Most of the time, such as on this occasion, things are blown way out of proportion....just to get more publicity. It's almost like they provoke discrimination by blowing meaningless comments completely out of proportion in order to get a few more viewers. It's all very desperate. And wrong.
Why does BB always play the homophobic/racist card to gain more viewers?
1 of 4
They have just seized the opportunity to create a scandal over nothing.
People,are entitled to their own opinions, bigoted or not. That's how things are out on the street, why should it be any different in the house.
They could have just cut the footage from our screens, but chose to show it to gain more viewers.
People,are entitled to their own opinions, bigoted or not. That's how things are out on the street, why should it be any different in the house.
They could have just cut the footage from our screens, but chose to show it to gain more viewers.
Originally Posted by Skepticism:
“Most of the time, such as on this occasion, things are blown way out of proportion....just to get more publicity. It's almost like they provoke discrimination by blowing meaningless comments completely out of proportion in order to get a few more viewers. It's all very desperate. And wrong.”
“Most of the time, such as on this occasion, things are blown way out of proportion....just to get more publicity. It's almost like they provoke discrimination by blowing meaningless comments completely out of proportion in order to get a few more viewers. It's all very desperate. And wrong.”
100% agree!!!
Further more, by showing the clip of this so called "offensive language" then to show them immediately afterwards get a warning really pisses me off. BB was created as a social experiment - we are supposed to have different views in there, that's what makes for an interesting and diverse group. For example had we seen an adult conversation about homosexuality in full on the show then maybe people with the same view as Evander could have learned or at least taken something away from it. Instead we get Evander being given a warning. The same thing happened to Carol last year when she too was having a "CONVERSATION"
We are not all supposed to agree with opinions, and you know what, some opinions are wrong BUT we are entitled to them. BB literally took away Evanders opinion last night but were happy to use it as a means to gain more viewers - DOUBLE STANDARDS!!! If they thought his opinion was sooo offensive then why air it? They have 24hrs of potential footage to use!
For the record I 100% disagree with Evander but I would have loved to see the conversation/debate evolve naturally.
I'm completely mystified as to why a high profile TV show on a commercial channel would want more viewers.
They might show such incidents to gain publicity, but the warnings given are mainly to cover themselves with OFCOM.
Originally Posted by kimotag:
“They might show such incidents to gain publicity, but the warnings given are mainly to cover themselves with OFCOM.”
“They might show such incidents to gain publicity, but the warnings given are mainly to cover themselves with OFCOM.”
..but if it's not broadcast, and wasn't aimed at one person in particular, then why can't they just leave it? Why make a mountain out of a molehill?
They go for that angle because its a good one to sell newspapers and create hysteria on social networks, which will get the ratings up.
Originally Posted by 1Mickey:
“They go for that angle because its a good one to sell newspapers and create hysteria on social networks, which will get the ratings up.”
“They go for that angle because its a good one to sell newspapers and create hysteria on social networks, which will get the ratings up.”
So basically, they embrace discrimination as it's profitable? Nice.
The only purpose served with outing his beliefs was publicity for the show. Hes probably had the same beliefs all his life and up till now keeps them in the privacy of his own home.
I don't agree with what he said and I don't think he is able to find the words to explain what he really wanted to say but I can't help feeling that the producers let out a little cheer as soon as the conversation started.
I don't agree with what he said and I don't think he is able to find the words to explain what he really wanted to say but I can't help feeling that the producers let out a little cheer as soon as the conversation started.
Originally Posted by Skepticism:
“So basically, they embrace discrimination as it's profitable? Nice.”
“So basically, they embrace discrimination as it's profitable? Nice.”
Yes. In fairness though. C4 did it too.
Let's face it, Evander's opinion was controversial, and they knew that some of the characters in there were 'firm and stuck in their beliefs' before the series began.
BB have to show Evander being warned for his behaviour (even though it is his opinion) as a form of insurance for themselves against OFCOM. They do not want to be shown to be condoning homophobia in any form or allowing it to occur in the house.
Having said that, they deliberately aired Evander's comments for one simple reason. And they have been successful in that.
The show has got media attention, people are talking about the show, which is what the producers truly want, whether it be positive or negative, the show has received it nevertheless.
BB have to show Evander being warned for his behaviour (even though it is his opinion) as a form of insurance for themselves against OFCOM. They do not want to be shown to be condoning homophobia in any form or allowing it to occur in the house.
Having said that, they deliberately aired Evander's comments for one simple reason. And they have been successful in that.
The show has got media attention, people are talking about the show, which is what the producers truly want, whether it be positive or negative, the show has received it nevertheless.
Originally Posted by aggielane:
“The only purpose served with outing his beliefs was publicity for the show. Hes probably had the same beliefs all his life and up till now keeps them in the privacy of his own home.
I don't agree with what he said and I don't think he is able to find the words to explain what he really wanted to say but I can't help feeling that the producers let out a little cheer as soon as the conversation started.”
“The only purpose served with outing his beliefs was publicity for the show. Hes probably had the same beliefs all his life and up till now keeps them in the privacy of his own home.
I don't agree with what he said and I don't think he is able to find the words to explain what he really wanted to say but I can't help feeling that the producers let out a little cheer as soon as the conversation started.”
His beliefs aren't private. I saw him at a massive Christian event in London not long after the ear biting incident.
Originally Posted by 1Mickey:
“His beliefs aren't private. I saw him at a massive Christian event in London not long after the ear biting incident.”
“His beliefs aren't private. I saw him at a massive Christian event in London not long after the ear biting incident.”
His Christian beliefs aren't private but I have never heard his views on homosexuality before.
