People love this show. There’s a reason why it is popular. It’s touching, moving, inspiring, and does good for those who seem to be doing bad.
However, while channel surfing with some friends of ours, we happened upon an episode, and instead of being moved to tears, we were moved to laughter and cynicism. Now, that’s definitely due in part to the company we were with, but as I began to think more about the show, something struck me about the actual good that shows like this do, and all of the consequences, good and bad, that result from productions of this scale.
I offer these inquiries and observations as an honest critique to hopefully move us towards a better society, and a better way of philanthropy.
1. ALL REALITY SHOWS ARE CONTRIVED. THIS PROGRAM IS NO DIFFERENT. No matter how much you want to get away from it, what you see on the screen is not reality. So, while the appearance is that there are great things happening, we must remember it’s produced in such a way as to contrive that effect. That’s not real philanthropy, that’s good television. So, that for me, poses a bunch of questions as to what is actually happening, and what are the real consequences of benevolence of this form and through this kind of medium (cf. Marshall McLuhan).
2. CORPORATIONS ARE HELPING THOSE WHOM THEY MARGINALIZED IN THE FIRST PLACE UNDER THE AUSPICES OF BEING THEIR SAVIORS. This inquiry may be too cynical so I’ll be cautious. I sense that much of what ABC is doing is actually quite deceptive in their motives and in their driving values. There are plenty of arguments about capitalism and the kind of society it produces, intentionally or incidentally. Suffice to say, one could make the argument that the disparaging distance between the wealthy and the poor is caused by the very same capitalism that is producing these shows. Therefore, in effect, while they may be helping in small ways the individuals that are the focus of each episode, they are on a grander scale further perpetuating the systems and values that keep marginalized people poor in the first place. [1]
3. THE SHOW IS SUBVERSIVELY SELF-AGGRANDIZING. The product placement and self-promotion of the network is overwhelming. Again, while being cautious of overt cynicism, the show does appear to capitalize on the compassionate nerve of the audience, being coyish and manipulative for the ends of bigger and more profitable companies.
4. THE STANDARDS OF LIVING VALUES THAT ARE COMMUNICATED ARE OF UPPER CLASS PEDIGREE. Everything in the home is of the best quality, etc. Now, whenever you act compassionately and philanthropically, never use leftovers; always give the best. That way you ensure a more authentic and altruistic way of compassion. However, I have to ask what happens to a people or a community after they’ve been given the best of everything when they were unable to afford those items in the first place, and they’re probably incapable of sustaining that kind of standard over the long haul. Given the law of diminishing returns, will their joy ever be satisfied again if they eventually have to diminish their standards or quality of living?
5. THERE IS AN IMBALANCE OF RESOURCES, THUS DOING A LOT OF GOOD FOR VERY FEW, AND SO LITTLE GOOD FOR THE GREATER WHOLE. This is my main contention and question. Millions of dollars, thousands of man-hours, hundreds of companies, and one family. Is this what it takes to do good for people? If that’s the case, who is ever going to benefit except the very few, leaving behind the many, which puts us back into the imbalanced percentages of classism? Could not these resources be utilized and leveraged in different ways? In other words, which is better, huge benefit for very few, or small incremental benefits for many? And, if we only benefit a few, does that actually do more damage to the greater whole?
6. LONG-TERM RESULTS STUDIES HAVE NOT BEEN PUBLISHED. Now I recognize this is unfair for a program that is less than ten years old. However, if any “thus-far” studies or reports are available, I’d be very interested in seeing what kind of results this kind of big-bang-benevolence has on families and individuals in the long-term. Does this really help to create a better society, a better people, and a multiplying ethic of benevolence and philanthropy in the social conscious and in society? Or does it just spoil people? Do the tangible things actually improve their quality of living, or only their perceptions of their quality of living?
REBUTTAL TO FOLLOW.
I think I have some immediate responses to some of the critical questions above. So, should anyone think that my questions and concerns are imbalanced, I’ll post a rebuttal to my own sentiments listed above soon. Again, these are questions, and I’d encourage some thoughtful responses to help us all understand better so we can behave better.
—
[1] I realize that the program’s focus is not just on poverty. Often it is of disease, or unfortunate events, etc. But, the show only chooses people who are impoverished.
vialogue 
Very good piece, I am very happy to see that somebody thinks alike, and can actually see through the (horrible) fakeness of this show.
Yep, purely a commercial venture, to promote more indebtedness to giant corporations. It’s a contest, to see who can pluck our heartstrings the hardest. I like the spirit behind it, yet agree that these homes are built way beyond the needs, and certainly the expectaions of, the recipients. It makes other groups, like Habitat for Humanity, seem stingy, when they do far greater good.
They build modest, functional homes, and give them to people who are made responsible for them. My father used to say, “When you are given everything, you value nothing.” Enjoy the show, if you will, but keep in mind it’s exactly as suggested: Self-aggrandizing. Long term, I think we’ll see old habits and mindsets, unable to maintain what they’ve been given. Just follow lottery winner stats, for proof. No anger..just saying.
guao lo unico q les digo es q son maravillosos y espectacular ayudar a familias q lo necesita y de esa manera son espectaculares siempre veo ese programa son grandiosos deberian de hacer eso internacionales
I’M WRITTING FROM COLOMBIA AND I WOULD LIKE TO CONTACT THE SHOW MANAGER TEAM TO MAKE A PROPOSE…
Thanks for your well though out and well spoken critiques of the this show. I appreciate your perspective and would like to add this…when the show started it was not a cookie-cutter experience. The design team would be tired, cranky and sleeping under work benches (in the rain). This had the bootstrap pulling character…4 years later, you don’t see the strife, the particularity or the reality of the immense difficulty in building a working and healthy house in 6 or 7 days. It is far too corporate. It is far too ‘woe is them’ for my liking. I agree that the families are often if dire straits, but do they need (or want) a home 4 times as big as their old one? who pays the increased insurance premiums? who takes care of the the heating and cooling upgrades? There is a lot left unspoken these days…I much prefered the olden days of the first and second season, when it seemed to cost the design team a bit in order to pull it off. I used to be a question of whether it would actually be completed this time…now with all the corporate support, there is no nail-biting. Frankly, I liked the ride better when we all were on it. Now, it fells protected and governed. Too bad. Our loss.
