The X Factor talent show has kept psychologists on standby throughout the recording of its shows to help its contestants deal with the pressures of public exposure. After Susan Boyle was admitted to a private clinic following her appearance on Britain's Got Talent and 10-year-old Hollie Steel broke down in tears on the same show, the move is pitched as a protective measure.
Because of the extra pressure on the acts resulting from auditions for the show now being recorded in front of a live audience (of 2,000), X Factor executive producer Richard Holloway told the Guardian that "the pressure came from the huge interest [in Susan Boyle]" (Holmwood, L., 'Reality check: X Factor contestants to face judgment on their mental health', p9, The Guardian 19/08/09).
He added that Internet video sharing sites and social networking sites had driven the increased interest in reality shows, piling on the public pressure for its contestants.
The nervousness of appearing in front of thousands live, and millions on TV, is completely understandable to anybody, but this concept of public interest creating a pressure that unbalances people's minds is very interesting.
Sree Dasari cut his wrists after being evicted from Big Brother but still managed to appear on a spin-off show that evening. Hollie Steel broke down during her first attempt to sing in the Britain's Got Talent semi-final and appealed successfully to the audience and judges for another go. Susan Boyle spent five days at The Priory suffering from exhaustion after coming second in the final of the same show.
What exactly is public pressure? Not being famous, perhaps I wouldn't know, but the incredible interest that reality and talent shows have generated in recent years make them among the most public of events that now occur in our society.
Susan Boyle's debut was reportedly watched by 120 million people on YouTube, but that hides the other media forces that probably helped drive that big number. The British press follows these contests very closely, finding stories about anybody who catches the eye and the situations backstage. The shows are often much repeated or have spin-off shows that run through the week. When Boyle's debut was put on YouTube it initially had about 60 million hits over the first few days. Then the whole British press ran stories on the debut; whether it was a bit of a set-up and on the remarkable interest internationally. This press controversy and coverage, further TV coverage and good old word of mouth drove the interest further. One Guardian Guide TV review of that edition of Britain's Got Talent, obviously written before the show aired and the controversy broke out, did not even mention Boyle's appearance.
What else can take over public discussion these days with the immediacy of a controversial piece of 'water cooler' reality TV? Only a very famous pop star's death or the death of reality TV's first and only real star, Jade Goody. Perhaps even the next General Election will not match those events for public interest.
Even celebrities have difficult moments with the level of interest that their appearance on these shows can generate. John Sergeant, unflappable political reporter with a lifetime on live TV, was shocked by the public response to his appearance on Strictly Come Dancing. And he was popular!
As he won over a large section of the public to vote for him, Sergeant found himself at the centre of an increasingly volatile public discussion. The judges criticised the public that voted for him, emphasising that Strictly is a dance competition and Sergeant can't dance. Some fans responded that they could vote for who they liked, others that Sergeant's continuing presence on the show was kicking out more talented competitors earlier than they should have been. At first, Sergeant responded that he was working entirely within the rules of the competition and that the judges should check their rulebooks.
But when Sergeant unilaterally withdrew from the show, causing a media feeding frenzy that dwarfed the coverage of all other news for two days, he had changed his tune. He told reporters that he knew a little about how elections can run and that he felt there was a serious risk of his winning the competition - so he had best withdraw.
This suggests that someone who completely used to raising controversy on live TV, is popular and relaxed with the public eye and understandably believes he knows a bit about the public and the media, can still find himself shocked by the action of public interest when it reaches a very high level.
If this level of public interest can make John Sergeant retreat then it's perhaps understandable that ordinary people, thrust into the brightest of limelight almost instantly, might have problems. When the gaze of millions of people is shared, when the object of that generally public scrutiny is subjected to the intensity of that gaze, concentrated by the great lens of the world's media, then perhaps the person on the receiving end may burn like an ant under a magnifying glass.
Whether psychologists can really protect vulnerable people from the interest of the public is yet to be seen. One might have thought that they should have Max Clifford standing by instead. But the classification of the public interest, hyped by the media and expanded by the Internet, as an environmental, almost elemental, force, capable of unhinging minds is alarming.
The news ecosystem has many forms of life, some of a lower order than others, but this story goes beyond the usual idea of a rapacious media trying to satisfy the curiosity of a prurient public. The X Factor producers' decision that it would be irresponsible to continue to thrust talent show contestants into the public eye without psychological backup suggests we have all developed a fear of public scrutiny. We regard fame, and even popularity, with the suspicion and fear that these things, for so long considered desirable, may be toxic.
The point of a talent show is that it plucks someone from obscurity and gives them the chance to be famous and appreciated for what they do. If success in entertainment now comes with a mental health warning, why should we expect people to enter into other areas within the public sphere, such as campaigning, political and otherwise? If living in the public eye for even a limited time can be so dangerous, I fear many people will attempt to avoid the public sphere altogether.
A public that is scared of the public may well conduct itself and act in its perceived interests in ways that circumvent public scrutiny and have profoundly discouraging consequences for democracy. The possibility that the public sphere could come to be seen as too dangerous for ordinary people seems an overreaction to the actual risks and a cynical dismissal of the advantages of the achievement public recognition.
No comments:
Post a Comment