Year 7 topic briefings.

General Notes:

 Engage with the full spectrum of stakeholders – In any debate if you look at the different stakeholders, you’ll often find that there are subgroups that will be affected or behave in different ways. For example in this week’s potential debates that could include: o Reality TV shows that film people’s reactions to living in a particular environment for a sustained period of time, or reality TV shows that show people competing for a particular prize; o Celebrities that commit violent crimes or celebrities that have attained that position because they have controversial opinions on issues; and o Rap songs that discuss violence as a means of the artist expressing the horrors they have seen, or songs that advocate committing violent crimes.

That Reality TV is neither real nor entertainment

What is Reality TV?

In a debate like this, it’s important that you look at lots of different types of reality TV and differentiate between those types. Often one team will only focus on TV shows like Master Chef and the Biggest Loser, while the other team will focus on shows like Survivor and Big Brother.

Shows that take individuals (whether they be members of the public, celebrities or experts) out of their comfort zone and film their reactions include:  Big Brother;  Survivor; and  I’m a Celebrity, get me out of here.

Shows that follow the lives of celebrities include:  Keeping up with the Kardashians;  The real housewives; and  Here comes Honey Boo Boo.

Shows that get people to compete in a particular environment include:  Master Chef;  The Apprentice; and  American/Australian Idol or Britain’s Got Talent.

Note that these are not the only types of reality TV, but they’re useful distinctions to be aware of.

It’s important to note that some arguments will be more applicable than to a particular type of show than others. For example, the reactions on Survivor are more likely to be realistic than the reactions on Keeping up with the Kardashians. Make sure that when you’re providing your analysis you try to explain which group the analysis applies to and, if it applies to multiple groups, the different ways that it will apply to those groups.

What constitutes Real?

In a debate like this, it’s important that you attempt to set up a metric/definition for reality (e.g. how do you measure what is real or not). This is important because if you don’t explain what you mean by reality, then each team will likely just be asserting something is real and something is not, without any further engagement.

Coming to an appropriate definition of reality is not easy. Obviously, scripted TV shows that are filmed in studios are not real. If you are on the affirmative, you might want to argue what constitutes reality, is the presence of natural reactions to natural situations. This would be a useful definition of reality, because it would mean that shows like Keeping up with the Kardashians, which often are partially scripted, are characterised as being a poor reflection of reality. Similarly, shows that capture real reactions to artificial situations, like Big Brother and Survivor, are also excluded from being characterised as real.

If you are negating the topic, you would want to argue that what makes these shows portray reality is the fact that they reflect the human condition. When someone is scared of a spider on Survivor, has to confront their nerves when they’re about to sing on Britain’s Got Talent, or deal with failure in the form of a burnt meal on Master Chef, they are portraying emotions and challenges that people have to deal with. We might not always encounter these situations in the same way the contestants do, but we go through similar and relevant experiences. It’s by empathising with these people and the actual struggles they encounter that reality TV becomes real and important.

What constitutes entertainment?

Entertainment is an entirely subjective notion. What I find funny or interesting, you may not. For this reason, it’s important that you don’t try to argue in terms of broad sweeping statements. Saying that nobody finds Master Chef or Honey Boo Boo entertaining is obviously a lie. Saying that everybody finds The Apprentice or The Voice is also obviously a lie.

For this reason, you should then argue that reality TV either is or isn’t entertaining relative to other shows and activities if you are on the Negative or Affirmative respectively.

Where should you take this debate?

If you’re on the Affirmative, it might be useful to argue that it is beneficial to recognise Reality TV as being neither real nor entertaining because:  The perception that it is real may create false expectations for how someone will experience something, or will react to something. These in turn are harmful because when people undertake a particular activity they may not be aware of the dangers (think about someone who watches a lot of Bear Grylls or watched a lot of Steve Irwin, and was ignorant to the risks associated with that activity) or the impacts it may have on them. By removing this perception people may be more willing to question what they see.  The belief that these shows are real and entertaining may prompt people to watch them when there are other more interesting and beneficial shows to watch. For example, you might be able to learn more about the human condition by watching a Shakespeare play than by watching Big Brother, but people might be more willing to watch Big Brother, because they wrongly expect it to reflect the human condition better.

If you’re on the Negative, it might be useful to argue it is harmful to not recognise Reality TV as being real or entertaining because:  This might trivialise the hardship and the success of the people that perform on the shows. (Consider how difficult it must be for someone to perform on The Voice or on Master Chef. If you tell everyone that these shows aren’t real then this might make people question how impressive it is that the person has performed on these shows.)  This might make us misidentify what human nature is. (Suppose someone disbelieves most of the reactions they see on Big Brother are not realistic, or don’t believe that people would actually scheme like they do on Survivor, then you may be promoting people to be in a state of ignorance [assuming that you prove these reactions are real to some extent].)