Thanks Amelie. I concur, and appreciate your additions.
I really liked this post. I would also like to add a question, that goes along the lines of #5: What kind of mentality toward the many people trapped by crippling poverty/health concerns/environmental hazards/etc. might this show propagate in the millions of people who watch it? Especially when, in addition to the despondency of their situations, families are chosen on the basis of their moral character?
Thank you, Charlie, for your contribution. I’m a little confused at your question, for you inquire about “mentality,” but don’t necessarily identify “who.” Of the audience, of the corporations?
Either way, I think your point is valid, and is at the crux of the issue. Money is not the solution, for money was not the problem.
I think this show is deceptive. They create the appearance of wanting to help these families with no concern for profit, where as the exact opposite is true. It would be like running a help-website with a big proclamation “I am only running this site to help people, not to make money off my ads”. If their profits dried up, their show would cease immediately.
Habitat for Humanity builds modest homes for needy families without all the tears and emotional junk that Extreme Makeover deliberately tries to manufacture. I truly support such real charity as this.
your right,in the begging the cast was tired and often sleeped under tables in the rain. it was because they didn’t know if they could do the things they do in 7 days.but now, they have gone through the motions so many times, its just like any other job.
p.s. The homes that are bigger have been modified with low energy this and that. alot are solar supplied.they have gone green. as far as raising the value and more taxes, there is a clause that says, if you lease me your house,and I do any upgrades to your house, as long as everything is up to all city codes and regulations, you are not liable for the taxes on the upgrades ext.ext.ext
Que Jehová los bendiga por toda la vida, que les de mucha salud dicha y prosperidad, para que de esta manera continuen con esa mision de llevar alegria a esas personas que nesecitan su contribucion, haciendoles revivir la luz de la esperanza, los felicito de corazon ya que ustedes no se imaginan que esas emociones que sientes esas personas receptoras de sus buenas obras, son vividas tambien por todas aquellas personas que tenemos la dicha de poder ser testigos desde muy lejos de sus acciones, me despido de ustedes no sin antes insentivarlos a seguir adelante.
This was a thought provoking piece. I was an early fan of Extreme Makeover when they did not build new homes but came in and renovated the the selected family’s existing home to make it a safer and healthier environment. It was very bootstrap and showed what a few folks could accomplish working together. In that spirit our local church youth group spent a summer doing makerover projects for several local families in need and help clean up, paint, repair, and to some degree renovate their homes. Business owners in the community chipped in with donations of new flooring, carpeting and volunteer labor for installations. The local Habitat for Humanity furniture store donated furniture in good condition that was needed for the some of the families. All in all, a very rewarding experience that demonstrated what folks can do to help one another. I agree that Extreme Makeover has lost their original vision and become too commercial. Recent articles I read on the internet indicate that many of the winning families are in foreclosure because they could not afford the increased taxes and maintenenance costs of the homes built for them. IRS treats these homes the same has winnings and taxes them heavily. I guess the shows producers are rethinking how they build and opting for more modest, low maintenance homes and arranging for the families mortgages to be paid off but the I concur that the show is overly commercialized in its current incarnation.
i’d also like to contact the manager of extreme make over ..my house need a serious home adition make over
I loved the assertion that this show is essentially the perpetual load of garbage that I’ve always thought it to be. I’m a contractor and have seen the grandiose spending on the program as wasteful and not an efficient way of distributing wealth to the people who need help the most. I have worked with charitable organizations over the years that have us provide repairs, construction and maintenance for the less fortunate using only donated materials and labor, often coming from others in the community who are not that fortunate themselves. This type of charity seems to ensure that the recipients are not only provided for, but are grateful for the help. I believe that the producers of this show pat themselves so hard on their backs, that they could never unkink their arms for long enough to write a personal check out to charity, never mind swing a hammer. Persons watching the program need to realize that the economic situations involved are not only unreasonable, but irresponsible.
That being said, who is keeping track of the quality of the work, and who the heck is responsible when bad things happen? I spoke to a person who worked as an EMT on a standby support crew for the show. He told me that at any one time there were over 140 people working at once. I run a crew of up to twenty at a time, which is insane in its own rite even with professionals, and I would certainly not trust 140 individual volunteers trying to coordinate a very rapid building effort to not make some very costly and perhaps dangerous mistakes. He also stated that there were over TWENTY electricians working at once, while only a couple were actually shown working on the televised show. I know that when I build or renovate, I only use ONE electrician with ONE helper. This virtually eliminates dangerous mistakes and circuit issues after the build. It’s just trying to do too much in too short of a time for too selfish of a reason.
I personally prefer “Holmes on Homes”. Mike and crew do a lot in a short time, but nothing is rushed for the sake of good TV. While he can be a little too type A personality sometimes, and the show doesn’t really tell the whole story of how the homeowners probably hired the lowest bidder because they couldn’t afford Mike Holmes initially and without the help of sponsors like DeWalt, I firmly believe that they are doing something good and providing a quality job when completed. I just want to know how the contractors on “Home Edition” are going to be held liable if and when one of these aberrations burns to the ground with a family of four inside.