Reality TV Guide by Guy Parkinson

doing reality tv

teachers’ guide unit 1 introducing reality tv U

1:1

Contents Reality Checks: Start-up Activities

1.3

Sorting the Genre

1.4

Sharing Definitions

1.5

The Problem with Definitions...

1.5

Looking for Links

1.6

The Random Reality Title Generator Game

1.7

Independent Research Activities

1.8

a. A Week in Reality TV

1.8

b. Researching a Reality Show

1.9

c. Investigating a Reality Production Company Listening to the Reality TV Expert – Annette Hill

1.10 1.11

Clip 1: What is Reality TV

1.12

Clip 2: Reality Formats and Variations

1.12

Clip 3: The Development of Reality TV

1.13

Please note: links, programme titles, newspaper articles in blue text are all ‘live’. When connected to the internet, you can access these pages directly by clicking on the link in the PDF.

Acknowledgements Written and edited by Jenny Grahame www.englishandmedia.co.uk © English and Media Centre, 2010 Thanks to Annette Hill for giving so generously of her time; Nick Potamis and Pete Fraser for inspiration; Dave Robertson, Deputy Arts Director, The Kingswood School, Corby, for the Random Reality Title Generator Game; Pete Turner for permission to use his experiences as a participant on Freaky Eaters; Monkey Kingdom for permission to reproduce Young, Dumb and Living Off Mum; and last, but certainly not least, the teachers who attended the EMC Reality TV course in December 2009 1:2

Reality Checks: Start-up Activities Getting Started Teaching any popular television genre can be hugely rewarding, but can also pose a number of organisational issues and dilemmas, ranging from which texts to teach to the logistics of evaluating and exploiting the mountain of critical material available online. Apparently simple, the issue of texts is in this case a particular minefield given the range and breadth of the reality spectrum and the problems in defining it. In addition, students will bring very different experiences of, and attitudes towards reality TV. You may encounter any of the following: – students who claim to watch very little television, meaning it may be difficult to establish a body of programmes and experiences with which your whole class is familiar – students who bring to the classroom a wealth of expertise and enthusiasm, or extensive knowledge of a particular show – students who avoid reality TV on principle, having internalised some of the negative discourses about its value – students who know very little about the genre, as audience or critic. The following ‘starter’ activities provide simple ways of getting all your students up to speed with the range, breadth and diversity of the reality genre. Most of them involve pair or small group discussion, to share expertise and viewing experience as economically as possible. You may want to undertake several of them in fairly quick succession, to provide evidence and examples for further study later in your scheme of work, and to offer an ‘immersive’ introduction to the genre. While some are intended as diagnostic exercises, or as prompts for discussion only, others could be extended into more substantial research activities. The activities in this section aim to explore: – the range of themes, formats, and variations found across the genre and over time – the cues and associations of programme titles – different ways of defining the reality genre – the significance of contextual issues – for example, scheduling, broadcaster, target audience – the hybrid nature of reality shows combining elements and conventions from several different genres.

Resources Throughout your study of reality TV, you will find it useful to have the following available in the classroom: – a stack of old copies of the Radio Times and/or other TV listings magazines – a portfolio of editorial and opinion articles from a range of popular and quality newspapers, celebrity magazines, etc. Articles of particular interest or relevnce are referenced in this material. Although the introductory activities can be completed without access to the internet, much of the work in this resource requires students to view clips of reality TV online.

Sorting the Genre Overview The purpose of the task is to consider a definition of reality TV, and to facilitate discussion of the range of factors which impact on such programming. This initial activity offers a way both of engaging students, and a diagnostic test of their familiarity with the genre. The activity does not rely on detailed knowledge of the specific programmes, but draws on the students’ prior experience of the genre to predict the nature and context of the different examples.

Resources – Student Resource 1a: Programme Titles (titles of a range of reality TV programmes, including both recent and older shows and a couple of red herring titles which arguably fall outside the genre). – Student Resource 1b: Programme Titles and Scheduling for the programmes listed in resource. If a critical mass of your students is unfamiliar with the genre, use this sheet instead of 1a. – You will need to create sets of cards of the resource you choose to use, one set for each group in the class. – Internet access (optional) to allow students to research titles they want to find out more about.

Task In pairs or small groups, and to a tight 10-minute time-scale, students group and re-group the titles in as many different ways as possible. They then draw on what they have learned through the activity and on their experiences to come up with their own 20-word definition of the reality TV genre. You could encourage students to think about some of the following groupings: – Scheduling categories Time of day; day of week; broadcaster – terrestrial vs digital, BBC vs commercial – Formats and structure of show 30mins, 60mins; series or serial format; spin-off programming; website-linked; part of a larger franchise – Generic variations Observational or specifically constructed; docusoap, life experiment or make-over; degree of competition, celebrity involvement etc – Themes Talent shows; workplace-related; relationship-focused; health and well-being-themed; celebrity, environmental; educational; consumer; surveillance; etc – Presentation format Hosted, voiceover, panel-based, personality-led, celebrity-presented – Locations Studio-based, on location; in purpose-built accommodation – Interactivity Role of audience – in studio context; voting processes; incentives to participate – Source of income PSB-funded; revenue from voting process; sponsorship; advertiser-support, etc – Target audience By age, gender, class, ethnicity, interest – Old or new shows (before or after the ‘digital revolution’) – Local or global shows Ask students to identify: – any titles which seem to cross a range of different types of show, or are hard to categorise by content – any titles which don’t seem to fit in with the other titles or with their developing awareness of the genre. (NB: David Attenborough’s Life is effectively a conventional ‘authored’ wildlife documentary.) 1:4

Doing Reality TV ± DQ (QJOLVK 0HGLD &HQWUH 2QOLQH 5HVRXUFH

Sharing Definitions Overview To discuss possible definitions of the reality TV genre and to sharpen students’ understanding of key conventions and motifs.

Resources – Students’ own definitions of reality TV – EMC_RealityTV_Unit1.ppt: What is Reality TV? & Timeline (also available as a printable PDF)

Task Collate and discuss students’ own definitions, and make a list of any key words or motifs. Then look at the definitions below, from a range of different perspectives and purposes. Definitions Reality television is a genre of television programming that presents purportedly unscripted dramatic or humorous situations, documents actual events, and usually features ordinary people instead of professional actors. (Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_television) Reality TV is a catch-all category that includes a wide range of television programmes about real people. Sometimes called popular factual television, reality TV is located in border territories, between information and entertainment, documentary and drama (Annette Hill: Reality TV, 2005) Programming that is unscripted and follows actual ‘real life’ events as they unfold, usually involving members of the public or groups of celebrities. http://www.skillset.org The television genre where situations are created by the show’s producers, but the show itself is unscripted. Cameras capture the participants’ natural reactions and responses to the situations created, which are then edited as a programme or series. (Product Placement Glossary, iTVX.com)

The Problem with Definitions... Overview To explore in more detail the complexity of defining precisely a genre which, in the 21st century, has evolved to cover an increasingly broad range of variations and formats.

Resources – Student Resource 1a: Programme Titles (except for Life) – Student Resource 1d: Shared Conventions

Task Students investigate the broad conventions shared by the titles in Student Resource 1a. Begin by offering students the chance to volunteer these conventions, before providing them with the ‘Shared Conventions’ grid (Student Resource 1d) to add to their ideas and focus the discussion. They can then apply these to the range of shows they have been discussing. – Real people, not actors – ‘Real’ situations, even when they are set up by the programme-makers – Largely unscripted – Factual entertainment – A story, a journey or a contest – A presenter, host or voiceover narrator – Participants who have volunteered to take part – Lots of editing

Doing Reality TV ± DQ (QJOLVK 0HGLD &HQWUH 2QOLQH 5HVRXUFH

Looking for Links Overview The aim here is to explore the broad similarities and differences between the different clusters of programmes, to identify any patterns, links or contradictions.

Resources – Student Resource 1a: Programme Titles – Student Resource 1e: Mindmap (example) – List of conventions, motifs etc (as developed by students in ‘Sharing Definitions’ and ‘The Problem With Definitions’). – EMC_RealityTV_Unit1.ppt: What is Reality TV? & Timeline (also available as a printable PDF)

Task Students look again at the different ways in which they grouped the TV programme titles (Resource 1a). Ask each group to focus on a different single category – for example: – all the titles broadcast by a particular channel – shows linked by a common theme – for example, relationships, work, talent – shows targeting a particular audience – shows with a competition element – shows about behaviour modification, and so on. Ask students to discuss: – other reality shows they think belong to this category – the extent to which programmes in this category share the general features of reality TV programming – conventions or approaches shared by programmes in this specific category. Using their own knowledge and viewing experiences supplemented by research where necessary, students can then brainstorm and present to the class a spider-diagram or mindmap of the conventions and techniques common to the programmes grouped in this category. This sample mindmap is available as a handout (Student Resource 1e) and in the PDF version of EMC_RealityTV_Unit1.ppt. The resulting diagrams will further problematise the issue of definition, and raise questions about generic variations and audience appeals. As starting points for further discussion, they could be displayed on a notice board so that links can be drawn between them at a later date. Rarely feature presenter onscreen – young and jokey voiceover

Light-hearted tone, fast-pace of editing, use of graphics and funky visual style

The World’s Strictest Parents

Reality Shows on BBC3

Young, Dumb and Living Off Mum

Strong use of contemporary music

Often focus on aspects of anti-social behaviour, deviance, sleaze, etc

1:6

Tend to target a young age-group – 16-35

Rarely feature public voting or competition, but often linked to information websites

Blood, Sweat and T-Shirts Often feature young people in extreme situations

Doing Reality TV ± DQ (QJOLVK 0HGLD &HQWUH 2QOLQH 5HVRXUFH

The Random Reality Title Generator Game NB: This activity was developed by Dave Robertson, Deputy Arts Director, The Kingswood School, Corby

Overview This is a chance to have some creative fun with the more sensational end of the reality spectrum by devising a new reality show from random elements. They will need to think outside the box in inventing a format which exploits random and/or unusual combinations of elements. The activity could be a 10-minute ice-breaker, a more developed practice-plannng activity over a lesson or two, or played as a pitching game (see ‘Variation’ below).

Resources – Student Resource 1c: Random Reality Title Generator, photocopied and laminated. Cut up the titles in each column, putting the words from each column in a separate bag. – MediaMagazine 30: Xtreme Reality: a Sadistic Future (NB: The article, written for A Level students, is heavily editorialised, raising issues of taste, acceptability, and ‘dumbing down’, using fairly loaded language.)

Task Students take it in turns to pick a word from each of the three bags. Using their three randomly generated words, students create a pitch for a 3-word-titled reality show (think Police Camera Action, or Celebrity Love Island). Depending on their combinations of words, the outcomes may well be raunchy, surreal, parodic or un-PC – all part of the fun. The task here is to ensure that students’ pitches are: – inventive, milking the most out of the unexpected or bizarre combinations – feasible – money is no object, so settings, talent and challenges can be extreme (but the show must be physically workable and safe) – legal and acceptable to the TV regulator Ofcom – so no offensiveness, bullying or criminal activity – appealing – clear signposting of an appropriate target audience through channel choice, scheduling, the format detail, and the tone and address of the presentation.

Variation Set the activity up as a game, in which you could mark the pitches out of 5 for each of the four criteria listed above, and either score each group in turn, or ask the groups to score each others’ presentations. Bonus points could be added for a format which carries in-built longevity or ‘franchiseability’ through spin-off opportunities. The highest score wins the contract.

Follow up Students read ‘Xtreme Reality: a Sadistic Future’, a MediaMagazine article which explores some of the more extreme reality formats from across the world. For English GCSE, this article could be analysed as an example of a non-fiction text. Students could: – comment on the design and layout of the article, and the use of cross-heads, images and captions – identify words and phrases which suggest the assumptions and values underpinning the article. – highlight the text for evidence of the writer’s perspective – debate how far they agree with the arguments of the article.

Doing Reality TV ± DQ (QJOLVK 0HGLD &HQWUH 2QOLQH 5HVRXUFH

Independent Research Activities These activities could be set as: – exploratory homework tasks – for pair or small group classroom research, in the ICT suite if available – a more extended research project over a period of weeks, interspersed with other activities, and building towards a major presentation session.

a. A Week in Reality TV Overview In a single week (w/c 2nd May 2009): – 41 different reality titles were broadcast on Freeview channels alone – at least 12 of these programmes were screened daily – a number were repeated in different time slots throughout the day. This task supports students in conducting an audit of current schedule patterns in order to explore the extent and ubiquity of the reality genre, and the possible reasons for the role it has come to play in the broadcasting schedules.

Resources – A range of TV listings magazine, preferably recent.

Task Using a TV listings magazine, students compile a list of all the reality shows on air over the course of a single week, both free to air, and non-terrestrial. They could then do one or more of the following activities: – calculate the number of hours per week given to reality TV on different channels – evaluate the type and range of programmes on different channels to see what patterns emerge in their scheduling – investigate whether different types of reality show predominate at different points during the day – explore the recurrence of key words within the list of titles, and what these might tell us about current trends or interests in reality TV.

1:8

Doing Reality TV ± DQ (QJOLVK 0HGLD &HQWUH 2QOLQH 5HVRXUFH

b. Researching a Reality Show Overview Students learn more about the reality genre through a focused exploration of a single show. The activity would work well in conjunction with Annette Hill’s overview of the different categories of reality TV (see Clip 1) You may need to guide students’ choices to ensure that a range of different types of show is covered across the class.

Resources – Student Resource 1a: Programme Titles – Internet access • If students already have some experience of supervised online research (and are aware of the limitations of user-generated sites such as Wikipedia), encourage them to use Google and other search engines, Wikipedia, and YouTube. • Students could also run a search via Guardian.co.uk, which has extensive news coverage of the blockbusting reality talent and game shows (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/reality-tv). • An open search on the Guardian website will produce 12,200 results, linking to editorial coverage in Media Guardian, Comment is Free, and other Guardian sites. Most of the great debates about the nature and impact of the genre are covered here – definitely worth a selective browse for more focused students: http://browse.guardian.co.uk/search?search=reality+TV&sort=relevance&Ntk=MultiWordSearch&sitese arch-radio=guardian&go-guardian=Search More able students should be able to follow links to research the following aspects of their chosen show: – the production company, its other programmes etc – key personnel, including presenters, associated celebs or experts – any sponsorship tie-ins and/or revenue-generating processes – the reception of the show by audiences.

Task Using either the titles in Student Resource 1a, or a new set of contemporary titles of your choice, pairs of students carry out detailed research work on a single show. Students prepare their research as either: – an illustrated blog – an illustrated PowerPoint – an oral presentation supported by audio-visual aids which can be displayed as a wall-chart. The presentation should be organised around the following questions: – What is the format of the show, and where has it developed from? – What is the target audience for the show, and how does it interact with that audience? (i.e. through online extras and clips, voting processes, forums etc?) – Who produced the show, and what can you find out about its production and marketing? – How is the show financed? – What sorts of ideas, lifestyle, and messages are represented in the show? Pairs then present their findings to the class, thus building up a range of researched examples on which they can draw for the AQA external assessment or for the Controlled Assessment tasks.

Doing Reality TV ± DQ (QJOLVK 0HGLD &HQWUH 2QOLQH 5HVRXUFH

c. Investigating a Reality Production Company Overview Reality TV shows are increasingly the province of specialist production companies with a wide range of variations on the genre. While it is tempting to investigate the biggest and best-known players such as Endemol (Big Brother) or RDF (Wife Swap; Faking It), these companies can be very complex to navigate. It’s often both easier and more productive to focus on their smaller subsidiaries, or ‘younger’ independent companies.

Resources – Internet access – Links to selected production companies, for example: http://monkeykingdom.com (House of Obsessive Compulsives; Pushy Parents; Young, Dumb and Living Off Mum) http://dragonfly.tv (Autopsy; The Family; Kill It, Cook It, Eat It) http://www.betty.co.uk (Freaky Eaters; Don’t Blame the Builder; Shopaholics) http://www.endemoluk.com/?q=taxonomy/term/27/9&tid=24 (Remarkable Television – an amalgam of two Endemol subsidiaries: Ready Steady Cook; Snog, Marry, Avoid; Gok’s Fashion Fix) http://www.twentytwenty.tv/genre.aspx?ID=1 (Brat Camp; Lads Army; World’s Strictest Parents) – Student Resource 1f: Investigating a Reality Production Company (tasksheet) – Student Resource 1g: Reality Company Website Home Pages

Task Groups of students take responsibility for researching one of the production companies, investigating their website in order to: – get a sense of their reach and expertise – investigate the slate of reality programmes the company produces – track the company’s developing brands and formats of show, – identify programmes with similar formats or themes – track their connections with larger companies, broadcasters, and favoured presenters. Groups should be ready to report back to the class on the following aspects of the production company: – company information – name, logo, and their connotations; any other companies to which they are affiliated, and what they can find out about their ownership and structure, including any international partnerships – the look of the home page – layout and design, colour coding, use of images, fonts and graphics; interactive elements, and the shows featured within them – the full range of content produced by the company, and the proportion of reality or popular factual programming within it – the range of reality shows produced by the company with an overview of their typical content, formats and potential audiences – a mini-case study of one significant example of the company’s output – a brief summary of the company’s most valuable or well-known asset.

Exam link Students taking the AQA external assessment for Unit 1 may be required to design a website for a new show, so they should be encouraged to do a close textual analysis of the company’s home page, using annotations and comments to practise their skills.

1:10

Doing Reality TV ± DQ (QJOLVK 0HGLD &HQWUH 2QOLQH 5HVRXUFH

Listening to the Reality TV Expert – Annette Hill Annette Hill is Professor of Media at Westminster University, and has written two influential academic studies on reality television: Reality TV: Audiences and Popular Factual Television, 2005, and Restyling Factual TV, 2007. The three clips featured here are supported and summarised in EMC_RealityTV_Unit1.ppt.

