Different Levels of Reality

When one normally thinks of reality TV, he or she will imagine a concept or idea constructed by producers meshed into some sort of theme or recurring situation. In the end, they think of some whacked situation which they can somehow turn into a lucrative TV program. There are many levels of "real" situations within the "Reality TV" genre.

I would consider the show "Cops" the most legitimate and concrete version of reality. When the show was created at the beginning of the 1990s, it was just cameramen following cops in various regions of the country performing their everyday duties. There would always be some crazy, unimaginable situations from episode to episode which ultimately made for good TV. Producers did come up with the concept and decide to put it on camera, but most of the show was pretty much as real as you can get. The events and people on the show are actual crimes. Chasing drug dealers with $10,000 worth of cocaine and oxycontins down the highway (sometimes the opposite side) going 80-90 mph... That's a screwed up, but a real situation. When they chase these people out the car, through the fields, and into the helicopter spotlight; you know that stuff's really going down. You can't stage this stuff unless it's a Tom Cruise film or something. I would consider "Cops" the most authentic version of Reality TV.

A show like the "Real World," I would call a deceitful type of reality. Yeah, it's people just living together as room mates having their lives taped on a day to day basis. Well, that's what it's advertised as. If you were in a house and cameramen were following you around and recording you at every moment, would you truly act as you normally do? No. You'd put on a show or twist things to make you seem cooler, funnier, smarter, whatever. The whole show is overly produced. Music doesn't play in the background of your life in the real world. You don't have two separate hairstyles and earrings in a minute long fight with your room mate. It's not the REAL WORLD. It's the edited world. And in the new seasons, the casts don't have job assignments! What's up with the that? That's not the real world. That's just living the high life paid for by MTV.

And finally I would consider "The Bachelorette" a distorted reality. Let's get real for a second. Do men actually chase after and flock to the same woman for her love and hand in marriage? I'm sorry, but it's usually women that are the needy ones doing the chasing. Men do not really go after women and compete for their love. Guys are more like, on to the next one. I have quite a few female friends and they're always asking me for advice about how to get this one guy. I always tell them to move on if he doesn't want you or show you the time of day. Yet, they still are all deeply attracted and attached to that one guy they're sweating over. Plus, our society considers women past the age of 35 who still aren't married desperate, or just a lesbian. This show is just a sorry excuse to attract female viewers who dream of this type of fairytale moment. All women would love 20 guys to compete for their love. In reality, chances of that happening are pretty slim.

Ethical Television: What's Socially Acceptable?

So as I was thinking of a topic pertaining to media studies, I began considering whether American television is indeed ethical. Or is it unethical? I don't know if you would consider this reality television, but I began thinking about Award Shows and Major Sports Events broadcast on TV. Although it is somewhat staged and produced, it's pretty much real life events. Singing for a group or show of people. Playing football for your crowd of fans. It's pretty much reality. Well, we only see a little bit of reality. We never actually see what physically goes on behind the scenes. I began thinking of a few examples of what has been seen on American television in relation to ethics.

The first example of what I would consider Unethical television is the Britney, Xtina, and Madonna kiss at the opening of the 2003 Video Music Awards. I know everyone either saw it or heard about it somewhere. It was all over the news and entertainment updates. So at about the middle of their show-stopping routine, Madonna (who's about mid 40s at this point & getting pretty tired) spins around both Britney and Christina, then kisses them each for about 2 seconds per gal. It wasn't just like a cutesy peck for the kids, there was tongue. It was basically MTV selling sex. But the best part about it all is that it was aired on television. Somewhere along the line, a producer or executive for MTV figured it was okay to feature three women kissing each other at the opening of a live show on television. It was shown all over TV as if the public was fascinated with what went down. If it were two famous gay men at the opening, it never would have went down. No producer or executive in their right mind would even dare consider it. Everyone would turn off their TVs. Right? Because two gay men are not as socially acceptable as two gay (or three) gay/bi women.

The second example I thought of is also Unethical television. When Janet Jackson's breast was exposed at the 2004 Superbowl. Well, technically Justin Timberlake ripped a piece of her black suit off and revealed her breast. But that was never really discussed in the media. Janet's a woman. It's her own fault. If you don't realize, I'm being sarcastic about all this. It's just as much Janet's fault as it is Justin's fault as it is MTV's (produced the half time show that year) fault as it is the FCC's fault. Once her breast was made public with piercing and all, it stayed on the screen for about 5 seconds. Where was the FCC on that one? They probably weren't even at their monitors or control room. Probably not even paying attention. Or I bet the men in charge were fascinated and lost train of thought. The fact of the matter is her breast never should have come out on television! Yet, it did. Even if it wasn't planned, the second you see Justin Timberlake's hand touch Janet's breast... You cut, fade to black. I still don't understand what actually happened. But I do know Janet got way more media speculation than Justin. Again, what does our society consider socially acceptable and ethical?

Representation of "Reality" on Television

The media tends to falsely represent reality to its audiences by carefully selecting ideas, constructing plot lines, and formulating situations for its shows. Often, what we see on television is a constructed idea or image which is represented as something different from one's own reality.

One may consider "The Bachelor" a reality TV show because it is represented and presented that way, but is it truly reality? Yeah, the idea of dating and falling in love is a reality that happens in most people's lives. But I wouldn't consider competing for the love of a handsome and wealthy doctor/athlete/businessman/pilot in a competition among 19 other good looking women an ACTUALITY. Life doesn't always work that way in a fantasy dream world where you get the opportunity to win a good looking and successful man's affection.

The show is portraying the wrong reality to young girls that bachelors are young, good looking, desired, unmarried men. That's an "eligible" bachelor, and clearly not every bachelor is at his prime. Plus these episodes are thoroughly planned out between the settings, the dates, and the rose distribution ceremonies. While this show is not entirely scripted and staged, I wouldn't call it a full reality. Producers continuously represent this notion of "reality" within dating shows as events only fantasized or dreamed of. There's a consistent plot and formula to each season of the show that keeps its female viewers watching.

Pitching a Reality TV Show

Reality TV Production:
Reality Show Pitching

So I was watching this video online with reality TV show producer, Mark Cronin, who talks personally about pitching concepts for TV networks. Mark Cronin's production company "Mindless Entertainment" joined with Cris Abrego's "51 Pictures to Form 51 Minds" to eventually produce way too many reality dating shows on VH1. It started with the "Surreal Life" where they filmed a house full of washed up celebrities AKA Vanilla Ice... and Trishelle from RW Las Vegas? Then Flavor of Love, I Love New York, Rock of Love, Charm School, and still hundreds of more invested shows to come. In the video, he explains that it is important to always have a compelling way to present the idea to whichever group of executives you are meeting with. He says you have to consider every person in the room who may be potentially purchasing your show idea, and convince them all or as many as possible that your show is good. His advice is to present an idea that will go in into the future, because networks love shows that go on instead of short lasting shows that cost them money (I'm sure they're all millionaires anyways).

He maintains that a good show must have some sort of repeated format with a continuous formula that will WORK. I could have told you that. Studios want something that will continuously pull the same profiting tricks... like "Glee." He describes his experiences pitching and says that he tries to make everyone in the room laugh and make them believe a concept or show is funny. Well yeah if you're pitching a funny show, it would probably be a good idea to aim to make people die laughing. Just pull out your tricks. That's what I would do. Cronin also heeds some advice to aspiring reality TV show producers, stating that most networks only talk to people who have agents. And the agents must be well-known in the industry because the execs don't have much time to waste. If they're going to waste time to meet with you, they better believe the agent when he or she tells them you're good at producing. My favorite line is this cocky one, "If you are not a professional (TV) reality show producer, you have an enormous uphill battle." I guess you have to be really determined, as well as have a really great and lucrative concept.