Binish Thomas (Special Correspondent)
A 13-year-old girl in Kerala allegedly plotted the murder of her own grandfather with the help of her teenage boyfriend and two other boys.
According to police accounts reported in the media, the boys entered the 67-year-old man’s home in Alappuzha district, while the girl allegedly watched the killing through a video call.
Investigators said money and gold were stolen, with plans to buy an iPhone for the girl and a motorbike for her boyfriend.
Police were also examining family conflict, phone restrictions and possible influence from crime portrayed on screen.
The case remains under investigation, and it would be irresponsible to blame any television programme for an individual crime without evidence.
Yet the incident forces India to confront an uncomfortable question:
What kind of behaviour, ambition and relationships are children absorbing from the entertainment they consume every day?.
Reality television did not create juvenile crime. Nor does everyone who watches it imitate what appears on screen.
But when conflict, humiliation, casual drug references, manufactured romance and unexplained celebrity lifestyles are repeatedly packaged as entertainment, their influence deserves far greater scrutiny.
When Bad Behaviour Becomes Valuable:
Reality programmes survive on attention.
A calm participant who behaves responsibly may contribute little to ratings.
A contestant who provokes arguments, breaks rules, forms dramatic relationships or makes controversial statements can dominate episodes, social-media clips and news coverage.
The commercial incentive is therefore clear: controversy creates engagement.
Participants quickly learn that confrontation can produce visibility, and visibility can produce followers, appearances, endorsements and acting opportunities.
The programme may eliminate a contestant, but the contestant’s career can begin only after leaving the show.
This creates a troubling message for young audiences: being sensible may make a person invisible, while being outrageous can make someone famous.
Reality television is frequently edited, staged or structured to produce dramatic situations.
Adults may understand this. Children and adolescents may not always distinguish between authentic behaviour and behaviour designed for ratings.
Research on adolescents and reality television has found that heavier exposure can reinforce certain gendered and relationship-related scripts.
This does not mean television determines behaviour, but it does show that repeated entertainment narratives can influence how young viewers understand relationships and social expectations.
Fame Without Achievement :
India once encouraged children to admire scientists, teachers, athletes, doctors, artists and public servants.
Today, fame can be generated through conflict alone.
Reality-show contestants may become household names without demonstrating any particular skill beyond surviving inside a televised environment.
Their arguments, romantic entanglements and personal disputes then circulate on social media long after the programme ends.
Some former contestants are subsequently seen travelling, staying at luxury hotels, driving expensive vehicles or displaying designer products online.
There may be legitimate explanations.
Influencers earn through brand promotions, event appearances, subscriptions, acting assignments and business partnerships.
But when the visible lifestyle appears dramatically disproportionate to publicly known income, transparency questions are inevitable.
Who is paying for the travel?.
Who provides the vehicles?.
Are hotel stays sponsored?.
Are social-media promotions properly disclosed?.
Are payments being reported and taxed?.
These questions should not become allegations against every television personality.
However, unexplained wealth should not become respectable merely because the person displaying it is famous.
Tax and investigative agencies already have the legal authority to examine suspicious financial activity where there is credible evidence. Celebrity status should provide neither automatic suspicion nor immunity.
Drugs as Controversy and Publicity :
The relationship between entertainment and drug culture also deserves attention.
In 2023, a reality show participant had already attracted publicity over a controversial remark interpreted as referring to MDMA.
The controversy itself became part of the media profile surrounding her television appearance.
More recently, a television actor publicly alleged that cocaine and MDMA had become common at some entertainment-industry parties and that drug use had disrupted professional work.
Her account was an individual allegation, not proof about the entire industry, but it reignited concerns over how casually illegal substances may be discussed or normalised around celebrity culture.
Media research has consistently examined associations between exposure to substance-use portrayals and attitudes or behaviour among adolescents and young adults.
Such exposure is not the sole cause of drug use, but repeated portrayals can contribute to normalisation, especially when substances are linked to glamour, rebellion or popularity.
Broadcasters must therefore distinguish between responsibly discussing addiction and turning drug-related controversy into a marketing device.
A contestant’s provocative remark should not automatically become a qualification for greater visibility.
Manufactured Relationships and Real Consequences:
Romance is another reliable source of ratings.
Contestants form relationships, separate, reconcile, flirt, betray one another and discuss intimate matters before cameras.
Some relationships may be genuine. Others may be encouraged, exaggerated or selectively edited.
For young viewers, however, repeated exposure can create the impression that relationships are primarily about possession, jealousy, confrontation and public performance.
Adults have every right to reject marriage, choose unconventional relationships or live independently. The problem is not that reality television presents alternatives to traditional family life.
The problem arises when responsibility, commitment and stable relationships are portrayed as dull, while manipulation and emotional chaos receive the greatest attention.
Children need to understand that television relationships are commercial content. They are designed to retain viewers, not necessarily to model healthy behaviour.
Existing Rules Are Not Enough :
India does have content-regulation mechanisms.
Television broadcasters are subject to the Programme Code under the Cable Television Networks framework.
Online curated content is governed by the Information Technology Rules, which require age-based classification and recognise themes such as drug misuse and violence as factors in content ratings.
The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights has also issued guidelines covering children’s participation in television serials, reality shows and other entertainment.
These recognise that children in entertainment environments may face unsuitable, stressful or harmful situations.
However, most debate focuses on children who participate in programmes. Far less attention is paid to the millions of children who watch adult-oriented reality content through television, streaming services and short social-media clips.
Age labels mean little when controversial scenes are extracted and circulated freely through reels and video platforms.
What Needs to Change :
India does not need to ban reality television.
It needs stronger accountability.
Broadcasters and streaming platforms should provide prominent content warnings for violence, drug references and sexual or abusive conduct.
Programmes accessible to young audiences should include meaningful age restrictions rather than token labels.
Channels should avoid repeatedly rewarding contestants for discussing illegal drug use or abusive behaviour.
When serious allegations arise, producers should not use them merely as promotional material.
Financial arrangements involving contestants, sponsored travel and paid promotions should comply with taxation and advertising-disclosure requirements.
Agencies should investigate only where there is credible evidence—not on the basis of rumours or television appearances.
Schools and parents also need to strengthen media literacy. Children should be taught that “reality” television is edited entertainment in which conflicts and relationships may be manufactured for commercial purposes.
Entertainment Cannot Escape Responsibility:
The Kerala murder case cannot be reduced to one television show, one film or one social-media platform.
Juvenile violence usually emerges from several interacting factors: family circumstances, personal relationships, psychological development, peer influence, access to technology and the surrounding social environment.
But media cannot claim to have no responsibility at all.
When television repeatedly transforms aggression into entertainment, controversy into employability and reckless behaviour into celebrity, it contributes to the environment in which children form their ideas about success.
Reality shows may insist that they merely reflect society. But television does not simply reflect behaviour. It selects it, edits it, promotes it and rewards it.
The question India must ask is not whether every reality programme corrupts every child. That would be an absurd claim.
The real question is whether broadcasters are willing to accept responsibility for the values they repeatedly place before impressionable viewers.
Entertainment should provoke interest. It should not teach an entire generation that notoriety is the quickest route to success.
