Two and a half weeks into this series of Celebrity Big Brother and Katie Hopkins and Perez Hilton are still at each other's throats, Alexander O'Neal upped and left because he couldn't take 'The Perez Show' anymore and two housemates have been kicked out for unacceptable behaviour. So I am calling Endemol and Channel 5 to the diary room to discuss their behaviour and their role in all of this - one incident of which has had the police involved?
If Channel 5 and Endemol are so truly embarrassed by Jeremy's alleged assault on Chloe and Ken's many bigoted and perverse comments then why do similar things continue to happen series after series? Admittedly the producers of the show can't directly control the behaviour of their guests whilst they are in the house but they must have a lot more influence than they might lead you to believe.
Firstly, don't forget it is the producers behind the show that set the tasks and the conditions in which the housemates live. They deliberately throw in 'twists' and devise cunning plans to stir up arguments and controversy within the house. Some tasks are blatantly designed to cause anger - such as the recent 'debate' task - others less subtle. In the celebrity version they also plow them with alcohol (I don't think I've seen a single night so far this series without someone having a drink!). This is all purposefully done in order to create 'interesting TV', long gone are the days when this could possibly be passed off as a 'social experiment'.
Secondly, although we rarely find out how much, all the 'celebrities' are paid to be on the show and it has appeared over recent years that they are paid the same regardless of the length of time they spend in the house. This has become transparent by the number of celebrities saying very early on in their stay that they wish to leave despite claiming money being the primary reason for them agreeing to be on the show. Surely, if Channel 5 and Endemol wanted to curb bad and offensive behaviour they could introduce a clause in the contracts which would cut or possibly even forfeit appearance fees if unacceptable behaviour is deemed serious enough for the perpertraitor to be forced to leave the show.
We don't know for sure that they don't do this but likewise there is no evidence I can find to suggest they do. Let's assume they don't employ such clauses - why don't they? My view is that this would look even more unattractive to some of the controversial stars they are craving to appear in order to keep viewing figures up. Could you imagine the likes of John McCririck and some of the more controversial housemates of past accepting these clauses? It's almost not in the interests of the show for the producers to tackle the issue as offensive behaviour keeps the show in the press, keeps people talking about it and most importantly it keeps people watching. The worst the Channel 5 and Endemol can exepct? A wrap on the knuckles from Ofcom and possible an insignificant fine in comparison to the revenues the show brings in.
A friend of mine said to me recently that it is also just as interesting to watch fun and exciting things happen in the house, we don't always want the arguments, the anger and the insults. And I think he's absolutely right. Unfortunately, I don't think we're the target audience for Big Brother anymore in a reality TV world where increasingly spitefulness, resentment and controversy seems to prevail.
Having said all this - I'll continue to watch. Not because I enjoy the incessant screaming at each other but because I like observing people's behaviour and the psychological element of it, although no longer priority, does still exist.
Anyway what do you think? Post in the comments below. And for those of you that haven't figured it out yet, yes that is in me in the pictures in the Big Brother house of a couple of years back!
