Move that schoolbus!

I need to revisit "Shlock and Awwww: Commercializing Altruism" -- Jon Mooallem's conflicted appreciation of ABC television's Extreme Makeover: Home Edition.

Mooallem's summary of the show's process is dead on:

"In charity," Francis Bacon wrote, "there is no excess." But then Bacon never saw Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, which since 2003 has been meting out garish and super-sized acts of charity -- each more skillfully choreographed and excessive than the last -- every Sunday night on ABC.

Each week, the reality show's "design team," led by cloying carpenter Ty Pennington, parks its tour bus at the dilapidated doorstep of a deserving, downtrodden family and unleashes a whopping assault of good will. ...

The family is whisked off to Disney World and the design team begins demolishing its house and building a better one -- fully landscaped and prominently decorated with brand-name appliances and furnishings supplied by Sears, Home Depot, and the show's other sponsors -- in one week.

I've just had an up-close look at that weeklong process as it unfolded on South Clayton Street in Wilmington, Del. We provided wall-to-wall coverage of every step of the way at the paper.¹ Everything Mooallem captures about the experience of watching the show -- the precisely calibrated sentimentality, the choreographed emotion, the misery inflation -- is also present in the show's production.

That last point, the misery inflation, is particularly troublesome. Mooallem describes it well:

Even infrequent viewers will notice how the show has tightened its stranglehold on our consciences by gradually inflating its misery quotient. While the first season featured a couple that needed a larger home for its (surprise!) triplets, only two seasons later we were deep into a gallery of woe: twins with leukemia, the mother of a little girl who wandered off to catch fireflies and disappeared forever. In a memo acquired by the Smoking Gun Web site, a producer asks the show's casting agents to look for a kid with "congenital insensitivity to pain": "There are 17 known cases in US, let me know if one is in your town!"

This is partly a result of the show's strange origin and evolution. It is, as that colon in the title suggests, a spinoff from an earlier program called Extreme Makeover. That show began as a flagrantly exploitative bit of trash TV, following the silly and the shallow as they sought the most radical forms of plastic surgery, tummy-tucking and breast- and lip-augmenting themselves into unrecognizable parodies of the airbrushed, glossy ideals of beauty. Then, partly as an apology for its Midway freak-show tastelessness, the show turned to more "deserving" beneficiaries -- children with cleft palettes palates and other deformities who actually needed the reconstructive surgery of an "extreme makeover." This turned out to be more popular with viewers and thus the even-more popular spin-off was born, reconstructing houses instead of faces.

But the deeper reason for the escalation of the show's "misery quotient" has more to do, I think, with the show's essential problem: It provides gifts. Gifts are, by definition, not earned or paid for. For American audiences, that is a problem. If a family didn't earn the gift, then why do they deserve it? Americans' discomfort with such gifts is probably half Protestant work ethic² and half deadly sin of envy. To ensure that the recipients of the show's largesse are not resented, the show's producers are desperate for ever-increasing levels of pathos. They're racing to stay ahead of the wave of resentment always directed at the "undeserving poor."³

The family selected in Wilmington fit the bill: virtuous, diligent and cheerfully struggling to provide for their children with special needs.

The "whopping assault of good will" Mooallem describes is impressive to behold up close. The show's producers are very good at recruiting, coordinating and focusing the contributions of thousands of volunteers and dozens of corporate donors/sponsors. The "makeover" of the family home -- actually its total replacement -- was indeed extreme. The new, home was blitz-built in 106 hours by some 3,500 volunteers. It's beautiful. The surrounding homes on the city block got a makeover too -- new roofs and siding or paint. It's all lovely.

The deluge of additional gifts to the family is also just as Mooallem describes:

Just like that, Makeover plucks poor or working-class people from their misfortunes and not only gives them a new Owens Corning roof over their heads, but -- the implication is -- newfound stability and comfort. Often the family also gets a new car, computers, or college scholarships for the kids. These changes can be profound. That Mississippi mom, reeling beside her new Ford Edge SUV while Pennington shouts, "It looks great, it's fun to drive, and best of all it's all yours!" mentions that she's never owned a new car before. Suddenly we grasp the life-changing enormity of just giving her a reliable vehicle. But wait -- here are an iPod, modern art, bicycles, a karaoke machine, Panasonic flat-screen TVs, a collection of African percussion for her son, and a spacious new storefront for her fledgling business. Plus, gospel singer CeCe Winans has turned up to raise the family a nest egg!

Here, from the paper, is a (partial) tally of the additional gifts bestowed by corporate donors yesterday on the family in Wilmington:

$125,000 to pay off the mortgage from ING Direct; four $25,000 savings accounts, one for each of Ju-Juanna Latif's children, from Discover Bank; full tuition, room and board for three of the children from University of Delaware, upon admission; $3,600 raised during a family fundraiser at Kid Shelleen's; a $1,000 gift certificate for steaks from Safeway Cargill; two pizzas a week for a year from Grotto Pizza; season tickets for life for the family ... [for] the Wilmington Blue Rocks; cleaning services for one year from Pride Klean Inc.; free lifetime memberships for the children from Boys & Girls Clubs; free lifetime membership for the family from the YMCA; reading assistance for the children from Reading ASSIST Institute ...

As with most corporate donations, this largesse is mainly a form of public relations -- a way of investing in good will that can help to boost the bottom line. Local companies pitched in, in part, so that they could bask in the warmth of the saintly halo cast by this "whopping assault" and receive a share of the civic pride and gooey warm sensation generated by this media circus.

But this event also illustrates another motive that's often a contributing factor in corporate contributions. All this giving became kind of infectious and even corporate executives can get caught up in it. The unspoken idea is something like, "Hey, look what we could do for this family." There's a sense that something real and profound and hopefully lasting could be achieved, if only for one particular family. Maybe we can't solve all the problems of the city, or global poverty or world peace, but maybe we can transform the lives of these four kids. Even the executives from the notorious Delaware-based credit-card banks weren't immune from the allure of that possibility.

The presence of ABC's camera crews and its elaborately rehearsed and orchestrated whirlwind of altruism harnesses both of those motives -- the cynical posturing and the fuzzier desire to have an impact -- and is thereby able to bring to accomplish a dizzying amount in a week's time.

What exactly has been accomplished, and what the long-term impact of it will be, is hard to say. It's not something Extreme Makeover tracks. The show is a sprint, a blitz-build affair, not a marathon or a marriage. Mooallem notes that:

Several newspaper reports⁴ have exposed how some Makeover families wind up unprepared for their new, exponentially higher utility bills and property taxes. A blind New Jersey man with three disabled children and a $14,000 tax bill on his new abode told one paper, "With all the taxes, it's like we're on a chopping block." Meanwhile, five siblings featured on an Easter Sunday 2005 episode recently sued their adoptive parents for driving them out of the nine-bedroom, six-bathroom house built for them. They also sued the show for rebroadcasting their episode knowing that its ending had soured. The kids' attorney happily revealed to the Los Angeles Times that the show's touching "door knock" scene, in which the design team first arrived at the house and dispensed hugs, took seven takes to shoot.

That accomplishment and that longer-term impact will depend, in large measure, on what this family and those four kids make of the opportunities they have been given. They will realize that too, and the pressure that brings will be a new kind of challenge for them, one the departing cameras aren't going to assist them with. Yet still they've been given a shot, and that's something.

I'd like to see ABC capitalize on the success of its Extreme Makeover franchise by testing the scope of this new tool it has created. I'd like to see them roll out Extreme Makeover: School Edition.

Pick a public school, an elementary school that's struggling, underfunded and overwhelmed. The pool of potential candidates is large. Focus the cameras and the army of volunteers and corporate donors on that school for a week or two (maybe even a whole month, since schools are larger than homes) and see what might be accomplished. Picture the moistly congenial Pennington hugging the principal surrounded by the throng of adorable smiling children -- it would be a ratings bonanza. (It's worked out well for Oprah, after all.) Hey, kids, do you like your new computers? Your new music facilities and state-of-the-art cafeteria? Do you like the clean, well-lit hallways and the smartboards in every classroom? Do your teachers all like their new hybrid Ford Explorers? Wait, there's more, the governor's here to announce the new equitable funding system that means your education is no longer tied to the dwindling property-tax base of your declining neighborhood ...

OK, that last bit is probably beyond the scope of what's achievable here. That's politics, and Extreme Makeover is resolutely a-political. It offers reforms of a more Dickensian sort -- the kind that might be provided by a newly discovered Good Rich Uncle in the book's final chapter. Dickens' abrupt happy endings can often seem contrived and sentimental, just like Extreme Makeover, but the author loved his characters too much -- and made readers love them too much -- to begrudge them such a gift.

There are a lot of families, a lot of schoolchildren and schools and neighborhoods in America that could really use a Good Rich Uncle. Extreme Makeover might be the closest they'll get to that.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

¹ Which was, in its own way, impressive. I just wish I could think of more examples of such thorough and enthusiastic coverage for other subjects. Like maybe the elections, or the invasion and occupation of Iraq. I suppose with limited resources, we can't cover every story this thoroughly, so we have to pick and choose, and the skilled PR people from ABC helped make this story easier to cover. There's an echo in all of this of the satire from David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest. Wallace describes the slow death of television as it is supplanted by the Netflix-ish "Interlace cartridges," with the dying medium inexorably forced to devote all of its attention and adspace to the new medium taking its place. The paper's relentless enthusiasm for this visit from a television crew takes as a given that TV is more significant and more meaningful than the printed page or the paper's Web site or, well, pretty much anything. That assumption is all the more disturbing when one realizes that the people assuming it can't imagine any other possible way of looking at the world and that those same people are the ones running a newspaper.

² Which arose, itself, in reaction to a theological system that emphasizes the seeming arbitrariness of grace. Calvin's insistence that "salvation is grace, ethics is gratitude" morphed into a desperate attempt to demonstrate that we are deserving of grace while they are not.

³ I.e., poor, and therefore by definition undeserving. Panglossian nonsense if you think about it for even a moment, but this isn't really a "thinking" response.

⁴ I hope that our paper will also do this kind of follow-up reporting down the road, long after the cameras have gone. Here, as always, it is a newspaper's job to be skeptical, but that is different from being cynical. The task here is to separate the reality from the hype, but to do so without falling into the anti-hype that does nothing more than reflect and nurture the pre-existing resentment of any beneficiary of such a gift.⁵ Such reporting requires a powerful BS-detector, but if it indicates that the entire world is composed of 100 percent BS, then its sensors are defective and it needs to be recalibrated. I can't find the passage just now, but C.S. Lewis talked about this in terms of illusion and disillusion -- of the necessary discernment in life of "seeing through" illusion, while also remembering that the person who sees through everything lives in an invisible world no different from that of the blind.

⁵ See also the cycle of honeymoon and backlash with political candidates.

Comments

[Majromax]

More telling is the... extravagance and spectacle of the entire thing. These families wouldn't be getting a secondhand doghouse if the cameras weren't rolling, so I have to be skeptical of the "charity."

More and more, it seems that charity is about being seen giving things. The wisdom about what is best (or even effective) is tossed aside for the purposes of a show.

Perhaps in a hundred years or so, charity and marketing will be synonyms?

[Ebonmuse]

It's hard to be opposed to the concept of a TV show whose purpose is to help people, but something about this show rubs me the wrong way. It took me a while after reading this post to figure out what it was, and I think I've got it now: it's the way the show dumps a huge pile of material goods on people and expects that to make their lives instantly better. It's like saying, "See, now you can join American commercial culture and be a good consumer like everyone else! Doesn't that make you happy?" Even in helping the needy, it seems, TV has to reinforce the crass and greedy stereotypes about what makes life worth living.

[hapax]

Less Dickens, I think, than Frances Hodgson Burnett.

[Froborr]

The notion of the undeserving poor is a necessary, unstated corollary of the pernicious myth we call "the American dream". If anybody can become rich through hard work and virtuous living, then anyone who isn't rich must logically be either lazy or wicked.

[Marc]

I've always wondered how these folks, and the PIMP MY RIDE receipients, cover the enormous tax burdens they now have. Are they given a cash stipend to cover such? I know I couldn't cover an extra 14 grand in taxes if someone dropped a house in my lap.

[Monkay]

Looking for something deep to quote about Mercy and Justice, I found this with my search:

Justice and Mercy
Find justice and mercy at Great Prices.
www.Pronto.com

Justice and Mercy
Find and Compare prices on justice and mercy at Smarter.com.
www.smarter.com

Oh, well . . .

[Chris]

If you're living on or below subsistence minimum, you *need* material goods before you can bother with the more abstract values.

(Which material goods, of course, is another question entirely. I for one wouldn't *want* a plasma TV, and wouldn't use it if given one.)

However, this show sounds like a load of marketing dolled up in sickening schmaltz. I'm sure at least the impulse is honourable, but it just makes me sick.

[Cat]

On the one hand, I worry that government is handing its responsibilities off to a television program.

On the other hand, for the people who need it most, I'm sure they don't care how it gets done, so long as it gets done.

And on yet a third hand, the only reality shows I really like are Drawn Together, and House of Carters because my brother's on it. If I want to see reality, I can get a full wraparound high-def fully interactive entertainment experience by leaving my house.

[Turcano]

"More and more, it seems that charity is about being seen giving things."

Charity has always been about being seen giving things. That's why Jesus said not to give with that motive.

[not_scottbot]

Turcano-
Network TV and Jesus have nothing to do with one another. Which is why calling any program on a blatantly commercial network 'charitable' is already a serious error.

One that is easy to make - Fred (who also works in an advertising supported media) spends some time dealing with my style of objections by saying that anyone that makes a blanket judgment about the motives of the current system, which itself is nothing but a system to sell advertising by providing entertainment to create statistically quantifiable groups of consumers, is someone missing the big picture.

If you stare at the trees AND the forest long enough, they both disappear.

And the idea of 'charity' so publicly on display here needs a much more cutting analysis than the one provided, though the alternative of supporting schools is a very good one. Though if I understand current corporate American helpfulness, companies like Coca-Cola have been fantastically generous in getting involved in local schools, providing needed money in exchange for such minor things as banning any student wearing a Pepsi T-shirt.

Having missed the entire housing porn aspect of American broadcasting, and having at best only a tangential relation to any reality TV (as experienced in Germany by someone without a TV, before the genre reached America - yes, reality TV as the genre defined by such programs as Survivor or Big Brother is actually European), the creation of 'reality' defined by the stories provided by major media outlets and material products manufactured for mass markets of consumers is the central function necessary to sustain an economy based on consumption.

It is something noticed outside of the U.S. - many Americans seem to be unself-aware puppets, repeating brand names and the same cliches, without any feeling of actual human personality which is uniquely theirs.

Fred evens seems to grasp this -
'The "whopping assault of good will" Mooallem describes is impressive to behold up close. The show's producers are very good at recruiting, coordinating and focusing the contributions of thousands of volunteers and dozens of corporate donors/sponsors.'

And none of those volunteers, corporations, or employees are going to question the system which they are participating in -
'The "makeover" of the family home -- actually its total replacement -- was indeed extreme. The new, home was blitz-built in 106 hours by some 3,500 volunteers. It's beautiful. The surrounding homes on the city block got a makeover too -- new roofs and siding or paint. It's all lovely.'

And if the children actually liked their bedrooms? Especially if those were the only bedrooms they knew, the ones that had their heights marked on the wall as they grew, or the 'secret' hiding place only they shared? Tough - they get something beautiful, something lovely - and if they object, they are being ungrateful, and spitting in the face of all those who have decided what is desirable, and what isn't.

I could make the argument that such programs are an advanced form of cruelty to those innocents who have no idea what it means to be thoroughly at the mercy of those whose interests having absolutely nothing to do with yours. But who are in the position of such power that your refusal is not possible - even refusing such a wonderful chance to be moved out of your old house permanently (after all, it is gone now) would be considered almost unimaginable. The erasing of what a family shared, all to be replaced in a 'blitz,' was once considered a nightmare (think carefully where the word 'blitz' comes from). That this is now considered the height of charity, to remove any trace of the past by providing huge amounts of modern material consumer goods, shows how skewed modern America has become.

This would be a fine time to mention Le Guin's 'The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas.'

[inge]

Watching the German variant of that show is one of my guilty pleasures, though I'm about to kick the habit: While the houses are all different and interesting (they are renovating old houses here, some a hundred years old, others left half-finished by personal or financial mishap), they get far too less screen time, and the people -- well, they are different, but it gets hard to notice between the never-changing choreography and never-changing words to describe what's on screen.

Also, they are always doing the room of every girl under the age of 12 in pink and with a princess-theme. And no one ever has any books.

[Jesurgislac]

Inge: Also, they are always doing the room of every girl under the age of 12 in pink and with a princess-theme.

Oh God, really? Do they ask the little girl what she wants, or do they just assume EVERY little girl under 12 will be made happy by (a) pink (b) princess-stuff!

[Jon]

And if the children actually liked their bedrooms? Especially if those were the only bedrooms they knew, the ones that had their heights marked on the wall as they grew, or the 'secret' hiding place only they shared? Tough - they get something beautiful, something lovely - and if they object, they are being ungrateful, and spitting in the face of all those who have decided what is desirable, and what isn't.

I think it's worth noting that the recepients of the makeover actually asked to be on the show - it's not as though ABC is randomly forcing people out of their homes and saying, "We know what's best for you and don't care if you like things the way they are." If the homeowners liked things the way they were, they wouldn't have asked to be on the show in the first place, or agreed to the appearance once the crew arrived. Theoretically - and hopefully - being on the show would be a decision made by the entire family and the children would have the opportunity to voice their objections.
If it doesn't happen that way and the children don't get to have a say in any of it, that's on the parents, not on ABC.
All that being said, I've never watched the show because I view it to be a cynical attempt at advertising by tugging at the heart strings (and I don't like Ty Pennington). Still, if good can come of it for the families involved, that's great.

[Jon]

I should note that I'm assuming that the homeowners ask to be on the show; there must be some sort of application process. I suppose it's possible that friends and family may appeal to the show on the homeowners' behalf, or that the producers seek out likely prospects.
Even so, no matter how they're selected, the homeowners would need to agree to appear, and I'm sure there are all sorts of terms they have to agree to.
It's also possible, then, that they are bullied into participating, but, in theory at least, the homeowners can choose not to participate.
FWIW, when I was a kid, I would have happily given up any "secret" hiding places or simple familiarity to have a room in which I didn't have to get up and sleep on the couch every time it rained because the roof leaked like a sieve.

