Morality, TV, and Taste? What are the limits? And why?

[Serious Paul]

Imagine my non surprise at this.

Plans to air a television game show in which an adopted woman picks out her father from a panel of impostors have thousands of people deluging Fox TV with letters and e-mails to get the show shelved.

The "Who's Your Daddy?" show, in which a young woman given up for adoption as a child gets a $100,000 prize for picking out her biological father from a line-up, is the latest in America's obsession with reality TV programming.

News of the show sparked both a grass-roots campaign among adoptive parents and protests from national adoption organizations who called the idea offensive, voyeuristic and exploitative. Six episodes have been filmed but so far only one has been scheduled for broadcast, on Jan. 3.

Fox, a unit of News Corp. Inc., has yet to respond directly to its critics but said in a statement that although the title was "attention-grabbing" it was not indicative of the content.

Deborah Capone, a single mother with a 5-year-old adopted daughter, is behind an e-mail campaign that has generated more than 5,000 messages to Fox in a week asking for a meeting and for the show to be axed.

"By turning adoption reunions into a game show, 'Who's Your Daddy?' takes an intensely personal and complex situation ... and transforms it into a voyeuristic display," Capone said.

Capone said she was astounded at the response although she has heard nothing from Fox. She next plans to encourage her supporters to target potential advertisers and Fox TV affiliates to persuade them to abandon the show.

Adam Pertman, executive director of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, wrote to Fox describing the show as "destructive, insensitive and offensive" to the tens of millions of Americans with adoption in their families.

"The very idea of taking such a deeply personal, complex situation and turning it into a money-grubbing game show is perverse, destructive and insensitive to others," he wrote.

Kevin Healey, one of the show's executive producers, said he was taken aback by the reaction given the fact that the participants, their biological parents, and their adoptive parents were all willing and informed.

"Knowing what we did and the lives that we changed for the positive, I was very surprised. I expected there to be a reaction to the title but I felt people would watch it and then make their decisions," Healey told Reuters.

Healey said the idea was inspired by a friend who is adopted. "It came from a very pure place not from a place of trying to embarrass or harm anyone," he said.

Reality programming, in which ordinary people put themselves in embarrassing or emotionally charged situations, has dominated American television for the past three years, producing efforts such as "Who Wants to Marry a Multi-Millionaire," "Survivor," "My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance" and "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy."

I'll be honest, I think the show is in poor taste, but I will express my displeasure in the same way I always do-I just simplely don't watch it, or for that matter TV.

I've grown to really hate TV. I really do. Its a vast wasteland of garbage. Endless garbage. But it begs the question, what are the limits of decency these days? What should be on TV? What should be the limits?

[DarkMage]

God this is why I only watch cartoons and PBS

[mrmooky]

Yeah, it's tasteless and probably quite shite viewing, too.

I don't like tarring all "reality" TV with the same brush, though. There are some decent shows out there. The Apprentice is very cleverly thought out, and says a lot, often inadvertently, about business culture at the same time. The recent UK Big Brother series almost went off the rails a few times, but was often excellent viewing, and even quite socially transformative w.r.t. attitudes about intersex and transgender people. The Osbournes is another favorite of mine, mainly because it challanges conventional notions of what makes a successful, functional family. I've been watching the show inofrequently since it was first screened, and I still haven't figured out how their family manages to work - but it does, in its own fucked-up way.

Another show that I'm greatly looking forward to if and when it screens here is The Ambassador.

Reality TV works on Israel's image

An Israeli TV station is to start broadcasting a novel kind of reality show this week in a quest for a new media-friendly Israeli face to present a more positive image of the country abroad.

The Ambassador show pits 14 young Israelis against one another in tasks designed to test their skills at selling Israel's image.

But even before its first broadcast, the series has caused controversy.

The deterioration of Israel's world image was underlined by a recent leaked Foreign Ministry warning that the country could find itself treated as a pariah state in a few years' time.

