Victor Kalei Groberg

ANTH-1070

Nov 12, 2018

Ethnography of Reality T.V.

Reality T.V. is a genre of itself as it has no definitive ending or linear plot line. Common

shows and movies are indifferent to this ability as genre sorely conflicts with its freedom of plot.

Examples that are going to be used are: Romantic Comedy, Horror and Western. Even if a

viewer is foreign to the ending or resolution of the story, they are still able to roughly understand

the plot and prepare for what is to come of it, just by knowing what genre the film is in. Horror

movies all derive from the idea of jump scares and ensuing fear into the audience. Romantic

Comedies revolve around the idea of humor that generally correlates between the love of two

people. Western movies are culminated around a cowboy against an environment or political

agenda. Reality T.V. is different in the sense that there is no direct implication of what is to come

of the plot and that there may possibly be no resolution to the story. In a traditional story the

climax is resolved by the protagonist either winning or losing and changing from the event of the

climax. Reality T.V. extricates itself from this custom as the plot is continually ongoing, as to

mirror the narrative of real life.

The structure of Reality T.V. contrasts from regular scripted broadcasts to the extent that

not even the producers of the show fully know where the story can lead to. Reality T.V.’s actors

have liberal capabilities to use because the register and the performance of the show is rather

informal and loosely managed. Much of the production revolves around a specific character or
characters and their view of the episode’s subject matter and debatably their “day-to-day life”.

Producers, directors, and writers have little influence towards the progression and control of the

narrative. This is opposite from scripted broadcasts, as they are generally highly controlled by

the aspirations and ideas of the writers, producers, and directors. Actors have scarce impact on

scripted narratives, as much of what they say is written by someone else, albeit a few impromptu

lines here-and-there. Comparatively, majority of Reality T.V.’s narrative is improvisation, where

much of the vernacular is informal and can be understood by viewers with minimal English

knowledge.

Although Reality T.V. is often perceived as uneducational, the origins of it come from

one of the highest informative international broadcasts, according to Carter Hathaway’s article,

The Surprising Origins of Reality TV, states:

“President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. That law

eventually led to the formation of both National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public

Broadcasting System (PBS). While many Americans associate PBS with such popular

programs as ‘Sesame Street,’ ‘Antiques Roadshow’ and Ken Burns documentaries, it also

aired other influential but largely forgotten shows that helped shape our contemporary

media landscape — including one that was decades ahead of its time.

Long before E!, Bravo or MTV, PBS introduced America’s television audience to reality

TV.

The show was called ‘An American Family,’ and when it aired on PBS from January to

March 1973, it offered an intimate and sensationalistic examination of a single family

 alongside a powerful critique of American society. Unlike commercial networks

dependent on advertising revenue, PBS had the flexibility to broadcast an experimental

program that challenged audiences without pressures from advertisers that preferred to

sponsor comfortable, traditional content. In fact, the program’s problem may have been

that it was too realistic for a TV audience accustomed to sitcom perfection.”

This citation states that the exact origins of American Reality T.V. derived from PBS,

and more specifically their televised broadcast of the show, “An American Family”. Hathaway

also states that the show did not have positive feedback, as he claims it was an insight of a “too

realistic” version of reality. This leads to the question of audience and who is Reality T.V.

speaking to?

Reality T.V. is performance of “real life” and the portrayal of what “real life” is supposed

to be like. The implication of this leads to what the aspirations of the viewers are and what they

hope to achieve by watching. Kashmir Hill’s article, The Hierarchy of Reality TV Shows, states

the two indigenous traits that Reality T.V. is characterized as: “I primarily ascribe ‘dignity’ (in

my words) or ‘lack of tackiness’ (in Steve’s words) to shows that (1) involve challenges, (2)

involve a prize and/or (3) are aspirational. Examples of ‘dignified shows’: Survivor, The

Amazing Race, American Idol, The Apprentice, Project Runway, America’s Next Top Model,

Biggest Loser. These shows are essentially extended game shows. Contestants appear for a

reason, whether it’s to win a million dollars or to secure a recording contract. Those who go on

these shows also know that they’ll achieve some reality TV fame, but they have other financial

and professional motives. The people who go on these shows hope to come out better -- whether

richer, thinner, or, yes, more famous.” This quote characterizes the first definition of the
attributed traits, called “dignified” shows and the rules made to define this trait, them being that

they must involve a challenge, a prize, and inspire motivation; the exact rewards of these prizes

include, weight loss, gaining money, or fame, but can include different rewards as well as to best

fit the context of the show.

The second of the indigenous traits of Reality T.V. is further described by Hill, stating:

“The undignified/tacky shows are those in which the participants have no real objective beyond

fame. In these shows, we just watch people going about their ‘real lives.’ But those followed

don’t tend to be inspiring or doing something important -- no reality TV series set in an embassy

yet, sadly -- they tend to be just like us, with a lot of free time on their hands and a strong desire

to make their lives more interesting through the introduction of cameras… Examples of

‘undignified’ shows: Housewives of (fill in the blank), The Hills, Real World, Bachelor,

Bachelorette, I Love New York, Jersey Shore.” This characterization of the second trait is called,

“undignified” shows, and these shows have no real intention or rewards contained within them.

The main purpose of these shows is to follow the characters about in their “day-to-day” life.

The nuance of real life and the portrayal of it on Reality T.V. is subject to criticism

because of the undefinable means of what it is to theatricalize “real life.” Is everything that is

shown on the screen of Reality T.V. an actual credible “real life” portrayal? Author and onscreen

star of Wedding Island’s, Sandy Malone, states the production and direction of Reality T.V. in

her article, What Reality TV Fans REALLY Want to Know About How Shows Are Made:

“How ‘real’ shows are depend on what show you’re watching. Obviously, if it’s a contest

show like ‘Survivor’ or ‘Big Brother,’ almost everything is scripted and orchestrated

except the contestants’ reactions to things and who actually wins. On shows like ‘Real
 World’ and ‘Jersey Shore,’ they’re filming 24-hours-a-day just to catch the ‘talent’ doing

stupid things that will make for great television. I’m a ‘Hell’s Kitchen’ fan but I’d be the

first to point out how much we don’t see that goes on behind the scenes there. It’s highly

scripted. But that doesn’t mean it’s a bad show. It’s the formula that works for that

particular production.”

In this quotation Malone claims that the amount of truth revealed within a show is solely

dependent on the content of show. If a show is “dignified” it can be implied that much of what

the content will be will not be a full reveal of the truth. The contestants usually have scripts and

other things to help move along the storyline, but will still have a large amount of leverage on

the plotline when it comes to completing an obstacle or continuing onto the next round of the

competition; specific examples of shows like this being “Hell’s Kitchen” and “Survivor”.

Beyond this, if a show can be characterized as “undignified” the script is generally liberal in the

amount of improv the reality stars have; specific shows being “Jersey Shore” and “Keeping Up

with the Kardashians”.

When the content of the show is slanted towards the audience’s perspective of what they

hope to achieve through watching the show, the ratings skyrocket to newfound heights that urges

productions to take note of the power of Reality T.V. Jane Weaver describes the mood of the

time of when and how Reality T.V. was introduced into the public, and the power it entailed. She

states:

“News Corp.’s Fox scored its best ratings in 5 years because of the two reality shows,

boosting the network’s slumping primetime into the possible winner of the crucial
 February ‘sweeps’ period, the time when Nielsen ratings determine commercial rates for

the next few months.

‘American Idol’ captured 26.5 million viewers for the first night of its second season
Tuesday, Jan. 28 [2003], and just under 25 million for the second episode on Wednesday,
according to Nielsen Media Research. The first few episodes of ‘American Idol’ have
bested the 22.3 million viewers who watched the show’s final episode in September when
cocktail waitress Kelly Clarkson out-sang the bouncy-haired Justin Guarini.”

This quote defines Reality T.V. as a saving grace for the struggling News Corp.’s Fox, as
its implication boosted the broadcast’s ratings above the millions.

