Has TV gone too far?

bonkey

I'm posting this here, rather than in films/tv because I think its possibly a more fitting location. Mods - feel free to move it if you disagree

I saw the following on www.imdb.com/peoplenews today :

Talk show host Jerry Springer is being sued by the family of a guest who was killed hours after appearing on his infamous TV show. Nancy Campbell-Panitz, 52, was beaten to death in May 2000 by her ex-husband Ralf Panitz, shortly after he revealed on the talk show that he had secretly remarried. Nancy's son Jeffrey Campbell has filed a lawsuit against the Universal TV and Jerry, claiming the controversial program created "a mood that led to murder." Universal say the could not be held responsible for the death and they were "an easy and convenient target." Ralf, 42, was convicted of second-degree murder and jailed for life earlier this year. Ralf and Nancy divorced in 1999, but still maintained an on/off relationship until filming the show, where Ralf and his new wife Eleanor accused Nancy of stalking them.

OK - on one hand, maybe the TV show is not to blame - the guy would have done this anyway once he found out. However, there is a strong case to be made against Universal, IMHO, because the guy had this "discovery" on (inter)national TV, which would only heighten his shame.

I recall a few years ago seeing an ep of something (Springer, Oprah, who knows) where people who had lost family to convited death-row killers were brought on. The idea was to give the killers a chance to apologise and ask for forgiveness via vid-link. However, at least some of the families were not warned in advance.

OK - TV makes these programs because people watch them, and people who agree to go on the show must know that something outrageous is going to happen, but even still.

Should there be limits? I'm not a fan of censorship, but this is not about censorship directly - its about the manipulation of individuals lives' to provide a spectacle, typically without having to deal with any of the consequences.

jc

amp

Nah, it's fine. It's a bigger issue than just tv.

Xterminator

TV shows us what viewers watch.
If we didnt watch it , they wouldn't make it.

It is a bit like receiving stolen goods. If there was no market for stolen goods, theives would be rare indeed.

We have only ourselves to blame for this situation, and only we can cure the situation.

Gerry Springer and other trash shows have a certain facination, and appeal to the lowest common denominator among us. But it no one watched it, it would be dropped from the schedules like a rock!

X

bonkey

Originally posted by Xterminator
Gerry Springer and other trash shows have a certain facination, and appeal to the lowest common denominator among us. But it no one watched it, it would be dropped from the schedules like a rock!

Sure, but just because something is popular doesnt mean that its OK, does it?

Sure, we have to accept some resonsibility, and admit the audience (in some respect) creates the programming. However, what Im also saying is that it is time that we did accept that resonsibility and say that certain things, which may be popular, are simply no longer acceptable.

jc

cujimmy

Will C4, its viewers and the media in general take responsibility if Jade in Big Brother comits suicide (which given her already fragile personality is imo highly possible)when she comes out of the house faces the abuse of the crowd and finds out how she been treatedover the past few weeks. ?

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

pro_gnostic_8

This is an issue which has concerned me for some time, and I'm glad it has been raised.

I'm uneasy about these shows where the underlying motive seems to be the humiliation of real human beings for the titillation of a dumbed-down audience. The sunsequent public ridicule and ruined lives seems of to be of no consequence to the producers of these shows. Bottom line seems to be ratings and advertising revenue. I believe the removal of one person's dignity in a public arena diminishes all of us.

This death you mention is the second such murder resulting from the Springer show. Last year, if you remember, some guy shot another guy who had declared a homosexual crush for the first guy..

Another TV show that I have difficulty with is that Sex And The City. Here you have women portrayed as airheads leading empty lives whose only concern is when they're going to get their next "F*CK" (their word, not mine). This must be offensive to all women and imagine the message it gives to the perverts out there.

A little more responsibility is required from the makers of these shows.

Shinji

Will C4, its viewers and the media in general take responsibility if Jade in Big Brother comits suicide

I hope so. At least that'd give us some idea of who to give the medal to.

McGinty

TV shows us what viewers watch. If we didn't watch it, they wouldn't make it.

This is a little like the chicken and egg situation. Did the public initally ask for programmes such as the Jerry Springer show, or did they air the show first and then people watched it. I believe that they made the programmes first, and then people became hooked on them.

Personally TV is become trashier by the year and positively more dangerous and sinister. I rarely watch it and were it not for my son using it to watch cartoons, I wouldn't bother with having a TV or paying cable fees and a licence fee. Also I have to be vigilant about which cartoons are suitable. Then there is the added worry of certain advertising. TV has a huge influence on people and it is only a cop out by producers of these programmes to say it is not their responsibility. If they sincerely believe that a TV programme has no effect on a person, why the huge popularity in TV advertising. Advertisiments on TV are created in such a way as to elicit emotional responses from their viewers, so as that they will buy their product. If advertising does that to viewers why can't a programme have the same affect.

Where are the boundaries, how far do the producers wish to shock people, as we become more and more inurred to visual images we see. How far is TV going, do producers think to themselves, well how could this affect viewers in their outlook to people and the world around them. Do they f***, they say lets shock the sh** out of them, that should up the ratings. TV shows are about ratings and getting advertising. I think both TV producers are to blame and the viewing general public. I think it would be important to look at the reasons why people A) Want to publicly humilate themselves on shows such as Jerry Springer and Why people continue to watch tripe such as this, I will add dangerous tripe.

I do think though to some extent TV companies have more of a responsibility to the viewing public and also the people who come on their shows. Also some shows are most likely edited to gain notoriety and sway public opinion on a person.

sceptre

Originally posted by McGinty
Also some shows are most likely edited to gain notoriety and sway public opinion on a person.

Oh, I'd be very surprised if they weren't. The TV companies aren't making Jerry Springer or Big Brother as some social experiment. A hate figure can do a lot towards making a program more popular. Through the obvious notoriety of Jerry Springer's guests and the legendary stupidity of many of them some peoples' lives are being ruined. Or lost.

Clintons Cat

this wasnt the first instance of a fatal outcome to a confrontational format tv show.Jenny Jones Show managed to beat Springer to that accolade.
a jury in the Jenny Jones lawsuit awarded the family of Scott Amedure $25 million because they found Jenny Jones Show partly responsible for his death after he was shot by fellow guest Jonathan Schmitz.

some intresting articles turned up on a quick google http://www.indegayforum.org/articles/miller30.html
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/1518/20097

most of the articles whilst making some good points fail to take into account the punitive element to the awards.$25 million is a lot of money but the studios could easily brush off an award of a couple of $100,000 they probally pay the host that for a couple of programs.After the jones shooting talk shows were quick to lay down new guidelines concerning the treatment and screening of guests and aftershow counselling.But at the time of the screening of the springer show Ralf Panitz was getting loaded in a bar watching it before going to the home of Nancy Campbell and killing her.Unfortunately the concerns of delivering audience share tend to outwiegh ethical considerations.Under these circumstances i feel the victims have every right to seek legal redress from the tv studios responsible for such a cavalier attitude to peoples lives.

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by Clintons Cat
this wasnt the first instance of a fatal outcome to a confrontational format tv show.Jenny Jones Show managed to beat Springer to that accolade.
a jury in the Jenny Jones lawsuit awarded the family of Scott Amedure $25 million because they found Jenny Jones Show partly responsible for his death after he was shot by fellow guest Jonathan Schmitz.

S**t, yeah, it woz the JJ Show it happened on, and not on Springer. My mistake. Apologies to all......... put it down to the oul' Altzheimers.
This doesn't change my opinon on this issue tho'.

RampagingBadger

I don't think the arguament that if there's a marcket for something its ok holds water. There's a marcket for child porn and heroin, but I wouldn't advocate the legalisation of either. The problem is that it's almost impossible to legislate against such shows without comprimising the right to free speach.

Also to my mind the arguament that because they volenteered to go on the shows there's nothing wrong doesn't stand up either. If you could get people to volenteer for "to the death" fighting, would it be right to telavise it. To be honest I'd almost be tempted to watch that out of shear morbid curiosity and I'm a pacafist. :eek:

Anyway Springer Bad!! But sorry pro_gnostic_8 I quite like sex and the city. I think it's fairly harmless.

nesf

I don't think it's fair to blanket label TV as evil, mass produced tripe for the masses. There are a few exceptions. For instance there is quite alot of "information" channels on Digital. Now not all of them are of huge value, but then again it's still good watching, and very benifitial to kids with interests in science and such. (I grew up watching Discovery, and it started an interest in science that ended up with me studying physics in college). Surely this isn't a bad thing? But I must stress that when I was growing up, i was exposed to aas much material in books, and encouraged to read alot.

I think that with a proper balance TV can be healthy, but there is alot of content on certain shows that is not suitable for alot of more impressionable ppl, e.g. kids and from most incidents the american masses.

Plus Sex and the City is an amusing show, devoid of plot, depth and realism. It's just a bit of fun, and definitely something not to watch if you like your TV serious.