Category: Week 11 Questions – Reality TV

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. 

How real is Reality TV?

According to Hill(2005), “Reality TV is a catch-all category that includes a wide range of entertainment programmes about real people.” Reality TV also became a mainstream genre of broadcasting programs located on the border between information, entertainment, documentaries and dramas, as it was called factual television. Moreover, it features real people participating in real-life events opposed to virtual creation by telling stories about everything from health care to beauty, from people to pets. Hill(2005) generally creates the question of how real reality television is by assuming that viewers can’t distinguish fiction from reality on television. 

In general, reality TV is closely linked to the form of documentary television. Among many types of documentaries, observation documentaries, in particular, tend to deal with current events unfolding in front of cameras, relying on the use of light, portable cameras, although claims of observing real life are not much included in the game show format, even traces of observational documentaries remain in reality game shows such as Big Brother. Big Brother is a setting in which participants live together for 24 hours under camera surveillance in a space cut off from the outside world and regularly vote for each other and the last of the cohabitants to win the prize. The people who produced the broadcast were entertaining, satisfying our desire to be curious about the behavior of the other person and to watch the other secretly. “Reality TV does not just represent individuals and character types. It shows us social interaction, group dynamics, interpersonal struggles, the process of voting, and even, perhaps, the workings of power itself”(Escoffery,2014). 

So it blurts the line, making us connect with our reality, whether it is real or fake. In addition, extreme places and prize money expand interactions to make attractive television sets, but we learn human interactions as “truths.”

t is also an entertainment factor that plays an important role in Reality TV. Reality TV mainly involves a wide range of human activities, with broadcasters aiming to draw their attention by associating the subject with viewers’ lives or experiences, no matter what subject they deal with. So they add a lot of entertainment elements to gain popularity and don’t let them know that they have been manipulated dominantly. What’s important for broadcasters is to make the audience feel mentally or socially and culturally connected to what they see on TV. Such entertainment elements can attract people’s attention or popularity, but they can be reduced to reality by extreme exaggeration or portrayal.

References

Escoffery, D. S. (Ed.). (2014). How real is reality TV?: Essays on representation and truth. McFarland.

Hill, A. (2005). Reality TV: Audiences and popular factual television. Psychology Press.

How real is reality TV?

Reality Television has seemed to really take off within mainstream media, and gain vast popularity over the past two decades. Reality TV programs have become engrained in most American and European television cultures, and this something that can be associated with the past twenty years, though early forms of reality TV have existed since the fir Cist quarter of the last century. In a very broad understanding, reality TV is the portrayal of real people doing real things, mostly in exceptional situations and with a focus on personality and drama. Some TV stations make the differentiation between scripted and factual content, programs which are still in the realm of portraying something real, but harboring different commercial and creative intentions. The important question is, how real is reality tv in actuality, and should it still be considered factual content, if most of it is orchestrated and scripted?

The initial motivating force for filmmakers was to create something which could persuade the viewing public that what they are watching has a direct connection  to real life. One of the first generic influences on reality were documentaries. The term documentary was coined by John Grierson in 1926, and he called documentaries ‘the creative treatment of actuality’. Up until that point the most important screen was cinema, which depicted an overly glamorized view of life, which stimulated the counter narrative of documentaries. The main intention of documentaries at that time was to enlighten the masses to the circumstances of their society, in the hopes that a social reform could be achieved. This type of documentary was creative and experimental using interviews, music and camera tricks. They used an almost omniscient, voice of god type narration, which was condescending to the viewers. Another early influence was direct cinema  which was a more discrete and observational type of filming which offered no attempt at analysis. It used a fly on the wall type of technique, valuing intimacy and immediacy. It used a more scientific approach and avoided the social responsibility agenda. Cinema Verite was the French movement of documentaries in the 1960’s, also using a fly on the wall technique, but allowing for the camera and cameraman to appear in the frame. The defining feature of this type of documentary was self reflexivity, condemning the voice of god type narration as falsehood. Free cinema arose in Britain in the 1950’s, using a filming style of handheld camera, real locations and a raw style. The subject matter was ordinary culture and ordinary people, portraying the regularity of everyday life. These documentaries were poetically staged and often focused more on the aesthetic and visual beauty than the actual motive.

All of these early types of reality TV have influenced the way we perceive what is real on the screen, thanks to the techniques, constraints and worldviews which they implemented in their work. One thing that all genres of documentaries have in common is the revelation of the ordinary as knowledge. “There is now a general recognition that all notions of ‘realism’ are historically determined and that the criteria for judging the realism quotient of a text have just as much to do with the audience expectations and with sets of established conventions as with any objective measure for judging how much reality can be transposed to the screen.’ (Kilborn, p.:422)

While the early influences of reality TV may have had the pure intention of portraying real life in a raw way, the reality TV genres which have evolved today have merged the essence of reality and dramatization in order to gain commercial success and accumulate views and public affinity. While these programs feature real people, their actions and relationships with each other often times orchestrated to fit the perceptions and expectations of the audience.

References :

Kilborn, R. (1994). ‘How Real Can You Get?’: Recent Developments in ‘Reality’ Television. European Journal of Communication, 9, 421-439. Doi: 10.1177/0267323194009004003  

Smith, P. (2020). REALITY TELEVISION, Popular Genres (ENGL602) Week 11. Powerpoint.

How real is reality tv?

Reality TV as Hill (2005) explains, is a relatively common umbrella term used to describe a variety of popular and factual tv programming. There is a broad range of techniques and styles used in reality tv, from non-professional actors, unscripted dialogues, surveillance footage, as well as seeing events occur just as they happen in real time. In fact, in the early days of the genre, most of reality programming consisted of live footage of law and order, or emergency services. However, throughout the years, this genre has developed immensely and can be associated with almost anything from people, pets, and even sports.

The evolution of reality tv has enabled a sense of ‘hybridization’ of different successful genres to increase its market value. Although traditionally, reality tv does consider itself a form of factual programming, it also merges with entertainment-based programs, thus becoming a hybrid genre with varying styles. Another useful term is, popular factual programming, which connects popular audiences with a range of factual television genres and formats. Evidently, the reality tv genre is made up of a range of distinct and historically significant other genres like ‘lifestyle shows,’ or documentaries. Through merging these genres, new hybrid genres such as the reality tv we know today have been created. Moreover, one of the defining aspects that brings the groups of reality tv programs together is the extent to which they let the audience ‘see for themselves.’ The viewers then get to judge the ‘reality’ of reality tv, which its initial purpose is to capture the ‘reality’ of everyday lives.

Furthermore, many different television networks around the world produce their own reality programmes and have been successful on the television market, however the term ‘reality tv,’ has gained some criticisms (Kilborn, 1994). Regarding the beginnings of film and tv, one of the main goals of moving image producers was to persuade their viewers that they are watching something that is directly connected to the ‘real world.’ This idea led to many debates on how to present reality in a more genuine way, and how changing the onscreen representations may affect the attitudes of the viewers. More importantly, all notions of ‘realism’ differs based on history and culture and it can be difficult to set a standard for what is considered ‘real’ in reality tv.

Another important factor to consider in the making of reality tv, is the entertainment value. Factual programming can only be factual if it concerns representing what is real, but if there is no entertainment factor, then it can be difficult to keep the viewer’s attention. Kilborn (1994) also explains that whatever the format of the reality program (whether it is a docu-soap, or dramatic fiction), the aim of the creator is to highlight the effect of shared experience or a lived in reality. The events that cover reality tv involve a wide range of human activities, from the mundane to the most dynamic. A key requirement, is that no matter what the subject matter, the audience must easily find a way to relate to what is shown on screen. Nonetheless, this can be a skewed notion at times, as some shows may over-dramatize the real-life events, or the depiction might be different to increase entertainment value.

Ultimately, reality tv does feature real-life people and depicts factual information/events, however it can be over-sensationalized to an extent which makes it seem fairly ‘unreal.’

References

Hill, A. (2005) The reality genre. In A. Hill, Reality TV: Audiences and Popular Factual Television. (pp. 14 – 40). Oxon: Routledge. 

Kilborn, R. (1994). ‘How Real Can You Get?’: Recent Developments in ‘Reality’ Television. European Journal of Communication, 9, 421-439. Doi: 10.1177/0267323194009004003  

How real is Reality TV?

 

Reality television is a genre of television that is highly popular, reality television encompasses television series that focuses on individuals who are placed in exceptional situations with a group of people. The goal of the show for these individuals may be a reward that changes depending on the show. Reality television genres can take on many different forms including game shows, cooking shows, video diaries, talent shows, etc. Despite the many different genres of reality television, they all feature real people participating in real events as oppose to fictional creations. However, the line between reality and fiction has become increasingly blurred leading to the question, how real is reality television.

 

The truth is that reality television provides viewers a glimpse into the entertaining life, a lifestyle that is extremely exaggerated and does not reflect the real world in any way. It is an unachievable lifestyle for practically every viewer of the programme, nor does it account for the fact that the situations presented are predominately fabricated. What exactly is real is not the appeal of reality television, rather human interest that creates popular reality television.

 

Reality television was given the name not for its accuracy to average everyday life but rather because it uses real people and focuses on the conflict that arises because of their clashing personalities, despite these real people being in abnormal situations. This is how reality television creates the illusion of reality as it “places an emphasis on the representation of ordinary people and allegedly unscripted or spontaneous moments that supposedly reveal unmediated reality” (Biressi & Nunn, 2005). Reality television also does not use actors, instead using real people which adds to the illusion of reality because the audience presumes that these people are behaving like themselves and not playing a character. The style of cinematography that reality television implores also constructs the perception of reality the audience is shown. Reality television will often use handheld cameras to present most of the footage and lack narration which resembles a documentary, a genre that people know for its accuracy to reality (Murray & Ouellette, 2004). Hidden cameras are also used to suggest to the audience that because the people on screen are unaware, they are being filmed that their behaviour is more real than if a camera was in their face.

 

Because reality television creates the illusion of reality theorists have suggested that audiences are less concerned with the absolute truth that reality television may occasionally achieve. Instead, they are more interested in the experience that sits somewhere between reality and fiction (Murray & Ouellette, 2004). Audiences of reality television want to view something that will entertain them regardless of how real or fake it is, but the best content that comes from reality television is when that line is blurred leading to the most entertaining moments of a series.

 

References

Biressi, A., Nunn, N. (2005). Reality TV: Realism and Revelation. London; Wallflower.  

Murray, S., Ouellette, L. (2004) Reality TV: remaking television culture. New York; New York University Press.

How real is Reality TV?

Some people love it other people love to hate it. You don’t have to watch reality TV to have an opinion of it, it’s a conversation starter and it is often more talked about then watched (Hill, 2015). RTV has the ability to address a huge audience in original ways and it is able to retain the audience’s attention for a long period of time (Biressi & Nunn, 2005). Slade (2014) points out “As a television viewing culture, we have become more obsessed with instant gratification and the bigger and weirder, the better.”
 According to Hill (2015) minor reality soap series can attract more Twitter followers then actual viewers and big TV shows are considered to have failed if they don’t make the headlines. Hill (2015) writes that “Reality TV is caught up in what is happening now. Individual shows, news headlines, social media trends and even big events date very quickly.”
As most of us know there are several different types of reality TV shows, but all of them evolve around ‘real people’. According to Escoffery (2006) RTV doesn’t just represent people and types of characters, but also “social interaction, group dynamics, interpersonal struggles, the process of voting, and even, perhaps, the workings of power itself.” Reality TV is now one of the most obvious cultural grounds for debating the status of modern fame. The fame culture is centred around the “famous for being famous” concept, and it now rules over the concept of talent and hard work (Escoffery, 2006).

Let’s have a look at how the reality TV producers tailor their shows to engage the biggest audience possible. As Escoffery (2006) points out it is important to look at how power and social interaction is represented in RTV, how they are depicted and how the are perceived by the audience. Wyatt & Burton (2012) talks about how we need to ask questions and make distinctions between the ethics of RTV and in RTV, are the shows made honestly, do they treat their participants in a morally responsible manner? They point out that we have to look at “whether they communicate a sense of ethics in their narratives and whether they assume, or even prompt, an ethical response from their audience.” (Wyatt & Bunton, 2012).
Wyatt & Bunton (2012) mentions that there are several examples of deception in reality TV such as misleading editing to create drama or to piece together quotes from different contexts, basically forcing the contestant to say what the producer needs them to say. According to Deery (2015), editing is often used to build characters and to make them seem shady or more innocent. Clips can be shown out of sequence or the editor can choose when to release certain information to maximize the dramatic effect (Deery, 2015).

This combined with the evidence and information provided in Philippa Smith’s lecture (Reality Television, Popular Genres week 11, 2020) where we looked at comments from people who had taken part in reality TV shows, makes me conclude that we have to be critical. Knowing that producers edit the narrative, cast people who are bound to create conflict, retake shots for maximal dramatic effects etc, makes me conclude that RTV probably is real to some extent but, like my mother once told me; you can’t believe everything you see on TV.

Sources:

Biressi, A., & Nunn, H. (2005). Reality tv : Realism and revelation. ProQuest Ebook Central https://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Deery, J. (2015). Reality tv. ProQuest Ebook Central https://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Escoffery, D. S. (Ed.). (2006). How real is reality tv? : Essays on representation and truth. ProQuest Ebook Central https://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Hill, A. (2014). Reality tv. ProQuest Ebook Central https://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Slade, A. F., Narro, A. J., & Buchanan, B. P. (Eds.). (2014). Reality television : Oddities of culture. ProQuest Ebook Central https://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Smith, P. (2020). REALITY TELEVISION, Popular Genres (ENGL602) Week 11. Powerpoint.

Wyatt, W. N., & Bunton, K. (Eds.). (2012). The ethics of reality tv : A philosophical examination. ProQuest Ebook Central https://ebookcentral.proquest.com