Monday, October 22, 2007

'REALITY' TELEVISION USUALLY NOT WORTH WATCHING

Published Apr. 19, 2006 in "The Oklahoma Daily"

Viewable Online Here


For the vast majority of Saturdays between the ages of 8 and 11, I was up at 6 a.m.


Watching those morning cartoons was the highlight of my week.


As I got older, school, activities and, well, life, began to take up more of my time.


My trusty Panasonic 20-inch became more and more a mirror in a fancy plastic box. Now that I'm older, I realize that television programming has never been near the zenith of human achievement.


Even then, in the last few years, it has inched ever closer to rock bottom, if you ask me. The little television I watch, and used to enjoy, has become permeated with substandard wastes of camera time.


What vile vehicle has brought the boob tube to such abysmal heights? I give you the reality show.


"Survivor" was arguably the first of the modern breed. It was actually somewhat decent entertainment. Then came copycats like "The Amazing Race" and "Big Brother."


With each passing iteration of these shows, quality dropped lower and lower. This downward spiral continued until now such shows as "Fear Factor" and "The Bachelor" serve as primetime viewing.


The actors in the shows may be average people, but the situations certainly are not.


Think about it. How often are you on a small island playing asinine games for water? Have you tried to get your father married off to women half his age?


Even on a much simpler level, consider this: Anytime a camera crew is present, no situation, no matter how natural, can be called reality.


The so-called "reality" of these shows is nothing more than a contrived amalgam of sketches designed to garner ratings.


Not that there is anything wrong with contrived amalgams of sketches. It's what all TV programming is.


It's not because of this that I decry reality shows. Here is my main beef with so-called reality TV: It's not reality.


These shows are about as far from most viewers' realities as PBS is from Cinemax.


Well, why not just drop the reality-show moniker, and just call it a "show"? That only solves half the problem.


The shows in question are hardly quality entertainment. Granted, networks have the right to broadcast whatever shows they like, as long as there are no violations of decency standards, a la Janet Jackson.


However, being an opinion columnist, I must relay what I think of the aforementioned shows.


In a word: horrible. I'm not a prude when it comes to my entertainment. I don't expect every show I watch to reinforce family values or enlighten me in some way. I'm open to meaningless entertainment.


But seriously, I don't see how people being compelled to eat insects and horse innards constitutes entertainment in any form. My tolerance for entertainment is pretty broad, but I really don't like it to kill my appetite and make me gag.


And call me old-fashioned, but isn't finding a fiancee supposed to be a romantic affair, and not a TV smorgasbord of speed-dating beauty queens?


Basically, calling most of these sorts of shows "entertainment" is insulting to the very ideal of my entertainment.


So there you have it: "Reality shows" certainly aren't reality, and in their extreme forms are borderline repulsive.


So, why are they broadcast in the time slots previously occupied by traditional sitcoms, dramas and such?


The answer lies in the copycat nature of much of the telecommunications sector. Given the runaway success of the original "Survivor," suddenly every network rushed to produce reality shows.


In that rush, the thought and foresight that went into planning "Survivor" was not apparent. Therefore, the new shows had little of the entertainment and none of the originality of that show.


As a testament to this, most of those copycats were canceled after just a few seasons, while "Survivor" has continued, now in its 12th season.


So, where does all this leave me, the disgruntled viewer? It leaves me imploring networks to not develop new reality shows.


The concept has been overdone, and the only shows continually succeeding are those that were the original pioneers.


More importantly, it leaves me asking you, my fellow viewers, to not give the rating-chasers any reason to justify creating any more shows.


If you really want reality, just turn off the TVs and go outside.

No comments: