Reality Television and Interactive Television in America, Australia, and Hong Kong
Television or TV is a common appliance found in houses of any industrialized society. The diffusion of television in several countries around the world made television watching one of the universal forms of leisure. It is a fact that the frequently recognized role of television is for entertainment and information (also called as infotainment). Television, as a moving, visual, and aural medium is able to communicate and send media messages to people in more effective ways than any other traditional media like the radio or the newspaper. More often than not, the TV is preferred as medium of communication due to its ability to present real and moving images as well as sounds. The television had undergone rapid transformation over the years – from its technical structure up to its program designs and show formats that are being presented. Since the turn of the millennium, television programs and shows are far different from that of the previous decades. The ability of the television to present reality and the opportunity for people to interact with what it presents are the reasons why it is the best medium to come up with show formats like reality television and interactive television.
Reality television or reality TV is a genre that presents in various programming format such as crime and emergency-style shows, talk shows, docusoaps, and some forms of access-style programming; with unscripted situations; and often involving ordinary people rather than professional performer to react in specific situations and conditions in pursuit to actual ‘reality’. Hill (2005) defined reality television as “a catch-all category that includes a wide range of entertainment programmes about real people” (p. 2). On the other hand, interactive television or commonly known as ITV, is nearly inseparable with reality television programming and based on various number of techniques that allow diverse user populations to interact with television content applications to serve their entertainment goals and domestic leisure activities at the time or after they view them (Chorianopoulos & Spinellis 2006). These two types of television programming formats in some ways affect the cultural identities of people who see them regardless of countries and nationalities. Cultural identity has something to do with the characteristics of an individual, group or culture that can be used to distinctly associate an individual, group or culture to one dominant culture. Culture and cultural identities are portrayed in media. In reality TV, cultural identities are related in terms of programming formats such as social-behavioural themes as seen in lifestyle shows, social experiments and game shows.
This paper is limited to the case of three (3) countries – America, Australia, and Hong Kong. Primarily, the focus of discussion is on how reality TV and ITV differ in each country. National comparisons on selected reality TV shows are used for illustration. It also points out on how reality TV shows influence cultural identity construction. Each country is compared in the aspects of how cultural identities have been shaped by reality TV shows; the effect of cultural imperialism; and the differentiation of interactive television activities involved.
Reality Television and Constructing Cultural Identities
It is argued that reality TV take significant parts in shaping and constructing cultural identities because television is the proliferating resource and watching TV has become a daily domestic routine. According to Handwerker (2002, p. 107), culture mainly consists of the knowledge on what or how people use to live their lives and the ways in which they survive. Cultural identity, on this case, refers on social demographics and inherent national characteristics identifiable to a certain individual, group or culture. Looking on the case of television, cultural identity is portrayed using the medium and it is evenly distributed to any location provided that it is covered by a certain programming pattern.
Cultural identities are based on dominant characteristics of individual, group or culture. Culture consists of both explicit and implicit rules through which experience is interpreted. Basically, Murphie and Potts (2003, p. 2) noted that the function of culture is to establish modes of conduct, standards of performance, and ways of dealing with interpersonal and environmental relations that will reduce uncertainty, increase predictability, and thereby promote survival and growth among the members of any society. It affects behaviour and provides explanations on how an individual or group communicates and filters information. The cultural meanings of such elements of culture render some forms of activity, may it be normal and natural while others are strange or wrong. Amidst the passing of time, cultural beliefs, values, customs and other elements carry on and are to be followed so long as they yield satisfaction on the group of individuals or society that uses it. However, when a specific standard no longer fully satisfies the members of a society, it is modified or replaced, so that the resulting standard is more in line with the current needs and desires of the society (Murphie & Potts 2003, p. 3). Thus, culture gradually but continually evolves to meet the needs of society and cultural identity is represented in reality shows.
Because of the ability of the television to diffuse across geographical areas, cultural identities are also brought to places where programming is available. The case of reality television is perfectly presented based on the fact that the format for reality shows is highly exportable (Hill 2005). A good example is the selling of Endemol of their format for Big Brother to several countries worldwide including Germany, Spain, America, Argentina, South Africa and Australia (Hill 2005, p. 22). With the established foundation of reality TV, it could be said that reasons on why these shows are popular in every angle of its public exposure is subjective and objective. The following reasons are also related to the bubble burst of such genre. Primarily, the reality genre has mass appeal (Hill 2005, p. 2). Several shows like the Pop Idol drawn up over 50 percent of the market share. This means that almost half of the viewing public was exposed to such presentations. Additionally, reality shows are also entertaining as well as informative and suit the emphatic feeling of the viewers. The subconscious desire to be involved in the same situation is a way to draw out attention in relation to the show. Furthermore, the ability of ordinary people to be involved and cope up with extraordinary circumstances is well emphasized. Most of the reality TV shows posses the potential of building instant national celebrities or millionaires. This is another big reason why people are fascinated and hooked with such existing media phenomenon. Another consideration is the fact that reality shows require very modest production budgets and are titillating enough to attract large audience. The interests and challenges to use production materials that capture the rawness and nudity of the unscripted shots motivate producers. Having everything said, the transfer of show format to other countries is the most significant process identified in relation to the shaping and constructing of cultural identities. The ability of the television to diffuse internationally is also an important consideration.
