Skip to main content

Is this responsible TV?

Here is an issue where I simply don't know the answer. At some personal pain (they made me do it), I watched the X-Factor last night. The participants in this talent show for singers had already been whittled down to 32. Now they were told which 12 would go through to the live finals and which 20 would be dumped in the dustbin of musical life.

By the time they get to this stage, the contestants already feel they've made it. They are taken to 'the judges houses' (or rental properties standing in as such) and given the star treatment. The programme has ensured that they have been built up to an immense high. Several of them, in interviews before the decision announced, say things like 'This is my life, I don't know what I will do if I don't get through,' or 'My life is over if I'm not picked.'

I have the genuine concern that at some point, under the immense and artificial air of pressure generated by the show to make 'good television', one of the contestants who is rejected will commit suicide. At this point, those running the show will exhibit their crocodile tears for all to see, saying 'We are so sorry, we couldn't have forseen this.' Well, yes they could. Just this last week, Peter Boatman, director of the company Pro-Tect that lost its contract to supply the UK police with tasers (in effect destroying their business) took his life because of the loss of the contract. When someone puts their work at the absolute centre of their life, it can result in terrible consequences when their chances are taken away.

This is where I am undecided. On the one hand, part of me says 'Contestants know what they are letting themselves in for. If they want to put themselves through this, they've only themselves to blame.' On the other hand I am well aware that the X-Factor is hugely manipulative of its audience (all those sob stories, for example) and put its contestants through unnecessary pressure to make compulsive viewing - and with people's lives potentially at stake, I'm not sure that this is acceptable.

I just hope, if it ever does happen, that the producers will do the right thing and pull the series rather than keep it running. That would be sickening, as they would inevitably pretend that it's 'what [insert name of unfortunate person] would have wanted us to do,' rather than admitting it's because the production company wants to keep making money hand over fist.


  1. It's a hard one - but don't you think that you are being manipulated as much as any other member of the audience? I should imagine that the contestants can only compete after signing a forest of waivers, and that counsellors are on hand. If the times have now changed as much as you say in your most recent blog about Boys' Own Hebridean Adventure, then risk will be minimised as possible consistent with the format.

    And also that the acres of film in which contestants don't say 'it's my lifelong dream' but 'really, I'm only in it for a lark' will have been edited away?

    But if one of the contestants really did commit suicide - how delicious. Their relatives would sell the story to the tabs, and their recordings, such as they are, would make the Christmas No. 1, such is the replacement by sentimentality of genuine sentiment in the target audience. And guess who'd clean up. No, you're way ahead of me.

  2. That I am being manipulated as much as any other member of the audience.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope