Reality TV: going beyond what is real on the screen
Reality TV shows are almost everywhere at this time. Aside from the fads and crazes existing, they more or less dominate the popular culture of youth as well as some adults of today’s generation. This genre’s offering is something lucid that it attracts everyone’s aloof consciousness with the sweet as well as bitter realities of the world. The irony of real portrayals in the visual and audio images presented on the screen often tickles the imagination of the audience and leads them to a peripheral state of being. There are some instances that realities no longer appear acceptable or seems inanimate in nature. The actions of people do not actually present the total thinking of a person. Sometimes, actions do not coexist with what the brain is thinking. And this is the mystery that the camera often skips to see. It is believed that reality is not only present in the visible spectrum of human life but within the limits of visibility. Reality must also delve into the deeper state of humanness. It is not only on how people act but also on how they think and process practical decisions far from complexity.
Reality shows are often intriguing among common viewers. The concept of realism is always the main goal of every producer, director, participants. Their overall effort is directed to the aims of making the audience believe. There are some instances in which some shows on TV gamble the essence of realism. The make-believe situations acted upon on the screen (may or may not) stimulate the minds of viewers to think and measure the extent of reality and separate fantasy. But then again, it is up to the viewers’ cognitive conditioning and decision making.
Reality television, according to Hill (2005, p. 2), “is a catch-all category that includes a wide range of entertainment programmes about real people”. The term is used to describe a variety of programming that presents crime and emergency-style shows, talk shows, docusoaps, and some forms of access-style programming. Otherwise known as factual television, reality TV is located in border territories between information and entertainment to documentary and drama. Originally used as a category for law and order popular factual programmes containing ‘on-scene’ footage of cops on the job, reality TV has become the success story of television in the 1990s and 2000s.
The label ‘reality TV’ encompasses a wide range of texts which take as their subject matter real lives, real-life situations and events, and the first-person accounts of ordinary people (non-media professionals). Working within this context, the personal, emotional and often intimate revelations of the first-person accounts are the driving force behind the narrative structure of these programmes. They are also supported with actual footage (or dramatic reconstructions) of the events concerned. The people who participate in these programmes have usually been the victims of crime or some kind of disaster, have a life-threatening illness or have had a near-death experience, or, more simply, may have a vocation or lifestyle that can provide for interesting and entertaining viewing. One of the key elements of reality programming is the juxtaposing of the ‘everyday’ and the banal with the unexpected and the bizarre (Calvert et. al 2002, p. 196).
With the popularity gained by these shows, the genre continuously maintains its prominence by coming up with more challenging and inventive shows and the list goes on. Some of these reality shows are still on-going and already acquired a level of popularity in the broadcasting industry. Some also reached an astounding performance in terms of ratings. Majority of these shows are regarded to be phenomenal because they often outshine significant TV coverage and presentations like the 2006 Summer Olympics. Undeniably, reality shows have reached the zenith of their existence and established a strong foundation of popularity in the television production and industry.
The development of the reality genre also brought out several types of shows. Among the types of reality TV shows and presentations present today are: documentary-style, game shows, self-improvement/makeover, dating shows, talk shows, hidden camera, and hoaxes. From these types, several sub-types sprouted as to deal with unique subjects. It is very interesting that these shows exposes the human characteristics in front of the rolling camera and focused lenses.
The programming philosophy in this kind of programs is exposing the real things occurring in every given situation – uncut and unscripted. Reality shows present the reality through raw, uncut and unscripted materials. They are classified by concept, format and purpose. By concept, they can be classified into situation-based, character-based or hybrid of the two previously mentioned. By format, they can be classified into comedy, action, competition or game, and even teledrama. By purpose, there are reality shows that aim to entertain, educate or serve the public. It is with the truth that people see the ability of people to cope up and survive with the challenges of daily life. Since the idea behind reality TV is capturing real life situations, this simply means that the interest of people to factual events is soaring. The appeal is something personal to the viewers given that some of the participants are similar in terms of characters as the audiences. In comparing these shows to other programs, they based it on the criteria of realism and more personal and even emphatic effects.
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.
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 behavior to all.
In terms of profits, the broadcasting industry use reality shows for competitive advantage, to save money and effort, and maintain market dominance. Fox television network ‘redefined US network practices’ (Glynn 2000, p. 28) by producing cheap reality programming and compete in a competitive environment of network, cable and independent broadcasting. By the early 1990s, reality programming was an established part of peak time network schedules, and other countries were beginning to take note. The competing trend among the reality shows persuaded corporate advertising clients to bargain for airtime rates. Thus, it generated huge profits for broadcasting channels.
Despite of the alluring ability of these shows, there are also destructive attributes that needs to be attended. In my observation, the primetime viewing before is full of news coverage and correspondence on current affairs but with the onset of reality shows, the importance of news is taken for granted especially among the viewers of younger age. Further, the presence of questionable values is often manifested in some reality shows. Ethics is a debatable issue. The risk of deviant behaviors and unacceptable social practices is dominant. The fear of unrealistic self-actualization is present. Practical situations will no longer be as the old-fashion ones but matters will be more complicated. The concept of the self is most applicable to reality TV when programmes are designed to speak to viewers about issues that matter to them. Watching reality TV can be a reflexive process in the sense that the personalized stories and tips on living that feature in some reality formats are internalized by viewers, and stored for potential use at appropriate moments in their own lives. Reality programming has been criticized for its preoccupation with the individual rather than the social. Compared with traditional documentary and its aspirations as a public form, reality TV can be seen as highly trivial, preoccupied with personal stories about personal lives (Dovey 2000). For instance, stories about pop music in Pop Idol are stories about individual experiences of being a pop singer, not the music business.
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
Calvert, B, Casey, B, Casey, N, French, L, & Lewis, J (2002) Television Studies: The Key Concepts, Routledge, London
Dovey, J (2000) Freakshow: First Person Media and Factual Television, Pluto, London
Glynn, K (2000) Tabloid Culture: Trash Taste, Popular Power, and the Transformation of American Television, Duke University Press, London/Durham, NC
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
Winston, B (2000) Lies, Damn Lies and Documentaries, British Film Institute, London
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment