Where is Our Line?
When Anything Goes on Television, from Reality Television to News, What is Our Responsibility as Consumers?
Monday night, like millions of other Americans, I watched the season finale of The Bachelor. While it isn’t my favorite show, it is typically entertaining, and I’ve watched several full seasons over the years. Watching contestants experience the Bachelor’s version of reality, which is shot in the arm with an enormous dose of drama, luxury, and intensified emotion, is a fascinating experience. At the end of the whole thing, you might even get to see two people happily relieved that they actually did, in fact, find love — the kind of love that they can bring into the real world — in the midst of that fun-house environment.
It’s a joy to see the contestants happily taken out of a reality television competition that is essentially meant to emotionally manipulate them, discover that they actually are in love, that their significant other is not dating multiple other people, and that they can move forward with their lives with that confidence and a crazy story to boot. The story ends with a happy couple.
Monday night, though, that isn’t what happened. Arie, the Bachelor, did choose Becca, and then did propose to her. They were shown enjoying their engagement and loving life, but only briefly. Host Chris Harrison let viewers know that there was more to this story, that this season had an epilogue that extended beyond the final rose and proposal. ABC proceeded to show a video package of Arie explaining that he was going to breakup with Becca, and that he still had feelings for Lauren, the show’s other finalist. That was unfortunate, but what happened afterwards was truly awful.
Instead of simply explaining that Arie and Becca had broken up, interviewing the contestants about what happened afterwards, or doing anything remotely decent, ABC and The Bachelor opted to invite Arie, who knew what was going on, and Becca, who didn’t, to a vacation house in LA…and filmed their breakup. They followed that up with choosing to air the breakup unedited, with a split screen that focused one camera on Becca and one camera on Arie.
To say it was uncomfortable would be quite the understatement. Watching a woman find out she was being dumped on national television, and watching her ex awkwardly try to explain himself, was not a pleasant experience. Becca thought she had escaped the bizarre atmosphere of The Bachelor universe and found love, and here she was being dragged back into televised agony. This was unique not because she was blindsided, and not because she was emotional, but because she thought the show was over. Even while The Bachelor went on, with its dramatic twists and turns, Becca was unaware.
There are a few people at fault here. Arie, obviously, who felt it was necessary to tell The Bachelor’s producers that he was going to end his engagement before he told his fiancé. The Bachelor’s producers, for overstepping the boundaries of their show and playing with the lives of those unaware they were still part of a game. Most to blame, though, is ABC. While Arie is just a guy, and while the producers have an incentive to pitch the craziest thing they can think of, the network has a real responsibility. They’re the gatekeepers for what makes it onto the network, for what’s broadcast into millions of homes, and they should have stopped this.
While it’s easy to dismiss reality television as low-quality, exploitative programming in general, and therefore not worth fussing over when it crosses the line, a comparable event was playing out somewhere else on broadcast television. Sam Nunberg, a former Trump campaign aide who had been subpoenaed by Robert Mueller, appeared on several mainstream news programs. He appeared unhinged, potentially intoxicated, and in crisis. Throughout the day he made several outrageous statements; Carter Page colluded with the Russians, he would not cooperate with Mueller, he thought the subpoena was ridiculous, Trump is an idiot, he would cooperate with Mueller after all, on and on and on.
On one hand, it’s noteworthy that someone who worked for Trump on his presidential campaign who had been subpoenaed in the Mueller investigation was saying these things. But on the other hand Nunberg was obviously having a meltdown, saying whatever came into his mind, distraught, and potentially drunk. He should not have been allowed on television. At the very least, if he did make it through one or two appearances, subsequent shows should have cut him off. He wasn’t bringing anything new to the table, and he wasn’t providing insightful commentary. He was a spectacle. The whole situation was, as Axios referred to it, Scandal Porn.
Why did all of these programs continue allowing Nunberg the platform they did? It was probably good for ratings and attention, of course. Additionally, they didn’t want to miss out on participating in the news of the day. Finally, it may simply have been because everyone else put him on live TV, so why shouldn’t they?
That said, at some point someone has to take a measure of responsibility. This isn’t a new determination, there have been plenty of pieces, particularly over the past few years, about the news media’s responsibility to draw a line in the sand, somewhere, anywhere, and not simply show the public the most outrageous interview or the most provocative headline. It was a theme throughout Donald Trump’s campaign, and remains one now during his presidency. We’re certainly in an exceptional era, and that calls for some flexibility and range on what might otherwise be unthinkable, but it also calls for discretion. There is all the more need to scrutinize what is shown to the public, to sort through the constant deluge of leaks and hoard of potential interviewees and provide real, meaningful substance.
But at the moment, the news media believes that the general public will watch and seek out just about anything having to do with the Russia scandal, Trump, and the Mueller investigation. As a result, they’ll keep putting it on TV, even if it means exploiting subjects who aren’t adding value and who obviously have no business being on live TV.
On ABC, and in the world of reality television, they’ll continue to push the limits of what’s acceptable, because they believe that people will continue to watch. They’ll continue to exploit people, even those who haven’t agreed to the rules of the game, because they know it will be talked about, will garner attention, and will generate revenue.
Are they wrong? After all, media is a business. Attention is good for them, and they want to be seen. The Bachelor is what it is because it’s so provocative. Coverage of Trump and the Russia scandal does profit the news media. Even in our current atmosphere of non-stop, attention-grabbing headlines, Monday stood out with prominence.
And so, the responsibility falls to us as consumers. At some point, we need to decide what we’re willing to support. Is the answer really “anything interesting that the networks allow”? You could argue Sam Nunberg is newsworthy, and that Becca knew what she was getting herself in to, and that at the end of the day this wasn’t really that bad, but what happens next time? How far will we allow the envelope to be pushed, without turning our eyes away, before it results in something truly horrifying and over the line? Is there even a line?
At the very least, this is something we need to consider. As media, on television, on the internet, in our pockets, becomes ever more ubiquitous, it is going to become harder and harder to stand out. Producers, networks, and companies are going to continue to push the envelope. As consumers, we have the opportunity to push them in the right direction. These companies will listen, through social media, through ratings evaluations, and in many other ways. We must decide what to support. Is anything outrageous, scandalous, or exploitative fine to us, so long as it’s entertaining? Or do we want to at least attempt to hold ourselves and these organizations to a higher standard, to push them to act as the gatekeepers they believe themselves to be.
It’s a difficult question to answer, and I admit that I don’t know where I personally would draw the line. I found myself to be rather unsettled on Monday, though, questioning what the next examples of media going too far, in worlds as diverse as reality television and news programming, might be. How they might play out. At the very least, we should ask the question.
