4th June, 2007

MAL FLETCHER

London

OK, so The Big Donorshow was an elaborate hoax.

Dutch viewers of the controversial reality TV show, from the makers of Big Brother, were treated to what at first appeared to be a prime-time contest between three prospective recipients of a kidney transplant.

The donor, in fact, turned out to be an actress. All of the contestants - genuine would-be organ recipients - were in on the hoax and took part to raise awareness of the issue of organ donation.

Big Donor was used as a Trojan horse to make what is essentially a valid point: that people awaiting organ transplants have a very tough time of it. The point is certainly worth making. There are large numbers of people who are unable to get the surgery they need to carry on largely because of public unawareness of the need.

I think, though, that there are far better and more respectful ways of making that point - respectful of both the participants and the audience.

Was it necessary to lie to make the point? And if the answer is ‘yes’, what does that say about our culture?

Does it say that we won’t take note of something important unless it’s represented in a sensational way? Or, that we don’t notice important issues unless they’re communicated using shock treatment?

Actually, I think people are open to having their awareness raised and will respect those who try to do so without resorting to trickery. Take, as an example, the recent massive publicity given to the disappearance of young Madeleine McCann in Portugal.

In the UK, the plight of her family and their ongoing efforts to see the return of their daughter have been highlighted day and night on major TV networks and in newspapers over the past month.

Nothing that I’ve seen, heard or read thus far has suggested that the public feel in any way put off by this massive publicity of what is a shocking story. People don’t seem to be offended by the amount of airtime given to the story even though it has raised some disturbing questions about international child-abduction rings and more.

On the contrary, people have taken their cues from the media, printing up posters and using them to raise awareness of Madeleine’s situation.

People don’t need hoaxes to get them to pay attention - if the publicity is handled respectfully and with compassion. Shock treatment of the kind we’ve seen with the Big Donor hoax is the cheapest way of attracting attention - and the least influential in the long-term.

The problem with shocks is that to be effective they must become more shocking overtime. One generation’s ‘extreme’ is often the next generation’s ‘mundane’.

No major media company spends the time and money to produce and promote a prime-time project for purely altruistic reasons. Media is, after all, a business. Endemol, the company behind the hoax, want to make and need to make money.

Their target audience is the young. So, what are we saying to the young about the value of human life, when we’re willing to play games with peoples’ health - even if we say it’s in a good cause? And what are we telling them about the way to get your point across to the world? That it’s OK to lie, as long as the people who make the show are in on the lie?

After Big Donor, I asked below, what’s next? And, despite the hoax, that question still stands.

After all, when you think about it, Big Donor the hoax came perilously close to being the real article. It was only at the last minute, as the actress-come-donor was about to announce the ‘winner’ that the presenter stepped in and gave the game away.

How far are we away from a real version of Big Donor?

TIME TO SWITCH OFF REALITY TV

31st May, 2007

MAL FLETCHER

London

You've got to be in it to win it. Today's prize: a human kidney.

It sounds like the opening line from a tasteless comedy sketch. In fact, it could be the introduction to a new reality TV program called The Big Donorshow which goes to air in the Netherlands this week, despite protests from political parties and other prominent groups.

Produced by Endemol, the company behind Big Brother, the concept of the show takes the so-called reality genre to new depths of tastelessness.

REACHING FOR THE REMOTE?: Mal Fletcher argues that only by 'switching off demand' will the producers of shows such as Big Donor 'switch off supply'. PICTURE: Ernesto Ferreyra (www.sxc.hu). "Nobody would begrudge a fellow human being the opportunity to receive life-enriching or life-saving treatment. However, there are boundaries we should not cross, both in terms of good taste and ethics."

Three contestants will compete in front of a prime-time audience for a life-saving kidney operation.

A terminally ill cancer patient, aged 37, has agreed to donate a healthy kidney. She has said that her decision to take part in the program was based on a desire to avoid the anonymity normally associate with organ donation. She wants to meet the recipient of her kidney.

The producers defend the new program saying that the contestants are being given a much higher chance of receiving a kidney than they would have if they went through normal health service channels.

Opponents point out that the program turns organ donation from a matter of serious medicine into a contest, or worse a circus.

The Times newspaper in London called the program a sort of ‘Organ Idol’. ‘It turns an act of generosity,' said the paper, 'into an uncomfortable lunge for Z-list celebrity.’

There’s no doubt that shows created in the Big Brother mould provide a form of entertainment for a great many people - their ratings are consistently high. However, we've recently seen the dangers of treating people as circus animals on TV, in the way that these shows often do.

First of all, there was the infamous Shelpa Shetty incident on Big Brother. The Bollywood actress was subjected to racist taunts by a number of her fellow housemates, causing a furore in the UK and throughout Asia.

In the official enquiry that followed, the broadcaster Channel 4 was found to have breached the Ofcom Broadcasting Code.

The code sets out to ensure that if a broadcaster sets out to show potentially offensive material, it does so in a way that protects the viewer. Singled out for special mention was the fact that children had been exposed to racism via an early morning repeat of the show.

Meanwhile, Australia's Big Brother was recently criticised for deciding not to tell a contestant that her father had died. Millions of viewers were aware of her family’s tragedy before she was, as she was allowed no contact with the outside world.

All the publicity surrounding these events simply boosts interest in them, especially among the young, who are Endemol’s target audience.

Now it’s Big Donor’s time in the spotlight.

Nobody would begrudge a fellow human being the opportunity to receive life-enriching or life-saving treatment. However, there are boundaries we should not cross, both in terms of good taste and ethics.

The producers of this program are demonstrating a remarkable lack of empathy for those in need of organ transplants. Turning patients into contestants who must convince an audience that they deserve a transplant trivialises their plight and makes a serious medical issue seem trite.

Supporters sometimes claim that shows of this kind actually serve a public education remit, demonstrating how human beings react under specific pressures. In fact, they all too often demean human beings, exploiting people who have real emotional or psychological needs, for the titillation of the audience.

There’s only one motive for putting shows like Big Donor to air and that is financial.

We may dismiss programmes like Big Donor or Big Brother as low-brow tripe, but we shouldn’t underestimate their ability to help shape mores and values, especially among the young. Yes, they are made for entertainment, not education. But studies the world over have demonstrated the power of entertainment to educate - either directly or by osmosis and association.

In the case of Big Donor, what are Endemol saying to the young about the dignity of human life and the respect we should show to those who are suffering? With Big Brother, what are they saying about problem resolution and the service of others?

The reality TV genre thrives on the oxygen of shock-publicity. The problem with shocks is that to be effective they must become more shocking overtime. One generation’s ‘extreme’ is often the next generation’s ‘mundane’. After Big Donor, what’s next?

What will the next generation of Big Brother look like? Who’s to say that someday we might not find entertainment value in turning the cameras on people who haven’t consented to being filmed?

At the end of the day all the protests and comment pieces like this one will make little or no real difference. People like me are not the ones who watch reality TV anyway. The only way to bring change will be for those who would otherwise have watched to switch off - not just this particular program, but other shows made along the same lines.

Here’s my challenge to all the Big Brother fans out there. What kind of world do you want to live in ten years from now? What kind of media do you want pumping values into the next generation - say, your own kids? What will you do now to set that in motion?

Media is a business that, like any other, works on the principles of supply and demand. Let’s switch off the demand and see if it changes what the producers supply.

Mal Fletcher is the founder and director of Next Wave International, a Christian mission to contemporary cultures
with a special focus on Europe.

Reproduced with permission from www.nextwaveonline.com. Copyright Mal Fletcher 2007.