Ethics

Ethics & Reality TV
Should We Really Watch?
Media both in America and around the world seem to have "discovered" that so-called "reality" shows are very profitable, resulting in a growing string of such shows in recent years. Although not all are successful, many do achieve significant popularity and cultural prominence. That does not mean, however, that they are good for society or that they should be aired.
The first thing to keep in mind is that "Reality TV" is nothing new - one of the most popular examples of this sort of entertainment is also one of the oldest, "Candid Camera." Originally created by Allen Funt, it showcased hidden video of people in all manner of unusual and strange situations and was popular for many years. Even game shows, long a standard on television, are a sort of "Reality TV."
Today's programming, including a new version of "Candid Camera" produced by Funt's son, goes quite a bit further. The primary basis for many of these shows (but not all) seems to be to put people in painful, embarrassing, and humiliating situations for the rest of us to watch - and, presumably, laugh at and be entertained by.
These reality TV shows wouldn't be made if we didn't watch them, so why do we watch them? Either we find them entertaining or we find them so shocking that we are simply unable to turn away. I'm not sure that the latter is an entirely defensible reason for supporting such programming; turning away is as easy as hitting a button on the remote control. The former, however, is a bit more interesting.
Humiliation as Entertainment
What we are looking at here is, I think, an extension of Schadenfreude, a German word used to describe people's delight and entertainment at the failings and problems of others. If you laugh at someone slipping on the ice, that's Schadenfreude. If you take pleasure in the downfall of a company you dislike, that is also Schadenfreude. The latter example is certainly understandable, but I don't think that's what we're seeing here. After all, we don't know the people on reality shows.
So what causes us to derive entertainment from the suffering of others? Certainly there may be catharsis involved, but that is also achieved through fiction - we don't need to see a real person suffer in order to have a cathartic experience. Perhaps we are simply happy that these things aren't happening to us, but that seems more reasonable when we see something accidental and spontaneous rather than something deliberately staged for our amusement.
That people do suffer on some reality TV shows is beyond question - the very existence of reality programming may be threatened by the increase in lawsuits by people who have been injured and/or traumatized by the stunts these shows have staged. One of the reasons such programming is attractive is that it can be much cheaper than traditional shows, but that may change as insurance premiums for reality TV begin to reflect higher to insurers.
There is never any attempt to justify these shows as enriching or worthwhile in any way, though certainly not every program needs to be educational or highbrow. Nevertheless, it does raise the question as to why they are made. Perhaps a clue about what is going on lies in the aforementioned lawsuits. According to Barry B. Langberg, a Los Angeles lawyer who represents one couple:
Something like this is done for no other reason than to embarrass people or humiliate them or scare them. The producers don't care about human feelings. They don't care about being decent. They only care about money."
Comments from various reality TV producers often fail to demonstrate much sympathy or concern with what their subjects experience - what we are seeing is a great callousness towards other human beings who are treated as means towards achieving financial and commercial success, regardless of the consequences for them. Injuries, humiliation, suffering, and higher insurance rates are all just the "cost of doing business" and a requirement for being edgier.
Where's the Reality?
One of the attractions of reality television is the supposed "reality" of it - unscripted and unplanned situations and reactions. One of the ethical problems of reality television is the fact that it isn't nearly as "real" as it pretends to be. At least in dramatic shows one can expect the audience to understand that what they see on the screen doesn't necessarily reflect the reality of the actors' lives; the same, however, cannot be said for heavily edited and contrived scenes on sees on reality shows.
There is now a growing concern about how reality television shows can help perpetuate racial stereotypes. In many shows a similar black female character has been featured - all different women, but very similar character traits. It's gone so far that Africana.com has trademarked the expression The Evil Black Woman to describe this sort of individual: brazen, aggressive, pointing fingers, and always lecturing others on how to behave.
MSNBC has reported on the matter, noting that after so many "reality" programs, we can discern a pattern of "characters" that isn't very far different from the stock characters found in fictional programming. There's the sweet and naive person from a small town looking to make it big while still retaining small-town values. There's the party girl/guy who's always looking for a good time and who shocks those around them. There's the aforementioned Evil Black Woman with an Attitude, or sometimes Black Man with an Attitude - and the list goes on.
MSNBC quotes Todd Boyd, critical-studies professor at the University of Southern California's School of Cinema-Television as saying "We know all these shows are edited and manipulated to create images that look real and sort of exist in real time. But really what we have is a construction. ... The whole enterprise of reality television relies on stereotypes. It relies on common stock, easily identifiable images."
