I was checking the TV schedules earlier, to see if there might be something worth watching this evening. When i happened to notice the following programme, "7 Days On The Breadline". It turns out to be a programme where so called "celebrities" try to live "on the breadline" for a whole 7 days. The idea, presumably, is to show how the other half live, or try to live.
Whilst i can see that by using celebrities, the programme might highlight an important social issue. For me, this is just the latest in a long line of recent TV programmes pretending to outrage us. But, really using outrage as entertainment. Personally, i see no entertainment value in social deprivation.
Also, if the TV company really wanted to highlight a real issue. Why not concentrate on the families themselves, instead of having to drag celebrities into the mix?
Do they really think that we take more notice of an issue, or are more outraged about something, just because a celebrity has to live it for 7 days?
I'm beginning to think that they do. After all, why are celebrities often dispatched to far flung parts of the world to highlight a certain issue & often in the name of the United Nations, a Government, or a well known charity organisation.
I suppose i can see why this happens now. After all, think of all the money raised by Band Aid & Live Aid in the mid 1980's. For me anyway, that seems to have been the real start of all this.
And, yes, i bought the records, watched the concerts & donated money, just like the rest of us.
So, is this all Bob Geldof's fault? I wonder what he makes of the current situation & whether he ever envisaged this happening?
Maybe this is just another indication of the weird world of celebrity culture that we now live in? We seem to need a celebrity to tell us something before we will either listen to it, or take any notice of it.
I'm sure the particualr charity, or organisation involved aren't very worried as long as the money rolls in. And you can't blame them for that i guess?
After all, this is really just advertising, but on a grander scale isn't it? And, as we all know, advertising works.
They wouldn't waste all that money on it otherwise, now would they?
(By the way. This blog post has ended up being completely different to the one i intended to write. It was ever thus)
At least slightly more relevent than "Celebrity Big Brother." Slightly.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if Ken has ever seen our Celebrity BB? "Would you like me to be the cat?!" That clip from George Galloway was priceless!
ReplyDeleteI agree, the use of celebs on this programme seemed out of place and I am sure their agents have a list of better, do-gooding things they can "support!"
Maybe the stars donated their fee to the families!
Ken: As Anthony said, have you seen our celebrity Big Brother? There aren't really many of what i would call celebrities actually in the house.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, pretty much anything is more relevant than that.
Anthony: Thankfully, i've only ever seen bits of CBB & only saw clips of the "cat" incident.
I have a funny feeling that their fees are safely tucked up in their respective bank accounts!