Extra reading:

Story about how much of MasterChef is real (a bit of a puff piece): http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/reality-tv/the-secret-ingredients-producers- use-to-cookup-masterchef-that-viewers-dont-realise/news- story/db6cc4986ed37f07807deefd9cad92cd

Claims Big Brother is rigged: http://uproxx.com/tv/a-former-big-brother-15-employee-claims-that-the-reality-show- is-rigged/

That we should ban misbehaving celebrities from entering Australia

Does the government prevent people (anyone) from entering Australia?

Australia has the right to prevent people from entering the country. We currently do this to lots of people, often on the grounds that they have prior criminal convictions. The government has discretion when exercising it prerogative prevent people from entering the country. This debate suggests that the government should exercise its discretion to prevent celebrities from entering Australia, when they might otherwise let that person in because of their celebrity status.

Who are misbehaving celebrities?

The Australian government has prevented many celebrities (of differing levels of fame) from entering Australia. These include:  Snoop Dogg – In 2007 the government prevented Snoop from entering Australia because he had several drug and gun convictions and immediately before entering the country had been involved in a fight at Heathrow airport (the main airport in London). There was a petition in 2014 to have Snoop prevented from entering the country again.  Chris Brown – Prevented from entering Australia after he assaulted and threatened to kill his then girlfriend Rhianna.  Troy Newman – Troy is an anti-abortion campaigner who advocates killing doctors who perform abortions, and his advocacy group has been liked to a murder. In 2015 Troy was denied access to Australia, but still caught a flight to Victoria and was detained in Melbourne airport.

In this debate, it is important to recognise that celebrity may include more than just famous singers. The example of Troy Newman is particularly relevant to people who are informed about various pro-choice groups (people who think women should have the right to abortions, and access to those abortions) and pro-life groups (people who think that abortion is immoral and should be prevented).

What are the benefits?

 You send a message that the government does not approve of this behaviour. When the government stops Chris Brown from entering the county because of his domestic assault charges, the government signals that they care about domestic assault and do not want to allow people who commit these crimes to go unpunished.  Arguably, by preventing these people from coming to Australia you prevent them from establishing a following Australia. When Troy Newman can’t come to Australia, he can’t speak to his followers, he can’t meet new people and try to convince people to follow his way of thinking. This hopefully prevents the spread of his ideas.

What are the Harms?

 In cases like Troy Newman, you artificially limit freedom of speech, because he can’t communicate his ideas in the way that he would like to. You would first have to prove that freedom of speech is important and that it should be protected.  This can also attract more attention to the person you are trying to silence than would have otherwise occurred. Troy Newman was relatively unknown to people who weren’t particularly interested in the pro-life movement. When he was banned from entering Australia, he got a lot more media attention than he would have if he had come, because he made a lot of news headlines.  The government may be punishing people for a second time. Chris Brown argued that he is incredibly sorry for what he did to Rhianna, and would have happily come to Australia and run talks about the harms of domestic violence, but by locking him out he can’t do that, and he now is being punished twice for a crime he committed.  Some argue it is hypocritical for the government to prevent some people from coming into Australia on the grounds they have committed a crime (e.g. Chris Brown for domestic assault) when the government does so little to actually help victims of crime or prevent that crime. The harm arises from the government seeming to have done something when, in effect, they haven’t done anything that will help people. Extra reading:

Analysis on whether the government was correct to prevent Chris and Troy from entering Australia: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-02/attard-chris-brown-and-troy-newman- visas/6822028

Story about Snoop Dogg being barred from entering Australia in 2007 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/apr/26/australia.barbaramcmahon

Story about a petition to prevent Snoop from entering Australia in 2014 http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/music/petition-to-have-big-day-out-headliner- snoop-dogg-barred-from-entering-australia-20140114-30slc.html

That we should ban rap songs with violent lyrics

What is the problem with violent lyrics in rap songs?

The extent to which media violence causes youth aggression and violence has been hotly debated for more than fifty years. Researchers in the US say there is conclusive evidence that media violence increases the likelihood of aggressive and violent behaviour. TV and movies violence is the most researched. The public however is largely unaware of this.

Music is important in our society. We have used music to express ourselves, tell stories, and let others into our thoughts. But many rap songs have lyrics that deal with sex, drugs and violence. Hip-hop is often violent, misogynistic and with homophobic lyrics, but rappers aren’t the only ones who get on the mic and say messed-up stuff. All sorts of artists are prone to writing wildly inappropriate lyrics, and sometimes, their poor taste lands them at the top of the charts.

The most popular video games played by youth contain violence. Studies show that the average teenager listens to approximately 40 hours of music in a week. Somewhere in the mix a child is going to hear something derogatory or objectionable. But does the child fully understand what the artist is saying? In one study only 30 percent of those questioned knew the lyrics to their u songs and they all had varied comprehension as to what the message was.

However popular, singing about gross, ugly, violent distasteful things seems likely to glorify, trivialise and normalise them, while it makes the creators both popular and rich.

Morally, this sounds like it is not right. It gives the tick to attitudes that are not socially acceptable. Practically, it causes harm by spreading bad ideas and models of behaviour that are damaging to others. But listening to music ALONE does not drive people to kill. Music videos are the ones that provide detail and suggestion that is very explicit. The songs alone ….well - maybe you ignore the words and skip the meaning and just get down with the beat.

How effectively can they be banned?

On the affirmative you would want to explain that this could be done through a variety of means. First, the government can prevent the sale of the song on various platforms (e.g. you wont be able to access the song on ITunes, Pandora or Spotify). Second, the government can prevent the song from being played on the radio. Third (and perhaps more controversially) the government could prevent the song from being accessible from Australian IP addresses (e.g. you wont be able to get onto YouTube from an Australian computer, unless you are using a proxy).

Even if people are still able to access the songs through proxies, the vast majority of people wont be able to do this because they don’t have the technical ability, and for those who do, only a few will have the desire to hear the music.

On the negative, you shouldn’t argue that this wouldn’t be able to stop people accessing violent rap songs. You should assume that it would be successful at stopping people hearing violent rap songs. However, you might want to argue that people will still be able to access violence through a variety of other means: non-rap songs; films; the news; and novels.

Why might we want to ban these songs:  Being exposed to violence can lead to people being violent. This is known as the Media Effects Theory  Lots of these songs are particularly offensive because they discuss inflicting violence against women. The potential harms of this include: o Hearing the lyrics can remind victims of domestic abuse and violence of the trauma they have already experienced, and inflict further harm; o There is the potential for people to become normalised (e.g. they no longer find it offensive) to violence against women. o There is the potential for people to think that violence, in particular violence against women, is a necessary part of rap culture.  There is no great harm to the artist from doing this. Many artists create explicit versions and non-explicit versions of songs (e.g. some with swear words and some without). The artists can re-record the song as a non-explicit version, without any great harm.  The violence is often not central to the message/intention of the song, so it’s removal doesn’t significantly alter the meaning of the song.

Why might we not want to ban these songs:  Of all the things that make a song popular, lyrics might be the least important. “If the beat is right,” Chris Rock once said, explaining the widespread appeal of vulgar rap songs, even among females, “she’ll dance all night.”  There is no proof that listening to these songs leads to people being violent or perpetrating violence against women. (E.g. the Media Effects Theory isn’t valid). The reasoning is as follows: Violent people commit violent crimes, and those people are drawn to violent music, rather than violent music making these people violent.  This doesn’t prevent people from being exposed to violent and sexist themes. Violence and sexism is still prevalent in film and other forms of media. This model does nothing to address that.  We should generally strive to uphold freedom of speech. This clearly curtails freedom of speech, and (importantly) only does it in a small racially oppressed culture.  This may be oppressive to African-American culture. White America has a long history of oppressing African-Americans and their culture. Rap has emerged as a way for many African-Americans to creatively and (mostly) peacefully forge a new cultural identity. To ban violent lyrics in only rap, rather than all music or media, appears to be continuing to oppress a minority that are attempting to forge a new cultural identity, and unnecessarily stigmatises this identity.  Some of the violence that is discussed in rap reflects the life experiences of these rappers. By denying them the ability to discuss it in their music, you are denying them a way of expressing (and recovering from) the horror that they have experienced.

Extra Reading: http://mediasmarts.ca/music/inappropriate-content-music

10 Reasons the Media Effects Theory is Wrong http://www.theory.org.uk/david/effects.htm

Freedom of Speech in Australia http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-17/a-helpful-guide-to-free-speech/7175442

 Supper and topic distribution are in the Prescott Hall, upstairs in Founders Building, Junior debates in N block,  Senior debates in W block  Firsts the OBLT underneath the library.  There is some parking available in the staff carparks at the front of the school, accessible from Stanmore Road.