UTMC

As my wife's job has to do with making sure people doing human subjects research is ethical, I can't wait to see what she thinks of some of the new reality shows going:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1986889.stm

http://open.salon.com/blog/lost_in_berl ... reality_tv

It seems that ethics doesn't matter as long as you say "hey! It's only TV!". I wonder if they injected the live studio audience with something that may or may not be Gonorrhea? Hell, if there's no applause they'll at least be clapping right? I'm also thinking is it possible we could set up a Milgram type experiment where the people in hooked up to the electrodes are bank CEOs, the shocks are real, but the people giving the shocks are actors!

Better yet....

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-ceegnWSENQ?fs ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-ceegnWSENQ?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Those are two of the most interesting and well known psych experiments and they've provided the basis for numerous bad TV show plots already. I fail to see how paying people well to participate in what is guaranteed to be a safer filmed version of what college students were payed next to nothing and put in some danger for is particularly unethical. I'd happily be a prisoner or a guard for what they'll be making, not to mention it makes for somewhat more educational viewing than the next season of Jersey Shore.

Also, the existence of Jersey Shore pretty much proves that television lost any ethics long before this.

/RM

I remember, about fifteen years ago or so, when daytime talkshows were taking off in Germany, there was a comdey show making fun of them. It was called TV Kaiser.
The joke was that they'd have "guests" (same folks every episode, in ridiculous makeup often enough), acting out about the most ridiculous topic imaginable, with the same experts every week commenting on it.
Stuff like "My daughter's boyfriend is my secret illegitimate son, and I'm in love with him!".
They cancelled it when they realized that anything they could come up with ended up being a lot less freaky or scandalous than what eventually went on on the actual daytime talkshows.
Stuff like ""My daughter's boyfriend is my secret illegitimate son, and I'm in love with him - and he's my brother!"

Those reality shows? Bullshit, the lot of them. When they don't get good stuff, they script shit and show it like it was real.
TV news shows corporate propaganda shorts instead of producing anything, they play music in the background and advertise where you can buy the track. Consumer advocate programs select their causes based on how telegenic they are, not on wether or not they have a genuine case against evil company x, because they know the PR department will usually just play nice rather than angering the TV gods. They don't pick on their own sponsors, regardless of how evil they are. Anyone opposed to the station owner's politics or business interests is presented like an insane loon. Rather than risking the anger of a million people who never watch that kind of show anyway, they censor and cut and dumb down programs to the point where even genuinely stupid people get bored and alienated.
They have no ethics, no morals, no backbone and do their damndest to crush the spirit and kill imagination, because that is what pays the editor's third mortgage and the owners fifteenth mansion. Just like every fucking large organization in the world, TV networks are a tool for people with money and power to get more of both and take it from everyone else.

The internet is killing their traditional business model, but like any rat in a corner, they attack with all the vile brutality at their disposal.

If broadcast TV isn't dead yet, it's high time someone killed it. With fire.

After discussing this with someone who's knowledge of the subject matter vastly outweighs mine I can see how this is a little beyond the pale...

/RM

The 2002 article on the tv recreation of the Stanford Prison Experiment is light on details so I can't comment*, but in the Milgram experiment the 'victim' are actors, so they're not harmed. Were the shock button-pushers harmed? I think they learn something about themselves they might not want to know, but I don't know about hamed. I don't really feel that the Milgram is unethical, just uncomfortable.

Both of them are particularly topical these days and more people should know about them and what they teach us about our nature.

*If it was anything like most 'reality' tv, it would have fine ethically, being scripted, and acted.

rolly wrote:The 2002 article on the tv recreation of the Stanford Prison Experiment is light on details so I can't comment*, but in the Milgram experiment the 'victim' are actors, so they're not harmed. Were the shock button-pushers harmed? I think they learn something about themselves they might not want to know, but I don't know about hamed. I don't really feel that the Milgram is unethical, just uncomfortable.

Both of them are particularly topical these days and more people should know about them and what they teach us about our nature.

*If it was anything like most 'reality' tv, it would have fine ethically, being scripted, and acted.

I believe the ethical-ness of the Milgram experiment lay in the fact that the dial on the power control panel was labeled something along the lines of "Lethal limit" or "Do not exceed" indicating that the person administering the "shocks" was placing the other person in peril. As the shocks increased the actor would plead and beg for no more and once the "lethal limit" had been exceeded would stop screaming, thus making the subject believe they had, indeed, electrocuted the other person to death. It was the mental anguish of this belief that caused the Milgram experiment to be labeled "unethical."
Personally, I think it should have been labeled, "Downright Hysterical."

Ames wrote:

rolly wrote:The 2002 article on the tv recreation of the Stanford Prison Experiment is light on details so I can't comment*, but in the Milgram experiment the 'victim' are actors, so they're not harmed. Were the shock button-pushers harmed? I think they learn something about themselves they might not want to know, but I don't know about hamed. I don't really feel that the Milgram is unethical, just uncomfortable.

Both of them are particularly topical these days and more people should know about them and what they teach us about our nature.

*If it was anything like most 'reality' tv, it would have fine ethically, being scripted, and acted.

I believe the ethical-ness of the Milgram experiment lay in the fact that the dial on the power control panel was labeled something along the lines of "Lethal limit" or "Do not exceed" indicating that the person administering the "shocks" was placing the other person in peril. As the shocks increased the actor would plead and beg for no more and once the "lethal limit" had been exceeded would stop screaming, thus making the subject believe they had, indeed, electrocuted the other person to death. It was the mental anguish of this belief that caused the Milgram experiment to be labeled "unethical."
Personally, I think it should have been labeled, "Downright Hysterical."

That's the thing, if you're administering the shocks, the unethical part of the experiment is you. Maybe everyone should have do the Milgram in school, and learn something about unquestioning obedience.

rolly wrote:

Ames wrote:

rolly wrote:The 2002 article on the tv recreation of the Stanford Prison Experiment is light on details so I can't comment*, but in the Milgram experiment the 'victim' are actors, so they're not harmed. Were the shock button-pushers harmed? I think they learn something about themselves they might not want to know, but I don't know about hamed. I don't really feel that the Milgram is unethical, just uncomfortable.

Both of them are particularly topical these days and more people should know about them and what they teach us about our nature.

*If it was anything like most 'reality' tv, it would have fine ethically, being scripted, and acted.

I believe the ethical-ness of the Milgram experiment lay in the fact that the dial on the power control panel was labeled something along the lines of "Lethal limit" or "Do not exceed" indicating that the person administering the "shocks" was placing the other person in peril. As the shocks increased the actor would plead and beg for no more and once the "lethal limit" had been exceeded would stop screaming, thus making the subject believe they had, indeed, electrocuted the other person to death. It was the mental anguish of this belief that caused the Milgram experiment to be labeled "unethical."
Personally, I think it should have been labeled, "Downright Hysterical."

That's the thing, if you're administering the shocks, the unethical part of the experiment is you. Maybe everyone should have do the Milgram in school, and learn something about unquestioning obedience.

Are you mad, sir? It's hard enough to get them to do homework as it is! If they could ACTUALLY think for themselves...shudder.