Love Island Is Coming Back, But Should It?
Photo Courtesy: Wikimedia Commons
January 16th marks the return of Love Island’s winter edition, but as the ethics of reality TV have become a heated discussion in the media, it begs the question whether this is really a good thing.
Amongst reality TV shows, Love Island has garnered a particularly bad reputation regarding the mental health of its contestants, both during and after exiting the show. The tragic suicides of previous contestants Sophie Gradon and Mike Thalassistis, and former presenter Caroline Flack, have raised issues about how the show protects the individuals connected to it.
Considering whether Love Island has an ethical responsibility towards its contestants is a layered question. Arguably, the contestants’ voluntary entry to the show could make them liable for the effects that the show has on them. It’s no secret that the Islanders are scrutinised by both fans and the media during their tenure on the show, suggesting that when they sign up, they almost inevitably know about past incidents, and the show’s detrimental effects.
More contestable, however, is whether the show should really be headhunting for contestants. Some Islanders are cast after the producers have spotted them at clubs, or from local news stories, as opposed to the traditional application process. Presenting twenty-somethings with the opportunity to be on TV, and gain fame and money, puts them in a tempting position that is difficult to refuse. There’s no doubt that contestants should be given more media training, and more extensive therapy than the mere eight sessions that come in the “aftercare” package, however whether the effects of this can be mitigated is open to deliberation.
Love Island producers also notoriously edit storylines to sensationalise the show and make it more watchable, often demonising certain contestants whilst glorifying others. This is a common feature of reality TV shows, and often the very reason for their popularity. The idea of Love Island attempting to reduce this and make it more unbiased has been widely dismissed, lest the show become ‘boring’.
Perhaps the problem with Love Island isn’t the show itself, but us as an audience. Reality TV shows often appeal to the worst parts of us; our desire for gossip and drama is sated by the scandalous storylines Love Island offers. Furthermore, the damage to Islanders’ mental health is mostly due to feedback they receive on social media from ‘trolls’. This feedback isn’t dissimilar to that which celebrities receive, magnified by Love Island’s structure, where contestants are essentially voted for based on their likeability. The show itself is a mechanism for contestants to be judged, and social media increases the outreach that ‘haters’ have.
Whether opinions regarding Love Island contestants are solicited or unsolicited is also a valid question. Whilst the ‘game’ of the show includes couples being voted on and off, and people being chosen to ‘couple up with’, the show’s initiative puts contestants into a hierarchy, constantly judged by each other and the public. Of course, the hate that Islanders receive on social media is not solicited, but whether Love Island can truly contain or control the public opinion without fundamentally changing the basics of the show, or losing viewership is debatable. Hate towards contestants was far less widespread in very early seasons (when the show was arguably more controversial), but perhaps that was because social media hadn’t reached its current heights, rather than the direction of the show itself.
The problem isn’t whether reality TV has an ethical responsibility, but rather, now that social media has the reach that it does, can it be ethical at all? The popularity of the show lies in the viewers, not the production team.