When not to modify a hashtag.

The existence of social media platforms has given birth to social media activism, which has enabled people to promote their own causes independently of charities and organisations. On occasion social media has been responsible for spearheading influential campaigns, including the #BlackLivesMatter and #YesAllWomen hashtags. Both of which have played an integral part in raising awareness of issues of racism and sexism in the modern world. Despite the positive influence of these projects, amongst others, they have come up against resistance, most notably in the form of those who warp and reshape the original message of the campaign for their own purposes.

The mishandling of these campaigns has become an epidemic issue, with countless people launching spin offs of the initial campaign to serve their own needs. As a result supporters are fractured by the confused message and the message is lost amongst the fight to reclaim it.

Activists hashtags have been reshaped continually, and the #AllLivesMatter tag is a prime example of what’s wrong with it. The #AllLivesMatter hashtag emerged soon after the #BlackLivesMatter message took off. The changed message was supposedly to support caring for all people, and helping them all equally. Presidential candidate Hilary Clinton even uttered the phrase during a speech on her campaign tour. People have continued to support the #AllLivesMatter movement, claiming that it’s a more positive message because it supports all people. But, what continues to be misunderstood is that #BlackLivesMatter is not designed to be exclusionary; it is designed to draw attention to a minority who are continuing to face blatant and unchecked prejudice and racism. By supporting a cause aimed at a specific group of people you aren’t announcing hatred for all other people, but this fact seems to be lost on those who decided to alter the movement with #AllLivesMatter.

The same problem can be seen amongst hashtags promoting feminism and projects like #EverydaySexism. One of the most significant backlashes against these hashtags has been #NotAllMen, which was designed to draw attention to the fact that not all men are sexist or rapists. A fact that really wasn’t necessary to point out, but the participants in this hashtag are apparently incapable of understanding that a blanket statement drawing attention to a minority issue is not condemning all others outside of that group.

The bastardisation of these hashtags is a clear example of the continued ignorance displayed by people who decide to actively manipulate these campaigns for their own gain. Those who create these modified hashtags are often working with the best intentions, because they think that they’re promoting a positive message, but what they’re doing is actually very damaging. On occasion, though, they really are just arseholes who think that they’re better than the issue being promoted. Changing the message waters down the positive effects of the initial hashtag and wastes time, because supporters of the original message can become embroiled in fruitless arguments with those ignorant enough to modify the hashtag.

With the continuation of insular and intolerant attitudes people are able to promote these modified hashtags freely and they continue to gather support. The initial manipulation of these hashtags usually stems from people misunderstanding the root of the cause, which results in the decision to ‘correct’ the perceived wrongdoing. The warping of the cause successfully draws attention away from its original message and poisons the positive influence the campaign is trying to achieve. Consequently people have to waste time attempting to explain why their bastardisation of the initial campaign is wrong, which wastes precious time. The focus of campaigns like #BlackLivesMatter and #EverydaySexism is to help adjust the equilibrium of our society to more accurately reflect an equal and just society. But, this becomes impossible when people continue to bastardise the cause for their own gain, because they deem these hashtags as inflammatory and prejudice in themselves. To put it simply: they are not being prejudice. The hashtags are designed to gather support for the group being affected, and raise awareness of the issue. Not to hurt your precious feelings.

Modifying these campaigns fractures minority groups as each attempts to gain the attention they deserve, and are hampered by the individuals who believe that their hurt feelings deserve more attention than the primary cause. So next time you think that someone saying #BlackLivesMatter or #YesAllWomen is a personal affront to you, reconsider! I can guarantee you that it’s not designed as an insult to you, I doubt you’re important enough to have a hashtag developed just to offend you. Try reminding yourself that the world doesn’t revolve around you, there are issues that need attention drawn to them and sometimes they aren’t going to be about you. They’re aimed at raising awareness of an issue that needs addressing, that needs to be acknowledged and changed. So stop reading between the lines, and listen to the message. 

