Human Dignity in Reality TV Shows - Essay Example

Introduction Reality television, the term essentially coined since 2000, is a kind of TV programming which characterizes unscripted dramatization or humorous circumstances, leading to the documentation of actual events all together. It may include ordinary individuals to celebrity or professionals to perform. However, all real-life based programmes are not termed as 'reality show' such as documentaries and non-fictional programmes like news and sports. Reality show includes a wide range of television programmes encapsulating games or quiz shows often bear a resemblance to frenetic. In recent decades, the media has covered the analysis that the reality shows almost around the world have brought an enormous popularity as well as profitability, implicating a promising growing trend of such phenomenon in practice (Holmes & Jermyn, 2004, 302 pp.). However, not all the reality shows are very successful in particular, though they bring the attention of mass with its significant increasing popularity as well as cultural prominence. On the other hand, this does not necessarily imply that they are good in societal context or that they ought to be aired. This paper aims at criticising the essentiality of regulatory bodies to effectively ensure the respect for human dignity of participants in reality TV show by providing empirical evidences. Types of Reality TV Shows There are several types of reality shows present in modern television world which can be categorised under specific sub-headings such as - 1. Documentary style, which can again be subcategorised under few sub-headings - a) Separate living arrangement b) Celebrity reality c) Professional activities 2. Elimination / Game Shows, this can also be subcategorised under sub-headings like - a) Dating-based competition b) Job search c) Sports 3. Self-improvement / makeover 4. Dating shows 5. Talk shows 6. Hidden cameras 7. Hoaxes However, there are plenty of reality shows present in modern world of media, but all of them can be nominated under these broad categories. Analysis and Criticism of Reality Show The significant part of the popularity achieved by such programmes is primarily due to the involvement of ordinary individuals within extraordinary framework. Reality television shows possess the potentiality to portray an ordinary individual into national celebrities in the sense of encouraging his or her outwardly in endowment as well as making them to participate in performance-based programmes such as Pop Idol, however, programmes like Survivor as well as Big Brother have the capacity to make their participants to accomplish some level of celebrity phenomenon. Some of the critics of reality television shows have argued with its description as a 'reality-based show' as they explain several reasons for it such as the inclusion of several programmes under single genre. Big Brothers and Survivor, the reality based competitive programmes, as well as living arrangement shows like The Real World, the regulatory bodies essentially design the layout of the show and govern the daily activities of the participants in order to formulate the environment based on which the competition rules out which in essence involves the psycho-drama consisting of challenges, events, behaviours, emotions and conflicts in a pre-defined scenario (Anderson 1995, p.36). Mark Burnett, the originator of Survivor, also elucidates and agrees with the statement of not deszcribing the reality show as 'reality show'. He emphasizes the reality show as being a 'good stories of unscripted dramatization' (online). The second criticism mainly stems from the idea that the reality show producers may become highly premeditated in their editing process that may vary from altering chronology and selective appearance of the events to portraying specific participants as heroes or villains in particular (Anderson 1994, p. 8-13). The third criticism may be encountered as the counterpart of the second criticism in which it has been noticed that the participants by themselves modify their behaviour and activities to some noticeable extent in order to get more viewer response. In the post-periodical event of few reality shows, participants may criticize the authenticity as well as validity of the show openly in public space by recalling their activities, experiences and strategies used by the particular reality shows. For example, Irene McGee, the radio DJ and host of the programme 'No One is Listening', came into public attention during 1998 when she walked out from the set of The Real World: Seattle - the 7th season. She became a media activist who described the manipulative experience that she encountered during her staying in the show as one of the participants and mostly the negative as well as misleading aspects of reality TV shows in particular. VH1, the abbreviated form of