You are viewing ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.1){kind=small}
nickzor's journal
happyhappyhappy
drunk What we now know as reality television began in 1953 with Candid Camera, the classic network program which put ordinary people in compromising situations and documented their natural, unscripted reactions. The show’s tagline, “Smile, you’re on Candid Camera” is at least as ingrained into the collective American consciousness as any individual gag. Nowadays, the hidden camera gimmick that at first defined Candid Camera as a unique product has proliferated into the sometimes nauseating, sometimes captivating genre of contemporary television known as “Reality TV.”
Now, your friends at the water cooler would probably hesitate before putting Candid Camera in the same category as Survivor, where each contestant is painstakingly selected from a field of God-knows-how-many aspiring Richard Hatches and Jenna Morascas. Yes, in truth there is little ‘reality’ in modern reality TV, which seems to be an enticing amalgam of the very basest aspects of reality with the moral depravity, crass commercialism, and sky-high production values of television.
Indeed there has been something of a backlash against reality TV, with television critics and the self-proclaimed “educated class” of America decrying the backstabbing and undisguised greed behind shows like Survivor, and the vapid excesses of programs like The Swan. Ratings, on the other hand, seem not to reflect the sheer disgust that one would see when reading the opinions of those in the popular media. Psychology Today’s Steven Reiss and James Wiltz sought to measure real popular sentiment towards this new brand of entertainment:
The attitude that best separated the regular viewers of reality television from everyone else is the desire for status. Fans of the shows are much more likely to agree with statements such as, "Prestige is important to me" and "I am impressed with designer clothes" than are other people. We have studied similar phenomena before and found that the desire for status is just a means to get attention. And more attention increases one's sense of importance: We think we are important if others pay attention to us and unimportant if ignored. (Reiss)
Time Magazine’s James Poniewozik suggests that the reality television boom of the early part of this decade is both a response to the television networks’ complete creative bankruptcy and a natural progression for a generation who grew up with MTV’s The Real World (Poniewozik 469). Being a member of this generation myself, I have witnessed among my peers a great amount of value placed in what we as a group see as “real”. In my observation, much of what is known as “gangsta rap” is considered “real” for its depictions of gritty, often poor and black urban reality.
Indeed the kind of reality often depicted in hardcore rap bears striking similarities to the nature of reality that one might find in a viewing of Big Brother or Survivor. This is a bizarre slice of reality, a kind of entertainment reality trimmed of the tedious and mundane realities of the universal human experience and biased towards the most instantly and universally exciting elements: sex, competition, greed, the survival instinct; excess and debauchery in all their forms.
It is of great importance to recognize how distorted this slice of reality is, because therein lies the great appeal of both reality television and, at least for this middle-class white suburban youth, gangsta rap. It is a great vicarious thrill ride, an instantaneous transportation to a world without boundaries, where we can indulge our baser instincts towards lust and greed without consequence. Not only that, but we can get together and talk about it at work the next morning.
There is that, and then there are programs like American Idol. Few of the myriad reality shows borne out of the boom of 2000 and 2001 have proven to have lasting appeal, and turnover remains extremely high, but American Idol has proven its staying power. Although its format is that of a talent show (which have been around since time immemorial), it is the individual struggle for recognition, the dream of climbing to the top despite overwhelming odds that all Americans can appreciate and aspire to.
Elaine Showalter says that “American Idol showed how the postmillennial United States is changing with regard to race, class, national identity, and politics” (474) and goes on to praise the show’s racial and stylistic multiculturalism, as if the politically correct world of television would permit anything less. But behind this nearly impenetrable fortress of liberal namby-pambyism is a carefully crafted moneymaking vehicle, painstakingly assembled by the record industry and the Fox TV network.
Yes, beyond the national spectacle of American Idol lies a callous capitalistic motive: the show is clearly a national focus group for the record industry to groom one of the show’s twelve finalists to commercial perfection in anticipation of the winner’s album, which will inevitably top the sales charts. In this light, the nature of the sometimes controversially honest criticism of contestants by judge Simon Cowell, are quite apt. Indeed, Simon Cowell is symbolic of the universal human struggle to reconcile our grand dreams with the harsh realities of the world. Cowell’s complete disregard for a contestant’s feelings come not from a desire to be vicious or cruel, but out of a vested interest in finding the most talented, commercially viable contestants.
Humiliation, predictably, results, but it is out of a bruised ego that one can grow. “Embarrassment, these shows demonstrate, is survivable, even ignorable, and ignoring embarrassment is a skill we could all use” (Poniewozik 471). Despite how difficult it may be to watch, it is lessons like these that attract us to reality television; not as a means of grotesque escapism or voyeuristic perversion, but out of a sense of community and shared humanity.
Of course, many of us still won’t watch it. In the end, reality television has different values to different people. To some, it is a sign of moral corruption and a symptom of a much greater national crisis. To others, it is pure vicarious entertainment. In the end, has the argument really changed so much since television itself first came into existence? No, not really.
