Yes, I put the big toe in the playground of my comrade Hugo Dumas. This is a chronicle on Double occupation. Once is not custom.
Posted at 11:52
At this point, all of Quebec knows the facts: the production of the reality show at Noovo ousted three candidates for the offense of intimidation, because the three “bros” were obnoxious to a rival by being mean to him, then ousting the chosen one from his heart, hoping that their target will consecrate his camp (which he quickly did)…
It was all filmed.
It was all aired.
All this was the subject of extracts broadcast in promotion.
For Productions J and for Noovo, the little nasties committed and said by the three participants, it was simply good TV. Drama! Nasty ? Well no, listen to the benevolent Jay du Temple who narrates the whole thing with nice-nice blagounettes…
Except that after the broadcast of the eviction of the sweetheart of the whipping boy, there was discomfort in the audience. Sorry, no: on social networks, first. The voices of inclusion denounced the “bullying” suffered by this poor boy whose name I have forgotten.
As the controversy grew, the production dispatched two people to Martinique to “educate” the participants ofDouble occupation at the risk of intimidation.
Not pretty, bullying. Not nice, bullying. Wrong. Don’t be intimidated, young people!
Productions J was obviously quick to let it be known that these two “experts” had been dispatched to Martinique to re-educate the young participants. See how responsible we are! We take action against bullying!
The debate, moreover, has been going on for more than a week on bullying.
I would like to crop it, a little.
Bullying is all about perspective. Personally, on the broad spectrum of bullying, I haven’t seen much to climb the curtains on in the context of a reality show like that. My take: These maneuvers are no more intimidation than a check is violence to an Olympic hockey player.
Maybe I’m in the field on “bullying,” but that’s not even my point. No, what interests me in this saga is the hypocrisy of each other.
That of Julie Snyder’s box, Productions J, first. These people filmed the trio at work. They skilfully and finely edited their words and their actions. They saw fit to send these footage to the broadcaster. And they promoted it.
For the production, it was good TV, perfectly broadcastable. Highly diffusible, even. The DNA of such a show. Drama! We can imagine that the broadcaster Noovo approved the edit submitted by Productions J, because that’s how it works on TV: the producer submits the edits to the broadcaster, the broadcaster gives the final OK. Then we broadcast.
The hypocrisy of the channel, precisely: Noovo has chosen to broadcast these crisp sequences.
Everyone was happy, at Productions J and at Noovo.
But there, when the controversy did not want to die, what was announced? That two specialists were sent to Martinique to educate the participants ofDouble occupation on the perils of bullying…
But the controversy continued to grow. On the platforms, a hashtag even appeared, perfectly in sync with the times: #CancelOD. Whoops…
This is where something really disturbing happened, for Julie Snyder and for Noovo. A really “problematic” thing, to use the catch-all term of the digital popes and popesses of the absolute rectitude of the time: sponsors decided to cut ties with Double occupation !
A sponsor, first…
A second.
Then a third…
And it is there, and only there, that Productions J and Noovo judged that the behavior of the three boys had become ina-cce-ptable!
I note that the three sponsors withdrew their marbles only when the controversy began to swell on social media and not at the time of the broadcast. As long as it didn’t put the consumer off too much, these sponsors didn’t care about “intimidation”. No, what was shown on screen became “incompatible with the values” of these companies only when the wind of digital storms became inconvenient, not when the images were released…
Question: if the three “bullies” were fired from the production, will the people who authorized the broadcast of these “problematic” images be fired, too?
It’s a rhetorical question, no need to answer, Julie…
I end with the participants. These protagonists voluntarily agree to serve as a circus beast to make themselves known to a large audience. However, after 20 years of reality TV of the genre in Quebec, if they do not know that their psychological and reputational well-being is not the absolute priority of shows like Double occupationyou should know better.
These participants are also guilty of hypocrisy: they know very well that “finding love” is a pretext in ODthat thousands of people find love every day, far from a TV set filmed from all angles…
It’s not love, the aim of the game, to Double occupation, for attendees. They know that. The game serves two purposes.
One, make yourself known, multiply your ” reach on Instagram and other platforms.
Two, earn cash. Either by “winning” OD… Or else via the celebrity that participation in the show brings.
There is no injustice in this saga, there is only vast hypocrisy from all parties involved: from the broadcaster, the producer, the scalded sponsors and, yes, the participants…
The rest is just social media noise and outrage. plywood.