The Times: TV Times

Few would contest the notion that Britain over the first decade of this millennium changed. By imperceptible degree, entrenched class prejudice and deference fell away.

The election of new Labour in 1997 played a part, as did the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, later that year. This was the first government whose members were first Government born largely since the Second World War, while the other forced a new settlement between a monarch and her subjects.

Yet a third event three years later arguably had just as much societal impact. That was the beginning of the Channel 4 reality series Big Brother.

If the contention sounds absurd, that only goes to show the extent to which something once so abrasively new has bedded down into the national psyche...

The rise of reality television has had many negative effects, chief among them a cult of celebrity far more vacuous than even that which went before. Yet it is too easy to forget the rigidity which existed in public life beforehand. To put it bluntly, normal people didn’t go on telly.

Some might argue that normal people didn’t go on Big Brother either, but at least they could. Yes, every Big Brother contestant was an exhibitionist, but this was a far more diverse bunch of exhibitionists than Britain had previously known. Just over 13 years ago, the last three contestants in the first series were, respectively, Northern, black and gay. If, today, that sounds like a banal observation, well, that’s rather the point.

The Times' leader.

A point often made.

Though there's some truth to it, it's often-simplified and over-stated.
It's like saying TV (or Hollywood etc) is a fairy's magic wand that's made everything a-okay - as if other factors, cultural, political and social (how we little boring ordinary people engage with friends, family, co-workers, neighbours etc etc) are of little consequence.

Mind you, in 2001, John Pilger had a slightly different take on things...

Last Sunday, Michael Jackson, Channel 4's departing chief executive, told Observer readers that he had, no less, helped bring about "the profound social changes that have occurred in British society." He cited Big Brother as representing "a melting pot for a broader, more understanding and inclusive society... an optimistic glimpse at the ease of presence between a group of people with different ethnicity, sexuality, religion, class and education". He related this to Blair's promised "classless society" and declared, Tony-like, that "we have a more prosperous economy than at any time in our past".

That gays and females, blacks and Asians are capable of moronic behaviour in Big Brother is not "an optimistic glimpse" of anything. Like the pathetic cast of Jerry Springer, they merely provide a glimpse of the media elite's vicarious flirtation with low life for the sake of a buck and high ratings. No one denies that Channel 4 transmits some quite brilliant programmes, as it should, given its extraordinary remit and resources and the film-making talent in Britain; but these are fragments of its potential. 

Bit patronising and snobby, John.
Maybe he's still angry about making such a fool of himself with Su Pollard on Celebrity Big Brother.