Those people who defend
the intrusive presence of a television in private homes
always seem to cite "educational value" as its
redeeming grace.
They mention the documentaries they watch all the
time...which explains why The Feeding Habits of the
Gray-haired Stork broke all Nielsen ratings records last
month.
They mention the news programs they watch
nightly...which explains why they have
"intellectual" discussions about the chimp who
drove a little car at the charity circus last week.
They mention all the arts programs, such as the
symphony orchestra that played them to sleep last night.
Amazingly, they do not mention the latest phenomenon
-- "reality TV". What is so real about reality
TV? Put 20 people on an island and tell them to live off
the land as if they were all on their own. Yeah, like
that's real!
But wait, there's more. Make them vote somebody off
the island each day, so that there are fewer people to
help the community survive. Brilliant survival strategy.
Or set them up in teams to play "survival
games". That will leave them a lot of energy for
survival. I'll bet the tigers and hyenas and alligators
salivate to see so much fresh meet wasting so much
energy on such trivial activities. They could not have
come up with a better meat-farming plan if they tried.
To make it even more real, all the participants are
brought in front of the camera to comment on each other
and deliver a psychological assessment of their
experiences. Lights. Camera. Psychology. That's real.
I suppose we would not want a reality TV show that
was TOO real. Imagine turning on the TV and seeing real
life.
"Hey, honey. Check out what's on TV."
"What is it, dear."
"Somebody washing dishes."
"What, again?"
"Yes."
"Go on."
"Don't they ever wash their clothes?"
"NO, just dishes."
"Well sooner or later they'll have to wash their
clothes. What does the TV guide say?"
People would probably rather watch other people
marrying millionaires than have to face the fact that
they could enjoy their own lives without having to marry
one themselves.
In case you think I am down on all reality TV, there
are some shows that actually are not that bad.
For example, American Idol, the biggest reality TV
show of all. It was worth watching just to see Simon and
Paula kiss and the new, invigorated half-of-Randy
agreeing with Simon on almost everything this year.
For example, Canadian Idol, which 3.5 Canadians are
aware of.
For example, Australian Idol, except for the Guy
guy's hairdo, which IS that bad.
Dr. Phil's Ultimate Weight Loss Challenge is another
reality show I like. He took real overweight people who
wanted to change not just their bodies but their
outlooks on life.
What did these two shows have in common? Both were
competitions. Both involved trying to better oneself.
Nobody had to vote each other off and they were all one
team. Nobody was encouraged to hate. Nobody was
encouraged to cheat. In fact, they supported each other
emotionally. Imagine that on a desert island. Why, that
would almost be real.
Dr. Phil and the Idol machine make sure that
everybody walks away a winner. Of course, that's no more
real than packing men and women together in tight
corners with little clothing and prodding them to cheat
on their soon-to-be-exes back home. But it is more
tasteful, and perhaps more "educational".
But what is most real about these shows is that their
real dreams were fulfilled and their real lives have
changed as a result.
I have another name for all these new shows, the good
and the bad alike, a name that fits them better than
"reality TV". I call them "game
shows."
What? That name's been taken? Price Is Right? Truth
Or Consequences? Wheel of Fortune?
Hmm. I suppose the new reality TV shows are almost as
new as they are real. If people want reality, I suppose
they could just turn off their TV sets. If they want
new, they might just have to improvise. ABOUT THE
AUTHOR: