Comment

COMMENT
Save
Print
License article

We've been conned by Married at First Sight

Can we ever trust a psychologist, a counsellor or especially group counselling again?

Show comments

I carry today an enormous burden of shame and guilt. I feel dirty. I have let down my family and my community.

I need counselling. We probably all need it.

Up Next

Kendall Jenner's Pepsi ad backlash

null
Video duration
00:56

More Entertainment News Videos

Andrew and Anthony cop a grilling

After viewing the boys night video at the reunion Andrew defends his behaviour while Nadia unloads on Anthony. Vision: Married At First Sight, Nine Network.

The trouble is, after religiously watching Married at First Sight,  I am not at all sure any of us can ever trust a psychologist, a counsellor or especially group counselling again.

"Why didn't you just turn it off, you idiot?" I hear you ask.

But I was addicted. And even if I could find a MAFSaholic Anonymous group in my area, what's to say fellow members wouldn't shame me like MAFS contestants did as three counsellors seemingly watched on and did bugger-all to stop it?

Sure, we should have all realised this was just entertainment that pays the participants to keep going so they can be manipulated – think the moral hazard at play when Susan's dream man cum fake love interest farmer Sean kept going on the show because he needed cash for a holiday.

Advertisement

The producers have to create narratives of good, bad and blindly innocent – think Michelle's Adelaide friend-zone victim Jesse – when reality is a tad more complex.

We all love "love" stories – think Simon and Alene, good on them, ooh-aah, I feel so warm inside.

But trust me. I've stuffed up lots of times in 28 years of marriage, starting with watching the horse races every arvo on our honeymoon.

The keys to a strong relationship are forgiveness, redemption, compromise, tolerance of each other's farts and learning from your mistakes.

No chance of that on MAFS. Every stinking stuff-up now lives forever.

Being a better partner next time is not an option for bully-boy racecaller Anthony ("I've go a good sort") Manton and boob-focused Jonesy – not in the public eye at least. The cost to them is bad enough.

It's even more shameful to me that I've been complicit in following the trauma of their victims, Nadia and Cheryl.

I have let myself be conned into urging them on, even though deep down I know it's bad for them and it's bad for all of us in a caring society.

Maybe you have been conned too. Maybe the whole counselling profession has been conned.

In 2012 former TV producer Cheryl-Anne Whitlock completed her Masters thesis titled "Is Manipulation within the Construct of Reality TV Ethical".

"Many psychologists shied away from participating in my study because of their view on reality TV," says Whitlock, who scoured Australia, Britain and the US for respondents. "After I'd completed my thesis, I had learnt a little bit too much. Now I am a former TV producer."

Whitlock's study found psychologists "consider reality television to be a manipulatively constructed, ethically bereft and morally bankrupt commercially driven entertainment delivery system … at the participant's expense."

One counsellor respondent to her survey made a fair point: contestants in this day and age must know what they were getting themselves in for.

Even if you accept informed consent is possible, shows like MAFS affect viewers who might relate to the characters and situations. While some media reports say the  relationship counselling business is booming now, I am not convinced.

I asked the three MAFS on-screen counsellors two questions:

1. What impact do you think MAFS will have on encouraging or discouraging couples to seek relationship counselling from registered counsellors/psychologists and group therapy sessions?

A Nine Network spokesperson replied, saying MAFS "has had a positive impact on couples and singles.  It gives people insight into relationships and how to overcome issues ….  It can also encourage couples to reach out for help."

2.  What ethical concerns if any did you have about participating in the program, given its "shaming" of contestants such as Anthony in front of the group, the payment contestants received, and the alleged editing out of key moment such as when Sean told Susan he was not interested beyond friendship halfway through the series?

Nine replied: "We take duty of care extremely seriously and all the participants involved have access to psychologists in the lead up to the experiment, during the process and beyond the series …  The group dynamic has provided the couples with the opportunity to lean on one another ... As with most TV shows where participants step out of their daily lives, they receive basic living expenses."

I still fear the show's effect on public confidence in counselling, just as we need to tackle mental illness and domestic violence.

The Australian Psychological Association code of ethics says psychologists "do not behave in a manner that, having regard to the context, may reasonably be perceived as coercive or demeaning ... and do not denigrate the character of people by engaging in conduct that demeans them as persons."

While a few reality TV survivors prosper, others suffer.  In Britain, former Castaway 2000 participant Ron Copsey left the BBC show traumatised. He now counsels fellow realty TV victims. In the US Jamie Huysman's TV Aftercare program offers follow-up counselling for talk, court and reality show participants.

But what we really need is counselling for shame-filled viewers like me.

Such is life …

astokes@fairfaxmedia.com.au

10 comments