Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I literally cannot form words at this amount of stupid.

The BBC, an institution funded by a forced levy on every TV owner in Britain justified by an express mandate that they must "...enrich people's lives with programmes and services that inform, educate and entertain.", has commissioned one of these monstrous "poverty porn" shows that have been showing up on the supposedly-more-lowbrow channels over the past couple of years. Low-income workers and people on benefits will be invited to take on a series of "challenges" in exchange for the chance to win the princely sum of....£15,000. The "least productive" people will be kicked off each week.

This is a real thing. It is actually going to be made and shown for BBC2, not as part of a revival of Brass Eye cleverly lampooning the tendency of our society's elites to pit the poorest and most vulnerable against each other in order that they act and vote against their own interests, but as a "serious" show that laughably claims it will "investigate what effects people in the workplace".

If I hadn't already stopped paying the license(knob-all worth watching anyway) because of the atrocious news and current affairs output from BBC Scotland, this would do it. I mean feck's sake what's next, Ancient Aliens and Creationist documentaries on BBC4?

My advice to you would be to neither watch nor take part in the show.

I'm surprised, a show like this wasn't on American TV first.......
seriously.....why?

We beat you to it Britain!

Wait, that isn't a good thing...god Australian TV is a joke.

 motyak wrote:
We beat you to it Britain!

Wait, that isn't a good thing...god Australian TV is a joke.

What are you talking about? Struggle Street? Did you watch the show, because while it was a lot of things, it was nothing like the exploitative show being talked about in the OP.

Hell, the only poorsploitation on TV right now is Life on the Dole, which is an import from the UK.

 sebster wrote:

 motyak wrote:
We beat you to it Britain!

Wait, that isn't a good thing...god Australian TV is a joke.

What are you talking about? Struggle Street? Did you watch the show, because while it was a lot of things, it was nothing like the exploitative show being talked about in the OP.

Hell, the only poorsploitation on TV right now is Life on the Dole, which is an import from the UK.

Oops. Now, to exercise my mod powers to delete my mistake.....nah. I'll let it live.

Although I stand by our television (7, 9 and 10 really) being just garbage.

 Albatross wrote:
My advice to you would be to neither watch nor take part in the show.

Aye that's a plan right enough, heads in the sand lads, it's not like a constant narrative painting folk on low incomes or benefits as some weird species of alien scroungers in the print media over the last twenty years has had any effect on public opinion regarding social security and those who need it, I'm sure having that message reinforced on TV with drek like this and Benefits Street won't cause any issues at all

The fact that this exploitative reality show rubbish is being made with the license fee is just the icing on the poor-shaming cake.

It really is a shame they're forcing people to participate in this show. So sad.

It reminds me of Climbing For Dollars from Running Man.




feth it, I'd watch it and not even feel bad. Society is slowly imploding. Might as well get used to it and get numb now.

My thought is that the ten a penny day time Tv quiz shows are handing out larger prizes...

Though if this show started throwing about million pound rewards the complaint would be that that's the waste of the tax payers money (even if Top Gear spends multiples of that on each of their specials). The BBC's as much drivel as whatever everyone else is churning out, just expect for it to stick the party line down your throat more forcefully. =P

'I'm offended that a corporation that relies upon licence fees,which I refuse to pay, is producing programming I do not like'.

Amazing

Viva la revolution!

We are getting there

 Mr. Burning wrote:
'I'm offended that a corporation that relies upon licence fees,which I refuse to pay, is producing programming I do not like'.

Amazing

Viva la revolution!

Seriously? If you lot can't be arsed to engage with the substance of the argument, jog on eh.

This is sickening, but hardly surprising (which is tragic in and of itself). We live in a nation where poverty is basically criminalised, so I can't exactly be surprised that there are those who would trivialise it for entertainment as well.

Which isn't too say I'm not tempted to give the BBC a piece of my mind and demand to know exactly this is supposed to be in any way healthy for a supposedly civilised nation.

Read through the blurb on the Independent's website. I've got not problem with it apart from the Hunger Games comparison.
Everyone is a volunteer on this potential TV show, and no one is fighting to the death. It's just inflammatory journalism to compare the two.

