The show Intervention is well
known for following individuals with substance abuse, alcoholism and
other addiction related issues, and documenting their daily lives.
This article, however, raises the concern that the producers should
be obligated to prevent the individuals from committing potentially
harmful acts to themselves and to other civilians.
The particular instance that sparked
the debate on the topic involved allowing one of the subjects to
enter their vehicle and proceed to drive around intoxicated. Allowing
any individual to commit drunk driving is condemn-able and incredibly
irresponsible and dangerous. Unfortunately, A & E, the producers,
did not take any action to prevent this from happening in an attempt
to increase their ratings. The particular subject, Pam, is a well
known alcoholic, who unfortunately, was allowed to drive her vehicle
while being blatantly intoxicated on camera. The cameramen made an
offer to drive, but did nothing more when the request was brushed
off.
The producers defend themselves by
stating that they are treated like witnesses: they bear no
responsibility to intervene. The notion that “Television producers
are not policemen,” is also brought forward, hoping that it
absolves them from scrutiny. Regardless of whether they have legal
obligations, do the producers not feel like they have some moral
responsibility to save people’s lives? The subjects may have
committed the acts regardless of whether they were being filmed or
not, but as they were being filmed, is it ethical to allow them to go
through with it? The subject may not have been a friend or relative
of the producers, but that shouldn't absolve them of any
obligations.
The sentiment is likely shared with any
pedestrian near Pam when she was driving. Would they approve of the
producers allowing her to drive intoxicated in the community? The
bystanders have every right to feel angry towards the show for
putting their lives in danger; had the driver fatally wounded or
killed an pedestrian, the outcry would have been much worse.
Unfortunately, since they only observe these circumstances and do not
intentionally place the subjects in these situations themselves,
making a case for negligence is very difficult.
There are some recorded instances of
intervention by producers, fortunately. The camera men have had
situations where they prevented others from drunk driving, as well as
talking a man out of potential suicide. Regrettably, this isn't
always the case, as seen when one of the subjects overdosed on pills
she took off camera. The producers may not be entirely negligent, but
allowing any instance where they allow the subjects to put their own
lives and the lives of others in danger should be penalized.
I do feel like negligence from the
producers involving the safety of the individuals being filmed and
those of innocent pedestrians should not be tolerated and penalized.
From the legal standpoint, the producers are doing nothing wrong.
From an ethical and moral standpoint, however, they leave much to be
desired.
I strongly agree with what Jeremy said about legal and moral obligations. I do not care about the law whatsoever, I live by my own moral code. A&E allowing this woman to get into her car on national television and drive intoxicated just disgusts me. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/08/business/media/08reality.html?pagewanted=all In this article, the author goes into detail about how the actual event occurred on set and the producers’ reactions to it. He also talks about A&E’s legal counsel and how they responded to the incident when faced with lawsuits. Not only was Pam already intoxicated, but she stopped at the refrigerator on her way out to her car to take a “swig of vodka for the road.” The producers of the show did speak up however took little action to actually stop Pam from driving. The producers stated “You have had a lot to drink, do you want one of us to drive?” I just do not understand how they could continue to film her actions with little to no concern for her safety. However, I believe the absolute most cynical occurrence of this whole incident was A&E’s legal counsel’s reaction to the incident. Although I understand it is his job to protect his company, his lack of empathy for fellow human beings is disgusting. David Sternbach stated “The law in the United States doesn’t require you to step in and save people, and it doesn’t require you to stop a crime that’s in the works.” When someone is putting themselves into danger, it should be one’s moral obligation to help that person. The things that these producers will do in order to increase the ratings of their television shows are incredible. The counsel for these networks are just as crooked and their lack of empathy is inspired by monetary gain and personal reputation.
ReplyDeleteI agree completely with the moral obligation to not let these people put themselves into harms way. I’ve seen the show intervention and I thought that it was a pretty interesting show but I never thought about the things that the producers are letting them do. Letting someone put themselves and others lives in danger wont ever be ok and shouldn’t ever be thought of as ok no matter what the law says. There are certain things that may be “legal” in the eyes of a judge but aren’t morally right and I don’t think that is right at all. Although what is being done may be legal, that doesn’t make it right and nobody with morals would like this and especially the citizens that were on the road at the same time that this women was allowed to drive drunk and putting herself and everyone around her at risk.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that allowing the woman to drive drunk on television was morally wrong. The company was putting peoples' lives at risk, and it may of even made the people watching the show that driving drunk was okay. The show Intervention puts the shows rating in front of the health and concern of those watching and on the show. In the article that Kyle posted, the woman took a drink of vodka and then proceed to drive immediately after. Everything is wrong about this statement; if you drink right before you drive you need to re-evaluate your priorities. Although drinking and driving is not illegal if you are under the legal drinking threshold, there should be more focus on drinking and driving, as a large portion of fatalities happen from car accidents. It is morally wrong and as an adult she should know that what she is doing it putting lives at risk.
ReplyDeleteI too believe that the producers and faculty for the show should have a moral obligation to protect the lives of the general public and the lives of the subjects. However, you do include that there are instances of responsible action as well as negligence. This example isn't an all-the-time thing. Personally, I find it hard to prosecute A&E as a whole because I doubt that these company executives are on-location for the filming of every episode. Additionally, I think that it is fair to say that drug and alcohol abusers can be difficult to deal with, maybe even dangerous. To start a dispute every time the subject of these shows wants to do something can just cause unnecessary trouble. I just think it's important to offer another perspective before we question the morals of the producers and set members for "not" doing something in situations that we probably couldn't handle ourselves.
ReplyDeleteI'm not trying to say that letting the drunk woman to drive was okay. I'm just trying to look at it from a different angle.
DeleteLike what I commented on the previous post, I do agree with your opinion on this for the most part. The producers most definitely should have intervened before Pam got in the car, but I am also a firm believer in personal responsibility. Pam chose to drink and Pam chose to drive. We cannot have people dictating what actions we should and should not take, in other words I do not think the producers should be the ones taking all the blame. It is unfortunate that we live in a society where producers are so focused on getting good footage to air instead of stopping someone from doing something dangerous. At the same time, people should be held accountable for their own actions, but with something that dangerous the producers should have stepped in. It is good that Pam did not die or kill someone else and hopefully the show Intervention will help her get support so she does not jeopardize her life again.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the rest of my classmates. The show, Intervention, has been taken out of hand. They should not be allowed to put others in harm’s way just for television ratings. Most of these situations are life or death. Though they are correct when they say that they are not police, that doesn’t make up for the fact that they are letting these patients/people do such reckless things on television for everybody to see. For one, drinking and driving is horrible, period. The cast and crew should not have let this women get into her car while intoxicated. What if she hit a young child? It is very sad to see that some producers are just in this for the money and number of views. Even though nothing happened, it’s only going to be too late when something actually does. There comes a point where the line is crossed, and this is one of those situations when it definitely was. The article below further backs up how the show, Intervention, is a “scam” with their ways. After reading through it, many points are brought up that back up the fact that the want for popularity over powers the want to actually help the patients.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/07/21/the-new-ae-reality-show-intervention-with-jeff-vanvonderen-and-candy-finnigan.html
I agree with what everyone else is posting about this issue. I think it's absolutely wrong for producers to allow anyone who is intoxicated to get into their car and drive around. It’s obvious that they would allow that in order to increase their show ratings, which I personally think makes the situation worse. When someone’s life is being put at risk, the line has been crossed. Producers should not have allowed her to get into her car while aware of the fact that she had been drinking. Like Sheyda said, she could have killed another innocent person on the streets. How would the producers have felt then? It’s just obvious that it is morally wrong to allow someone who is drinking to get into a car and drive. While I do stand on this side of the issue, I can also see why it’s not completely the producers’ fault. Like Natalie said, I am also a firm believer in responsibility. People are held responsible for their own actions and Pam did decide on her own to drink and drive, but I still don’t find this as a reason to not stop her from getting in her car intoxicated.
ReplyDeleteObviously, the show went against their moral obligation when allowing someone to drive while intoxicated. Had a fatal accident occurred during this specific scenario, the member of this Intervention episode could have gone to prison for man slaughter. This makes them just as responsible as the one driving under the influence, as they are allowing innocent lives to be in danger. However, the purpose of the show Intervention is to illuminate the lives of someone who has succumbed to an addiction. They are able to shed light on the sensitive issues that revolve around someone with an addiction, such as, drinking and driving, to those who are lucky enough to not witness it firsthand. Regardless of their drive for ratings, by giving this person the responsibility of driving while intoxicated gives an indication to the public some of the things that occur on a daily basis. As Brennan said earlier, I am not trying to defend Intervention for allowing this woman to drive under an influence. I'm just trying to look at it from another perspective.
ReplyDeleteTo think that producers will allow anybody who’s under the influence to drive – for what, some good ratings? Is this even legal? Producers will continue to do these things until they have blood on their hands for allowing one of these individuals to go onto the road and kill an innocent pedestrian. I am glad to hear that camera men have stopped individuals from committing suicide that shows that there are some limits at least. I don’t know if anyone remembers the MTV show True Life. This show would have prostitutes, drug addicts, alcoholics, homeless, and anybody else that lived a rough lifestyle. Well imagine being a cameraman in that show. You have to choose between an uncontaminated/raw story or a story that was in a way butchered? Look at it this way: if you let people make those mistakes and maybe one of the viewers of the show sees that ordeal him or her might not make that mistake. The viewer might relate to your footage and save themselves from becoming the essentially monsters that you’re filming.
ReplyDeleteFrom reading the article, I do not believe that anyone on the production team of the Intervention show had any intention of putting the subject or anyone else in danger. As you have already stated Jeremy, the cameramen did make an offer to drive for the woman, but no one on the production team necessarily had the authority to interfere with the woman. Sure, the team could have chosen to intervene, and that would have been the best moral choice for them. However, if anyone is to blame, I feel the intoxicated woman is entirely at fault. The point of this show is to cure people of their dangerous and reckless habits. Sometimes that means the subject must be shown how dangerous the lifestyle they are leading is. The airing of this show is also likely to bring awareness to the dangers of driving while intoxicated, which is a plus.
ReplyDelete