Reality Television: Has the Novelty Worn Off - Essay Example

Reality Television: Has the Novelty Worn Off? Reality Television: Has the Novelty Worn Off? Introduction Reality television began on the American television programming station MTV. MTV came up with an idea in 1992 of putting six strangers in a house and having them live together (IMDB 2013). These people were filmed and the conflicts that came from having diversity in race, gender, and social status as well as in personalities became a social experiment. As The Real World was born so was the reality television program. The exploitation of these original six cast members was the beginning of the reality television movement that dominated the airwaves for a great many years. While reality television of other types had been in existence for some time, the idea of the social experiment as television was very new and compelling to an audience that was tired of dramas and sit-coms. Reality television has been a unique experience in the field of entertainment. Reality television is the exploitation of the real lives of people in order to entertain. Sometimes it is a clearly harmful experience while at other times it is socially relevant. It is harmful when the actions and emotions of the players are manipulated to get a certain response. It is helpful when some redeeming social idea or consequence comes from the event. That is the more rare circumstance. When the idea of reality television came into existence networks began to scramble for ideas for games and situations to put people into social conflict. Programs like Big Brother were not only popular in one country, but began to be produced in different nations around the world. The phenomenon of reality television grew to be one that was worldwide. It is unclear at one point the reality television genre hit its peak. The genre is no longer new, as it is over 20 years old now, and the novelty has begun to wear off. The following paper will examine reality television and its effect on programming. It will then take a look at its decline and discuss the future of reality television programming in the future. Keeping it Real While it is true that reality television as a modern genre came about in 1992 with the Real World, reality programming has been around for as long as there has been television. An interesting social experiment that was created in 1964 was 7-Up. After interviewing a group of children who were seven years old in 1964, the latest edition to the programming was 49-Up which was interviewing the same group at the age of 49. Holmes and Jermyn (2004, p. 1) have quite a romantic definition of the place of reality television in the market. They state that it has an aesthetic and cultural power and that it has attracted the right level of viewers that television executives want for their programming. Current definitions of reality television include everything from viewing inside a celebrity family to game shoes that put marriage on the line as an award for winning. Reality television is sometimes crudely filmed, often seeming more like a home video, but it is sometimes very similar to the quality of mainstream programming even down to having a script. Reality is relative to the perceptions of the viewer. Therefore, reality television is just as much an illusion as fiction. One of the reasons that reality programming has become so successful is because it is cheap and easily replicable. The formulas that work on one program can be copied and modified by just a few changes and become a whole new program with a proven ability to perform (Skeggs and Woods 2012, p. 2). Reality programming can be game shows, talk shows, and informational programming. Modern reality shows include observation of real life, constructed reality, and sometimes just the appearance of real life. Through formulas for success and the repetition of different types of programs, the reality program genre has a significant place in current programming just as it has for the last twenty years. Popular Reality Programs Popular reality programs in the UK have included Big Brother which has gone worldwide, including in India, Canada, and in Africa. There are many more programs that are no longer on the air which includes Trisha Goddard and the Ricky Lake Show. In 2010 the following was a list of reality programs that could be found across the five many networks: Priceless Antiques Road show, Mastercrafts, Great British Menu, Hospital Heroes, Homes Under the Hammer, To Buy or Not to Buy, Cash in the Attic, Bargain Hunt, Escape to the Country, Blue Peter Special, MySay, DIY SOS, Car Booty, The Edible Garden, Cracking Antiques, Monty Halls’ Great Hebridean Escape, 60 Minute Makeover, Daily Cooks Challenge, Dickinson’s Real Deal, Cops with Cameras, Supernanny US, Country House Rescue, Three in a Bed, The Air Hospital, Three Hungry Boys, Brighton Beach Patrol, I Own Britain’s Best Home (Mendick and George 2010, p. 1). Big Brother was a unique phenomenon that was not only shown in multiple countries, but it is produced with local performers so it is a completely new program in some places. Big Brother was developed by Dutch producers and was designed with a group of house mates who lived in a constructed house in a studio and were completely isolated from news, family, and friends. The events of the house allowed the studio audience to vote off members until one final member received a reward. The show has been franchised throughout the world so that the players were relatable to local cultures (Ginnekin 2007, p. 79). Big Brother is more than just the game, however. The first thing that it does is introduces a group of strangers to one another and put them in a position to build relationships. One of the ways in which the observation of this programme can have social benefits is through watching to see how intimacies are developed. As well, the type of people that the audience responds to becomes a part of the developing dynamics of those intimacies. As an example, one of the seasons in the UK presented a transsexual named Nadia. The audience responded well to her and in the end Nadia won the game. Some people believed this meant that people in the UK were becoming more accepting of those who live as transsexuals (Wyatt 2012, p. 152). Ethics and Reality Programming In looking at the value of ethical behaviour in reality programs, there is a debate between whether evaluating the ethical nature of the programme is affected by evaluating the ethical behaviour of the participants. As an example, in the 2007 version of Celebrity