How real is reality TV?
Reality TV is a broad category featuring several types of popular factual programming (Hill, 2005). They share similar styles and techniques such as non-professional actors, unscripted dialogue, surveillance footage, hand-held cameras, and real-time events unfolding in front of the camera (Hill, 2005). These techniques often distinguish reality TV or factual programming from other forms of television. According to Hill (2005), how reality is treated in reality TV has changed as the genre has developed. The influence of documentary on reality TV, audience perception of what is real, and reality TV’s exploitative nature can help us understand the perceived ‘reality’ behind the genre.
In the UK, television channels categorize reality TV closer to documentary, current affairs and investigative journalism (Hill, 2005). This is unsurprising given the documentary genre’s influence on reality TV. Direct Cinema and cinema verité have influenced British television documentary such as fly-on-the-wall and docusoaps, as well as reality TV (Berissi & Nunn, 2005). They are characterized by discrete observational filming without trying to analyze the situation, expecting audiences to assess the facts presented to them and come up with their own conclusions (Biressi & Nunn, 2005). The editing in these documentaries are used to convey a sense of time passing, and they avoid commentary, self-reflexivity, and extra-diegetic music in order to represent a truly accurate account of their subject matter (Biressi & Nunn, 2005). However, it’s important to note that even though these documentary styles and their influence on reality TV is to convey what’s real, this does not always mean it is unconstructed, natural or unmediated (Biressi & Nunn, 2005). While the people depicted may be ‘real’, they are put in dramatized situations (Biressi & Nunn, 2005). Roscoe and Hight (2001) argue that documentary cannot claim to be an unmediated mirror on society as it is still a fictional text with a point of view used to construct a version of the world. Therefore, despite some reality TV’s attempts to convey reality using non-obtrusive techniques and without trying to influence the audience, the very nature of the genre means audiences are viewing reality through a certain perspective.
Part of what makes the ‘realness’ of reality TV difficult to define is audience perception. According to Hill (2005), an important feature of reality TV is the ‘see it happen’ style of filming, and audiences classify programs based on how real they perceive it to be. Audiences use a fact or fiction continuum to determine how real the show they are watching is (Hill, 2005). For example, in Hill’s 2005 study, one commentator believed the show Children’s Hospital to be factual as he was able to see what was happening as it played out. He compared this with the show 999 where reconstructions are used, arguing that the latter show was deceiving and not real as it used ‘made up’ elements to tell a story (Hill, 2005). Similarly, another responder said that the show Big Brother was not as real as hospital programs because the contestants knew they were being filmed and everything they did was constructed for the cameras (Hill, 2005). Even though all programs mentioned are forms of reality TV, audience perception of the performance of non-professional actors and the modes of storytelling used are crucial in their classification of what is real or not (Hill, 2005). Kilborn (1994) argues that audiences are much more aware that what they view on TV is a constructed reality, and feel manipulated when there is an obvious distortion of facts.
The ‘reality’ presented in reality TV is further complicated when looking at its exploitative nature. Real events are exploited for their entertainment potential causing them to lose their authenticity (Kilborn, 1994). Television programs need to be light and easily digestible in order to bring back viewers, while producers will distort the reality they claim to be representing in order to create maximum dramatic appeal (Kilborn, 1994). For example, the reality show 999 is about the work of Britain’s emergency services and uses reenactments to tell stories (Kilborn, 1994). While the show tries to produce faithful reenactments, the dramatic elements behind them distort their factuality (Kilborn, 1994). The reenactments are dramatic and tense and more in line with the narrative storytelling of fictional drama (Kilborn, 1994). Fast editing and moody music are also employed – all purposefully used to heighten the sense of drama (Kilborn, 1994). The two docudramas Cathy Comes Home and Benefits Street also highlight the differences in how reality can be exploited. For example, the use of voiceover is critical in conveying inferences or perspectives. In Benefits Street the voiceover comes from narrator Tony Hirst and is not a dispassionate ‘Voice of God’ but rather an emotive voice that uses colloquial and judgmental language, and avoids using statistics (Lamb, 2016). This is compared to the distanced and neutral narration in Cathy Comes Home which also provides statistical context (Lamb, 2016). Hirst’s narration scrutinizes the subject’s decisions and behaviors and therefore influences the audience’s point of view, whereas Cathy Comes Home allows audiences to make their own decisions about the subject matter presented to them (Lamb, 2016).
Reality TV attempts to bring a slice of life onto television screens for audiences to see ‘real’ people represented. However, the reality presented is often distorted through filming and narrative techniques. Nevertheless, the question of how ‘real’ reality TV is depends on an audience’s perception of its authenticity.
References
Biressi, A., & Nunn, H. (2005). Reality TV: Realism and revelation. Wallflower.
Hill, A. (2005). Reality TV: Audiences and popular factual television. Routledge.
Kilborn, R. (1994). ‘How real can you get?’: Recent developments in ‘reality’ television. European Journal of Communication, 9(4), 421-439. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323194009004003
Lamb, B. (2016). Cathy Come Off Benefits: A comparative ideological analysis of Cathy Come Home and Benefits Street. Journalism and Discourse Studies, (2).
Roscoe, J., & Hight, C. (2001). Faking it: Mock-documentary and the subversion of factuality. Manchester University Press; Palgrave.
Pop Genres 2020 