"Reality television" is a broad term, covering various television programs that purport to be more "true to life" than purely fictional dramas and situation comedies. The typical reality show features ordinary people (i.e., non-actors) who are placed in apparently unscripted--and therefore unpredictable--situations. The unique format of reality television lends it a spontaneous quality that has attracted huge audiences, and considerable controversy, around the world.
In the U.S., the popularity of reality television has surged dramatically since 2000, when the landmark show Survivor debuted on CBS. Survivor, which pits groups of contestants from different backgrounds against each other in seemingly hostile wilderness environments, popularized a competitive format for reality shows and spawned numerous imitators. Other influential reality shows soon followed, including American Idol (Fox, 2002-present), a hugely popular singing contest, and The Apprentice (NBC, 2004-present), a business-themed competition.
Not all popular reality shows have been based on the competitive format, however. Some have involved filming the everyday lives of regular people or celebrities, while others have focused on themes such as blind dating, makeovers and "hidden camera" pranks. Although the different types of reality shows might appear distinct from each other on the surface, they often share common production techniques, and they can attract acclaim or criticism for very similar reasons.
Advocates of reality television shows argue they are generally more representative of "real life" than scripted television programs, which are often criticized for adhering to predictable dramatic formulas. In essence, fans maintain that reality television is more relevant and resonant to them than fictional television. They also praise competitive reality shows, such as American Idol and The Amazing Race (CBS, 2001-present), for showcasing the talents of previously "undiscovered" contestants and pushing them to perform at their best.
Critics of reality television, on the other hand, argue that it often treats its subjects cruelly. For instance, failed American Idol contestants are sometimes subjected to ridicule from the judges that damages their self-esteem, detractors assert, while competitors on Survivor are often placed in uncomfortable or potentially hazardous situations. Critics have also attacked other reality shows, such as MTV's The Real World (1992-present) and CBS's Big Brother (2000-present), for allegedly exposing their subjects to emotional strain and encouraging destructive behaviors such as binge drinking. At their very worst, reality shows exploit their subjects, encourage voyeurism and amount to a "dumbing down" of television and American culture as a whole, critics assert. [See 1999 Morality in America]
In light of such concerns, a heated debate has arisen over the perceived merits, flaws and cultural impact of reality television. Television experts, sociologists and other interested observers have raised a series of key questions on the issue: Does reality television too often exploit its subjects, or does it actually help them to achieve recognition and success? Is it a bold alternative to fictional entertainment, or is it actually less satisfying than scripted drama and comedy? And how "real," exactly, is reality television? Is it genuinely "true to life," or is it more artificial and engineered than it appears to be?
Advocates of reality television describe it as a refreshing change of pace from scripted (and often formulaic) entertainment. They describe the competitive format of many reality shows as energetic and exciting, and credit programs such as American Idol with allowing "everyday" people to demonstrate their talents and potentially find fame and success. There is nothing inherently cruel about reality television, supporters assert; reality shows simply reflect the highs and lows of "real" life more honestly than their fictional counterparts. In short, reality shows are stimulating, fun and inoffensive, advocates say.
Critics of reality television, on the other hand, argue that it exploits "everyday" people who are typically unprepared for being thrust into the media spotlight. Reality show contestants are often mocked and exposed to mental or physical harm, and watching their suffering amounts to voyeurism, detractors contend. They further assert that reality shows are artificially engineered and therefore dishonest in their presentation of "real" events. Ultimately, scripted television programs are more socially relevant and intelligent--and far less manipulative--than reality shows, critics conclude.
The Origins of Reality Television
Although reality television is often described as a recent trend, television experts stress that its roots go back several decades. What is arguably the first reality show, Candid Camera, debuted on ABC in 1948. On a typical episode, the show's production team played elaborate pranks on "everyday" people and used hidden cameras to capture their reactions. Candid Camera, therefore, had the same spontaneous or "unscripted" quality that is considered characteristic of today's reality television.
During the 1960s and 1970s, some documentary-style programs also exhibited qualities that are now associated with reality television. In 1964, for example, Britain's Granada television broadcast Seven Up!, the first in an ongoing series of documentaries chronicling the lives of the same 14 people for more than 40 years. (The latest entry in the series, 49 Up, was released in 2005.) Because the Up series has featured highly personal interviews with non-celebrity subjects, some television experts have labeled it an early example of reality television, while others prefer to classify it purely as a documentary effort.
In 1973, PBS broadcast another landmark program, An American Family, which featured a real-life nuclear family named the Louds. The program was considered revolutionary because it focused on the Louds' day-to-day existence and openly dealt with social issues that were somewhat taboo at the time, such as homosexuality and divorce. (Memorably, the Loud parents decided to separate while having an argument on camera.) Many experts have classified An American Family as a prototype reality show because of its blending of "true" events with strong emotional appeal, but again, the line between reality television and traditional documentary programming is somewhat blurred.
During the 1980s, reality television moved closer to its current form. Star Search, a syndicated show, debuted in 1983 and featured talent contests similar to those now seen on American Idol. The Fox network later debuted COPS (1989-present), which features raw-looking footage of law enforcement officials apprehending real criminals. Television experts have cited the realistic, "camcorder-style" appearance of COPS as a major influence on current reality television.
Reality television as most audiences understand it today did not arrive until 1992, when MTV broadcast the first season of The Real World. The show's groundbreaking format revolved around placing groups of strangers in a common environment and filming the dramas that arose from their interpersonal relationships. The Real World revolutionized the reality genre by combining elements of documentary-style filmmaking (the subjects and their interactions were "real") with an artificially engineered setting; it was more structured than its predecessors, but it still retained the "true to life" quality that makes reality television distinctive.
The Reality Television Boom
Reality television's recent boom in the U.S. began in 2000, with the debuts of Survivor and Big Brother on CBS. Both shows were based on European predecessors; a previous version of Survivor called Expedition: Robinson had aired on Swedish television in 1997, while Big Brother had originated in the Netherlands in 1999. Television experts therefore tend to credit Europe, not the U.S., with initiating the current trend of reality programming.
Jeremy Eagle
Survivor's competitive format proved extremely popular with U.S. audiences. The first season's finale drew 51 million viewers, and reportedly remains the most-watched episode of a reality show to date. (Although its viewing figures have since dropped, Survivor is still often ranked among the top 20 U.S. programs.) American Idol appeared in 2002 and has since gained in popularity to become a consistent ratings leader. The Apprentice, meanwhile, has steadily lost viewers since its 2004 debut; its average audience has declined from about 20 million people to about 7 million.
Despite the declining ratings of some reality shows, the genre has generally remained popular with audiences, and with television production companies as well. According to FilmL.A. Inc., a nonprofit group that monitors the Los Angeles entertainment industry, reality television production in that city rose almost 128% between the first quarter of 2005 and the same period in 2006. Many experts have noted that reality shows are usually cheaper to make than traditional television programs, which partly explains why they have been embraced so enthusiastically by production companies.
But, as reality television shows have become more common and successful, they have also attracted a growing amount of criticism. For instance, detractors have often complained that American Idol's judges are too cruel to unsuccessful competitors who either sing poorly or do not have the right "look" to be an idol. Critics have also charged that programs such as Big Brother and The Real World frequently expose their subjects to social and mental pressures that are tantamount to abuse. [See Reality Television and the Question of Responsibility (sidebar)]
Kid Nation, a CBS program that debuted in September 2007, has recently fueled another controversy over reality television. The show features a group of 40 children, ranging from 8 to 15 years of age, who struggle to form their own society in an isolated New Mexico town with minimal help from adults. Some observers have accused Kid Nation of endangering its young contestants by placing them in stressful or physically hazardous situations, while others have countered that Kid Nation benefits youngsters by teaching them the values of hard work and cooperation. The dispute over Kid Nation suggests that reality television is still a powerfully divisive force in U.S. popular culture, raising moral and ethical issues as it seeks to entertain. [See 1996 Child-Welfare Policies]
Reality TV Entertains and Even Enlightens, Advocates Say
Supporters of reality television argue that it is a refreshing alternative to scripted drama and comedy programs. At their best, reality shows raise important social issues, reveal interesting aspects of our culture and enable talented, previously undiscovered people to achieve success, advocates claim. Apart from such weighty concerns, fans also contend that reality shows happen to be highly entertaining and are rarely cruel or harmful, despite what their critics say.
Michael Hirschorn, an executive at the VH1 television network, asserts that the best reality shows deserve credit for possessing both inherent creativity and social relevance. "Reality TV is...the liveliest genre on the set right now," he maintains. "It has engaged hot-button cultural issues--class, sex, race--that respectable television, including the august CBS Evening News, rarely touches."
In Hirschorn's view, reality shows have a positive impact because they often feature lower- and middle-class people who struggle with problems such as poverty, illness or a lack of social mobility. By contrast, scripted television shows typically neglect important social problems and instead adhere to dull, hackneyed dramatic formulas, Hirschorn contends. (He is especially critical of formulaic crime dramas in which "crimes are solved, lessons are learned, order is restored.")
Columnist Kira Cochrane argues along similar lines that reality television has social benefits, asserting that "since the current strain of reality TV hit our screens in 2000, it has proved a democratic triumph." She elaborates:
One of the reasons these [reality shows] are so disliked by the elite is that they showcase the stories and experiences of people who aren't "supposed" to be on television--the poor, the suburban, the rural. Aside from the lame celebrity spin-off shows, reality TV stars aren't people with well-connected parents.... [They] have reached the screen because they are talented, or entertaining, or both.
Cochrane cites Oscar-winner Jennifer Hudson, a singer whose career was launched by American Idol, as one example of a talented person who found success by appearing on a reality television program. Contest-based reality shows are worthwhile, Cochrane maintains, because they offer deserving people such as Hudson an opportunity to showcase their talents and achieve recognition that might otherwise have eluded them.
