The Reality TV Controversies

<< Previous

Reality TV - The Debate Contd...

Critics of such shows claimed that the 'reality' in reality TV programs was often modified or customized by TV networks to make a more powerful impact on the viewers. TV networks, they argued, re-created 'reality' to promote their channels. The fact that such shows were being made at the cost of what analysts called good programming (news, entertainment, education and information-oriented shows, motivational and counseling shows) added to the resentment against them.

However, TV networks across the globe seemed to be unperturbed by these developments. Not only was the number of reality TV shows going up, they were increasingly featuring violence, crime, profanity, helplessness and violation of privacy. TV networks argued that they had created a new genre, which demonstrated that the common man could be as interesting as any film or TV character. The networks claimed that they had 'ignited a spirit to participate and achieve' in the people through their reality based programs. The strongest argument put forward by the networks in support of such shows was that viewers wanted to see reality TV programs. This was borne out by the high viewership ratings recorded by these programs. Bob Littiera (Littiera), Vice-President, DKB and Partners (New Jersey) Media Division, said, "People will watch anything, they'll watch whatever is thrown at them. There's always going to be someone who's watching, always a new audience for it, and there will always be executives who give this to them. And there will always be advertisers."

Rabbi Kenneth Roseman, a renowned critic of reality TV, said, "Every human being is faced with moral choices, temptations to make mistakes. But we're not faced with people who deliberately set out to undermine or distort our morals, particularly for ratings and profit. This is really offensive." He argued that TV networks deliberately exposed millions of people to moral conflicts, encouraging them to give in to temptation, all for the sake of popularity and profitability. How far are these TV networks justified in endangering the moral environment of the society as a whole?

The Future

In late 2001, a survey conducted in the US by Adweek revealed that 50% of the surveyed people had become more selective to the kind of programs they watched. Around 57% of the surveyed people indicated that they were less willing to watch reality based programs. As many as 60% of the respondents said that they were willing to watch comedies. This trend seemed to be catching on in many parts of the world in early 2002. Though the repeated telecast of the September 11th terrorist attacks in the US, which brought viewers very close to reality, was partly responsible for this change, it was also caused to some extent, by viewer fatigue. The continuous telecast of reality TV shows with more or less the same content, had bored viewers.

Many of the major networks had reportedly begun efforts to modify their offerings accordingly, prompting rumors of the onset of 'the end of reality TV.' However, industry observers claimed that the passiveness towards reality TV programs would be soon over as 'viewer memory' tends to be very short.

Analysts observed that viewers continued to watch reality TV in spite of the criticism it received. They therefore argued that viewers were as much to blame for these shows as the TV networks and advertisers. Bill Press, a TV host and critic, summed up the situation: "I've got to tell you, as long as people will go to casinos or continue to build them, as long as people will watch this junk on TV they're going to continue to produce it. There's nobody to blame but the idiots who tune in to it."

Exhibits

Exhibit I: Genres of Reality TV Programming
Exhibit II: Most Popular and Criticized Reality TV Shows