For+Right+Now

For Right Now.

Subject Position

Reality in Prime Time with Jim Hound, the prime time host discusses the good and the bad of reality TV. Jim looks at major reality programs and determines the possible moral implications of them. He asks whether reality television is primarily moral or leads to a degradation of morals in its watchers. From what Jim can see, most of the reality television today promotes crude language, vulgarity, is demeaning to women, and promotes negative stereotypes. He is a recent Ursinus grad who won a coveted internship with NBC in New York. He was then hired by SNL as a writer until he landed his first prime time gossip session. He headed to Los Angeles to host the new talk show where he reviews the hottest reality shows. The channels with reality TV include TLC, MTV and the network channels. He recently hosted the "Jersey Shore" cast on his program.

paper:

Television is an extremely powerful medium that touches virtually every person in the industrial world on a daily basis, and so for this reason it must be respected. Television can be used to distribute news and educational information efficiently, but more often the mainstream media values pure entertainment, which displays copious amounts of the sex, drugs and violence that have become a staple in today’s society. The concepts of morals and dignity do not mean as much to people as they used to, and the media has been a major part of this. Reality television, a majorly viewed genre of entertainment television, tends to feature the bestial side of humanity. While some reality shows are exemplars of helping the community, such as "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition", the vast majority of reality television consumed in America purveys a troubling set of immoral activities as natural and normal.

Regardless of the premise of a reality television show, the producers tend to be soulless vultures. A common thread amongst reality programming is predation on the weak or the senseless. Most reality show participants are larger than life characters or the unfortunate downtrodden of our society. These individuals either do not know enough to realize the profound breach of privacy they will endure or are starving for the financial security prize money will provide them. The contestants themselves are virtually programmed to commit immoral acts in front of the camera in order to stay on the show: backstabbing, cursing, promiscuous behavior, fighting, and banality. Each program brings a dangerous cocktail of unstable participants that influences the type of reality show it may become.An example of such a cocktail is that of the combination of contestants on shows like "Jersey Shore" and or "The Real World", these shows generally cast the biggest, dumbest, and most self absorbed people to make their shows exiting. Meanwhile, shows like "The Apprentice" call for the most greedy, untrustworthy people producers can find. But either way, these casts of characters aren't exactly the kind of people that should be admired.

Finding these types of people is in no way a coincidence. In an article on Salon.com called "Casting Couch", Benjamin Wallace explains his sit-in on the final casting interviews for Fox network’s answer to NBC’s, “The Apprentice”. The show, titled, “Billionaire” will follow an intense series of challenges and business related issues among individuals who hope to covet a major job in the Virgin Entertainment conglomerate. Those in attendance include Fox executives, psychologists, and members of a certain production company. The company, Bunim/ Murray, also founded and produced MTV’s “The Real World”, and “Road Rules”. One would assume the interview of the finalists for the show would consist of questions concerning business and or ambition. The first question for Rob Cieslinski (one of the finalists): “Are you more of a tits or ass man?” The interviewer, who is guided by earpiece with Sasha Alpert (one of Bunim/Murray’s head casting directors) on the other end, is asked to rev up the interview a little. By rev the interview she means to poke and prod the finalist. One of the preceding questions aims to do just that. “You know, for such a big guy, you seem like kind of a pushover.” But Rob gives no reaction and remains calm and friendly. He did not make the show(Wallace). Further, producers tend to push for increasingly stereotyped characterizations. According to Posner, an industry insider, “People of colour[sic] exist only as buffoons, thugs, and pimps. They want us to believe that the women's movement, the civil rights movement never existed.” In one example given by Posner, a black woman on “Real Housewives of Atlanta” was no longer filmed because she did not fit stereotypes. She is a divinity student who runs an organization for girls’ empowerment. Producers let her go because she was not volatile and catty enough for their tastes (Posner). Such rampant stereotyping can only damage the gains our society has made in equality for all.

One may argue that we should “blame the eater”, so to speak. Perhaps networks would not be looking for morally misguided and or desperate people if we, as a society, were not so enthralled by watching these humans regress to their animal forms. But according to an article called "Reality Check" published by Association for Psychological Science, Eric Jaffe cites a study conducted by Ohio State University psychologist, Steven Reiss. Reiss argues that viewers are not simply voyeurs, but rather have psychological impulses to watch the show. For example, a vengeful personality type may be obsessed with watching a person humiliated on television. Reiss also states that a person with low self-esteem may have a boost of confidence when he or she feels above one of the “Neanderthals” on reality T.V. (Jaffe)