Innovative solution

A reality TV show may not seem the most obvious answer to the problem, but that is where the new, high-profile series The Ambassador comes in.

The winner will become the ultimate Israeli ambassador, travelling the world to burnish Israel's image.

The contestants were drawn from several thousand applicants who answered an advertisement in the Israeli press for a job in media relations in New York.

The final 14 were picked from a variety of backgrounds, including a settler family, Ethiopian Jewish immigrants and a strict religious family.

In an ad for the show, they are seen posing confidently against the backdrop of Capitol Hill in Washington.

They are among the most "talented, intelligent and motivated" people in Israel, according to the show's publicity.

Each week, they will be set a different task in a different country to test their ability to present Israel in a positive light.

One week, they argue Israel's case at Cambridge University; another, they are in Paris trying to sell holidays to Israel on the Champs Elysees.

A third task is to make a one-minute commercial advertising the delights of Israel to be aired on MTV.

One contestant is eliminated each week by a three-person panel made up of a former secret service chief, an ex-army spokesman and a leading political correspondent.

Controversy

The producers originally wanted Israel's foreign ministry involved, but it withdrew, citing a conflict of interest with its own diplomatic training scheme.

Now, a US-based group called Israel At Heart is providing the final reward - an all-expenses paid year based in New York as a high-profile media director and spokesperson.

Israel At Heart is run by a New York businessman, Joey Low, who came up with the idea of sending presentable, articulate young Israelis around the world to put the country's case after watching an Israeli government spokesman stumble and make little impact on an American news show three years ago.

Israel At Heart has despatched several hundred such "ambassadors" around the world in the past couple of years.

But Joey Low's latest initiative has brought him into conflict with Israeli officialdom.

His criticism of professional Israeli spokespeople in the trailer for the Channel Two show has provoked an angry response from the Foreign Ministry.

In Israel's biggest-selling newspaper, Yediot Aharanot, a Foreign Ministry official condemned his remarks as outrageous, instantly creating an aura of controversy around the show before it has even started.

Contentious? Absolutely. Insensitive? Perhaps. Mindless? Not at all.

[Ghotty]

I think something needs to be done about the way our society looks, due to the garbage on tv. Ihaven't watched teevee in forever, prefering to play GTA, it's actually less disturbing than what's on tv.

All this trash we've got is not helping society. Maybe it's entertaining, i wouldn't know. i'm not amused.

[Wounded Ronin]

Reality TV, even The Apprentice, isn't really realistic since every person on the show is picked for their exhibitionist personality.

Heh, The Apprentice...what a bunch of egotistic morons. I think I know loads of much more modest people who would be a lot more effective and intelligent.

Remember...the more someone blows their own horn the less they understand in depth since they are not yet sophisticated enough to see their own shortcomings.

[WillyGilligan]

Remember...the more someone blows their own horn the less they understand in depth since they are not yet sophisticated enough to see their own shortcomings.

The world isn't moved by people recognizing their shortcomings. It's moved by ambitious extroverts. It takes a great ego to attempt great things. Humility is an important trait to cultivate, but you also need to be able to say, "You know what? I do rock hardcore. I want to do more of that." And if you want more opportunities for greatness, you need to sell other people on how much you rock. Self-deprecation is sometimes charming, but nobody is impressed with how much you dont' rock.

[Adam]

Not to mention they're competing to be Donald Trump's apprentice - not exactly a "low key humble" kinda guy.

[Angel]

Remember...the more someone blows their own horn the less they understand in depth since they are not yet sophisticated enough to see their own shortcomings.

The world isn't moved by people recognizing their shortcomings. It's moved by ambitious extroverts. It takes a great ego to attempt great things. Humility is an important trait to cultivate, but you also need to be able to say, "You know what? I do rock hardcore. I want to do more of that." And if you want more opportunities for greatness, you need to sell other people on how much you rock. Self-deprecation is sometimes charming, but nobody is impressed with how much you dont' rock.

Things happen for those people who go out and make them happen.

