Originally Posted by wazzyboy:
“It is two words. Cognitive dissonance.”
“It is two words. Cognitive dissonance.”
Thanks I'll remember that. Even though I can't remember most past HMts
Can someone please tell me why people think the producers pick who they want to win
2 of 2
Originally Posted by WhatJoeThinks:
“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?”
“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?”
I think they have a story in mind for certain housemates very early on. Housemates are seen by them as archetypes, and they probably have a vague idea of who the 'heroes' and 'villains' are likely to be.
I think they try to stick with that, even if as the weeks go by the public opinion seems to change.
Jack is a decent example. BB were really behind him early on. The public went off him. BOTS still tried to support him. Then BOTS started to reflect public opinion,...but then the public started liking him again.
So it feels like BB are in a perpetual state of playing catch-up.They seem to want to stick with ideas for narratives for as long as they can plausibly hold onto them.
The support they have for some housemates is almost inexplicable. I can only conclude that with some housemates they have them pigeonholed as a particular archetype they have in mind which was probably made very early on, possibly even before they started filming, and just won't budge not matter what much of the public seem to think.
Originally Posted by wazzyboy:
“Perceived majority
”
“Perceived majority
”
Yes, perceived majority.
But my point is the same as that it is not a term which is applied solely to the people you describe.
Coincidentally with a Big Brother connection, George Orwell applied the meaning to to the people in power such as politicians, advertisers, and organised religion. He created the term 'doublespeak' which is based on cognitive dissonance.
Originally Posted by Alrightmate:
“I think they have a story in mind for certain housemates very early on. Housemates are seen by them as archetypes, and they probably have a vague idea of who the 'heroes' and 'villains' are likely to be.
I think they try to stick with that, even if as the weeks go by the public opinion seems to change.
Jack is a decent example. BB were really behind him early on. The public went off him. BOTS still tried to support him. Then BOTS started to reflect public opinion,...but then the public started liking him again. So it feels like BB are in a perpetual state of playing catch-up.
They seem to want to stick with ideas for narratives for as long as they can plausibly hold onto them.
The support they have for some housemates is almost inexplicable. I can only conclude that with some housemates they have them pigeonholed as a particular archetype they have in mind which was probably made very early on, possibly even before they started filming, and just won't budge not matter what much of the public seem to think.”
“I think they have a story in mind for certain housemates very early on. Housemates are seen by them as archetypes, and they probably have a vague idea of who the 'heroes' and 'villains' are likely to be.
I think they try to stick with that, even if as the weeks go by the public opinion seems to change.
Jack is a decent example. BB were really behind him early on. The public went off him. BOTS still tried to support him. Then BOTS started to reflect public opinion,...but then the public started liking him again.
So it feels like BB are in a perpetual state of playing catch-up.They seem to want to stick with ideas for narratives for as long as they can plausibly hold onto them.
The support they have for some housemates is almost inexplicable. I can only conclude that with some housemates they have them pigeonholed as a particular archetype they have in mind which was probably made very early on, possibly even before they started filming, and just won't budge not matter what much of the public seem to think.”
It's worth remembering that the production team, plus Emma and Rylan, are human too. They watch the show, they're automatically going to lean towards certain Housemates and sometimes it's difficult not to let this inherent bias slip through no matter how hard they try to be fair.
Originally Posted by Fudd:
“It's worth remembering that the production team, plus Emma and Rylan, are human too. They watch the show, they're automatically going to lean towards certain Housemates and sometimes it's difficult not to let this inherent bias slip through no matter how hard they try to be fair.”
“It's worth remembering that the production team, plus Emma and Rylan, are human too. They watch the show, they're automatically going to lean towards certain Housemates and sometimes it's difficult not to let this inherent bias slip through no matter how hard they try to be fair.”
You're right. That's why it's very difficult for there to not be bias involved, and why the show itself should perhaps try harder to remain as unbiased as it can be.
Which it seems to fail spectacularly with every time.
When you consider each winner from the very first bb each one is very different so what makes you think bb has picked any of them. People get fixated on who they want to win and if it doesnt happen then bb must have fixed it. Why dont you all enjoy the show and of course have your say in who you like and dont but stop being so suspicious of every move thats made. I remember when Rylans other half suspected things he got slated and he was an ex cid officer so it was built into him. Come on folks enjoy the show we dont want to lose it altogether
Originally Posted by Dave_62:
“Channel Five and the star are not owned by the same group.”
“Channel Five and the star are not owned by the same group.”
Apologies, Richard Desmond the owner of Express Newspapers and founder of Northern & Shell, which publishes various celebrity magazines, such as OK! and New!, and British national newspapers Daily Express, Sunday Express, Daily Star and Daily Star Sunday, owned Channel 5 from 23rd July 2010 to 1st May 2014 when it was sold to Viacom.
There do still appear to be connections though, such as Helen Wood having a column in the Star, and Star reporters appearing on BBBOTS.
it is driven by accountants. some hms are more bankable than others so you need them in the final vote to save as thats where you make,your money on voting. they dont always get away with it but they will favour where they think the money is its a business first and foremost.
I think you have to be careful not to dichotomise the issue into: the producers pick a preferred winner vs the producers don't care who the winner is.
Looking back to the final week of BB11, nobody has a remotely convincing 'innocent' explanation for the producers effectively handing Gibson an absolute walkover in the final. Of course people go way too far with their conspiracy theories but in part that's because BB can make up the rules as it goes along in furtherance of objectives which are not honestly disclosed to the viewers or, more importantly, the paying voters.
Looking back to the final week of BB11, nobody has a remotely convincing 'innocent' explanation for the producers effectively handing Gibson an absolute walkover in the final. Of course people go way too far with their conspiracy theories but in part that's because BB can make up the rules as it goes along in furtherance of objectives which are not honestly disclosed to the viewers or, more importantly, the paying voters.
2 of 2