Why do these stock characters exist, even in so-called "reality" television that it supposed to be unscripted and unplanned? It’s because that's the nature of entertainment. Drama is more readily propelled by the use of stock characters because the less you have to think about who a person really is, the more quickly the show can get to things like the plot (such as it may be). Sex and race are especially useful for stock characterizations because they can pull from a long and rich history of social stereotypes.
This is especially problematic when so few minorities appear in programming, whether reality or dramatic, because those few individuals. end up being representatives of their entire group. A single angry white man is just an angry white man, while an angry black man is an indication of how all black men "really" are. MSNBC explains:
"Indeed, the [Sista with an Attitude] feeds off preconceived notions of African American women. After all, she's an archetype as old as D.W. Griffith, first found in the earliest of movies where slave women were depicted as ornery and cantankerous, uppity Negresses who couldn't be trusted to remember their place. Think Hattie McDaniel in "Gone with the Wind," bossing and fussing as she yanked and tugged on Miss Scarlett's corset strings. Or Sapphire Stevens on the much-pilloried "Amos N' Andy," serving up confrontation on a platter, extra-spicy, don't hold the sass. Or Florence, the mouthy maid on "The Jeffersons."
How do stock characters appear in "unscripted" reality shows? First, the people themselves contribute to the creation of these characters because the know, even if unconsciously, that certain behavior is more likely to get them air time. Second, the shows editors contribute mightily to the creation of these characters because they completely validate just that motivation. A black woman sitting around, smiling isn't perceived to be as entertaining as a black woman pointing her finger at a white man and angrily telling him what to do.
An especially good (or egregious) example of this can be found in Manigault-Stallworth, a star of Donald Trump's "The Apprentice." She has been called "the most hated woman on television" because of the behavior and attitude people see her with. But how much of her on-screen persona is real and how much is a creation of the shows editors? Quite a lot of the latter, according to Manigault-Stallworth in an email quoted by MSNBC:
"What you see on the show is a gross misrepresentation of who I am. For instance they never show me smiling, it's just not consistent with the negative portrayal of me that they want to present. Last week they portrayed me as lazy and pretending to be hurt to get out of working, when in fact I had a concussion due to my serious injury on the set and spent nearly ... 10 hours in the emergency room. It's all in the editing!"
Reality television shows are not documentaries. People are not put into situations simply to see how they react - the situations are heavily contrived, they are altered in order to make things interesting, and large amounts of footage are heavily edited into what the show's producers think will result in the best entertainment value for viewers. Entertainment, of course, often comes from conflict - so conflict will be created where none exists. If the show cannot incite conflict during the filming, it can be created in how pieces of footage are stitched together. It's all in what they choose to reveal to you - or not reveal, as the case may be.
Moral Responsibility
If a production companies creates a show with the explicit intention of trying to make money from the humiliation and suffering which they themselves create for unsuspecting people, then that seems to me to be immoral and unconscionable. I simply cannot think of any excuse for such actions - pointing out that others are willing to watch such events do not relieve them of the responsibility for having orchestrated the events and willed the reactions in the first place. The mere fact that they want others to experience humiliation, embarrassment, and/or suffering (and simply in order to increase earnings) is itself unethical; actually going forward with it is even worse.
What of the responsibility of the reality TV advertisers? Their funding makes such programming possible, and therefore they must shoulder part of the blame as well. An ethical position would be to refuse to underwrite any programming, no matter how popular, if it is designed to deliberately cause others humiliation, embarrassment, or suffering. It's immoral to do such things for fun (especially on a regular basis), so it's certainly immoral to do it for money or to pay to have it done.
What of the responsibility of contestants? In shows which accost unsuspecting people on the street, there isn't really any. Many, however, have contestants who volunteer and sign releases - so aren't they getting what they deserve? Not necessarily. Releases don't necessarily explain everything that will happen and some are pressured to sign new releases part way through a show in order to have a chance at winning - if they don't, all they have endured up to that point. Regardless, the producers' desire to cause humiliation and suffering in others for profit remains immoral, even if someone volunteers to be the object of humiliation in exchange for money.
Finally, what about the reality TV viewers? If you watch such shows, why? If you find that you are entertained by the suffering and humiliation of others, that's a problem. Perhaps an occasional instance wouldn't merit comment, but a weekly schedule of such pleasure is another matter entirely.