[Serious Paul]

A side note-Apparently I am the only person here who finds the Apprentice to be total garbage as well? I mean what a stupid waste of time for me. I could fucking care less about everything on TV that isn't news, history or basically nonfiction.

I hate nearly every fictional show ever made, as far as series goes. Hated friends. Hated Survivor, hate everything "reality" tv has to offer, you name it.

[Adam]

If you "fucking careless about everything on TV that isn't news, history or basically nonfiction" does your opinion on the Apprentice, Friends, or Survivor really matter?

That's not a dig; I'm not trying to say "Apprentice is so cool that everyone [even reality TV show haters!] should love it!" - I loved the first season of Apprentice, but found the second season rather boring, and quit watching around episode 8. What I am trying to say is: if you don't like fruits, pointing out that you don't like apples doesn't mean much.

[Wounded Ronin]

Remember...the more someone blows their own horn the less they understand in depth since they are not yet sophisticated enough to see their own shortcomings.

The world isn't moved by people recognizing their shortcomings. It's moved by ambitious extroverts. It takes a great ego to attempt great things. Humility is an important trait to cultivate, but you also need to be able to say, "You know what? I do rock hardcore. I want to do more of that." And if you want more opportunities for greatness, you need to sell other people on how much you rock. Self-deprecation is sometimes charming, but nobody is impressed with how much you dont' rock.

Wow, I disagree ferociously. It's precisely some guy with a big ego trying to do a big thing that can really mess things up. How many times have organizations or efforts been hijacked or screwed over by a super ego manager character who dosen't really understand what needs to be done?

Now, don't get me wrong. If we're talking resumes or job interviews, yeah, you do have to grandstand a little since that is social convention. Personally, I've had a really hard time writing my resume because every time I write it I have to fight back feelings of shame for being self-promoting but in the end it always comes out all rah-rah me, as it should.

But there's a difference between public grandstanding and private thought. I might grandstand because of the social expectation of it but privately I'm going to keep myself in perspective.

And this has *nothing* to do with whether or not you think you're up to tackling big tasks. The key to tackling big tasks is to clear your mind and wipe clean your emotions and then just go about doing exactly what needs to be done. Maybe you'll succeed and maybe you won't if it's a truly big task but working in this method if you could have succeeded you would.

But if you take the egomaniac approach to solving a problem you're going to be prone to overconfidence and unrealistically optimistic situation appraisals causing you to make bad decisions. It would make you more likely to lash out at the people whom you are working with if you think that they are stealing your thunder. It makes you more likely to shift blame for problems to other people which is bad for all around morale.

To operate with a big ego in a difficult situation is to be piloted by your own illusions. It is less efficient than decisive and considered action from a humble person.


EDIT: I would also point out that "self-deprecation" is NOT true humbleness. Incorrect self-deprecation is yet another emotional game; illusions of the mind just like egotism is. If you are truly humble you need not be self-deprecating because you already know and accept your strengths and weaknesses and already know how to act accordingly. This has nothing to do with the "charming" variety of public "self-deprecation".

See, I think that any realistic self-appraisal is going to be a humble self-appraisal. This is because no matter how skilled, flamboyant, or intelligent you are the best laid plans that any human can create can be utterly disrupted by accident, error, and unavoidable chance. Your various attributes and skills can make something more or less likely to work out in particular ways but fundamentally there is no way anyone can be sure of success in any truly uncertain endeavor. If your success was nearly assured from the get go then what you were doing wasn't as big of extraordinary as you thought since there was already enough support and setup for that thing to go down without a hitch. Fundamentally, in that case, it wouldn't have mattered that much whether it was you or someone else at the wheel.

In light of this I find egotistical people hilariously deluded and arrogant.

[Serious Paul]

If you "fucking care less about everything on TV that isn't news, history or basically nonfiction" does your opinion on the Apprentice, Friends, or Survivor really matter?

Absolutely. As much as anyone elses. Which is to say no ones opinion matters beyond themselves, unless we place an arbitrary value on it.

