Over the years, producers of television shows have sought ways of keeping their audience share high, and possibly improving on it. Competition between television stations rapidly increased as the owners – be they the state or private companies – tried to rope in as much advertising as possible to cover their ever-increasing costs.
As viewers at home became more demanding and more likely to zap onto another station if they were bored with “more of the same” broadcasts, TV stations became more daring in their approach, inventing new types of what they call “entertainment” just to increase their viewer numbers, or at least try to. If the show was controversial, producers knew they had a better chance that it would be watched and, more importantly, talked about.
Some time ago, so-called “reality shows” came on the air. If I am not mistaken, it started off with the Big Brother series, which quickly mushroomed all over the world. Many other stations later tried to vary the basics – moving on from an apartment-like studio in which a number of participants shared their life on TV 24-hours-a-day, to editions from farms, forgotten islands and faraway lands. The ingredients differed, but the end result was the same – a winner emerged after all the in-fighting, bickering and scandals that kept the show picking up record viewers and followers in newspapers and magazines which published articles about the show.
A few of the participants later became household names as the opportunity they had had on TV opened up new horizons for them in singing, acting and whatnot – even though their singing, acting and whatnot was appalling. As long as they had become personalities – and it must be remembered that the winners were ultimately chosen by viewers – they were given contracts worth millions, irrespective of the degree of their talent.
But this kind of reality show was not enough – and we soon moved on to other productions that retained the same competitive edge, but took on diversified forms. For example, we had well-known football players, actors, singers and other public personalities, including politicians, put on their dancing shoes and perform – alongside well-established dancers – in front of the camera. Their mistimed pirouettes and falls were severely judged by a panel of so-called experts and, again, the more controversial the judgments, the more the naïve audiences loved it.
I have strong reservations on all of the above – I tend to call it “trash television”. I just cannot understand what pushes people into taking part in such shows and, worse still, what pushes viewers to waste their time in front of the TV to see whether A kissed B under the covers. But I guess that if that is what viewers want, it’s what producers will continue to provide.
My reservations are even stronger – and here I totally object – regarding programmes in which young people perform in front of the camera and their performance is then dissected by a panel of judges. Often, their singing, acting, modelling or dancing is torn apart by the judges, and all this in front of thousands of people, if not millions if these shows are broadcast internationally.
The producers of these shows say that the intention is to give these youngsters an opportunity and to help them improve their talent – but little thought is given to what psychological effect all this is having on the young people who take part. I do not think it is beneficial for them to be told they were out of tune, or had chosen the wrong dress, or were wearing too much make-up, or were too stiff, or had performed badly, in front of so many people.
Usually, at least one member of the judging panel takes on a very cruel role and simply lashes out at each and every participant. The more vicious his or her attack, the more his or her criticism is popular among the audience and viewers – and all this at the expense of the poor young person who has just allowed himself or herself to be used as a punch bag for the sake of better audience figures.
Maltese television stations have imported these ideas too, and it has become common to have reality shows based on similar experiences elsewhere. There are restrictions to the production costs, and this leads to shows of inferior quality, but the underlining factors are the same: we have our own reality programmes, including those in which young people are unfortunately metaphorically whipped in front of the camera.
I thank my lucky stars that my two teenage children show no inclination to expose themselves to such humiliation; I encourage them to have different experiences, but I would be vehemently against their taking part in such programmes.
Every time I come across these shows while I’m zapping, I pity the youngsters because they are left speechless and in tears as the judges pick on every fault or mistake. Why don’t you judges look in the mirror and criticise your Goofy-like teeth, bleached hair or weak pronunciation, is what I say – not to mention the bad use of the Maltese language, the stammering when expressing their assessment of the youngsters and their own choice of wardrobe.
I know that the young people who take part do so of their own free will and, if they are minors, need the permission of their parents or guardians. So my word of advice goes to them and whoever is responsible for them – just do not even think of applying for such shows. There are more and much better opportunities for young people to show their talent and learn the ropes without being exposed to merciless evaluations in front of so many people.
Such programmes end up having the reverse effect of discouraging youngsters – rather than encouraging them – from pursuing a career in entertaining, simply because of the traumatic experience they have gone through.
[email protected]