[Tonio]

It wouldn't have occurred to me that some viewers might resent the families on the show. Further, it wouldn't have occurred to me that the producers sought to "stay ahead of the wave of resentment." I had assumed that the pathos was simply a cynical attempt to manipulate viewers' emotions, like the contrived tragic stories in the old four-hanky movies. The producers and corporate donors seem to be engaging in massive self-congratulation for being so charitable and civic-minded, and their goal seems to be encouraging the same mindset among viewers.

"undeserving poor"

Hmmm...When politicians and pundits use that term, I doubt that it's out of "Panglossian nonsense." Instead, I suspect they're using it as a code word for racist stereotypes about public assistance.

"With all the taxes, it's like we're on a chopping block."

That's where my cynicism kicks in. The whole setup of Home Makeover is too good to be true. I've only seen the show once, and I kept thinking that there had to be a price to the newfound stability and comfort. Instead of resenting the family, I felt sorry for them at the end because there had to be a worm in the apple, or the other shoe waiting to drop, or another cliché waiting to be overused.

[Jesurgislac]

Jon: Theoretically - and hopefully - being on the show would be a decision made by the entire family and the children would have the opportunity to voice their objections.

Oh, agreed. My protest was specifically about how the TV show chooses the decor for the childrens' bedrooms: is it in consultation with the family, or do they just go with a stereotype? Granted, if the roof leaks or the bathroom stinks those would be major problems which it would be better to have fixed even if it did land you with a bedroom misdecorated in a style you hated - but it would be easier to express gratitude politely and feel it, especially if you're a little kid, if you're not looking round a hideous room and thinking "This is what I have to live with for the rest of my life".

[Alecto]

children with cleft palettes

A serious outcome of underfunding the arts in public schools. Although your (really good) idea of Extreme Makeover: School Edition would be a better fix for this than surgery, I think.

I'm kidding, of course -- cleft palates can be seriously debilitating, if not downright life-threatening. But the visual of the other struck me.

... I'll just go back to lurking, now.

[Jon]

is it in consultation with the family, or do they just go with a stereotype?

That I couldn't tell you, since, as mentioned, I've never watched the show. However, at a guess, based on other shows that I have seen (such as Trading Spaces or the show it was copied from, Changing Rooms), I would assume that they at least try to tailor the design to specific personalities to some extent by finding out what the kids are interested in (even if by simply taking a look around at what's currently in place). I would guess that you wouldn't have something like this happen: "Hmm, she's got all kind of soccer trophies and and posters of Mia Hamm (or whoever) all over the place, plus she really seems to be into Manga...I've got it: Princesses!"
(Then again, ABC is owned by Disney, so princess themes might be a mandate.)
But like I said, I have no real idea how it works.

[Daughter]

I used to love the show, and then I got tired of it - the crass manipulation.

They have done some good things: they built a duplex for two homeless families once, and got the father of one family a job with the construction company that built the home. They also took out all the residents of the homeless shelter where the families used to live on a trip to Sears, and told them they could buy anything they wanted in a certain time frame. The cast were then surprised that almost the only things any of the people bought were winter coats, socks and underwear.

On another episode, a woman had started a nonprofit in her rundown home. They built an office for her nonprofit in addition to a new home for her.

I saw the episode about the five kids who had lost both their parents within six months, and were taken in by another family. Very touching episode, and very sad how it ended up.

As far as how they design the rooms, they usually ask the parents and children what they like and are interested in, and that's what they use to make design choices. The problem there is that children's interests change as they grow. So if they design a room with a pony theme for an 8-year-old girl who loves ponies, what happens in five years when she's into music?

[Tonio]

In a memo acquired by the Smoking Gun Web site, a producer asks the show's casting agents to look for a kid with "congenital insensitivity to pain": "There are 17 known cases in US, let me know if one is in your town!"

I'm not surprised. In a radio interview a few years ago, the first Joe Millionaire described the inaccuracy of the show's editing. The finale showed reaction shots out of order to make one of the contestants look petulant and conniving. And when he shared with a crew member his misgivings about the façade, he was told that the cameras weren't on.

[Bruce in South Florida]

It reminds me of "Evita":

Would you like to try a college education?
Own your landlord's house, take the family on vacation?
Eva and her blessed fund can make your dreams come true
Here's all you have to do my friends
Write your name and your dream on a card or a pad or a ticket
Throw it high in the air and should our lady pick it
She will change your way of life for a week or even two
Name me anyone who cares as much as Eva Peron

[Jack Grey]

Which brings me to a related discussion that I stumbled into last week: a family who seems to be actively soliciting *exactly* the sort of corporate sponsorship that Extreme Makeover: Home Edition offers.

The family's website is here: http://www.autismbites.com.

I don't really watch television; I found the website from a blog, and was more than a little disturbed by the whole thing. On the one hand, there seems to be something... disingenuous? dishonest? ... in the way the parents present themselves and their situation. On the other hand, they really do need help. And now, after reading this, I have a third concern: do they really understand the consequences of receiving the kind of help they're asking for?

~Jack

[Seth Gordon]

It could be worse.

I know a guy whose family was on one of those "wife swapping" TV shows. One of the gimmicks of the show was that after spending a week with the other family, the "new mom" gets to distribute mumblety-mumble thousand dollars to her hosts--earmarked for whatever she thinks that they need.

Let's just say that my friend was unable to convince his guest to respect his value system. In the final scene, as her "these are the consumer geegaws I'm going to buy for you" letter was being read, they showed his reaction, and it seemed like he was thinking My God, I humiliated myself and my family on national television for THIS?

[Tonio]

On the one hand, there seems to be something... disingenuous? dishonest? ... in the way the parents present themselves and their situation. On the other hand, they really do need help. And now, after reading this, I have a third concern: do they really understand the consequences of receiving the kind of help they're asking for?

I would be interested to know how much of that dishonesty comes from the families themselves, and how much comes from coaching by the producers.

[Tonio]

Sorry, I meant any dishonesty on Home Makeover. There's a good chance that the show exaggerates the dire situations of the families for maximum emotional impact.

[J]

Would you like to try a college education?
Own your landlord's house, take the family on vacation?
Eva and her blessed fund can make your dreams come true

V.S. Naipaul--writer of travel lit for the world's down-and-outer countries--did get a laugh out of me when he described Eva Peron as "presiding over a 6-year-old's system of justice".

Re: the tax burden of these people's fabulous new houses...

...I'd like to see Extreme Makeover: Neighborhood Addition. 'Cause for the cost of just one of these Super Houses, they could probably rehab or even scratch-build a dozen modest, decent homes. No whirlpool bathtubs or plasma TVs; how about just decent frame construction, sheetrock walls and wooden doors instead of hollow luon ("splinterboard"), 6" of insulation to keep heating costs down, etc?

They could even tie it into the community by building a police satellite station on the corner of the block, rehab a community center, etc.

Geeze, listen to me: I'm turn into Eva Peron.

[Craig]

...the person who sees through everything lives in an invisible world no different from that of the blind.

True enough, but is said blindness the fault of the cynic or of the world for being largely composed of facades deserving penetration?

[MikhailBorg]

True enough, but is said blindness the fault of the cynic or of the world for being largely composed of facades deserving penetration?

Blaming the world for its transparency won't help the 20th time you've broken your nose or stubbed a toe.

[damnedyankee]

Let's just say that my friend was unable to convince his guest to respect his value system.

Which, of course, was the whole point of the show, from the producers' standpoint. The broadening of the mind by exposing it to different segments of the culture doesn't quite make for the same high drama as sparks-flying confrontation caused by the meeting of extreme opposites.

I remember on an episode of The Soup the host said that the title of one of those shows should be "Our Network Likes To Hurt People."

[Craig]

Blaming the world for its transparency won't help the 20th time you've broken your nose or stubbed a toe.

Twentieth? I haven't even had my first.

Well, metaphorically. Floor fans can be a serious toe hazard, you know.

[J]

Hee, hee: "Next on Extreme Makeover: Middle East Edition..."

[bellatrys]

There's a huge problem with well-off/better-off people being "charitable" not from caritas but to make themselves feel better - as one of a large poor visibly-Catholic family who were so frequently the recipients of "let's clean out our basement and dump it in their driveway, surely those poor Church Mice can use it" by other, wealthier and less-observant of Humanae Vitae parishioners, to the point where we were swamped with other people's castoff junk (they would NOT take no, ever!!! and even when it was nice stuff, it was galling to be required to be so often so humbly grateful for what we had never asked for) as well as of personal "gifts" that were not only what I wanted or needed, but the opposite of what I needed and in fact counterproductive (as well as being required to be publically grateful for them) this touches a nerve. That it's become "entertainment" in "reality" TV is nasty, but not too shocking.

In a similar vein, after our flooding in the poorest part of the state left a bunch of families homeless, a well-off Evangelical parish decided to go build a nice house there and donate it to some lucky family. Which they did. Then found that not one of the families there could afford to accept it...

[Cat Meadors]

Funny, I was just reading this article from the Washington City Paper about a family having houses built for it. Just in case anyone doubts the producers' wisdom of finding ever-more-desperate "deserving poor" - I think the reactions of the town council say it all. Especially check out the comments (from hip young citypaper reading folks, no less) at the end of the article.

[ericblair]

It reminds me of "Evita":

I think you're going to see more of this as the economy keeps declining. Random windfalls on network TV like lotteries and these shows fulfil people's fantasies, and oh by the way are a great way to keep the general public from getting out the pitchforks and torches.

People are notoriously bad at estimating probablities of things happening, especially if they're broadcast on network TV in a large country: for example, most people massively overestimate the probability of a stranger kidnapping their child, since so many of these cases get sensationalized on major shows. Similarly, most people will overestimate their chance of getting big prizes from lotteries or shows like this. So if things aren't going well, it's easier to sit back and think that this will happen to you very soon instead of trying to change things to make life better for a lot of people.

This show is fundamentally different from similar shows like Supernanny. In those cases, it's possible to take some of what's on TV as an example and try to make your situation better. With this show, what can you do? What's the example? Write a better application to the network?

[Craig]

Hee, hee: "Next on Extreme Makeover: Middle East Edition..."

Will there be an equal bulldozer-to-explosives ratio per show, or will they alternate?

[Nancy Lebovitz]

Just generally, I'd like to see more medium and longterm follow-ups for people who've been on reality shows.

[Cyllan]

..I'd like to see Extreme Makeover: Neighborhood Addition.

One of the things that frustrated me when I was shopping for my first house was the lack of decent starter homes. In my area, at least, you get a starter-house by buying a large house that's 50 miles out into the suburbs and stretching your paycheck as far as it can go. I'm also in one of the more reasonably priced big city areas.

I didn't need a huge house when I bought my first one; I wanted something reasonably sized, reasonably priced and that maybe needed a little cosmetic work to make pretty. Finding one of those, however, is next to impossible, but no one is building modest houses anymore.

So, I second this idea. Give something to the entire block and see how that goes. Unfortunately, you're pretty much assured that on an entire block, someone's going to be downright cantankerous and will resent having their house used for marketing purposes in the name of charity.

[inge]

Jesurgislac, Oh God, really? Do they ask the little girl what she wants, or do they just assume EVERY little girl under 12 will be made happy by (a) pink (b) princess-stuff!

I know that they asked the boys. They got all kinds of cool stuff, jungle rooms with animals painted on the walls, science fiction rooms with ceilings full of stars, football fan rooms with a poster of their favourite team with all the autographs...

The thought that they never even asked the girls is disgusting, but the alternatives -- that the girls were all equally unable to have wishes and express them, or that they really all wanted pink --are somewhat depressing, too.

At least the 14 yo got a pretty red-and-earth-colours room.

[Robb]

I'd like to see Extreme Makeover: Neighborhood Addition. 'Cause for the cost of just one of these Super Houses, they could probably rehab or even scratch-build a dozen modest, decent homes.

That was the first thought that struck me when I first watched an episode: that the house they were building was in a mostly rural area, where they wouldn't have nearby neighbors to envy them. I thought: "What about urban areas where a run down house next to a hovel is suddenly neighbor to a McMansion?" I was curious enough about that to tune in a few times to see what kinds of neighborhoods they would be building in. I had the same morbid curiosity about the show that I did about other [manipulated] reality shows, but the heavy handedness of the pathos just made the show unwatchable after about 5 episodes.

I do, however, think Fred's proposal is an excellent one - there are plenty of schools that could do with some major redecoration & rennovation. Plus, schools could just hand over a list of recommended curriculum materials for the crew to buy & expand upon, rather than making all kinds of horrible assumptions based on one or two hobbies of a kid.

[Lauren]

Every episode of Extreme Makeover: School Addition will see each school get a complete set of Intelligent Design textbooks donated by the Creation Museum. Just a guess.

[Lee Ratner]

Shows like Extreme Makeover: Home Edition really make me want to reconsider whether censorship is always equal. I'm a card-carrying ACLU memeber and love Nadine Strossen to bits but free speech is not always a force of good, combined with the worst forms of consumerism, it can create monstrosities like this. I do not like most reality television, exception for the live in the past shows of PBS and cooking based reality TV, for the reasons Fred listed above. Its degenerate.

[hapax]

there are plenty of schools that could do with some major redecoration & rennovation. Plus, schools could just hand over a list of recommended curriculum materials for the crew to buy & expand upon, rather than making all kinds of horrible assumptions based on one or two hobbies of a kid.

Well, if you all are really interested in such projects, a friend of mine just introduced me to this site: http://www.donorschoose.org/

I don't think it will get on TV, however. Sadly, the kind of corporations that are going to pay big bucks for product placement are not providing the sorts of materials these schools need.

[Jeff]

I'd like to see Extreme Makeover: Neighborhood Addition. 'Cause for the cost of just one of these Super Houses, they could probably rehab or even scratch-build a dozen modest, decent homes. No whirlpool bathtubs or plasma TVs; how about just decent frame construction, sheetrock walls and wooden doors instead of hollow luon ("splinterboard"), 6" of insulation to keep heating costs down, etc?

