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.

Where did all the strong women go?!

Strong female role models have always been difficult to find in today’s industry, particularly when the airy-fairy damsel in distress has dominated the silver screen for decades. True female role models do rely upon the beholder, particularly when every individual admires specific traits. But, for my own preference I must admit that I would do anything to see a woman kick ass without any apologies, and without a man taking all the credit.

As a child I was raised on classics like the Fox and the Hound, and 101 Dalmatians. Luckily the helpless damsels that override princess films never indoctrinated me. Granted Disney is finally starting to embrace the strong women with recent Disney flicks, such as Tangled and Brave, becoming roaring successes when portraying the strength of will of women as their most beautiful feature. It’s high time that this focal lesson stretched across the entire film industry. So perhaps it may be seen that some Disney films are finally embracing the beauty of a strong, independent woman without the need for a dominating romantic thread, as is displayed in the triumphant Brave. However, recent imagery of Merida for her Disney feature contrasts the powerful young woman portrayed in the film, and harshly reverses the positive influence that the film encourages. Why couldn’t they just leave her as she was?! All I want is a fairytale without a man to cloud the picture, portraying as message that says that you don’t need a man to keep you happy.

The recent Snow White and the Huntsman provided some hope with the focal point being a woman who can fight her own battles, as well as accepting help from a male counterpart – the perfect balance! For this is the balance that needs to be found, one that does not dismiss the beauty of a happy relationship, but also addresses the power a woman on her own can possess. I for one would love to see more modern retellings of these traditional princesses, give them power, give them soul and make one a damn lesbian, that’d be refreshing!

But alas that would be asking too much wouldn’t it, for so many are fearful of angering the small minorities who would fight tooth and nail to prevent such a thing happening. A lesbian could encourage children to be gay; a violent woman might encourage bad behaviour, unladylike behaviour. Of course that would just be criminal wouldn’t it. I yearn to see the day when an unforgiving, powerful woman takes the stage, a woman who doesn’t take shit from anyone, and doesn’t need a male protector, or even romance to make her life whole.

Herein lies the issue I have with other film franchises that claim to provide a strong, powerful woman who acts as a figurehead for young women to follower. You can find a million and one courageous, strong-willed men dominating the silver screens, so why is it that when a woman comes along with the same characteristics it’s shocking. But alas the world is still trying to come to terms with seeing a gay kiss on screen, perhaps one day we won’t be all a clamour whenever a kickass woman is finally portrayed. But, in the franchises that dominate our screens, and young women’s minds, are any of them truly strong?

Firstly, I’d love to write a whole thesis on why the twilight series acts as a bad influence for women, but let me make this succinct. Bella is not a strong woman. She is depicted as completely unable to make her own decisions, allowing a man to dictate every aspect of her life, from her sex life to her ability to drive. This frustrates me beyond all else, and yes, I have read the books too so I can formulate an opinion. Edward is in all senses of the description, a dangerous man. He is abusive, controlling, and for fuck sake he spends almost the entire franchise trying not to eat her!

How does this promote a strong image for young readers to follow? I for one would not want my future children to view this woman as a role model, very little is given to her as a choice. The entire book and film franchise depicts this poor girl running round after a man who consistently endangers her life, with no regard for her own life. Even Jacob who all but forces himself upon her in the second book and again doggedly (pun intended) pursues her until he finally imprints on her daughter (great undertones of paedophilia there Stephanie Meyers). How in the hell can anyone see these films as providing a strong female role model?! I understand the addiction to these novels, but all they appear to do is portray that a woman cannot be happy without a man controlling her life.

The Hunger Games franchise on the other hand provides and entirely new point of view. It survives the majority of scrutiny in providing a strong female role model, in my opinion. The character of Katniss Everdeen is one of strength and endurance. What I think I find most refreshing about her is her desire not to be the hero, she fights for herself, and her family, not for the world. She is manipulated by those around her, but still appears to hold a resounding power in herself that permeates through both the books and the films. I think what makes her a particularly admirable female role model for myself is her dedication to her family, in particular her sister. These are the attributes I wish others would promote in film, a strong woman who is unafraid to defend herself, who is unapologetic for who she is, and has no shame in fighting for her own life and not for the lives of others. However, as much as I admire the new wave of film franchises that are beginning to promote this new power woman there is one factor that I wish we could do without; the romance.

But, sadly nearly every strong female role model is tainted with this undying love that dominates the storyline of these franchises. Even the new wave of fantasy, with strong female role models, still allows romance to takeover the storyline including the upcoming Mortal Instruments and Beautiful Creatures. It frustrates me that an action film with a male star can have a meaningless romance, or is completely void of it, and is considered successful. But, we are severely lacking in films that concentrate on an authoritative woman who has no qualms with sleeping with whomever she likes. Moreover, being a woman without any need for romance at all, who can fight, master herself and lead others without apologies. Wouldn’t that be a miracle?

Granted I am not condemning the idea of an influential woman who has a significant love in her life, that is an ideal I believe in. But, what I strongly object to is the message that women need to have a man in their life to make their lives worthy. Furthermore the insistence of writers placing these momentarily commanding woman in situations that apparently only a man could save them from. Whereas any male led film can lead its cast without ever needing the help of a woman. I would have done anything for a strong female model whose character could have a man, but didn’t necessarily need one. So why is it that we cannot find one in this day and age?