Her Campus Logo Her Campus Logo
KCL | Culture

The Traitors: Backstabbing, Betrayal, Or Just Plain Bullying?

Pearl Hannaford Student Contributor, King's College London
This article is written by a student writer from the Her Campus at KCL chapter and does not reflect the views of Her Campus.

I am obsessed with The Traitors. The second UK series of Traitors was some of the most compelling television I have ever seen, and when the clock struck midnight and New Year’s Day rolled around, I wasn’t thinking about a New Year’s kiss. All I was thinking about was the beginning of the third series of Traitors. More than seven million people tuned in to watch the series three final, making it the most-watched episode in the show’s history. This year’s series offered up some of the most tactical game-playing (Charlotte’s betrayal of Minah and Freddie cannot go unmentioned) and producers clearly tried to address criticisms of the all-male Traitor team of Series Two, beginning Series Three with the ‘sisterhood’ of Traitors. 

However, even with changes to try and keep Series Three fresh and exciting, I had a lot less fun watching Traitors this year. First and foremost, the contestants seemed much more prone to arguments than in the previous two series. It’s interesting to see how as each season comes out, contestants all have more understanding of how people have previously played the game, often basing their behaviours or accusations off personalities who have appeared in the earlier series. Every contestant who began Series Three wanted to be a Traitor. Still, as the series progressed it seemed they forgot this, seeming genuinely angry when they suspected someone as a Traitor, despite it being the central premise of the show.

A particularly hard-to-watch moment was seeing Kas suspected and banished by his fellow Faithful. Basing accusations off of absurdities like the twinkle in his eye or his profession as a doctor, as soon as the Faithful decided they didn’t trust Kas, they began to exclude him from the group. In a particularly sad moment, we saw him having to leave a room and eat his lunch alone while the rest of the contestants discussed theories with each other. At Kas’ final roundtable, when Fozia had returned to the game mid-season, she called out how unnecessarily personal the accusations towards him had become. As a viewer, I don’t remember the mistrust and accusations in the show ever having felt so personal before; it was particularly upsetting to watch, with none of the Faithful seeming to remember that it is just a game.

Similarly, when Freddie made his ‘clique’ comment, the reaction he received felt more comparable to an episode of Love Island or Big Brother than to any earlier series of Traitors. Freddie was criticised by Livi, Leanne, Tyler, Jake and Leon and was given no chance to defend himself as they argued with him, using this as more evidence of his traitorous behaviour. I was so surprised that Freddie survived in the game as long as he did when he was picked apart so often by the Faithful. In moments like this, I wondered if the producers intentionally selected contestants this year who they thought would be more confrontational to produce more conflict. Reality television does need these kinds of characters – it would be boring without them, and drama is what viewers tune in for. But because Freddie was right, it was a clique ganging up on a single individual, it felt like watching bitchy drama unfold in high school, making for a painful watch.

Some viewers have noted that one of the key flaws with Traitors is that, in Richard Osman’s words, “there is absolutely no reason why you would vote off the stupid people.” To be a clever contestant is to be seen as a threat to the Traitors or as a great potential Traitor to the Faithful. Helen Coffey suggested that distrust of intelligence on Traitors reflects a wider issue among the British public of “an inherent suspicion towards, and rejection of intellect, especially when it comes to those in charge.” Yin, the first contestant to be murdered, had a PhD in communication. Alexander, former diplomat and fan-favourite, came across in the edit as poorly liked by his fellow Faithful, with Leanne calling him “patronising” when he spoke with a level-headed, diplomatic approach at the roundtable. Both Freddie and Kas were told that their intelligence would have made them great Traitors. I would argue that an element of racial bias also made the distrust towards Freddie and Kas even worse, with other contestants particularly threatened by them as intelligent men of colour. 

Accusations on Traitors are always based on bias and assumptions, but how these accusations were levelled felt crueller this year, and emphasised a cultural shift towards anti-intellectualism. In 2016, Michael Gove claimed that “people in this country have had enough of experts.” While his comment left many people with a huge sense of dread, there seems to be a depressing sense of truth to it. As modern politics seems to shift towards populism, so-called ‘common sense’ appeals much more than complicated facts given to us by ‘experts’. If Traitors offers up a cross-section of contemporary British society, no wonder intelligent contestants don’t last long.

As more series of The Traitors are released, contestants become more familiar with how to play the game, and in turn, producers will look for new ways to keep the show dramatic; but this drama does not need to come as a result of contestants picking on each other and having the show devolve into bitchiness and bullying. Ultimately, Traitors has in-built format issues, meaning there will always be complications as each series develops. However, these format issues don’t take away from how compelling it is to watch the group dynamics play out and evolve throughout the season. What most importantly needs to be considered for the show’s future is whether viewers actually enjoy watching the contestants fight and fall out, and instead think of ways to keep the game new and exciting without jeopardising the contestants’ wellbeing.

Pearl is a writer for the Culture section of the King's College London chapter, interested in writing about books, films, TV, music, popular culture in general, and how popular culture relates to society overall.

Pearl is in her final year at KCL, studying English with Film. Before starting university, she worked as a bookseller at an independent bookshop in her hometown; this fostered a huge passion for reading and sharing her love of reading with as many wonderful customers as possible. In her work, she got the opportunity to engage with local schools and created an initiative aiming to put free, high-quality second-hand books in the hands of as many local children as possible, and she also worked with teachers to create reading lists that would diversify their libraries and encourage children to read for pleasure. As a bookseller, Pearl also got the privilege to meet lots of incredible authors, inspiring her own interest in writing.

In her free time, Pearl loves to go to the cinema, write, sing, and read! She particularly enjoys stories that depict complex female characters and explore women's sexualities, as well as media that elevates marginalised identities that often aren't depicted on screen and in literature. When she's not doing these things, she's watching reality TV, or getting the train home to Kent to see her cat and her boyfriend.