(2) See point one.

(3) Alright, well she claimed not to want Emily evicted over it. Consider that a retraction.

(4) If it’s taken seriously enough by the “victim” then any bullying or intimidation would quickly become known to the other contestants. And if it’s not taken seriously, then why take it seriously? It seemed to work with Goodygate. And if any “bullying/intimidation” crossed the bounds of what would be prohibited by law, then that’s different as it would again more accurately reflect the social reality outside the house.

(5) 4%. Call me cynical if you like but I’d suggest that the votes worked the other way, where a lot of “raving racist” simply didn’t vote BNP because they knew they wouldn’t have a chance of getting in — same reason a lot of people don’t vote Lib Dem according to some research done before the 2005 General Election. (Mind you, that assumes that they’re thinking about it rationally, which they probably aren’t.) And then they will’ve just voted Plaid instead. Not a massive amount of difference.

(6) See point one. Plus it’d be hypocritical given that they’re deliberately subjecting them to other kinds of psychological distress as an intrinsic part of the experience of being in the house.

And as for, “Reporters in Gaza/Darfur etc have no such power … and if anything, the highlighting of these atrocities by journalists motivates others to act”. It does, but not always in the right way — such as the 7/7 bombers and these doctors the other week seeking some sort of revenge over Iraq.

Geordie:
(1) “You wrote that “I suspect Channel 4 would intervene” if genocide or rape were committed in the house. Of course the distinction isn’t superfluous. They have a duty to prevent the commission of crime in their house, and to facilitate prosecution of one that has already occurred.”

I will reiterate, if they would intervene to prevent the commission of a crime then the programme cannot truly reflect reality. If I were to bludgeon 10 people to death with a piece of meat in the privacy of my own abode, providing it was performed in a quiet manner with the curtains drawn, no one would be able to intervene. Therefore the house cannot truly reflect reality. The programme can only reflect the reality of the gameshow and the reality of the gameshow is that racist language is prohibited.

(2) “The only genuine reality that reality TV can purport to show is the rather circular reality of a group of people within a reality TV game-show.” - But it isn’t even doing that, which is my point.”

Yes it is. Due to the constraints of the environment, it can only demonstrate the aforementioned circular definition of reality, i..e. the reality of being on a TV reality gameshow. And a fundamental rule of the gameshow prohibits racist language. The sanctions imposed are consistent with this reality.

(3) “But it was. Charley was shocked, but she certainly wasn’t offended — and she tried to hush it up precisely because she didn’t want Emily evicted over it.”

Well judging by the oxymoronically termed “Big Brother Highlights” she did a piss poor attempt at hiding being offended. And I would suggest that repeating the offending conversation to pretty much everyone is not the behaviour of someone trying to “hush it up”. Especially when considering that this WAG-in-waiting is painfully aware of the position of every single camera.

(4) “And even if it wasn’t, then it’s for the society — the other contestants and the voting public — to decide what’s “acceptable” in the house, not one or two producers.”

That of course assumes that everyone in the house is privy to any unpleasant acts and is able to put them up for eviction. Taken to an extreme conclusion, threats/intimidation could be employed but if the majority are unaware, that individual may well escape the judgements of the society, be that firstly the contestants and secondly the voting public.

(5) “Did you SEE the BNP’s recent election results? 42,197 votes in Wales.”

That can’t be much more than 2% of 60ish% of the electorate that voted. Plus, I would suggest that a proportion of that 2% are not raging mad racists but have voted BNP for a myriad of reasons (protest vote/ill-informed etc). Even if we accept 2% of the Welsh population as raving racists, 98% of the electorate not being racist seems pretty good progress to me.

(6) “Again, of course it (genocide) wouldn’t be “permitted”, as Channel 4 have a duty to protect their contestants.”

If you accept that Channel 4 has a duty of care to the contestants with respect to genocide, why not a duty of care with respect to psychological distress from racist language?

What the fucking hell is he on about? Sociology graduate perchance?

I don’t understand your point.

“The distinction seems superfluous.”

You wrote that “I suspect Channel 4 would intervene” if genocide or rape were committed in the house. Of course the distinction isn’t superfluous. They have a duty to prevent the commission of crime in their house, and to facilitate prosecution of one that has already occurred.

Given that it’s an offence to identify the victim of a sexual crime, then Channel 4 would be breaking the law by broadcasting such an event, but in the case of genocide, or at least mass killing, I seem to recall CCTV footage of the Columbine shootings being used in Bowling for Columbine, and, other than that not being a contrived group of people in a house, I can’t really see much of a difference.

“The only genuine reality that reality TV can purport to show is the rather circular reality of a group of people within a reality TV game-show.”

But it isn’t even doing that, which is my point.

“The reaction dans la masion suggested that with respect to that particular brand of “low-level, dumb-girl talking-shit” form of racism, it certainly was not tolerated.”

But it was. Charley was shocked, but she certainly wasn’t offended — and she tried to hush it up precisely because she didn’t want Emily evicted over it. And even if it wasn’t, then it’s for the society — the other contestants and the voting public — to decide what’s “acceptable” in the house, not one or two producers.

“Frankly, if this bunch is appalled by it, then one can assume that the majority of Blighty (obvious exceptions being the Forest of Dean and Walsall) share that stance.”

Did you SEE the BNP’s recent election results? 42,197 votes in Wales.

“However, whether the programme purports to demonstrate the reality of posh-white lasses from Bristol is unclear.”

Well it put one in there, so I think it’s safe to assume that it does.

“If a General from Darfur became a contestant, again I doubt that ethnic cleansing would be permitted on the basis that the genocide reflected his reality through an unfiltered lens.”

Again, of course it wouldn’t be “permitted”, as Channel 4 have a duty to protect their contestants. But if it happened before they had chance to stop it then I see no reason, as long as sufficient warning is given before the show, not to broadcast it (with the possible exception of the fact that OfCom would shit all over them with some nonsense about taste and decency). I fail to see how doing so would be any different to doing so in the course of war reporting.

“Thanks, if I want dogma I’ll go to church.”

Well given that an actual point followed the sentence you quoted, I’d dispute its description as “dogma”.

“I never disputed the free speech argument.”

Never said you did.

I also said that it parallels prescribed limits on free speech, with Channel 4 allowing a “reality” in the house right up until the point that they don’t like it (rather than the point at which it breaks the law, which, if we must have a constraint, ought to be the only one).

“I just think that reality is too complex an abstract concept to bemoan its absence.”

And I think a bit of racism is too real to forcibly excise it from the Big Brother version of “reality”. Isn’t the programme meant to reflect British society? Because they’re being too heavy-handed for that to be the case by kicking out a contestant because they simply don’t like a word she used.

“They’re also both crimes: saying “nigger” isn’t.”
The distinction seems superfluous. Rape and genocide occur in reality. If reality TV is to reflect life through an unfiltered lens, then it follows that the programme should broadcast all events regardless of constraints (whether that be through Channel 4 self-imposed censorship or Governmental constraints). It seems to me that reality is too broad a notion for Channel 4 to purport to demonstrate it (and perhaps that is the point) and similarly, the context of reality is too important for you to claim that Channel 4 fail to demonstrate it. The only genuine reality that reality TV can purport to show is the rather circular reality of a group of people within a reality TV game-show.

“Racism not tolerated in society? In that kind of low-level, dumb-girl-talking-shit way? Nonsense. Happens all the time.”
Again it depends upon the context. The reaction dans la masion suggested that with respect to that particular brand of “low-level, dumb-girl talking-shit” form of racism, it certainly was not tolerated. And, it is important to emphasise that this current crop of 1984 playthings are not the United Kingdom’s greatest thinkers on racial integration. Frankly, if this bunch is appalled by it, then one can assume that the majority of Blighty (obvious exceptions being the Forest of Dean and Walsall) share that stance.

With respect to the particular street parlance employed by the excluded lass, it may indeed be the reality amongst her well-heeled peers. However, whether the programme purports to demonstrate the reality of posh-white lasses from Bristol is unclear. The reality for some contestants may indeed be a very different reality for other contestants. And it is this mix, I suppose, that gives the programmes its edge. The problem arises when the contestants differ with respect to what is and what is not tolerated within their reality. If a General from Darfur became a contestant, again I doubt that ethnic cleansing would be permitted on the basis that the genocide reflected his reality through an unfiltered lens.

“Well you’re wrong.”
Thanks, if I want dogma I’ll go to church.

“If Big Brother purports to show what a dozen (particularly stupid) people in a house are really like, and then doesn’t show it, then it’s not “reality” telly.”
As described earlier, the programme will only ever demonstrate the reality of people on a reality TV game-show. There are agendas, game-plans, self-advertising etc. The programme will never be a true reflection of daily life for each of the participants.

“It’s like the usual case of the limits of free speech being up until the specific person concerned gets offended.”
I never disputed the free speech argument. Censorship will just increase the impact of the taboo phrase. I just think that reality is too complex an abstract concept to bemoan its absence.