Perhaps not all Reality TV is simply a few mindless drones conflicting. For example,reality TV has come out with many shows that deal with overweight people trying to lose weight. In 2004 The Biggest Loser was introduced to the world and viewers cannot stop watching it (Hampp). The premise of show is overweight contestants compete to lose weight and the one who loses the largest percentage of weight wins a quarter of a million dollars. According to Charles Burant, a physician, the show does not ease the contestants into exercising; they just throw them into working out hard (“Is Reality Show a Big Loser?”). In Current Science, Professor Janet Walberg Rankin says, “losing more than 2 pounds a week can weaken the heart muscle and lead to mineral deficiencies, a loss of bone tissue, and gallstones” (“Is Reality Show a Big Loser?”). All the contestants on the show are at risk of having health problems. Many viewers watching the show want the same dramatic weight loss. However, unless you are under the same strict supervision this type of weight loss is extremely dangerous. The show has had a couple of contestants rushed to the hospital and treated for minor conditions like dehydration, muscle cramps and more (“Is Reality Show a Big Loser?”). Their conditions were not serious, but they could lead to something more serious. Reality shows push the contestants too far and the network preys on poor, overweight men and women to continue to fuel the show’s ratings. The contestants are more into winning the money than losing the weight. The contestants are doing everything and anything to win the money so that they can make a better life for themselves, their family or to pay off debts.

MTV may not be the king of reality TV, but they produce many top reality shows. In 2006, MTV introduced a show called Fat Camp (Lowry). The show follows overweight teens and their struggle to lose weight. “It plays like a teen soap, only with real teens, whose oversized emotional frailty is filtered through an unblinking lens” (Lowry). It is hard enough to be a teen with all the insecurities, body image and teenage anxiety, but putting them on TV makes it even harder. Fat Camp does give a positive light for the teens. “There are commendable aspects to it, including the very rare sight of teens who aren’t stick-thin finding romance” (Lowry). It allows overweight teens to be around others who have the same insecurities and have a lot in common. Even though there is a positive light, the show does not focus on it. The focus is on the drama that goes on between the teens. For example, the show focused on an “unhappy 14-year-old girl sobbing uncontrollably, or a sequence in which she inadvertently drops her towel, exposing her backside to giggling cabin mates” (Lowry). Reality TV gets more viewers by having drama and people doing things to cause altercations. In fact, according to a study on Big Brother UK viewers, 68 percent enjoyed watching group conflict, another 65 percent admitted to enjoying contestants breaking down in the diary room (Brenton and Cohen 51). Brian Lowry brings up a good question. “Would you want this televised if it was your kid or a close friend?” (Lowry).

Without a doubt, reality television can inflict harm upon the contestants in the show, but there is even some evidence that the community around the reality television show may be affected negatively. In a number of cases, burglaries were reported at the homes of stars like Floyd Mayweather Jr. and Kim Kardashian, whose homes were featured in reality television programs. Additionally, a study following Laguna Beach crime rates following the show "Laguna Beach:Real Orange County" found a statistically significant increase in crime rates after the show aired. The show follows affluent teenagers of Orange County shopping, partying, and getting into conflicts with one another. Following the show, residential burglaries in Laguna Beach held steady. Then again, the gated communities of Laguna Beach are not easy to break into (Chiou and Lopez). The youthful, inexperienced teenagers clearly drew a different type of criminal from the dark corners of the country. There was an increase in rape, auto thefts, and non-residential burglaries (some at stores shown in the show) ( Chiou and Lopez). In addition, parents in Orange County had yet another reason to be worried. The show clearly affected the behavior of their children. Laguna Beach topped alcohol and drug abuse ratings across the country in a survey of eleventh grade students (Chiou and Lopez). Clearly, reality television affects even corporate entities and children who don't participate in or watch the shows.

As much damage as reality TV does to every aspect of our society and our intelligence level, it can do equal, maybe even more, good for our world too. The most common example is the "Extreme Makeover" series, which helps a family in need. The show knocks down the dilapidated house and rebuilds it to be nicer and have all the up-to-date technology. There are a lot of other shows that help others. "School Pride" is a show that is on NBC, that travels around to schools that are often compared to "prisons". The schools are covered in graffiti and many classrooms do not have the essentials they need (" TV's solution to schools' tough reality"). Unlike "Extreme Makeover", this show changes the lives for tons of people and generations. “Extreme Makeover” only has the ability to change the lives of one person or family at a time, while “School Pride” changes the lives of students and teachers of the present and of the future. It gives students from multiple grades opportunities that most schools in their areas cannot offer. These are just a few examples of the "good" side of reality television. Even though there is so many negatives coming from The Biggest Loser. There are two positive outcomes from The Biggest Loser, one it is the only weight loss show that every contestant loses weight and second the contestants usually end up in a healthy weight (Hampp). The show does have many success stories. There are plenty of shows out there that counteract the negative effects of the sex, drugs and violence of normal reality television. But for as many shows out there that do well for reality television, there are twice as many that do badly. The good name that these shows are trying to give reality television is getting erased by the likes of “Jersey Shore”, “The Real World” and “Flavor of Love”, just to name a few. This is bringing upon the sad days where society would rather watch Snooki get “smushed”, than watch a deserving family that have done unbelievable amounts of good for the community, has their home rebuilt and pretty much their lives saved.

