It widens your view, in my opinion. You see more, and hear more of what happens than if you, for instance, tuned in at 10pm every weekday and watched the C4 show. You see and hear more peoples opinions, and gives you more of a vantage point.

Since I've been on here, things which would have, personally, been frivolous and pointless in my mind, have been extended into fully fledged, feature length arguments by others. It shows how much opinion changes.

for the fairly obvious reason that people can sometimes make a point that you haven't thought of or see the same incident in a different way. So you read it and either agree that it is possible or discount it as impossible.

Frankly I don't see the point of using a forum if it isn't possible for you to learn something from it or consider other viewpoints. But then I also wouldn't see the point of living if I had nothing left to learn...

I can sympathise with the first paragraph-it might be useful to garner extra coverage and facts and maybe discuss issues arising.I found the archive interesting for previous BB's to read about.
However in my short experience here there are a lot of people who do not treat it like that and just hammer away posting the same thing over and over again in an attempt to "brainwash"other people.I have even produced some facts myself and been hounded for doing so and I have proven certain other people do be wrong on facts and they cannot bear to admit they were wrong.
For that reason I will watch the show myself as much as I choose off the TV and may flick at the tabloids or look at one or two threads here if they appear interesting.But generally I would not read here-I would make my own mind up.

Yes, but are you going to be enlightened by somebody else's point of view if their opinion is clearly biased & based on a certain kind of prejudice??

You should always trust your own judgement - & let's face it - reading BB isn't rocket science.

Of course you can't watch every bit of live coverage & you will miss the odd edit. Only then will it be useful to check what happened on a forum such as this.

I can never be influenced by opinion if the opinion is not objective.

Also, I have no time for opinion which might be in anyway, sexist.

Try telling Darren Brown that.

You say your experience here has been short. I'd hang in there if I were you, once the main event starts there are some very insighteful and interesting posters.

I read the forum during BB3 and joined in in BB4, I must say that although I ultimately make up my own mind, some posters have caused me to look at things from a different perspective, which isn't a bad thing and adds to the experience.

A totally different kettle of fish.

Derren Brown is proud to say he's a trickster...a bloody clever one as well.

It's not a general election it's an entertainment programme- they'll simplify something in order to tell a story and entertain us lot.

It worries me not one jot.

I don't believe they pick a "chosen one" and promote them because there'd be no point. I've never read any feasible explaination as to how that could increase revenue.

That is very true, however, the public only see what they want to see sometimes. When I accidentally lurched into the C4 BB boards for a week, you could not get an opinion off some people. With regards (and just using this as an example not to bring it up again) to fight night, it wouldn't have mattered if there had been DNA evidence and cameras on every single person being shown for the whole incident, alot of people still would only see one side, whereas more objective people did see the truth. If you dared to disagree the threads used to go into insults to the poster, rather than an actual opinion. I do realise that the C4 forums are different to these but they are still BB watchers who can influence the voting and viewing figures.

Also, another example, I felt one HM was a bit unfairly edited last year as did a couple of my mates, as we all had live streaming to base our opinions of the channel four night shows on. Another friend who did not have live streaming didn't see this at all and could not stand this person when watching the edited channel four highlights, based on what they chose to show her. So in a way, you can fool the public, but as was said before, only if they do not have full evidence of all the facts.

I also felt that Davina was very biased towards certain HM's last year, and do hope she doesn't do that again, as she can influence a certain section of voters too. A presenter should be impartial I think.

I hope that all made sense!!!

Why is it a 'different kettle of fish'?
If one can fool the public then why can't the other?

The editing is biased and those that only watch the highlights get a biased view of BB.

No - I'm not going to be enlightened by someone who is clearly biased and bases their views on their prejudices. That isn't (yet) true of 100% of posters here!

If your own judgement is based on ignorance should you trust it? No-one knows everything... We all have our own opinions. Mine are almost always right but on occassion I can be persuaded...

Why would Endemol & Channel 4 be interested in trying to fool the public when Big Brother is their most important cash-cow??
If the public suspected BB was in some way 'rigged', millions would switch off and/or Channel 4 would be encouraged to drop the show - as the BBC dropped Vanessa Feltz' s programme when some guests were exposed as fake.

There may be some nominal tinkering but sometimes that will be done out of necessity, ie the rather 'safe' editing of Jade in the final 3 weeks of BB3 - in order to temper Jade's bad press.

I don't think my opinions are based on ignorance & I can be persuaded...but BB is not difficult to read.

There is one important factor though & that is BB is aimed at the readers of 'Heat' magazine, & generally speaking, if the readers of Heat like a housemate, they will do well.
Many fms would not rate the opinion of a typical Heat reader...& that's where a difference of opinion may arise.

Funny you should say that. I used to buy 'Heat' each week for years, especially as they were huge BB fans. But last year they were so biased towards a few HM's (and by that time I had not made my mind up who I did or didn't want to win) and did so much coverage on Michelle and Stuart..I got bored with having their opinions rammed down my throat and never brought it again!

I like to make my own mind up!

I wouldn't like to say if BB producers are deliberately biased or not. But I do believe that they look for certain catagories of people, place those auditioning into these catagories - and then edit viewing on C4 to show theose people doing exactly what is expected. Not biased - just 'creative'.

ps. Jon Tickle wrote somewhere that there is a different producer each day - who is responsible for any bias that may be noted. Seems logical to me that each producer will have their own favourites and work accordingly.

Not just me then. Remember the competition to meet 'team handjob'? *shudder*

Having said that..........I thought Michelle was great.

But who is a 'typical' Heat reader? And why should we not rate their opinions? Are they less valid or worthy opinions of those that do not read Heat? What about those that read Now, OK, Closer etc but not Heat? Can we rate their opinions? Nobody can agree with everybody, that's what makes BB so good, and this forum entertaining to read and take part in!

PS I'm a Heat reader, so you all can just ignore the above

Yeah, 'creative' is about as far as the producers go - but the housemates are the people ultimately responsible for output, ie 'storylines', if you can have storylines on a reality tv programme, that is.

There are producers overseeing the producers - & a different producer each day has more to do with the exhaustive production process, I would think.

So your opinions are well thought out and incisive then are they? Here is a quote of yours from previously..

Quote:
“ Helen is as thick as dog poo.
Adele is thicker than dog poo.”

With insights like that they should have you as resident psychologist

I agree - the 'typical' Heat reader is more 'metaphorical' than real - a bit like the Labour party trying to appeal to 'schoolgate mom' & 'mondeo man'.
If the readers of Heat like the show & certain contestants, then the readers of all the seleb mags & tabloids generally will as well.

I was having a bit of fun, dear.

Helen wasn't clever & Adele was stupid for even thinking that she could play a clever game.

Ahh, well your wit was evidently too sophisticated for me, dear

Well there you go, clear cut evidence of biased editing. I rest my case.

That's fine, so long as you don't think you're getting a true picture of the HMs.

Were you reading this forum last year? I thought good explanations were offered several times.

One point is that revenue isn't all they care about. They also want the show to be popular, get good press, and be continued in future years rather than cancelled.

So they won't, for example, want all the HMs who are generating tabloid stories to be voted out. They won't want only dull HMs at the end, and they will want people to feel good about who wins.

So it can make sense for them to try to keep cetain HMs in, and to try to make them seem more interesting to the public.

(There's a lot more than could be said. Some of the revevant articles last year were quite long. But this is sure to come up again.)