Reality TV - Kristen A. Barr

I am in the midst of an internal tug of war examining how much reality television (and trashy reality TV for that matter) is enough and must be vanished from our screens forever in an attempt to save our souls versus justifying its existence by ‘talking about what we see, challenging new ideas and participating in open dialogue regarding the way characters act or behave, then perhaps we can learn many valuable life lessons like consequence, accountability, morality and values’ (see previous post by Shelley Bampton). After all I am in agreement with Buckingham (N.D. cited in Quigley, 2000) that ‘We cannot return children to the secret garden of childhood, or find the magic key that will keep them forever locked within its walls’ but as the years have rolled on, the formats for what is now the majority of scheduled television viewing have become so transparent that my moral alarm bells can no longer be ignored. Reports by The Daily Telegraph in mid-2010 indicate that Australian filmmaker Justin Sisely had a sordid plan to sell/auction the virginity of young Australians in the US at Nevada brothel.

Mike Presdee (2000), reader in the University's sociology and social policy department, believes humiliation, cruelty and violence have become commodities which are being exploited by the media. He said: "We are moving much more towards reality TV and humiliation TV. No longer do we have fiction - we have the real thing and it seems to excite us more (however the “real thing” will be discussed in more detail later). Presdee continues "We are being told that these things are not right, and that society should not put people down, but it is being done on TV and people are enjoying it. Maybe because it's an escape valve in a society with immense pressure, where we have more rules and regulations than we have ever had. The media know they can sell hurt and humiliation, showing programmes like Big Brother, Jerry Springer and Jenny Jones, but we must not humiliate people - it's not right. It's quite remarkable that adults are creating these programmes for fun."

So why does reality TV exist? Is it for ratings, entertainment or something else equally sinister?

Myths, legends, fairy tales and fables. Every culture in every era finds a way to express our human need to tell stories about ourselves. We rely on these stories to teach us why we do the things we do, test the limits of our experience, and to reaffirm truths about human nature. Schaefer (2011) explains ‘reality TV, with its bevy of “real housewives”, super-sized families, and toddler beauty pageants, seems an unlikely place to find such truths. But when you move beyond the excess and hyperbole, you find the makings of classic morality tales. Bad characters come to disastrous ends. People struggle with unexpected hardship and either triumph or fail. For some, hard work pays off. For others failure is swift and cruel’. This explanation sits comfortably and for a time the reality TV debate reaches equilibrium although it starts to seesaw when examining one of the ethical problems of reality television is the fact that it isn't nearly as "real" as it pretends to be. At least in dramatic shows one can expect the audience to understand that what they see on the screen doesn't necessarily reflect the reality of the actors' lives; the same, however, cannot be said for heavily edited and contrived scenes on reality shows, therefore the pendulum that represents my internal struggle concerning reality television continues to sway back and forth.

Liberal-minded observers tend to praise the smashing of taboos and the anything-goes extremism of pop culture. Conservatives like myself tend to tut-tut about declining standards and moral relativism. Yes societies have been concerned about teens since ancient civilisation the example presented in the week seven: Youth, Popular Culture, and texts – Film and Television lecture reveals how reading was perceived as being detrimental to impressionable young girls and the impact this would have on its (1792) society -an increase in prostitution and elopements. This example is effective in explaining that moral panics are not new and have occurred throughout history initiated by adults in society in an attempt to protect and shield children and young people from the harshness of the world. This example now in 2011 appears absurd that a media forum such as print could contribute to an increase in prostitution but we are now logging online to learn that a reality television program was planned in 2010 to auction teenage virgins. The only remedy that can numb the throbbing pain reality television has inflicted on my conservative biased brain is what can teens learn through this media forum. Cecily Baker and Shelley Bampton have raised in past posts the valid point that what is missing from the landscape of cultural criticism is a sustained and thoughtful discussion about what reality television has to teach about ourselves, our values, our interests, and our hopes and the ways in which we might reclaim some space for discussion of things such as virtue and character. Veronica one of the virgins chosen by Sisely to be auctioned to the highest bidder admits ‘it wasn’t all about the money, I want to change the way people view sex and society’…

Reality TV tackles the full spectrum of human experience: birth, death, love, marriage, hatred, failure, and redemption. Commentary much like my own often focuses on the lack of virtue and character. But might it also be possible to create cultural settings that could encourage things such as thrift, compassion and self-reliance? Shelley Bampton’s post Lessons Learnt from the Screen appointed a common sense approach that understands the screen is not a stand-alone element in children’s lives but rather a player in the co-construction of knowledge and experience. Reality television brings to life norms and standards and although I feel sickened by the documentary Sisely plans to make – it raises discussion about sex and young people and the value of it in today’s society. Bampton’s point raised about ‘what happens off the screen is just as important as what happens on it’ is critical for example teen viewers of Sisely’s documentary may not be any more inclined to participate in a sex act simply by watching the program but what they do with that viewing experience should be considered in terms of a holistic learning experience. Yes Shelley whilst the ‘effects of television will differ depending on the unique and individual experiences of the child (as cited by Wilson 2008, 88) I agree it is the role of parents and teachers that will be most influential. So the pendulum has finally stopped swaying and finally I admit and agree with Shelly that even the trashiest of TV can be discussed, challenged and embraced for the good of teen-kind.

References

Daily Telegraph (2010) Pimp my life: Sordid plan to sell virginity of Australians in the US at Nevada brothel. Available October 10, 2011 from http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/lifestyle/pimp-my-life-sordid-plan-to-sell-virginity-of-australians-in-the-us-at-nevada-brothel/story-e6frf00i-1225864266203

Preside, Mike (2000) Cultural Criminology and the Carnival of Crime. London: Routledge.

Quigley, M. (2000) The Politics of Animation: South Park. Metro, (124/125), 48 [Online Submission]. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Schaefer, N. (2011). Myths and Reality TV. Christianity Today, 55(8), 74. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.