MOTION #7: THIS HOUSE BELIEVES
REALITY TELEVISION DOES MORE HARM THAN GOOD
Reality television has become very popular over the past decade with shows
such as "Survivor", "Big Brother" and "The
Apprentice" attracting big audiences and making a lot of money for
broadcasters worldwide. A definition of reality television is quite difficult
but at its most basic it means programmes that show things really taking place,
rather than drama or comedy that follows a script. Typically reality TV
involves a group of people who are not trained actors being filmed in unusual
situations over a period of time. Sport and news programmes are not considered
reality TV. Documentaries that explore aspects of society are a grey area, with
some closer to news reporting and others blurring into reality TV because they set
up situations which did not already exist. Recently celebrity versions of
reality shows have made definition even harder, because they show the private
lives of professional singers, actors, sportspeople, etc. as they cope with new
situations. Reality TV is often a hot topic as proponents believe it paints an
unrealistic and inappropriate portrait and is therefore bad for our society and
the children that make up the majority of the audience. They call for a cut in
the number of hours given over to reality programmes, or even to ban them
completely. Opponents meanwhile maintain that people should be allowed to watch
what they like, and that reality programmes make good TV, as shown by
consistently high viewer figures.
Pros
|
Cons
|
The sheer number of reality programmes is now driving
TV producers to create filthier, more corrupt reality shows. Reality TV is actually getting worse as the audience
becomes more and more used to the genre. In a search for ratings and media
coverage, shows are becoming ever more vulgar and offensive, trying to find
new ways to shock. When the British Big Brother was struggling for viewers in
2003, its producers responded by attempting to shock the audience that little
bit more. "Big Brother" programmes have also shown men and women
having sex on live TV, all in a desperate grab for ratings to justify their
continued existence. Others have involved fights and racist bullying. Do we
let things continue until someone has to die on TV to boost the ratings?
|
Reality shows are not becoming more corrupt or more
filthy. What has changed is rather what the public defines as acceptable
viewing. In other words, the gap between what is actually real and what is
presented as reality is closing thanks to modern reality programs. And the gap
is closing due to popular demand to see reality on their TV screens. For
example, the sex shown on Scandinavian episodes of Big Brother is not
shocking or unrealistic, it is only unusual in the context of what we expect
to see on television. The fact it was shown only illustrates that the gap
between what is actually real and what is presented as reality on television
is closing. If the proposition has an issue therefore with what modern
reality shows are presenting, they have an issue with society at large, not
reality programs.
Even if were the case that reality programmes are
getting more corrupt and filthy, viewers should take the advice of former
U.S. President Bush Jr. and 'put the off button on.'
|
Reality TV encourages people to pursue celebrity status,
and discourages the value of hard work and an education. Reality shows send a bad message and help to create a
cult of instant celebrity. They are typically built about shameless
self-promotion, based on humiliating others and harming relationships for the
entertainment of each other and the viewers at home. These programmes suggest
that anyone can become famous just by getting on TV and "being
themselves", without working hard or having any particular talent. Kids
who watch these shows will get the idea that they don't need to study hard in
school, or train hard for a regular job. As John Humphrys points out, 'we
tell kids what matters is being a celebrity and we wonder why some behave the
way they do' As American lawyer Lisa Bloom fears, 'addiction to celebrity
culture is creating a generation of dumbed-down women.' Reality shows
encourage such addictions and promote the generally misguided belief that
they should aspire to be the reality stars they watch on their televisions.
|
Reality TV does not discourage hard work or education,
rather it creates a society whereby we have shared experiences and a strong
sense of community. As such, reality TV provides an important social glue.
Once upon a time there were only a few television channels, and everybody watched
the same few programmes. The sense of a shared experience helped to bind
people together, giving them common things to talk about at work and school
the next day – “water cooler moments”. Reality programs like ‘Survivor’ play
that role in contemporary society with viewership being ‘almost a cultural
imperative’, the experience shared simultaneously with friends and family.
Furthermore, even if it were the case that the moral
lessons of reality programmes are not always advisable, just as viewers can empathize
with characters in the Godfather without wanting to be them, the same applies
to questionable characters and actions in reality shows.
|
Reality shows make for bad, lazy and corrupting
television, encouraging such behaviour in society. Reality shows are bad, lazy and corrupting television.
They mostly show ordinary people with no special talents doing very little.
