What's next?
Taking a welcome break from law revision today, I came across this article in the Guardian.
In fact, it's not too far removed from what I'm studying.
BBC2 have decided to commission a program where twelve celebrities sit on a jury to decide the outcome of a "fake" trial involving two footballers who are accused of rape by a girl and her friend. Sound familiar?
I admit that my knowledge of the law is limited, but if there is one thing which sticks in my mind, it is DO NOT INFLUENCE THE JURY. It is contempt of court. What is said between members of the jury must stay confidential. I know that this is "only" entertainment, but I think that it's cutting a bit close to the bone. Add to this some interesting choices for members of the jury, including one of the most famous perjurers in history, Jeffrey Archer, Stan Collymore, best known recently for punching his girlfriend in public and hanging around public toilets. And most alarmingly , Sarah Payne's mother.
Having never sat on a jury myself, I suppose I am not in a position to comment on what goes on, but what I am sure of is that there is a great number of people who watch a lot of TV and are greatly influenced by what they watch there. Will they be negatively (or positively) influenced? Reality TV is entertainment. But at what cost?
posted by Mary-Ann at 3:31 pm
4 Comments:
I too seek an escape from law revision...
Bearing in mind how desperate I am to get a job with the BBC when the course finishes, it's quite depressing to realise that even the bastion of British broadcasting (as I've come to think of it) isn't above the scourge of reality TV rubbish. What a fine use of my licence fee.
I agree I think the whole thing is in very bad taste, and I'm not sure what they're trying to create - if it's a real-life look at how jurys work, why use bloody celebrities?!
First of all it's highly patronising to assume that it's not possible to sustain the attention of the viewer without familiar faces, secondly they are mainly low-talent, self-obsessed imbeciles, who will be more concerned about how they look and how their career is going that anything to do with the mocked-up case (which is a farce anyway I suppose) and thirdly a court of law is not a place for entertainment!
Wrong in every way. I'd perhaps expect this type of shite from sky or channel 4, but like James I'm very disappointed in the BBC.
I completely agree. The 'celebrities' who sit on this jury will be scrutinised and their decisions or views are likely to influence how the general public views other cases of this kind in future. The next jury for a case like this? Members of that general public. What an irrsponsible move in the name of entertainment. And how apt that it comes in the week that print journalism also crossed the line and took advantage of its relationship with the legal system by interviewing a suspect of the Suffolk serial killings before he was arrested?
Post a Comment
<< Home