Fred Flamingo Big Brother Season 26 Blog - Third Post

[Fuskie]

 

It's all over the internet, and a topic of discussion in the Morty' TV Fan Forums & Chat (https://bit.ly/BB26CHAT) - Was Angela being racist when she called Matt "Crazy Eyes" and did she make a racist comment singling out Cam, T'kor, Chelsie and Cedric? Race has a difficult history in the Big Brother house, and in society, where it is often used as a weapon to attack others, sometimes fairly and sometimes unfairly. The Houseguests sign up to play a game where their every move and word is live-streamed, captured, and potentially edited into a nationally broadcast episode, and they are not strangers to the positives and pitfalls of social media, so if they say something they shouldn't have, they have only themselves to blame.

 

But in this season of BB Artificial Intelligence (it could be argued that many Houseguests over the years have exhibited an imitation of intelligence), I figured I'd put the question to OpenAI's ChatGPT: 

What role should CBS and Big Brother Production play in controlling houseguests expressing racist or controversial comments? Write an essay discussing the pros and cons.
 

Here is what it wrote:

CBS and the production team behind Big Brother face significant challenges when it comes to managing houseguests who express racist or controversial comments. The debate on whether and how to control such expressions is complex, with strong arguments on both sides. This essay explores the pros and cons of CBS and Big Brother production intervening in these situations, balancing the need for free speech with the responsibility to maintain a respectful and inclusive environment.

 

Pros of Intervention:

1. Maintaining a Respectful Environment: One of the primary reasons for CBS and Big Brother production to control houseguests’ expressions is to ensure a respectful environment. Racist and controversial comments can create a hostile atmosphere, not only affecting the targeted individuals but also for the audience. Intervening can help promote a culture of respect and inclusivity.

2. Protecting the Show’s Reputation: Allowing houseguests to make offensive comments without repercussions can severely damage the show’s reputation. Previous seasons of Big Brother have seen significant backlash from viewers and media due to houseguests’ inappropriate behavior. By taking a firm stance, CBS can protect the show’s image and demonstrate a commitment to social responsibility.

3. Legal and Ethical Responsibilities: CBS has legal and ethical obligations to prevent hate speech and discrimination. Failing to address such behavior could lead to legal repercussions and ethical criticism. Ensuring that houseguests adhere to a code of conduct helps mitigate these risks and aligns with broader societal values.

4. Audience Sensitivity: Viewers come from diverse backgrounds, and exposure to racist or controversial comments can be deeply upsetting. By controlling such expressions, CBS can cater to the sensitivities of its audience, ensuring that the content remains suitable for a wide demographic.

Cons of Intervention

1. Free Speech Concerns: One of the strongest arguments against intervention is the potential infringement on free speech. Houseguests, like all individuals, have the right to express their opinions, even if they are controversial. Over-regulation can be seen as a violation of this fundamental right, leading to accusations of censorship.

2. Authenticity of the Show: Big Brother is a reality show that thrives on genuine interactions and conflicts among houseguests. Controlling what participants can or cannot say might compromise the authenticity of the show. Viewers tune in to see real, unfiltered human behavior, and over-policing can detract from this experience.

3. Houseguest Accountability: Allowing houseguests to express their true selves, even if offensive, holds them accountable for their actions. Public reaction and social media backlash can serve as powerful deterrents and learning experiences for both the houseguests and viewers. This natural consequence can be more impactful than imposed restrictions.

4. Slippery Slope: Establishing strict controls over speech can lead to a slippery slope of censorship. Defining what constitutes a “racist” or “controversial” comment can be subjective, and expanding control measures might stifle healthy debates and diverse viewpoints. This could create a homogenized and less engaging show.

Conclusion

The role of CBS and Big Brother production in controlling houseguests' expressions of racist or controversial comments involves a delicate balance between ensuring a respectful environment and preserving free speech. While intervention can protect the show's reputation and audience sensitivities, it also risks infringing on free speech and diminishing the show's authenticity. Ultimately, a balanced approach that includes clear guidelines, consistent enforcement, and opportunities for houseguests to learn and grow from their mistakes might offer the best solution. This approach can help maintain the integrity of the show while fostering a more inclusive and respectful environment.

 

Fred back here at the keyboard. How do you weigh in on the question of whether CBS and Big Brother have a responsibility to protect Houseguests from themselves?

 

[Witch67]

I know drama sells TV… but sometimes houseguests take it too far. Why did Angela call him crazy eyes? Did she know he was biracial? Did she know that is one of the biggest racist thing you can say to someone who is Asian ? I think she should have been removed from the game right there. They did Matt dirty. He has since said in interviews about it being racist. 