If they have to sing or dance, then they do it badly – which doesn’t make for
good entertainment. They rely on humiliation and conflict to create
excitement. Joe Millionaire, where a group of women competed for the
affections of a construction worker who they were told was a millionaire, was
simply cruel. The emotions of the contestants were considered expendable for
the sake of making viewers laugh at their ignorance. Furthermore, the
programmes are full of swearing, crying and argument, and often violence,
drunkenness and sex. This sends a message to people that this is normal
behaviour and helps to create a crude, selfish society. One American reality show, “Are You Hot?”,
in which competitors submit to a panel of judges for ‘appearance-rating’, was
blamed by eating disorder experts as encouraging the notion that ‘appearance
is the most important thing’ (Becker, 2003). Furthermore, Paul Watson, a
former reality TV show producer, believes they are ‘predictable and just
creates more of the same and makes our film makers lazy’.
|
Reality TV programmes are not corrupting. They do
reflect our society, which isn't always perfect, but we should face up to
these issues rather than censor television in order to hide them. When Adam
Lambert, an openly gay contestant on American Idol, lost in the final of the
show despite being widely regarded as the best singer, many rightfully
pointed out what it demonstrated about the homophobia of American society. To
deride reality shows as 'corrupting' therefore is misguided; it is society
who is corrupt and reality shows that offer a potential solution. To solve a
problem first requires accepting one exists, and reality shows provide a
means to do that; they are a window into society, permitting everyone to
reflect on the issues that are most harmful to society. As such, reality show
producers should not be accused of a lack of creativity or laziness for their
programmes, but congratulated for drawing attention to important issues.
|
Reality shows are not 'real', therefore they have no
education value. Reality TV is
dishonest – it pretends to show “reality” but it actually distorts the truth
to suit the programme makers. The shows are not really “real” – they are
carefully cast to get a mix of “characters” who are not at all typical.
Mostly they show a bunch of young, good-looking self-publicists, who will do
anything to get on TV. Usually the programme makers try to ensure excitement
by picking people who are likely to clash with each other. They then place
them in unnatural situations, such as the Big Brother house or the Survivor
island, and give them strange challenges in order to provoke them into
behaving oddly. In The Bachelor, where a group of women compete for the
affections of an eligible male, the ‘intimate dates’ they go on are filmed in
front of any number of camera; that is not reality (Poniewozik, 2003).1
Finally the makers film their victims for hundreds of hours from all angles,
but only show the most dramatic parts. Selective editing may be used to
create “storylines” and so further manipulate the truth of what happened.
|
Reality shows are real; they are real people operating
without scripts and often, live. The fact that characters are often cast to
encourage disagreements or tension does not take away from the reality of the
program, in fact it only adds to it. The unrealistic settings of shows like
Big Brother and Survivor do not take away from the educational value of
observing how they cope. In fact, without such shows, most people would have
little concept of how a group of strangers would be able to survive,
co-operate and develop in such environments. As Time describes, 'they
provoke, they offend but at least it's trying to do something besides help
you get to sleep'. The insight therefore into the human condition is
invaluable, and it is little surprise that viewers are eager to watch such
programs. What is real is not always the same as what is normal, the events
on Survivor Island are no less real for being in an unrealistic setting.
|
Reality television is not what audiences want, it is
watched simply because it is ‘there’. It is what John Humphrys calls
‘carbohydrate television’, it ‘probably hasn’t done you much harm and if it
leaves you feeling a bit bloated…well you can search out of a bit of quality
stuff’. With tens of television channels and twenty-four hours of programming
to fill, reality is simply a cheap means to ensure there is always something
on TV to watch. In Italy, the evidence supports such claims, with the state
broadcaster Rai deciding to scrap reality programmes in 2008 due to low
demand. As Rai’s President stated, ‘I don’t believe they are the type of
shows the majority of our viewers expect or want from a public service
broadcaster’.
|
Reality television is popular and TV producers should
give audiences what they want. Reality
television programmes are very popular with audiences of all ages and types.
They may not be high culture but most people do not want that from
television. Most viewers want to be entertained and to escape for a while
from the worries and boredom of their everyday life. American Idol rejectees
who stubbornly insist that they have talent provide such escapism.
