The Guardian view on reality TV: show contestants some love
The morning after the finale of the latest series of Love Island must have brought a powerful sense of anticlimax to all those involved in making it – even if such feelings were mingled with relief. For the past eight weeks the participants and producers have occupied a cultural hotspot, their show the talk of water coolers and social media feeds across the land. Last year’s concluding episode won the highest-ever audience for ITV2 and this year’s win by Greg O’Shea and Amber Gill proved that the format retains the power to surprise.
But if a comedown is inevitable following weeks of dramatic competition, the journey back to earth was speeded up by Ofcom’s announcement that it plans to add two new rules to the broadcasting code. The regulator’s aim is to ensure that reality show contestants are offered stronger protection from the emotional turbulence that can follow from their sudden celebrity – or indeed notoriety. If agreed, the new requirements to protect the dignity of members of the public, and avoid causing them “unjustified distress or anxiety”, will also make the job of making such entertainment programmes much more onerous.
This is as it should be, as the viewing public and ITV surely know following the Jeremy Kyle Show’s cancellation after a participant, Steve Dymond, took his own life earlier this year. Even for celebrities, roles in reality TV shows such as Strictly Come Dancing can have life-changing effects. For
very young adults who have little or no experience of television and who may, by virtue of having applied to a show such as Love Island, reasonably be assumed to harbour longings for fame (and affection, the pursuit of which is purportedly the point of Love Island), the experience can be overwhelming. Two former Love Island contestants, Mike Thalassitis and Sophie Gradon, have killed themselves. While their TV experiences were not comparable to Mr Dymond’s humiliation, it is right that these events have led to a rethink of broadcasters’ obligations. While we can never know to what extent their participation contributed to their unhappiness, new rules should support contestants, while ensuring that the makers of current affairs, news, and other factual programmes are free to get on with their jobs. They are not responsible for the current crisis of confidence and Ofcom must protect them from any adverse, inhibiting effects.
Broadcasters are not the only media companies who need to get their houses in order, and will be understandably frustrated if an uneven playing field is not soon levelled off. Ofcom’s remit should be broadened to take in Netflix and equivalent producers, while a separate watchdog to deal with YouTube and other user-generated streaming and social media services cannot come soon enough. Politicians as well as regulators should recognise that the reason the risk associated with reality television has grown is less to do with the format’s development, from Big Brother onwards, and more to do with the rise of social messaging, video streaming and so on. Where once a contestant might have enjoyed, or rued, their several weeks’ worth of fame, but then moved on with their life, it has become far harder to escape from the impression they have made.
Reality TV is often derided as cruel and exhibitionist, but viewers and contestants are often kinder than such caricatures give them credit for. We all make mistakes and when young people’s real lives, bodies and feelings are turned into popular entertainment, they deserve support from those who profit from them.
• In the UK and Irish Republic contact Samaritans on 116 123 or email jo@samaritans.org. In the US the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline is 1-800-273-8255. In Australia the crisis support service Lifeline is 13 11 14. Other international suicide helplines can be found at www.befrienders.org