The Limited Times

Now you can see non-English news...

Opinion | Rating? Not every victim is worth it Israel today

2021-10-26T10:31:40.755Z


As in psychological experiments, in reality shows the production should be responsible for the mental well-being of the participants - there is also no ethics committee on its side • In "Wedding at First Sight" we saw why


"Things Not to Say" is the name of an episode recently aired in the fourth season of "Wedding at First Sight."

This season, which swept the viewers, puts the connection between Itamar and Karin at the heart of the discussion.

Itamar provides a number of disturbing statements, such as "without anger there is no love" or "it's not that I do not accept you, just know what has worked for me in my life".

For some reason these statements and similar statements from previous episodes did not receive the production's attention.

However, this is the content that has caused a stir in the social media discourse.

The discourse focuses on the issue of emotional abuse, in Itamar McCarin's pleas to be "home", to take off makeup, wear training and cook.

On the other hand, in the "Itamar camp" they say: If it was "Ashkenazi Tel Aviv, the lynching here would not have taken place", "If it is bad for her, why does she stay and keep smiling and touching him?"

And "all he wants to feel is home."

While an expression of pluralism reflects reality, the question arises as to the ethical responsibility of the production to respond to problematic behavior patterns in reality shows.

In our professional opinion, the responsibility of the production is first and foremost to take care of the well-being of the participants.

This is generally true for reality shows, and especially for the "Wedding at First Sight" show.

This program provides a glimpse into the psychologist's couch, and includes continuous professional guidance by psychologists, as well as a photography and production team involved in every part of the process.

It is the duty of each of these parties to intervene in any case where there is potential harm to the participants.

During the show you can see that Karin's emotional and mental well-being is undermined. Her desire to please Itamar makes her live a harsh reality, which could harm her even after the end of the filming of the show and its broadcasts. Many in the production of the show had to raise a red flag. It is impossible to forget that in every frame that appears on the screen there are also people behind the scenes that include photographers, producers, and lighting and sound people. In addition to these, psychologists are supposed to accompany the participants and maintain their mental health. To what extent will the production allow events to develop before it intervenes? How many people will be sacrificed on the altar of ratings?

A similar lesson has been learned in the past, and the hard way, during the prison experiment conducted by Prof. Philip Zimbardo. In an experiment conducted at Stanford in 1971, volunteers were placed in a mock prison in the basements of the prestigious university. The research team watched what was happening continuously. Participants, placed in the role of "wardens," abused and humiliated participants in the role of "prisoners," who in response began to experience mental distress, anxiety, and nervous breakdown. Although a number of people warned of serious behaviors, Zimbardo decided that "the show must go on" until the experiment was completed. The experiment was stopped after external intervention one week before its planned completion. This experiment was a milestone in the development of ethics rules for responsibility for participants' mental well-being and health.

We argue that although there are no regulated ethics committees for television programs, these lessons still need to be applied, and this does not absolve from moral responsibility. The production should also show public and social responsibility. We assume that the production expected that the construction of the narrative and the presentation of the relationship between Itamar and Karin as it is presented, would arouse interest and ratings. The choice to broadcast content that includes criticism to the point of humiliation, belittling and glaring, should be considered and careful. When this content is presented without a clear reference to the production, it justifies the behavior presented as legitimate and normative. "If there had been illegal or immoral conduct on his part here, the production backed by psychologists would have stopped it a long time ago," a viewer wrote.

Simultaneously with Itamar's behavior, the program presents criticism from the experts specifically about Karin's behavior and thus blames the victim.

The presentation of signs of emotional violence must be accompanied by a thunderous voice from the experts against violence, diminution and silence in a romantic relationship.

Today, due to the proliferation of cases of violence against women on every issue, the goal should be to teach the public to recognize red lights in relationships.

Source: israelhayom

All news articles on 2021-10-26

You may like

News/Politics 2024-03-28T08:54:49.817Z

Trends 24h

News/Politics 2024-03-27T16:45:54.081Z

Latest

© Communities 2019 - Privacy

The information on this site is from external sources that are not under our control.
The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.