Reality television pervades our society's air waves. The harm it does to our society is incalculable, damaging the morals of everyone who watches them. The shows focus on various unhealthy lifestyles, each as bad as the next. From unhealthy dieting to unhealthy tanning, each show presents a different horrible facet of human nature. Focusing on image and lust is a common feature of modern reality television. Stereotypes are promoted and intensified by these shows, and women are routinely demeaned. Even though there are some shows that still continue to show the possibilities of good in reality television, there aren’t enough to counteract the bad. The television viewing audience deserves better, cleaner programs. But for now, the audiences enjoy this behavior way too much to bring upon a change. But like any other fad, it will run its course. And in due time, people will realize that it is time for a change in reality TV.

Annotated Bibliography

Anderson, Laura. //Code urged to curb TV's// //reality// //sleaze.// The Advertiser(Australia) August 25, 2007 Saturday State Edition. Web. 4 Nov. 2010. A brief article about a sexual assault occurring on Australia’s Big Brother and the subsequent call to improve television standards, and change laws to prevent exploitation of reality stars.

Chiou, Lesley and Mary Lopez. The Reality of Reality Television: Does Reality TV Influence Crime Rates. Economic Letters 108 ( 2010). Print.

Funt, Peter. " Reality TV is simply a microcosm of our society." //USA Today// 23 Dec. 2009: 10A. //LexisNexis Academic//. Web. 2 Nov. 2010.

The article gives proof that people want their fifteen minutes of fame on a reality show to get noticed. Also brings up the point that competition shows are called reality, but they’re really a game show. It also proves that reality TV has changed over the years.

Hampp, Andrew. "Controversy can't Slow Biggest Loser." //Advertising Age// 12 July 2010: 12. //Academic OneFile//. Web. 4 Nov. 2010.

This article gives proof about how reality weight lost shows are terrible and unhealthy. People are into watching inspiration story of someone over weight over coming themselves to lose it all.

"Is reality show a Big Loser?" //Current Science, a Weekly Reader publication// 17 Sept. 2010: 12. //Academic OneFile//. Web. 4 Nov. 2010.

Shows how unhealthy the Biggest Loser Show is. The show preys on the poor, overweight people who really want to win the quarter of a million dollars.

Kingston, Anne.//On the fakeness of reality shows, how 'the dumb bimbo' is cast, and why actresses are shrinking: Jennifer Pozner in conversation with Anne Kingston//. Maclean's 123.41 (Oct 25, 2010): p19(2).Web. 4 Nov. 2010. A conversation with an industry insider about how reality television contestants and shows are manipulated, through conversation editing and careful selection of characters. Also, the interview mentions the promotion of stereotypes.

Lowry, Brian. “Weighty issue: is reality TV too harsh for kids?” //Daily Variety// 290.28 (2006): 2. //Academic OneFile//. Web. 1 Nov. 2010.

The article explains the affect of reality shows on today’s society. Also describes how most Americans think that the shows are not reality and how the characters have to live with who they are on the TV screen. Life as a reality star is glorified.

//No author listed.A group of New Jersey lawmakers has demanded that MTV cancel the reality show "Jersey Shore," which debuted in November//. State Legislatures 36.2 (Feb 2010): p7(1). Magazine.

A brief article on New Jersey lawmakers who have asked MTV to end the show Jersey Shore. A good source to show the controversial nature of some reality programs.

//No Author listed. A different reality for religious TV.// Broadcasting & Cable 134.7 (Feb 16, 2004): p22(1). Web. 2 Nov. 2010.

A possible naysayer against our point. This provides two moral reality tv shows to counter the general trend of immoral reality television.

Stelter, Brian. "TV's solution to schools' tough reality." __The New York Times__ (Oct 17, 2010): 15(L). __Academic OneFile__. Gale. URSINUS COLLEGE. 8 Nov. 2010

A naysayer, a lot like "Extreme Makeover".

Wallace, By Benjamin. "Casting Couch - Reality TV - Salon.com." //Salon.com - Salon.com//. Nov. 2004. Web. 09 Nov. 2010.

Jaffe, By Eric. "APS Observer - Reality Check." //Association for Psychological Science//. Mar. 2005. Web. 09 Nov. 2010.

Brenton, Sam, and Reuben Cohen. //Shooting People: Adventures in Reality TV//. London [etc.: Verso, 2003. Print.