The summer television lineup usually leaves much to be desired, and it seems that the programming is becoming more and more asinine, which is why I generally eschew television.

Monday, July 17, 2000

The summer television lineup usually leaves much to be desired, and it seems that the programming is becoming more and more asinine, which is why I generally eschew television. But, like every other voyeuristic American, my interest was piqued by CBS’s latest (silliest) endeavor – "Big Brother."

So far, the show that has 10 strangers living in a house with cameras everywhere (including above the shower and toilet) is tanking.

It’s an interesting premise: stick 10 strangers in a house with no privacy, dangle a $500,000 carrot in their face, eliminate them one by one and watch the whole process using the 40-some cameras positioned throughout the house. However, the premise is the only thing that’s interesting. The show, folks say, is dull.

Maybe the lack of success is because of another factor. Perhaps we simply are not ready to give up one of our most prized liberties – privacy.

Think of the original concept of George Orwell’s Big Brother in "1984." Big Brother was a mysterious entity that censored everyone’s behavior and even their thoughts.

Although the television show doesn’t script or sensor the behaviors of the house guests, it places the house guests under constant supervision. If you can recall from your 10th-grade literature class, constant supervision with the telescreens was what kept the characters of "1984" in line.

Certainly, the executives of CBS do not have some sort of insidious plan to brainwash the American public. But you can bet Big Brother does have an effect on the people being watched. So, either the house guests will be able to keep up a facade for the couple of months they are on the show, or they will grow weary of that, and their true colors will come through.

And when that happens, why would the American public want to continue to watch?

Part of protecting our right to privacy is respecting the privacy of others.

Yes, those 10 individuals knew what they would be giving up, but without the $500,000 prize, I doubt any of them would have signed away their privacy for three months or whatever the duration of the show happens to be.

Additionally, it’s a commentary on the American public. How low have American viewers stooped when they tune in to watch a show with bathroom cameras?

Shawnda Schelinder is associate editor of the Austin Daily Herald. Her column appears Sundays. E-mail her at shawnda.schelinder@austindailyherald.com