The question has been asked, in light of the burgeoning popularity of reality TV: Is it more a matter of society being reflected in the programming of reality TV, or does reality television reflect (and influence) society?
Most likely they are both true.
Although reality television can be entertaining, informative and even uplifting, it would be difficult argue with anyone who maintains that it many times represents TV stations appealing to the lowest common denominator. Some critics even go so far as to equate it with “the dumbing down of America.”
Programs such as “The Jerry Springer Show” I have labeled “combat TV,” featuring “ignorance on parade.” To say the “guests” are “playing to the camera” would be putting it mildly — embarrassing themselves always, and often embarrassing their race or their gender. And the chanting, amazingly crass audiences are almost as bad.
Kids frequently see these shows, since in many cases no one is monitoring what they watch. How can the deplorable behavior of these “adults” be explained? It sets the poorest possible example.
And let’s face it, how “real” can any show be with the cameras rolling? “Unscripted real-life situations”? Perhaps sometimes, but there is much more to the story than that.
THERE HAS long been a fascination with women “having it out” verbally — “Real Housewives of Atlanta” and other “wives” shows come to mind — and even physically. No one who saw or heard about it will ever forget Porsha Williams and Kenya Moore on the floor scuffling on “Real Housewives of Atlanta.” In those moments it became as much “combat TV” as anything on Springer’s show.
Of course, the “combat” shows are just one reality TV genre. There are many others, one of the most popular being law enforcement shows, like “Cops,” and shows focusing on people being unfaithful and getting caught, notably “Cheaters.”
The public also enjoys “makeover” shows. There is inspiration to be derived, for example, from people transforming from morbidly obese to slim and trim, or at least slimmer and trimmer. Dramatic changes in hair, attire and makeup are popular, too.
REALITY television got its start in the early 1990s, but became a force to be taken very seriously late in the decade and in the early 2000s, in the process, during the daytime hours especially, knocking standard TV fare like soap operas (“daytime dramas”) to the side.
“Court TV” — or to put it another way, “reality legal programming” — was also a key factor in the decline of “the soaps.” Same for chatty panel talk shows like “The View,” “The Talk” and “The Real.” It’s sonic confusion when all the ladies talk at the same time.
And then there’s gossip queen Wendy Williams, an entity unto herself, who says, “Their business is our business” in reference to the celebrities she so gleefully “dishes” on. She can be very funny, although she often carries things too far.
This writer is no fan of court TV — why would anyone want their court case on television? — but I must admit, I do like Judge Greg Mathis and Judge Judy. I watch their shows for a few minutes every now and then.
THE NETWORKS were all for the new phenomenon, mostly because they are relatively inexpensive to produce, in part because, in evening programming in particular, there are no over-the-top celebrity salaries to pay.
Some reality shows are harmless, but, with regard to shows like “The Bachelor” and “The Bachelorette,” viewers with a strong sense of discernment have no choice but to label the shows “inane.” The premise — a gaggle of women competing for a man or a cavalcade of men vying for a woman — is silly. Also more than a little degrading to those competing. Where is their self-pride?
There have been so many reality talent shows that late-night host Jimmy Kimmel quipped, “Is there any undiscovered talent left?” The list is long and includes “American Idol” (ending next year after an amazing 15-season run), “So You Think You Can Dance,” “The X Factor,” “Showtime at the Apollo,” “Dancing with the Stars,” “The Voice,” etc. and in very different fields but competition shows nevertheless, “America’s Next Top Model” and “Hell’s Kitchen.”
Danger, talent show saturation point dead ahead, or maybe it’s already here.
ONE OF the eeriest reality shows was “Fear Factor” that ran from 2001 to 2006. Contestants, for money and “15 minutes of fame,” were willing to do disgusting things. Yes, including eating live insects!
But that pales in comparison to the idiocy of “Jackass,” featuring a group of “daredevil” young madmen doing unimaginable and extremely dangerous stunts. The fact that the show spawned five movies speaks volumes.
There is also a large market for “living arrangement” shows — a group of “roommates” going about their business, including disagreements, as if they are unaware that cameras are rolling. Ratings are also good for “team shows” like “Survivor” where competitors not only engage in all manner of activities, but also form alliances and have peers “voted off.”
What is the reason, or what are the reasons, for the ever-increasing appeal of reality TV? One is that a lot of people relate to or are fascinated by people who are nothing like themselves. Why else would so many people want to “keep up with the Kardashians” or care about “Honey Boo Boo”?
Then too, in many cases reality TV is just a diversion, but one other thing is certain: Reality television is here to stay — the good, the bad, and everything in between.
About Post Author
