Perspective on Reality TV - Literature review Example

Why Murray’s (2003) perspective on reality TV is no longer valid in the current times The phenomenon of reality television has been growing in popularity since its introduction. This popularity has been based on reality television’s ability to engage audiences at a human level – a quality which both cinema and traditional television programmes have failed to develop. Despite its popularity among consumers, there have been growing concerns about the extent to which reality television shows are real in terms of presentation and authenticity. Essentially, these two contradicting perspectives have been presented by Murray (2003) and Poniewozik (2006). This essay presents a critical examination of the arguments contained in both articles. First, a brief summary of the arguments for the usefulness of reality television to audiences as presented by Murray is given. This is done with reference to relevant literature on the value and importance of reality television shows to general audiences. Also, a brief summary of the contrasting perspectives towards reality television shows as presented by Peniewozik is presented. This is done in view of recent academic opinion about the effect of using different technical devices on the overall authenticity of reality television shows. Throughout the argument presented in this essay, it can be seen that when evaluated in comparison to the information presented in Poniewozik’s article, Murray’s perspectives towards reality television are of little validity in the current times. Murray (2003) argues that reality television should be viewed as something that is able to engage the audience at a human level, a thing that film and television in general failed to achieve. Further, the main reason why reality television is important in today’s entertainment industry arises from the failures of the film industry. According to Murray (2003), films have failed to make good stories despite the finding that goes into their production. This failure to make good stories can be attributed to the way films may have good scenes but still fail to convince the audience at the end of the story. What happens is that members of the audience are aware of the fact that all the scenes in the film are actually acted out as opposed to being the reality. Although reality television shows do have several technical failures that audiences are able to point out in the events, they remain a viable option of engaging the audience. Murray highlights several reasons for this. To begin with, reality television uses real characters as opposed to films which make use of actors. Murray states that in reality television, audiences are “are watching a real person be genuinely happy or sad”. This is in stark contrast to what happens in cinema and other television programmes which, as a result of using characters, fail to sensitise the audience on the emotional experiences that are depicted in the scenes. The second point that is presented in this article is that by watching real characters go through ordinary daily activities, reality television helps the audience sympathise with the participants. Murray (2003) observes that this is important since the audience is able to share in the emotional journey that the characters undergo. The perceptions about reality television offered by Murray are not new at all. Papacharissi and Mendelson (2007, p. 357) observe that the attraction of the audience towards reality television lies in the historical nature of participatory media. Ideally, participatory media started in the early 20th century with the beginning of publications that involved contributions from readers. This gave way to confessional women’s magazines that became popular in Australia and the US back in the 20th century (Papacharissi & Mendelson 2007, p. 359). In the current times, reality television shows derive their popularity from their ability to achieve two objectives: the desire to participate in television programming and to have a direct observation of the daily activities of ordinary people (Birressi & Nunn 2005, n.pag). This implies that with reality television, individuals not only have a direct participation in the programming but also enjoy watching ordinary individuals going about their ordinary day-to-day lives. On the other hand, it has been observed that reality television shows play a key role in shaping the cultural values of the society. For instance, Holmes and Jermyn (2004, p. 10), state that the demand for reality television shows arises from a deep seated need in individuals for real life experiences. This is because the current modern society is so dominated with digitalised and constructed products that individuals crave for products that depict the real. It is important to note from these observations that reality television has developed as a result of a growing demand in the market for real life experiences. It can be seen that the public has expressed a desire to access content that depicts ordinary events in an ordinary manner. This is in agreement with the main argument that is presented by Murray that reality television fills the void for two desires in individuals: direct participation and observation of ordinary lives. Much as reality television presents events that are supposed to be real and featuring ordinary people, the process of developing the shows exposes the footage and sounds collected to extensive editing. It is in the course of editing that producers use different techniques to alter different aspects of the shows. The result of this process is that the final product that gets to consumers in the form of reality television shows lacks in authenticity, form and truth. This is what Holmes and Jermyn (2004, p. 11) call the ability of reality television shows to “manipulate and construct the real”. According to Poniewozik (2006), reality television shows lack authenticity because of several reasons. To begin with, whereas the shows are supposed to cover ordinary events of ordinary people, the use of editors and other skilled writers means that the plot, sequence and the events that are presented in the shows are so altered that the process amounts to the entire shows being scripted. This means that through extensive editing, the authenticity of reality television shows is greatly compromised. The second point is that in subjecting the works to extensive editing, producers end up misrepresenting the participants (Poniewozik 2006). The corollary is that whereas reality television shows are meant to feature real people going through their daily lives, editing work ends up misrepresenting the intentions and real motives of the participants. The reason for this is that since consumers are in need of suspense, producers of reality television shows “…fabricate things about real people who have to carry their fake reputations into their real lives” (Poniewozik 2006). The third issue that Poniewozik points out about reality television shows concerns the different skills that producers and editors employ in producing the final product to the market. According to Poniewozik, the use of skills such as “frankenbiting, fake settings, misleading montage