What do they gain by it.
It happens every year on here. There is always a conspiracy theory about who producers want to win. How is that logical? Why would they care? And what's the point anyway as we usually forget all about them when the show is finished ( well I do)

Well one of them tweets Chloe support

Shane Byrne ‏@MrShaneByrne 3h3 hours ago
I would love to see Chloe win Big Brother. She is a genuinely lovely person. #BBUK

Channel 5 and The Daily Star have the same owners. A good marketable winner will make more trashy headline stories to sell maybe?

It seems that if something is remotely possible then it definitely must have happened, according to the conspiracy theorists that is, even when there is no motive. I've asked on several CT threads for a motive but nobody ever responds. Personally, I find it difficult to believe that a vast number of people would risk their professional reputations, perhaps even breaking the law, so that a housemate that people don't like can gain an unfair advantage.

Channel Five and the star are not owned by the same group.

I don't think that they pick who they want to win (there would be no reason for them to do that) but it's clear that they pick who they want to stay in a bit longer because they think that person will get ratings up. It's evident in the ways that they have manipulated nominations to save certain people.

The reason people think that they choose the winner is because last year they gave a pass to the final to someone who did end up winning, despite being rather unpleasant most of the time.

This is what I said on another thread in relation to Joel's edit:

There is a reason why it would benefit the programme makers - future attendance on Bit on the Side, returning to the House and generally promoting the show.

Joel is an Aaron Allard-Morgan character; he won't follow the party line, he may cut off ties if he feels they've gone too far and I'm not sure if he'd ever return to the House. If he agrees with the producers favourite/line the producers are taking he'd be an asset. But if not...

Whereas someone like Danny would do exactly what he's told. With his connections he'd be seen as a good winner. He'd not rock the boat, slate the show, support any requests, appear on BOTS, pop into the House etc. He's a producers dream.

Except... he needs to control his temper. That let's him down. So where do they go next with the winner? Nick struggles with voicing an opinion so no good. Cristian has been branded as a Cornflake due to how interesting he's been. Jack is passionate but is sometimes too self-obsessed to see the bigger picture. This leaves... Chloe. The girl next door. She'd be happy to promote the show too; do as asked and would be seen as a 'nice' winner after Helen last year.

Leaving the vote to the people should produce a winner that people like though. Meddling with that process would produce a winner that wouldn't be the people's first choice. I'm not sure why you think that would be benefit the Daily Star.

its not a conspiracy.

its a conclusion based on the solid evidence of editing. often the ch 5 vid clips are at most 5 mins long. when we see the edited version on daily show, it can be slanted 'for' a certain HM.

BOTS guests also seem to toe the line so... point made

They gain the forlorn hope that it will have a knock on effect. It rarely does.

I agree, with the XFactor you can see why they'd care who wins, as SyCo doesm't want to be stuck with a rubbish person they're obligated to promote - I seem to remember there was a half-hearted campaign to get Christopher Malone the winner's crown, as it would be "hilarious" if Cowell had to pour £1m into his music.

Is there a name for the condition where a person cannot believe the world is not bending to their absolute belief that they are right and know everything. Therefore when something doesn't fit their view, there must be a force at work deliberately manipulating the situation.

That word will be the reason OP.

You have a very unusual interpretation of what constitutes 'solid evidence'. It's impossible to trim down a day into a 40-minute HL show without 'slanting' it. The fact that we often get to see fuller clips showing the bigger picture should tell you that they are trying to be upfront. If they truly wanted to mislead us, why provide the clips?

Its strange how the producers always (allegedly ) favour someone that whoever is posting doesnt like lol

Exactly!

Because they want to tell stories, because they think some fairy tale ending will go down well with viewers..

The idea is that in the long term they do gain from it, because they predict that people will come back to watch it again next time.
TV channels don't usually just put anything out without paying heed to how the audience might react to to a show, they try to engage the emotions of the viewer and attempt to manipulate those emotions.

I don't know why people still have trouble grasping this concept.
Television is generally more about simply serving a function without any feeling in the vain hope that people might watch it. It will tend to create a story with just about anything in order to try to emotionally engage the viewers. Even in most documentaries emotion is frequently used to drive the narrative.

That is true.

I maintain that I feel the producers do have a preference for the reasons I described bu there we go. The forum can't agree over anything else so why would we agree with this?

No it's not. In the early years of BB at some press conference for Big Brother (or was it Endemol in general?) John de Mol was asked a question at the end of the conference by one of the audience members whether BB is less about reality and more about manipulation.
His answer was "Television is about manipulation".

So it's straight from the horse's mouth.

It is two words. Cognitive dissonance.

That's my point. After it's over people move on. Only the fanatics remember past HMts from every series which I find amazing but I can't always identify with who they are talking about. Mostly I can't think of many winners that I have been pleased to win. The only one that comes to mind with me is Brian and the way that Davina stood with him on that bridge with the fireworks going off. Magical!! Most of the others leave me cold.

True, very true.

Imagine if, during this process of creating narratives, the producers could garner public opinion, perhaps asking them who they would like to see more of and who they want evicted. Would they then ignore public opinion, do you think, because they think they know better?

Exactly.

Not really. Cognitive dissonance would more usually be applied to people who strive for order and would be more likely to adopt the perspective of a consensus view to put themselves at ease. It would be important for their opinion to be consistent with that majority view.

Perceived majority