[Bky]

Once BB ALLOWED a CLEARLY RACIST alliance called the COOKOUT (the alliance that OUTRIGHT said that their group was BASED on being a POC/black), BB LOST ALL CREDITABILITY when it comes to allegations of someone being racist.

 

Don't forget that last season a POC said Cam had crazy eyes. But I guess since he wasn't of Asian ancestry then that was okay? Angela may or may not be racist but I don't see that her saying that was racist on her part. A lot of people focus on the eyes of others to get a gauge on what they think that person is like/thinks/behaves and when you want to say that you can't say that about a certain race, then THAT is when racism is showing. She is entitled to her opinion no matter how wrong she may be or even if other's don't like it. IMO, Angela is the one that gets crazy eyes!

 

BTW, I am of mixed heritage including being part Japanese.

BKY

[Fuskie]

Sigh, we are going to go through this again? For anyone who does not understand why The Cookout was not racist, I cannot explain it to them. It wasn't because they were Black, it was because they were minorities, because white people have been in the majority for centuries and haven't experienced generations of discrimination, because it just isn't the same thing.

Now let's take a look at Izzy and Cameron. Neither were racial minorities, and Izzy was referring to Cameron's tendency to silently stare as an act of intimidation. Or maybe he was telepathically trying to plant ideas into his fellow Houseguest's heads. I never understood the reasoning behind his gameplay. Either way, that situation has no relation to the current season.

 

I do happen to agree that Angela's eyes kind of bulge out of her head when she's angry, or at least trying to look angry, but it is possible, as in the case with Izzy, that Angela was referring to how Matt looked at her when they were talking when she said he had "crazy eyes," and that his Filipino heritage never entered into her head. In the absence of something more concrete, I am not comfortable labeling a person a racist. 

 

-- Fred

[Bky]

Well, SIGH, I am tired of having to point out to people that it WAS RACIST.

Did you not notice that I had in BOLD type POC/black as opposed to just black. But the only reason it wasn't an all black alliance to the end (original alliance formed week 1)  is b/c 4 weeks into the season they decided they needed a 6th person and chose Hannah (a South Asian) to round out the group.  BTW, funny how neither Alyssa or Derek X were invited to be part of it when they are also POCs but I guess they just weren't the RIGHT kind of POCs.

 

The Cookout was 100% racist period. And they weren't shy/ashamed of being so.

NO WAY would non-POCs be "allowed" to outright say they were INTENTIONALLY forming an all-white alliance (nor should they be allowed) but letting POCs do it is basically SUPPORTING racism, period. If POCs just end up gravitating toward each other and form an alliance, that is a different matter. But, the Cookout was INTENTIONALLY based on race. I personally suspect that a certain person(s) in production gave them the idea ahead of the start of the 'game' but they still agreed to do it.

 

I am SOOOOO tired of hearing about centuries...GIVES ME THE RIGHT to be an @ss. It is WRONG to be racist toward people especially when they didn't do the actions of others in the past. I have always hated 'group punishment' especially punishment/payback for actions of people of the past against the people of the present. Trying to get "payback" against people who didn't do a certain thing to you just perpetuates racism.

 

TO ME ANYBODY that doesn't admit that the Cookout was racist just doesn't really care about ALL racism just the racism that makes them feel uncomfortable on a personal level/is politically correct OR doesn't really understand the true definition of racism OR they are AFRAID of what others may think/say about them, aka Backlash for not being politically correct.

 

Also, don't forget that certain POCs can and have been racist against other POCs of a different sub-category than themselves or for the 'level' of skin-tone within their own 'official' race category and I think the Cookout did that too.

 

Doing unto others something they DID NOT DO TO YOU just because past others had done so IS WRONG! PERIOD!

 

ALSO, by doing what they did, the Cookout did a disservice to all future POCs on BB because it gives every future non-POC a legit reason to suspect that the POCs in their season might also intentionally form their own racist alliance...especially since every season after BB23 (yes, including this yr.), the Cookout has been proposed by some POCs to try and do it again.

 

As I said before, I am of mixed heritage. Maybe because of that I can see more than one side of racism and can recognize IN SOME CASES more that SOME other people.

 

I also don't like to accuse individuals of racism without clear convincing evidence but to me the evidence of the Cookout group is clear and convincing to me because they ADMITTED it when they formed the alliance.

 

FYI, it wasn't just Izzy that said it about Cam. I, unfortunately, can't remember which one it was but it was a POC.

 

BKY