What followed was one of the most exploitative hours of television that I'd seen in a while, but hey, what do you expect from a show with such a provocative title?
Well, maybe a degree of impartiality for a start. I know that C5 isn't really known for the quality of their programming, but the narrator can't help but lay it on thick with a number of choice phrases, including: "this is the jewel in her benefits crown", or calling an unborn infant a "benefits baby".
A benefits baby? That's just unprofessional.
If we disregard the snooty narration, we're left with depressing stories of people struggling to make ends meet, but managing to get by. The producers still took every opportunity to stick the knife in, highlighting any and all bad behaviour from the subjects of the show, whilst disregarding any positive steps they were making with their life.
The episode focused on benefits claimants in Hull - and was described as "TV at its worst" by the City Council leader, Steve Brady, who went on to add;
"These TV programmes on individuals are really using them in quite a cruel way really, because they don't even realise they are being ridiculed." (1)
Predictably, many of the public were incensed by the behaviour shown on the programme - and took to twitter to vent their fury. A simple search of #BenefitsBritain on the social media network brings up an array of insults aimed at those taking part, for a manner of reasons.
Here are a few choice examples:
16 and up the duff! You've officially fucked your life up and you're going to end up just like your scrounging mother #BenefitsBritain
— Jennifer (@Jenni_Bob) July 8, 2014
Sit at home all day but no time to clean their houses. #BenefitsBritain
— StuWilliam (@StuWMc) July 7, 2014
Should be sterilised until they pass a test. #BenefitsBritain #fuckingTramps
— steve (@SteveyGeeBadBoy) July 7, 2014
The question is, who's to blame for the adverse public reaction to the programme? On the one hand, you can blame the producers, who obviously aimed to court controversy with their show, but they only filmed what was happening in front of them, (with some obvious editing). Surely the benefits claimants should also be put to task for their feckless behaviour, but as the viewer we only get a snapshot into their lives - one that is highly controlled by the production team, who get to decide what we see. Whatever the case, the end result is a terrible programme that mostly serves to reinforce negative stereotypes about benefit claimants on the whole.
As a viewer, I've come to expect a certain level of 'truth-stretching' when watching home-grown reality TV, but I was still shocked at the way in which the subjects were represented. Maybe the film-makers feel no responsibility towards their subjects, or perhaps they simply don't give a damn - either way, it doesn't really make for ethical programming.
I'll be the first to admit that I agree with the welfare system in principle, but that doesn't mean that I want programmes that simply reaffirm my belief system. On the other hand, it's hard to stomach programming that seems to put politics first - as Benefits Britain so obviously does.
It seems to revel in showing the jobless at their lowest, whilst reaffirming the very worst of their behaviour to the general public. By all means, they should show the truth - but my worry is that the programme is extremely skewed to one side.
Perhaps they focus on more positive stories in other episodes, but the one that I watched (broadcast 07/07/14) was used as an opportunity to sneer at the families and their hardships - even if the recipient of the scorn is an unborn "benefits baby".
As the documentary apparently aims to "lift the lid on the reality of life on benefits in Britain", maybe the reality is that they're only showing the public what we expect to see, judging by many of the comments made by the public in the aftermath of the show.
In any case, it only served to rub me up the wrong way - and I doubt that it's an accurate representation of reality. My only worry is, will others be able to do the same..
No comments:
Post a Comment