Should reality TV producers have a legal duty of care?

Julia says:

12:13pm | 01/06/09

I am not surprised. She didn’t strike me as a person who could deal with things going off course.

Bruce says:

12:22pm | 01/06/09

No doubt also the result of one too many whisky-fortified egg nogs.

Sandra says:

12:26pm | 01/06/09

Susan has been in a pressure cooker from the day she stepped on to that stage.  She really hasn’t been living the dream - she has been living the nightmare of fame.  I am not surprised she has collapsed after all that stress.  I wish her well.

Michael says:

12:29pm | 01/06/09

Yeah i agree Julia, I hope she recovers, puts out a nice little album and enjoys a comfortable retirement. I do believe the producers of the show should have some duty of care, even a relatively stable person could find themselves in the same position if things went bad on a TV show. Although they may just distance themselves from her and wash their hands of it, we and the media probably won’t remember her name in a few months.

Richard says:

12:49pm | 01/06/09

quirky, deluded, freaks, vulnerable and “the mentally unstable” - surely this is not an unusual combination for the rich and famous pre or post reality TV.  Susan auditioned for a talent show - I’m assuming she didn’t show up to lose.

Hopefully after some time out at the hospital she’ll be off to the studio and her retirement fund should start growing from there, but whatever happens I don’t think it is the BGT producers fault…

Arnie says:

01:03pm | 01/06/09

Hold on there! I work in a profession with a clearly defined and legally enforcable duty of care and I don’t think reality TV shows are on the same page.  I presume she already has a manager in place after her initial success in the auditions.  If anything there should probably be a code of practice for managers of all types of celebrities including the ‘instant’ variety.  You would think that it would be in the manager’s best interests to look after their charges as well as possible to ensure a longterm income.  I would think that any contestant on any reality TV show would have a fair idea of what they were getting into and would probably have signed some documents to that effect.  Placing a duty of care on reality shows would open up a large can of worms that could very well lead to the end of reality shows!! Really? Let’s bring on a duty of care requirement for reality TV!!!!!!!!!!!!

Trevor says:

01:07pm | 01/06/09

OH yes they really need to take responsibility for the changes to her life. Who could handle this sort of worldwide recognition without some form of break down. She sure can sing if you like that sort of music but really she will need lots of assistance in adjusting to a new lifestyle in front of we the media.

Naomi says:

01:16pm | 01/06/09

Not the fault of the producers, no, they can’t possibly have predicted the media storm and all the fawning attention that followed her audition.  I’m sure she did go into it thinking she had a chance at winning BGT; she wouldn’t have anticipated Oprah, Larry King, becoming a poster-woman for “middle aged sad sacks” or being criticised for the projections of said “middle-aged sad sacks” (see Tory Maguire’s post).  It’s probably this, more than anything else, that’s taken its toll.

Fiona says:

01:45pm | 01/06/09

Exploited without a doubt.

Duty of Care - zero.

Ratings mattered and won.

If Susan had a manager she should have been sheltered from most of the media barbarics, including the ones who tried to bait her. She should have been just allowed to concentrate on singing.

I don’t believe she courted fame and this outcome would have been overwhelming for just about anyone.

How much of these stories were staged to change the public perception (and save the bookies a shtload) resulting in her runner-up status.

Ben Elton’s Chart Throb hits closer to the mark than many realise.

KEVIN says:

01:53pm | 01/06/09

These people are often plucked from obscurity and have no experience in dealing with media lime-light and the pressures that can go with it.  It very much depends on a persons make up as to how they may react to this type of on- going close scrutiny.  The should have people appointed as managers and advisers as part of the deal to ensure they dont react the wrong way.

Tanya says:

02:04pm | 01/06/09

I agree, producers of these shows should provide some psychological support for their “stars”.  The life changing experience is not always a positive one.

Contestants can naively belive that having their face on televsion will transform their lives from the dull and mundane to fame and fortune. However, the power of editing and clever camerawork can also be used to portray people in a negative light.  Leaving the vulnerable feeling used and abused after the initial euphoria of seeing their face on TV. 

