"If a crew member is found guilty of the allegations, that person will be dismissed."

Big Brother Media Spokesperson

Okay, so if you didn't know (surely, you do), The Telegraph today broke the story of the $2000 bet made by a senior Big Brother production member (as well as many other suspiciously large bets placed at the same time), for Brigette, a day before she was given the boot by the Australian public - or, as the buzz now ponders, maybe by the show. I've now received more emails about this, than on any other issue, so far, this season. It's a fascinating, strangely timed scandal, on the back of what has been a rather scandalous week or two for Big Brother. It has left many major betting houses closing shop on Big Brother betting, as bookie after bookie happily sticks their hand up to ask if Big Brother is a rigged race. I'm not going to bother analysing the bigger picture. I'm just going to give you my personal idea on what has happened. At the end of the day, nobody is in the position, bar a few people on the inside, to say what really happened. But, even so, I think there's a few points lost on those now reacting, as always, with more emotion than logic, as well as those who will report on the situation with their own commercial agendas. So here's what I make of this, and what I'd like you to consider before making your mind up on the possible light this has shed on the dubious "reality" of Big Brother world.

The relationship that we have seen, this year, between Big Brother and Centrebet, is one that struck me right at the very beginning, on the launch show. There was a scene I wasn't expecting, where a "charismatic" Centrebet "bookie" (which is really just a show, because Centrebet has no actual bookies) starred in a little mock horse-racing performance some producer or writer had dreamt up, showing the "odds" of housemates, just an hour into the season. It was rather clear: Big Brother had finally brought in Centrebet, and, after a few boardroom meetings, had struck a cross-branding deal (where one business negotiates a contract that serves both products through cross-promoting each other). I thought it ominous, I must say, that the show was now an official bedfellow of one of the most dubious modern gambling agencies in the country (alongside the others who would all move in, as well). One and one make two - these were two partners not exactly known for their ethics.

This continued, as the show went on, and gambling ads (also for Lassiters and Sportingbet) were now being disguised as parts of the actual show, or even in media avenues as "journalism". Brunero never failed to produce a weekly "story" about the evictee odds, and Goldman found them central to just about everything. Of course, they would tell you that this is the thinking of one of those horrible lefty "conspiracy" types, and that it was actually essential as an "interesting indicator" of the public consciousness. Okay, sure. Whatever. At the end of the day, the fact remained: here we were, repeatedly being told about the betting odds (if anyone would want to... say... put money in their pockets, by placing a bet), even though, if you think about it logically, how much is this really an aspect connected to the everyday Big Brother viewer? Not much. Even less people bet on Big Brother, as they do phone vote. This game is about numbers, isn't it? About the power of the largest collective? But the thing about betting is that the money generated is so big, it only takes a relatively small number of betters (in comparison to phone vote revenue) to make an absolute killing. The gambling industry has - quite obviously - convinced Big Brother (an opportunistic beast, if there ever was) that a more literal form of gambling would be the future of Big Brother. Considering that Big Brother as it had been conceived - as a lucrative co-exploitation with the advertising and marketing industry - was now losing its power (it says so much that a show once sponsored by major global car manufacturers is now brought to you by Pine-O-Clean), you can understand how the show was looking to the future, in new deals and industries that could use the show to profit. That is quite clearly an emphasis on the show's potential to generate something more lucrative than phone votes.  Hello, Centrebet! Lassiter's, Sportingbet... line up for some pie!

But, to be perfectly honest, I've not mentioned it much, because I, alas, come from the original bedfellow of advertising and marketing (and it still is, of course; it's just shoved over a little to welcome the new lover of the gambling industry). I don't particularly know anything of this particular kind of integration between media and an extrenal entity. I know jack about the gambling industry! All I know is that when two industries like this get together, you'd be a fool not to think that large amounts of money were not going to "test" the boundaries that people like you and I would think is ethically wrong. Human beings - and big businesses, of course - are funny things around big, fat wads of cash. They are not to be trusted.

