ADVANCED LISTENING & SPEAKING DISCUSSION TOPIC FOR MONDAY 20 MAY

NOTE: READ THIS FOR MONDAY'S CLASS!

This House believes reality television does more harm than good

PREMISE:

Reality television has become very popular over the past decade with shows such as "Survivor", "Big Brother" and "The Apprentice" attracting big audiences and making a lot of money for broadcasters worldwide. A definition of reality television is quite difficult but at its most basic it means programmes that show things really taking place, rather than drama or comedy that follows a script. Typically reality TV involves a group of people who are not trained actors being filmed in unusual situations over a period of time. Sport and news programmes are not considered reality TV. Documentaries that explore aspects of society are a grey area, with some closer to news reporting and others blurring into reality TV because they set up situations which did not already exist. Recently celebrity versions of reality shows have made definition even harder, because they show the private lives of professional singers, actors, sportspeople, etc. as they cope with new situations. Reality TV is often a hot topic as proponents believe it paints an unrealistic and inappropriate portrait and is therefore bad for our society and the children that make up the majority of the audience. They call for a cut in the number of hours given over to reality programmes, or even to ban them completely. Opponents meanwhile maintain that people should be allowed to watch what they like, and that reality programmes make good TV, as shown by consistently high viewer figures.

The sheer number of reality programmes is now driving TV producers to create filthier, more corrupt reality shows.

POINT 1

Reality TV is actually getting worse as the audience becomes more and more used to the genre. In a search for ratings and media coverage, shows are becoming ever more vulgar and offensive, trying to find new ways to shock. When the British Big Brother was struggling for viewers in 2003, its producers responded by attempting to shock the audience that little bit more1. "Big Brother" programmes have also shown men and women having sex on live TV, all in a desperate grab for ratings to justify their continued existence. Others have involved fights and racist bullying. Do we let things continue until someone has to die on TV to boost the ratings?

1 Humphrys, J. (2004, August 28). Take this oath: First, do no harm. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from The Guardian:

Counterpoint 1

Reality shows are not becoming more corrupt or more filthy. What has changed is rather what the public defines as acceptable viewing. In other words, the gap between what is actually real and what is presented as reality is closing thanks to modern reality programs. And the gap is closing due to popular demand to see reality on their TV screens. For example, the sex shown on Scandinavian episodes of Big Brother is not shocking or unrealistic, it is only unusual in the context of what we expect to see on television. The fact it was shown only illustrates that the gap between what is actually real and what is presented as reality on television is closing. If the proposition has an issue therefore with what modern reality shows are presenting, they have an issue with society at large, not reality programs.

Even if were the case that reality programmes are getting more corrupt and filthy, viewers should take the advice of former U.S. President Bush Jr. and 'put the off button on.'

Reality TV encourages people to pursue celebrity status, and discourages the value of hard work and an education

POINT 2

Reality shows send a bad message and help to create a cult of instant celebrity. They are typically built about shameless self-promotion, based on humiliating others and harming relationships for the entertainment of each other and the viewers at home. These programmes suggest that anyone can become famous just by getting on TV and "being themselves", without working hard or having any particular talent. Kids who watch these shows will get the idea that they don't need to study hard in school, or train hard for a regular job. As John Humphrys points out, 'we tell kids what matters is being a celebrity and we wonder why some behave the way they do' 1 As American lawyer Lisa Bloom fears, 'addiction to celebrity culture is creating a generation of dumbed-down women.'2 Reality shows encourage such addictions and promote the generally misguided belief that they should aspire to be the reality stars they watch on their televisions.

1 Humphrys, J. (2004, August 28). Take this oath: First, do no harm. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from The Guardian:

2 Becker, A. (2003, March 1). Hot or Not: Reality TV can be harmful to women. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from Pyschology Today

COUNTERPOINT 2

Reality TV does not discourage hard work or education, rather it creates a society whereby we have shared experiences and a strong sense of community. As such, reality TV provides an important social glue. Once upon a time there were only a few television channels, and everybody watched the same few programmes. The sense of a shared experience helped to bind people together, giving them common things to talk about at work and school the next day – “water cooler moments”. Reality programs like ‘Survivor’ play that role in contemporary society with viewership being ‘almost a cultural imperative’, the experience shared simultaneously with friends and family.1

Furthermore, even if it were the case that the moral lessons of reality programmes are not always advisable, just as viewers can empathize with characters in the Godfather without wanting to be them, the same applies to questionable characters and actions in reality shows.2

1 Sanneh, K. (2011, May 9). The Reality Principle. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from The New Yorker

2 Poniewozik, J. (2003) All the News That Fits Your Reality Retrieved July 4, 2011, from TIME MAGAZINE

Reality TV shows make for bad, lazy and corrupting television, encouraging such behaviour in society

POINT 3

Reality TV shows are bad, lazy and corrupting television. They mostly show ordinary people with no special talents doing very little. If they have to sing or dance, then they do it badly – which doesn’t make for good entertainment. They rely on humiliation and conflict to create excitement. Joe Millionaire, where a group of women competed for the affections of a construction worker who they were told was a millionaire, was simply cruel. The emotions of the contestants were considered expendable for the sake of making viewers laugh at their ignorance. Furthermore, the programmes are full of swearing, crying and argument, and often violence, drunkenness and sex. This sends a message to people that this is normal behaviour and helps to create a crude, selfish society.  One American reality show, “Are You Hot?”, in which competitors submit to a panel of judges for ‘appearance-rating’, was blamed by eating disorder experts as encouraging the notion that ‘appearance is the most important thing’ (Becker, 2003).1 Furthermore, Paul Watson, a former reality TV show producer, believes they are ‘predictable and just creates more of the same and makes our film makers lazy’ (Jury, 2007).

1 Becker, A. (2003, March 1). Hot or Not: Reality TV can be harmful to women. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from Pyschology Today

2 Jury, L. (2007, January 4). The Big Question: Has reality television had its day, or are audiences still attracted to it? Retrieved July 4, 2011, from The Independent

COUNTER POINT 3

Reality TV programmes are not corrupting. They do reflect our society, which isn't always perfect, but we should face up to these issues rather than censor television in order to hide them. When Adam Lambert, an openly gay contestant on American Idol, lost in the final of the show despite being widely regarded as the best singer, many rightfully pointed out what it demonstrated about the homophobia of American society. To deride reality shows as 'corrupting' therefore is misguided; it is society who is corrupt and reality shows that offer a potential solution. To solve a problem first requires accepting one exists, and reality shows provide a means to do that; they are a window into society, permitting everyone to reflect on the issues that are most harmful to society. As such, reality show producers should not be accused of a lack of creativity or laziness for their programmes, but congratulated for drawing attention to important issues.