Every time a reality television cast member behaves badly, viewers blame that person without considering the context. And after years of speaking with reality television cast members and producers, I know there’s more to the story.
The latest incident is from Season 11 of Love is Blind, which is set in Boston. There has been an uproar about one cast member in particular who exhibited concerning behaviors with alcohol consumption and emotional abuse. Social media is awash with indignation about what happened, worrying that people (including one of the producers) weren’t as protected and supported as they should have been. I won’t comment on the specifics because I don’t know the full story, but the public’s reaction is justified. What they saw was upsetting, and they justifiably want to know why more wasn’t done to prevent or stop it.
This is certainly not the first time there have been serious concerns about a person or relationship on this show or others. I wrote about something similar in season three of Love is Blind. I asked why the producers felt they didn’t have a greater ethical obligation to intervene and protect the cast members. It makes us wonder:
Why don’t they stop these types of toxic interactions?
Why don’t they cut off alcohol sooner?
Why don’t they take more precautions to protect their cast members?
But these are the wrong questions. After years of speaking with cast members from this show and many, many others, I think the question is: why does this industry allow for mistreatment and intentional harm?
It’s a Well-Known Industry Secret
I’ve spoken with several producers from various reality TV shows (including Love is Blind, The Bachelor, and Married at First Sight) who openly say that their job was to get a reaction and a story, and at times (perhaps often) they used unethical methods to reach that goal. They were urged to use tactics like depriving people of sleep or providing endless alcohol (and little water). They learned strategies for interviews like walking a person through painful memories to ensure a tearful breakdown by the end.
While producers are often taught and encouraged to manipulate and exploit cast members, many have moral qualms about this, especially when they see the impact it has had on people they worked closely with and oftentimes genuinely cared for. I’ve spoken with several who feel regret about things they’ve done and want to see the industry change; who feel entertaining reality television can be made without harming cast members in this way.
These producers have also talked about questionable casting practices. While some shows are carefully screening participants, others are using the interviews and psychological evaluations to intentionally select people who will exhibit problematic behavior. One producer explained how they chose people who were likely to be volatile but not so unstable as to be a liability.
Whom Do We Hold Responsible?
Too often, when something like this happens on a reality TV show, we blame the specific cast member(s) involved. We, the public, judge and criticize them, and we aren’t quiet about it. And this isn’t entirely misplaced; people need to be held accountable for their actions, particularly when they cause harm. There are certainly situations when cast members should be called to answer for their behavior.
But we can hold cast members accountable while also recognizing the impact of an industry that needs to change because it is not consistently an ethical, better-regulated, safe place to work. Cast aren’t filming under normal circumstances. In fact, people from many shows (and across time) have told me how their functioning and decision-making were impaired because they were tired, hungry, thirsty, and emotionally heightened.
And remember, this isn’t in their heads. Only days ago, I spoke with a producer who said her higher-up lauded and encouraged the use of “the three D’s: deprive, dehydrate, drunk.” These strategies make people more emotional, reactive, and impulsive. Is it really fair to place sole blame on cast members when they are being mistreated in this way?
It’s easy to blame cast members when the common belief is, “They knew what they were signing up for.” However, many times there isn’t true informed consent about what they might experience. They are not always told the extent of the challenging conditions they’ll be asked to endure. And many cast members have told me they were made promises that alleviated any such concerns; producers who reassured them that they would be taken care of, not deprived of necessities, and given a good edit.
The industry as a whole needs to be held accountable. It needs universal standards of care. Yet somehow we’ve accepted that we should only blame cast members and not have empathy or consider context, and that needs to change.
It’s Time for Real Duty of Care
There should be a clear expectation of duty of care. Cast members should be fully informed of what they will go through, supported during filming, and provided with sufficient aftercare once the filming ends and when the show airs. And there should be a standard of what that means across the industry; it shouldn’t be something individual shows decide.
This isn’t some pipe dream; Ofcom, the UK’s independent regulator for communication industries including broadcasting, enforces standards of treatment in broadcasting. It has worked to create a stricter duty of care expectation in response to numerous complaints and significant concerns about the welfare of participants.
It is encouraging to see the public get increasingly shocked and enraged by what they witness on reality TV shows. Viewers are not passive consumers, and they want to be able to enjoy the shows they’re watching without worrying about cast members’ safety. The public is ready for change; it’s time for the industry to catch up.
