Who was that masked man?

FRIDAY, MARCH 31, 2017
|

TV producers who deliberately court controversy to boost ratings are sacrificing ethics

Overreaction is common enough on the social media, but in the case of popular TV talent show “The Mask Singer”, all the brickbats hurled at the producers in the past week have been deserved. The furore arose after viewers were led to believe that both finalists would be unmasked at the end of the penultimate episode. Their identities had been the subject of much gleeful speculation among fans. When that show closed with the winner still in disguise, viewers understandably felt cheated. They were forced to wait until final episode on Thursday night to find out who “The Durian” really was.
To delay the unmasking might not seem terribly unethical given that ratings are increasingly important in to broadcasters, but this particular incident suggests the industry is at the edge of a slippery slope to worse affronts. 
Ethics in the broadcasting industry have seen worse violations. Several years ago a TV show paid suspected criminals to appear and be interviewed. By now it’s no longer rare to see individuals of dubious moral standing – even if not proven felons – being paid handsomely to go on television. It’s a situation apt to worsen now that there are so many more TV channels competing for the same limited pools of ratings and advertising revenues.
The cliff-hanger approach on “Mask Singer” was little different from soap operas drawing out their season finales or talk shows keeping the audience waiting until the closing moments for a much-hyped pay-off. It’s an established means of keeping viewers glued to their screens as long as possible so that they see more ads. 
Contestants on Thai game shows have claimed the results are fixed in advance with ratings in mind, an accusation backed up by industry insiders. The fact that such charges no longer raise eyebrows suggests that rigging is now somehow morally acceptable. That line was crossed so long ago that it might as well never have existed.
The Twitter hashtag “RIPmasksinger” prevailed after the fiasco on the talent show, but the fans’ wrath is unlikely to kill the programme. For every faithful viewer who shuns the next season, many more new ones will be tuning in as a result of the negative publicity. Expectations of the singing contest’s death are probably premature. A stage concert is set for tomorrow and “Durian” – Isara “Tom” Kitnitchee of the band Room 39, as it tuned out – will be there.
If the strategy works, TV stations are heading down that ethical slippery slope by deliberately triggering social-media fury to generate more viewer interest. “The Mask Singer” could represent a watermark if its audience swells significantly as a result of public curiosity over the fuss. The studio behind “Mask Singer” has been scolded and harshly criticised on more than one occasion before, for actions that many people found even more deplorable, but it nevertheless remains one of the country’s most successful TV operations. 
Clearly the link between unethical practice and high ratings is no coincidence, but it takes two to tango, as they say in show business. If viewers turn their backs on programmes that toy with their feelings excessively and fail to meet expectations, the producers will suffer. If the shows keep pulling in high ratings, the studios won’t give ethics a second thought.
Such predicaments cannot be dismissed as a chicken-and-egg situation that adheres to the demand-and-supply dynamic. It cannot be argued that no one deserves blame. As long as the studios hold sway in the ratings, the onus is really on the public to reject deplorable practices, boycotting such programmes – and any other commercial product or service that warrants it.