Reality TV Proves Society Values and Connects to Drama

Reality TV Proves Society Values and Connects to Drama
Jen Weaver
ENG112
Megan Pope
October 3, 2011


        Sadly, society has witnessed a steady decline of values portrayed in popular media.  A lack of moral compass can be observed in many aspects of popular media; music, movies, gossip magazines and television.  Over the past few years reality television has become especially popular with a wide variety of reality shows available on each network.  While the genre of reality television includes reality game shows and dating competitions, the reality shows most commonly highlighting low moral behavior seem to be those depicting the actual daily lives of its stars.  When watching shows depicting a genuine lifestyle, one may be surprised at the limited depiction of moral living, with the reality stars appearing unashamed as they demonstrate poor values to their coworkers, friends and children.  The days of “The Brady Bunch” and “Family Ties” are over; today’s society is interested in drama and animosity, this is what many find interesting and entertaining.  Furthermore, in an electronic age people are growing constantly detached from human interaction and reality programing offers a type of pseudo relationship in which viewers can actually feel connected to those whose “realities” they are observing.  In this way, it is the very deficiency of values that makes reality television popular and the drama that ensues builds assumed relational connections to an ever growing fan base.

        Recognizing that the depiction of low moral standards is inherent to the success of reality programing provokes consideration of our society as a whole.  According to author Mark Andrejevic, a 2001 study completed by American Demographics “determined that 45 percent of all Americans watch reality TV and that a fifth of these (which would amount to one in eleven Americans overall) describe themselves as ‘die-hard’ fans” (Andrejevic, 2004, p.9).  If nearly half of all Americans choose to watch reality programming, these producers must be doing something right.  In an entertainment age offering hundreds of television channels with 24 hour programming, online media, movies and gaming, our attention to reality TV demonstrates that we are consistently entertained.  If the mass population wants this type of entertainment, then true blame or responsibility falls on the public, not the producers.  Reality television stars become stars because they are entertaining to watch, a status granted by the largest number of viewers and encouraged by rising fame produced from their outlandish behavior.

        The second part of Andrejevic’s findings inform us at one in eleven American’s would describe themselves as “die-hard” reality TV fans.  This indicates more than simply a casual viewing, these viewers are invested fans who spend time not only watching the shows but learning about the characters during the “off time”.  These “die-hard fans” will spend the time visiting the show’s website and blogs, watching before and after specials, and gathering information via gossip magazines.  The sheer volume of these invested reality TV fans is likely surprising to many, one in eleven!  This statistic demonstrates that this show not only wins over viewers when the television is on, but when the TV is off as well. 

        Once we have established the common understanding that reality programing is popular, we then must ask why.  Preliminary findings suggest that reality television downplays the normal or “average” aspects of everyday life and instead illuminates stereotypes, thus enhancing drama (Rohan, 2009, p.1).  It is easily apparent that successful reality television chooses not to portray the monotonous happenings of everyday life and instead hypes up the drama.  Viewers do not see reality TV stars going into the bathroom, getting their kids ready for school, cooking, grocery shopping or cleaning house unless there is some directly related emotionally charged situation.  Instead, each episode is bursting with emotional spectacles surrounding unique life circumstances.  Consider Season 2 of The Real Housewives of New Jersey for example.  By the end of the season viewers witnessed; grown women threatening fist fights because the birth of children were not appropriately congratulated or celebrated; allusions to a “mafia style” family dynamic; a mom in financial need justifying a multi-thousand dollar birthday party for her daughter by saying funds were used from charitable donations for Cystic Fibrosis; jealousy over the modeling careers of their children; sex tapes; and a housewife bringing ex-felons to crash a fundraising event (Diefenback, Haselton, & Rolov, 2010, Season 2).  These are not the happenings of everyday life for most Americans.  Instead, these are depictions of stereotypical situations faced by beautiful finically elite New Jersey families with Italian heritage.

        Continuing in the vein of entertainment, Reiss and Wiltz share results from a survey of 16 motivating factors behind watching and enjoying reality TV.  They argue that “people prefer television shows that stimulate the feelings they intrinsically value the most...  The results suggested that the people who watched reality television had above-average trait motivation to feel self-important and, to a lesser extent, vindicated, friendly, free of morality, secure, and romantic, as compared with large normative samples” (Reiss & Wiltz, 2009, p. 1).  If accurate, these results are incredibly revealing about our cultural values.  With 45% of Americans watching reality programing, this indicates that about half of all Americans value heightened degrees of self-importance and feeling free of morality.  It is no surprise then that these same values are also common in this programming and reality stars demonstrate substantial freedom from moral constraints while promoting their own importance as a self-made celebrity.

        Reiss and Wiltz may be on to something here; if reality television simulates the feelings valued by the viewer one could argue that it is safer to appease self-important tendencies through watching reality television rather than acting them out in a viewers own life.  The consequences of self-important behavior are felt by the reality stars, and viewers are free to bask in the high points or commiserate without any personal risk.

