It was 17 August 2000. A group of BBC TV newsroom staff gathered around a computer screen, a collective gasp breaking the silence. One turned, announcing with gravity: “Nasty Nick’s gone.”
Nick Bateman, a contestant on the UK reality show Big Brother, had been discovered attempting to manipulate fellow housemates’ votes, resulting in his removal from the program. The incident quickly escalated into front-page news.
The ensuing controversy ignited a nationwide ethical debate, scrutinizing not only the specific act but also the very premise of the show.
One TV critic, writing for the London Evening Standard, accused Big Brother’s executive producer, Peter Bazalgette, of “smearing excrement over our screens.”
A reviewer for The Herald newspaper dismissed the housemates as “fakers, chancers, dullards, no-marks, and dimwits.”
Despite the critical outcry, British audiences voted with their viewing habits. Approximately 10 million people tuned in for the season finale on 15 September, signaling the beginning of a significant cultural phenomenon.
Now, 25 years later, reality TV has solidified its position as a dominant genre on UK screens.
The Traitors attracted over 10 million viewers for the premiere of its third season in January. While Love Island UK’s audience has decreased since its 2019 peak of six million viewers per episode, it has been renewed for ten seasons.
The darker aspects of reality TV have been subject to ongoing scrutiny, with concerns raised about the potential, and in some cases devastating, effects on contestants, prompting necessary changes.
Critics have largely continued to view many reality TV shows as shallow escapism, or even as harmful and divisive entertainment.
However, a growing number of psychologists and social experts are beginning to offer an alternative narrative, suggesting that the impact of watching reality TV may not be as detrimental to viewers’ minds (or social values) as previously thought.
Some suggest it could improve viewers’ comprehension of perspectives outside their own experience, or even help them overcome personal biases.
“Reality TV has historically featured more demographic diversity than other media formats,” says Danielle Lindemann, a sociology professor at Lehigh University, Pennsylvania.
“[It] highlights parts of the social landscape that are often overlooked, making it a potential tool for fostering greater social understanding.”
The UK version of Big Brother, based on a Dutch series of the same name, brought together ten strangers in a London house.
For 64 days, the contestants were isolated from the outside world, filmed around the clock, with viewers voting to eliminate one person each week until a winner was awarded the £70,000 prize.
The truly innovative aspect wasn’t the competition format but the connection established between the audience and the ordinary individuals whose lives unfolded on screen.
“That was unprecedented,” says Dr. Jacob Johanssen, Associate Professor of Communications at St. Mary’s University, whose research focuses on the psychological effects of reality TV.
“For the first time, viewers saw non-celebrity ordinary people on television, marking a significant shift.”
Today, reality TV encompasses a wide range, from fly-on-the-wall series documenting friends’ lives (The Only Way is Essex, Geordie Shore, Made in Chelsea) to competition-based shows (Survivor, The Traitors, Love Island) centered around the contestants’ “real” experiences.
Its core strength remains: offering a glimpse into the dramas of everyday lives, a chance to see behind the curtain.
“You witness unfiltered, raw emotions… across these diverse programs,” Dr. Johanssen continues. “Such displays are typically confined to the private sphere, certainly not made public.”
Dr. Johanssen contributed to the reality show Embarrassing Bodies, which features patients consulting doctors, aiming to destigmatize common health issues.
In his view, “despite its problematic aspects, it raised awareness of diverse body types and conditions.
“Perhaps it lessened feelings of isolation or alienation.”
The same principle applies to disability awareness. Pete Bennett, winner of the 2006 series of Big Brother, was a vibrant personality who won over audiences and happened to have Tourette’s syndrome.
His appearance felt groundbreaking at a time when disability awareness and representation in the UK lagged behind current standards. He received significant screen time, introducing Tourette’s to a mass audience while allowing viewers to connect with Pete as an individual.
“I was often bullied because of my Tourette’s,” Pete explained, reflecting on his life before Big Brother. “I couldn’t go out and enjoy myself without being ridiculed or targeted because of my tics.”
He added, “I haven’t been bullied since leaving the house.”
Then there are the uncomfortable, sometimes controversial, subjects contestants have explored, frequently igniting national dialogues.
Over the years, several Love Island contestants have been accused of “gaslighting,” a potential form of coercive control, which is a criminal offense. This has generated extensive discussion on social media, with Women’s Aid issuing a statement in one instance.
Professor Helen Wood of Lancaster University, who researches and advises on the ethics of reality TV, recalls a separate discussion about domestic abuse and argues that raising such issues can be positive.
“I recall a major debate surrounding Love Island and its potential to… facilitate discussions about the nature of domestic abuse,” she says. “While potentially triggering for some, it could be beneficial for others.”
Faye Winter was 26 when she joined the 2021 series of Love Island. She worked as a lettings manager at the time, but lamented a perceived lack of eligible men in Devon, where she lived, prompting her to apply.
She quickly paired up with Teddy Soares, a financial consultant from Manchester.
“From a girl’s perspective, they’ll need to adjust to me stirring things up and causing a bit of a commotion,” he told ITV after signing up.
The promised commotion soon materialized when Faye was shown a clip of Teddy admitting to being sexually attracted to another contestant.
