Poverty Porn Wednesday

‘Struggle Street’, a phrase appropriated by today’s youth, is commonly used to describe someone’s self-inflicted illness (i.e. hangover) or a stressful exam preparation (usually lack thereof). However, with the newly broadcasted documentary featured on SBS, Struggle Street has an added controversial undertone.

Aired on the 6th of May, Struggle Street follows the lives of residents in the public housing estates of Sydney’s western suburb, Mt Druitt. In only three raw, honest and unfiltered episodes the Australian audience is given a glimpse at real life in under-resourced Australian communities.

Struggle Street’s bong-smoking, pregnant 21-year-old Billie Jo Wilkie (featured in the video above) provides the best example of how far SBS has gone to illustrate ‘life on the dole’. Billie Jo sparked the attention of viewers when she was filmed sitting in a bathroom smoking a bong, modified out of a soft-drink bottle whilst heavily pregnant. If this wasn’t bad enough a representation of the public housing demographic, the scene then zoomed out to feature the drug addicted mother helping her daughter light the bong whilst lecturing her about staying off drugs during pregnancy — “only smoking cones from now on”. In just a matter of minutes after the scene was aired, viewers of the show took to Twitter stating their disgust.

There are two key issues that are central to the debate of filming and exposing such controversial content to the wider public. Firstly is the issue of exploitation, and more specifically, the argument that Struggle Street is guilty of partaking in ‘poverty porn’. According to columnist Matt Collins, poverty porn is defined as any type of media that exploits the disadvantaged demographics in order to generate revenue or gain consumer attention. Based on this definition Struggle Street successfully meets the requirements of poverty porn as the two minute preview for the program (featured in the video below) gained media and consumer attention for the negative portrayal of the poor.

Although the program focuses on underprivileged individuals, it does so for informational purposes. This is due to the fact that SBS is a public service broadcasting entity, and thus, is bound by an obligation to produce educational and informational content.

Whilst SBS has an obligation to inform and educate the wider public about the struggles of residence in Mt Druitt, is the corporation following ethical journalistic principles in the process? Put simply, when ordinary people are thrust into the media spotlight, are they able to give informed consent? Or more importantly, do they understand the ramifications that the story will have? Take for example Peta and Ashley Kennedy who appears in Struggle Street with their 10 children. In the preview alone Ashley was portrayed as an uneducated simpleton, passing wind in front of the camera and arguing with his ice-addicted son Corey. The couple have spoken out against the show stating their shock and sense of betrayal in an exclusive interview with New Idea.

“They say it’s reality — being portrayed as a bogan no-hoper is not my sense of reality. We were trusting people. That sense of trust has been betrayed.”

Many journalists have spoken out against the deception that journalists use to get the story they want to tell. According to The Sydney Morning Herald journalist, Jonathan Holmes, becoming invisible is key to observational journalism as the main purpose is to capture individuals in their natural habitat.

At the end of the day, it isn’t a question of ethics; it is a question of responsibility. Who is responsible for what? When asked about her opinion of the documentary SBS officer, Helen Kellie said:

“I haven’t spent much time (out here) but I don’t think this is a story of Mt Druitt or Western Sydney … those are representative of stories right across Australia.”

Based on Ms Kellie’s reply is it then correct for the documentary-makers to assume that they are only responsible for providing a true representation? Or are they obliged to do justly by their subjects? Or vice versa? Is it enough to be ignorant or should the residence of Mt Druitt take responsibility for their own actions? Ultimately it is these unanswered questions that fuel the debate and leave the audience wanting more.