and overdub” amounts to manipulating the authenticity of reality television shows (2006). Also, when producers use leading interview and other skills, the overall effect is that reality television shows are compromised in terms of authenticity and truth (Magidson 2014, p. 30). This is so even if it is done to enhance the action and satisfy the curiosity of the audience, who are in need of suspense and drama. When the information presented by Poniewozik about reality television shows is used to re-evaluate the perspective of Murray, it can be seen that the latter’s position and perceptions about reality television are of little relevance in the current time. This can be confirmed by examining several features of reality television and comparing the perceptions of both Murray and Poniewozik about the features. To begin with, reality television shows are meant to represent real life events. Since their beginning, viewers were inclined to accept them at face value, taking what was offered as a real representation of actual events in the lives of ordinary people. To this score, Murray observes that reality television overcomes the difficulties of cinema by offering the audience a view into the lives of ordinary people (Murray 2003). However, it has been seen that with the growing discovery of the extent to which representation is used in the production of reality television shows, many users are beginning to consider the stories as quite unreal and untrue (Biressi & Nunn 2005, n.pag). Although Murray suggests that reality television is an authentic representation of life events, it can be seen that this is not the case. With specially built settings that are different from what goes on in the real world, reality television shows cannot be said to be truly authentic. In addition to this, the question of authenticity arises when one considers the kind of communication that takes place among participants in reality television shows. It has been pointed out that these shows depend on exploiting the emotional moments that participants find themselves in the course of the events. Through monologue, the emotional element of the events is presented to the viewers. Much as this may be necessary, its use can be interpreted to compromise the overall authenticity of the shows. Aslama and Pantti state: The power of the monologue in reality TV can be seen as a parallel to the fascination of the entire genre for its audiences. The monologue, as with reality programming in general, contains an ambiguous interplay of the pre-scripted and non-scripted, individual and collective, performed and non-performed and fake and real. Consequently, the thrill for viewers is to hunt for the few rare authentic moments when the participant seems to reveal their ‘real’ self. (Aslama & Pantti 2006, p. 181). The implication of this is that with the use of monologue, producers of reality television shows exercise their control over the material by presenting to viewers events that have already been scripted. Another issue that arises with regard to reality television shows concerns the use characters. Essentially, reality television shows are based on following the progress of characters over a period of time. Edwards (2013, p. 17) observes that it is the manner in which the participants are turned into characters with whom the audience identifies with that drives reality television shows. Their progress through self-disclosure and personal revelation is what provides for the drama that comes with reality television shows. Concerning characterisation, Murray states: A key ingredient of reality TV is the casting of “ordinary people”. No longer are audiences watching an actor pretend to be sad or happy. By and large, they are watching a real person be genuinely happy or sad. There is no performance to deconstruct. It is real. (Murray 2003) However, when one considers the actual way in which the participants in the shows are chosen, the validity of this statement is lost. The casting for the shows is modelled in such a way that producers look for individuals who fit into specific story lines that have been developed (Poniewozik 2006). This way, producers are able to, “tell a story clearly, quickly and entertainingly” (Poniewozik 2006). Also, the observation that reality television involves casting of “ordinary people” can be seen to be untrue when one considers that reality television shows often involve celebrities and other famous personalities in their casting. This implies that the participants who appear in the shows are not randomly chosen ordinary individuals but are rather a select group of individuals that are carefully chosen to fit into specific story lines. It can therefore be concluded that when examined with regard to the aforementioned issues, the perceptions of Murray about reality television can be found to be of little validity in the current times. In conclusion, it can be seen that when evaluated with regard to the information contained in Poniewozik’s (2006) article, Murray’s (2003) perspectives towards reality television are less relevant in the current times for the following reasons. First, Murray (2003) argues that reality television is useful in engaging with the audience at a human level. Although this is true when reality television is compared to cinema and other forms of television programming, the fact that reality television is subjected to technical processes that destroy its very nature of authenticity and reality means that this may not be necessarily so. Also, when examined under the element of character, setting, audience, representations and discourse, it can be seen that what reality television shows present to the audience are works that have been subjected to extensive editing careful selection of participants and enhanced storylines. Although all these processes are carried out in order to satisfy the needs of the consumers in the market, their overall effect is that the authenticity of reality television shows is greatly compromised. References Aslama, M & Pantti, M 2006, ‘Talking alone: reality TV, emotions and authenticity’, European Journal of Cultural Studies, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 167–184, viewed 3 February 2014, Biressi, A & Nunn, H 2005, Reality TV: Realism and revelation, Columbia University Press, New York. Edwards, L H 2013, The triumph of reality TV: the revolution in American television, ABC-CLIO, California. Holmes, S & Jermyn, D 2004, ‘Introduction: understanding reality TV’, in Holmes, S & Jermyn, D (eds), Understanding Reality Television, pp. 1–32, Psychology Press, New York. Magidson, L A 2014, ‘Love is just a game in a mediated world: the representation of gender in The Bachelor and The Bachelorette’, Master’s Thesis, University of Witwatersrand, viewed 3 February 2014, Murray, S 2003, ‘The positives of reality’, The Age, October 16 2003, viewed 3 February 2014, Papacharissi, Z & Mendelson, A W 2007, ‘An exploratory study of reality appeal: uses and gratifications of reality TV shows’, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 355–371, viewed 3 February 2014, Poniewozik, J 2006, ‘How reality TV fakes it’, Time Magazine, January 29 2006, viewed 3 February 2014, Read More