Applications for Britain’s Hardest Grafter, which will be screened on BBC2, are limited to those currently earning less than £15,500 per year.

The BBC is seeking 25 British workers, a mix of the unemployed, the under-employed and those earning the minimum wage, who will be given the opportunity to “prove themselves” through a series of challenges. A cash prize is on offer for the winner.

That seem reasonable to me, and very different from Benefit's Street and the like. Those shows don't promote aspiration, or work, but are just "documentaries" allowing people to be nosy. This show is more akin to the Apprentice more than anything.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
'I'm offended that a corporation that relies upon licence fees,which I refuse to pay, is producing programming I do not like'.

Amazing

Viva la revolution!

Seriously? If you lot can't be arsed to engage with the substance of the argument, jog on eh.

He has a point, if you don't pay for the licence, and therefore do not watch the content, what are you getting upset about?
If you were paying for it, then unfortunately not every program is going to specifically suit just you that is the nature of the beast. The BBC's mandate does not include only broadcasting things that you want to watch, and approve of.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
'I'm offended that a corporation that relies upon licence fees,which I refuse to pay, is producing programming I do not like'.

Amazing

Viva la revolution!

Seriously? If you lot can't be arsed to engage with the substance of the argument, jog on eh.

I do agree with you. The current trends in television scheduling and programming are pretty fething poor. But the BBC has been dumbing down for ages. Why not follow the likes of C4 into tapping the readily available resource of the poor and underpaid - Its not like they are doing anything else.

But seriously? You don't pay the licence fee so you have no real dog in this hunt anymore.

Poor old BBC cannot win.

They are frequently accused of being the voice of the establishment while the reigning government blames them for anti-gov bias

Seen as snobbish and elitist in their programming the are desired to produce more popular material, then come under fire for deviation from the Reithian principles.

In this case it is a BBC 2 programme so it is' nt going to be populist. I suggest we wait and see what it actually consist of before condemng it.

Sounds reasonable, but it's much more satisfying to leap upon the outrage bus, even if you haven't got a ticket. ;-)

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I suggest we wait and see what it actually consist of before condemng it.

What I think should be absolutely condemned is the premise of the programme. Ask yourself, why have low income as a qualifier for applying? Is it because 'they're unemployed, so have nothing better to do'? Is it to prove that the little poor people can be useful after all? Because that prize money could turn their lives around (it can't)? Or just because God forbid the rich should ever have to 'prove themselves'? (I mean, they're rich, so they must be important, right?)

Are any of those good reasons? Thought not. I have no problem with game/challenge shows. I have no problem with people competing on TV for a prize. But I do have a major issue with the fact that only the poor can enter, since I see no reason for that restriction that isn't elitist, classist or just plain arrogant.

On another note, if this really is somehow in the interests of the disadvantaged, how about using that £15,000 (and whatever, presumably significant, money would have gone into makinng this show) to actually help, tangibly, a poorer community? Stock up a food bank, furnish a disused building as a shelter for the homeless, help a struggling family out with expenses? No, this isn't the BBC's job, but I'd hazard a guess that it's not just them funding it.

Or, they could just get the butler to stick the 50" plasma screen on once a week to have a good laugh at what the peasantry are getting up to..

 Paradigm wrote:

What I think should be absolutely condemned is the premise of the programme. Ask yourself, why have low income as a qualifier for applying? Is it because 'they're unemployed, so have nothing better to do'? Is it to prove that the little poor people can be useful after all? Because that prize money could turn their lives around (it can't)?

Or maybe, just maybe, they're the ones that can most benefit from an additional 15k?

Or just because God forbid the rich should ever have to 'prove themselves'? (I mean, they're rich, so they must be important, right?)

Do you mean like on the very popular Celebrity Apprentice?

Lots of panties in a bunch here over what should be a non-issue. As was already stated, these are volunteers. And they won't be fighting to the death.

We do appreciate your absurdly sensationalist, hyperbolic thread title. I hear HuffPo is hiring headline writers.....

 cincydooley wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:

What I think should be absolutely condemned is the premise of the programme. Ask yourself, why have low income as a qualifier for applying? Is it because 'they're unemployed, so have nothing better to do'? Is it to prove that the little poor people can be useful after all? Because that prize money could turn their lives around (it can't)?

