http://www.talkshoe.com/custom/images/icons/TC-3555-MainIcon.jpg

Reality TV – Real or Misnomer?

By: Samantha Steiner

   What was first thought of as just a fad has been going strong for over a decade, and shows no signs of ending.  With writer strikes and pressure to keep costs low, reality shows continue to flourish.  Murray and Ouellette (2004) acknowledged that “reality TV’s staying power renders an investigation of its relationship to truth and authenticity even more urgent” (p.5).  

   The question of how real reality television is can be broken down into two main components.  The first component is to examine how authentic and close to reality the shows actually are.  The second component is examining how real the shows are perceived to be by its audience.

     

    There are many articles and books examining various aspects of the question of how real is reality TV.  First examined is a look at why viewers watch reality TV.  The results of a survey showed that reasons for watching reality TV included an interest in competition and revenge as well as an interest in watching participants achieve status from instant fame (Reiss & Wiltz, 2001).  These results show that there are forces that contribute to why reality TV shows are structured the way they are.  Elements of fiction are added in order to appeal to what the viewers want to see such as competition, revenge, moral lapses and achieving status.  The elements which keep the viewers watching may not otherwise occur if these shows were kept true to a documentary style reality.  

   What elements of fiction are added to keep viewers watching?  There are a number of ways reality shows are altered to be more entertaining.  Situations are contrived, whole sections may be scripted and scenes are sometimes edited out of order or spliced in a way to alter reality.  For their part, story editors feel they have the freedom to alter or imply situations regarding real people for entertainment purposes.  According to Poniewozik (2006), story editor Ryan Stradal downplays the modification by stating, “We’re using things said at different times, put together to imply a statement or observation that may not have been succinctly demonstrated” (p. 3).  

   Further evidence that reality shows are less like documentaries, and more like scripted drama, is the use of writers.  In order to avoid dealing with writers unions, producers call writers different names like “story editors” and “segment producers.”  Daniel Petrie Jr., president of the Writers Guild of America West, said, “shows don’t want to call the writers writers because they want to maintain the illusion that it is reality” (Booth, 2004).  On the other hand, studio executives say that these shows are shaped and edited, not written.  Nevertheless, reality TV is widely considered to be written whether the credits demonstrate that or not.  The shows have been so contrived and shaped so that they are in essence, written.  

   Producers say substantial editing is also required because people act in unforeseen manners which cannot all be viewed on television.  Also, the entire footage filmed can cover several days.  To be viewed in an hour show format, this footage needs to be cut drastically.  “As soon as you start pulling those seconds out, you change the reality.  Some people on the show, when all is said and done, will say they weren’t fairly represented, and that’s a truth of this format.  This is not reality.  This is entertainment,” said Chris Cowen, executive producer of the reality show Temptation Island (Levin, 2001, para. 13).

   Despite all the manipulations, these shows are still seen as reality by the industry.  According to UPN chief Dean Valentine, “If you’ve created a response beforehand or given them a script of how to respond, that would probably be crossing the line.  The fundamental compact with viewers is you’re watching people behaving spontaneously” (Levin, 2001, para. 8).  

   In order to present itself as being real enough, certain elements are very important.  According to the results of a focus group study on the reality show Survivor, first and foremost, the use of non-actors is essential.  Honest emotions and a degree of suprise and unpredictability were also noted.  Viewers felt the show Survivor, “despite having elements of other genres, presented the real (authentic) emotions, interpersonal actions, and individual ethical choices of its ‘real’ participants.  And viewers actively looked for the ‘reality’ contained within the artifice of this program” (Escoffery, 2002, p. 73).  

  

    The reviewing of literature, it is important to first consider what the term “reality” actually means in television.  One could reasonably assume that a reality show is the equivalent of an unrehearsed, documentary type of show where what is being viewed on television is actually how it happened.      While many shows labeled as reality use elements typical of documentaries such as hand held cameras and the use of non-actors, they also use characteristics of fictional shows such as dramas and comedies.  These shows have ground rules, story lines, background music and set design.  Elements of fictional shows such as plot twists and character development have also been added.  Producers have come to the conclusion that if the shows were left unchanged in more of a pure documentary fashion, viewers would be turned off (Marc & Thompson, 2005).  