I suspect that people's ability and willingness to take pleasure in such things may stem from the increasing separation we experience from others around us. The more distant we are from each other as individuals, the more readily we can objectify each other and fail to experience sympathy and empathy when others around us suffer. The fact that we are witnessing events not in front of us but rather on television, where everything is has an unreal and fictional air about it, probably aids in this process as well.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't watch reality TV programming, but the motivations behind being a viewer are ethically suspect. Instead of passively accepting whatever media companies try to feed you, it would be better to take some time to reflect on why such programming is made and why you feel attracted to it. Perhaps you will find that your motivations themselves are not so attractive http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/phil/blphil_eth_realitytv.htm Reality television has become very popular over the past decade with shows such as "Survivor", "Big Brother" and "The Apprentice" attracting big audiences and making a lot of money for broadcasters worldwide. A definition of reality television is quite difficult but at its most basic it means programmes that show things really taking place, rather than drama or comedy that follows a script. Typically reality TV involves a group of people who are not trained actors being filmed in unusual situations over a period of time. Sport and news programmes are not considered reality TV. Documentaries that explore aspects of society are a grey area, with some closer to news reporting and others blurring into reality TV because they set up situations which did not already exist. Recently celebrity versions of reality shows have made definition even harder, because they show the private lives of professional singers, actors, sportspeople, etc. as they cope with new situations. Reality TV is often a hot topic as proponents believe it paints an unrealistic and inappropriate portrait and is therefore bad for our society and the children that make up the majority of the audience. They call for a cut in the number of hours given over to reality programmes, or even to ban them completely. Opponents meanwhile maintain that people should be allowed to watch what they like, and that reality programmes make good TV, as shown by consistently high viewer figures.
Reality TV can be educational and have real effects in society in a way other television programmes do not
POINT
Reality TV can be very educational. They educate people by displaying disastrous consequences of someone's behaviour, thus deterring others from doing unplanned and silly actions. Programmes such as "The Apprentice" have made people think about business. Jamie Oliver has raised issues of youth unemployment and poor diet, and "Fit Club" has got people thinking about health and fitness. Jamie Oliver's inaugural reality show, 'Jamie's Kitchen', offered jobless youngsters the 'chance to train and lead a nationwide campaign to improve the quality of school meals'1. Without the TV show's popularity funding the initiative, the youngsters involved would not have had such an opportunity and school meals would still reflect what kids want to eat, not what they should be eating. Such effects on society are beneficial and should be encouraged, not restricted.1 Jury, L. (2007, January 4). The Big Question: Has reality television had its day, or are audiences still attracted to it? Retrieved July 4, 2011, from The Independent

COUNTERPOINT
The few reality TV programmes that are educational and beneficial do not balance the bad majority. The majority are not educational, either to the public or the participants, and the insight they purport to offer into the human psyche are misguided. As Vanessa Feltz, a contestant on the British Big Brother series, describes, contestants and viewers alike 'subscribe to this utterly specious notion that fame is entirely desirable' (BBC News, 2001), whilst Narinda Kaur, another contestant on the show, admitted "I came away from this experience thinking 'oh my God, did I really say that?" (BBC News, 2001). As Claudio Petruccioli, head of the Italian state broadcaster Rai, notes, 'reality TV shows put people into environments that are both unrealistic and coercive'1 Any lessons learned are therefore inapplicable to real-world situations.1 Fraser, C. (2007, April 3). Italian TV bins reality shows. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from BBC News:

Reality television is popular and TV producers should give audiences what they want
POINT

Reality television programmes are very popular with audiences of all ages and types. They may not be high culture but most people do not want that from television. Most viewers want to be entertained and to escape for a while from the worries and boredom of their everyday life. American Idol rejectees who stubbornly insist that they have talent provide such escapism.[1] Furthermore, and importantly, such contestants are good natured in doing so, they are not exploited but offer themselves to reality shows.[2]Therefore, there is no harm in giving the people what they want – that is what the free market is all about. Reality shows are also popular because they exploit new technology so that millions of people can participate in the programme – typically by voting. Britain is believed to have had as many as 176 reality TV shows in a single year.[3] Such supply can only be driven by excessive demand.
[1] Poniewozik, James. “Why Reality TV is Good for Us.” 12 February 2003. Time. 5 July 2011.
[2] Poniewozik, James. “Why Reality TV is Good for Us.” 12 February 2003. Time. 5 July 2011.