Or alternatively I could claim, again arbitrarily, that my idea of programming is somehow better because it educates. Etcetera...

What I am trying to say is: if you don't like fruits, pointing out that you don't like apples doesn't mean much.

Maybe. But I did preface my comments with "A side note". So I think I'm okay.

[Ghotty]

Pure enteretainment is good stuff. But i just don't see the value of watching television. With what it's got now, it's far too fucked up. Just full of trash. Trash that children don't need to see. Trash that adults don't need or want.

I just haven't found much worthwatching. Even educational things get boring sometimes. Even the things i enjoy, it seems like i'm just watching them, instead of experiencing them.

[lorg]

Only me that find it amuzing that this is on FOX? OK so it is not FOX news, they are different and all that but in the end owned by the same.

About the show idea; crap, wouldn't watch it if it was the last thing on telly and its only competition was the tv test pattern or the static noice of the antwar.

[Anguirel]

I hate nearly every fictional show ever made, as far as series goes. Hated friends. Hated Survivor, hate everything "reality" tv has to offer, you name it.

Star Trek (any of them)? Farscape? West Wing? CSI? Saturday Night Live (the good casts, whichever you might think those are)? Fox News?

[3278]

Only me that find it amuzing that this is on FOX? OK so it is not FOX news, they are different and all that but in the end owned by the same.

So what if they're owned by the same person or people? That doesn't mean everything that person likes is what will be broadcast; there seems to be this perception that if Joe Virtue owns X, Y, and Z, they'll all be virtuous establishments, which is ridiculous.

[mrmooky]

No, but it's a slightly more justified view with Murdoch, who has in the past exercised a a large degree of influence over many of his news outlets (although not his networks' other programming).

[3278]

And that's precisely it. In the past, he has, as you said, not exercised a high degree of control over his networks' other programming.

[lorg]

Only me that find it amuzing that this is on FOX? OK so it is not FOX news, they are different and all that but in the end owned by the same.

So what if they're owned by the same person or people? That doesn't mean everything that person likes is what will be broadcast; there seems to be this perception that if Joe Virtue owns X, Y, and Z, they'll all be virtuous establishments, which is ridiculous.

I don't think I made any such ridiculous assumptions at all, I merely stated that I thought it was amusing that one person owns one channel that shows the most depraved of crap while the other one tries it hardest to be the moral bastion of thruth and all things good. But apparently you can't/won't or don't see it that way, but that isn't a matter that makes it any less fun for me.

On that note thou there have been and still are many fine shows on FOX such as The Simpsons and Married with Children, all having been great fun to watch.

[Salvation122]

I have to say that modern television - particularly reality TV - is just short of disgusting, to me. The worst ones, I think are the makeover shows - Swan, Biggest Loser, etc. With The Swan, you're capitalizing on people with such an absolutely horrible self-image that they have to get a half-million dollars in cosmetic surgery and counseling to feel better about themselves. Then you put them in a fashion show, and the contestants say things like, "During The Swan, I learned that true beauty comes from inner strength." Well, shit, honey, it's nice that you can say that after a tummy-tuck, breast implants, cheek implants, reconstructive dental work, lasik eye surgery and a pedicure! Have you no sense of irony?

With The Biggest Loser, you have a similar exploitation of Funny Fat People, except here you get to see them berate each other for being too fat and bringing the team down while watching the anguish as they are taunted with wedding cake and lasagna while being on a competitive diet. It's like watching particularly vicious high-school girls. What kind of weird mentality could enjoy that?

The Twenty-five Million Dollar Hoax was a good one, too - let's watch as a woman completely pisses off her entire extended family by being an exceptionally selfish, greedy cunt, and then tries desperately to get them to come to a dinner or something so that she actually gets the cash. I'm sure that will make for happy family reunions down the line.

Running Man is not far away.

[Angel]

...Swan...The Biggest Loser...The Twenty-five Million Dollar Hoax.