   Also considered are reality shows such as Cops, where cameramen are allowed to accompany police officers.  Here too, there is a mixing of real and fictional.  Like scripted drama, they are often made to resemble good guy versus bad guy scenarios.  This is possible because reality shows do not have to follow the rules found on news broadcasts.  Since it is considered entertainment, the producers do not have to deal with whether the show is accurate or whether both sides of a story are presented (Day, 1996).  Even in non-competitive type reality shows, what seems like straight documentaries are often staged.  Sometimes events are even re-enacted.  

   Further examples of manipulations are seen in professional competitive reality TV shows such as Top Chef (cooking) and Project Runway (fashion design).  Contestants are not selected primarily for their talent, as one might expect in a documentary style reality.  Though some talent in their field must be present, producers choose contestants for their personalities.  They also strive to include certain types of people.  Senior (2007) noted a producer who stated, “we have the evil gay guy, we have the pretty blonde woman, we have the ethnic rotund guy from Philly” (p. 6).  Also, instead of real-life professional scenarios, contestants are forced into scripted artificial situations which cause high stress, sleep deprivation, isolation, and artificially close proximity to other contestants.   

   How real are the shows perceived to be by the viewers?  There is data which demonstrates that reality TV viewers realize all is not totally real.  In a Gallup poll taken in 2001, of 1,016 adults surveyed, 57% indicated that “reality producers provide a distorted picture of events while another 23% described the shows as ‘totally phony’” (Levin, 2001, para. 8).

  

   Audiences understand that shows are manipulated.  However, for the most part, viewers accept this and even expect it realizing, like the producers, that it is necessary in order to keep the shows entertaining.  As one viewer wrote, “there’s a line between, you know, true reality and reality that’s entertaining” (Rose & Wood, 2005).  Viewers want to observe real people, but they do not want the reality shows to be boring.  They want a “hyperauthenticity” which combines the real with fantasy (Rose & Wood, 2005).  Viewers are willing to deceive themselves into thinking this is real life, not acted or scripted.  They accept the idea that the manipulation of a show can make it seem more real than if a camera were just left rolling to record the action.     

   Overall, while viewers realize that what they are seeing is not purely real, they feel it is real enough.   Viewers want authenticity but are aware that what is being watched has many aspects that are not.  It works for the viewers because they are allowed to fill in the blanks as to what is real versus what is being shown to them.  Viewers know participants are aware that they are being filmed and yet, viewers accept that they are exhibiting normal behavior.  

   What is the bottom line when it comes to accepting a show as representing reality?  What is absolutely essential is the lack of any indication that results of a competition within a show are in any way rigged.  Other than that, as long as the reality of the situation has not been obviously altered by editing (as perceived by the audience), it can still be accepted as real.  

   What about the highly unusual scenarios?  Are they accepted by viewers as part of a reality show?  If the goal was to make the shows seem truly real, they would not include such outlandish scenarios as tropical islands and penthouse apartments.  They would not put participants in extraordinary situations involving conditions that ordinary people would rarely, if ever, face.  However, it is exactly because they are not common scenarios that make viewers want to watch. 

   “This is the kind of life many working Americans would like to escape to, which is why many watch it.  Reality TV has become so popular because they provide and escape from everyday lives.  They take us away from reality and we can return with the push of a button” (Venable, 2002, para. 2).

  

    Reality TV is a misnomer.  There are no rules as to how real a show needs to be in order to be identified as a reality show.  Being objective and accurate is not as important as being entertaining.  Do viewers understand that reality TV is not reality?  Most do, however, for the majority, they do not care as long as genuine people are showcased and they are entertaining.  As far as the viewers are concerned, reality TV is real enough.