Reality Televisions in America, Australia and Hong Kong
The current wave of reality programming is a free-for-all, with America leading the way with crime and relationship reality programming, Britain and Australia forging ahead with lifestyle and social experiment reality programming, and Northern Europe developing variations of the reality game show (Hill 2005).
With the equated reasons on the popularity of the said genre, there are also some criticisms presented against it. The popularity of the genre on network television has come at the cost of scripted programming. Also, the potentialities of discrimination, building of biases or prejudices, stereotyping and labeling among viewers and participant is high. Controversies within the shows and among the participants are highly affective to the overall stature of the producer and the participant as a person. Issues on freedom of expression and censorship are also questioned and are traced in reality TV programs in the cases of airing personal grievances and angst against private individuals. Too radical and exaggerated behaviors that almost cross the boundaries of freak amusement is not always appropriate to specific subgroups in the community who have access to such programs because they are aired during the evening primetime. Ethics is the name of the game.
The existing phenomenon of reality TV paved way to innovative programs. Among these are UK’s Pop Idol and Big Brother series. The Pop Idol aims to scout the best new young singer and to be tagged as ‘pop idol’ in UK. This show is the first among the Idol series all over the world. Primarily, Pop Idol is a combination of a talent show and reality show created by Simon Fuller. Panels of judges are blatantly expressing their comments to the contestants – may it be good or bad. It involves interactive communication through voting – telephone, mobile texting, and ‘red button’ on digital TV sets. Elimination is based on the number of votes. One of the most profitable shows of ITV1, Pop Idol reached its second season but with the declining number of viewers, the show is suspended for the meantime. The winners as well as the finalist became instant celebrities.
Meanwhile, the Big Brother (UK series) is also among the most celebrated reality shows under the patent of Endemol. A number of contestants will stay in a house and avoid being evicted by the public because a huge amount of cash prize is waiting at the end of the game. Now on its seventh series this month, Big Brother continuously creates several twists and turns. Still, voting is the means to select the winner.
There are observable similarities and differences of the two shows. They are similar in relation to the following: auditions were held, uses voting as main mechanism in selecting the winner, there is eviction and elimination stages, offers prizes, and winners (or even non-winners) are instant famous celebrity. The differences vary from the following: theme and program format – Pop Idol is talent search (singing) and Big Brother features different people; there are assigned tasks in Big Brother and focuses in the personal survival of the participants; Pop Idol is performing the best song possible, comprised of a panel of judges plus the audience while Big Brother has the audience alone; and there are live and screen audiences for Pop Idol while Big Brother have the camera and the screen lookers. These are just some of the similarities and differences known to public. The similarities and differences of their effect to audiences are also noticeable. Thus, media studies on the effects of reality shows among the audience and the medium itself are worthy subjects of empirical endeavor.
Whether we like it or not, reality shows have significant impacts created to the broadcasting system. The development of reality programming within different broadcasting environments is significant in understanding of the genre as a whole. The reality TV phenomenon affected the broadcasting process in both constructive and destructive ways. Initially, the popularity of reality shows opened the doors on international marketing and release or exposure of such programs. Big Brother and Pop Idol are exported (imitated) in other nations, hence defying the distance and race barriers. Talk, game, sports and leisure programming perform well within the international broadcasting market, with successful formats sold, and locally produced to nationally specific requirements (Hill 2005, p. 21). In the UK, the strong historical presence of public service broadcasting and documentary television has ensured that certain types of reality formats are related to public service and documentary ideas and practice (Hill 2005, p. 8) and same with other Northern European countries with public service and documentary traditions (Kilborn 2003; Winston 2000). With this, I personally believe that reality shows may serve a useful purpose of unifying the diversity among people. This could be a common denominator to promote peace, love, and humanitarian behaviour to all.
Interactive Television: its relationship with reality television
The issue to be addressed in the study is if ITV can be a strong impact to viewers in a sense that the perspectives of viewers are more in favour with ITV. As we all know, watching television is an everyday habit and most people are already used with traditional television. But would people find it interesting to use a television with Internet capabilities such as ITV? There have been some studies that have given evidences regarding the potential of ITV. Some found that ITV can be useful as a viable health information platform and reach users who do not yet surf the Internet (Gunter et al. 2003). In advertising on the other hand, the ARAS group (2002) found that ITV can be a useful tool for advertising and that advertising in it has more impact to viewers. But despite such findings, the problem is perhaps people have already gotten used with the traditional television where they would do nothing but watch. Certainly, it is given that in ITV, the Internet access makes it possible for viewers to send emails, join in discussion groups on the Internet, and to search for information. With it, it’s even possible they can make friends or find out information, which they require, at the click of a button. Furthermore, viewers can buy their groceries through home shopping in ITV which is more convenient with doing the actual engagement in shopping. However, there is still the underlying fact that not all people are the same. Some viewers may become fond with ITV but then, some would just prefer the traditional television. It can be argued that people watch television to be entertained. They don’t want to do anything other than to sit on the couch and enjoy a particular show.
According to the Broadband Magazine (Anonymous 2002), “a flick through the nearly 400 channels available in Britain via any digital multi-channel package will confirm that interactivity is advancing with enormous speed in the UK and that broadcasters are taking its development very seriously.” It has been stated that the highly competitive broadcasting environment of UK has precipitated a straight fight for viewers, with interactivity being seen as way to both win over new market share. The UK government has even seen ITV as a great tool for public service (Gunter 2004). In addition, a research from MORI (Hill 2002), show that the use of Interactive Television is encouraging social interaction and debate. However, it seems that the advantages of ITV are still unclear. This is because of the slow appreciation of television audience for the new technology. ITV providers realized that TV audiences are not willing to go to a separate channel to shop (Anonymous 2002). This makes the benefits unclear too for providers. According to a report by Forrester Research, 30 per cent of companies featured in digital TV walled gardens in the UK want to pull out. The report reveals that for a combined investment of approximately €245m, they have only earned €81m in ITV revenues. Furthermore, Gunter (2004) explained that making people fond with ITV requires a great deal in psychological shift. Gunter (2004) stated that television is traditionally a passive medium, thus making accessing online public services on a DITV or ITV platform invokes a shift in psychological orientation, whereby television is treated as an interactive medium. There are also problems in usability as there are still concerns such as: platform availability does not equal platform use; platform access does not equal service access; service access does not equal information access; and service use does not equal application effectiveness (Gunter 2004). With these concerns at hand, it can be assumed that most viewers still prefer the traditional television viewing.
Conclusion
With the presented effects of reality TV shows, it can be deemed that factual shows significantly changed the viewing experiences of audience and the broadcasting process as a whole. Reality TV is also about the viewing experience of a developing factual genre. Its future is still unknown due to the dynamic changes in the preferences of people and to the trends of international broadcasting market. But predictions of the future impacts in the popular culture are mainly focused on the audiences. It is commonly assumed that audiences cannot tell the difference between entertainment and information, or fiction and reality in popular factual television. With such concern regarding audiences and reality TV it is necessary to explore the development of this genre, and audience relationships with these types of popular factual output. Audience responses to reality TV can provide invaluable information and analysis for understanding the transitional terrain of the reality genre, and can enhance critical understanding of contemporary television audiences.
It could be said that these shows will no longer be a trend or bubble burst in effect instead it will continuously develop and radically explore more possible horizons in pursuit of exposing the reality. Definitely, reality shows will be here to stay. The future of reality TV is very vivid and promising. But there are crucial factors to be considered in relation to the audience as well as the television medium. Remembering the real functions of the broadcasting in society and morality (e.g. building character, maintaining relationships, promoting values, etc) must be the definitive principle behind producing reality shows. It must be considered that exposing reality is the ultimate and hardest challenge. In real life, there are no cuts, no edits, or even scripts, it is always the truth. Thus, reality TV must help viewers realize the reality beyond the screen.
References
Chorianopoulos, K & Spinellis, D (2006) ‘User interface evaluation of interactive TV: a media studies perspective’, Universal Access in the Information Society, 5: 2, 209-218
Handwerker, WP (2002) ‘The Construct Validity of Cultures: Cultural Diversity, Culture Theory, and a Method for Ethnography’, American Anthropologist, 104: 1, 106-122
Hill, A (2005) Reality TV: Audiences and Popular Factual Television, Routledge, New York
Kilborn, R (2003) Staging the Real: Factual TV Programming in the Age of Big Brother, Manchester University Press, Manchester, UK
Murphie, A & Potts, J (2003) Culture and Technology, Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Winston, B (2000) Lies, Damn Lies and Documentaries, British Film Institute, London
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment