Reality TV: If you can't beat them ...?

Reality programming accounts for more than 25% of prime time viewing on the five broadcast networks. The popularity of reality programming was helped along by the writers strike in the US a few years ago. Many cable channels show a lot of reality TV too and continue showing repeats. The cost of a network reality show is approximately $1 million per hour. This is about a half of the cost of a scripted show. The salaries relate. Producer's salaries start at approximately $1,000 per week on a reality show which is one third of the rate on a scripted show. (Wyatt, 2009)

These reality posts are usually independent contractor positions which means less benefits and little job security. Seems to me, it is a typical economic model for the 21st century. Reality shows unlike scripted dramas or comedies, can be shot on a seven-days-a-week schedule, and takes maximum advantage of the availability of the contestants.

According to Wyatt (2009) "the lesson to anyone entering the television industry is pretty stark: Reality is where the jobs are." The indications are that this is the area of the industry that will continue to thrive in the US. One argument for this is that the new generation of practitioners have grown up watching reality television and they will gravitate towards what they know. So says "Chris Coelen, chief executive of RDF Media USA, whose productions include "Don't forget the Lyrics" for Fox and "Wife Swap" for ABC" (Wyatt, 2009).

Reality TV is all over the place. Whether this is good or bad is not really what I would like to address. Perhaps RT is here for more time. If it is - why worry? Can't reality TV be good TV? Can't we produce RT that is socially aware and intelligent? Really, when people bite their thumbs at reality TV, I wonder what is so much better? Is it the sitcoms? The news? The soap operas? Or are they comparing RT to the list of "best movies" in their heads? An unfair comparison I suggest.

If RT is the ground zero for the future of TV, (whether recent or afar) then isn't it time to start measuring it up against the sociological, psychological, aesthetic, and perhaps even Marxist criteria we have in media studies, and strive to make it better?

We should not snub our noses at what is most popular just because. We should aspire to understand the attraction and then maybe even contribute to making it better.

Doneen Arquines should be congratulated. She took the task at hand and worked hard to get into the business. She has managed by the accounts of Edward Wyatt to grin and bear it, pay her dues and continue working. (It probably helped that she studied a little anthropology.)

In this 21st century it may be appropriate to respect those who manage to break into the business. It may be prudent to listen to what they have to say.


Source for this post:

Wyatt, E. (2009, July 26). Television fledgling keeps it real. The New York Times, Arts and Leisure Section, P. 1-17.

Secret Millionaire

Secret Millionaire was launched on Fox on Dec 3rd, 2008. The concept seems simple enough (started in England). http://www.fox.com/secretmillionaire/ Wealthy people appear poor so that they can discover people who are worthy of their philanthropy. And they do.

There are things about this show that may seem offensive and there may also be the potential for good derived from the exercise. In our mediated spectacle of modern times we must see through this reality television to the reality.

Money is given to people who need it.
A financially struggling construction worker is given 25k to help her get back on her feet after a medical emergency got her into financial difficulty.

The sums of money given are a minuscule fraction of the wealth of the giver.
Should we care as long as the giving is done? But 100k from the funds of a multi-millionaire? It is an inexpensive lesson.

The wealthy one is always going back to his or her status quo.
At the close of episode 1 the millionaire says that, "This experience has changed my life forever," as he captains his expensive boat back home.

While one may appreciate the giving of 50k to a woman who takes in homeless people, one may wonder if there could be more done by the wealth of this philanthropist.
While 25k is a nice start towards getting a humble, giving, construction worker out of her financial difficulty, is it enough?
And is the health/treatment of a child suffering from cancer worthy of more than the 25k that was given to her parents?

I don't wish to take away from the generosity of the giver but the viewer must be aware of these questions:
Can money really fix everything?
Will the millionaires really change?
Is this show perpetuating the ideology that money is power as the millionaires decide who to help out financially?
What exactly can money buy?
Why did the producers have the millionaire NOT enter the receivers' homes when he had exposed the truth about himself?

In reference to the production itself, the dialogue seemed forced and at times scripted. In short the flow of the show was not easy/smooth.

Many commercials focused on Christmas shopping and on upcoming shows. American Idol was featured in the commercials. Here, the ideology of success,happiness, fame and fortune is supposedly available through FOX reality TV once more.

And maybe it is, and maybe it is not. For now we have three grateful recipients of the generosity of a millionaire who is gone home. And they probably understand his desire to return home.