This story stopped me in my tracks.
There is no religion in it and, again, that is what interests me. There are legal question. There are questions about medicine and even therapy. There are life and death questions. There are even hints that moral questions may be involved. But that’s it.
Here is the opening of a New York Times story, “When Reality TV Gets Too Real,” by reporter Jeremy W. Peters:
On a recent episode of “Intervention,” A&E’s documentary series about addiction, no one was stopping Pam, an alcoholic, from driving.
As she made her way to the front door — stopping first at the refrigerator to take a swig of vodka for the road — viewers could hear a producer for the show speak up.
“You have had a lot to drink,” the voice from off camera said. “Do you want one of us to drive?”
Pam was indignant. “No, I can drive. I can drive,” she mumbled. She then got into her car, managed a three-point turn out of the parking lot and drove off. The camera crew followed, filming her as she tried to keep her turquoise Pontiac Sunfire between the lines.
And there is an obvious question. What happens if she kills someone?
I mean, I know that would make for excellent television. I know that would cause a media (and ratings) sensation. But what would the network say to the family of the victim or victims?
It appears that the answer is this: Sorry, we were just filming the reality that would have happened anyway. We are not responsible.
OK, is that a moral answer? Is it a sinful answer?
This is a hot question, at the moment, because of Intervention and the child-safety questions being raised about Kid Nation on CBS. But laws have been broken on other “reality shows” as well. Do producers have a moral obligation to step out from behind the camera and prevent crimes — forget sins — from taking place on their watch?
Does this have anything to do with religion, or a lack of religion, or what?
Intervention creator and executive producer Sam Mettler is asking a question linked to this. Perhaps. Maybe.
“Morally and ethically, none of us can feel good watching someone hurt themselves or hurt someone else. And I’m not going to stand by and have someone who is drunk get behind the wheel of a car and kill someone,” Mr. Mettler said.
Mr. Mettler himself has had to step out from behind the camera on a number of episodes to prevent someone from driving drunk. In one case, he followed a crack addict named Tim through a swamp. Tim had crawled into a drainage pipe and threatened suicide, so Mr. Mettler had to talk him out.
Why talk him out of it? Is life sacred or something? Was the producer playing the role of a counselor or even a priest? Just asking. This might have been an interesting angle to include in the story.
 | Posted at 12:08 pm |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (5) |
October 9, 2007, at 1:10 pm
NBC’s Today showed a snippet of the Intervention episode involving Pamela, then Matt Lauer moderated a vigorous discussion of the show and its ethics.
October 9, 2007, at 4:02 pm
Has TV/entertainment sunken so low where we (the viewing public) feed off of the misery of others, watching someone’s self-destruction? I don’t know what’s worse, the producers who provide this or the people whose eyeballs are caught and held by the cable TV stations selling commercial time.
Will people several centuries (millenia?) from now look at us as we do the Romans who fed people to the lions as their form of entertainment? Bread and circuses will be the death of us yet.
Here’s another example of a market economy at work: if someone demands it, someone will provide it. As far as the original question of how TV “crews” should interfere with their subject “matter”, I would not want to be in their shoes if it goes to court and a jury decides they did not exercise due diligence in preventing a death.
October 9, 2007, at 5:06 pm
We’ve living in a time and place where money is worshipped. The results of making an idol out of money are sadly all too evident today not only in the entertainment industry but also in how some “worship” services are conducted.
October 10, 2007, at 8:14 am
Actually I only watched Matt Lauer’s opening, he said a funny line, saying (pp) that Friends and Seinfeld was fictional family programming and today they are talking about reality programming. I laughed out loud at the idea that some flooky wrote that dumb line (Friends is a family show? A bunch of 20 somethings talking about sex and the opposite sex is family programming?).
PS I think Producers are too scared of their bosses to make those kinds decisions. If they were to step in and stop something, they might lose their job.
October 10, 2007, at 2:24 pm
This show was watched pretty regularly in the substance abuse treatment house where I worked for a few years. It made our clients squirm both because they were confronted with their own cravings and desires and, because, this show was perhaps the first time they had an objective outside look at how their behaviors and use of drugs or alcohal actually affected them and the people around them. Yeah, maybe there is an element of cheap voyeurism here, but for those who are using or for their friends and family this show may offer hope but it also pulls no punches and shows that the path of recovery is hard. All in all, if a few voyeurs get some cheap thrills, I think that is outwayed by the fact that the show will reach the audience it is intended for (the families and friends of addicts more than the addicts themselves).