Photo: @monika.kryemadhi / Instagram

When it was announced that Monika Kryemadhi would be part of the panel of opinionators on “Big Brother VIP Albania”, the reactions were not long in coming and, as often happens with public figures (especially political ones), people were divided into two camps. On the one hand, those who saw this move as problematic, reading her television presence in light of her political past, investigations, public memory that is not easily erased and the figure of her ex-husband, Ilir Meta, currently in detention. For this part of the public, “Big Brother” risked becoming a tool for image cleansing . On the other hand, there was an equally vocal public that was waiting with interest for a “tough” Monika: a sharp, cold-hearted opinionator who would not compromise in her positions, who would bring a different energy to the panel than the usual reality show. Two different expectations, but they had something in common: the conviction that her presence would not pass without leaving a trace.

Initially, what was offered to the public was a different Monica. Softer, more familiar, sometimes "babaxhane", ready to make fun of names, with personal memories and with a kind of kindness towards the residents that in the first weeks of such a format can be justified. In "Big Brother" still without serious conflicts, this approach was accepted as a transitional phase until she adapted to the program and the game could really begin.

But as the dynamics within the house became more tense, the commentator's approach remained unchanged. This is where the problem began. "Big Brother" is not a breakfast show with cooking recipes. When the game starts, the commentator cannot sit there like the organizer of a family dinner that will not spoil the atmosphere. Monika's role is not to calm down, but to articulate; not to agree with every position, but to position herself.

In the weeks that followed, a persistent lack of clear positions was observed in situations that required them. Discussions about implied flirtations, ethical boundaries, and relationships between residents were often commented on with soft justifications, labels that avoided the essence, and a tedious neutrality. Neutrality, when extended beyond measure, is no longer a virtue, but an avoidance of debate.

More problematic than the lack of attitude was the sense of double standards. Justifying questionable behavior with phrases like “Miri is a gentleman,” followed by emotional statements like “if it had been her daughter instead of Selin, she would have pulled her out by the hair,” creates a divide that the public reads immediately. The opinionist cannot judge the game by one code and life by another. Monika can be conservative, liberal, harsh, soft, but not with double standards.

Added to this is the language. Expressions that romanticize toxic behavior and violence ( whoever curses you, loves you ), jokes that rely on old stereotypes ( if a sister-in-law were good, she would be called a slut ), labels that may go unnoticed in informal conversations ( lovers don't want flowers ), but that take on a different weight on national television. The opinionator's words are not simply personal opinions; the opinionator, even when "strong", must be responsible.

Another recurring feature is evasion of the topic. Monika often evades the question, inserts sister-in-law, mother-in-law, stereotypes, comments that do not belong to the discussion. This is usually a symptom of two things: either a lack of a formed opinion about the situation; or a choice to “fill” the television time without taking a position. But Monika is not there to fill the broadcast space; that is done by the residents. She is there to analyze: who did what, why and what consequences this has within the game.

This difference became even more apparent in relation to the other opinionators on the panel. Arbër Hajdari, for example, maintains clear and cold positions, sometimes ironic, sometimes accompanied by jokes, but always understandable and responsible. It is precisely in the face of this direct approach that Monika's more withdrawn, "pull and don't break" nature was not always noticeable. But the moment when Arbër Hajdari was temporarily replaced yesterday by Alketa Vejsiu made this contrast even clearer to the public. Like Arbër, Alketa also maintained articulate positions, clearly doted on the "i" for several reports within the house (according to her perspective) and did not avoid any questions. Faced with the eloquent and "fiery" Alketa in the context of the debate, Monika's approach became even more apparent.

It is not important to go into the analysis of whether this is the "real" Monika outside of politics or a role built for the public eye. If this is the one outside of politics, then it is clear that she has not adapted well to this new television chair. If it is a role, the public quickly smells calculations and PR, and the opinionist loses what she needs most: credibility.

In a format like "Big Brother" where everything is a spectacle, the lack of a sincere, clear and responsible attitude does not make you any more human, nor closer to the audience. It simply makes you one more voice in the cacophony of the studio - a voice that is heard, but which, in the end, turns out to be unnecessary.