Opinion: Is Can of Worms' Controversy Ploy Working, or Blowing Up In Its Face?

So, it turns out that Can of Worms is turning out to be quite the little trouble-maker.

Yes, the show itself is the one behind all of this mischief and controversy and the like, not the loudmouths seemingly spouting out this rubbish.

Well, that’s not entirely true, but it’s certainly a ploy that is becoming increasingly more apparent.

The show set out to cause trouble, as set out in its mission statement; 

"There can never be a ‘wrong answer’ on Can of Worms. Our guests won’t be expected to give an expert opinion or politically correct view." 

So, everything was fair game- nothing was off limits, apparently. And everyone soon found out that they would stick very close to their word, and last night was the perfect example of it.
 John Elliot, a former Liberal Party President and Carlton Football Club President, has found himself in hot water after saying the word "Abos" to refer to Aborigines. And he is quite rightly copping a savaging in the media for it. But in the end, who is more at fault, John Elliot, or Ten for airing it?


Well, I'd even go further than that and say the show is more at fault for getting him on in the first place. For the past three weeks or Can of Worms' run, I've been critical of their decision to plug the show with loudmouths such as Jason Akermanis in Episode 1, and hoped it wasn't a trend that would continue.


It wasn't so much that I disagree with what Akermanis or Elliot said, but the way they go about getting their point across, and the fact that they are usually not able to support them with well-reasoned points. 


The "getting their point across" part could be clearly evidenced when Akermanis offered his opinion in their discussion of suicide. The three guests were first asked a question about children's activity online, which dovetailed into a discussion of cyber-bullying, which then led into some talk about suicide. 

"Aker" then brought up the fact that he was bullied at school, and also contemplated suicide as a result.

However, he then proceeded to call the act of suicide "selfish" and "cowardly", two words and an attitude which not only disrespected and insulted a family of a suicide victim but also threatened to cause further damage to impressionable young minds possibly heading down a dangerous path.  


And that is the main problem I have with shows like this which aim to be controversial for the sake of ratings.


Yes, it's all well and good to say "Oooh, did we offend you? Cheeky us..." and carry an attitude of any controversy is good controversy- and there's no doubt this show is running with that with the inclusion of repeat-offenders Akermanis and Elliot- they probably also hoped Don Burke would say something shocking in episode 2, but they only ended up with a few F-bombs. And because the show is pre-recorded, it meant that Ten chose to include the few seconds of offending footage- doesn't that make Ten just as culpable as Elliot? But before long the news stories the morning after will stop driving curious eyes to the show, and start letting people see through the deliberate ploy to cause controversy for the sake of controversy.


Just like how in week 1, I bemoaned the lack of someone in the Australian media landscape who could be both "honest and funny", it seems that "Worms" can't find anyone who is both controversial and rational.


And the other problem is, people will go on about how offensive a show like this can be... but it's not really the offense-causing that I have the problem with... it's the damage it can cause. As I alluded to above, Akermanis' suicide comments run completely counter to the messages put out by such companies as Lifeline, and as an ex-AFL player (not long out of the game), his opinions could still hold some sway with the younger generation.


Elliot's comments are deplorable of course, but it would be foolish to act outraged because someone still holds those type of views... just because many, many people still hold them. If anything, it's the fact that he is still being given a forum to express these views (albeit inadvertantly) is the outrage.

So, while Ten might think it is building an edgy new brand, is it in fact assembling a show which is not only dangerously flippant, but is also inherently self-destructive?