And, so, I've continued to look at the show, rather, at the core level of being a show that manipulates its voting outcomes, by manipulating the choices people make in these votes. I've never really put it past them to twist the system, I guess - I've actually always suspected it might end up that way - but, for now, I don't think outright rigging votes is something the show should (or would) consider actually doing. I may be wrong. But to me, I just don't see it, when you look at the actual show. Sure, they'd want to still deliberately build up and control public hatred and affection - it's essential, completely separate to the voting, in terms of creating a gripping show that people want to watch. And I even think that maybe this has been toyed with, in some way, at a couple of moments in the show. I, for one, never really shook the feeling that something was up with the "mistake" of Bree Amer's infamous eviction. But, ultimately, I don't buy that the votes are rigged. Although, having noted Centrebet's presence, I couldn't help but wonder if this was where the show would finally be corrupted, once and for all.

For me, I stick to my guns, and I think the proof is in the pudding for the case of Brigette's eviction. There is no way they wanted that girl to be evicted - we knew that. She was providing so much attention - even press attention, which has been so scarce on the ground for them, this year - and they may not have wanted her to win (I think they'll be happiest with Terri, personally), but they wanted her there to the very end. She was, aside from Rory, the glue that held such an important demographic for them (teenage girls) to the screen. And, yes, she was set for the other cross-branding of Big Brother, with the soft porn men's mag industry (Zoo has also managed to score a cosy spot in the bed). They did not want her out. There is no way I can conceive them wanting her lost from our screens.

They tried. God bless them, they tried their little hearts out. They tore their "mature" housemates to shreds, in her name. They all but gave a starring role to her father. They reminded us, every ten seconds, how great she was. Jackie stood there on the stage and happily told the crowd what to think ("I'm really glad to see Brigette and Cherry get together, aren't you?!"). The forumboards were ablaze with ridiculously heated battles between Brigette "lovers" and Brigette "haters". C'mon, they made that little whiny brat - one of the most horrible, young women I've ever seen on my television screen - a Star of this season. 

But they fucked it up. Plenty people bought it - the young teenybopper demo were successfully enthralled, some even finding her a brilliant symbol of her generation (what a depressing thought!). But too many people hated her. For one, there were the viewers that had been left lingering, after their favourites - who had nearly all come under Brigette's painful little wrath (Dixie, for one) - were gone, and all they had left was someone they hated as a very different kind of symbol. Secondly, there were the people who were, yes, beginning to rebel against their beloved TV show because they had finally caught on to just how contrived so much of it is - these people saw Brigette, a girl the production was clearly favouring, as a symbol of that. There was still the class resentment of the working class (their core audience, these days) who were not persuaded by the show's offer of the "tell it like it is" underdog. And then, yes, in rolled Eric. Realistically, the "Brigette haters" believed him and the "Brigette lovers" heralded him (quite viciously, mind you) a fraud. Wow, what surprise. But, again, there were no save votes - only the power of hatred - and so this certainly didn't help the situation, by fuelling the hatred of those ringing in the evict votes. If you think about it, there was plenty against Brigette.

Still, they were going to fight it, sure. They'd saved Rory (the week before, at Terrence's expense) and, perhaps, they got a little cocky. But this one fucked up. They made sure we saw lots of unbecoming scenes of Ben, and even Travis had started getting a bad wrap. And yes, they also wanted to keep Rory, again (particularly, with the arrival of Pammy) - and did - and this is, still, their ultimate triumph, so far. But, that said, they've also done a pretty good job, for a while now, with Terri. But it was Ben they would have wanted on that card. With Bianca now gone, and with a surprisingly small fanbase (but every year, a couple of them slip through the cracks), there really is no point for him, production-wise. But, Ben stayed. So, yes, they lost. Poor little Big Brother.  

And what everyone seems to have missed - what actually shows that it really isn't rigged - is where the dodgy producer actually steps into the picture. Somehow, this dodgy producer knew that Brigette's number was up - they knew that on Tuesday, a day before the actual eviction. Now, who's to say what that connection is a part of? That's the question, I suppose, at the heart of this, too. If this producer knew, how did he or she know? Why did he or she know? The suggestion that the show is rigged thinks that the producer knew because it was actually the decision, not of the public, but of their own - a decision that, by Tuesday, had already been made. Is that the scene? Was there a meeting of producers, where the outcome was "Brigette's out", where one of the producers present in that meeting, then walked out - knowing the result - and bet a sure fire fortune on that result? 

Again, I'm not pretending to know the absolute answer, but I don't think so. What we do know, after all, is that not only do they have access to the progressive results of the tally, but that they also (hello) pay great attention to them. In fact, they would largely affect the production and editing (the slant) of the daily shows, etc, that happen during the voting period. In other words, once someone is really out in front, they know. I mean, we know that they know, that's not a revelation, they happily show us their supposed graphs, throughout the week. I don't, for a second, believe those graphs, no; but, even so, it still says to us, "We know what the results currently are". In reality, of course, these graphs are designed to motivate us to keep spending money on voting. 

So, Tuesday rolls in, and this producer realises that the odds of them getting a different result to Brigette are very slim. This producer likes money - producers tend to - and decides to make a little extra-curricular investment, exploiting his position. That's the problem here with the relationship between Big Brother and gambling. In no other "sport" do a select group of people have such control and knowledge, in regards to that result, before the result has officially been declared. Hello, it's asking for trouble. 

The thing is, if we look back at the actual eviction night (which I never ended up discussing, so here goes!), we should have known that it was quite clear who was about to be ousted. I'm happy to admit that, even though I had pondered the potential affect of Eric's arrival, I really didn't expect them to lose and see Brigette on that stage. But I had realised it was about to happen, before it actually did. About fifteen minutes into the show, it was quite clear. They knew. 

One of the things I've seen repeatedly cited as evidence the vote is rigged, is the "coincidence" of Brigette's parents being there. That's fair enough - I do concede that the  presence of the mother may have suggested that. But Albert was going to be there, anyway. He was there for the showdown with Eric. That was the plan, after all. That's the strange thing, here - Eric was nabbed for that show, under the belief that Brigette would not be evicted. In terms of television production, he was given a slot of that show, and he sat there, in that spotlight, for one reason - for the showdown over his allegations that Brigette was, in fact, an obsessed liar, who had bashed a girl from jealousy, only a fortnight before entering the house. That's pretty full on, and it was about to give Big Brother 2008 the biggest drama, yet. But it didn't happen. On came Eric, and... well.... nothing. "No comment," he said. "Smart boy," replied Sandilands. Yes, the boy did as he was told. At that moment, I knew: Brigette was coming out.

The fact that they had gone through with that appearance shows how someone important, somewhere, was hanging on to the idea that Brigette could be saved. But someone, the day before, clearly knew that it was all going to be in vein. Who knows how long that took to trickle down the chain and be conceded by everyone in a decision-making position, but by the time that show went to air, they knew. And, yet, they stood there, mind you, and egged everybody to pick up their phones, spend their money, and exercise that ultimate reality TV power. Rubbish. All of it. They knew. They just wanted you to spend more money.

So don't think that my personal belief that the vote was not rigged (and was, in fact, a disaster for the show, rather than a manipulative triumph) fool you. It still showed us how false the output of this show is. And what it also shows is how we can buy into the illusion, at the expense of forgetting that it is, sometimes, just that - an illusion - and that beneath the contrived exterior of that show (one that would have had us believe "Briggy" was an Aussie TV dream come true) reality actually showed Reality TV up to be... well... bullshit. And to be mildly bleak, but realistic, they've had plenty of times when their bullshit has won (and we've complied, and made it reality), and will have many more, yet. They're not totally screwed - they've got Rory and Terri still in there. So, hey, we might as well enjoy the smirk of knowing they lost one of their Stars. 

And you know, when all is said and done, whilst it's important you - as a BB fan - to stop and consider this "scandal", and what it means about your participation (as a consumer) in this show... well... I also want to offer some perspective, or, at very least, a reminder that such instances work best when reminding us to place the same energy in other - more important - situations.

Because, by the morning following their Star's departure, even though people were still dying in Iraq, and an entire country was violently oppressed by a dictator in Zimbabwe, and one of the countries with the worst human rights records was managing to out-PR the Dali Lama - even though we were about to have our freedom of protest legally quashed, here in our own country, to lick the ass of one of the most oppressive and corrupt religious organisations in the world - there appeared, in cyberspace, a petition. And on comment and forum boards, across the country, there was an outrage. Hundreds of young people signed this petition and demanded an investigation to be made...

...into the eviction of Brigette from Big Brother.

Ah, modernity. Get a load of it.