Or maybe, just maybe, they're the ones that can most benefit from an additional 15k?

But then, if your interest is in actively helping the economically disadvantaged, why make them compete for it on television? If I had 15k+whatever this show will cost to produce, and actually wanted to make a difference to peoples' lives, a TV show would be far from the first, or even hundredth, thing I'd do.

Or just because God forbid the rich should ever have to 'prove themselves'? (I mean, they're rich, so they must be important, right?)

Do you mean like on the very popular Celebrity Apprentice?

Lots of panties in a bunch here over what should be a non-issue. As was already stated, these are volunteers. And they won't be fighting to the death.

We do appreciate your absurdly sensationalist, hyperbolic thread title. I hear HuffPo is hiring headline writers.....

As far as I know, we don't have Celebrity Apprentice on the BBC, just the regular version (which I find at once mildly diverting on the surface but do think the money involved and the culture around it is ridiculous).

I appreciate these are volunteers; my issue is why make a show only for the poor, unless you have some ulterior motive to exploit/ridicule/silently mock them? If this is in the interests of altruism they have got it very wrong indeed, and if it is in the interests of entertainment then it is sick.

And the title isn't mine, but if hyperbole and sensationalism is what it takes to raise something symptomatic of a much larger and largely ignored issue, so be it.

The BBC's job is to make TV programmes. If they have £15,000 spare it is a much more legitimate use to make a programme than give it to charity.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The BBC's job is to make TV programmes. If they have £15,000 spare it is a much more legitimate use to make a programme than give it to charity.

So make a programme, I take no issue with that. But make one that doesn't turn the poor into entertainment for the better off. Quite simply, if this show about seeing who can work the hardest was open to everyone, then I would haveabsolutely no issue.

I was simply pointing out that the argument that this show is somehow trying to help people (rather than just one person and the BBC) doesn't hold water.

Blimey, it sure is great having you guys as the self-appointed Guardians of the Poor. Handy also, that you know what's best for them.

*snore*

I won't be watching it or taking part in it, I won't be encouraging others to do so. The same goes for many, many other shows that the BBC produces with the money it forcibly extracts from me. If you feel strongly about the show (having not even seen it), write them a letter.

 Albatross wrote:
My advice to you would be to neither watch nor take part in the show.

He doesn't have a choice does he? Seeing as his taxes are paying for it.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
My advice to you would be to neither watch nor take part in the show.

He doesn't have a choice does he? Seeing as his taxes are paying for it.

The British TV licence doesn't work like that, it is not Tax payer funded. You don't have to pay it, unless you are watching Broadcast TV. The OP claims to not pay for it anyway, so it doesn't matter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Paradigm wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I suggest we wait and see what it actually consist of before condemng it.

What I think should be absolutely condemned is the premise of the programme. Ask yourself, why have low income as a qualifier for applying? Is it because 'they're unemployed, so have nothing better to do'? Is it to prove that the little poor people can be useful after all?...

I look at it that it gives individuals on low wages, or income support, often condemned for being spongers, or lazy, the opportunity to prove that this is not the case at all, thus challenging the stereotype.

Could it not be used as an opposition to other shows which can depict people on benefits etc as being scroungers, by showing that there are hardworking people who are just unlucky or something. I'd guess at the bare minimum the winner, if unemployed, will get a job offer out of this. It isn't necessarliy the elites mocking the poor. It seems more like an attempt to help change public perception and actually do some good

I'd actually suggest watching it before you crack the gaks. Struggle Street was depicted in the media as poverty porn however the truth could not be farther from the poverty porn angle if it tried.

It was a tastefully done look at life in lower socio economic areas. Personally, I found it touching and heart rending.

If you're not wanting to give the british show a look, watch Struggle street it was really good.

Oops did not realise there was a winner, feth that show.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
My advice to you would be to neither watch nor take part in the show.

He doesn't have a choice does he? Seeing as his taxes are paying for it.

Wait. The BBC is a government propaganda vehicle?

Commies.

It is a government propaganda vehicle that every government for the past 35 years has complained is biased against the government.

Independent university studies show it is broadly mildly supportive of the government while retaining a reasonable level of independence and critical programming.