When Nick Bateman entered the Big Brother house back in July 2000, one of the first UK contestants picked out of tens of thousands of hopefuls, he had no idea what was coming.
Thirty-five days later, he was asked to leave via the back door following his attempts to manipulate nominations. After a showdown with housemates led by the eventual winner, Craig Phillips, he returned to real life to find his face splashed across the tabloid front pages, and the nickname that remains to this day: “Nasty Nick.”
“You’re not trained for that,” Bateman tells Sky News. “You’re not trained in life, or school, or university, to be a normal person one day and well-known, famous – infamous – the next.”
Image: Craig Phillips, pictured with original host Davina McCall, went on to win the first series after his confrontation with Bateman
This weekend, Big Brotheris being revived by ITV and contestants now will be well aware of the millions of eyeballs on them. But back then, the inaugural housemates failed to believe anyone was really paying attention.
It wasthe start of the noughties reality TV juggernaut, paving the way for everything from Love Island and Britain’s Got Talent to the likes of Shattered (in which contestants were deprived of sleep) and the controversial There’s Something About Miriam, the dating show that cruelly exploited the fact it star was trans as a “twist” for the unwitting men vying for her attention.
Would reality TV have turned out differently, perhaps more kindly, had we never witnessed the scandal of that first series? The Nasty Nick drama was a ratings winner, lighting the flame for our obsession with real-life tension and controversy. From that moment on, producers on shows across the board were tasked with keeping it burning.
Bateman, who now lives in Australia, says duty of care back then was about “box-ticking”, with no support after your time on the series ended. The reaction to his “crime” was shocking but he was able to handle it. “Of course it upsets you but you have to be fairly thick-skinned because not everyone will like you,” he says, gamely. “It’s part and parcel if you’re in the public eye that you have to accept you can’t be universally loved.”
Image: Love Island has increased welfare packages for contestants in recent years. Pic: ITV/Lifted Entertainment
Other reality TV stars have not coped so well, and shows such as Love Island in particular have been criticised following the suicides of former contestants, and host Caroline Flack, with welfare packages for later series bolstered.
Now, there is increasing focus on duty of care, and Big Brother producers Banijay have announced a lengthy support programme for the new housemates as they prepare for instant fame. But for those glued to the drama, it’s also undeniable that the fights, squabbles and drunken antics have often made the best TV.
So can reality TV in 2023 be ethical and entertaining?
‘Generating strong emotions has to be handled carefully’
Image: Big Brother is back! Here’s how it looks in 2023. Pics: Initial TV/ITV
“There’s no doubt that what people like to see in broadcast productions is drama, and drama often involves heightened emotions – both positive and negative,” says Professor John Oates, chair of the British Psychological Society’s media ethics advisory group, who has helped develop guidelines for duty of care for broadcasters.
“It’s really how that’s managed and how that’s evoked, if you like, from the participants. That’s an ethical and moral matter, and I think we’ve come a long way in realising that deception, withholding information from people and doing what the industry calls ‘reveals’, may be unethical. And generating strong emotions has to be handled very, very carefully so that it still respects the dignity and the autonomy and indeed the privacy of the participants.”
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
It is increasingly recognised that being involved in a production such as Love Island or Big Brother can have long-term effects, says Professor Oates, and it could be argued that these types of shows encourage the “voyeuristic impulses” of viewers.
“I think most people are quite intrigued to see other people’s lives, partly because we don’t always know or think that we’re managing our own lives awfully well… and in shows like Big Brother, you are looking quite deeply inside other people’s lives. That could be seen as voyeurism.
“But it can also be said that this can be helpful to people, to see how people manage their lives, how they manage stress, so on and so forth. So there are positives and negatives, and managed well, reality TV can be beneficial to audiences.”
‘Entertainment does not need to be at the expense of welfare’
Katy Manley, managing director of producers Initial, part of Banijay UK, says Big Brother will return with an “authenticity and a rawness” that differs from the glossiness of Love Island.
And when it comes to the balance between ethics and entertainment, she says you can have both.
“Obviously we want entertaining content to happen in the house, but that does not need to be at the expense of anybody’s welfare,” she says. “That is the most important thing, our housemates and our whole team and our crew – everybody’s wellbeing is important.
“But that’s not exclusive of producing entertaining content. We’ve got so many experienced people there watching and ensuring that the support for the housemates is there, while we’re still getting good, exciting shows.”
Will the revival work?
For Bateman, almost 10,000 miles away on the other side of the world, there’s a sense of curiosity about the return of the show, which will be hosted by AJ Odudu and Will Best. Its success will lie in the casting, he says.
“It can work if the cast works, but if they get the casting wrong then it will just fall flat on its face… Big Brother is synonymous with what’s happened in the past, they can’t get away from it. And I think they’ll panic if they get low viewing figures or there’s no chemistry between the people.”
Producers should go back to basics, he says, and “not create situations or manufacture people to do things they don’t want to do”. And his last piece of advice? Perhaps they should have sought help from those who know it best.
“I think the best way to cast any shows like this is to get the ex-housemates to cast it, because obviously we’ve been there, done that – and we know the tricks.”
Gossip Girl actress Michelle Trachtenberg died as a result of complications from diabetes, New York City’s medical examiner has said.
The 39-year-old, who was also known for Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Harriet the Spy, was found dead at her home in New York City after officers responded to a 911 call on 26 February.
According to a source quoted by Sky News’ US partner network NBC, she had recently received a liver transplant.
At the time of her death, officials said no foul play was suspected, and the medical examiner’s office had listed her death as “undetermined”.
Trachtenberg’s family had objected to a post-mortem, which the medical examiner’s office honoured because there was no evidence of criminality.
But the medical examiner’s office said in a statement on Thursday it amended the cause and manner of death for the actress following a review of laboratory test results.
Trachtenberg was best known for her role as Dawn Summers in Buffy, the younger sister of the title character played by Sarah Michelle Gellar between 2000 and 2003.
Between 2008 and 2012, she played Georgina Sparks on Gossip Girl – the malevolent rival of Blake Lively’s Serena van der Woodsen and Leighton Meester’s Blair Waldorf.
She also starred in the movie 17 Again, where she portrayed daughter Maggie O’Donnell, comedy film Eurotrip and the 2005 teen film Ice Princess.
In 2001, she received a Daytime Emmy nomination for hosting Discovery’s Truth or Scare.
Seven years after allegations against him first emerged online, Harvey Weinstein is back in court.
When the accusations surfaced in late 2017, the American actress Alyssa Milano tweeted: “If all the women who have been sexually harassed or assaulted wrote ‘Me too’ as a status, we might give people a sense of the magnitude of the problem.”
This gave birth to what we now know as the #MeToo movement and a flood of women – famous and not – sharing stories of gender-based violence and harassment.
Weinstein, 73, was jailed in 2020 and has been held at New York’s notorious Rikers Island prison complex ever since.
On 15 April, jury selection for his retrial got off to a false start, with none of the 12 potential candidates or six alternatives being deemed suitable. One, an actor, described Weinstein as a “really bad guy” and claimed he could not remain impartial. A woman also bowed out after declaring she had been the victim of sexual assault.
Once jurors are selected, the original charges of rape and sexual assault will be heard again, with opening statements and evidence due to start on 21 April.
Here we look at why there’s a retrial, why Weinstein will likely remain behind bars – and what has happened to #MeToo.
Why is there a retrial?
Weinstein is back in court because his first two convictions were overturned last April and are now being retried.
In 2020, he was sentenced to 23 years in prison after being found guilty of sexually assaulting ex-production assistant Mimi Haley in 2006 and raping former actor Jessica Mann in 2013.
Image: Miriam (Mimi) Haley arrives at court in New York in 2020. Pic: AP
Image: Jessica Mann outside court in Manhattan in July 2024. Pic: AP
But in April 2024, New York’s highest court overturned both convictions due to concerns the judge had made improper rulings, including allowing a woman to testify who was not part of the case.
At a preliminary hearing in January this year, the former Hollywood mogul, who has cancer and heart issues, asked for an earlier date on account of his poor health, but that was denied.
Image: Arriving at court for his original trial in New York in February 2020. Pic: Reuters
When the retrial was decided upon last year, Judge Farber also ruled that a separate charge concerning a third woman should be added to the case.
In September 2024, the unnamed woman filed allegations that Weinstein forced oral sex on her at a hotel in Manhattan in 2006.
Defence lawyers tried to get the charge thrown out, claiming prosecutors were only trying to bolster their case, but Judge Farber decided to incorporate it into the current retrial.
Weinstein denies all the allegations against him and claims any sexual contact was consensual.
Speaking outside court on 15 April, his lawyer Arthur Aidala, said he was “cautiously optimistic that when all the evidence is out, the jury will find that all of his relationships were consensual and therefore reach a verdict of not guilty”.
Why won’t he be released?
Even if the retrial ends in not guilty verdicts on all three counts, Weinstein will remain behind bars at Rikers Island.
This is because he was sentenced for a second time in February 2023 after being convicted of raping an actor in a Los Angeles hotel room in 2013.
Image: At a pre-trial hearing in Los Angeles in July 2021. Pic: Reuters
He was also found guilty of forcible oral copulation and sexual penetration by a foreign object in relation to the same woman, named only in court as Jane Doe 1.
The judge ruled that the 16-year sentence should be served after the 23-year one imposed in New York.
Weinstein’s lawyers are appealing this sentence – but for now, the 16 years behind bars still stand.
Has #MeToo made a difference – and what’s changed?
“MeToo was another way of women testifying about sexual violence and harassment,” Dr Jane Meyrick, associate professor in health psychology at the University of West England (UWE), tells Sky News.
“It exposed the frustration around reporting cases and showed the legal system was not built to give women justice – because they just gave up on it and started saying it online instead.
“That was hugely symbolic – because most societies are built around the silencing of sexual violence and harassment.”
Image: Women on a #MeToo protest march in Los Angeles in November 2017. Pic: Reuters
After #MeToo went viral in 2017, the statute of limitation on sexual assault cases was extended in several US states, giving victims more time to come forward, and there has been some reform of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), which were regularly used by Weinstein.
This has resulted in more women speaking out and an increased awareness of gender-based violence, particularly among women, who are less inclined to tolerate any form of harassment, according to Professor Alison Phipps, a sociologist specialising in gender at Newcastle University.
“There’s been an increase in capacity to handle reports in some organisations and institutions – and we’ve seen a lot of high-profile men brought down,” she says.
“But the #MeToo movement has focused on individual men and individual cases – rather than the culture that allows the behaviour to continue.
“It’s been about naming and shaming and ‘getting rid’ of these bad men – by firing them from their jobs or creating new crimes to be able to send more of them to prison – not dealing with the problem at its root.”
Image: Actress Alyssa Milano tweeted about #MeToo when the Weinstein accusations surfaced. Pic: AP
Dr Meyrick, who wrote the book #MeToo For Women And Men: Understanding Power Through Sexual Harassment, gives the example of the workplace and the stereotype of “bumping the perp”, or perpetrator.
“HR departments are still not designed to protect workers – they’re built to suppress and make things go away.” As a result, she says, men are often “quietly moved on” with “no real accountability”.
The same is true in schools, Prof Phipps adds, where she believes concerns around the popularity among young boys of self-proclaimed misogynist and influencer Andrew Tate are being dealt with too “punitively”.
“The message is ‘we don’t talk about Andrew Tate here’ and ‘you shouldn’t be engaging with him’,” she says. “But what we should be doing is asking boys and young men: ‘why do you like him?’, ‘what’s going on here?’ – that deeper conversation is missing,” she says.
Image: The former film producer on the red carpet in Los Angeles in 2015. Pic: AP
Have high-profile celebrity cases helped?
Both experts agree they will have inevitably empowered some women to come forward.
But they stress they are often “nothing like” most other cases of sexual violence or harassment, which makes drawing comparisons “dangerous”.
Referencing the Weinstein case in the US and Gisele Pelicot‘s in France, Dr Meyrick says: “They took multiple people over a very long period of time to reach any conviction – a lot of people’s experiences are nothing like that.”