Her ensuing heated, expletive-laden outburst, in which she accused Teddy of being two-faced, generated nearly 25,000 complaints to Ofcom.
Some deemed her reaction disrespectful and an “overreaction,” while others strongly identified with her.
“I received a lot of trolling for it,” she later told a newspaper. “[But] many people told me they’d been through similar experiences.”
Dr. Rosie Jahng, an Associate Professor of Communications from Wayne State University in Michigan, believes that the insights reality TV provides into social cues, body language, and deception can be valuable.
“It’s like testing a moral boundary – we start to consider, ‘what would I do in that situation?'”
Understanding how others react in various scenarios can be informative and encourage self-reflection. However, what happens when reality TV veers away from documenting reality and into a more ambiguous “constructed” reality?
A former cast member of Made in Chelsea explained how the show operated during her time.
“The producers would talk to us on the phone for hours each week,” Francesca “Cheska” Hull, who appeared from the first series, previously stated in an interview.
“They’d join us on nights out. They put us in situations designed to create drama.”
She emphasized that scripts weren’t used but added, “You knew the conversations you had to have.”
On the surface, this appears to deviate from the idea of capturing raw emotions. However, psychologists suggest that even constructed reality can offer benefits.
“It can potentially benefit viewers and society by prompting broader conversations about the kind of world we want to live in,” argues Dr. Johanssen. “For example, discussions around problematic or unethical behavior, or issues of gender identity and inequality.”
However, the experiences of individuals appearing on these shows raise a distinct set of concerns.
“We must differentiate between the value of a show sparking conversation and the well-being of its participants,” explains Professor Wood. “Many shows, particularly in their early stages, placed people in extremely challenging situations that could be traumatizing.”
During the 2007 series of Celebrity Big Brother, actress Shilpa Shetty became the focal point of a race and bullying controversy after a fellow contestant referred to her as “Shilpa poppadum.”
The incident sparked a national conversation about racism.
“The Shilpa Shetty case… generated numerous complaints from viewers who felt someone was being bullied or treated unfairly on screen,” says Professor Wood.
“I believe that moment marked a turning point. We no longer want to witness such behavior.”
More recently, some Love Island contestants have spoken about experiencing poor mental health after leaving the show, as well as struggling with intense public scrutiny.
A UK parliamentary committee conducted an inquiry into reality TV in 2019, stating that its “decision to launch the inquiry into reality TV comes after the death of a guest following filming for The Jeremy Kyle Show and the deaths of two former contestants in the reality dating show Love Island.”
“We are still not at a point where participants are adequately cared for,” argues Dr. Johanssen, who submitted evidence to the inquiry.
“They lack agency or control over the editing process, or how an episode is structured, or how they are portrayed.”
However, Love Island’s producers have stated that they have learned to better support the cast and crew. Revised welfare measures have been introduced, including specialized social media training for contestants, as well as video training and guidance on topics such as coercive behavior and avoiding discriminatory language.
Ofcom has also established new rules to protect individuals appearing on TV and radio reality shows, following a steady increase in complaints regarding guest welfare. The rules mandate that broadcasters must “properly look after” contributors, particularly those who might be at risk of “significant harm” as a result of participating.
“Many broadcasters are indicating a shift in attitude,” adds Professor Wood, who is involved in a research project examining care practices in UK reality TV.
“They want participants… to gain something more positive from the experience than they have in the past.”
The question remains: what is the collective impact? Is reality TV merely reflecting society, or could it actively shape it?
Professor Lindemann believes there are examples of positive correlations between the content of reality shows and viewers’ engagement with the world.
Even as early as 2011, its influence on behavior was evident.
She cites a US study which found that girls who watched dating shows such as Temptation Island, The Bachelor, or Joe Millionaire were more likely to discuss sex with one another.
In 2014, a paper co-authored by Melissa Kearney, an Associate Professor of Economics at the University of Maryland, drew a link between a reduction in teenage birth rates in the US and the airing of a reality series on MTV called 16 and Pregnant, which offered a brutally honest portrayal of life for pregnant teenagers.
This show “was not specifically designed as an anti-teen childbearing campaign,” the authors wrote, “but it seems to have had that effect by showing that being a pregnant teen and a new mother is hard.”
They concluded: “We find that media has the potential to be a powerful driver of social outcomes.”
One decade on, that certainly hasn’t changed, making reality television a potent force. In some instances, it can be a force for the worse, but on occasion, it genuinely has the power to shape those who watch it for the better.
Top picture credit: ITV/PA Wire
BBC InDepth is your destination on the website and app for incisive analysis, offering fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and in-depth reporting on the most critical issues of the day. We also feature thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer. Share your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking the button below.
Music exploring themes of betrayal at the Royal Albert Hall, the reality show poised to become your next obsession, and Comic Con arrives in Manchester.
The French president and his wife state they have repeatedly requested a retraction from the prominent conspiracy theorist.
Destination X tasks contestants with determining their location through a series of challenges.
Darnell Swallow, 43, is now employed in the music industry and reports frequent interactions with “cool people.”
Finalists Amaya and Bryan, Chris and Huda, Nic and Olandria, and Pepe and Iris competed for a $100K prize.