Overview In this introductory clip, Annette Hill identifies some of the problems of defining this diverse and rapidly changing genre. She highlights two broad strands of reality format: – observational shows which monitor existing situations – programmes which construct situations specifically for TV. She also comments on the ‘crazy mix’ of fact and fiction across the genre. She celebrates the hybridity of many shows which incorporate diverse generic elements such as soap opera, talent and game show conventions.

Resources – Access to the internet – A3 paper – Reality TV programme titles (for example Student Resource 1a) – EMC_RealityTV_Unit1.ppt: What is Reality TV? & Timeline (also available as a printable PDF)

Clip 1: What is Reality TV? Task – Continuum line: the Reality Spectrum Screen Clip 1 (http://www.vimeo.com/8240690) and ask students to make key word notes on the main points Annette Hill makes. Give each group a sheet of A3, and ask students to draw a continuum line horizontally across the bottom of a sheet of A3 paper. Label the left-hand end ‘Observation’ and the right-hand ‘Constructed’, as in this example. Students now try placing programme titles along the line, according to whether they seem to be closer to or further away from constructedness. Compare two or three examples around the class. Is there general consensus, or are there differences in the ways each group perceives their titles? Now ask students to add a vertical axis along the left of the page, labelled ‘Entertainment’ at the top, and ‘Information’ at the bottom. Students move their titles up or down vertically to indicate whether, in their view, the context of the programme is closer to information or entertainment. The aim is to raise issues such as: – Is there any correlation between the format and its entertainment value? – Are there connections between particular formats of programme? – Do some broadcasters tend to specialise in informative shows, while others are more entertainment led? NB: This activity can be re-framed to explore a variety of other issues – e.g. the spectrum from documentary to fiction or PSB to consumer-based. Entertainment

Information/Observational

Constructed

Doing Reality TV ± DQ (QJOLVK 0HGLD &HQWUH 2QOLQH 5HVRXUFH

Clip 2: Reality Formats and Variations Screen Clip 2: Reality Formats and Variations: http://www.vimeo.com/8240842 Here Annette Hill outlines the major categories and formats across the reality television spectrum. Hill covers the following categories: Infotainment shows (999) The docusoaps (Traffic Cops, The Family) Lifestyle programmes (Freaky Eaters) The social experiment show (Wife Swap, Blood Sweat and T-shirts, Secret Millionaire) The reality talent show The reality game show Links to the programmes listed in brackets are available in the PowerPoint and in the Word document ‘Weblinks_All.doc’. You could allocate each group in the class one of these categories to focus on after the clip. Ask them to – provide an example of one show in their given category – list the features of the show which make it a reality show (as opposed to straight documentary, entertainment, etc) – list three features which make it appealing to audiences – list three features which make it useful to the broadcasters. The main points and features Hill describes are summarised in the PowerPoint EMC_RealityTV_Unit1.ppt, slides 1-9. These slides could be used as the focus for a plenary after students have reported back on their own category. Slide 9 offers some particularly intriguing recent variations, which could be discussed in terms of their hybridity and cross-genre conventions.

Clip 3: The Development of Reality TV Screen Clip 3: The Development of Reality TV: http://www.vimeo.com/8240112 Hill describes the development of reality TV as a response to major economic crises in the broadcasting industry. The PowerPoint EMC_RealityTV_Unit1.ppt slides 10-16 amplify some of her points with a very brief timeline. This shows some of the major technological and economic issues which have shaped each new development, and suggests where some of the most familiar contemporary formats originated. Slide 16 is a diagrammatic representation of the ways UK terrestrial broadcasters have developed their reality talent show programme formats since the arrival of Big Brother in 2000.

1:12

Doing Reality TV ± DQ (QJOLVK 0HGLD &HQWUH 2QOLQH 5HVRXUFH

doing reality tv

student resources unit 1 introducing reality tv U

Doing Reality TV â&#x20AC;&#x201C; an EMC Online Resource ÂŠ 2010

SR1:1

Contents Student Resources Resource 1a: Programme Titles

SR1:3

Resource 1b: Programme Titles and Scheduling

SR1:4

Resource 1c: Random Reality Title Generator

SR1:6

Resource 1d: Shared Conventions

SR1:7

Resource 1e: Mindmap (exemplification)

SR1:8

Resource 1f: Investigating a Reality Production Company (tasksheet)

SR1:9

Resource 1g: Reality Company Website Home Pages

SR1:10

Resource 1h: A Reality TV Family Tree

SR1:11

SR1:2

Doing Reality TV ± DQ (QJOLVK 0HGLD &HQWUH 2QOLQH 5HVRXUFH

Student Resource 1a: Programme Titles

Antiques Roadshow

The Restaurant

Come Dine with Me

Highland Emergency

Supersize vs Superskinny

Sylvania Waters

Young, Dumb and Living Off Mum

Wife Swap

The World’s Strictest Parents

Strictly Come Dancing

Secret Millionaire

Ten Years Younger

Embarrassing Bodies

Supernanny

Brat Camp

Life

Britain’s Got Talent

The Family

Dating in the Dark

Blood Sweat and T-Shirts

Big Brother

The 1900 House

The Choir: Unsung Town

How Clean is Your House?

I’m a Celebrity...

Driving School

Joe Millionaire

Animal Park

Design For Life

Vets in Practice

Doing Reality TV ± DQ (QJOLVK 0HGLD &HQWUH 2QOLQH 5HVRXUFH

Student Resource 1b: Programme Titles and Scheduling I’m a Celebrity ... ITV Daily (late Autumn), 8-9pm Ten Z-list celebrity has-beens compete in the jungle to see who can survive the nastiest ordeals. Global franchise.

Antiques Roadshow BBC1 Sunday, 8-9pm Ordinary people have their household treasures valued by experts. Started 1979. Production company: BBC

Production company: Granada

The Restaurant BBC2 Thursday, 8-9pm Couples compete to run their own restaurant, judged by celeb chef Raymond Blanc.

Highland Emergency Five Wednesday, 7.30-8pm The work of the emergency services in Highlands of Scotland. Production company: Granada

Production company: BBC

Supersize vs Superskinny E4 Tuesday, 10-11pm Two seriously over- and underweight people change their diets under medical supervision. Production company: Cheetah TV/ Endemol

Animal Park BBC2 Wednesday, 2-3pm Kate Humble and Ben Fogle make the monkeys work for their nuts in a wildlife park. Production company: BBC

Come Dine with Me C4 Saturday, 6.25-6.55pm Four amateur chefs host dinner parties for each other and vote on best dinners.

Sylvania Waters BBC2, ABC Australia (1992) Thursday, 9-10pm Domestic docusoap about relationships within a newly wealthy family in Sydney.

Young, Dumb & Living Off Mum BBC3 Monday, 8-9pm Eight spoilt teens learn to take responsibility, watched by their despairing parents.

Production company: Granada

Production company: ABC, BBC Community Programme Unit

Production company: Monkey Kingdom

Wife Swap E4 Friday, 10-11pm Two wives swap places for a fortnight in one of the earliest lifeswap programmes.

Driving School BBC1 (1997) 6x30mins weeknights Seven learner drivers, including the famous test-failure Maureen. Early docusoap, entertaining 12 million per week.

Secret Millionaire C4 Wednesday, 9-10pm Millionaires ditch luxury lifestyles to go undercover in deprived areas and give their money to deserving causes. Lottery-funded.

Production company: BBC

Production company: RDF Television

Strictly Come Dancing BBC1 Saturday, early evening Sept-Dec Celebs learn ballroom skills with professional dancers in crossmedia competition hosted by Bruce Forsyth.

Ten Years Younger C4 Wednesday, 8-9pm Two women aim to look younger via contrasting beauty and fashion therapies – hosted by Mylene Klass.

Production company: BBC

Production company: Maverick TV

Production company: RDF Television

The World’s Strictest Parents BBC3 Sunday, 7-8pm UK teens sent abroad to be brought up by families from other cultures. Production company: TwentyTwenty

SR1:4

Doing Reality TV ± DQ (QJOLVK 0HGLD &HQWUH 2QOLQH 5HVRXUFH

Embarrassing Bodies C4 Sunday, 9-10pm Real people treated for embarrassing personal illnesses by real doctors.

Supernanny C4 Thursday, 9-10pm Professional expert nanny helps desperate parents control their unruly children.

Production company: Maverick TV

Production company: Ricochet South

Brat Camp C4 Tuesday, 9-10pm Abusive and out-of-control tearaway teens are sent to a tough American wilderness camp to learn how to behave.

Joe Millionaire C4 (2003) Ordinary bloke is groomed as a millionaire, and beautiful women compete to win his heart – unaware he is not rich. USoriginated format.

Life BBC1 Monday, 9-10pm David Attenborough explores the extraordinary lengths animals and plants will go to in order to survive.

Production company: TwentyTwenty Productions

Production company: Fox TV, Wall to Wall TV

Production company: BBC Natural History Unit

Britain’s Got Talent ITV1 Saturday, 8-9pm National search for entertainment talent, judged by panel and audience vote. Global format owned by Fremantle.

The Family C4 Wednesday, 9-10pm Slice-of-life docusoap focused on a single family filmed continuously, now in 2nd series. Named after original 1974 fly-on-wall BBC series directed by Paul Watson.

Vets in Practice BBC1 (1997) 84x30mins Seven newly-graduated vets coping with life and pets in the surgery. Early docusoap, with massive audiences.

Design For Life BBC2 Monday, 9-10pm Young designers go to Paris to compete for an apprenticeship with celebrity designer Philippe Starck. Production company: BBC

Production company: Talkback Thames/SyCo TV Dating in the Dark Living TV Wednesday, 9-10pm Three male + three female singles share a house but meet for dates only in total darkness. Is love blind?

Blood, Sweat and T-Shirts BBC3 Tuesday, 9-10pm Six fashion-conscious British youths go to live and work in India’s clothing industry. Production company: BBC

Production company: Endemol

The 1900 House C4 (1999) 4x60mins Historical re-enactment – real family forced to live and work in the style of the 1900s middle-class. Production company: Wall to Wall

Production company: BBC

Production company: Dragonfly TV

Big Brother C4 Nightly for 10 weeks 11th and final series in 2010. The original social experiment-turned show-off fest. Endemol-produced global franchise. Production company: Endemol

The Choir: Unsung Town BBC2 Tuesday, 9-10pm Chorister Gareth Malone starts up a choir in a deprived and divided community, and coaches them to success.

How Clean is Your House? C4 Thursday, 8-9pm Expert cleaners Kim and Aggie tackle the real filth in real homes, find real bacteria, and offer real cleaning tips.

Production company: BBC

Production company: Talkback TV

Doing Reality TV ± DQ (QJOLVK 0HGLD &HQWUH 2QOLQH 5HVRXUFH

SR1:5

Student Resource 1c: Random Reality Title Generator

1. Fat

1. Monkeys

1. Unleashed

2. Pregnant

2. Ninjas

2. On fire

3. Police

3. Body

3. In the country

4. Silent

4. Homes

4. Showdown

5. Wild

5. Designs

5. Questioned

6. Stately

6. Teenagers

6. Forgotten

7. Foreign

7. Dinners

7. Exposed

8. West coast

8. Renegades

8. In the city

9. Divorced

9. Dwarves

9. Go home

10. Angry

10. Robots

10. Nicked!

11. Fresh

11. Comedy

11. Police

12. Whole

12. Police

12. Revisited

13. Broken

13. Reality

13. Nightmares

SR1:6

Doing Reality TV ± DQ (QJOLVK 0HGLD &HQWUH 2QOLQH 5HVRXUFH

Student Resource 1d: Shared Conventions Shared conventions

True

False

Debatable

Real people, not actors

‘Real’ situations, even when they are set up by the programmemakers Largely unscripted

Factual entertainment

A story, a journey or a contest

A presenter, host or voiceover narrator

Participants who have volunteered to take part

Lots of editing

...............................

Doing Reality TV ± DQ (QJOLVK 0HGLD &HQWUH 2QOLQH 5HVRXUFH

SR1:8

Doing Reality TV ± DQ (QJOLVK 0HGLD &HQWUH 2QOLQH 5HVRXUFH

Often focus on aspects of anti-social behaviour, deviance, sleaze, etc

Strong use of contemporary music

Young, Dumb and Living Off Mum

Light-hearted tone, fast-pace of editing, use of graphics and funky visual style

Blood, Sweat and T-Shirts

Reality Shows on BBC3

Rarely feature presenter – young and jokey voiceover

Often feature young people in extreme situations

Rarely feature public voting or competition, but often linked to information websites

Tend to target a young age-group – 16-35

The World’s Strictest Parents

Student Resource 1e: Mindmap (exemplification)

Student Resource 1f: Investigating a Reality Production Company

Company information Name, logo, and their connotations; any other companies to which they are affiliated, and what they can find out about their ownership and structure, including any international partnerships

The look of the home page Layout and design, colour coding, use of images, fonts and graphics; interactive elements, and the shows featured within them.

The full range of content produced by the company, and the proportion of reality or popular factual programming within it.

The range of reality shows produced by the company with an overview of their typical content, formats and potential audiences.

A mini-case study of one significant example of the company’s output. A mini case-study or summary of the company’s most valuable or well-known asset.

Doing Reality TV ± DQ (QJOLVK 0HGLD &HQWUH 2QOLQH 5HVRXUFH

Student Resource 1g: Reality Company Website Home Pages

SR1:10

Doing Reality TV ± DQ (QJOLVK 0HGLD &HQWUH 2QOLQH 5HVRXUFH

It Takes Two

Strictly Dance Fever

Sports Academy

2002, Initial (owned by Endemol)

Celebrity Fame Academy

BBC, 2008

I’d Do Anything

BBC, 2007

Teen BB

2004 – Talkback Thames, Fremantle Media, SyCo

Live tour

2007 – Fremantle Media, SyCo Now a major global franchise licensed to 35 other countries

Battle of the Stars

X Factor Live

The Winner’s Story

Xcess All Areas

The Aftermath

Licensed to: – American Idol, Australian & around Idols worldwide, in 42 other territories.

19 Management, Thames TV, & latterly Fremantle Media

Pop Idol

2002

Pop Stars – the Rivals

The X Factor

Britain’s Got Talent

Xtra Factor

Britain’s Got More Talent

Celebrity Big Brother

y ...

Licensed to nearly 70 countries worldwide

BBBM

LWT, 2001

Dancing on Ice

Soap Stars

Pop Stars

ced b

Any Dream Will Do

BBLB

Endemol 2000-2010

Big Brother

ITV

repla

BBC, 2006

How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria?

Strictly Come Dancing

Fame Academy

BBC

Granada TV, 2002 – now licensed to: – Germany Spain France Netherlands Hungary India Sweden

I’m a Celebrity

1997: John de Mol Produkties develops Big Brother in the Netherlands for Endemol. First UK tx 2000. Now franchised to 70 countries worldwide.

New Millennium, New Technologies, & Made-for-TV Talent Formats Student Resource 1h: A Reality TV Family Tree

SR1:11

a sadistic future? There’s a strange world of bizarre factual programming out there, from live autopsies to erotic hypnosis. And when reality formats kick in too, things get really strange. Richard Smith surveys some of the world’s more extreme examples of reality TV, and wonders what they tell us about audiences and ethics. Not content with killing culture as we know it, reality TV is at it again and it doesn’t care who it takes down with it. It is the quintessential televisual Marmite: you either love its novelty or you want to chase it off your land with a shotgun. It is breaking taboos in ways we haven’t seen, in countries we haven’t even heard of. Gone are the days of Big Brother race rows and here are the days of a genre that bathes in its own torturous taboos. How can reality TV cover new ground when so much has already been covered? How about depriving contestants of sleep and the last one to finally snooze wins? Been there: Shattered (Channel 4). How about watching relationships crumble with a live lie detector test? Done that: Lie Detector (Live TV). How about chaining one

62 MediaMagazine | December 2009 | english and media centre

man to five women and voting one person off each week? Nothing new: Chained (E4). With so much terrain already covered, reality TV is in a desperate state. Japanese television exhibited one effect of this desperation with Nasabi where one man (Nasabi) was locked in a room naked, alone and in a tiny flat with nothing to eat. He was told he was taking part in a TV project but was not told he was broadcast to seventeen million Japanese viewers. Nasabi could only win food through magazine competitions and could only leave once he had won prizes to the amount of five thousand pounds (One Million Yen). One year and three months later, he managed it. Is this imprisonment a sign of things to come? Should compromising our human rights be used for entertainment? Or be so entertaining? The world of fiction occasionally explores the grim future of reality TV with classics such as The Running Man (1987) and Battle Royale (2000) addressing the notion of death as the ultimate mainstream entertainment. Both The Truman Show (1998) and Ed TV (1999) take a lighter look at the genre but there is one text that stands as a profound warning. Series Seven: The Contenders (2001) is a satire about a media-saturated culture and is set in the immediate future where five contenders are given no choice but to participate. A television crew follows each of them as they are given a gun and told that they kill or be killed.

In a society where the media holds dominion, the contestants battle it out to the delight of the viewing audience who accept death, gore and violence as mainstream entertainment.

Prank TV At its simplest, reality TV is friendly and fun but the prankster show has mischievously shifted over the past few decades, from Beadle’s About and Trigger Happy TV where light-hearted pranks are played on the public to Jackass and Dirty Sanchez where their immense physical pain is our immense joy. The USA have stepped it up even more so with Scare Tactics where contestants are set up to believe, amongst other things, that they are legitimately going to be killed at the hands of a psychopath (actor). Similarly Enfarto (Mexico) translated as ‘Heart attack’ tricks unknowing victims into facing the possibility of their own death. The audience gets to witness this real terror and sits back laughing in their voyeuristic armchairs. It is this move from friendly prank to spiteful bullying that raises questions about our notion of contemporary entertainment. Ultimately though, the shows exist because there is a demand for them to exist. Criminal Russia (USSR) continues the theme of death and investigates murders with one twist: the murderer takes us through his crime. Crime scenes are revisited and weapons are reconstructed as the murderer jumps into the spotlight to give us a step-by-step account of

his murderous rampage. A victim’s family cannot only watch an account of how the victim was killed but simultaneously watch the murderer celebrate his deed and become something of a TV personality. Due to poor ratings, Big Brother is calling it a day in 2010 and audiences are going to want ‘fresh meat’: a new format and new victims to satisfy our voyeuristic demands. Maybe it should have considered following in Germany’s footsteps where their Big Brother production team hold the view that ten weeks in a house is simply not enough so built an entire village where contestants sign up for life: a real Truman Show (1998) philosophy where surveillance is intrusive from the cradle to the grave. If Big Brother is dying a death then where will television look towards in order to fill this void? How about Russia where endangering the public has real entertainment value? TV producers have teamed up with the police force on the streets of Moscow to produce Interception (USSR), which is a weekly, prime-time, hour-long show that challenges members of the public to steal a car and avoid being arrested for 45 minutes. If they are not tracked down by the police (who use live ammunition), they win the car they have successfully stolen. Probably not the best use of police resources or in the interest of public safety but it’s accepted as it’s all in the name of entertainment.

Exploit-a-child TV

Relationship busting TV

Perhaps the reward for contestants should be something more valuable than a car; how about an unborn child? Be My Baby (ABC News) follows a pregnant 16-year-old who puts her child up for adoption. Instead of documenting this event, ABC decided to turn it into a reality game show where families audition and compete against each other to win the ‘trophy’. Thirty two million viewers watched as she handed over her newly born child in one hand and signed the adoption papers in the other. The exploitation and devaluation of human life is a theme that not only keeps reoccurring but becomes more and more controversial with each show. Programme by programme, reality TV is testing the waters and straddling the line of decency. If you can win a child then why not a parent? Who’s Your Daddy (USA) took a long-lost father, put him amongst other actors and asked the contestant to guess who was their real father. Coined ‘the Daddy of all game shows’, this ‘guessyour-pa’ quiz show had ten series made though only one was ever aired. The actors go out of their way to provide fatherly advice and construct profound emotional moments but all in all it is the television equivalent of dangling a paternal carrot in front of an orphan’s face.

Perhaps we need more emotional turmoil and graphic violence in our shows? Cheaters (USA) sees TV producers hire private investigators to film unfaithful partners who are confronted and quickly put face to face with the person who has been cheated on. Naturally, much violence ensues and in one episode, the charismatic presenter Joey Greco, manages to get himself stabbed. Now there’s a way to guarantee ratings. This imploding of relationships on air is a tried and tested format. Fidelity Test (Brazil) sees suspicious partners set their lovers up in a ‘honey trap’. This trap films whether their partner will become intimate with someone when propositioned. Meanwhile, a live studio audience watches the bedroom antics on a big screen along with the heartbroken other half. Surely there are some real moral issues here; but seeing these relationships disintegrate before your very eyes is both disturbing and very ‘moreish’.

Bodyshock TV Reality TV’s fascination with the human body is an area where no stone is left unturned. It is a medieval instinct that draws in the crowds who want to see the gruesome, gory and down right wrong. It was somewhat of a mini hurdle when this year’s Big Brother had contestants experiencing real pain through the administering of electric shocks. Of course they had the option

english and media centre | December 2009 | MediaMagazine

Af te r

Before

Before After

Body makeover TV Another cause for concern is the ideology underlying some of these ‘real’ situations. Extreme Makeover: Home Edition (USA) will demolish a house to the ground, start from scratch and create a brand new house in its place. ‘Well that’s not controversial’ I hear you mumble. Maybe not; but how about applying the same techniques to a face? The Swan (USA) takes three ‘ugly ducklngs’ who undergo extensive plastic surgery and therapy to become a beautiful swan. These swans are then compared against each other and the best one goes through to the final where they parade their plastic parts in a desperate attempt for recognition and approval. The strange (or perhaps inevitable) thing though is that, post-surgery, they all look the same as each other and all unique beauty has diminished. Equally, I Want A Famous Face (MTV) takes real people and follows them as they go under the knife in order to look like their idols: cue the creation of the freaky Brad Pitt twins. These Frankenstein shows promote a seriously superficial message namely, if you are unhappy with yourself then get expensive surgery to sort you out. Accepting who you are is not an option as that would not make great TV. Instead, it’s more entertaining to see insecure people sliced and diced in order to turn them into the plasticwrapped versions of their former selves. 64 MediaMagazine | December 2009 | english and media centre

The future is Japanese The real possible future of reality television though lies in the Japanese entertainment industry. Japanese reality television has taken seedy exploitation to a new level where boundaries are pushed and acceptable television is questioned. With shows like Erotic Hypnosis which sees members of the audience strip and perform upon command, we can begin to understand the darker direction of this genre. Sky Television aired Being Miriam to something of a media maelstrom where male contestants competed for the chance to be Miriam’s boyfriend. Contestants were unaware that Miriam was still technically a man and post-broadcast, lawsuits were underway. Japan takes this one step further with Transexuals In Transition where gentlemen are filmed being intimate with a lady, only to find out she is in fact male. Perhaps it is a reflection of the vast differences between our cultures when considering the values underpinning such shows. Reality TV in Japan has moved from pranksterrelated fun to what we would regard as ritual humiliation and degradation. This is reflected in the most controversial of TV shows: The Virgin Show (Japan), a weekly 2 hour-long programme that begins with contestants guessing which

girl is a virgin. The show then follows the girl in extreme detail as she loses her virginity. Producers justify the show by claiming that it is a ‘documentary not extreme pornography’ but it is a show that stretches the boundaries of decency more than any other. Ironically, this demonstrates a loss of innocence in more ways than one, not just for the contestant but also for the reality genre itself. As the reality genre morphs into a shadow of its former self, it moves into previously unexplored areas to provide us with edgy and groundbreaking entertainment, the result of this being the exploitation of the insecure and the ridiculing of the ignorant. More and more institutions are able to sacrifice their responsibility of care for the sake of entertainment but as an audience apparently gripped by televisual controversy, do we care enough to switch off? Richard Smith is a Media teacher at Herne Bay High School in Kent.

The Kobal Collection for The Truman Show image; Image.net for Make Me a Swan

not to participate; but this is still a significant step in a scary direction. This obsession with the human body is taken to the extreme with Anatomy For Beginners and Autopsy: Life and Death (Channel 4). The human body is preserved then cut and dissected into its individual parts in the name of anatomy. If we are currently airing human bodies after death then is it only a matter of time before we are airing an actual death on live television? With taboos becoming more widely accepted, are we running out of shocking things to address?

Documentary in the 21st Century From the herring fishermen of the 1920s to today’s exploitation of South-East Asian tuna workers by the fast food industry: similar subjects, but worlds apart in presentation, viewpoint and audience. Modern documentary forms are frequently castigated for tabloidisation, dumbing down, and celebrity-led narratives. Carly Sandy analyses some recent examples to explore how ‘the creative treatment of actuality’ has adapted to the changing media landscape and to audiences often believed to be switched off from current affairs. 10 MediaMagazine | December 2009 | english and media centre

The documentary form has come a long way since the pioneering films of John Grierson in the 1930s. Grierson’s film-making evidenced a strong public service ethos, and had an emphasis on education and raising awareness, rather than entertainment values. It was Grierson who originally coined the term documentary describing it as ‘the creative treatment of actuality’. Early Grierson documentaries such as Drifters (1929), an account of a North Sea fishing fleet trawling for herrings, and Night Mail (1936) charting the Royal Mail’s delivery service from London to Glasgow seem a world away from Danny Dyer’s Deadliest Men, Ross Kemp on Pirates and Blood Sweat and Takeaways, but what similarities do they share? How have the core principles of documentary making evolved in an age of rating wars, channel proliferation and audience fragmentation? What issues do documentaries raise about the institutions that produce them and the audiences who consume them?

Critics often point to the dreaded ‘dumbing down’ debate when discussing recent documentaries, suggesting the documentary form has been tabloidised with a stronger emphasis on sensationalism and voyeurism in order to make them more palatable to mass audiences. This article aims to draw together an analysis of the modern documentary form whilst also looking at issues of audience and institution, in particular the rise of narrowcasting, as opposed to more traditional forms of broadcasting.

The rise of narrowcasting Narrowcasting refers to broadcasting that targets smaller, more tightly defined audiences such as 16-34-year-old men (Dave) or 8-12-yearold children (Nickelodeon). The ratings for some of these channels may be small in comparison to more traditional broadcasters such as ITV1 or BBC1 (QI on Dave attracting 0.61million viewers compared with ITV1’s Coronation

Street audience of 8.65 million). But ratings aside, what these channels offer advertisers (the lifeblood of commercial television) is their desired demographic on a plate. For example satellite channel Bravo targets the 16-34-yearold C2/D and E male demographic – a perfect arena for advertising razors, beer, mobile phones, sportswear, lads’ mags... In terms of narrowcasting and audiences, the ‘youth’ market, generously referred to as the 16-34 demographic, is seen by broadcasters as both the most desirable – and most elusive. Commercially the youth market is seen as the most desirable to advertisers because they have a high disposable income and are the earliest adopters of new technology (you are far more likely to have an iPhone than your parents). In terms of PSB (Public Service Broadcasting) channels such as BBC3, they are not trying to sell products but rather their whole brand to an audience who will one day be licence fee payers. In an effort to connect with this audience BBC3

has developed a very distinctive documentary style which they have designed with their young (16-34) demographic in mind.

The BBC3 approach Blood Sweat and Takeaways is the followup to the highly successful Blood Sweat and T Shirts series which attracted both popular and critical acclaim, securing a BAFTA nomination in 2008; sending a group of six young people to investigate the true cost of cheap clothing and the impact of globalisation on the developing world. Similarly, Takeaways follows six young Brits to South East Asia to live and work amongst families who work in the food industry. Again the emphasis is on issues of globalisation, exploitation and the human cost of mass food production. Borrowing from the hybrid documentary form of reality TV, the participants are clearly selected with contrasting backgrounds and attitudes because, like scripted drama,

documentary needs opposing characters, tension and a strong sense of narrative. Manos, a 20-year-old ‘fast food junkie’, establishes his credentials at the outset of the programme by declaring:

I don’t know how they produce it, where they produce it, I don’t care. Stacey is introduced as a ‘concerned consumer’ and Jess will ‘only eat meat in the form of a sausage or a burger’. Olu, Josh and Lauren complete the line up. The young Brits are soon stripped of their highly polished nails and sent to work in one of the leading tuna-producing factories for around 40p an hour. But the pressure of working in the factory soon proves too much and after just 10 minutes Lauren collapses, and Olu pushes Manos through a glass window pane. The dramatic exchanges between them owes as much to Big Brother as it does to traditional documentary modes of representation. The voiceover is a key documentary device english and media centre | December 2009 | MediaMagazine

I said some very silly things at the start when I said that economic exploitation was good for me ... but now I really wanna take that back after seeing all the effort and how hard they work ... it makes me look like an idiot. Like any documentary, Blood Sweat and Takeaways contains a point of view and a preferred reading; clearly this series is aiming 12 MediaMagazine | December 2009 | english and media centre

to raise awareness of economic exploitation amongst an audience not readily drawn to more ‘traditional’ forms of documentary. Instead Takeaways adopts a more informal approach, for example using a non-diegetic soundtrack featuring artists such as Lady Ga Ga and Elbow and featuring participants who are all under 25 and from a variety of ethnic and economic backgrounds. Takeaways, like the majority of BBC3’s factual programming, adopts an informal, upbeat mode of address, despite the fact that it deals with serious and sensitive issues. Similarly in Jess: My New Face, 17-year-old Jess Lees set out to investigate Western perceptions of beauty whilst also coping with her own facial disfigurement as a result of Apert Syndrome. Across the schedule, Jack: A Soldier’s Story approached the war in Afghanistan from the perspective of 23-year-old Lance Corporal Jack Mizon whose bravery on the frontline of a war zone was contrasted with his involvement in a pub brawl in the UK which almost earned him a custodial prison sentence. Note from the titles of these programmes the way in which they attempt to interweave personal narratives with wider, more political issues and in doing so offer a fresh approach to documentary-making for a generation of viewers often considered switched off by current affairs.

The commercial approach: celebrity While BBC3 has opted for an informal mode of address and young people to front its factual programmes, Bravo and Sky One have enlisted the help of celebrities to promote their most successful documentary strands. The Ross Kemp on… series for Sky One has been a banker programme for the channel since its launch in 2006. Ross Kemp on Gangs sees the former EastEnders’ ‘hardman’ head to areas affected by gang/gun crime and interview everybody from gang members to the (then) Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith. Like many contemporary documentaries, the series draws upon the ‘moral panic’ surrounding gun/knife crime which gives it a modern and relevant edge. Kemp’s voiceover frequently uses real-life cases to frame the narrative of each episode; in Liverpool, for example, he highlights the murder of 11-yearold Rhys Jones, a tragic casualty of a turf war between two neighbouring gangs. A montage of newspaper headlines, radio excerpts and tense non-diegetic music accompanies Kemp’s recounting of the poignant events leading up to the murder, which provides a platform for his investigation and subsequent interviews. Following the success of Gangs (which won a BAFTA for Best Factual series in 2007), Ross Kemp in Afghanistan saw Kemp joining front line troops on their mission against the Taliban, and

Ricochet TV for images from Blood, Sweat and Takeaways and Blood Sweat and T-Shirts; Image.net for stills from Ross Kemp on ….

used to direct audiences towards a preferred reading. In this case the informal, female voice provides statistics about the hourly wages of the tuna workers and their exploitation (factory workers process 600 tins of tuna per day, the factory sells them for £300 and pays the employee £3). Throughout the episode, parallels are drawn between the comfortable, affluent lives of the Brits and the lives of the tuna workers. For example, the voiceover explains that Josh, ‘although just 20’, already owns his own house. Jess later admits ‘all my family describe me as Paris Hilton’, and this is reinforced through scenes of Jess applying make-up in her bedroom. The mise-en-scène reveals a pair of red sparkly high heels and a bottle of Moet and Chandon champagne both shot in close-up, to signify her wealth and lifestyle. Predictably the trip and the conditions that they live and work in, forces the young Brits to re-think their attitudes to globalisation and cheap food. It’s a change epitomised by Manos’ piece to camera:

fulfilling fulfillin of the personal relationships and diversion aspects of Blumler and d Katz’s Katz Uses and Gratifications theory (1974). (19

Some key questions So Clearly documentaries, like every C oth genre, have developed to keep other pace with changing audience trends pac and this has involved ‘borrowing’ from fiction, particularly narrative techniques, fictio structures and characterisation, leading structu many to question q whether entertainment values are being be pursued over content. This is certainly one way w of looking at contemporary documentaries; documentarie but you may also want to consider the following: fo • Does a factual fact programme have to be formal and author authoritarian in order to be informative? • Does it have hav to be presented by a middleaged profes professor or ‘expert’ in order to have credibility? • Can any documentary do ever really provide us with an unb unbiased ‘truth’?

in 2009 Ross Kemp on Pirates investigated the problem of piracy in South East Asia and Africa. Kemp claims that:

I would argu argue no to all of the above. Furthermore, I would suggest the subject matter explored in th the documentaries I have discussed is both contemporary contemp and relevant to its audience. At their core they share a commitment to raise awareness of socially challenging issues (poverty, gang crime, globalisation) and openly seek to challenge opinions. Yes, there is ‘the creative treatment of actuality’ with a sharper edge than perhaps Grierson had envisaged, but he was

not a broadcaster struggling to compete for an audience amongst hundreds of channels. And let’s face it, who really wants to watch a documentary about a Royal Mail overnight delivery service? ... I’d settle for Ross Kemp every time. Carly Sandy teaches Media Studies at Palmers College, Essex.

References Broadcast magazine – 19/6/2009, source of all ratings and statistics cited in the article. Broadcast magazine – 30/11/2007 ‘Fighting for young male viewers’, discussion of Bravo. The Observer – 24/05/2009 ‘The Other Side of Ross Kemp’, interview http://www. broadcastnow.co.uk/news/multi-platform/ news/channel-report-has-nickelodeon-metits-match/1139193.article – discussion of Nickelodeon audience. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/ entertainment/7005061.stm – news item discussing the rebranding of UK G2 to ‘Dave’.

the BBC don’t commission me. But I’m lucky I do have somebody who listens [Sky]. And I hope it’s a populist take Popular is the key word here; in the fiercely contested world of multichannel ratings Kemp scores highly with Pirates attracting a 0.7 million audience in its well-established 9pm slot. These programmes also seem to hold considerable appeal to a young male demographic, (53% of this audience was male and 30% aged 16-34). Like the Ross Kemp on… series, Danny Dyer’s Deadliest Men is another attempt to draw on the star persona of an actor, also known for playing ‘hard men’. The appeal of Dyer to young working-class males is considerable. His ‘wide boy’ image and use of cockney rhyming slang are used as a unique selling point; his film career (The Football Factory, The Business, Adulthood) reinforces this secondary persona and as a result has made Dyer a lucrative brand. Dyer’s first programme The Real Football Factories was described by Bravo’s controller, Dave Clarke, as ‘a photofit ideal’ for the channel. More recently in the Deadliest Men series, Dyer lives with ‘dangerous’ men learning about their life and criminal pasts. Now in series two, the programme continues to be a ratings winner for Bravo with a strong emphasis on entertainment values and the english and media centre | December 2009 | MediaMagazine

What is Reality TV?

Cartoon ÂŠ Benrik Pitch

The English & Media Centre

Some Definitions Reality television is...

a genre of television programming that presents purportedly unscripted dramatic or humorous situations, documents actual events, and usually features ordinary people instead of professional actors. (Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_television) a catch-all category that includes a wide range of television programmes about real people. Sometimes called popular factual television, reality TV is located in border territories, between information and entertainment, documentary and drama. (Annette Hill, Reality TV, 2005) programming that is unscripted and follows actual ‘real life’ events as they unfold, usually involving members of the public or groups of celebrities. (http://www.skillset.org) the television genre where situations are created by the show’s producers, but the show itself is unscripted. Cameras capture the participants’ natural reactions and responses to the situations created, which are then edited as a programme or series. (Product Placement Glossary, iTVX.com)

The English & Media Centre

The Infotainment Show

The oldest variation: classic shows that combine public information messages to the public on crime, health, etc with real life experts and examples, and reconstructions of events or issues. Usually use on-camera presenter, celeb or specialist for added authority.

999: tips to the public about how to save lives, alongside reconstructions of crises where people are saved by the emergency services. Click for 999

Crimewatch: reconstructions of crimes with particular instructional message to the public, to get involved and try to support police in reporting and solving crime.

The English & Media Centre

The Docusoap a hybrid of observational documentary and soap opera

Vets in Practice: narratives around vets, suffering pets, and their owners and the drama, highs and lows of the daily life of a veterinary practice.

Traffic Cops: motorway stories, seen from the point of view of the daily work of traffic police. Click for Traffic Cops

The Family: 28-camera set-up records the minutiae of everyday family life over 8 months. Massively edited into a highly constructed narrative. Series 1 observational with voiceover, focusing on small moments of family conflict set entirely within the home; Series 2 incorporates talking heads, interview and more continuing story strands, with external footage. Click for The Family (clip 1); Click for The Family (clip 2).

Added value for Broadcasters

after initial set-up, relatively cheap to produce no costs for screenwriters, cast/talent, etc ongoing ready-made drama, with inbuilt storylines information content; opportunities for spin-off shows, viewer interaction, debate.

The English & Media Centre

The Lifestyle Programme

Remodelling of homes, gardens, bodies etc for ‘ordinary’ people, e.g: Bargain Hunt, Cash in the Attic, 60-minute Makeover. Features include:   observational (usually) with expert gurus and a ‘journey’   a narrative consisting of a problem; a solution process; a final resolution   often, but not always, a final ‘transformation’ moment, or a surprise.

You Are What You Eat or Freaky Eaters, where experts try to make a life-changing difference for real people by encouraging us to eat healthier types of food, or overcome problems or fears: Click for Freaky Eaters

Gok’s Fashion Fix, Ten Years Younger, What Not to Wear where real people with problems of body image, style or confidence are exposed onscreen, remodelled by experts, re-invented as better people, and ‘premiered’ to the world.

Added value for the Broadcasters

websites with merchandising and marketing opportunities (recruits ads) opportunities for spin-off shows, return visits to the participants, etc. feel-good programming, sometimes with educational input. The English & Media Centre

The Social Experiment Show

A ‘people experiment’ where a situation is set up and observed, e.g. Wife Swap – conflicting class values and life-styles within the home – exploring parenting, social relationships, domestic organisation, gender roles, work, etc. Click for Wife Swap

Blood Sweat and T-shirts – assumptions of affluent Western teens challenged through experience of harsh lives of other cultures. Click for Blood Sweat & T-Shirts

Secret Millionaire – a social experiment with positive outcomes. Click for Secret Millionaire

The Choir – encouraging participation; teaching boys to enjoy singing; uniting divided communities; mending ‘Broken Britain’ through song.

Added value for the Broadcasters

usually a worthwhile socially useful mission – good for the reputation of the producers/channel can be useful in promoting campaigns, charities, raising awareness of social issues can change the way people think and behave towards each other. The English & Media Centre

The Reality Talent Show

Competition – auditions, tension, conflict, skills development A format – recognisable, familiar, same but different Talent (or not) – entertainment and diversion – it’s fun! Celebrity judges, real-life personal stories or journeys Inclusiveness – anyone can enter A long-term process building to a mega-event A vote and a winner – resolution! (e.g. The X Factor, Britain’s Got Talent).

Added value for the Broadcasters

long-running – occupies many hours of air-time, and builds to climax endlessly recyclable format, which can be copyrighted huge audiences, national profile, can generate massive tabloid promotion can use celebrity judges already associated with the broadcaster’s ‘brand’ generates a massive income for the channel via:   sponsorship from advertisers   revenue from voting process. The English & Media Centre

The Reality Game Show

Essentially a popularity contest set in a highly constructed experimental situation under 24-hour surveillance. Includes elements of many other reality genres, e.g.:

tasks and challenges – create tension and entertainment personal confession – as in the Diary Room personalities selected for their ‘conflict potential’: heroes and villains suspense – evictions and a final resolution controversy – opportunities for discussion, water-cooler moments, press coverage e.g. Big Brother, I’m A Celebrity…

The English & Media Centre

Added value for the Broadcasters long-running – occupies many hours of air-time, and builds to climax   endlessly recyclable format, which can be copyrighted and franchised globally   huge audiences, national profile, can generate massive tabloid promotion   generates a massive income for the channel via:

sponsorship from advertisers   revenue from voting process.

The English & Media Centre

But …  Where Would You Fit Shows Like These?

Dating in the Dark: singletons meet, live together and date completely in the dark. Click for Dating in the Dark (Clip 1); Click for Dating in the Dark (Living)

The Missing Link: 8 humans meet 8 apes in the Ugandan jungle. Click for ‘Missing Link’ article

Someone’s Gotta Go: Workers at a failing recession-hit company decide who gets a pay rise, a pay cut, or the sack. Click for Somone’s Gotta Go link (Reuters)

Stars of Science: 16 contestants from across the Arab world develop new scientific innovations under constant surveillance, voted for by a jury. Click for Stars of Science article

The English & Media Centre

A Reality TV Time-Line blasts from the past

The English & Media Centre

Reality Television is...

A response to changes in technology and economic crisis in the world of broadcasting:

the arrival of TV for mass audiences in the US – and then the UK lots of new programmes needed – and shows which involve the audience new lightweight cameras create new types of documentary: the ‘real people on TV’ show is born daytime TV launches in the UK – more programmes needed to fill the schedules! strikes and crises in the broadcasting industry lead to less drama, more ‘real people’ TV, from talk shows to docusoaps the digital revolution begins! new satellite, cable and digital channels arrive! the internet.

The English & Media Centre

1940s-1950s The early days

The arrival of TV for mass audiences in the US leads the way. Lots of new programmes needed – and shows which involve the audience, e.g.:

1948 – Candid Camera: the first ‘prank’ show Beat the Clock, Truth or Consequences: stunts and wacky tasks undertaken by ‘real people’ 1948 – the first US TV talent shows with audience voting – precursors of The X Factor etc 1950 – You Asked For It: hosted by Art Baker (ran till 1959, later revived): viewers sent in postcards describing a stunt that they wanted to see on television, e.g. the re-enactment of William Tell shooting an apple off his son’s head. Live broadcast, so risky! Precursor of Jim’ll Fix It? 1954 – Miss America Pageant televised – winner becomes a celeb Radio series Nightwatch recorded daily activities of California Police dept – paving the way for reality TV.

The English & Media Centre

1960s-1970s Getting Real

New lightweight cameras create new types of documentary: the ‘real people on TV’ show is born

1964 – Seven Up (Michael Apted, Granada TV): interviews with 12 ‘ordinary’ 7year-olds from a cross-section of society on their reactions to everyday life, with a new film of same individuals every 7 years (e.g. 21 Up). The ‘ordinary people’ become celebrities (often reluctantly). Click for 7-Up link

1973 – An American Family (PBS): 12-hour documentary series (edited from 300+ hours of footage) following a Californian family’s divorce. Gave rise to…

1974 – The Family (Paul Watson, BBC): fly-on-the-wall observational documentary following the working-class Wilkins family from Reading. The ‘heroine’, matriarch Margaret Wilkins, later seen as the first ‘reality’ star. Director Paul Watson is later appalled that his shows should be seen as the original docusoaps. The family continues to be a recurrent source of reality interest.

The English & Media Centre

1980s-1990s From Talk Show to Docusoap

Daytime TV launches in the UK – more programmes!

Strikes and crises in the broadcasting industry mean drama, more ‘real people’ TV, from talk shows based on the format of 1940s radio talk shows to docusoaps. The pioneer was The Oprah Winfrey Show, first transmitted 1986.

1992 – Sylvania Waters (Paul Watson, ABC): Australian docusoap. Tracking daily lives of nouveau riche family in affluent Sydney suburb, starring loud matriarch Noeline Donaher. Accused of anti-Australian bias and manipulation.

1992 – The Real World (MTV): America’s longest-running reality show. Remind you of anything? This is the true story... of seven strangers... picked to live in a house...work together and have their lives taped... to find out what happens... when people stop being polite... and start getting real...

1993 – The Living Soap (BBC): 6 students shared a house in Manchester, under constant surveillance. Aired weekly, so audience response distorted the ‘authenticity’ of the experience. Highly controversial, dropped after 5 months.

The English & Media Centre

1990s The Docusoap Gets a Makeover

The digital revolution begins! New satellite, cable and digital channels arrive!

More ‘real’ content needed. Internet expands the possibilities of interactivity, crossplatform promotion to ‘niche’ audiences, and opportunities to vote and comment.

1996 – Airport (BBC2): fly-on-wall docusoap based in Heathrow Airport, following lives of passengers and staff, making stars out of several. Ran to 10 series.

1996 – Changing Rooms: birth of lifestyle/makeover subgenre. Presenters are now national treasures and the programmes franchised and a global property.

1997 – Driving School (BBC1): made Maureen Rees, serial test-failer, a celeb.

1998 – World’s Wildest Police Videos: real police videos from across the world. Massively popular worldwide.

1999 – The 1900 House (C4): daily family life in historical context; Popstars launched in New Zealand – precursor of the Idol format.

The English & Media Centre

New Millennium, New Technologies, & Made-for-TV Talent Formats â&#x20AC;Ż

1997: John de Mol Produkties develops Big Brother in the Netherlands for Endemol. First UK tx 2000. Now franchised to 70 countries worldwide. The rest is history.

The English & Media Centre

doing reality tv

teachers’ guide unit 2 key media concepts U

2:1

Contents Overview

2.3

Media Language a. Setting the Scene b. Analysing Titles c. Editing Reality d. Editing a Narrative

2.4 2.4 2.7 2.9 2.10

Representation and Reality TV

2.12

Reality TV Audiences and Broadcasting Industry

2.13

Reality TV and Producers, Industry and Institution a. Freaky Eaters – a Case Study b. Independent Small Group Research

2.15 2.15 2.16

Please note: links, programme titles, newspaper articles in blue text are all ‘live’. When connected to the internet, you can access these pages directly by clicking on the link in the PDF.

2:2

Doing Reality TV ± DQ (QJOLVK 0HGLD &HQWUH 2QOLQH 5HVRXUFH

Overview This section aims to support your study of reality TV with a range of short introductory activities and extracts organised around the key Media concepts of language, representation, audience, and institution/industry. You may already have selected your own preferred shows, and prepared recorded extracts for close analysis. However, if not, each of the following activities is accompanied by a series of suggestion and YouTube links which will take you straight to a selection of examples we have found useful. Further clips may also be found on the right-hand column of each YouTube page.

Using YouTube clips To screen the clips referenced in this section, you will access to be connected to the internet. We strongly recommend trialling the clips before use in order to: – be aware of any content which may raise issues in your classroom – know where to pause the Clip – while many are very short, others are longer and you may wish to show a section only, replay a particular segment, or scroll forward. If you are using YouTube clips directly from our links, you will have to negotiate the problem of: – embedded advertising. Should this raise issues in your school, it’s worth pointing out that analysis of sponsorship idents and embedded ads, which are usually highly targeted, and their thematic connection to the content of the clips, is an integral part of the Media curriculum, and particularly useful in the study of reality TV produced for commercial broadcasters. Indeed, the AQA guidance for the Unit 1 controlled test examination specifically refers to the comparison between BBC and commercial shows – inappropriate content, language or representations. In selecting our own choice of clips, we have tried to avoid the use of explicit images of sexuality, body parts, offensive or discriminatory language etc. However, we cannot bypass issues such as verbal abuse, distressing or anti-social behaviour and apparent stereotypes which are frequently cited in the debates about the reality genre, and indeed some clips have been chosen specifically to confront these issues.

Personalising and Editing YouTube clips To download your YouTube clips: – open two tabs on your browser: one to access YouTube, the other for http://www.keepvid.com – find your YouTube clip, and copy its URL. – paste the URL into the keepvid bar, and click on download. – save as an MP4 file. You should then be able to edit the MP4 file using Final Cut or another editing program. This will allow you to edit out the sponsorship or advertising content, trim the clip to your desired length, create a montage of different clips, etc

Doing Reality TV ± DQ (QJOLVK 0HGLD &HQWUH 2QOLQH 5HVRXUFH

Media Language These activities use core Media Studies strategies for analysis to reinforce students’ skills of close reading. Further aspects of media language are addressed in the PowerPoints on audiences and representation.

A. Setting the Scene: Starting with the Voiceover Overview Many reality shows announce their premise and structure through a pre-title sequence voiceover narration; it’s often useful to start close analysis ‘blind’, with an investigation of an un-named transcript of the opening voiceover. It is particularly effective (but not essential) if students are not told in advance what they’re going to be studying. The aim of this exercise is to focus attention on the significance of aural and verbal aspects of narration – aspects which are often neglected in Media Studies in favour of the more engaging and difficult demands of visual analysis. The same process can be undertaken with any opening of your choice, provided the voiceover is sufficiently elliptical.

Resources – Internet access for screening the pre-title sequence of Young, Dumb, and Living Off Mum. – Student Resource 2a: Transcript of the mystery voiceover – Student Resource 2b: Illustrating the mystery voiceover – Student Resource 2c: Grid – Student Resource 2d: Recruitment advert for Young, Dumb and Living Off Mum – A brief summary of the sequence (page 2:6).

Task 1. Hand out, or screen on the IWB a transcript of the voiceover (Student Resource 2a), without saying where it comes from. Ask students to read it in pairs, and then to annotate the text to show: – the oppositions constructed between parents and children – the linguistic techniques used to engage the reader, e.g. pairing of verbs and adjectives, use of direct address, informal language, rhetorical questions, etc. – the likely source of the text – the likely audience/s for the text 2. Many students will predict that this is a spoken text, and some may identify it accurately as a reality TV intro. Explain it is the opening of a reality show, and ask them, in pairs, to use Student Resource 2b to note down or sketch the types of images or motifs they think might accompany the spoken words. 3. If possible, play the full pre-title sequence for Young, Dumb and Living Off Mum with sound only (by muting the projected images) up to the end of the title sequence itself. Ask students to talk about the following, based on soundtrack alone: – What does the tone of voice of the narrator add to the meaning of the words you’ve analysed? – What do the soundbite quotes of parents and teenagers add? – What are your first impressions of the teenagers? – What are your first impressions of the parents? – Whose ‘side’ does the sequence seem to be on? 4. Screen the sequence again, with vision. Students can now compare the full Clip with their own predictions. They may have predicted the style and broad content of the sequence, but will probably not have anticipated the number of inserts. You could: – try an ‘instant recall’ quiz (see page 2:9) to identify how closely they have observed the detail of the sequence – ask for three phrases spoken by teenagers, which most stood out for them – ask for three phrases from the parents – summarise how they think the show will develop, using examples from the sequence. 2:4

Doing Reality TV ± DQ (QJOLVK 0HGLD &HQWUH 2QOLQH 5HVRXUFH

5. Screen the sequence for a third time. Ask small groups to analyse and report back on a particular aspect of the sequence: – camerawork – editing – the different locations shown in the sequence – representations of the teenagers – the representations of parents. Compiling a class grid on Student Resource 2c might help students to focus their observations more closely on specific textual references and to justify or undermine their first impressions of the sequence. It may also serve as a useful aide-memoire of the sorts of attention to detail they may need to use in an examination task. 6. Recruiting the players. Finally, show the text of the Young, Dumb, and Living Off Mum recruitment ad, recently posted on the website of the show’s production company, Monkey Kingdom. Students can discuss what the ad suggests about: – the producers’ intentions for the show – the potential audience for the show – what’s in it for the participants on the show – how the rest of the show is likely to represent young people 7. Follow-up: the set-up Screen the next sequence of the programme which describes the set-up of the show: – the problem or enigma: will the teens learn to behave like adults? – the ‘journey’ the teens will take towards living independently – the challenges they will face – cohabitation, physical survival and self-management, the world of work, dealing with the public, etc – the rules of the game by which the teens will be eliminated week by week according to their achievements – the role of the judges – in this case their parents, who will evaluate their progress – and/or audience, who will act as ‘virtual’ moral judges of their behaviour. The set-up process effectively shapes the narrative structure of many reality shows. It could be used to compare a range of different examples using a grid like the one below: Programme

Participants

Problem

Challenges

Rules/format

Judges or audience

Appeals to audience

8. If you are working with older students, the opening sequence of a similar show, Brat Camp (Series 3 Episode 1) produced for Channel 4, might offer a useful comparison – but please preview first as the sequence uses strong language and dangerous behaviour.

Doing Reality TV ± DQ (QJOLVK 0HGLD &HQWUH 2QOLQH 5HVRXUFH

About the Young Dumb and Living Off Mum Sequence This was the opening of the first episode of a 6 x 55minute series first screened on BBC3 on Sunday evenings at 9pm summer 2009. NB: this sequence includes the occasional use of strong bad language, usually bleeped. – The show opens with a visual montage comprising footage of street scenes, adults at work and domestic chores, soundbites from concerned parents, and extracts from the programme itself, predominantly of young people behaving more or less badly in a variety of domestic, workplace and leisure situations. – The montage is held together with a highly rhetorical and stylised voiceover, delivered informally in a clearly mannered and cynical tone by a young male voice (in fact, spoken by Robert Webb of Peep Show fame). – The voiceover is punctuated by anxious and despairing comments from parents and other adults, and obstreperous remarks from the teenagers (deliberately not transcribed in the student worksheet). – The sequence lasts for 2 minute 36 seconds to the end of the titles. – The first 16 seconds includes 14 edit points. – The sequence as a whole includes 89 different edits. – Visual effects include the use of image-degrading transitions, flash-bulb effects (at least 16 times), and constant camera movement, including whip pans, time-lapse effects, slow-motion, slow zooms into extreme close-ups, etc. – The soundtrack opens with a conventionally orchestrated ‘Rule Britannia’, which grinds to a halt and transmutes into the Who’s ‘My Generation’, followed by frantic percussion and brass funk. – The title graphics are extremely brief, featuring a ‘flying’ range of kitsch photo-frames of the teens over a graphic design of shoes, and 70s-style orange lettering emphasising the ‘Mum’ in the title. – The post-title sequence introduces each of the eight teenagers in turn, and sets out the narrative structure, format and rules of the show. – The 8 young people featured in the intro appear to be ethnically and regionally diverse, and cover a wide range of ages (the oldest is 25) and family types. Parents include a single dad and a grandmother. Economically, they all appear to be at the more affluent end of the spectrum. Three of the four girls are blondes; the most obnoxious behaviour is arguably shown from boys.

2:6

Doing Reality TV ± DQ (QJOLVK 0HGLD &HQWUH 2QOLQH 5HVRXUFH

B. Analysing Titles and/or Opening Sequences Overview As the ‘portal’ to the show itself, a title sequence is key in representing the format, personality and iconography of the programme – and the storyboarding of an original title sequence may also feature as one of the production tasks in the external examination. Most series open with a pre-title narrative hook, leading into relatively brief title captions, as in the example above. However, longer-running series, particularly information shows and those with a competitive game-show element, are more symbolic and expensively produced. Try starting with an old favourite in its earliest incarnation, which students will have been too young to see first time around.

Resources – Internet access for screening the title sequences from Big Brother

1. Big Brother: the Original Reality Game Show • Play the title sequence of Big Brother series 1 straight through and ask students to recall as many images as they can from this 14-second sequence. • Now play the slowed down version, to focus more clearly on the significance of the images. Ask students to discuss: – what each specific image suggests about the themes of the show – the references to technology in the sequence, and what they tell the audience about the ‘mission’ of the show.

2. Titles Over Time • Screen the titles from series 5 and series 10. • Discuss what sorts of changes students notice in the style and imagery of these two more recent series of Big Brother. Which elements have remained, what has been lost, which new motifs have been added, and why? You might want to prompt students to consider: – the evolution and global success of the show over the last 10 years – developments in post-production and editing technology

3. Titles Worldwide You may also want to consider what happens to a formatted show when it becomes a global franchise, and the ways the programme and its title sequence may reflect the cultural values and particular ethos of its host countries. • Screen the first few sequences from this compilation of US Big Brother series 1-8 (they are relatively similar to each other). • Discuss the ways in which they differ from the UK titles, drawing attention to: – what is shown of the house, mise-en-scène, technology – use of captions and other graphic devices – the focus of US sequences on named house members, and the way the participants are framed – impact of the music and the atmosphere it creates. • Speculate what these differences might suggest about the difference between the UK and US versions of the show. • Finally, screen the sequences from Germany, Poland and Finland, or any other non-English-speaking country you can find on YouTube. Discuss which motifs and elements of the original UK sequence they can spot in each one, and the way graphics, effects, and particularly music have been used to construct a particular emotion or atmosphere. You might want to revisit these sequences later on in discussing the development of reality franchises.

Doing Reality TV ± DQ (QJOLVK 0HGLD &HQWUH 2QOLQH 5HVRXUFH

4. Comparing Titles and/or Openings from Different Reality Sub-genres If you have not already created your own compilation, the following titles offer a fair spread of sub-genres and hybrid variations. – Social experiment show: Wife Swap (C4) – Youth social experiment show: Brat Camp (C4) – Infotainment show: Bargain Hunt (BBC2) – Lifestyle and wellbeing show: You Are What You Eat (C4) – Celebrity talent show: Dancing On Ice (ITV) – Social observation show: The Family (C4) – Brilliant parody/spoof of celebrity/talent/game show/franchised global experience: Peter Kay’s Britain’s Got the Pop Factor and Possibly a New Celebrity Jesus Christ Soapstar Superstar Strictly on Ice

2:8

Doing Reality TV ± DQ (QJOLVK 0HGLD &HQWUH 2QOLQH 5HVRXUFH

C. Editing Reality Overview The editing process is one of the most fundamental aspects of the ways in which all factual, documentary and reality programmes construct narrative and point of view, and is a particularly useful way into dispelling any lingering illusions students may have about the ‘truth’ of reality TV. However, students often find it quite hard to talk about the process of editing, beyond its pace, or lack thereof. The following brief activities can be slotted in around clips of your choice to explore exactly how and why. NB: Please preview the Screenwipe Clip before using in the classroom as it contains strong language, and you may wish to stop before the last few seconds of the Clip.

Resources – Internet access.

1. An ‘Instant Recall’ Quiz • After first viewing any reality sequence, use the following questions to test close observation and draw attention to the structure and complexity of the extract. – What was the first sentence of the voiceover? (Sometimes worth asking when there is actually no voiceover!) – What type of voiceover is it (male/female, formal/colloquial, objective/point-of-view, serious/humorous)? – List (and name if appropriate) the people shown in the sequence. – How many different locations did you notice? – How many cuts did it include? – What different effects and transitions did you notice? – Describe the ‘story’ of the sequence in 10 words or less.

2. Technical Events Test: Spot the Edits One of the staple activities of the Media classroom, this involves screening a short sequence from a reality show of your choice, and asking students to bang the desk every time they spot an edit point (a change of shot, visual transition such as a mix, wipe or other visual effect, caption, time-lapse, etc). Noisy but effective, this would work particularly well with the Young, Dumb and Living Off Mum opening sequence described earlier, but is also a useful way of drawing attention to the following techniques, requiring at least two cameras, used to construct any reality extract: – dialogue represented as shot-reverse-shot – cutting on action – parallel editing – the use of cutaway shots to disguise edit points and condense dialogue (used continually in shows like Big Brother) – action occurring simultaneously in different parts of a location

3. Watch Charlie Brooker Expose Reality Editing Techniques • Screen Charlie Brooker’s scurrilous Screenwipe analysis of the impact of reality TV editing, based on a specially constructed pastiche of Big Brother, and featuring a professional BB ex-contestant. The Clip should require no further explanation. For a broad overview of the role of editing in structuring and shaping reality shows, the following webpage, which refers mainly to US shows, might be useful: http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/reality-tv4.htm

Doing Reality TV ± DQ (QJOLVK 0HGLD &HQWUH 2QOLQH 5HVRXUFH

D. Editing a Narrative: from Clip to Episode to Series The activities above explore the ways editing constructs meaning within short reality clips; such sequences of reality shows can also be used to introduce or remind students of the importance of narrative in factual programming, and the structural role of editing in this process. Students may have already acquired a broad understanding of narrative structure through previous work, or in English; at the very least they will be aware of the basic story-telling rules of ‘beginning, middle and ending’ in fiction. They may be less familiar with the idea of narrative as an essential ingredient of non-fiction; and because of its highly constructed form, reality TV offers a particularly good opportunity to introduce conventional ideas about equilibrium, disruption and resolution – which can be applied to most broadcast programming, both fictional and factual. While students at GCSE level do not need to be able to spout narrative theory, let alone name theorists, it will be useful to remember this structure when they come to develop ideas for their own show for the Controlled Assessment exam. Like news broadcasts, reality shows tell stories, with ‘principal and minor actors, connected sequence, heroes and villains, beginning, middle and end, signalling of dramatic turns, a reliance on familiar plots’ (McQuail 1987, p. 206). Like most moving image genres, Todorov’s well-worn, but still useful outline of narrative structure can be applied to the basic shape of almost any reality show in terms of: – a state of equilibrium – the set-up and premise of the show – its disruption – through constructed tasks, conflict between participants, the acquisition of new information, obstacles or interventions, depending on the sub-genre of the show – an eventual resolution, or return to, an alternative state of equilibrium – a new status for one or more participants, a solution to the problem, a new and better life, etc. This three-part structure can operate at three levels: – within a single Clip, as in the exercises above – across a given episode of a reality show – across a whole series, where the set-up is ongoing, as in I’m a Celebrity, The Apprentice, or Big Brother.

Resources A simple chart format could be used to look at the narrative arcs of entire series. You could use the example on page 2.11 as a model for the shows you are studying with your class. Student Resource 2e is a variation on this process, and might help students to compare the ways different reality sub-genres construct narrative/s through editing within a single episode. Here the top row has been completed to map the structure of a specific episode of Celebrity Big Brother 2010; the remaining spaces on the chart could be used to map examples of other current shows

2:10

Doing Reality TV ± DQ (QJOLVK 0HGLD &HQWUH 2QOLQH 5HVRXUFH

The set-up

Equilibrium

Disruptions

Resolution

The Family (Observational docu-soap)

The everyday life of an Asian extended family is recorded 24/7 over 8 months, covering major life crises.

The family’s daily life and relationships, observed in detail.

Build-up of important rites of passage or lifeevents, including illness, family estrangement, a traumatic birth and a wedding.

A grand finale covering the homecoming of the new baby and the happy wedding celebration. Some loose ends remain.

Blood Sweat and T-shirts (Social experiment/ infotainment)

A group of streetwise Western teens explore the exploitation behind the fashion industry in India.

The start of the journey – the teens’ arrogant and materialistic attitudes explored at home.

Living and working in alongside the ‘real’ workers; experience of extreme poverty, unsafe working practices, physical discomfort, social interaction with different values and beliefs.

The teens reflect on what they have learned, and the ways their attitudes to fashion, work, exploitation and other cultures has changed.

Strictly Come Dancing

Celebs without formal dance skills are taught by professionals, judged by experts and the audience, and compete to win.

Lots of minor celebs are introduced, partnered with a professional dancer, and given the opportunity to impress audience and judges.

Weekly challenges of learning new complex routines, exposing insecurities and failure, suffering knock-backs, responding to audience reactions etc. Contestants voted off one by one.

A winner!

(Celeb talent show)

The parental and supportive role of the hosts is set up, as are the conventions of the competition.

Doing Reality TV ± DQ (QJOLVK 0HGLD &HQWUH 2QOLQH 5HVRXUFH

2:11

Representation and Reality TV Overview There are various pitfalls to avoid in the discussion of Representation in reality programming – not least the misleading nature of the title of the genre itself. However savvy students may be, discussions of representation inevitably invoke conflicting ideas about what is ’real’, what ‘feels’ real, and the relationship between the apparent authenticity of skilfully edited footage which constructs the illusion of ‘reality’ and the actual events represented on screen. In addition, the wide spectrum of the reality show genre (as discussed in Unit 1) spans everything from the apparent neutrality of ‘fly-on-the-wall’ observational programming to the far more obviously constructed and formatted nature of game and talent shows, and each sub-genre or variation constructs its own highly conventionalised version of ‘reality’. As always, please preview and check links before use.

Resources – Internet access. – EMC_RealityTV_Unit2_Reps.ppt: this simple presentation summarises some of the key issues around the broad concept of Representation, using a range of examples from the reality genre. These can be customised with your own examples, links to your choice of clips, etc. – Handout of EMC_RealityTV_Unit2_Reps.ppt (also available as a PDF): as several Slides in the presentation incorporate viewing or analytic activities, you may wish to print these out for students, whilst screening full colour examples of web pages. Slide 7 is an annotated model of Slide 6, the BBC Apprentice micro-site. – Young, Dumb and Living with Mum: this Clip, analysed in Media Language could be compared with the Clip from Brat Camp. – MediaMagazine 30: A Tale of Two Real Women. Compares the construction of Jade Goody and Susan Boyle. This section touches briefly on the role of celebrity, as a model for investigating the extensive material available from the both celeb mags and extended debates in the so-called broadsheets.

Using the PowerPoint Presentation Revision points: A number of the Slides in this presentation (2, 14, 19, 20) are intended to summarise or recap work you may already have done on representation – they should not be used on their own. Slides 7-13 incorporate opportunities to practice some of the skills students may need to use in the Controlled Assessment exam – analysis of the design and layout of webpages, the techniques and conventions used to construct meaning, navigation to further interactive elements and other products related to the shows, etc. These should also offer opportunities to compare the techniques different broadcasters use to represent and brand themselves. Slides 9-13 show the differences between BBC and commercial approaches to two particular sub-genres – the social experiment show and the reality talent show, and could be annotated in class to reveal their differing emphases. Slides 15-16 offer a starting point for more detailed work on the construction of celebrity via reality TV, focusing on Jade Goody. These images are merely an aide-memoire, chosen to summarise the variety of ways in which she was initially represented by, but later worked with, learned to exploit, and finally embraced, the popular media.

From Real People to Reality Stars A brief practical activity could be constructed around students’ own research into other similar or contrasting ‘real people’ who became reality ‘stars’ – such as Chantelle Houghton (Celebrity Big Brother), Ben Fogle (Castaway, Extreme Dreams, etc), Susan Boyle (Britain’s Got Talent), Leona Lewis (The X Factor), Ruth Badger (The Apprentice), Will Young, Cheryl Cole, Kym Marsh ... plenty of well-documented media coverage here. To avoid uncritical fan-worship students could be invited to – construct a visual representation or graph of the star’s career path in annotated montage or poster form – create a PowerPoint presentation comparing two ‘stars’ with contrasting career patterns, from contrasting shows, or across different publications with different editorial values – evaluate a reality star in terms of the products, endorsements or news stories with which their images are associated. 2:12

Doing Reality TV ± DQ (QJOLVK 0HGLD &HQWUH 2QOLQH 5HVRXUFH

Reality TV Audiences and the Broadcasting Industry Overview You may have already covered a range of issues around audience and have discussed potential audiences for different reality shows. The PowerPoint presentation on reality TV and audiences summarises some of the main questions to explore with students.

Resources – Internet access – Radio Times or other TV listings magazine – Student Resource 2f: Viewing Figures (Top 10 Entertainment Programmes 2009) – EMC_RealityTV_Unit2_Audience.ppt – Learning and Skills Council Report on Kids Seeking Reality TV Fame – MediaMagzine: ‘Extreme Reality’

Who watches what? (Slides 4-8) While it’s easy to get hold of overnight or weekly ratings for particular programmes, acquiring an analytical breakdown of viewing figures for particular shows is often tricky. The website Digital Spy summarises some of the key viewing trends in a particular week, and can be a useful measure of the success of particular reality shows. The two viewer profile charts in Slide 4 give a snapshot of the broad demographics of the main commercial channels. Information about the lifestyles and ‘attitude’ of the target audiences for the different BBC channels is also particularly useful as a way of exploring the ways broadcasters represent themselves, and the particular audiences they think they appeal to (Slides 5-8).

1. Which Channels Broadcast What? A 20-minute Research Task Using a copy of the Radio Times or other TV listings magazine, groups of students can focus on a particular broadcaster, ranging frorn terrestrial and Freeview channels, to pay-for digital entertainment channels such as Living. They can: – list the examples of reality shows broadcast over a single week, and comment on their content – tot up the number of hours devoted to reality – explore the ways these programmes are scheduled – time of day, days of week, frequency of broadcasts, incidence of repeats, and so on. They can then relate their findings to the ‘personality’ and core audience for their channel and begin to speculate about the types of audience demographic involved.

2. Comparing BBC (Public Service Broadcasting) Reality shows with Commercial Shows The research activity above should provide evidence of some of the differences between BBC and commercial shows, which students may need to address in their Controlled Assessment exam. Annette Hill suggests that BBC shows are more likely to provide information-rich, observational shows closer to the documentary end of the reality spectrum, while commercial shows must deliver audiences to advertisers, and therefore rely more heavily on entertainment and heavily constructed formats with a greater focus on celebrity, financial reward, and opportunities for revenue generation. You might want to screen Clip 4: BBC Reality vs Commercial Reality shows at this point.

Predicting the Audience from the Advertising As a homework task, students can be asked to select a commercial reality show to view at home. Their task is to list the advertising around and within the show, from sponsorship idents through to commercial breaks and programme trails at the end of the show. The listed products should give a broad sense of who the broadcasters think their audiences are, and who the advertisers think they are talking to. Sponsorship idents can be analysed in much the same way.

Doing Reality TV ± DQ (QJOLVK 0HGLD &HQWUH 2QOLQH 5HVRXUFH

How do Audiences Watch Reality TV? (Slides 9-15) EMC_RealityTV_Unit2_Audience.ppt provides an aide-memoire for key debates around theories of the audience. Slide 11 is a 2006 Press release issued by the Learning and Skills Council, based on a research survey conducted into young people’s aspirations. It is included in the presentation as an example of the somewhat selective and ‘massaged’ research evidence often invoked to support the argument that reality TV impacts negatively on audiences (the passive audiences and effects theories). The full document includes a long list of the various Big Brother contestants still in the public eye, and those who are no longer famous, together with an analysis of the survey respondents. You may wish to discuss the full report with students, to explore ways in which such research can be skewed to represent particular interests – in this case, government initiatives to encourage young people to stay longer in education.

What Audiences do with Reality TV – an Anecdotal Research Task The aim of Slides 9-15 is to offer very basic introductions to some highly simplified theoretical approaches to the study of audiences. This anecdotal research task will both give some sense of the ways viewers talk and think about their reality TV experiences and help students appreciate the role such theories play in studies of the media. As a homework task, students explore the appeals of reality TV to different audience needs and interests. They question three or four viewers of different age-groups about a favourite reality show, asking them to discuss it in relation to the ‘Four needs’ outlined in Slide 13. Annette Hill’s discussion of reality TV audiences (Clip 6) would be useful in this context.

Targeting the Audience (Slide 16) In groups, students could focus on investigating the ways a show of their choice uses the bullet-point strategies listed on this Slide. In particular, it would be useful preparation for a practical Controlled Assessment task to look at digital interactivity such as: – social network groups and their role in recruiting and engaging audiences – online forums and chat rooms – online voting systems and the differences between BBC and commercial practices (The X Factor and Strictly sites used in the Representation PowerPoint would be useful models here)

Putting it all Together (Slide 17) The final Slide is intended to draw together for revision purposes some of the different issues introduced in the presentation, through analysing one week’s top-rated shows. To conclude, you could distribute Student Resource 2f, which summarises viewing figures for the top entertainment programmes for 2009; again, this could be useful information to absorb in developing ideas for the practical aspect of the Controlled Assessment exam.