AP Photo/Mike Derer
American Idol contestant hopefuls react to an overhead camera while waiting to audition in Rutherford, NJ. Critics cite participants playing to the camera as a source of reality television's "unreality".
Other advocates defend reality television on the grounds that it delivers great entertainment--which is exactly what most television is intended to do, they assert. Also, they dismiss concerns that the label "reality television" is somehow misleading because reality shows are partially engineered by their production teams. "In the end, my job is delivering content that people want to watch. It doesn't matter what you label it," asserts Mark Burnett, the producer of reality shows such as The Apprentice and Survivor. "Roughly half of the top ten shows on TV are reality shows," he adds, suggesting that the genre's popularity is well-deserved.
Advocates maintain that the real strength of reality television is that it manages to blend elements of fiction with real life in a way that is entertaining and perhaps even enlightening. "Reality shows steal the story structure and pacing of scripted television, but leave behind the canned plots and characters," Hirschorn writes, "[and] they have the visceral impact of documentary reportage without the self-importance." He adds that "the best moments found on reality TV are unscriptable, or beyond the grasp of most scriptwriters," promoting the view that reality television's truths are more powerful than scripted fictions.
Reality Television Is Insensitive and Stupid, Critics Assert
Critics of reality television argue that it is often trivial, voyeuristic and cruel to its subjects. They maintain that reality shows manipulate situations in sensationalist and misleading ways, and therefore do not accurately reflect "real life" at all. The reality genre as a whole constitutes an unfortunate "dumbing down" of television culture and makes a poor alternative to more intelligent, higher-quality fictional entertainment, its detractors conclude.
According to television producer and director Paul Watson, reality television focuses on superficial things--like interpersonal dramas and talent contests--and neglects serious social concerns. He likens the "reality bandwagon" to "a crude construction that trundles ever forward, crushing anything 'real' that pokes out through the scum of...trivia." Watson also maintains that reality television exploits its own subjects "smugly," encouraging audiences to laugh at "those set up for our amusement." That approach has encouraged insensitivity and undermined serious efforts at documentary film-making, he concludes.
Many other critics have expressed concern over the treatment of people who appear on reality shows. For example, social policy expert Peter Beresford describes the British version of Big Brother as "an abusive residential institution" that has had an "adverse effect" on the lives of many of those who have appeared on the program. He criticizes the show's production team for using manipulative tactics, such as "stationing cameras in lavatories, plying people with alcohol, [and] engineering roles and relationships which create conflict, violence, humiliation and sex." Those tactics can cause needless mental anguish to a reality show's subjects, Beresford warns, adding that people who appear on Big Brother should be entitled to receive legal protections from such abuses and psychological help, should they need it.
The recent reality show Kid Nation has drawn similar criticisms. Adolescent psychologist Joseph Allen contends that it exposes children to many of the crueler aspects of human society, such as rivalries and infighting. "They [the production team] recreate these bad things on purpose and then subject kids to them," Allen charges. "The children are manipulated to an unconscionable degree." Other observers have criticized the show for involving excessive physical hazards; one of the children on Kid Nation was burned with cooking grease, while four others drank bleach by accident. (CBS, for its part, counters that the children who were injured during filming received professional medical attention.)
In essence, critics argue that reality shows are harmful because they take "normal" people--who may be unprepared for the media spotlight--and place them in stressful situations merely for the sake of entertainment. In their view, scripted television shows are usually kinder, smarter and more relevant than their reality-based rivals. "Reality TV offers little more than voyeuristic satisfaction," writes John Lane in the Irish Times. "Genuine reality, in the form of perceptive truths, is to be found in fiction."
Beresford sums up the negative view of reality television in his discussion of Big Brother, alleging that the show "holds up a camera to the lives and weaknesses of the little people and hides the enormous cynicism of those controlling them." Beresford adds, "Programs like Big Brother are ruled by a law of diminishing returns. Like the games of ancient Rome, there is pressure to become more extreme and cruel if they are to remain popular." That alleged cruelty is what critics say is the most characteristic and deplorable aspect of reality television.
Is Reality Television Here to Stay?
Despite their controversial nature, reality programs will not be disappearing from our screens any time soon, television experts predict. Although some reality shows have recently flopped in the ratings, such as Fox's On the Lot (2007), several others are drawing huge audiences, including American Idol and ABC's Dancing with the Stars (2005-present). Reality television, in all its various forms, has seemingly become a fixture on today's television schedules.
One reason the reality genre is thriving at the moment is that television networks require "lower-cost [reality] programs to balance higher-cost drama and comedy," according to Charles B. Slocum of the Writers Guild of America. Another reason, Slocum adds, is that "reality TV has one appeal, which it shares with fiction--we, as viewers, hope...to find something relevant to our lives."
But observers remain sharply divided on the question of whether reality television is capable of being relevant. On the one hand, critics argue that the reality genre is cruel, stupid and meritless, and on the other, advocates maintain that reality television can amuse and perhaps even enlighten. For many viewers, the bottom line is that reality television is entertaining, and that quality alone is enough to keep them watching.