What's really wrong with Reality TV?

Reality TV has become an integral part of modern popular culture and it isn’t showing any signs of disappearing. It hasn’t completely taken over our screens yet, but it’s carved out its own place in TV history with endless new ideas and shows popping up every few months. Even though it has often been considered ‘low-brow’ entertainment the genre has continued to draw increasing numbers of fans. It has succeeded in directing its gaze onto vast groups of people, from benefits claimers on the controversial Benefits Street to drunken partygoers on shows like Geordie Shore, The Valleys and Jersey Shore.

The breadth of programming that falls under the definition of reality TV is impressive, with everything from teenage pregnancies to marriage being documented and staged. It has managed to infiltrate popular culture in countless areas and it’s allowed insight into what the typical modern audience wants to watch.  But, despite reality TV’s consistent popularity there remains an argument that its production could be damaging to the audiences who watch it. So is reality TV harmless, or is it threatening to dumb down a generation with inane programming?

Is it even reality?

The set up of reality TV accurately reflects its animal counterpart – the documentary. Documentaries often follow the lives and actions of the animal world and humans have long enjoyed watching them play out on screen whether they’re animals or not. But, what is often forgotten whilst watching such programmes is how much they’re influenced by those creating them in the first place. It’s impossible to create a reality show, documentary or otherwise, that’s completely unbiased or uninfluenced by outside factors. Every reality TV show is designed, they are very rarely allowed to flow naturally, and even those that do are not organic creations. At its root reality TV is acting portrayed as real life, nothing more. Even those shows that profess to be ‘truly real’ cannot be considered as such, because the actions of those involved are still being manipulated by outside forces. Placing people on reality shows affects their behaviour and leaves people incapable of acting naturally.

Those who place themselves on reality shows are intimately aware that they’re acting even if it’s in the smallest capacity they’re still portraying a character that they hope audiences will respond to. Everything you’re watching is being directly influenced by the creators of a show, which is designed to imitate reality whilst sucking as much money as possible out of it. So really, and pointlessly, reality TV can really be defined as drama rather than reality, but that would eliminate the interest audiences have in it in the first place. Even if it is fake all a show needs to do is suspend reality for its viewer, and reality TV has always been able to achieve this with ease by immersing audiences in the lives of others.

Is it wrong?

Despite my obsession with Geordie Shore I often end up feeling guilty when watching it, and not because I’m embarrassed to watch it (everyone needs something to zone out too), but for a completely different reason. When you’re watching shows like Geordie Shore and Keeping up with the Kardashians it’s easy to forget why you’re really watching them. Some watch reality TV for the glimpses into their favourite celebrities lives, others watch because they genuinely care about finding out what the stars are doing with their lives, but for others reality TV is all about revelling in the misery or idiocy of the genres biggest stars. I definitely fall under the last category, and I imagine many others do to, which incites some level of guilt.

Mostly I would agree that this brand of reality TV is harmless, because the shows stars are fully aware of the situation they’re putting themselves in and the pay off must be good otherwise they wouldn’t still be coming back for season after season. The same cannot be said for all reality TV programming, however, particularly with reality shows like Benefits Street beginning to crop up.

The show has been the centre of considerable controversy following its airing in 2014. Benefits Street was designed to give insight into the lives of those living on benefits, but it ultimately became a twisted portrayal. The ‘reality show’ deliberately vilified benefit claimers by highlighting the select few who manipulate the system, whilst forgetting to emphasise the importance of supporting those less able to work.

The show sparked even more controversy when participants claimed that the show had lied to them by promising to deliver content highlighting the community spirit of the area.[1] Although the programme was highly contentious it drew an impressive average viewership of 5.9 millions people per episode, which cemented its place on Channel 4.

