as an example. But this isn't about intellectual merit - it's about appealing to the lowest base instinct of a society obsessed with fame. The show screams out 'Look at me... I'm nothing. I have no skills, no charisma, no measurable abilities of any kind, but I am famous'.
The message is clear - we do not applaud ability. We applaud celebrity. We applaud those as mediocre as the rest of us, because it gives us hope that we too may be front page news for no firm reason. In such a society, merit falls by the way-side. It engenders arrogance without achievement. It teaches us that it is not necessary to reach beyond ourselves for something more noble or substantial. It is reflected in our attitude towards our friends, our celebrities, and our political representatives.
John Humphrys is an excellent journalist, and a man with a fine sense of ethics and integrity. He is a credit to the BBC, and to us all. If only there were more like him - he is an excellent example of someone who earned acknowledgement for their achievement. I'm sure his comments will be dismisses as the ramblings of an outdated dinosaur, but the world would be a better place if society looked more to people like him than to the latest instalment of big brother.
1 Comments:
Hi! I really enjoyed your article on John Humphreys and society obsessed with fame, I am currently studying Media a-level and have a dissertation to write- I was wondering if you could give me any thoughts on it "What is the function or value of celebrity in society as fostered by media instituions, i.e gossip magazines." I would really like to know what you have to say on that, please could you email me with your thoughts jesspainter146@fsmail.net thanks very much and I look forward to hearing from you!
Jess
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home