The idea that Big Brother is a social experiment has sort of fallen by the way side. The 15 minutes of fame has been exdended and editorial rigging (aka Nikki) have changed the programme extensively since its inception.
However...in the past years we've had a Porteguese transexual and this year a man with tourette looks ready to win. Fair enough, there has only been 1 female winner but look at the last three in for the last few years. It normally features a gay man. Pete, the expected winner of this years Big Brother, is a sensitive, open minded young man. A straight man who enjoys a cuddle with his gay buddy Richard, a man who agreed with Aisleyne that Spiral and Mikey had to no right to touch here just because they thought "she was asking for it". Spiral, Mikey, Sezar all horrible misogynist "geezers" who pride themselves on the notches on their bedposts came and went. (Mikey who famously proclaimed "I hate feminists")
It makes me wonder how much Big Brother reflects society (if at all). There are lots and lots and lots of disgusting, heat adorning people dying to get in that house, but ultimately, the winners and runners up are people who are or, at least seem, nice but not the norm. Nadia won huge support from the British public and therefore tabloids,and I think as a transexual that it is quite surprising.
Are we more accepting as a society than we may think? The most trashy, low brow programme manages to pull in millions of viewers around the UK, and seems to produce unexpected winners and runners up.
Did Big Brother make us (the sun reading great British public) more open? Are we more inclusive? More tolerant?
2006-08-17 @ 17:51