A few days ago The New Yorker published a piece by Emily Nussbaum detailing various lawsuits and allegations from former Love is Blind cast members accusing Kinetic Content, the show’s production company, of mistreatment. I’ve watched the show since it was first released four years ago and knew there had been various controversies and that some former cast members had started a nonprofit advocating for labor rights and mental health support for reality TV stars. Most of the examples of mistreatment in the article struck me as standard practice in reality TV production. The isolation, the emotional manipulation, the constant supply of alcohol, the lack of regard for mental health issues—it’s all unethical but not surprising. The article wasn’t revelatory or groundbreaking, but it makes me wonder whether discourse surrounding the ethics of reality TV has changed significantly and if so, whether industry practices will meaningfully change.
It feels weird to think of reality TV stars as victims because they voluntarily sign up for their roles and they gain social media followings and brand endorsements. But Nussbaum outlines how former Love is Blind cast members have made a case for themselves as exploited and underpaid workers (because appearing on a reality show isn’t typically understood as labor, reality TV stars are often unpaid or paid under minimum wage, which is part of why reality TV is so cheap to produce). I’m not sure Love is Blind’s treatment of cast members differs much from that of other shows now or in the 75 years the genre has been around, but I think the traction these claims have gained partially results from the dissonance between the show’s marketing and cast members allegations. Netflix advertises Love is Blind as an alternative both to the shallowness of online dating and the trashy reality dating shows that saturate the market. It is framed in pseudoscientific terms as a social experiment and exercise in looking past superficial distractions and social barriers to build romantic connections. So despite the show resembling other reality TV in most regards, the language used by the hosts and Netflix to sell it suggests that the show should be helping and therapizing the cast rather than exploiting them for drama.
The reality TV-star-to-influencer pipeline has also contributed to increased criticism of the treatment of reality TV cast members. Social media has allowed former reality TV cast members more opportunity to craft their own images. Working within the limitations of their contracts (though many Love is Blind cast members have revealed information that potentially violates their contracts on the grounds of talking about abuse rather than sharing trade secrets), cast members can attract followers by revealing exclusive behind-the-scenes info and also reframe public perception if they feel they received an unfair edit. This increased access to cast members outside of footage produced and edited by Netflix and Kinetic Content has given more space for cast members to air their grievances. I’m not sure if this shift in discourse will change the reality TV industry. And if it does, Nussbaum asks the question of whether the genre will work without all the manipulation and unethical production practices, which I’m not sure Love is Blind could be so popular without.
2 replies on “The Love is Blind controversy”
I really like how you pointed out how Love is Blind advertises itself as some sort of a therapeutic journey/experiment for true love, when it really is just another reality TV show and everyone including the producers know we’re all just in it for the drama. I think this holds true for most dating shows on Netflix, producers milking drama that happens between casts and assigning certain “roles” and characters to the casts for their production of the show. It’s a party of contestants who are just looking for clout / are really naive enough to believe they can find “true love” on such a show, then find out how exploitative the show was later + producers who are constantly looking for ways to make their show more dramatic, extreme, and provocative. I do think that without all the manipulation and unethical production practices though, dating shows like Love is Blind will undoubtedly lose popularity, because clips of drama between casts in these shows are always what seem to go viral on social media like TikTok and Instagram reels and make the shows popular. I even first began watching the most recent season for Love is Blind because I saw a clip of Chelsea and her partner fighting, screaming at each other over something they were upset at each other about.
Your insights into Emily Nussbaum’s article and the controversies surrounding “Love is Blind” highlight a critical and often overlooked aspect of reality TV production: the ethical treatment of its participants. The role of social media in shifting the discourse is also significant. Former cast members now have platforms to share their stories and challenge the narratives crafted by the production companies. However, the question remains whether these shifts in discourse will lead to substantial changes in industry practices. Reality TV’s allure lies in its raw, often controversial content. If production companies were to eliminate the manipulation and other unethical practices, the genre might lose some of its appeal.