In 2012, the Reality TV show Big Brother (or should that be the prodigal son?) returns to Australian television. There is little doubt our youth will be watching. And voting. And tweeting. And adding to forum discussion. As educators, do we take this participation and work with it or ignore it? In TV ratings surveys of the top 30 shows between 2001 and the end of 2006, Australian Idol rated 5th and 6th for its 2004 and 2003 finales respectively. Big Brother rated 12th and 16th for winner announcement in 2004 and 2001 respectively. All other programs up to Dancing with the Stars series 4 finale of 2006 rating at 22nd, were sport (Sydney Morning Herald). Since Big Brother’s cancellation in 2008, ownership of mobile media and applications has increased, digital speeds have increased, Web 2.00 tools have increased and it would probably be safe to say that knowledge of use of these tools has also increased. Jenkins hails this style of Reality TV as “the killer application of media convergence” (2008, p. 61) in relation to its massive boost to participatory culture.
Kjus (2009) writes about this phenomenon with particular reference to Idol, revealing that the combination of entertainment and social engagement is not new. As early as the 1930s, American radio quiz show, Vox Pop, engaged “everyday people”. The show’s creator argued that “a show succeeds in proportion to the degree to which the home audience participates” (p. 279). The Major Bowes Amateur Hour (1934-1952) invited amateurs, such as then unknown Frank Sinatra, to perform and asked listeners to vote on the best by telephone. The winners were awarded talent scholarships or a chance to travel with the show. The format moved to television very quickly proliferating and branching into chat shows. Common was the participant selection process management of considering social background and broad strong appeal. This persists in today’s Reality TV shows.
It is this selection process management and show presentation editing that bothers me more than the fact the shows are “shaped at every level by blatant commercial calculations” (Jenkins, 2008. p. 61) although all are worthy reasons for the genre to be studied as text.
Guy Sebastian, Casey Donovan, Stan Walker
By all appearances, Reality TV shows give nobodies a chance to be somebodies but the global format demands that contestants have at least some of the qualities of strong personalities, intriguing backgrounds, be able to function well in live studio settings and social interactions and perhaps even have some singing talent for the Idol format shows. These details they elicit from the applicant’s responses on the application form. The Australian XFactor asks in 36 questions for information such as “Are you on My Space, Facebook or Twitter? If so what are your account names?” (this suspiciously sounds as if the company is going to check the sites), “Is there something people don’t know about you musically or otherwise?”, “Tell us ‘your’ story: from childhood to now”, and “If a journalist was to describe you as a newcomer to the scene, what would they write about you and your personality?” This information is then theirs to promote as they see fit, world-wide and in perpetuity. Footage of applicants’ auditions becomes the property of the company in perpetuity. The 26 Terms and Conditions signed by the applicant, or guardian for under 18 year olds, forfeits rights to many things, including Moral Rights (see Condition 11). At least the Australian application does not have this condition that is on the UK application: “You acknowledge and agree to abide by the rules, regulations, terms and conditions … and you acknowledge that the Rules may be changed (including without limitation verbally) at any time by the Producer in their sole discretion …”(XFactor Series 8, Terms and Conditions 3). Fourteen is the lower age limit to apply and under 18 applicants must have a guardian signature. Those bloopers and efforts displaying more bravery than talent belong to the company to distribute or publish at any time. Is it ethical that something done in one’s youth can be used to embarrass later in life? Does the guardian of the under 18 year old fully understand the implications?
Kjus further exposes questionable ethics in revealing that about one in five is selected to audition due to “a lack of talent or to other laughable or unsociable qualities” (2008, p.286). They are subjected to derision from the judges and their despair is portrayed unsympathetically. For those with an interesting story to tell or perhaps some talent, prior reports and interviews are done. This presents the idea that nobodies can become somebodies. “Reality formats demand heroes and rogues, winners and losers” (Kjus, 2008. p. 286) and so contestants are unwittingly manoeuvred into roles for the audience to love or hate but never be indifferent about. It is this passion that stirs the participatory character of the shows and in turn bolsters the network coffers.
As the number of contestants decreases, the audience numbers permitted at the judging venue, increase and this audience is primed to cheer, wave banners and boo on cue. It gives the impression of pop star status to the remaining contestants. Even contestants who “lose” by being evicted are given rousing fanfare. Big Brother evictees walk a walkway slapping the hands of an adulating audience and hands punching the air as a victor. Camera angles add to the impression of significant event. Consider the manipulation of this contestant – the music, the interviews, the editing, the camera angles on contestant, audience, judges, and his end placement in the lineup. What role is he being made to play?
There will be pressure to vote for this contestant. Vote early, vote often. Profits are divided among the format agency, the broadcaster and the telephone operators. Originally numbers were displayed on screens at the end of the show for voting purposes. Norwegian Idol began applying the numbers during the performance and the significant increase in audience participation convinced other countries to copy the format for the increased revenue. There is nothing democratic about the voting.
But some of the audience have had enough of being manipulated and are turning the tables on some of the shows. A community site, www.votefortheworst.com encourages going against the network’s manipulations and stereotypes.
There is so much to read in the popular Reality TV shows that are captivating our youth. What I have presented here would be but a chapter. It is certainly a text worth studying in school. When Big Brother hits the screens (and they will probably be multi modal screens) next year, don’t be distracted by the content. That’s just the hype the producers want you to notice. The real show is behind the screen.
References:
Australia’s all time favourite shows Sydney Morning Herald at http://blogs.smh.com.au/entertainment/archives/the_tribal_mind/002630.html retrieved 25/10/2011
Casey Donovan photo http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2008/09/16/va1237330574866/Casey-Donovan-Adama-Ward-6252316.jpg retrieved 25/10/2011
Guy Sebastian photo http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2008/09/09/1111120/418347-past-idol-winners.jpg retrieved 25/10/2011
Jenkins, H. (2008) Convergence Culture, New York, New York University Press
Kjus, Y. Idolizing and Monetizing the Public: The Production of Celebrities and Fans, Representatives and Citizens in Reality TV. International Journal of Communication, 3 (2009) pp. 277-300 Retrieved 23/09/2011 from http://ijoc.org/ojs/index.php/ijoc/article/view/382/309
Roscoe, J. Big Brother Australia: Performing the ‘real twenty-four-seven. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 4 (4) (2001), pp. 473-488 retrieved from http://ics.sagepub.com/content/4/4/473.short 23/09/2011
Stan Walker photo http://graphicdesignblog.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/stan-walker-hood.jpg retrieved 25/10/2011
The X Factor Series 8 - Online Application Form Terms and Conditions http://application.xfactor.tv/terms retrieved 25/10/2011
Posted by Cecily 27/10/2011
No comments:
Post a Comment