How real is reality TV?TEXT C: NON-FICTION
This extract from a newspaper article examines the good and bad about the reality television industry. How Real is Reality TV? In New Zealand, nine of the top 10 rating series last year across all networks were reality shows, Manson claims. The 10th show was Fair Go. All were on TV One, he says. The Piha incident provoked a welter of comments from viewers on the internet, some supporting Wallis, others siding with Clarke. But where does the truth lie? The only certainty is that the average viewer will struggle to find out. For in this world of reality TV the prime function is to entertain the audience. Education or information comes a distant second, according to Julie Christie, the recognised queen of the genre who pioneered it in NZ with programmes such asChanging Rooms, Treasure Island and Game of Two Halves. "You put framework into it, you make people compete, or you put something in there to disrupt their lives and see how human nature behaves," said Christie, chief executive of Eyeworks production company, in an interview late last year. "We can't live without unscripted television. What are we going to fill our televisions with? It's cost-effective, it's exciting and the viewers love it." In another interview with the internet's Throng TV, also last year, Christie - who once inadvertently set fire to a contestant, Mahesh Muralidhar, in a bid to stoke drama - went even further. "TV is primarily entertainment. Imagine working on a production line and coming home and being bleated at by a pile of worthy documentaries." Being worthy, she suggested, was not a way to boost viewing figures. The growth of reality and drama- documentary appears to be relentless, with programmes such as MasterChef, Biggest Loser, and Idol increasingly dominating the ratings. But how much is fake, and how much can we believe of what we see? Only last week, MasterChef producers admitted to the Herald on Sunday that they had cooked up a fake courgette crisis, deliberately under stocking the vegetable at judge Simon Gault's fine-dining Euro restaurant in Auckland's Viaduct Harbour and sending finalist Michelle Berry to buy more of the vegetables from Countdown. The move generated more tension in the programme as Berry raced to acquire new supplies, but it also exposed another disturbing and growing trend in dramas and reality TV: product placement. In this case it was the Countdown supermarket. It would have been easier for Berry to buy from the big New World supermarket at nearby Victoria Park. But Countdown is the show's major sponsor. It's an effective way for advertisers to promote their wares in an age when viewers increasingly ignore, or fast forward through, more conventional advertising breaks. But how much are we aware of the tricks producers may employ to beef up the drama? Have they selected contestants for their ability as well as the potential conflict they will have with each other? Have they edited the episodes to heighten drama at the expense of presenting the (probably duller) version of what really happened? Graham Bell, the 64-year-old presenter of another hugely successful reality drama, Police Ten 7, believes producers need to learn when to draw the line when it comes to creating drama and that many underestimate the intelligence of their audience. Formerly Detective Inspector in charge of Criminal Investigations for the Bay of Plenty Police District, Bell had 33 years of successful crime solving under his belt before he retired from the force and accepted an offer to present the programme in 2002. "There's a misapprehension among some producers as to the intellect of their viewers," he claims. "I hate what I see as the dumbing down of television. And I think the reality TV genre has extended too widely into info-tainment. "Our programme is probably unique in that it is a hybrid between reality and service TV. It gives the public the chance to help solve crimes and they love that. "That's not to say there is no music to add dramatic effect. But I have always been very uncomfortable with programmes adding drama and have had discussions with our producers on some occasions. If I don't think something is appropriate, or pushes the boundaries I say 'no, I don't want that'." The show does have what Bell refers to as a "scumcam" to show the offender's point of view. But he says most of the drama comes from fly-on-the wall footage. "Our show works because New Zealanders love looking at themselves, they are very concerned about crime and they love the chance to help solve it," he says. "It's simple." Sue Woodfield, commissioner of factual entertainment at TV3, says it is sometimes helpful to think of the divide between drama and reality TV as being scripted (shows such as The Almighty Johnsons and Outrageous Fortune) and unscripted (everything from one-off documentaries to observational documentary series such as The Secret Lives of Dancers and formats like New Zealand's Next Top Model). "Much popular television is the evolution of the traditional observational documentary," she says. "It is very popular, because people are interested in other people and the world around them. In the same way that people have always stopped to look at a gathering crowd, they can now do so from the comfort of their own home. "In terms of content selection and the editing process, making a programme is a bit like editing an article for a newspaper. You select what's relevant and structure it in a way that is clear and hopefully makes sense to the audience." In newspapers and magazines, however, there is perhaps less scope for invention-despite research showing that the public has traditionally believed more of what they see on television than what they read. After nearly half a century of having our recreational lives dominated by the small screen, this could be about to change. Martin Hirst, head of journalism at AUT University, doesn't subscribe to the popular belief that there is an insatiable appetite for reality TV among viewers. He thinks that initial public interest has fed a spiralling diet of so-called "reality" that now leaves its audience with fewer viewing choices. Reality TV is now almost wall-to-wall, he says, focused on voyeurism or vicarious dangers - such as programmes pandering to fear about things like border security. "The viewer in this case is left with the impression that without these people working on the thin blue line with their dogs we'd be overrun by terrorists. "I don't know that reality TV does any good at all. I think the danger is, with the dramatic filming techniques and the heart-racing music, it sensationalises things and creates a false sense of danger or fear." He says a huge amount of preproduction and scripting creates the drama. "I don't believe much of it is real.” QUESTION THREE: NON-FICTION (a) In your own words, identify ONE positive or negative point the writer makes aboutreality television. Provide an example from the text to support this point. (b) Explain how this point shows reality television either positively or negatively (c) Explain how and why the writer helps us to understand ideas about reality television throughout the text Support your answer with reference to the techniques, including language features, that the writer uses to show:
ANSWERS |