[3] Jury, Louise. “The Big Question: Has reality television had its day, or are audiences still attracted to it?” 4 January 2007. The Independent. 4 July 2011. improve this COUNTERPOINT Reality television is not what audiences want, it is watched simply because it is ‘there’. It is what John Humphrys calls ‘carbohydrate television’, it ‘probably hasn’t done you much harm and if it leaves you feeling a bit bloated…well you can search out of a bit of quality stuff’.[1] With tens of television channels and twenty-four hours of programming to fill, reality is simply a cheap means to ensure there is always something on TV to watch. In Italy, the evidence supports such claims, with the state broadcaster Rai deciding to scrap reality programmes in 2008 due to low demand.[2] As Rai’s President stated, ‘I don’t believe they are the type of shows the majority of our viewers expect or want from a public service broadcaster’.[3]
[1] Humphrys, John. “Take this oath: First, do no harm.” 28 August 2004. The Guardian. 4 July 2011.
[2] Fraser, Christian. “Italian TV bins reality shows.” 3 April 2007. BBC News. 4 July 2011.
[3] Fraser, Christian. “Italian TV bins reality shows.” 3 April 2007. BBC News. 4 July 2011. improve this

The public can always just turn reality programmes off, or watch something else
POINT
Television provides a wide mixture of programmes, including reality television. For those who want it, there is high quality drama such as "The Sopranos" or "Pride and Prejudice" whilst the BBC, CNN, Al-Jazeera and other international broadcasters also cover news and current affairs in great depth. Wildlife programmes on the National Geographic or Discovery bring the wonders of the natural world into our living rooms. More sports are covered in more detail than ever before. So, ultimately, reality shows have not ruined television as a whole, they have merely added another option for viewers. Indeed, because they make a lot of money for broadcasters to spend on other types of programmes, they are actually good for all viewers, regardless of personal taste for genres. improve this COUNTERPOINT
Reality shows are driving out other sorts of programmes, so that often there is nothing else to watch. Reality TV is cheap and series can go on for months on end, providing hundreds of hours of viewing to fill schedules. TV bosses like this and are cutting back on comedy, music, drama and current affairs in favour of wall to wall reality rubbish. This is even worse when reality shows crowd the schedules of public service broadcasters. Stations such as the BBC in the UK, France Télévisions, or Rai in Italy have a duty to inform and educate the public. They should be made to meet that responsibility – as Rai has by saying it won’t have any more reality shows. improve this

Reality television forces us to analyse our own behaviour as a society
POINT
Reality TV actually has a lot of value to our society; they are effectively anthropological experiments, allowing the public to study people and societies from the comfort of their living rooms1. Humans are endlessly different and endlessly interesting to other humans. In these programmes we see people like us faced with unusual situations. Shows like Survivor, which place a group of strangers in remote environments, make us think about what we would do in their place, and about what principles govern human behaviour in general. It also shows us people who look and act very different from us, and helps us see that actually we have a lot in common with them. MTV's reality show 'Making the Band 2', a 'hip-hop American Idol', gives centre stage to inner-city kids who would be portrayed as criminals or victims on a cop drama. There is nothing immoral about reality shows, merely the society which demands them; these shows are just a product of our values and desires. We should face up to these issues rather than censor television in order to hide them.1 Sanneh, K. (2011, May 9). The Reality Principle. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from The New Yorker improve this COUNTERPOINT
Reality TV is less about exposing society and allowing us to evaluate our own behaviour than it is about 're-inforcing particular social norms'1. As such, it is deliberately misleading. If it is portrayed as being real, it implies authenticity and honesty, two things that most reality TV programmes are not. They serve not to challenge our views of society, but reinforce the often false notions we already collectively hold. For example, the US reality show "Are You Hot?" asks competitors to submit to appearance-rating by judges, only re-inforcing the false premise that one is defined solely by the way they look2. Furthermore, even if accepted that reality shows do present a 'real' image of society, programmes like Big Brother and Survivor erode the distinction between public and private, turning 'people with real lives and real problems and real children (into) entertainment'3. Society's entertainment cannot be allowed to come at the expense of the privacy that protects families and children.1 Sanneh, K. (2011, May 9). The Reality Principle. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from The New Yorker2 Becker, A. (2003, March 1). Hot or Not: Reality TV can be harmful to women. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from Pyschology Today 3 Humphrys, J. (2004, August 28). Take this oath: First, do no harm. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from The Guardian: