I clicked on the Piers Morgan show on youtube and naturally found a format that thrives on the hype of agitation, both from the guests on the panel and the viewers.
In the short channel info it is said:
Piers Morgan Uncensored is the global arena for fearless debate, bold opinions and major interviews.
I could end this post here,
because every internet user knows very well that excitement and sensation brings clicks.
If you know that, you don't need to take a channel like this show seriously at all. I doubt it's serious, but when you're running a show business, the content is interchangeable, but the revenue is not. So the business is serious, but what goes into a programme is not necessarily so.
Since "gender topics" became the new kid on the block, the show biz does take it up since it arouses so much emotion.
Let's stay in the world of sport.
Because men have recently started coming out as women (LoL) and professional sports organisations have adopted political correctness by making "inclusion" possible, guys have been admitted to the women's teams in the professional sports competition, outranking them.
Inadmissibly, they received their winners' trophies, although it is of course immediately clear to everyone that men are usually superior to women in sporting terms. Because this is the case, exceptions merely confirm this biological rule.
It will therefore not prevail that we as spectators want to watch swimmers or runners winning predictably.
Viewers want suspense and an uncertain ending,
but if this is taken away from them in advance, they will eventually turn away bored.
Since it is also foreseeable that the majority of the common people are simply men and women and do not (because they cannot) "change" their sex, nobody needs to worry that the world of sports business will continue down the path that some organisations have taken.
They will get rid of their own sources of profit. As soon as that is the case and the profits fail to materialise, they will change their minds and do business as usual.
Back on the show
One cannot even be certain that all panel guests on a popular show act for real.
I've been in the PR- and advertisement business myself. We had some fun going on in producing pilots for talking formats and were as fake characters advised to take over a certain rigid position. It was chosen who is going to be the provocative character, for example.
Not for a moment we, as the actors behind the scenes, would have thought of the watching audiences to really take for granted what we sold as our statements and viewpoints. If a person of the modern world still does not get this, I call it a miracle.
So, for the sake of entertainment, which every ordinary publication ultimately can be seen, and for the fun of having the luxury to talk about this stuff, let me get some points raised.
Open category
I picked up on a comment made. One commentator suggested:
Here’s an actual solution: in every sport there should be three categories - Men’s, Women’s, and Open. Either compete with those matching your biological sex, or in the Open category. Problem solved.
Good point. If people were really interested and wanted this open category, they would have created it long ago. My guess is that there is not enough interest in such a category. The "Me-tooer's" are more interested to shout 'me too' instead of having to work themselves. Because, it sells to say "me, too." If it stops to sell that might happen, though.
Panel guests like James who presents the illusion of opening up the only-female or only-male spaces and having athletes compete by body weight and mass, regardless of their sex, could actually think this "open category" idea through consistently and ask themselves how this would be received in the reality of sports. It would maybe be an interesting experiment. Instead of insisting to be welcomed as a dude into the women's locker rooms.
The business person in me answers: Well, if someone would think this to be profitable, they would straight go for it and monetize it.
Now, "dudes walking naked in ladies changing rooms"
are going to be proceeded in real courts and I would like to be the humorous judge who has to make a verdict. At least, in my mind. ;)
But since James seems to be invited only as a whipping boy to put an opposing and extreme position on air, the form of moderation and course itself can be termed predictable.
If the positions are fixed from the outset,
then it's not very interesting to follow a debate. So, you can say for talking formats the same as for sports. If the outcome is that you will have a losing guest and a winning side, why watch it?
I personally don't take particular schadenfreude in seeing an interview guest booted out, I would actually find it more interesting if the presenter or one of the guests managed to arouse an authentic interest in James and, conversely, put him in a position to let intelligent questions run from his lips. As it is, however, everyone stifles each other and talks at cross-purposes.
They all fulfill their roles,
but boy, would it delight me if one of the guests or interviewees actually would spoil the usual and have the audience surprised by genuine interest in another human being. Maybe, I am always hoping for a surprise of this sort coming, and therefor don't click away. Stupid me! :D Or not?
But really, some rare times, this happens indeed and you get some impulsive and angry participant on the show becoming thoughtful and responsive. In a good and truly entertaining way, I shall say. I like to have the nice imagination that a briefed guest deviates from his role without authorisation and cheats everyone in a charming manner.
This form of sensational format is nevertheless successful,
probably because we generally don't take it seriously. And we shouldn't. I shouldn't. HaHa! Once in a while I tend to forget that it is not serious and that almost everything on the screen is mere entertainment and killing time.
But be careful! It's also the devils machine and can get you all sucked in and take it for real.