In the current times, reality television shows derive their popularity from their ability to achieve two objectives: the desire to participate in television programming and to have a direct observation of the daily activities of ordinary people (Birressi & Nunn 2005, n.pag). This implies that with reality television, individuals not only have a direct participation in the programming but also enjoy watching ordinary individuals going about their ordinary day-to-day lives. On the other hand, it has been observed that reality television shows play a key role in shaping the cultural values of the society.

For instance, Holmes and Jermyn (2004, p. 10), state that the demand for reality television shows arises from a deep seated need in individuals for real life experiences. This is because the current modern society is so dominated with digitalised and constructed products that individuals crave for products that depict the real. It is important to note from these observations that reality television has developed as a result of a growing demand in the market for real life experiences. It can be seen that the public has expressed a desire to access content that depicts ordinary events in an ordinary manner.

This is in agreement with the main argument that is presented by Murray that reality television fills the void for two desires in individuals: direct participation and observation of ordinary lives. Much as reality television presents events that are supposed to be real and featuring ordinary people, the process of developing the shows exposes the footage and sounds collected to extensive editing. It is in the course of editing that producers use different techniques to alter different aspects of the shows.

The result of this process is that the final product that gets to consumers in the form of reality television shows lacks in authenticity, form and truth. This is what Holmes and Jermyn (2004, p. 11) call the ability of reality television shows to “manipulate and construct the real”. According to Poniewozik (2006), reality television shows lack authenticity because of several reasons. To begin with, whereas the shows are supposed to cover ordinary events of ordinary people, the use of editors and other skilled writers means that the plot, sequence and the events that are presented in the shows are so altered that the process amounts to the entire shows being scripted.

This means that through extensive editing, the authenticity of reality television shows is greatly compromised. The second point is that in subjecting the works to extensive editing, producers end up misrepresenting the participants (Poniewozik 2006). The corollary is that whereas reality television shows are meant to feature real people going through their daily lives, editing work ends up misrepresenting the intentions and real motives of the participants. The reason for this is that since consumers are in need of suspense, producers of reality television shows “…fabricate things about real people who have to carry their fake reputations into their real lives” (Poniewozik 2006).

The third issue that Poniewozik points out about reality television shows concerns the different skills that producers and editors employ in producing the final product to the market. According to Poniewozik, the use of skills such as “frankenbiting, fake settings, misleading montage and overdub” amounts to manipulating the authenticity of reality television shows (2006). Also, when producers use leading interview and other skills, the overall effect is that reality television shows are compromised in terms of authenticity and truth (Magidson 2014, p. 30). This is so even if it is done to enhance the action and satisfy the curiosity of the audience, who are in need of suspense and drama.

When the information presented by Poniewozik about reality television shows is used to re-evaluate the perspective of Murray, it can be seen that the latter’s position and perceptions about reality television are of little relevance in the current time.

Read More