We have that, but it's not televised. A little thing called "Habitat for Humanity", maybe you've heard of it? [grin]

HfH houses are well-built -- after one of the hurricanes in Florida, the only houses standing were the HfH ones. They're relitively small, making them cheaper to heat and cool. In short, great starter homes.

From Wiki: Foreclosures on Habitat houses have been very low: 2%, according to official figures. The homeowners' monthly mortgage payments are used to build more Habitat homes.

(I have to say, I had no idea that HfH was a Christian organization. They are organized to help, not evangalize. Well done, HfH!)

[Jeff]

I do not like most reality television

Try The Amazing Race. The focus on the "personalities" can be grating, but, in the end, the only thing that counts is how well the team races (the season that just ended had one of the best endings EVAH!). Plus you get to see lots of really cool places around the world.

[PurpleGirl]

No time to read the posting and comments right now (I'm at work) but it brings to mind Queen for a Day and how the woman with the most horrific story got the goods. Argh. The past is the future (or something like that).

[MikhailBorg]

Have to go with Jeff, here. Even if you get knocked out in the first round, you've still been flown to 2 or 3 exotic locales at network expense. That doesn't suck.

Besides, The Amazing Race seems to feel less need to force artificial intrigue and subtle mockery on its contestants, which is appreciated.

Personally? I miss Scrapheap Challenge / Junkyard Wars. We need more reality shows where people get to be creative and make things.

[Chris M]

Even infrequent viewers will notice how the show has tightened its stranglehold on our consciences by gradually inflating its misery quotient. While the first season featured a couple that needed a larger home for its (surprise!) triplets, only two seasons later we were deep into a gallery of woe: twins with leukemia, the mother of a little girl who wandered off to catch fireflies and disappeared forever.

I have to concur, and, in my situation, this is particularly obnoxious. Submitted for your approval: this article from a site that sells adaptive technology for the visually impaired. Now, after reading this article and noting that Patrick "has overcome many challenges to become a musician" (aren't blind musicians ostensibly a dime a dozen, unless Costco is holding a sale (get one Ray Charles free with your bulk purchase of Stevey Wonders)), and has had his home adapted to suit his special needs, let me ask you this: as a prospective employer of a blind person, would you not see visions (pun not intended) of astronomical expenses to adapt your entire building, your entire company, to "suit their special needs"? As someone that is blind, and as someone that—to put it frankly—doesn't find it all that tragic and doesn't particulary have much in the way of an "adapted" apartment, I alternate between cringing at the fact that some very competent blind people would only have, say, a half-hour job interview to TRY and deprogram prospective employers' assumptions brought about by the inflated misery quotient of their condition (which, incidentally, it's a social tabu to ask about ("Hey—I saw on this show where they made a tactile path in this blind guy's house so they could find the toilet independently. Will we have to do that if you're hired?")) and thanking God for Microsoft's interview process where, regardless of whether or not they understood HOW I could do the job, six separate and distinct interviewers had determined that, yes, I could reverse a string in place, or search a binary tree for a given node, or—no, they didn't ask me to design a spice rack for a blind person ... although a colleague and I spent ten, fifteen minutes trying to figure out how best to shim Portal so I could play it.

[PurpleGirl]

Re school renovation and redecoration: In NYC there is a nonprofit that repaints schools as part of a training program for students and they use different colors schemes and ideas to make schools better environments to learn in (Publicolor) and the Lowe Corporation's philanthropy focus is on renovation and redecoration of schools and school playgrounds. They also provide scholarships for professional construction industry training.

(In the interest of transparency, I'm making this comment only as acknowledgement of their work: one organization is a competitor to my own organization for funding and the other doesn't fund my type of organization.)

[Tonio]

In my area, at least, you get a starter-house by buying a large house that's 50 miles out into the suburbs and stretching your paycheck as far as it can go.

I almost never see new subdivisions with mixed-size homes. Even in planned communities, the townhouses and apartments are pushed into one corner. I strongly suspect that the purpose seems to be to protect homeowners' property values. I know one couple who purchased a home lot in a new subdivision, and their covenant required that their new home be at least 2,000 square feet. I even heard one parent complain that a high-school redistricting plan would lower her home's value. Part of it was certainly racism - the new school's district had more black students, although not as a majority. But part of it was also classism - the old school's district had a higher median income.

[Craig]

I miss Scrapheap Challenge / Junkyard Wars. We need more reality shows where people get to be creative and make things.

I miss Junkyard Wars too, though I get something of the same vibe from Mythbusters (the intent is obviously different, but the engineering creativity is similar). Top Chef and Project Runway occasionally breach this territory, though the producers of both generally seem more interested in pointlessly bitchy behavior among the increasingly annoying contestants.