Originally Posted by 1Mickey:
“Yes. In fairness though. C4 did it too.”
“Yes. In fairness though. C4 did it too.”
..and that makes them any better than the person who 'supposedly' said a discriminatory remark?
Originally Posted by Skepticism:
“..and that makes them any better than the person who 'supposedly' said a discriminatory remark?”
“..and that makes them any better than the person who 'supposedly' said a discriminatory remark?”
No but, despite the hysteria, its nothing new.
Originally Posted by Musick1:
“100% agree!!!
Further more, by showing the clip of this so called "offensive language" then to show them immediately afterwards get a warning really pisses me off.”
“100% agree!!!
Further more, by showing the clip of this so called "offensive language" then to show them immediately afterwards get a warning really pisses me off.”
The two go together. The alternatives are not showing it at all, or showing it and a warning.
Quote:
“BB was created as a social experiment - we are supposed to have different views in there, that's what makes for an interesting and diverse group. For example had we seen an adult conversation about homosexuality in full on the show then maybe people with the same view as Evander could have learned or at least taken something away from it. Instead we get Evander being given a warning. The same thing happened to Carol last year when she too was having a "CONVERSATION"
We are not all supposed to agree with opinions, and you know what, some opinions are wrong BUT we are entitled to them. BB literally took away Evanders opinion last night but were happy to use it as a means to gain more viewers - DOUBLE STANDARDS!!! If they thought his opinion was sooo offensive then why air it? They have 24hrs of potential footage to use!
For the record I 100% disagree with Evander but I would have loved to see the conversation/debate evolve naturally.”
“BB was created as a social experiment - we are supposed to have different views in there, that's what makes for an interesting and diverse group. For example had we seen an adult conversation about homosexuality in full on the show then maybe people with the same view as Evander could have learned or at least taken something away from it. Instead we get Evander being given a warning. The same thing happened to Carol last year when she too was having a "CONVERSATION"
We are not all supposed to agree with opinions, and you know what, some opinions are wrong BUT we are entitled to them. BB literally took away Evanders opinion last night but were happy to use it as a means to gain more viewers - DOUBLE STANDARDS!!! If they thought his opinion was sooo offensive then why air it? They have 24hrs of potential footage to use!
For the record I 100% disagree with Evander but I would have loved to see the conversation/debate evolve naturally.”
So what if it's a conversation?
And do you think that CBB should have to obey the broadcasting code, like every other tv show, or have a special exemption because it was once claimed to be a "social experiment"?
Originally Posted by Skepticism:
“..but if it's not broadcast, and wasn't aimed at one person in particular, then why can't they just leave it? Why make a mountain out of a molehill?”
“..but if it's not broadcast, and wasn't aimed at one person in particular, then why can't they just leave it? Why make a mountain out of a molehill?”
Because they know that controversy brings publicity and are gambling that their warning is strong enough to keep them on the right side of OFCOM.
Yep, it's a bit cynical how they seized on a comment in a pretty meaningless conversation involving Holyfield. It would be different if he had been going on an angry rant about a gay housemate but he was giving his views on homosexuality in general in a one on one conversation (and he admitted that he actually forgot that there were cameras and microphones everywhere recording everything).
Originally Posted by kimotag:
“Because they know that controversy brings publicity and are gambling that their warning is strong enough to keep them on the right side of OFCOM.”
“Because they know that controversy brings publicity and are gambling that their warning is strong enough to keep them on the right side of OFCOM.”
It wouldn't make any difference if it hadn't been broadcast. This is just BB creating pure sensationalism over nothing. Yet the public fall for,it, the press exaggerate and manipulate and end Endemol get away with what is essentially provoking and promoting discriminatin.
Ofcom only acts on things which are broadcast, not to those which aren't.
The two are very different. People on the streets have different opinions every day, far worse than what this guy said, yet we aren't hauled before the courts. Why should it be any different to something that isn't broadcast. BB take it upon themselves to actively promote discrimination, to cause a whirlwind of publicity to get more viewers, when actually, they should keep quiet and stop promoting manipulative discrimination.
Was it in the public interest to show what he said? No.
Did he actively set out to discriminate against any one particular person in the house to deliberately offend them? No.
Therefore, he is entitled to his opinion and he should at least be given the right to free speech.
Did he actively set out to discriminate against any one particular person in the house to deliberately offend them? No.
Therefore, he is entitled to his opinion and he should at least be given the right to free speech.
Originally Posted by Skepticism:
“Was it in the public interest to show what he said? No.
Did he actively set out to discriminate against any one particular person in the house to deliberately offend them? No.
Therefore, he is entitled to his opinion and he should at least be given the right to free speech.”
“Was it in the public interest to show what he said? No.
Did he actively set out to discriminate against any one particular person in the house to deliberately offend them? No.
Therefore, he is entitled to his opinion and he should at least be given the right to free speech.”
Exactly : if he's talking in general terms, then I don't see what the problem is.
What if someone else says there are too many immigrants in the UK or that men are better than women or whatever....are they also going to receive a formal warning from BB?
Originally Posted by Eurostar:
“Exactly : if he's talking in general terms, then I don't see what the problem is.
What if someone else says there are too many immigrants in the UK or that men are better than women or whatever....are they also going to receive a formal warning from BB?”
“Exactly : if he's talking in general terms, then I don't see what the problem is.
What if someone else says there are too many immigrants in the UK or that men are better than women or whatever....are they also going to receive a formal warning from BB?”
I expect so. It seems we're getting to the point where everyone is deemed so fragile that they have to be protected from opinions they may disagree with.
1 of 4
