Mal Fletcher comments on a new reality TV programme
You've got to be in it to win it. Today's prize: a human kidney.
It sounds like the opening line from a tasteless comedy sketch. In fact, it could be the introduction to a new reality TV programme called The Big Donor Show which goes to air in the Netherlands this week, despite protests from political parties and other prominent groups.
Produced by Endemol, the company behind Big Brother, the concept of the show takes the so-called reality genre to new depths of tastelessness.
Three contestants will compete in front of a prime-time audience for a life-saving kidney operation.
A terminally ill cancer patient, aged 37, has agreed to donate a healthy kidney. She has said that her decision to take part in the programme was based on a desire to avoid the anonymity normally associate with organ donation. She wants to meet the recipient of her kidney.
The producers defend the new programme saying that the contestants are being given a much higher chance of receiving a kidney than they would have if they went through normal health service channels.
Opponents point out that the programme turns organ donation from a matter of serious medicine into a contest, or worse a circus.
The Times newspaper called the program a sort of 'Organ Idol'. 'It turns an act of generosity,' said the paper, 'into an uncomfortable lunge for Z-list celebrity.'
There's no doubt that shows created in the Big Brother mould provide a form of entertainment for a great many people - their ratings are consistently high. However, we've recently seen the dangers of treating people as circus animals on TV, in the way that these shows often do.
First of all, there was the infamous Shelpa Shetty incident on Big Brother. The Bollywood actress was subjected to racist taunts by a number of her fellow housemates, causing a furore in the UK and throughout Asia.
In the official enquiry that followed, the broadcaster Channel 4 was found to have breached the Ofcom Broadcasting Code.
The code sets out to ensure that if a broadcaster sets out to show potentially offensive material, it does so in a way that protects the viewer. Singled out for special mention was the fact that children had been exposed to racism via an early morning repeat of the show.
Meanwhile, Australia's Big Brother was recently criticised for deciding not to tell a contestant that her father had died. Millions of viewers were aware of her family's tragedy before she was, as she was allowed no contact with the outside world.
All the publicity surrounding these events simply boosts interest in them, especially among the young, who are Endemol's target audience.
fact that its a hoax adds insult to injury. it trivialises plight of those people out there who have been refused a much-needed organ due to there not being a suitable one available. i wonder how these genuine cases feel now? i wonder, too, what would have happened had contestants been genuine, and some of those would have been turned down live on TV. How awful for those people and their loved ones to be exploited as entertainment when they are facing such a tragedy. There are surely better ways of promoting and encouraging people to donate. What about a show where celebs do daft things to raise money to actually help these unfortunate people? Charity shows may be lame and cheesey, but at least they have some kind of function, if money is honestly distributed in the end (unlike some have been in recent past).