Furthermore, and importantly, such contestants are good natured in doing so,
they are not exploited but offer themselves to reality shows. Therefore,
there is no harm in giving the people what they want – that is what the free
market is all about. Reality shows are also popular because they exploit new
technology so that millions of people can participate in the programme –
typically by voting. Britain is believed to have had as many as 176 reality
TV shows in a single year. Such supply can only be driven by excessive
demand.
|
The few reality TV programmes that are educational and
beneficial do not balance the bad majority. The majority are not educational,
either to the public or the participants, and the insight they purport to
offer into the human psyche are misguided. As Vanessa Feltz, a contestant on
the British Big Brother series, describes, contestants and viewers alike
'subscribe to this utterly specious notion that fame is entirely desirable',
whilst Narinda Kaur, another contestant on the show, admitted "I came
away from this experience thinking 'oh my God, did I really say that?".
As Claudio Petruccioli, head of the Italian state broadcaster Rai, notes,
'reality TV shows put people into environments that are both unrealistic and
coercive' Any lessons learned are therefore inapplicable to real-world
situations.
|
Reality TV can be educational and have real effects in
society in a way other television programmes do not. Reality TV can be very educational. They educate
people by displaying disastrous consequences of someone's behaviour, thus
deterring others from doing unplanned and silly actions. Programmes such as
"The Apprentice" have made people think about business. Jamie
Oliver has raised issues of youth unemployment and poor diet, and "Fit
Club" has got people thinking about health and fitness. Jamie Oliver's
inaugural reality show, 'Jamie's Kitchen', offered jobless youngsters the
'chance to train and lead a nationwide campaign to improve the quality of
school meals'. Without the TV show's popularity funding the initiative, the
youngsters involved would not have had such an opportunity and school meals
would still reflect what kids want to eat, not what they should be eating.
Such effects on society are beneficial and should be encouraged, not
restricted.
|
Reality shows are driving out other sorts of
programmes, so that often there is nothing else to watch. Reality TV is cheap
and series can go on for months on end, providing hundreds of hours of
viewing to fill schedules. TV bosses like this and are cutting back on
comedy, music, drama and current affairs in favour of wall to wall reality
rubbish. This is even worse when reality shows crowd the schedules of public
service broadcasters. Stations such as the BBC in the UK, France Télévisions,
or Rai in Italy have a duty to inform and educate the public. They should be
made to meet that responsibility – as Rai has by saying it won’t have any
more reality shows.
|
The public can always just turn reality programmes off,
or watch something else. Television provides
a wide mixture of programmes, including reality television. For those who
want it, there is high quality drama such as "The Sopranos" or
"Pride and Prejudice" whilst the BBC, CNN, Al-Jazeera and other
international broadcasters also cover news and current affairs in great
depth. Wildlife programmes on the National Geographic or Discovery bring the
wonders of the natural world into our living rooms. More sports are covered
in more detail than ever before. So, ultimately, reality shows have not
ruined television as a whole, they have merely added another option for
viewers. Indeed, because they make a lot of money for broadcasters to spend
on other types of programmes, they are actually good for all viewers,
regardless of personal taste for genres.
|
Reality TV is less about exposing society and allowing
us to evaluate our own behaviour than it is about 're-inforcing particular
social norms'. As such, it is deliberately misleading. If it is portrayed as
being real, it implies authenticity and honesty, two things that most reality
TV programmes are not. They serve not to challenge our views of society, but
reinforce the often false notions we already collectively hold. For example,
the US reality show "Are You Hot?" asks competitors to submit to
appearance-rating by judges, only re-inforcing the false premise that one is
defined solely by the way they look. Furthermore, even if accepted that
reality shows do present a 'real' image of society, programmes like Big
Brother and Survivor erode the distinction between public and private,
turning 'people with real lives and real problems and real children (into)
entertainment'. Society's entertainment cannot be allowed to come at the
expense of the privacy that protects families and children.
|
Reality television forces us to analyse our own
behaviour as a society. Reality TV actually
has a lot of value to our society; they are effectively anthropological
experiments, allowing the public to study people and societies from the
comfort of their living rooms. Humans are endlessly different and endlessly
interesting to other humans. In these programmes we see people like us faced
with unusual situations. Shows like Survivor, which place a group of
strangers in remote environments, make us think about what we would do in
their place, and about what principles govern human behaviour in general. It
also shows us people who look and act very different from us, and helps us
see that actually we have a lot in common with them. MTV's reality show
'Making the Band', a 'hip-hop American Idol', gives centre stage to
inner-city kids who would be portrayed as criminals or victims on a cop
drama. There is nothing immoral about reality shows, merely the society which
demands them; these shows are just a product of our values and desires. We
should face up to these issues rather than censor television in order to hide
them.
|
0 Comments