Video Hits One - An American Cable Television Channel, aired a programme known as 'Reality TV Secrets Revealed' which primarily used to focus on the misleading tricks of the producers of these types of shows. Examples include the incidences that took place during the shoots of Survivor and The Restaurant, whereas they did not actually cover up by camera due to some technical faults, and thus the incidences were then actually restaged in front of the camera just to get the required footage. Another reality show called the Hell's Kitchen received the criticism as it was found that the customers having the food were actually paid actors and not the ordinary individuals (Holland). Ethical Consideration There is a German word 'Schadenfreude' which implies the condition when people use humiliation as a subjective phenomenon for their entertainment such as if someone, for example, falls down on banana skin, others laugh to it without being empathetic about the individual in concern. There are of course specific psychological explanations that individuals become delightful and obtain amusement for another's suffering. The first and foremost important reason may be associated with catharsis. The suffering of the participants of these reality TV programmes is considered in essence of a raise in the lawsuits by the individuals who have been injured or traumatized as a result of their participation in the show (Biressi & Nunn, 2005, 183 pp). The reality TV shows around the world have been criticised for various reasons that actually questioned the ethical consideration of treating the participants and threatened the human dignity. In the Portugal's famous reality TV show called O Bar da TV (TV Bar) received much criticism from MPs, church personnel as well as from the media as well for purportedly contravening the contestant's privacy. A broadcast covering an emotional conversation between a young woman and her parents regarding the termination of her participation in the show had been aired followed by the young woman had been taken onto camera without her consent by the programme while she was taking her bath naked. Reality Show in France and Human Dignity The French reality show called 'Loft Story', first aired on 24th April 2001 on M6, was considered as not being able to maintain appropriate respect for its participants' 'human dignity' as per reported by Conseil Superieur de I'Audiovisuel (CSA). The Loft Story (2001) planned to set up 24 hours scrutiny of 11 men and women using 26 cameras, which violates the human rights. The French broadcasting watchdog declared that the participants should be freed from 24 hours camera surveillance (BBC News, 2001). The channel TF1, opponent of M6, argued that Loft Story provided abundant ground for human indignation as written in a letter to Le Monde newspaper (Herbert, D 2001). In an episode of Loft Story, it had been broadcasted that participants were practicing sex within the swimming pool (Herbert, D. 2001) which have been strongly criticised by its participants arguing as an infringement of human rights, resembling the participants as 'caged mice for 70 days' exploited to satisfy basic commercial needs (Herbert, D 2001). Critics have also argued that the programme along with M6 are paying disregard to the dignity of its participants as well as its viewers. The CSA which has the ability to set up new regulatory law administered new set of guidelines by declaring that the regulatory bodies should govern the programme in such a manner so that the participants may undergo through daily breaks during which no audio visual recording or transmission would take place (CSA). CSA also emphasized on the point of ethical consideration from the perspective of human dignity that it is mandatory the participants need to undergo through some times that should be beyond public observation instead of the aim of the show or the participants consent during registration for the show. Additionally, all the participants should have sufficient information regarding the time schedule. Followed by the recommendation suggested by CSA, M6 agreed to incise the cameras two hours per day, from 11 a.m. to noon and from 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. However, the scenes are edited while it has been broadcasted in public access television, whereas uncensored broadcasting was going on round-the-clock in pay-per-view channel as well as over Internet (BBC News, 2001). However, France is the first country around the world where these types of reality shows have been broadcasted the regulatory authority had ruled out alternation in the norms of the game. The CSA adopted a proposal on 14th May, 2001 to direct all the broadcasting services in the air by means of promoting awareness in terms of proper respect for human dignity and the legal as well as ethical rights of participants to disclose personal