Clarification: Not his wife/ex-wife, who he murdered, but the gal on the reality show.
What seems, well, beyond tacky, and into creepy, is that the parent company of the producers is called En 'em All.
Excuse me, Endemol.
twickster said:
Freudian Slit said:
Was the original question “Are we complicit in the murder?”, or was the original question “Are we complicit in the willful lack of screening on the part of the production staff of these shows?”
I believe it started in 1994 with season 3 of The Real World. Up until that point, The Real World consisted of mostly normal people from different backgrounds just sort of living together. Season 3 introduced us to “Puck” who AFAIK was the first contestent on the show to be openly aggressive and antagonistic in an attempt to generate attention for himself. This started the trend of selecting increasingly good looking and unstable losers over more normal and conventional people.
Of course the producers generate as much as conflict as possible by supplying lots of booze and even instigating the contestants.
Now you have reality shows on VH1 and MTV where there are generations of stars whose only source of fame was that they were the most ridiculous contestant on another show that may have once been based around an actual has-been star.
As the OP, let me clarify – I was actually thinking of the latter, though it’s a hard distinction to keep clear when something this horrific happens.
Reality shows had little to do with this murder other than the fact that this individual happened to be on one at some point.
I don’t think we are complicit. I for one do not ‘demand’ bad behavior but sometimes I’ll watch it. I am a passive observer in this, if it were not on I would watch something else. I don’t think the casting is responsible for what he has done, but it’s obvious their screening process is not that strict.
I actually find the idea that this is somehow society’s fault to be even more loathsome. People do nasty fucked up things in this world. That’s just something that happens. What is implied here is not that we can do anything about nasty stuff just that we shouldn’t let bad people on television. It’s a weird and twisted sort of logic. Why shouldn’t we let bad people on television? It’s not some holy pulpit that will be sullied by the vile sinner. It’s television.
While I agree in principle, note that he was on two, and that the timeline suggests that the murder was immediately after he received his payout for the one that had just wrapped. “…on one at some point” makes it seem a lot more remote.
Of course, that doesn’t much change the fact that if he happened to be planting trees for cash before he snapped, nobody would dwell on that at all.
Not to defend this guy AT ALL, but knowing only what I know from the articles, being that he removed some of her teeth and fingers, that type of mutilation typically means he was trying to hide her identity (while the guy that slashes open her face is actually a bit scarier, as he shows so much anger toward the victim).
Of course, it would have also made it a much stronger criminal case (if he hadn’t killed himself), because it demonstrates that the murderer was thinking enough during and after the murder to try and hide it.
I remember the first season of REAL WORLD- it was actually based on interesting personalities, some of them annoying, but personalities that were interesting, and almost immediately it became about finding people who’d be most likely to
1- strip down to their digital blurring at the flip of a switch
2- become enraged or hyperbolically offended by everything
3- go apeshit whenever anybody took the spotlight from them
There’s never been a more narcissism driven genre though; this is the original chance to be famous without having to pay dues (other than perhaps gym membership) or have any particular talent other than a lack of any inhibition. Of course to me the worst part about them is the never ending parade of stupid people who think they’re deep.
I think one of the most remorselessly demented was probably Puck on REAL WORLD, or at least certainly one of the ones I’d most like to see badly beaten. Richard Hatch- the gay nudist who won the first SURVIVOR- is one of the crazier people to win. (He just completed a prison stint for failing to pay taxes on his win; wtf? Did he think IRS would just never notice?) He’s also been in trouble with the law for some low grade assault charges over the years.
As with vampire shows though, they’re too low cost to produce/high return to think they’ll go away any time soon.
This incident put the “Reality” in the reality show genre. 
Well sure, we can let bad people on television. We just shouldn’t let them on in situations that could turn out extremely bad for other parties. In this case, the producers just missed out on hooking up their convicted woman-beater with a lady looking for a rich husband. He assaulted a woman in 2007; this isn’t like it’s some minor “youthful indiscretion” from long ago. If he’d won the show, it might have been the show’s winner who ended up mutilated and stuffed in a suitcase.
twickster said:
That is what I took your intent, are viewers culpable for watching shows because the producers hire extreme characters with little vetting and then foster the dramatics by focusing on the worst antics?
Yes, viewers who watch these shows bear culpability. The producers would not make these shows if people didn’t watch them - there would be no incentive. But producers have discovered through experience that what makes these programs get audiences, which is what makes the producers money, is the extreme behavior of the contestants.
So why should the producers spend time and money and effort vetting the people for criminal records, mental problems, psychiatric conditions, etc? Viewers want excitement, they want sideshow, so give them sideshow.
Except when the sideshow intrudes on the results. Like the Millionaire from “Who Wants To Be a Millionaire?” turning out to have a record of battering women. Oops, sorry, Darva Conger.
This is the same situation. An unstable personality who was on a show was one twist of circumstances from killing and mutilating the contestant from that show. Surely there would be some liability on the show’s part for hooking them up. Someone could certainly get a wrongful death lawsuit out of that.
Similarly, they now have canceled showing “Megan Wants a Millionaire” because this guy was one of the participants. Even though he apparently didn’t get selected by Megan.
What’s really screwy is how this guy qualifies to be a selection for Megan, when Megan is apparently looking for a “Millionaire”. I haven’t seen any descriptions that this guy qualifies for that label.
Me, I avoid these shows. I don’t want to watch over-glorified game shows (Survivor, all these dating shows). I don’t want to watch extreme antics. I don’t want their pointless angst. I don’t watch “rebuild my life” shows or “the ongoing antics of celebutant X” or “dangerous career #27”. If I’m going to watch manufactured drama, I’ll watch a scripted show with actors.
So I personally do not bear responsibility, but the rest of you folks, yeah, you’re on the hook.
And no, I don’t think the reality shows caused the murder, nor are the show producers culpable for the murder, nor are the audiences responsible for the murder. But I can’t say for sure there wasn’t an influence on this guy’s actions because of his circumstances that affected his actions.
Well, I think if he had met someone on the show and mutilated her, yes. But he was on the show, left the show, and then killed/mutilated someone unrelated to the reality program. Though to be fair, if it turns out someone who is an actor gets the role on a TV show and an actress on the same show meets and dates him and he ends up killing her, are the people who cast him to blame if it turns out he had a criminal record? I mean, at some point appearing on a TV show has to be pretty incidental to your life.
Maybe it’s one of those shows where instead of getting a millionaire, you get a chump and everyone laughs at you for being a stupid spoiled whore. Don’t we feel better for not being a gold digger like Megan.
Freudian Slit said:
I didn’t say it applied in this case, I said it was one twist of circumstances away from having happened.
Not when the show is a dating show, intentionally hooking these people up for romance. With a regular show with regular actors and actresses, the show is responsible for them meeting, not choosing to date each other or spend time together outside of the professional environment. But these “reality” shows are about putting them together for unsupervised life situations. That’s why they bear more responsibility than a regular casting agent.
And how would that not be covered by my statement “if you otherwise made a fingerprint record for some reason”? Read more carefully next time, please.
I’m still willing to bet the majority of fingerprints on record are from arrests.
Rigamarole said:
You made it sound like that other than getting arrested, getting fingerprinted is a rare occurrence. Broomstick was trying to point out that the other reasons for getting fingerprinted are rapidly growing in commonality.
Post 9/11, federal employees (including contract workers) have to be fingerprinted and get background checks. Given
All Federal Employees (including contractors)
military members
law enforcement agents
teachers (looking for sex offenders)
day care workers
That is a large slice of the American population. I’m betting the balance between criminals and non-criminals is fairly balanced, maybe even slanted away from criminals.
Put it this way - how many people do you know who have arrest records? Now how many do you know who are one of the above?