        Roth also argues that reality television viewers are not dumb as some would suppose, but are more likely drawn to this programing  as “people who want stories about people and who used to rely on gossip, or on the little mini-dramas in their community” but now find themselves in more isolated situations (such as suburban living) and miss that type of connection (Roth, 2011, p.1).  This further substantiates the appeal of drama and amoral living as depicted on reality television.  If a suburban mom wanted to see regular day life she could simply videotape her own housework.  Instead, the allure of reality television is the depiction of what many may wish to be their reality.  To be part of a circle of friends spending thousands of dollars on an ordinary trip to the jewelers or to attend fashion week to see their children walk the catwalk.  Reality television meets a need for many viewers as it provides scheduled doses of drama which may be observed, enjoyed and then discussed as a fully biased but invisible 3rd party.  Papacharissi and Mendelson would agree with Roth and add with information from their own studies that reality programing seems to fulfill companionship needs for many viewers (Papacharissi and Mendelson, 2007, p.355).  By vicariously participating in the drama of reality TV, many viewers can develop pseudo bonds with these stars.  Obviously these relationships are not legitimate, yet the overwhelming volume of drama in each episode provides opportunities for viewers to chose sides, form opinions of arguments, and celebrate successes.  Furthermore, some of these situations provide life scenarios that viewers may prefer; it can be nicer to imagine lavish parties and cocktail dresses as your typical Friday rather than a game night with TV dinners.  When presented with the drama of an ex-friend crashing your lavish gala or the drama of a dog throwing up on your couch, most would prefer the former.

        Reality television provides unique opportunities for viewers to bond with stars as these shows are presented as pictures into their actual everyday lives.  While movie goers may speculate as to what Brad Pitt’s home looks like, reality television viewers have weekly exposure to the homes of the Housewives.  This feeling of proximity and familiarity greatly enhances the sense of companionship many viewers enjoy with their reality stars.  Companionship can take shape in many forms, and in it’s simplest form it means a “feeling of fellowship”.  Oddly enough, to feel fellowship with television characters is quite easy.    Each weekly episode offers scheduled interactions, culminating in familiarity at the end of the season.  Reality television adds the supplementary benefit of common values and harmless gossip and a viewer could likely feel connected to the lives of several reality stars.

        When pairing the insight from Reiss and Wiltz  with Papacharissi and Mendelson, one can also easily deduce that deeper feelings of companionship can occur with reality television due to the values shared between star and viewer.  Viewers may indulge in self-important or less moral activity in their own lives and then can develop feelings of camaraderie when watching reality stars demonstrate similar life values (Reiss & Wiltz, 2009, p. 1) and (Papacharissi and Mendelson, 2007, p.355).

        In the end, it seems Wiegand was correct, “Vote with your remote. In the long run, it's viewers who have the power to make better TV” (Wiegand, 2011, p.1).  Viewers are voting with their remotes constantly every day.   It is truly the viewers who determine the quality of programing and what is being portrayed.  Reality television is a reflection of American culture and at the moment, the viewers are all voting for low morals on reality programming.


References

Andrejevic, Mark. (2004) Reality TV: the work of being watched.  Retrieved from
     http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=AcKSJFjNN00C&oi=fnd&pg
     =PR9&dq=reality+tvots=hSBdCflmXBsig=xdVQP6zKwbSTYMR0Z5VEb
     8tugbk#v=onepage&q&f=false

Diefenback, Rebecca Toth, Haselton, Valerie & Rolov, Lenid. (Executive Producers).
     (2010). The Real Housewives of New Jersey (Television Series). New Jersey:
     Sirens Media, LLC for Bravo.

Kjus, Y.. (2009). Everyone Needs Idols: Reality Television and Transformations
     in Media Structure, Production and Output. European Journal of Communication,
     24(3), 287. Retrieved September 12, 2011, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document
     ID: 1861607351).

Papacharissi, Zizi,  & Mendelson, Andrew L. (2007). An Exploratory Study of Reality
     Appeal: Uses and Gratifications of Reality TV Shows. Journal of Broadcasting &
     Electronic Media, 51(2), 355-370.  Retrieved September 12, 2011, from ProQuest 
     Telecommunications.(Document ID: 1309837631).

Reiss, Steven & Wiltz, James. (2009). Why People Watch Reality TV.  Vol 6 Issue 4.
     Retrieved September 23, 2011, from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1207
     /s1532785xmep0604_3#tabModule

Rohan, Virginia, & Staff Writer. (2009, May 6). THEY'RE JERSEY'S 'REAL
     HOUSEWIVES' - OR ARE THEY :TV divas stir debate over stereotypes.
     The Record,A.1.  Retrieved September 12, 2011, from ProQuest Newsstand.
     (Document ID: 1733393111).

Roth, David.  (2011, September). Cut Off, Tuned In :The Richard Florida theory
     of reality TV. New York.  Retrieved September 12, 2011, from Research Library.
     (Document ID: 2448878161).

Wiegand, David.  (2011, September 11). Turning a critical eye on TV. San Francisco
     Chronicle, P.3.  Retrieved September 12, 2011, from ProQuest Newsstand.
     (Document ID: 2448772821).