Forum Home → Discussion → Access to justice and advice sector issues → Thread
BBC to pit low-paid against each other in Hunger Games-style show
The BBC will make the unemployed and low-paid workers compete against each other for a cash prize in a controversial Hunger Games-type show to find “Britain’s Hardest Grafter”.
Only the UK’s lowest-paid workers will be invited to compete to “show their worth” in the reality show, capitalising on the trend for “poverty porn” established by the Channel 4 series, Benefits Street.
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” ...
Tom Lehrer, where are thou? Satire just died again.
Oh FPS….I despair. I truly, truly despair….
[ Edited: 28 May 2015 at 02:41 pm by 1964 ]The public purposes are set out by the Royal Charter and Agreement, the constitutional basis for the BBC.
To enrich people’s lives with programmes and services that inform, educate and entertain.
To be the most creative organisation in the world.
Trust is the foundation of the BBC: we are independent, impartial and honest.
Audiences are at the heart of everything we do.
We take pride in delivering quality and value for money.
Creativity is the lifeblood of our organisation.
We respect each other and celebrate our diversity so that everyone can give their best.
We are one BBC: great things happen when we work together.
Failed in all of them.
Forgot to add;
Is it a Roger Melly production? and I’ve heard Monkey Tennis is on right after.
Sadly it probably passes with flying colours on entertaining and creative as well as audience centred. One is tempted to campaign against it though. Anyone want to start a Facebook or Twitter campaign? Someone give me a good hashtag and off I shall go.
The public purposes are set out by the Royal Charter and Agreement, the constitutional basis for the BBC.
To enrich people’s lives with programmes and services that inform, educate and entertain.
To be the most creative organisation in the world.
Trust is the foundation of the BBC: we are independent, impartial and honest.
Audiences are at the heart of everything we do.
We take pride in delivering quality and value for money.
Creativity is the lifeblood of our organisation.
We respect each other and celebrate our diversity so that everyone can give their best.
We are one BBC: great things happen when we work together.
Failed in all of them.
Within days of the ConDems getting elected the last time, any ‘debate’ on the ‘impartial’ BBC (including the supposedly ‘high end’ Today programme) about the deficit would start off with the presenter uttering something along the lines of “We all know there have to be cuts….” or “Everyone accepts that the deficit means there has to be a reduction in government spending….”.
So this comes as no surprise. Shower of oxygen thieves, the lot of ‘em.
signed
Sadly it probably passes with flying colours on entertaining and creative as well as audience centred. One is tempted to campaign against it though. Anyone want to start a Facebook or Twitter campaign? Someone give me a good hashtag and off I shall go.
Not really creative as it looks like they’ve picked up the dregs of what was left after the ‘other’ channels picked up the productions.
Entertaining - that’s subjective and I can’t imagine it will attract high viewing numbers.
Audience centered? Sadly unlikely - They’re not targeting 2.2 children, Volvo and a cupboard of organic lentils.
How many variants of the Great British Bake Off have the Beeb got on the go at the moment? A few years back it was 50 shades of Super Nanny.
Creative? When?
Let’s have a game-show variant on food banks whilst we’re at it, why not. Something like the scene in ‘‘Name of the Rose’ where the monks open the sluice gates and chuck all the left-over food to the poor. Everyone can watch & gloat, and the competitor who can collect the most is exempted from the Bedroom Tax.
Whether this is actually some sort of controversy-provoking wind up or whether it’s straight up, it’s sickening.
How about ‘Grab a GIro’ - (why be up to date, we’re TV)
A variety of people with disabilities are lined up and then race to grab money dangling from strings along a track.
Surprise ending (always good for a laugh)
Those who win are then disqualified for not being disabled enough and those who don’t get anything - don’t get anything.
How about ‘Grab a GIro’ - (why be up to date, we’re TV)
A variety of people with disabilities are lined up and then race to grab money dangling from strings along a track.
Surprise ending (always good for a laugh)
Those who win are then disqualified for not being disabled enough and those who don’t get anything - don’t get anything.
Wasn’t that suggested by Gareth from The Office?
The public purposes are set out by the Royal Charter and Agreement, the constitutional basis for the BBC.
To enrich people’s lives with programmes and services that inform, educate and entertain.
To be the most creative organisation in the world.
Trust is the foundation of the BBC: we are independent, impartial and honest.
Audiences are at the heart of everything we do.
We take pride in delivering quality and value for money.
Creativity is the lifeblood of our organisation.
We respect each other and celebrate our diversity so that everyone can give their best.
We are one BBC: great things happen when we work together.
Failed in all of them.
Within days of the ConDems getting elected the last time, any ‘debate’ on the ‘impartial’ BBC (including the supposedly ‘high end’ Today programme) about the deficit would start off with the presenter uttering something along the lines of “We all know there have to be cuts….” or “Everyone accepts that the deficit means there has to be a reduction in government spending….”.
So this comes as no surprise. Shower of oxygen thieves, the lot of ‘em.
CPAG done some great work in getting a complaint upheld against a welfare related programme for this type of thing.
as soon as you tell someone you meet what you work as though your almost always entered into a conversation about how the welfare state needed changed. when you dig into why the person thinks that its either a blank look or the classic “my neighbour down the road..”
Wasn’t that suggested by Gareth from The Office?
I never watched the program but he sounds a witty and perceptive chap, just from the name.
Wasn’t that suggested by Gareth from The Office?
I never watched the program but he sounds a witty and perceptive chap, just from the name.
I’ll leave you to be the judge of that…..
the episode they get the trainer in on customer service is one of the funniest things i have seen. I cant quote my favourite line on here but anyone who has seen it will know it when i say its the one from the role play scene with the fictional hotel manager.
What’s not to like. When I first pitched strictly come dancing to the Beeb the format was a follows. Groups of jobseekers chosen at random by the DWP were ushered into arenas, surrounded by 10 foot walls, the floors of which were made of metal plate. The floors were then slowly heated up from underneath. Anyone who could avoid getting burnt to a crisp was given a job. Thus, a saving to the taxpayer and employment growth. Genius! However, I was greeted with something less than wild enthusiasm but they said they would give it some thought. The upshot was that they stole my idea, threw in some celebrities and sanitized it for pre-watershed viewing. No backbone any of them. What the hell do I pay my license fee for?
The BBC has defended a new TV reality show pitting unemployed and low-paid workers against each other for a cash prize, which has been accused of echoing film the Hunger Games, arguing it is a “serious social experiment”. (my emphasis)
There isn’t a facepalm big enough…..
BBC defends reality show involving poor, dubbed ‘Hunger Games’
Sadly it probably passes with flying colours on entertaining and creative as well as audience centred. One is tempted to campaign against it though. Anyone want to start a Facebook or Twitter campaign? Someone give me a good hashtag and off I shall go.
Not really creative as it looks like they’ve picked up the dregs of what was left after the ‘other’ channels picked up the productions.
Entertaining - that’s subjective and I can’t imagine it will attract high viewing numbers.
Audience centered? Sadly unlikely - They’re not targeting 2.2 children, Volvo and a cupboard of organic lentils.
All of it’s subjective.
I’ll leave you to be the judge of that…..
Maybe not.
I guess this would be the wrong time to pitch my game show idea, but I wanted to demonstrate that is possible to handle this sensitive subject matter in a grown-up and non-offensive way.
It’s based around AdPens and called “I’ll see you in court”. I am thinking Nick Knowles for presenter. The guest is a claimant who has been investigated for fraud, there’s a 5-minute filmed segment setting out the background. The claimant has been offered an AdPen and now consults a celebrity panel for advice. After hearing what they have to say s/he has 30 seconds to decide. The audience is baying conflicting advice, perhaps emphasising their point with giant foam hands . The buzzer sounds and the claimant says “Nick, I’ll see them in court!” (huge cheers) or “I’ll accept the AdPen” (disappointed boos, but time for another guest). if the claimant opts to see them in court the stage set now revolves 180 degrees to reveal a courtroom presided over by a genuine judge. 12 members of the audience are randomly selected to form a jury; counsel are celebs with some vague legal background (Clive Anderson and Andy Parsons).
See - tasteful and informative.
Surely Jeremy Kyle as judge and a tribunal rather than a jury? Dr. Ruth as the medical professional and Katie Hopkins as the Disability Qualified Tribunal Member?
HB Anorak- I love it! Can I suggest a small ‘phone a friend’ type amendment, whereby if the contestant elects to ‘see them in court’ he/she has one opportunity to ring a welf? We could all take turns.
I guess this would be the wrong time to pitch my game show idea, but I wanted to demonstrate that is possible to handle this sensitive subject matter in a grown-up and non-offensive way.
It’s based around AdPens and called “I’ll see you in court”. I am thinking Nick Knowles for presenter. The guest is a claimant who has been investigated for fraud, there’s a 5-minute filmed segment setting out the background. The claimant has been offered an AdPen and now consults a celebrity panel for advice. After hearing what they have to say s/he has 30 seconds to decide. The audience is baying conflicting advice, perhaps emphasising their point with giant foam hands . The buzzer sounds and the claimant says “Nick, I’ll see them in court!” (huge cheers) or “I’ll accept the AdPen” (disappointed boos, but time for another guest). if the claimant opts to see them in court the stage set now revolves 180 degrees to reveal a courtroom presided over by a genuine judge. 12 members of the audience are randomly selected to form a jury; counsel are celebs with some vague legal background (Clive Anderson and Andy Parsons).
See - tasteful and informative.
Judge Rinder hopefully?
https://www.itv.com/itvplayer/judge-rinder
Actually, it’s reminding me of ‘Crown Court’ (if anyone remembers that? It was the high point of the day when off sick from school and forced to watch daytime TV).
I loved that programme - it was a reason to be sick! There was nothing worse than being half way through a case and having to go back to school the next day and never find out what happened…
Weekend sorted
Nice one John! Daphne, enjoy…..
Dreadful article in today’s Grauniad by Rachel Cooke. It can be found at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/31/poverty-porn-britains-hardest-grafter-bbc.
Fortunately, as one of the commenters has noted, there are better argued cases put by those who have signed the petition or added comments to the article. However, comments and petitions tend to preach to the converted whereas she gets a mass audience and gets to influence and exploit public opinion. I have already tweeted the article and she’s clearly not up for a debate on the subject. However, perhaps Rightsnet members might want to consider what could be done collectively on top of that already done. Letters page? Right to reply? All thoughts welcome.
There is a better article to be written on why national TV is so swamped with programmes which offer prizes and how some of these, according to journalists like Cooke, will “teach” us things we didn’t know. Silly me for thinking that’s what journalists and documentarists do.