- Journal Archives
- Volume 16
- Volume 15
- Volume 14
- Volume 13
- Volume 12
- Volume 11
- Volume 10
- Volume 9
- Volume 8
- Volume 7
- Volume 6
- Volume 5
- Volume 4
- Volume 3
- Volume 2
- Volume 1
Bravo’s the Real Housewife franchise, described by a reviewer as “interchangeable groups of affluent housewives — well-groomed, ill-mannered women who volunteer to drink, squabble and spend in exchange for reality-show recognition,” has come under fire after a recent tragedy. On August 15, housewives husband Russell Armstrong apparently committed suicide, one month after housewife cast member Taylor Armstrong filed for divorce. In the wake of this event, Russell’s family is reportedly contemplating a lawsuit against Bravo TV, the network that airs the show. According to radaronline, Russell’s family “blames” Bravo for Russell’s death, even though unlike his wife, he may not have been under contract with the network. Apparently Russell was unhappy with his portrayal on the show, and his susbsequent depiction in the still unaired Season 2 of the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. Regarding Bravo’s responsibility for this tragedy, the Armstrong family points to Russell’s disappointment with his portrayal on Season 1, his anxiety about his portrayal in Season 2, the dissolution of his marriage, and the damage the show caused to his career.
This would not be the first time reality television has been blamed for an unthinkable tragedy- in 1999 a jury held the Jenny Jones talk show negligent for its part in the death of Scott Amedure at the hands of Jonathan Schmidt. Schmidt had been a guest on the show three days earlier, where it was revealed that Amedure was his secret, homosexual admirer. Schmidt has apparently thought he was on the show to meet a female secret admirer, and shot Amedure a few days later, blaming the show in a 911 call.
It is less plausible that Bravo can be held liable in a suit brought by the Armstrong family for damages in Russell’s death. The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills is not the first installment of the franchise; Bravo may argue that at this stage, the buyer should beware and Russell should have known what he was getting himself into. Further, although Russell was unhappy with the way he was edited- he was not under contract with Bravo and could have walked after Season 1. Finally- unlike the Jenny Jones show incident, there have been no allegations of deception and deliberate manipulation of events. However, because Season 2 is still unaired it is unclear how those episodes will be treated. And juries are unpredictable. Bravo will probably want to avoid the negative publicity a lawsuit will bring them, and may be encouraged to settle either way.
What is clear is that this is a very sad event and should stand as a real wake up call to reality TV producers about the destruction these shows can leave in their wake. Even if Bravo escapes legal liability, hopefully they will learn to treat the subjects who have made them so much fame and fortune with a little more kindness.
– Alexandra Pichette
Recent Blog Posts
- Government Settles in DEA Facebook Impersonation Controversy
- Nickelodeon’s Kids v. Google
- Ivanpah Solar Plant’s Firey Clash of Environmental Objectives
- The Silk Road: An Insight Into the Future of Internet Regulation?
- JETLaw Symposium on Intellectual Property Tomorrow
- San Jose Strikes Out Again in Suit Against MLB
Tagsadvertising antitrust Apple books career celebrities contracts copyright copyright infringement courts creative content criminal law entertainment Facebook FCC film/television financial First Amendment games Google government intellectual property internet JETLaw journalism lawsuits legislation media medicine Monday Morning JETLawg music NFL patents privacy progress publicity rights radio social networking sports Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) technology telecommunications trademarks Twitter U.S. Constitution