Big Brother there was a controversy about the racially inappropriate statements made by Jade Goody about the Indian actress Shilpa Shetty. Wyatt (2012, p. 175) shows that a show can be both ethical and unethical at the same time. This is part of the allure of these programmes, but it is also why some viewers are beginning to avoid them. While it was interesting for awhile to watch as people became inappropriate in ways that were familiar in life, the exploitation of casts in these programs are beginning to move viewers away from them. The problem with the way in which reality programming is presented is that while the events may be real, they can be edited to represent something that is not realistically represented. To relate this to Big Brother once again, while someone may watch something on the programme that occurs, context may not be realistic unless one is looking at the Twitter feed, the other media coverage, and various television times that the feed is open. Even if these outlets are used, the ‘reality’ that is shown may still be constructed. The argument made by the producers of Big Brother is that documentary film makers have always prompted those they are filming or interviewing to respond to certain subjects. In the Big Brother house an announcer will make certain prompts to create a discussion. Visual editing which includes shot for dialogue, shot reverse, and montage, further manipulates the material, thus manipulating the audience (Mendick and George 2010). It is in the manipulation that this form of ‘social experiment’ that has begun to lose its charm. The novelty of reality programming has worn off, but that does not mean that it is not still interesting in some forms. What seems to have been affected is the type of programming that falls under social construction that has lost its lustre. Social conflicts that are manipulated to create emotional responses have become transparent and the public does not buy it like they did in the beginning. In creating programming that is more informative while being entertaining, it could be said that a more positive relationship has been built with the audience. The audience is far more receptive to watching as a house is fixed or someone finds something valuable in their family heirlooms than to the manipulation of people and their emotions. The Present and the Future Reality television now that it has constructed programming on most aspects of life and love are becoming a part of the discourse in politics and social construction. Through the behaviours seen on reality television, interpretations about real life have been made that affect outcomes to discussions. The people who are on reality television become examples of good or bad behaviour and viewers have the ability to define whether or not they believe those representations. They can be adopted into social behaviour and affect how people speak, relate, and how they create expectations. An example is an obscure reality programme in the United States called Paradise Hotel where one of the characters used the word Yahtze, a name of a game where the word is used to indicate victory, as a way of showing others that she had own some debate or conversation. This word has now become used more liberally in American television to indicate the same (Ouelette 2007, p. 68). Social contracts of a sort are created with an audience when they watch a reality programme. The audience agrees to observe the actions of people when put into a constructed atmosphere and the producers of the programme agree to represent reality to the viewer. The manipulation of reality, however, is never as it seems. One of the disclaimers at the end of most reality based design shows is that the outcomes are sometimes recommended by the producers in order to aid in the overall quality of the show. This means that if a reality contestant is interesting performs badly, they may be kept by recommendations of the producers who believe it will enhance the ratings on the show. The social contract that the programmers ultimately agree to and intend to give in exchange for viewership is entertainment. Reality programming of the future will likely be more subtle than some of the examples in the past. Manipulation of the audience has become more obvious as the audience has become more sophisticated. One of the ways that the manipulation of the involvement of the audience has become more sophisticated is through the use of SMS texting as a form of creating voting. The audience can use texting as a way to log a vote in for the competitions. This type of interaction is more appealing than merely showing programming and may become more common as reality television transforms to modern audiences (Murrey and Ouellette 2009, p. 156). Conclusion If the ‘novelty’ of reality programming is based on the idea of manipulating the emotions of the audience through exploitation of actors in the programmes to represent incendiary topics than this novelty has worn off. Informative programming and contests seem to be still popular. Because of the ease with which reality programming is created, it is likely to continue as long as there are viewers. The ethics of the programmes, however, is more scrutinized by the audience and must be kept within certain audience defined boundaries. Although the novelty has run stale, the interest in people will always be popular and this will make reality television a continuing part of modern programming. Bibliography Ginneken, J. . (2007). Screening difference: How Hollywoods blockbuster films imagine race, ethnicity, and culture. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield. Holmes, Su and Jermyn, Deborah (2004). Understanding reality television. London: Routledge. IMDB (2013). [Online] Retrieved from www.imdb.com Accessed on 22 March 2013. Mendick, Heather., & George, Rosalyn. P. (2010). Language, Power and Reality TV: the dynamics of race, class and gender in the UK Big Brother Jade-Shilpa row. Online Educational Research Journal. [Online] Retrieved from http://eprints.g old.ac.uk/4109/ Accessed on 20 March 2013. Murray, S., & Ouellette, L. (2009). Reality TV: Remaking television culture. New York: New York University Press. Ouellette, L. (2010). Reality TV gives back: On the civic functions of reality entertainment. Journal of Popular Film & Television, 38(2), 66-71. Skeggs, Beverly and Woods, Helen. (2012). Reacting to reality television: Performance, audience and value. London: Routledge. Wyatt, W. (2012). The ethics of reality TV: A philosophical examination. New York: Continuum. Read More