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.
No comments:
Post a Comment