portrayal (CSA, 2001a). In addition to the recommendation, CSA also communicated with M6 channel, where the Loft Story was aired, regarding specific measured need to be taken with Loft Story broadcasting such as: The termination of broadcasting as well as promoting the Internet and Satellite version of Loft Story Encourage consumption of tobacco and alcohol that only corresponds with the set guidelines Refrain from any action or activities that directly or indirectly detrimental to human dignity Not to give emphasize on to the procedure of elimination or exclusion of the participants The CSA also focused on acquiring data in relation to the contracts held between the production company and each of the participants as well as the game content in order to promote measures for introducing changes required for individual freedom (CSA, 2001a) as well as employing precautions ensuring that nothing would occur that may violate human rights and conciliate human rights (CSA, 2001b). On 3rd October 2001, the CSA argued the broadcasters to act conscientiously in terms of principles governing the freedom, lenience, individual dignity and admiration for republican values while admitting the fact that the majority of the broadcasting media had displayed limitation and control (CSA, 2001b). Reality Show in UK and Human Dignity In UK, the Big Brother show, broadcasted on Channel 4 and S4C in Wales, is the popular reality TV show that is in the air. There are few special versions known as Celebrity Big Brother, Teen Big Brother and Big Brother Panto. On 17th January 2007, Celebrity Big Brother received enormous complaints to both the regulators and channel 4 regarding the racism issue (Jade 2007) against Indian actress Shilpa Shetty, who finally owns the crown. According to research group (Welsh et al. 2004), the advancement of electronic tagging system and digital monitoring can be considered as a mode for securing environment for vulnerable people, however, the advocacy of round-the-clock surveillance devices have received much resistance and conflict due to the perception of considering these devices as contrary to human dignity and individual freedom. Additionally, this may increase the risk for abusing the situation whatsoever by withdrawing staff members or financial aids as required, for example. As a matter-of-fact, the difficulties associated with the observation including rigorous exploration of practical question of morality in relation to the protection of human rights and maintenance of human dignity, the reference to risk versus benefit may be of great concern which argues that the mere subsistence of surveillance system is ethically neutral, whereas it is in the application that sets the potentiality of benefit or risk. Pope John Paul II criticized reality show by naming it as irreconcilable to human dignity. The celebrities there took the risk for wrecking out their privacy by humiliation as an inevitable consequence. The individual who survives from all the evictions has been practically watched by 37 cameras for nine week of time under the surveillance for 24 hours a day on Big Brother's web site and for 21 hours per day on Channel 4's youth channel E4 (Greer, 2001, p. 13). Apart from that, the UK Big Brother also received criticism not for being able to handle the critical situation as per reports from British Psychological Society (BPS). According to BPS, the specific delicate area of concern includes the show's deliberate attempt to create tension and conflict among the participants (BBC News, 2006). According to ESRC-funded research group, the viewers of the reality show become increasingly aware of the condition how individuals act up in reality shows. Dr. Annette Hill of Westminster University explains how the producers of the programme need to be cautious and conscientious while broadcasting the programme as the audiences are quite susceptible to the actuality of factual entertainment, which may eventually affect the attitude, behaviour and response pattern by influencing the area of emotional conflict (Hill 2005, p. 231). This is particularly relevant to the psychologists and social health workers to consider Big Brother reality show as a gold mine for analysing human behaviour in terms of considering the issues relating to the situations that the participants face in certain aspects that are not even permissible in any empirical psychological experiment. An increasing malformation has been noticed as the programme progresses inclusive of encouraging competition among participants which eventually leads to verbal abuse to physical and sexual abuse, frequent serving of alcohol and tobacco, misleading and inadequate information about future events in particular (Petra, B 2005). Psychologists including Professor Peter Collett from the University of Oxford and Professor Geoffrey Beattie from the University of Manchester