Big Brother - news or not?
As every redtop reader now knows very well, a seventh group of tenants has settled into the Big Brother house and so the usual question is being asked - is it news or not?
Even internally on Five Live we don't have a settled view on this. My own opinion might be summed up as: It's worth doing BB if it raises an interesting issue, or if something actually happens. So yes, it is news... sort of.
We marked the beginning of BB7 last week; we've done a feature on tourette's syndrome; we're considering doing something on what it's like to come out when you're a Muslim (was it easier for Kamal than for Shabhaz?) And even though we like some of the issues raised, we know there's hype and manipulation.
But as Drive editor Jon Zilkha put it: "We cover things which are just plain interesting. Some of what we do is speculation, some is conversation, some is reflecting what people are talking about. BB fits in there somewhere as part of the cultural mix."
When television newsreaders were accused of "prancing" last week, the head of ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ TV news Peter Horrocks came on Five Live Breakfast to talk that over (listen to the interview here). Towards the end of the piece, Nicky Campbell asked Peter: "Is Big Brother a story?" Peter tactfully suggested that Five Live would be more likely to cover it than the Ten O'Clock News.
Peter is right. We've got a bit more space, in the Five Live schedule, than they have on the Ten. And if we can't find room occasionally for sharing a bit of gossip with the audience - an audience that understands fully that spurious celebrity is a curious part of the modern world - then we're probably being a bit too snobbish.
When BB7 started, the editor of Breakfast, Richard Jackson, had a thought. "Why don't we ask the audience if they want Big Brother coverage?" On reflection, we were pretty sure what the texting constituency, or a majority of them, would say: "No Big Brother, thank you."
One guy - a devoted Breakfast listener - had already emailed to say that as soon as we mentioned Big Brother he would switch over to the Today programme. And he would do that every morning if the words "Big Brother" so much as passed the lips of Nicky or Shelagh. Or even Helen Blaby.
So if we thought the audience (or at least the texting constituency) would vote against, why on earth would we cover it? Well... because it's news. Sort of.
Comments
I have a strong feeling that BB will drop firmly into the background once the World Cup starts. Could be a disappointing year for Channel 4.
Nah. When England are knocked out and everyone's fed up with it, we'll all be back on BB like every year.
I wrote a piece about the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ's awkward relationship with entertainment journalism a couple of months ago.
If people are talking about a subject then yes, it's news, and i think it's to the detriment of the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ, not to mention old fashioned, if we make a value judgement about whether it's sufficiently 'worthy' for us.
Granted, people tend to love or loathe Big Brother. Ditto cricket, football, politics, and every other area of the news. We wouldn't stop reporting stories concerning Tony Blair because somebody told us they'd switch over if we mentioned him again, would we?
Besides the well worn statistic that more people vote in BB than in general elections speaks volumes about where the majority of public interest seems to lie...
We wouldn't stop reporting stories concerning Tony Blair because somebody told us they'd switch over if we mentioned him again, would we?
Your analogy doesn't really stand up Zoe, what with Tony Blair running the country and all..
Actually, given the enormous level of political apathy, i think it does!
News or not, Matt Morris asks.
Not.
Stood in the post office during the last celebrity Big Brother and listened to three women, who didn't know each other, all engage in conversation about it. If its what people are talking about, who is the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ to say its not relevant?
The problem will come in late summer when Big Brother and Celebrity Love Island dominates the schedules and the tabloids.
Since when was infotainment 'News'. It doesn't get much further away from reality than 'reality TV'. I'd suggest setting up an office in Second Life that's got to be more interesting.
Reuters already have an office and the FT has been investigating. The ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ should get virtually real and get some real estate early to keep the licence fee down. The exchange rate might change.
Leave a pack of idiots on a sophisticated version of webcam to their own devices and get (virtually) real :-).