Despite continued division over the existence of such programmes several politicians cited the show as an excuse for clamping down on benefit claimers. Amongst the most notable commentators was David Cameron who used the shows views to argue that the government should ‘intervene in people’s lives’ to help them transition from being benefit claimers to full-time workers. Some argued that the show was simply ‘poverty porn’, whilst others saw it as an excuse to instigate harsher cuts to the welfare system. Regardless which side people fell on, what was clear was the inherent cruelty of the show. It was designed to vilify those living on the bottom of the social ladder and simultaneously allowed people the chance to laugh and ridicule those involved in the show. If the show had succeeded in providing an unbiased look at that section of the society it may have been able to provide an interesting insight into it, but instead Channel 4 demonstrated the deliberate cruelty that reality TV can breed.

Is it clever?

Simply put? Yes. Reality TV is probably one of the more lucrative TV ventures in recent years, not counting the up and coming superhero takeover. It’s maintained a consistent presence on our channels for decades, and will undoubtedly continue to be a significant part of our programming. The monster industry that is reality TV has launched the careers of countless D-Listers and revolutionised the way some advertisers market their products.

The very existence of pop culture has enabled reality TV stars to make use of hundreds of thousands of Twitter and Instagram followers to earn themselves an extra payday. Perhaps not the pinnacle of human intelligence, but a perfect example of the role reality TV has played in modifying the way advertising has developed in recent years.

On top of their advertising potential reality TV shows have also shown impressive longevity, with some series reaching 10 seasons and bringing home some serious cash. Their ability to march on through the shortening attention spans of today’s audiences is characterised by their understanding of human’s natural inclination to spectate rather than participate. We as a human race have a delightful tendency to prefer to watch what others do than do it ourselves, and reality TV has manipulated this desire to keep us firmly on our sofas watching their creations. The construction of a product that can sell to any level of society has resulted in a lavish lifestyle for reality TV, with it turning camera to everything from teenage pregnancy and drunken holiday goers to ‘social experiments’ and competitions. Many may have a tendency to look down their noses at reality TV, but its very existence as an addictive, intelligent and long lasting design proves its worth.

So, is it really wrong?

Reality TV has been labelled as everything from genius to asinine, and that’s largely down to its tendency to lean toward the controversial, always toeing the line between acceptable and deplorable. Reality TV is well aware of its precarious position, but it also relies on it. It wouldn’t survive if it weren’t picked apart and criticised on a daily basis. It feeds off controversy and the attention media platforms and publications provide. For the most part it has remained a relatively harmless entity, particularly when considering tamer versions of reality TV, like Gogglebox.

But, the problems of reality TV arise when the fallout from their existence is more noticeable, exemplified by Benefits Street. Although Benefits Street isn’t the only show that has been met with significant criticism – heavy drinking shows like Geordie/Jersey Shore have been accused of promoting unhealthy drinking habits and singing shows have been criticised for flooding the market with musicians unable to endure in such a competitive industry. Comparatively 16 & Pregnant was complimented for contributing to a lower rate of teen pregnancy, but despite this rare success story not many others have followed suit. Most reality shows have begun to border on the ridiculous, especially with the recent Married at First Sight, and they aren’t showing any signs of moderating their ideas.

When will it have gone too far? My vote is that it already has with upcoming The Briefcase pitting families in need of money against one another all whilst dangling $101,000 in front of them. There’s certainly nothing wrong with enjoying a bit of mindless TV and laughing at the ridiculous antics of those involved, but where’s the limit? Mockery can easily tip the balance into becoming vindictive.

Reality TV usually provides harmless fun for our screens, but there are clear signs that it’s becoming a tool for experimentation and deliberate propaganda. It thrives on shocking its audiences, no matter the consequences, and the genre is always prepared to cross boundaries if necessary. So the question is, is reality TV always harmless, or does it have its limits?

---

[1] Stuart, Paul (6 January 2014). "Benefits Street TV show lied to us, say Winson Green residents".Birmingham Mail (Trinity Mirror). Retrieved 23 January 2014.