Contestant beware! Cameras are very intrusive.

Lisa says:

02:47pm | 01/06/09

Britains Got Talent did not create this women, they gave her the right to audition like thousands of others. The worlds media however did create her, people like Oprah and King, they have exloited this women and made her bigger than what she really is. There are better singers than Susan Boil but unfortunately they do not have the same story or unusual looks for the worlds media to take advantage of.
Unfortunately Susan has selfishly taken the focus away from some real talent like Diversity, Flawless, Stavros Flattley and Shakeem even that sweet little girl who produced a magnifiicent performance on Finals night lets not forget them.

Leah says:

02:54pm | 01/06/09

TV producers of television competitions like this should not have any legal duty of care. These competitors voluntarily put themselves forward and have every opportunity to quit if they so desire. 99% of competitiors can handle the fame and exposure, producers should not be held responsible for those who irresponsibly go chasing fame when they can’t handle it. They are not “plucked from obscurity”, they voluntarily put themselves forward.

Britain’s Got Talent did not exploit her. How did they treat her any differently to any other competitor? They didn’t. You know who did? The media. The media exploited her. Maybe they are the ones who should be exercising a duty of care.

Reality Raver says:

03:14pm | 01/06/09

My view is and it may have not come through in the article because I wrote it before she was carted off in an ambulance that the producers at the time of her audition, should have been able to pick that she may have had psychological issues. She was 47 years old, had only ever lived with her parents and now by herself, appeared to have barely worked in her life, and was probably not the sharpest tool in the shed.

It would be interesting to know if they thought it was a concern at that time.

I think all the media and the pressure just magnified her emotional vulnerability. 

The show took a risk, I am surprised she made it to the finale.

Pam says:

03:32pm | 01/06/09

I think the producers do have a duty of care, also the Media need to be very careful. Susan was an unknown person, put in the spotlight, and maybe the pressure was a bit more than she could cope with.

I hope she gets well, and then makes an album. All the best to her. She does have talent, but she should not be exploited by anyone. She needs a good person as Manager.

Arnie says:

03:52pm | 01/06/09

Reality Raver mentioned the media and duty of care as a desirable combination. Pigs will fly long before that ever happens!!

Daryl says:

06:57pm | 01/06/09

Personally, I think the only reason for this media hoo haa is that she is not, well, attractive!!!!

Kara Irving says:

08:07pm | 01/06/09

With reality TV stars milking their ‘15 minutes of fame’ left, right and centre, it’s no surprise that Susan Boyle was next to board the media exploitation train- or was she?

Are we right to say that the media are solely responsible for the actions brought on by these ‘reality TV stars’. Maybe we as the viewers are taking advantage of Ms Boyle’s ability to deal with her sudden fame, by believing whatever we read, view or hear about the talent show runner up.

Why do we follow the assumption that she is ‘crazed’ or ‘goes wild’ when things don’t go her way? Are we as readers merely consuming some of the journalistic tripe they are feeding us with open mouths?

Ms Boyle was never going to cope, let alone survive in Britain’s Got Talent with the amount of media coverage she was receiving.

I think we as readers should be a little more sceptical of what is published in the media.

After all, a journalist’s main concern is to tell a story to the public and ultimately newspapers.

Chris says:

10:23pm | 03/06/09

Lots of celebrities are emotionally vulnerable and expoloited.

The fact that her vulnerability was used as a selling point for the show is what is unseemly about this episode.

jan says:

06:33pm | 05/06/09

Susan Boyle was sought out and put in a show that’s ratings were sinking.  She has learning problems and most people who have that problem would find it very difficult to control their emotions and not lose control. 

Anxiety is a problem with those who try very hard to fit in with the rest of society, putting her in this show just shoved her over the edge.  People don’t understand what it’s like having a learning problem and the expectations put on you.  This women lived in a village away from the hustle and bustle of city life and she was then expected to cope.  You have got to be kidding.  I hope she can find some peace in her new life and that others give her the chance to catch up.