2:14

Doing Reality TV ± DQ (QJOLVK 0HGLD &HQWUH 2QOLQH 5HVRXUFH

Reality TV and Producers, Industry and Institution Overview Some of the best resources for the study of the industry and institutions behind reality broadcasting come directly from the broadcasters and production companies themselves – although inevitably the online information they offer needs to be analysed carefully in the knowledge that it represents the public face of the company and its perceived values. The pick and mix strategies suggested here will provide students with the broad brush knowledge students will find helpful at GCSE level and for the Controlled Assessment Task..

A. Freaky Eaters – a Mini Case Study on Reality TV Production Overview By an astonishing stroke of luck, MediaMagazine managed to commission a ‘user’s’ account of participation in a reality show by a teacher of ... Media Studies! The enterprising Pete Turner, a Film and Media Lecturer at Bracknell and Wokingham College, successfully applied to appear in a BBC3 ‘observational documentary’ series called Freaky Eaters, produced by Betty. He was thus able to experience – and deconstruct – the production process first hand. The following outline snapshot of activities exploits his story and generosity to the full.

Resources – Student Resource 2g: Statements – Student Resource 2h: The Sequence of Events – Student Resource 2i: Real People Article – MediaMagazine 30: ‘Diary of a Freaky Eater 1. Introduce students to the programme by reading or showing them the BBC synopsis for the series: Series in which nutritionist Nathalie Savona and psychological coach Stephen Briers help people with strange eating habits and food phobias and addictions. While Nathalie encourages them to eat new foods, Stephen attempts to get to the bottom of the psychological problems causing their food phobias, with the aim of getting them on the road to eating a healthy balanced diet in just four weeks. As a 5-minute problem-solving exercise, ask half the class to predict what they think a typical episode of the show might include; ask the other half to speculate about how a typical episode might be put together, the personnel involved, and likley time-frame. Share ideas and put to one side. 2. Screen the introduction to the episode of Freaky Eaters in which Pete participated. Pause at the title shots (1m 38 secs). Compare the content of the sequence with the predictions and ideas previously brainstormed, and comment on any surprises or unanticipated material. 3. Screen the next sequence of the episode, up to the caption ‘Food for Thought’ (3m 37 secs). Discuss with students how, and over what period of time, they think this sequence might have been put together. 4. Finally screen the remainder of the sequence to get a feel for the indicative content of the programme. NB the remainder of the show is available in sections on YouTube. 5. Now re-screen the sequence up to the ‘Food for Thought’ caption, for a close analysis. Groups of students could focus on: – the narrative, language and tone of the voiceover (see the Young Dumb and Living Off Mum activities) – the editing of the sequence (how many edits, what different inputs are shown, the different transitions and visual effects used to dramatise the problem) – the representation of the participants, their lifestyles, and the ways Pete’s ‘addiction to meat’ is signified. Feed back to discuss the way in which media language has been used to engage audiences and construct a particular view of healthy eating – is it a lifestyle choice, an essential physical requirement for well-being, a necessary nuisance, a source of entertainment, all about humiliation of the participants, etc? You might want to use the statements on Student Resource 2g as a focus for discussion.

Doing Reality TV ± DQ (QJOLVK 0HGLD &HQWUH 2QOLQH 5HVRXUFH

5. Students can now read Pete Turner’s account of the process as written for MediaMagazine. If you wish to focus in further detail on the whole 8-month production process of the show, a schedule outlining the sequence of events is provided in Student Resource 2h. 6. Finally, students can read an alternative account of Pete’s experiences as written for Real People magazine living proof of the ongoing relationship between the popular press and reality TV, and a useful opportunity to analyse the style and format of a popular publication with a reality focus (Student Resource 2i).

B. Independent Small Group Research A framework for small-scale industry research is suggested in Unit 1.6c of this resource. In groups, students research one of a limited number of companies’ outputs, and briefly present findings back to the class.

Exploring the Phenomenon of Franchised Formats One aspect of reality TV with which both you and your students cannot help but be familiar – in some cases, despite yourselves – is the global franchising of shows such as The X Factor, I’m a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here, and Britain’s Got Talent. The complexities – legal, economic and political – of the global ownership of these shows are almost impossible to unpick, but the links below offer neatly packaged and digestible summaries of the implications and branding of these sorts of shows, and the role of companies such as Syco and Fremantle in sustaining and exploiting them. The Centre for Excellence in Media Practice at Bournemouth University has conducted useful research in this area: – Britain’s Got Talent case study – further case studies from Fremantle – Broadcast article.

Reading about the Production Process For teachers and die-hard fans only, the two following articles provide extended accounts of issues affecting the production of two high-status shows. – The Big Brother production process: Extremely detailed account from Broadcast (the broadcasting industry trade bible) of the technical facilities, staffing and procedures behind BB10. – Behind the scenes of The Apprentice: Very lengthy in-depth Telegraph feature on the editorial processes and thinking behind the show, with extensive quotes from Sir Alan and the team. These could be: – edited, summarised, or extracted from to provide student with information sheets – given to fast-track or particularly enthusiastic students, with a brief to produce a PowerPoint or an A4 information worksheet summarising the key features of the production process. This could be used as a teaching resource with another class – used in sections as non-fiction texts in an English lesson, as practice in information retrieval and nonfiction analysis.

2:16

Doing Reality TV ± DQ (QJOLVK 0HGLD &HQWUH 2QOLQH 5HVRXUFH

doing reality tv

student resources unit 2 key media concepts U

SR2:1

Contents Media Language a. Mystery Voiceover b. Mystery Voiceover Illustrated c. Voiceover Grid d. Recruitment Ad for Young, Dumb and Living Off Mum e. Editing a Narrative

SR2:3 SR2:3 SR2:4 SR2:6 SR2:8 SR2:9

Audiences f. Top 10 Entertainment Shows

SR2:10 SR2:10

Representation – Case Study g. Freaky Eaters Statements h. Production Schedule i. Real People

SR2:11 SR2:11 SR2:12 SR2:13

SR2:2

Doing Reality TV ± DQ (QJOLVK 0HGLD &HQWUH 2QOLQH 5HVRXUFH

Student Resource 2a: Mystery Voiceover Mums and Dads of Great Britain, for years you’ve worked your fingers to the bone. You’ve cooked and cleaned, you’ve washed and ironed, you’ve paid for your little treasures to live in comfort and joy. But for many parents it’s a never-ending story. Their kids are work-shy, unrewarding and downright ungrateful spongers. The painful truth is that these parents only have themselves to blame. Their kids are getting away with murder. Now these long-suffering parents have finally decided that enough is enough, and that it’s time to take drastic action. They’re kicking eight of the worst-offending most overgrown children out of home. Having never lived independently, or held down a proper job before, each week they’ll be challenged in the workplace by their parents to see if they can cut it in the real world as adults. With this bunch of layabouts, it’s easier said than done. Will they be able to stand on their own two feet for the first time? Will their parents’ shock tactics be enough to bring their children kicking and screaming into adulthood? Or are they forever destined to remain...

Doing Reality TV ± DQ (QJOLVK 0HGLD &HQWUH 2QOLQH 5HVRXUFH

Student Resource 2b: Mystery Voiceover Illustrated Mums and Dads of Great Britain

For years you’ve worked your fingers to the bone.

You’ve cooked and cleaned, you’ve washed and ironed

You’ve paid for your little treasures to live in comfort and joy.

But for many parents it’s a never-ending story.

Their kids are work-shy, unrewarding and downright ungrateful spongers.

The painful truth is that these parents only have themselves to blame.

Their kids are getting away with murder.

Now these long-suffering parents have finally decided that

enough is enough

and that it’s time to take drastic action. SR2:4

Doing Reality TV ± DQ (QJOLVK 0HGLD &HQWUH 2QOLQH 5HVRXUFH

They’re kicking eight of the worst-offending most overgrown children out of home.

Having never lived independently, or held down a proper job before,

Each week they’ll be challenged in the workplace by their parents

to see if they can cut it in the real world as adults.

With this bunch of layabouts, it’s easier said than done.

Will they be able to stand on their own two feet for the first time?

Will their parents’ shock tactics be enough to bring their children

kicking and screaming into adulthood?

Or are they forever destined to remain...

Doing Reality TV ± DQ (QJOLVK 0HGLD &HQWUH 2QOLQH 5HVRXUFH

They’re kicking eight of the worstoffending most overgrown children out of home.

SOUNDBITES

Now these long-suffering parents have finally decided that enough is enough, and that it’s time to take drastic action.

SOUNDBITES

Their kids are getting away with murder.

SOUNDBITES

The painful truth is that these parents only have themselves to blame.

Their kids are work-shy, unrewarding and downright ungrateful spongers. SOUNDBITES

But for many parents it’s a never-ending story.

You’ve paid for your little treasures to live in comfort and joy.

for years you’ve worked your fingers to the bone. You’ve cooked and cleaned, you’ve washed and ironed

SR2:6

Mums and Dads of Great Britain

Voiceover

Camera

Editing and effects

Locations

Teenagers

Parents

Student Resource 2c: Young, Dumb Grid

TITLES

Or are they forever destined to remain Young, Dumb and Living Off Mum...?

SOUNDBITES

kicking and screaming into adulthood?

Will their parents’ shock tactics be enough to bring their children

Will they be able to stand on their own two feet for the first time?

SOUNDBITES

With this bunch of layabouts, it’s easier said than done.

to see if they can cut it in the real world as adults. SCREAMS

Having never lived independently, or held down a proper job before, each week they’ll be challenged in the workplace by their parents

SOUNDBITES

Doing Reality TV ± DQ (QJOLVK 0HGLD &HQWUH 2QOLQH 5HVRXUFH

SR2:7

Student Resource 2d: Recruitment Advert for Young, Dumb...

SR2:8

Doing Reality TV ± DQ (QJOLVK 0HGLD &HQWUH 2QOLQH 5HVRXUFH

Lifestyle show: e.g.

Social experiment show: e.g.

Observational reality show: e.g

• fear of the editing process

• awareness of imminent eviction

• continual surveillance

• deprivation of luxuries

• claustrophobic environment • anxiety about public image, and the fear of exposure or unpopularity

• competition for enhanced career opportunities for the winner

• the final week of the show

• some pre-show conflict

Celebrity Big Brother 2010 (e.g. Episode 26.01.10)

• gigantic egos

• 6 remaining celebs

Celebrity game show

The conflict or problem

The set-up

The show and its genre

• diary room footage exposing one celeb’s hypocrisy/game play

• a party to mollify aggrieved celebs.

• subtitles showing whispered bitching

• celeb gossip in one room about unaware celebs elsewhere

• parallel editing to show gullibility of hoaxed celeb and cruelty of others

• shamefaced behaviour from other celebs

• a celebrity ‘awards’ event, with prizes and booze to unleash inhibitions.

• CBB voiceover narrating time frame and summarising previous activities

• dignified behaviour from hoaxed celeb

• a BB prank task – one celeb told she has won an international award; the other celebs participate in the hoax. Humiliation beckons!

Impact of editing

The resolution

The disruption/s

Student Resource 2e: Editing the Narrative – How does Editing Help to tell the Story of a Reality Show Episode?

Student Resource 2f: The Top 10 Entertainment programmes for 2009 Events: they are live and huge; they cost a fortune; they are stretched over a schedule to have maximum impact and generate value for money. They provide genuine talking points for the country, and ratings and/or revenue for the broadcaster. Britain’s Got Talent and The X Factor dominate as you’d expect. There too are I’m a Celebrity and Strictly Come Dancing. Then there are Christmas specials and Children In Need. All reached a peak of more than 10 million, Britain’s Got Talent nearly twice that. However you define an event, there is no denying that nothing else other than television gets this many people together doing the same thing at the same time week in, week out.

Top 10 Entertainment Shows Title

Viewers

Share%

Channel

Day/Date

Start

1. Britain’s Got Talent Final

17.73

68.43

ITV1

Sat 30/5/09

21.31

2. The X Factor Results

16.03

54.24

ITV1

Sun 13/12/09

19.29

3. Dancing On Ice

11.02

44.04

ITV1

Sun 22/3/09

18.55

4. Strictly Come Dancing

10.52

42.67

BBC1

Sat 19/12/09

20.41

5. Comic Relief

10.34

42.79

BBC1

Fri 13/3/09

19.00

6. I’m A Celebrity…

10.25

34.85

ITV1

Sun 22/11/09

21.02

7. Royal Variety Performance

8.97

38.06

ITV1

Wed 16/12/09

19.29

8. New Year Live 8.78 2009

52.40

BBC1

Thu 31/12/09

23.45

9. Let’s Dance 8.14 For Comic Relief

35.35

BBC1

Sat 7/3/09

19.04

10. Eurovision Song Contest

34.93

BBC1

Sat 16/5/09

20.00

7.80

Plus: Top Factual show for 2009: I dreamed a dream (ITV1 documentary about Susan Boyle): 10.17 m Source: Broadcast, 22.01.10

SR2:10

Doing Reality TV ± DQ (QJOLVK 0HGLD &HQWUH 2QOLQH 5HVRXUFH

Student Resource 2g: Statements on Freaky Eaters Freaky Eaters – what’s the point? • What view of Pete’s problems are we given in this sequence – and what do they suggest about the programme’s view of nutrition as a whole? • Read through the following statements and choose the three with which you most agree. • For each choice, find a technique, shot or comment, which supports your view.

The intro suggests that meat addiction is a serious risk to Pete’s health, and audiences should learn from it.

The meat addiction is basically a nuisance because it disrupts his everyday life and relationships.

Pete’s addiction is trivialised and represented as a source of amusement and entertainment.

Pete’s love of meat is a lifestyle choice rather than a real phobia, and it’s up to him what he eats.

Pete’s family has been drafted in to emphasise the seriousness of his eating disorder.

Pete’s family has been drafted in to add a dramatic and emotional dimension to the show.

Pete really requires specialist nutritional advice to survive.

Pete really requires specialist psychological advice to overcome his phobia.

The rest of the episode will treat Pete’s addiction through scientific and medical dietary approaches.

The rest of the episode will treat Pete’s addiction in a fun, quirky way to change his attitude to food.

Doing Reality TV ± DQ (QJOLVK 0HGLD &HQWUH 2QOLQH 5HVRXUFH

Student Resource 2h: Freaky Eaters: The Production Schedule

Pete makes a home video audition tape.

The researcher and a camera/sound man visit Pete for a series of preliminary interviews with Pete, Beth and her family. They record shots of Pete eating fruit and veg, to gauge his reactions.

14th May 2007: Researcher makes contact with Pete, takes a case history, and requests an audition tape.

Ongoing conversations with researchers. Detailed forms One-hour about diet appointment with completed. an individual psychologist to ensure Pete’s stability before filming.

31st August: Pete 2nd September: Day 1 of filming: meets producer/ Crew RV location 1 and set up 0900 director and assistant producer 0930 Peter cooking normal breakfast meal in of his episode, and morning – dressing gown & eating in bedroom alone signs contract. He 1030 Peter cooking evening meal (different clothes) is now obliged to Beth begins to prepare her evening meal – 1100 continue with the Peter looks on programme. 1130 Val and Brian (Beth’s parents) eating at table 1200 Peter and Beth eating together in bedroom Beth and Peter walking by the river 1330 1430 Interview Beth 1500 Travelling set up – looking through photos Following day: 1530 Peter chicken bucket style shot on driveway removal of meat 1600 Interview Peter products from The following week freezer; start of new 1630 Interview Val meat-free diet. 2 days in London: 1730 Interview Brian 10 Medical tests; 1800 Evening General Views meeting with 1900 Wrap. the ‘experts’; 3rd September: Day screening of 2 – similar schedule interviews with friends and family 15 to film Pete’s Next fortnight: 11 reactions to shoots of Pete their concerns; eating at home; half-hour more shots for intro 13th Februa ry 2008: Fin interview with al of programme; icetransmission of show. psychologist. skating in London Second with psychologist; day with walking on broken nutritionist glass to increase trying new confidence; 9 foods. getting test results and diagnosis of Following week: risk factors; and visit to editing suite being shown an in London. Over orange stuffed with several days, 60 razor-blades to hours of footage cut demonstrate effect down to 3 hours, of kidney stones. November: Final 14 7th October: Shoot 1.5 hours, and a day of filming to of Pete eating a final 1-hour cut. 13 test whether Pete vegetarian meal has stuck to his new with family – diet. 12 success!

SR2:12

Student Resource 2i: Real People

Doing Reality TV ± DQ (QJOLVK 0HGLD &HQWUH 2QOLQH 5HVRXUFH

Jeremy Kyle… Big Brother… Freaky Eaters… Why do people keep jumping at the chance of very public humiliation on reality TV shows? Ever wondered what it would be like to be the star of one? Pete ‘The Meat’ Turner spills the beans on his experience as a ‘Freaky Eater’. In 2008 I was a contributor on a BBC3’s observational documentary called Freaky Eaters. You may have seen it. Or you may have seen Harry Hill mocking it on his Saturday night TV Burp. If you haven’t seen either of these then what about any of the other observational documentary/freak shows that are increasingly

english and media centre | December 2009 | MediaMagazine

32 MediaMagazine | December 2009 | english and media centre

taking over the airwaves? Embarrassing Illnesses, the Bodyshock series, Supersize vs Superskinny? A quick look at the TV schedules reveals a huge number of these formatted documentaries with channels such as BBC3 and More 4 leading the way. The rise of these programmes could be seen as part of a more general trend in modern television: the rise of reality TV. The X Factor, Come Dine With Me and Britain’s Got Talent all revel in public humiliation. The producers find the freaks and the rest of us watch and laugh from the comfortable distance of our seats. Until that is, I became the subject of one… I had watched some episodes of the first series of Freaky Eaters and was stunned that there were other people out there that seemed to have the exact same phobia of trying new foods as I did. Following this, my vegetarian girlfriend Beth decided to contact BBC3 to put me forward for the second series.

Pre-production On 14th May I got the call from a researcher for the programme. An hour later I had given her my life story and answered every question she could possibly have about my peculiar eating habits. This was the first time I had discussed my freaky eating in such detail with anyone, let alone a stranger. It did not yet occur to me that this was only the first stage of the process and there would be a lot more questioning and explaining to do in the future. The researcher asked me to make an audition tape and send it to the production company as soon as I could. My interest (as a Media lecturer)

and the potential to be involved in such a project spurred me on and I quickly shot a series of interviews with my family, Beth and her family and myself and sent it off. A crew consisting of the researcher I had been speaking to and a camera/soundman came round the next day. They filmed a series of interviews to make sure they got the back story from Beth and myself. They also asked me to try some foods that I did not eat. Strawberry, tomato and carrot. I suppose this was to determine how I was going to react on camera during the making of the programme when faced with new foods. They got what they wanted. The cherry tomato popped as I bit into it and virtually made me sick. The researcher actually laughed. It didn’t take a genius to see how other people might react to my strange food phobia. The fear of how I would be portrayed set in.

Production Shooting began on 2nd September at Beth’s parents’ house where we were living at the time. Two days before I had met the producer/director and assistant producer of my episode. I had also signed a contract so I could not back out from this point. On the first day of shooting Beth and I got a real shock. We were given a shooting schedule for the day which included the following scenarios: – Peter cooking normal breakfast meal in morning – dressing gown & eating in bedroom alone – Beth still in bed – Peter cooking evening meal (different clothes)

–

Beth begins to prepare her evening meal Peter looks on – Beth and Peter walking by the river – Interview Beth – Travelling set up – looking through photos – Peter chicken bucket style shot on driveway – Interview Peter – Evening – general views I was immediately stunned that I would be ‘produced’ and that the filming was structured and tightly planned. Being naïve, I had assumed that in reality TV shows they just filmed the subjects going about their normal lives as they normally would. As you can see from the schedule this is not exactly the case. The majority of these shots were for the introduction of the programme. There would be a voiceover introducing me for the viewers with a montage of clips showing my normal life. However, my ‘normal life’ had to be reconstructed for the cameras as they could not have followed me around all day every day. These series of shots and the accompanying voiceover set up my character, the programme format and the beginning and disruption to the narrativised documentary. The voiceover (written and recorded much later in post-production) stated:

Pete is 26 years old… has a normal life… normal girlfriend… normal job… BUT IS ADDICTED TO MEAT!

english and media centre | December 2009 | MediaMagazine

Drawing in the viewers by showing me to be a fairly normal and likeable guy begins my story with equilibrium. The disruption is my meat addiction and the four weeks I have to change my diet and my life sets up a story for the viewers to become engaged with. Can he do it? Will his vegetarian girlfriend keep putting up with him? Stay tuned to find out. Over the following week I spent two days in London. I met the experts in Leicester Square; Dr Stephen Briers the psychologist and Nathalie Savona the nutritionist. Stephen I immediately recognised from the Wife Swap series and Nathalie I remembered from Series 1 of Freaky Eaters. It was during my introductions that I started to notice how much I was being required to perform for the camera. After meeting the experts once, the camera set-up would change and I would be expected to ‘act’ in the same way as I had done in the first take. For a nervous guy like me, this meant in the first take I was very nervous to meet them but then in the next few takes I felt calmer but had to act just as nervous. Very strange! I was then taken to a screening room to witness my friends and family appealing to me to eat like a sensible, normal, healthy person. This was emotional and I could feel the camera was close up on my face waiting to catch any tears. I then had about half an hour on camera with the psychologist. He had obviously read through all the researcher’s notes and knew what was needed out of me for the programme. This felt rushed and by the end of the day I 34 MediaMagazine | December 2009 | english and media centre

felt disillusioned with the programme making process. It really dawned on me how little time I would actually get with the experts, and how much time I would be sitting around waiting for the crew to set up. The next day was spent with Nathalie the nutritionist trying new foods. A horrible and stressful experience, let alone with a camera in my face and a director wanting more close-ups of me trying things! When I got home after the London shooting I was expecting a rest and a break from filming. However, the next day we were throwing away my freezer drawer full of meat and starting my new meat-free food schedule. This was a terrifying night and I did not do a video diary because I was in no mood for sharing my feelings with the country. Four weeks with no meat! I was prepared to cut down but this seemed unrealistically drastic. The whole process took up most of my free time when not at work and I developed even greater respect for the people who work on these shows. They work very long hours and often work late in the evening and on the weekends. They do not rush and are absolutely committed to perfection, no matter how many shots or re-takes are required. By October 7th I was tired, hungry and ready to complete my final challenge: eating a totally vegetarian meal with my friends and family! Despite a long day of filming, I survived and even ate the whole meal without retching! For many people there, the meal was a quick lesson in the unreality of reality TV as the director constantly asked people to repeat

themselves (for close-ups) and got us to walk in the house about six times to get the shots he wanted.

Post-production and aftermath A month later we had one last day of filming to see if I had kept to my new diet. And then began the agonising four month wait for the transmission of the show. How would I be represented? Spoilt? Childish? Ridiculous? On the day of transmission, I watched the programme with friends and was pleasantly surprised. I think I came out OK. I heard myself being ridiculed on Scott Mills’ Radio 1 show the next day and was then teased some more on Harry Hill’s TV Burp. Somebody has posted Freaky Eaters on YouTube so there really is no escaping it now. I have learnt a great deal about making factual programmes, which has been incredibly useful when teaching on the BTEC National Diploma in Media. I have made useful contacts in the media industry and had first-hand experience of the making of a reality TV programme and would therefore recommend it to anyone… as long as you can handle the humiliation! Peter Turner is a Media Lecturer at Bracknell and Wokingham College.

Betty TV for images from Freaky Eaters

My story: narrative structure

Reality TV and Representation

The English & Media Centre

Representation and Reality TV

Representation: the versions of the ‘real world’ constructed by the media. Some forms of reality TV are constructed to appear more ‘real’ than others – but they can only represent the world and are never ‘transparent’ or neutral.

Every representation – and every reality TV show – has a point of view. Look for what is left out as well as what is included.

All representations reflect the ideas, biases and assumptions of the producers and the broadcaster.

Audiences will also read the representations in a variety of ways, or from particular points of view.

The English & Media Centre

Representation of Presenters

What types of reality show are these presenters associated with?

What types of audiences might each one appeal to?

What can you tell from their posture, gesture, facial expression, cropping of shot, props, background?

What values and ideas do these presenters represent – and what do they suggest about the shows they front?

The English & Media Centre

Representation of Contestants

These BB10 contestants have chosen to represent themselves in particular ways. â&#x20AC;Ż How have they constructed these representations (e.g. dress, body language, style)? â&#x20AC;Ż How do they connect with the demographics and lifestyles of the target BB audience?

The English & Media Centre

Reading Reality Stills Denotation: the content of the shot – what you can actually see. Connotation: ideas and associations the shot suggests to you.

The next shots all feature a seated group of ‘ordinary people’. In terms of denotation, the images are similar: they show 'real people’ of a variety of different ages and stages onscreen.

But in terms of connotations, the images suggest very different sets of ideas, and represent different genres of reality shows.

Talk about the differences you notice in terms of their visual codes, especially:   posture and body language, facial expression, clothing and style   the grouping of participants, and their possible relationships   cropping and framing of shots; props; background and locations. The English & Media Centre

What Idea do these Reality TV Contestants Represent?

The English & Media Centre

How Does The Apprentice Represent Itself Online?

The English & Media Centre

How Does The Apprentice Represent Itself Online?

The English & Media Centre

The ‘Social Experiment’ Show The Secret Millionaire and The Choir both share a ‘social experiment’ format.

How is this represented in their website home pages? In what ways are they similar? In what ways are they different?

The English & Media Centre

Representations Online A study of Representation in reality TV isn’t just about the values and messages in an individual show. It’s also about looking at the ways the different broadcasters represent their identity and ‘mission’.

Look at the two home pages for two rival reality talent shows. Both denote the well-known features of the show. Do the connotations of the page differ? Or do they suggest similar ideas? Consider:

colour codes use of images navigation iconography invitations to the audience.

What does each page suggest about the format and values of the show?

What does each page tell you about the broadcasting institution behind the show? The English & Media Centre

The English & Media Centre

Stereotypes and Reality TV Stereotype: a simplified view of a person or groups of people, in which one or two characteristics are used to represent the whole person, and the whole group s/he belongs to. A classic example: ‘the dumb blonde’ stereotype, based on repeated and usually inaccurate ideas and media imagery which categorises all young blonde women as being silly, vain and uninformed.  The contestants in reality TV game shows are often edited to represent selective or stereotypical behaviour.  The

most obvious example is Jade Goody, who built a career, life and death around versions of – and challenges to – her dumb blonde stereotype.

The

next two slides explore the ways she has been represented onscreen and in the tabloid press – and the ways she chose to represent herself.

Talk

about:

the different types of stereotype the images suggest the ways these ideas have been constructed through the format and editing of BB and CBB the role played by the tabloid press in supporting or challenging these stereotypes.

The English & Media Centre

Stereotypes in Reality TV

Are there typical, or stereotypical ways in which reality TV shows represent social groups like: celebrity wannabes, older women, black men, certain kinds of professionals or performers, certain age-groups?

Discuss if there are particular stereotypes associated with the kinds of show listed below. Then decide if the stereotype is positive or negative. If it is negative, does that matter?

fashion or beauty make-over shows parenting reality shows social experiment shows docusoaps. The English & Media Centre

Brat Camp

How do these web-pages for C4’s Brat Camp represent:

the show’s view of ‘brats’ the format of the show the concerns of the audiences for the show.

The English & Media Centre

Messages about the World In your group select a particular show to evaluate together. What kind of messages does your show suggest? Does it:

suggest certain ideas, values or behaviour are normal or right? For example, certain ways of looking, dressing or behaving?

rely on out-dated or inappropriate ideas of gender, age, or different cultural groups?

present particular ideas about body image, lifestyle, acceptable behaviour?

feature only good looking, young, usually heterosexual people – or does it offer a wider range of representations?

give audiences a limited or broad impression of what is ‘normal’? The English & Media Centre

A Representation Summary If you’ve got this far, you should be able to:

explain some of the issues about representation raised by reality TV

discuss ideas about stereotyping, and whether it is a problem in reality TV

identify some common representations in the constructed world of reality TV

start investigating how these representations can be constructed and reinforced by print and online media

reflect on the idea of a reality ‘star’, and explain how some participants become stars. The English & Media Centre

Reality TV and Audiences

The English & Media Centre

Key Questions   Why

do audiences watch reality TV?   Who watches what?   How do they watch?   How do producers target them?

The English & Media Centre

Producers, Technologies and Audiences – a Complex Relationship What producers do to generate audiences for reality TV

Broadcasters, commissioners and producers always have particular audiences in mind. They identify and target their audiences in terms of:

demographics: age, gender, social class, region, ethnicity

psychographics: lifestyles, personality types, values and beliefs, based on specially commissioned profiling, industry case studies

market research: what genres/shows are successful, opportunities for more of the same, gaps in the market for particular groups

media technologies: creating and exploiting new media platforms to reach and draw in their targeted audiences. The English & Media Centre

A Complex Relationship What audiences do with reality TV? Audience theories suggest audiences can be:   passive   active   interactive, engaging with media technologies.

The English & Media Centre

Who Watches What? Audience Demographics

The English & Media Centre

Who Watches the BBC? A ‘Lifestyle’ Approach According to the BBC’s commissioning policies for its channels: ‘aims to be the UK’s most valued TV channel, offering the broadest range of quality programmes of any UK mainstream network’

BBC2 ‘is the mainstream channel of record for British life – restlessly curious, open-minded and yet spikily individual’.

The English & Media Centre

‘At the core of BBC3’s schedule are our distinctive factual shows. From Blood Sweat and T-shirts and Britain’s Missing Top Model to The World’s Strictest Parents and Last Man Standing, our factual programmes are innovative, entertaining and thought-provoking’.

Tone: ‘3’s content is modern, distinctive and relevant to, though not excusive to, our core 16-34 audience. The tone of the channel is warm, personal and surprising, with real take-on value’.

The English & Media Centre

‘is what intelligent TV looks like in the 21st Century’.

Tone: ‘unashamedly intelligent, lively, surprising, thoughtful ambitious, original, international in outlook, and connected to a wide-ranging interest in the world’.

Our audience: ‘not age, wealth or place of origin, but attitude. They are fascinated to see expertise and unfamiliar viewpoints expressed with passion, conviction and authority. Our viewers value powerful narratives, told with passion, intelligence and verve’.

The English & Media Centre

Who does BBC3 think it’s talking to?

How do the shows listed here try to appeal to the ‘broad young audience’?

The English & Media Centre

How do Audiences Watch? Different ‘Readings’ of a Reality Show

Some people find The X Factor offensive or tedious, others find it riveting; some find CBB fascinating, others find it idiotic. How you respond depends on who you are, your background, age, attitudes and values.

Some critics identify 3 main ways in which viewers react to – or ‘read’ – a text.

The preferred reading (the way the producers want you to see it) The X Factor is great family entertainment and full of lovely Cheryl Cole and talent.

The negotiated reading The X Factor is OK but only for older, undiscriminating, couch potatoes.

The oppositional reading (opposed to the way the producers want you to see it) The X Factor is offensive and degrading to contestants, is destroying the music industry, and undermines originality and creativity.

How do you read The X Factor? The English & Media Centre

Media Effects

Some critics believe that audiences take in without question, and are influenced by anything, that the media throws at them. They describe the audience as passive. This is sometimes known as ‘the effects model’ or ‘the hypodermic syringe theory.’

People who believe in the effects model often assume that:

people (and society) will be ‘dumbed down’ by watching reality TV

audiences may be influenced by the ideas and values in some reality shows (e.g. celebrity, getting something for nothing, putting other people down, etc)

certain types of viewers – e.g. teenagers, lower social grades, the less educated – are more vulnerable to such influences. Reality TV is often said to inspire crime cases, ‘copycat’, anti-social or passive behaviour.

The English & Media Centre

Active Audiences

Other critics believe we view TV in a more active way. Active audience theories suggest that audiences are discriminating and thoughtful consumers and, increasingly, producers of media.

They argue that audiences:

make judgements about participants, take active decisions about who to vote for get involved in the process of the programme seek out online information and extra footage, share views in forums, join social networks, follow stories in the tabloids, etc.

Does this make reality TV audiences ‘active’? The English & Media Centre

Satisfying Our Needs

The ‘Four Needs’ (or ‘Uses and Gratifications’) theory by Blumler and Katz suggests that audiences use the media in four different ways.

Entertainment and diversion: to find personal pleasure and enjoyment; emotional release from everyday life and its problems. Surveillance and information: to learn about the world, new experiences, other people; to satisfy curiosity; acquire new knowledge. Personal relationships: to enhance and explore relationships with other people, find companionship or substitute friendships on screen. Personal identity: to find support and reinforcement for one’s values and beliefs; to help understand oneself; to help explore one own identity.

How far might these explain the popularity of reality TV with audiences?

The English & Media Centre

Four Stills from Reality TV Programmes (See next slide)

Who might watch these shows – and why? Watch the four reality clips below, and choose one to focus on in detail. What kinds of audiences might watch your chosen show (age, gender, social class, ethnicity, interest groups, etc)? What needs, interests, uses and gratifications might your chosen show provide for its audience? The English & Media Centre

The Family

Come Dine With Me

Britainâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Got Talent

Blood, Sweat & T-Shirts The English & Media Centre

Targeting the Audience Scheduling

finding the right time-slot for the target audience's needs; ‘stripping’ a programme at the same time daily over a week running repeats, extras, special events personalising with online and on-demand downloads

Interactivity (the latest buzzword – what every producer wants to achieve)

phone-ins, votes, competitions, web-based forums, chat-rooms, social network groups, text-message updates etc.

Synergy

keeping you interested through cross-media promotions – merchandising, websites, presenters/participants on TV and radio talk-shows, photo-opportunities and PR stories in the press, lifestyle and celeb magazines and so on.

Which methods work for you?

The English & Media Centre

Putting It All Together Viewing Figures (Week of 23rd November 2009)

Consider the shows listed here.

What different types of reality show do they represent?*

What sorts of audiences might each one appeal to?

Why might each of these particular episodes score such big audiences?

Annotate the page to show what you’ve learned about the ways producers target reality TV audiences.

Source: Broadcast magazine * Cast Offs: drama about a group of disabled people taking part in a TV reality show. Gracie: dramadoc about the life of Gracie Fields

The English & Media Centre

doing reality tv

teachers’ guide unit 3 issues and debates U

3:1

Contents Reality Controversies

3:3

The Ethics of Reality TV

3:5

Please note: links, programme titles, newspaper articles in blue text are all ‘live’. When connected to the internet, you can access these pages directly by clicking on the link in the PDF.

3:2

Doing Reality TV ± DQ (QJOLVK 0HGLD &HQWUH 2QOLQH 5HVRXUFH

Reality Controversies 1. Dumbing Down The first issue usually invoked in discussions of reality TV is generally related to that old chestnut The ‘Dumbing Down’ Debate. This has been covered exhaustively in the press ever since the birth of Big Brother, and has been touched on in Unit 2 activities on audiences. For a comprehensive range of coverage from which to tailor resources for your own students, see the Guardian’s online pages on reality TV. And for a good commonsense reminder that audiences may not be as ‘dumbed down’ as the press like to represent them. Annette Hill’s quote is worth remembering: One of the repetitive points made about reality TV is it only appeals to stupid people. And we have to start by saying that that’s just simply not true. Reality TV is so popular across the public in Britain that sometimes more than half the population are watching one reality TV show. So we have to say, well, not everyone can be stupid! Indeed, Hill argues that the genre, by definition, actively encourages viewers to take critical positions. You might want to unpick this a bit further with students.

