Gill Jamieson is a Senior Lecturer in Film, Television and Cultural Studies at the University of the West of Scotland
IN the desperate battle to win the Autumn ratings war, ITV have sacrificed something of their integrity in casting the former health minister Matt Hancock in their flagship reality show I’m A Celebrity. Much admired for their robust coverage during the pandemic, the network now seems willing to risk trivialising the feelings of those affected by Covid-19 in an effort to revitalise a beleaguered entertainment format.
We should feel sorry for the celebrities unwittingly drawn into this ruthless game. It seems like they have been recruited to a social experiment, acting as a barometer of the public mood. Their collective jaws dropped when Hancock entered camp and they have been trying to navigate the right path ever since. Nobody, possibly with the exception of Boy George, wants to make a wrong move.
ITV have a duty of care to all of the participants. They cast Hancock expecting drama – assuming he’d be the villain, but he’s a wily and adaptable player and he has emerged with some lustre as a result of his strong performance in the bushtucker trials and for his unruffled demeanour around camp. Subsequently, he has grown in popularity while the other celebrities are vilified if they voice any criticism of Hancock. The vitriol directed at some of the other campers has been shocking to read. Many on social media are quick to accuse the celebrities of bullying; but the truth is that Hancock has hardly been used as a human dartboard, he’s been getting a fairly easy ride, even when being questioned by campmates. Loose Women’s Charlene White’s attempts at quizzing him even ended in a conciliatory hug.
A disgruntled Boy George complained on Saturday night that no one is really being themselves or letting their guard down. He’s right: reality TV is a misnomer – in reality the footage is heavily edited and many of the participants have a preparedness for the performative nature of the show. I’m A Celebrity has been running for 20 years – participants are well-versed in the nature of the experience by virtue of the its visibility on British television over a very long period of time.
Harold Wilson famously said a week is a long time in politics. It’s also a long time in the jungle and the fickle world of reality television. I’m a Celebrity is fundamentally a popularity contest and the public are voting to keep their favourites in camp. It may surprise many that Hancock has fans especially as his conduct has been less than exemplary. He jetted off to the jungle a few days before The UK Covid-19 inquiry opened its third investigation into core decision making and leadership of healthcare during the pandemic. He has also come in for a huge amount of criticism for his decision to leave his constituents without representation – losing the whip as a result. As an MP he is trained in handling the media – ‘pivoting’ away from difficult questions as he explained to Scarlette Douglas in the first few days in camp; and his careful approach to answering difficult questions has illustrated this.
In sending Hancock into the jungle, ITV have taken a major gamble with a programme that was essentially conceived as harmless fun back in 2002 – something to lighten the dark winter nights in the run up to Christmas. Presenters Ant and Dec often emphasise the silliness or cringe-worthy nature of any given exchange in camp. Footage of Hancock doing the electric slide or botching the lyrics to Sweet Caroline play well to that theme.
However, they don’t seem to have anticipated that Hancock could emerge as a genuinely popular figure and that some of the other celebrities would be demonised. Those celebrities signed up for a light entertainment show with a view to enhancing their long-term career prospects – they don’t expect to come out of the jungle as figures of hate. ITV may be buoyed by the ratings, but they should also expect significant criticism of the brand if any of the participating celebrities experience a backlash on their return.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel