A Defense of Reality Television?

Anyone who read my previous article on reality television knows the disdain I hold for much of what the genre has wrought, and the concern the genre causes me as I ponder a potentially long writers' strike. The idea, though, for reality television is not terrible. (Yes, many of the concepts for specific shows have been ill-advised at best, and I offer no defense of those shows.) The first boom period for reality television came after MTV's Real World sprang onto the scene, but it really exploded when Survivor arrived. The idea of watching ordinary people interact and struggle is fascinating, in itself. Reality television's popularity, though, has become its problem; with each show and each season of the enduring shows, the genre becomes more pre-packaged, more scripted, more of a vehicle for people who want to be famous, and less about reality itself.

The Idea

Reality television is, conceptually, a brilliant extension of the game show. It provides a chance to see real people compete for prizes, and to see their honest, real reactions to the situation in which they find themselves. Rather than seeing scripted shows with stagnant characters, the idea was to give fresh, spontaneous content to viewers. Further, the concept exploded in part because, initially, it worked. The contestants on the shows were certainly aware of the cameras, and the contestants were chosen in part for qualities that would play well on television. (For example, Richard Hatch was made to be on television, and Kelly Clarkson on American Idol was the perfect first winner for that show.) Still, it felt different. People were trying to win, rather than simply trying to be famous.