The viewers specifically hold a power over “dignified” Reality T.V. shows through their
voice and intentions being heard within the production, that is why shows like “American Idol”,
“America’s Got Talent” and “X Factor” include a dial up number for the viewers to call to cast a
vote, deeming the fate of the contestant. This gives the audience a certain power and
performance in the outcome of the broadcast, that in turn, draws more people to view the show,
because of the idea of their voice being heard and having value to the show. Similar to a ballot
votes to choose a president, the contestants must woo and inspire the crowd to invest into them
and their “talent.”

Just as there are performative roles within the production of the show, there is also a
certain amount of performance the viewer plays as well. Reality T.V. has a general audience they
intend to market towards. Emiah Gardner, describes the demographic that Reality T.V. appeals
to in the article What Kind of Person Watches Reality TV? The passage informs:

“At first glance, most reality shows target a young audience. After all, who cares about
teen moms more than teens? But a younger demographic isn’t the only one taking in
reality TV: While 68 percent of 18 to 29-year-olds give reality TV a huge thumbs up, 32
percent of adults 65 and up said the same—and you thought they were all watching
 Matlock reruns. Of course, while reality TV appeals to all ages; it’s the type of reality TV
that draws the line in the demographic sand. Younger viewers are happy to watch
lifestyle reality TV shows, dishing about Kim [Kardashian]’s latest ugly crying session or
bad girls throwing drinks at each other. Older adults seem to prefer competition-based
reality shows—Survivor, anyone?”

This quote entails that although there is a biased towards a general audience, the audience
themself vary through age and aspiration for watching the show. Younger people may watch a
specific Reality T.V. show like “Keeping Up with the Kardashians” because of their own
aspirations for a “successful” and “beautiful” life in luxury, while an older audience would watch
a show like “Survivor” to admire the strengths of human nature and its competitive drive.

Beyond this, not only does the demographic of the audience have a specific performative
role towards the show, but shows have comparative impacts on the audience as well. Gardner
further explains:

“Of course, TV networks know how to pander to an audience to bring in viewers and

advertising top dollars. Take the show Ice Road Truckers and guess what you think the

demographic would be. If you chose 16-year-old girls, it’s time to head back to

Marketing 101. A manly-man show like Ice Road Truckers brings in a high middle-aged

man demographic and tons of commercials for booze, razors, and sporting equipment.

Makes sense, right?

When it comes to all things shallow, reality TV is also responsible for another cultural

phenomenon. When polled, 78 percent of patients who went under the knife for cosmetic

surgery admitted that reality TV was an influence on their decision. Hey, if all of the Real

Housewives can get a nip and tuck, why not the rest of the housewives across America?”
 This reference explains that shows not only specifically appeal to a definitive people, but

they also impose unnatural phenomenons like resorting to surgery to achieve an equivalent

amount of beauty that’s portrayed in shows like “Real Housewives.”

When the lines between Reality T.V. and real life become blurred, the audience and the

broadcast seem to intertwine in ways that not only influence how the viewers perceive the

content of the show, but how they perceive real life as well. Psychology Today’s, Anastasia

Harrell, comments in her post “Reality Television: Behind The Obsession” stating: “The

growing fascination with reality television stems from our desire to fantasize about the prospect

of easily acquired fame. We see seemingly regular people doing regular people things, and we

think to ourselves that we too are regular people who do regular things; we could be famous

too!” Harrell claims that the viewer’s obsession with Reality T.V. derives from their own hopes

of becoming the person they see on the television screen, which then leads to them repeating and

mimicking the actions the casts does on screen; including going under the knife and doing

dangerous surgeries, as formerly stated.

Although there are negative psychological effects Reality T.V. can impose on the

audience, there may also be positive impacts that influence the audience as well. Another author

in Psychology Today, Kelly McGonigal, Ph.D. takes a stance on the positive impressions that

Reality T.V. can hold, telling:

“Research shows that willpower can be contagious. You can ‘catch’ extra self-control

just by seeing someone else pursue a goal. Many reality shows feature people working

hard to overcome obstacles—whether it’s losing weight, facing their fears, or even just

organizing their clutter. A little entertainment inspiration can help you find your own
 strength. (Caveat: You can also catch temptation. So if you want to keep self-control

high, steer clear of the shows that feature spectacular lapses of judgment and self-

control.)”

McGonigal states that if someone who aspires to lose weight watches a show about

someone actually losing weight, there is a great chance that the watcher will internalize what

they watched on screen and apply it towards their own life. She also states that this same result

will come to someone who internalizes and follows the same footsteps of someone that has poor

choices and actions, for the purpose of entertainment.

In conclusion, what people expose themselves to, not only through Reality T.V., but

social media, news broadcasts, etc., influence even the simplest decisions; such as: what they

will wear for the day, the actions they will take to achieve their goal or dream, and how they will

interact with peers. What someone exposes themself to will affect their everyday lifestyle

decisions, even beyond their conscious acknowledgement. If someone watches YouTube videos

of a person working out at the gym or of another person boxing, they may in turn be influenced

to go to the gym and work on bettering themselves and their health. Yet, if someone interacts

with peers on social media about doing drugs or performing juvenile heists, they may very well

be pressured and forced into doing such things. In turn, someone may think that they are

portraying a specific kind of personality and will take applicable actions to follow towards that,

whether it being debatably good or bad.

The final proposal is to take action and be aware of the things that one intakes, because a

person is only as justifiable as the information they consume. Power of information must be

taken at a grain of salt, because if the information received is noncredible, the idealization and
traditionalization of that information may be slanted. With trust of credibility, the truth may also

fall through scrutiny because of the message being advertised. Having the stability and security

of one self’s desires, fears, and traumas, deters the influence of information, for better or worse.

To stop and prevent the access of “fake news” or the burlesque portrayal of “real life”, make a

conscious decision to expose oneself to positive entertainments and broadcasts that give

feedback towards better decision making for themselves; better ingrain humanitarian morals for

their community; and correct and credible resources to a happy and healthy lifestyle. “It is not

our abilities that show what we truly are, it is our choices,” Professor Dumbledore.
 Work Cited

Garnder, Emiah. “What Kind of Person Watches Reality TV?” Industry News | Cable TV,

Jan 15, 2013. Accessed December 10, 2018. Website. www.cabletv.com/blog/what-kind-of-

person-watches-reality-tv/

Harrell, Anastasia. “Reality Television: Behind the Obsession.”

Psychology Today, Nov 26, 2014. Accessed November 12, 2018. Website.

www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-view-venus/201411/reality-television-behind-

the-obsession

Hathaway, Carter. “The Surprising Origins of Reality TV.” Washington Post,

November 8, 2017. Accessed November 12, 2018. Website.

www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2017/11/08/the-surprising-origins-of-

reality-tv/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.7e87ae8ccaa0

Hill, Kashmir. “The Hierarchy of Reality TV Shows (Or: A defense of my desire

to be on Survivor).” Forbes, December 9, 2009. Accessed November 12, 2018. Website.

www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2009/12/06/the-hierarchy-of-reality-tv-

shows/#343d9dae2ef9
 Hirschorn, Micheal. “The Case For Reality TV.” The Atlantic, May 2007.

Accessed November 20, 2018. Website.

www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/05/the-case-for-reality-tv/305791/

Malone, Sandy. “What Reality TV Fans REALLY Want to Know About How

Shows Are Made.” Huffington Post, December 6, 2017. Accessed November 26, 2018.

Website.

www.huffingtonpost.com/sandy-malone/what-reality-tv-fans-real_b_7803534.html

Metz, F. Winifred. “How Reality TV works.” How Stuff Works, 7 December, 2007.

Accessed November 12, 2018. Website. www.entertainment.howstuffworks.com/reality-tv4.htm

McGonigal, Kelly Ph.D. “Five Temptations That Actually Boost Your Willpower.”

Psychology Today, April 12, 2012. Accessed December 10, 2018. Website.

www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-science-willpower/201204/five-temptations-actually-

boost-your-willpower?kbid=124916

Weaver, Jane. “The Business of Reality TV.” NBC News, 2013. Accessed December 8,

2018. Website. www.nbcnews.com/id/3073184/t/business-reality-tv/#.XAxfS2hKhPY