Prof Phipps adds: “They can create an idea that it’s only ‘real’ rape if it’s committed by a serial sex offender – and not every person who perpetrates sexual harm is a serial offender.”
Image: A woman holds a ‘support Gisele Pelicot’ placard at a march in Paris during her husband’s rape case. Pic: AP
Image: Gisele Pelicot outside court. Pic: Reuters
Part of her research has focused on “lad culture” in the UK and associated sexual violence at universities.
She says: “A lot of that kind of violence happens in social spaces, where there are drugs and alcohol and young people thrown together who don’t know where the boundaries are.
“That doesn’t absolve them of any responsibility – but comparing those ‘lads’ to Harvey Weinstein seems inappropriate.”
Dr Meyrick says most victims she has spoken to through her research “wouldn’t go down the legal route” – and prosecution and conviction rates are still extremely low.
“Most don’t try for justice. They just want to be believed and heard – that’s what’s important and restorative,” she says.
But specialist services that can support victims in that way are underfunded – and not enough is being done to change attitudes through sex education and employment policy, she warns.
“Until we liberate men from the masculine roles they’re offered by society – where objectification of women is normalised as banter – they will remain healthy sons of the patriarchy.
“We need transformative, compassionate education for young men – and young women. That’s where the gap still is.”
Body camera footage of Gene Hackman’s home has been released by authorities investigating the deaths of the actor and his wife.
The video captured by Santa Fe County Sheriff’s Office shows officers inside and outside the property in northern New Mexico, with a German shepherd barking at some points as they carry out their search.
Image: Hackman and Arakawa pictured in 2003. Pic: AP/ Mark J Terrill
The bodies of Hackman, 95, and his wife, Betsy Arakawa, 65, were found in separate rooms of their home on 26 February.
“He’s guarding her,” a male officer can be heard saying, about the dog found alive at the home. “He seems pretty friendly.”
There is another “10-7 dog” – meaning the pet is dead – “round the corner in the kennel”, the officer says.
Rat nests and dead rodents were also discovered in several outbuildings around the property, an environmental assessment by the New Mexico Department of Health revealed.
The inside of the home was clean and showed no evidence of rodent activity.
In March, a medical investigator concluded Arakawa died from hantavirus pulmonary syndrome, a rare infectious disease that can be caused by exposure to rodents.
Image: Law enforcement officials pictured outside the property in Santa Fe the day after Hackman and Arakawa’s bodies were found. Pic: AP/Roberto Rosales
According to the records now released by the county sheriff’s office, Arakawa was researching medical conditions related to COVID-19 and flu between 8 February and the morning of 12 February.
In one email to a masseuse, she said Hackman had woken on 11 February with flu or cold-like symptoms and that she wanted to reschedule an appointment “out of an abundance of caution”.
Search history on the morning of 12 February showed she was looking into a medical concierge service in Santa Fe. Investigators said there was a call to the service which lasted under two minutes, and a follow-up call from them later that afternoon was missed.
The police footage shows officers checking the home and finding no signs of forced entry or other suspicious signs.
Image: Pic: Santa Fe County Sheriff via AP
What is hantavirus?
HPS, commonly known as hantavirus disease, is a respiratory disease caused by hantaviruses – which are carried by several types of rodents.
It is a rare condition in the US, with most cases concentrated in the western states of New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado and Utah. This was the first confirmed case in New Mexico this year.
There has so far been no confirmation about any potential link by authorities between the rodents and the hantavirus disease that claimed Arakawa’s life.
Who was Gene Hackman?
Image: Pic: AP 1993
Hackman was a former Marine whose work on screen began with an uncredited TV role in 1961.
Acting became his career for many years, and he went on to play villains, heroes and antiheroes in more than 80 films spanning a range of genres.
He was best known by many for playing evil genius Lex Luthor in the Superman films in the late 1970s and ’80s, and won Oscars for his performances in The French Connection and Unforgiven.
After roles in The Royal Tenenbaums, Behind Enemy Lines and Runaway Jury in the 2000s, he left acting behind after his final film, Welcome To Mooseport.
He and Arakawa, a pianist, had been together since the mid-1980s.