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.

Celebrity Culture, is truly poisonous?

Sometimes I truly despair at my generations, and our societies, complete obsession with celebrity culture and all of its factions. In the past I have found myself addicted to celebrity magazines, but after some serious culling I started to try and focus more on the news that has the potential to directly affect me. Then I wondered whether my interest in celebrity gossip warranted such a cull, is it truly a bad thing to find interest in others lives? Granted, some have an unnecessary addiction to finding every pap snap of their favourite celebrity. But not all of us are that engrossed in the lives of those in the more favoured areas of the world, like the ever-elusive Hollywood. Is it natural to find an interest in the lives of those who star in the films and the TV shows we are addicted to? Is it unhealthy, or impractical? Should it be frowned upon?

It is often considered, by those with an overriding interest in world news instead of high society, that our largely celebrity obsessed culture heavily impacts us and taints the minds of the younger, rising generation. With a heavy reliance on social media our society has swiftly changed in the last thirty years, with people seeing celebrity as a career, not just an addition to specific career choices. Social media has developed into a form of communication between celebrities and their fan base. Therefore I understand the frustration of some celebrities having their lives intruded upon, but why do some invite it in or their social media accounts? And how much does this impact on our generations, and the future generations?

For one it definitely gives rise to the online stalker. Who will more than likely never face justice for any length of aggressive action due to the anonymity of the internet. Many have a compulsive need to know every move of the idealised versions of their favourite celebrity. Media is used to twist the images of every celebrity until their loyal fans are pushed to truly believe in them, hence the power of there following in advertising. It’s scarily easy to find out every detail of an actor’s life. Therefore I do pity celebrities from the point of view of the way the paparazzi stalk them in order to snap that one photo of their cellulite to lord over the public. If that isn’t unhealthy I don’t know what is. We live in a society where more often than not people’s belief in their romanticised celebs is stronger than any religious faith they may have.

Do you find that a little scary? I didn’t until I started thinking about how many times I’ve Googled a celebrity, or how much time I spend obsessing over celebrities that I realised how embedded in your life this society is. Every faction of our lives is saturated with every move of the famous people that top our social hierarchy. I long for a day when people harbour more interest in the social, political and economical issues of our present instead of whose dating whom in the celebrity world.

Not to say that an interest in celebrity culture makes an individual unintelligent or ignorant, but it leaves me to question whether our addiction will damage generations after our own. Will they completely lose interest in the politics and society that will shape our future? This is particularly demonstrated through the rise of the YouTuber celebrity, with millions taking to You Tube to get their entertainment fix it’s unsurprising that events such as Vid Con and Summer in the City are fuelling the rise of the ‘internet famous’. A new generation of celebrity who are taking the potential of the Internet to whole new levels, manipulating their influence for many a good cause. They have proved that to be a successful musician, filmmaker, or YouTuber does not necessarily need the input of a major corporation in order to succeed. Portraying the potential that celebrity culture has in advancing the invention and innovation of whole new careers that could lead to the evolution of the media industry.

So perhaps an interest in celebrity gossip isn’t so bad, as long as you aren’t stalking his or her every twitter post, and front page sell out story I don’t think anyone’s going to begrudge you your little fascination.  I’m just a little apprehensive of the potential of those who could take advantage of the millions of fans who watch them, and manipulate this new found media based society in a significantly negative way. But, in the same context positive changes could be effective in promoting positive treatment of social media and an awareness of the world around us. The problem with the growth of the Internet, and social medias ability to reach a wider audience is the thin line between the positive use of it, and the abuse of it. It is nigh on impossible to control, much like people’s addiction to celebrity. How can we control something that can’t be measured? I just wish that the addiction to celebs wasn’t always considered to be so ugly. It certainly doesn’t make a person unintelligent, but I also believe that a person should at least attempt to maintain an interest in the issues that also affect their society as a whole, not just the celebrities at the top of it.