by
Ridge Rogue
In 2007, I presented an article on this site that I will reproduce here in this blog area on this page. Before I do that, I would like to briefly comment on selective editing on Big Brother Australia in 2008. It seems to be even worse this year in that we are not seeing even half of the more controversial conversations and incidents in the 2008 series. Nobbi has been at the forefront of some the action that we have not seen on television. But internet viewers have seen a little bit more of him in action than everyone else. It is some further proof that selective editing does occur for various reasons (some good, some bad). Anyway, here is what I presented about the topic on this site last year. Other examples can be found in part two of the article at http://www.bigbrotherchaos.com/selectiveediting.htm
Selective Editing on BB
by
Ridge Rogue
Big Brother Chaos
April 2007
Over the years, Big Brother (BB) Australia has tried to fool viewers with plenty of selecting editing. In our archive, there are references to it in series three, four, five, and six, if my memory serves me correctly. Here though, I want to concentrate on what I said in my commentary diary for series six - just to explain the topic further. On one night in that series, BB producers defamed a housemate named Michael McCoy, by making him out to be gay during a fake lie detector test. They then went on to continue this defamation by using some footage from his time in the BB house that only aired in part, leaving people to wonder what came next.
When that latter scenario occurs, you are seeing selective editing in progress. It is not the footage that is manipulated, because as the show’s host often says, it cannot be changed from what happened to something else, but it is the way in which the footage is used that constitutes selective editing. There is a difference between the two situations - changing footage and misusing it. It is the misuse of footage that I wish to expand on here in this article, by using Michael as an example and then mentioning other situations in which selective editing is used in television.
On the night of Michael’s eviction, and after the lie detector nonsense aired, some footage of Michael seemingly kissing David was shown during the eviction show. The next day saw a furore of public disbelief, many questions for Michael about what came next at the time the incident occurred, and a fight with Gretel on the nominations show. She was caught out quite badly, tried to defend the so-called “integrity” of the editing process, and then did not want the rest of the footage shown (to save her from further embarrassment).
What Gretel did in failing to properly defend the show, was to try to explain that manipulation of the footage does not occur. If a housemate’s head is swapped with that of a goat, then obviously some silly footage manipulation has occurred. She said that this sort of manipulation does not happen. That is true and it is what BB hosts and producers in all countries will tell you. However, it is not what fans know to be selective editing.
Selective editing, as I defined it in my own words in 2006, is as follows.
Selective editing is a deliberate decision to misuse footage in a manner that could mislead the public and/or alter their opinion of the person(s) in the footage.
This is exactly what happened to Michael that year. He and David were shown, from one camera angle only, “kissing” in the bathroom. The angle of the footage was from a distance and behind Michael who had his back to that camera. Only a few seconds of the footage was shown on his eviction show, leaving people to wonder what happened next. Michael then found himself on the defensive the next day. This is often the result of selective editing, where, after their eviction, at least one housemate each year, soon discovers to their dismay that their character was not presented accurately.
These housemates then find themselves having to defend their character and some never succeed. Gretel often complains about such housemates when they complain that selective editing was used, but she uses the reason that the footage is not manipulated (again, that is nothing to do with selective editing - the misuse of the footage). So, in Michael’s case, Gretel asked if he was aware that there were multiple cameras in the house. He should have asked her that, and also why the footage was only shown from one camera angle.
After his big fight with her on the nominations show on the day after he was defamed, the full scene was shown, to prevent possible damage of the show’s reputation (a bit late though). The footage was shown from several camera angles and the whole scene was a mere role play between the two guys who laughed and walked off in their separate ways. They never actually kissed; it just appeared that way from the camera angle that was shown the previous day. So you see, if the show had just aired the full scene in the first place, there would never have been a problem.
But as it turned out instead, Gretel collected more haters, Michael became a bit of a hero, and the show’s reputation was in the gutter because some idiot took a risk that backfired. It is that mistake that is the risk one takes when making a deliberate decision to misuse footage in a manner that could mislead the public. In Michael’s case, it did not alter the public’s opinion of him, it just had them wondering what really happened, and if he might have been gay after all. That is the sort of damage that selective editing can do!
There is another side to this nasty behaviour by the editing staff on television shows. The families of housemates often notice the very situation that regular viewers of these types of shows also notice. I see it every single day because I make sure I catch 100 per cent of the episodes of BB that go to air (I find my computer, tv tuner card and also personal video recorders with hard disk drives to be quite handy for that purpose). What shows like BB do is to use the antagonistic side of housemates a fair bit.
Of course they show the housemates laughing and crying and all that, but more often than not it is the angrier or antagonistic side of the personality of some housemates that is often seen on the show. This is the result of selective editing - that deliberate decision again. If they just showed the housemates sitting their twiddling their thumbs all day, there would be no show because no one would watch. Obviously then, decisions need to be made. How do you encourage the housemates to give you something worth putting to air? You get them doing chore after chore, task after task, all day, on little sleep, basic food rations, no music or other entertainment, and so on, and see what reaction that provides.
This is a completely unnatural situation. It is hardly what you call “reality” and it is certainly not a cross-section of society that you are seeing on the show (as Gretel would have us all believe). For starters, in a country full of obese people, who lives on basic food rations? That is not a reality for our society. If it was, then Morgan Sperlock would not have succeeded to win good ratings here with his ‘30 Days’ experiment (the junk food one). And why are there not any Muslims with extreme views on the show? There are a few around in this country, but you never see any on BB.
Obviously the housemates are not a cross-section of our society at all. In six years of BB, we have only ever had two series with one or more Asian contestants. We have had Macedonian, Croatian, Italian, people of Irish and British decent and a few other ring-ins but very few Asians. It is that community that represents quite a large number of our population. What about Africans? What about the rich, decent looking lesbians, Martians, I do not know, just anyone but the same old, same old: gay guys and Anglo Saxons all the bloody time?
It is these people that are selected to be housemates because the producers know that they if they chose people with a background from some other cultures they would find it difficult to obtain the type of reactions that they are after during contrived situations on this show. Conversely, they might obtain the type of reaction that our society does not agree with, of course. Then there is Merlin Luck. Now that was a reaction that the little punks did not count on.
Anyway, there is another example of selective editing that I would like to offer, to further illustrate my point, and that is Jo Ashton. She was a good housemate to watch but the producers treated her poorly. I loved it when she calmly sneaked up behind Reggie in the kitchen one day in series three and when Reggie turned around she got a bit of a fright. That cool, calm and collected side of Jo was one that I always liked. In addition, she tried very hard to have viewers know that she was a good, honest Catholic girl, which is very admirable when impressionable young girls are watching (viewers were never treated to the sight of her breasts, for example because she kept them tucked away all the time).
Unfortunately for Jo, she was a little naive, so on several occasions, when she was slightly sozzled and was a bit huggy, feely with some of the guys in that series of BB, she did not think of the fact that the producers would seize the opportunity to make her out to be a bit of a tart. Not surprisingly, after her eviction, she was disappointed when she discovered that that is how she was portrayed and she soon complained about it in public. I believe that Gretel often thinks of that when she says that she is annoyed when a housemate complains about how they were portrayed. But then Gretel talks about the footage manipulation, which, again, is not selective editing.
In closing, if you are a fan of the show and are you are not quite sure about this topic, or a student researching the topic, or you live in a country that is just about to launch its own BB series and you want to know how selective editing works, I hope that I have given you a basic understanding at least with what I have said here. I believe that there is a difference between footage manipulation - which is similar to how people use Photoshop to alter images - and selective editing.
This is a deliberate decision to misuse footage and the results can be damaging to all involved. It is a particularly nasty, viscious “secret” of the television industry, and I hope that in further exposing it, people will understand it more and not be fooled by the spin that the show provides. But when ratings are involved, it is a sad fact that your intelligence will continue to be insulted by this dastardly behaviour on the part of producers. What a shame!