I'm assuming I should feel fortunate never having heard of any of these shows, right?

I bet the reason why some of these shows are so popular is because they're on tv, and "quality programming" isn't. I bet a lot of people enjoy (as I do) science shows, nature shows, historical documentaries, human interest stories (such as one in Austria about an old carpenter trying to find an apprentice).

One of the programs I enjoy making time to watch is "the world at war" from BBC, it surely isn't an entertaining program but it's informative and educational.

For the fluff shows that I watch, they tend to be dialog driven shows, or shows with continuing plotlines, and no, I don't mean soap-operas either.

Oh, and Fox News may have influence in the media only because people decide to watch it, and not because of some conspiracy. I hate Fox, but I must admit that they know how to grab headlines (or create them) and get their viewers attention.

[Serious Paul]

I disagree slightly-quality programming is there, whether it be my veriosn or say Adam's-there's good stuff out there. I am willing to bet Adam and I, or just about anyone here has some decent choices to make for programming.

Just not everyone agrees onw hat quality is, or chooses to watch it.

[Adam]

Quality is really a bad way to express why we watch television shows, or really consume any entertainment. Quality can be defined, and there are many factors of quality that may go into an entertainment product, and typically only a subset of them matter to any one individual. A movie with a great script may have a horrible cast and only OK production values... those that value dialogue may love it, those that just watch for Bruce Willis may think it sucks, those that love big explosions will complain about the cheesy FX.

[Anguirel]

Paul --

I hate nearly every fictional show ever made, as far as series goes. Hated friends. Hated Survivor, hate everything "reality" tv has to offer, you name it.

Star Trek (any of them)? Farscape? West Wing? CSI? Saturday Night Live (the good casts, whichever you might think those are)? Fox News?

I didn't ask it then, per se, but do you also not like those shows (as listed above), or does your dislike of "fictional" shows only pertain to the "popular" shows which are essentially slices of modern life (reality TV or not)? I mean, you only listed a few to judge by, so I can guess you'd dislike Seinfeld, or most common sitcoms (did you watch the original Cosby Show, out of curiousity?), which are subset of fictional and might not include other subsets (such as the more geeky shows I mentioned).

[Serious Paul]

Minus Fox News I hate the rest. I've never watched more than a few episodes of any of those shows-mostly because other people in my household have liked them. I dislike sitcoms, and pretty much the only exception I can think of is Cartoon series. Of which I liek only a few.

I prefer movies, and nonfiction. Now reading is an entirely different story. I love all sorts of science fiction, comedy, and etc when I read.

[Szechuan]

I spend most of my TV time watching Discovery Channel, cartoons or Yars' Revenge.

[Paul]

I keep hearing good things about CSI. I have also discovered a lot of series can be a lot better for me if I get entire seasons, minus commercials.

[Johnny the Bull]

I've never seen so many resurrected threads...

[Paul]

I'm a third level necromancer, fifth level asshole, and my latest prestige class-cock slapper-is in full effect!

[Cash]

Threadomancer, Paul. You're an epic level threadomancer.

I keep hearing good things about CSI. I have also discovered a lot of series can be a lot better for me if I get entire seasons, minus commercials.

Amen.

[Salvation122]

I keep hearing good things about CSI. I have also discovered a lot of series can be a lot better for me if I get entire seasons, minus commercials.

CSI is okay the first five dozen times you see it, but it really does get incredibly repetitive. Evidently every other person in Las Vegas has some truly bizarre one-in-ten-million genetic condition that causes them to either kill someone else or themselves.

[Anguirel]

Well, it is the city of low odds...

Besides, with 1.5 million people living there, and thousands coming and going daily, you'd expect those "1-in-10-million" type cases to show up, literally, about once a year. Whether they'd go off in that time frame is questionable, but Las Vegas does also boast a higher than average suicide and divorce rate, so it isn't entirely out of the question to have such people congregating there...

Also, full-seasons of shows are definitely the way to watch them. And also on your own time, not the dictated schedule.