as appointed by the Big Brother reality show, have been strongly criticized and scrutinized by Channel 4's regulatory bodies with the allegation of creating harmful experiences for the participants (McVeigh 2000). Dr Miller of Stirling University's Media Research Institute alleged the situation and the psychologists in concern and declared it as guilt of ethical behaviour and professional misconduct (McVeigh 2000) as, according to Dr. Miller, the psychologists are more concerned about critical exploration of human nature, leading to exacerbation the consequences whatsoever. Conclusion Reality TV shows are not mere documentaries rather these shows involve individuals from various backgrounds and put them into several situations to see their reactions in that particular frame of reference. Nonetheless to say, the situations are increasingly contrived in order to get more footage and popularity, perceiving to acquire best entertainment values from viewers. The entertainment comes from various conflicts ranging from simple communicational conflict to ethical and psychological conflict at the larger extent. The production companies in order to satisfy their commercial purpose use humiliation and suffering of the individual participants as the primary mode of presentation and organization of the programme, which, in some cases, is considered by a large portion of viewers and social thinkers immoral and unconscionable. However, the subtle negative impact reflected from this type of shows include the promotion of the experience of separation from the individuals around us, leading to our tendency to objectify others and become unsuccessful in understanding empathy and sympathy about others who are in crisis by promoting a centralized egocentric behaviour which can never correspond to any kind of social and moral development. Reference 1. Charrett, S 1999, Identity, Privacy and Personal Freedom: Big Brother vs. The New Resistance. Pub: Paladin Press. ISBN-13: 978-1581600421. 2. McGrath, J 2004, Loving Big Brother: Performance, privacy and Surveillance. Pub. Routledge. Edition 1. ISBN-13:978-0415275385. 3. BBC News: French Watchdog Cuts Loft Story. Entertainment: TV and Radio. Tuesday, May 15, 2001 4. Welsh S, Hassiotis A & Deahl M, 2004, Big Brother is watching you - the ethical implications of electronic surveillance measures in the elderly with dementia and in adults with learning difficulties. Journal of Aging and Mental Health. Routledge Publications, a part of the Taylor and Francis Group. Volume 7. Abstract. 5. Greer, G 2001, We are Big Brother. The Australian Media. Vol. 5, Number 13. July 12, 2001. 6. Anderson, R 1995, Consumer Culture and TV Programming. Boulder, Colon.: Westview, Pp.306 7. Anderson, R 1994, Reality TV and criminal Justice. The Humanist, 54, no. 5: 8-13 8. Biressi, A. & Nunn, H. 2005, Reality TV - Realism and Revelation. London: Wallflower Press, 183 pp. 9. Holmes, S & Jermyn, D 2004, Understanding Reality Television. Abingdon/New York: Routledge, 302 pp. 10. Hill, A 2005, Reality TV - Audiences and Popular Factual Television. Abingdon/New York: Routledge, 231 pp. 11. Escoffery, D. S. 2006, How Real is Reality TV Essays on Representation and Truth. Pub: McFarland & Company. ISBN-13: 978-0786426249 12. Murray, S. & Quellette, L 2004, Reality TV: Remaking Television Culture. Pub: New York University Press. ISBN-13: 978-0814756881 13. Surviving and Thriving, November 13, 2003, Viewed 16th April, 2007, http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/12/1068329621438.html 14. Holland, R 19 June, 2006, Hell's Kitchen. Viewed 16th April, 2007, http://www.popmatters.com/tv/reviews/h/hells-kitchen-060619.shtml 15. The work of the CSA 2001a, Viewed 16th April, 2007, http://www.csa.fr/rapport/synthese/gb_activite.htm#2 16. The key dates of the year 2001, 2001b, Viewed 16th April, 2007, http://www.csa.fr/rapport/synthese/gb_date.htm 17. Jade 20th January, 2007, I'm so f***ing scared. Daily Star, Viewed 16th April, 2007, http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news_detail_1079.html 18. Big Brother spurs viewers to separate truth from fiction and discuss issues of ethics and privacy, August 2002, ESRC Society Today, Viewed 16th April, 2007, http://www.esrc.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/PO/releases/2002/august/bigbrother.aspxComponentId=1888&SourcePageId=1403 19. Petra, B July 2005, The ethics of Big Brother. The Research Campaign: General Discussion, Viewed 16th April, 2007, http://www.researchmethodsarena.com/forum/forum_posts.aspTID=17&PN=3 20. McVeigh, K 2000, Psychologists in ethics probe over Big Brother. The Scotsman Publications Ltd. Viewed 16th April, 2007, http://homepages.strath.ac.uk/his04105/news/SoS-July-2000.html 21. Herbert, D (2001), 'Trash' TV galls France. CNN World. May 16 2001. Viewed 16th April, 2007, http://www.zalea.org/spip.phparticle608 Read More