Resources – Guardian’s online pages on reality TV – Student Resource 3a: Soundbites from Annette Hill. – Reality Clip 8: Annette Hill’s discussion of the Celebrity Big Brother 5 racism row generated very useful public debates about acceptable behaviour, and perhaps enabled audiences to rethink their own positions about racist language and its impact.

Task 1. Use the soundbites from Annette Hill along with the material on audiences from Section 2 to explore the belief that reality TV shows are ‘dumbed down’ and the counter-argument that reality TV shows encourage audiences to particpate actively in the issues raised.

2. Reality Phone-ins, Shifty Sponsors, and TV Fakery Phone-in Fiascos A recurrent debate around Reality TV has been the legitimacy of the revenue brought to television companies through premium rate telephone voting from programmes such as The X Factor, Big Brother and Strictly Come Dancing. This has raised particular concerns because of: – the exploitation of children, who may run up big mobile phone bills without parental consent – the incidence of vote-rigging – encouragement to audiences to continue to vote pointlessly once a voting process has already been finalised – misleading audiences into believing they can participate in a show for the cost of a premium rate phone call. The broadcasting regulator Ofcom fined ITV a record £5.675m in 2008, for ‘seriously and repeatedly misleading its audience’ on 86 separate occasions over four years, causing viewers to waste £7.8m on premium rate calls. The shows involved included Ant and Dec’s Saturday Night Takeaway, Ant and Dec’s Gameshow Marathon and Soapstar Superstar. Ofcom ruled that senior ITV executives actively colluded in this deception as a means of generating income and boosting audience figures. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/may/09/ itv.tvfakery1 Channel 4 has now scrapped premium rate phone-calls, following similar revelations; further Ofcom rulings have established fakery in a range of high profile BBC shows, including Comic Relief and Children in Need. A range of news reports and analysis can be found at http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/tvfakery

Doing Reality TV ± DQ (QJOLVK 0HGLD &HQWUH 2QOLQH 5HVRXUFH

3. Selling through Sponsorship A further issue has been posed by the sponsorship packages for some reality shows, including The X Factor and Big Brother, where huge sponsorship sums have been paid by companies such as Carphone Warehouse and Virgin Media in exchange for idents which carry specific advertising messages. This contravenes Ofcom regulations, which rules that sponsorship must be ‘clearly separated from advertising’, and must not ‘contain advertising messages or calls to action’.

4. Fakery There has been high-profile exposure of the ‘deceptive’ use of production crew, friends or family as ‘real people’ or contestants in reality shows – highlighted particularly in children’s programming such as Blue Peter, but extended to life-style and infotainment shows. Reef Productions, responsible for a number of BBC productions, saw its show Sun, Sea and Bargain-spotting removed from the BBC website and iPlayer as a result of using a cameraman posing as a member of the public: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/aug/24/sunsea-and-bargain-spotting-tv-fakery At GCSE level, students won’t need to quote these cases in detail, but in the planning of their own reality show for the controlled assessment they will need to be aware of the pitfalls and limitations of revenue-generating schemes. In the light of this issue, you could: – ask students to take a closer look at the webpage for Strictly Come Dancing (Slide 12 in Powerpoint EMC_ RealityTV_Unit2_Audiences.ppt), which sets out in some detail the voting procedures for the show – ask them to review the voting instructions and warnings they notice on current shows – analyse the sponsorship idents at the start of reality shows to spot the links between company, product and programme – investigate the campaigns led by supporters of contestants in reality talent shows such as So You Think You Can Dance, which are transparent in their desire to mobilise votes for local talent – discuss the blog titled How Real does TV Have to Be? listed below, and a range of audience responses to it http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/2009/dec/03/tvfakery-television

3:4

Doing Reality TV ± DQ (QJOLVK 0HGLD &HQWUH 2QOLQH 5HVRXUFH

The Ethics of Reality TV – Duty of Care Overview A recurrent source of concern in the press and in popular discourses is the treatment of reality show participants and the regulatory guidelines provided by Ofcom to protect them. See edited highlights of the Ofcom Code on page SR3:8. Students are usually highly vocal about the ethics of (mis)representing the behaviour of real people through the editing process in ways which they may later feel are inaccurate, humiliating or otherwise distressing. The much-discussed cases of Susan Boyle and child contestants on reality talent shows are particularly useful here. Similarly, shows such as Young Dumb and Living off Mum and Brat Camp raise particular issues about the representation of young people behaving badly, and the longer-term consequences. On a practical level, students entering for the Controlled Assessment exam may need to consider these issues in developing ideas for their own reality show. This is harder than it sounds; the weight of public debate and moral outrage frequently voiced in the tabloid press simultaneously incites fascination for the humiliation or distress of the participants, and frequently characterises broadcasters and producers as deliberately manipulative in the interests of ratings.

Resources – Reality clips 9a and 9b: Annette Hill questions the effectiveness of the contractual obligations of the broadcasters to participants, and how far the young people and parents shown in Brat Camp were supported – Reality Clip 10: Pete Fraser on the ethics of I’m A Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here – Student resource 3b: The brief for the show – Student resource 3c: Role-cards, cut up and laminated – one per group – Student resource 3d: Dilemma cards for distribution during the simulation – Student resource 3e: Ofcom regulations – MediaMagazine 30: A Tale of Two (Real) Women

Task To avoid an over-simplistic view of reality producers, try the following structured simulation: ‘Ethical debate simulation: The Lock-In’. This simulation aims to raise issues around the ethics of reality programming, and the duty of care owed to participants by the production team. Working with the scenario of a new fictional reality show, students work in role to deliberate on a variety of dilemmas designed to explore the legal, social and moral responsibilities involved in reality TV production. The activity can be used in brief as a prompt for discussion, or extended over two or three lessons to include issues of regulation and case study research. NB This simulation is loosely adapted from a ‘real world’ TV industry event hosted by BAFTA in 2008, featuring key industry players (see below). The original simulation, described here, is available at Brightcove.com You may wish to view it yourself before starting the simulation, or to screen it to the class after they’ve had a go. Like this ‘real world’ simulation, The Lock-In simulation is intended not as a faithful reconstruction of industry practice, but as a way of raising some of the ethical and moral issues which producers may encounter, and which audiences may engage with. The fictional Channel X is not a million miles from C4, with similar scheduling practices and platforms. The roles have been simplified for ease of classroom management; the broadcaster is represented here by the Legal Department, and the Producer role encompasses a hierarchy which would include an Executive Producer, Producer and Production Manager. Other real world participants might include PR companies to promote the interests of the talent, and the broadcaster’s Channel controller and Chief Executive Officer or Chairperson. In the simulation, students in role will debate a number of fictional dilemmas arising daily throughout the 7-day run of the series. Each dilemma involves some aspect of concern about the well-being both of the show’s contestants and its audiences, and bears some similarity to a situation previously aired in a reality TV show.

Doing Reality TV ± DQ (QJOLVK 0HGLD &HQWUH 2QOLQH 5HVRXUFH

A ‘real world’ example For the first in a series of BAFTA Debates we set out to explore the minefield of reality television. Moderated by Peter Dale (Head, More 4), an expert panel of leading figures in British television tackled the dilemmas of a specially created reality show that’s going badly wrong. ‘Celebrity Press Gang’ put a group of celebrities on board an old sailing ship moored a mile out in the English Channel. The hypothetical reality show was discussed as if it were being broadcast with panel members taking the roles of all the major players, from Channel Controllers to Tabloid Editors. The panel had to navigate a series of crises including involving accusations of racism and child abuse, a dilemma over an alcoholic contestant, a politically charged t-shirt and a viewer vote which names the ship’s cat ‘Mohammed’. Bravely throwing themselves into the ring were: Greg Dyke (Former Director General, BBC) as The Chief Executive

Peter Salmon (Chief Creative Officer, BBC Vision Productions) as The Channel Controller

Ben Gale (Commissioning Editor, Factual Features & Format, BBC) as The Commissioning Editor

Natalka Znak (Executive Producer, I’m A Celebrity, Hell’s Kitchen and Love Island) as The Executive Producer

Paul Leather (Head Of Press, Channel 5) as The Press Officer

Prash Naik (Deputy Head Of Legal & Compliance, Channel 4) as The Lawyer

Phil Hall (Chairman, Phil Hall Associates) as The Celebrity Guru

Kelvin MacKenzie (Former Editor, The Sun) as The Tabloid Editor

Before you start Draw attention to previous shows with similar youth-friendly content – for example: Teen Big Brother (now available on DVD) or The Family: Teen Stories – or clips from Young Dumb and Living Off Mum or Brat Camp.

The process: a. Organise students in groups of 3 or 4, and distribute Student resource 3b: The brief for the show . You may need to take some time to read through the scenario with the whole class, and discuss: – the kind of show it is likely to be, and the conflicts and drama it might generate. – why and why the show might appeal (or not!) to young audiences. b. Explain that this activity is about the decisions and dilemmas involved in the process of reality production process, and their effects on both the participants in the show, and the audiences who will watch it. c. Give each group a different role card. Each role card represents a different aspect of the reality show industry. Spend a few minutes running through these with the class, so they are aware of the range of interests involved in a single series. d. In their role-groups, students spend 5 minutes predicting the sorts of issues they might have to deal with in The Lock-In, and any problems to anticipate. e. Now distribute the first dilemma for students to discuss in role, for not longer than 5 minutes. Each dilemma suggests a series of possible solutions, plus an open-ended invitation to ‘do something else’ – i.e. come up with a solution of their own. In discussing how to respond to each problem in terms of their own specific role responsibilities, each group may come up with rather different solutions; they should note these down, with reasons for any decisions, for later sharing. f. Continue discussing each dilemma in turn until you feel you’ve covered enough ground. Don’t feel you have to cover them all – you could stick with two or three, or pick and mix the ones which you feel raise the most pertinent issues for your own students. g. Re-arrange students into jigsaw groups of 5+, each containing one member of the original expert rolegroups. Each group must now negotiate solutions for the dilemmas. They can either do this: – in their groups, noting down the main points of their discussion, and preparing to report back at the end of the process – as panels, taking it in turn to discuss their views on one dilemma in front of the class, before making a final decision. 3:6

Doing Reality TV ± DQ (QJOLVK 0HGLD &HQWUH 2QOLQH 5HVRXUFH

The Outcomes There are no right or wrong answers in these hypothetical scenarios, but the discussions should highlight the many competing interests of the different players, and the many ‘grey areas’ around broadcasters’ duty of care to reality contestants. The contestants in this show are not yet legally adults; the industry regulator, Ofcom, is required under the 2003 Broadcasting Act, to ensure. – that persons under the age of eighteen are protected (section 319(2)(a)); – that material likely to encourage or to incite the commission of crime or to lead to disorder is not included in television and radio services (section 319(2)(b)). A more detailed list of relevant regulations is provided on page SR3:8. If you class is up for it, you might want to distribute this for reference.

The Dilemmas – Issues to Raise Dilemma One: Legal drugs with a strong euphoric effect Should this be bought out into the open as a way of highlighting a social issue affecting young people – or will this damage the show’s reputation? Rules have been broken – how far must they be enforced? Should the person who brought in the drugs be penalised for an essentially legal activity – and would this risk alienating sections of the audience? How will the tabloids respond to the issue – and what impact might this have on Channel X? Could a doctor be brought into the programme to give the contestants a lecture – would this be responsible broadcasting, or draw attention to the lack of safety in the club environment? Or could the channel get away with letting the drugs go unpenalised, in the interests of edgy unpredictable entertainment – and what would Ofcom say? Dilemma Two: Pregnancy Again, a pregnancy scare would make great reality TV. Jade Goody’s cancer was revealed on air – are the issues different in this case, and if so, why? What are the health and psychological risks to the contestant? What about issues of confidentiality – should the channel inform parents against her wishes? She must have been pregnant before she entered the house – how far are the show’s producers negligent in not identifying this? What duty of care does the channel have towards her – and how will she be edited? Could the tabloids resist the opportunity for a huge story? If the audience complained, would Ofcom intervene? Dilemma Three: Bullying A particularly sensitive issue – but how does each role-group define the problem? Is it mainly about anti-social behaviour and how best to deal with it – and would it be seen as such by audiences? What about copyright infringement – which could pose huge legal problems for the channel? Or is it about the conflict generated between such different types of people and their sub-cultures – and what might the impact be on individuals? What would Ofcom say? Dilemma Four: The over-age contestant If revealed, would the show be exposed as fraudulent, and other contestants be disadvantaged? Could the broadcaster be accused of inadequate vetting processes? If decisions were left to the clubmates, would they behave responsibly? Dilemma Five: Food rations What responsibilities does the show have to the contestant’s health and wellbeing? Ethically, should the anorexic have been allowed to participate, or should she have been weeded out through the audition process? If the tabloids get hold of the story, how might she be represented? If the food runs out, is it part of the process of the show and the fault of the contestants – or should the how break its own rules and provide extra rations? Dilemma Six: The dance-off How far does this activity present a health and safety risk – and what can the producers do to minimise this? It’s likely to cause conflict – is this good or bad publicity for the show? And how will the contestants be affected by the ways their behaviour may be edited? What fall-out might there be for them in the ‘real world’ beyond the show? Dilemma Seven: The BNP finalist In the light of the furore over the accusations of racism in Big Brother 5, this is a particularly ethically problematic scenario, made trickier because the outcomes will depend on the extent to which the BNP-supporter encourages or incites racial hatred or violence. How has the contestant behaved so far? How is s/he likely to behave after the show is over, when there will be major media interest and thus a platform for his/her views? Should the contestant have the freedom of speech to air his/her views – and if not, what kinds of accusations could be made against Channel X for denying that right? What would the tabloid press make of this story – and with what results?

Doing Reality TV ± DQ (QJOLVK 0HGLD &HQWUH 2QOLQH 5HVRXUFH

Debriefing the Lock-In simulation Like many media activities, this simulation raises more questions than it answers. It is worth pointing out to students that broadcasters take this issue seriously. You could screen a short extract of the media practitioners’ simulation described on page 3:5. You might want to summarise the experience of doing the Lock-In activity with the class, to highlight the following: – in most cases, it is not in the interests of reality shows to deliberately misrepresent or humiliate – although this can happen – there is a tension between what makes good, dramatic reality TV (and high ratings), and what is in the best interests of participants – reality producers acknowledge a duty of care to their participants, but their procedures may not always be adequate, for reasons beyond their control – even within a single show, there may be debates between different elements of the production team, including those who look after the ‘talent’/participants, and those who protect the legal position and public profile of the broadcaster – the relationship between the producers and the press can be mutually beneficial – but also problematic – the role of Ofcom is difficult to enforce, and may not. For a particularly contentious discussion of the role of Ofcom, and liberal approaches to regulation in general, this Spiked Online article might be interesting teacher background reading – although not for students!

3:8

Doing Reality TV ± DQ (QJOLVK 0HGLD &HQWUH 2QOLQH 5HVRXUFH

doing reality tv

student resources unit 3 issues and debates U

Doing Reality TV â&#x20AC;&#x201C; an EMC Online Resource ÂŠ 2010

SR3:1

Contents Soundbites from Annette Hill

SR3:3

The Lock-In: an Ethical Debate Simulation

SR3:4

Role-cards

SR3:5

The Dilemmas

SR3:6

Ofcom Regulations

SR3:8

SR3:2

Doing Reality TV ± DQ (QJOLVK 0HGLD &HQWUH 2QOLQH 5HVRXUFH

Student Resource 3a: Soundbites from Annette Hill

It’s what we might call a second order experience of intense social communication, in the distanced way that we do with media, when we’re not actually there live with these people. So I think it encourages us to be critical of people in the shows. It then draws up people to be critical of themselves: “how do I feel watching the show? Do I feel good about watching ‘Big Brother’? Do I wish I were watching a nature documentary instead? Do I feel good about my opinions about Jade Goody? Is it okay to have these opinions about Jade Goody?’

Often, people come up with quite complex and messy moral issues which they find difficult to resolve, and they often feel quite bad about themselves for watching reality TV. So they will describe it as junk food TV – ‘I feel really bad that I’ve watched it, but I can’t help myself’. And that in turn shows a kind of critical reflection, a sense of awareness about taste, about some of the themes going on in reality TV to do with the way we treat each other – coming back to the theme of respect, for example. So it does invite the viewer to be critical, for sure.

One of the repetitive points made about reality TV is it only appeals to stupid people. And we have to start by saying that that’s just simply not true. Reality TV is so popular across the public in Britain that sometimes more than half the population are watching one reality TV show. So we have to say, well, not everyone can be stupid!

The majority of TV viewers come in with a default critical position: ‘I can play this game, but I’m critical of the way it’s been set up, the rules and often the way people are with each other’. In some ways it’s a kind of safe space in your own home to watch the social relations and the way people fight, argue, love and hate, and to have a very forceful opinion about it – even down to voting whether you like or dislike somebody and whether they should win or not win – without actually doing it in a real situation.

When you have a very people-orientated kind of genre, about emotional relations, social relations, the way we communicate or don’t communicate, it draws viewers in and forces them to take a critical position, because they’re drawn into the way people react with each other. They begin to imagine, ‘well, would I do that in that situation? Would I behave in that way? Would I even go on the show in the first place? Would I be the kind of person that would go on a reality TV show?’

SR3:3

Student Resource 3b: The Lock-In: an Ethical Debate Simulation In this role-play, you will be evaluating some of the editorial and ethical dilemmas around a new (fictional) reality show targeting older teen audiences. Before you start, read the show synopsis below.

How to play – Your group will be given a role-card, representing the roles and responsibilities of different people involved with the programme. – Read your role-card carefully. You will be given a dilemma to discuss, and asked to make particular decisions about the development of the show, based on issues and information revealed once the show has started. – As a group, discuss the dilemma you have been given, in role. Some suggested solutions are provided, but you may have other, far better ideas. Decide on your solution to the problem, making sure you can justify the decision you are making. – Prepare to meet up with colleagues to discuss the issue.

The Lock-In

This groundbreaking new daytime reality show will air daily over one week from 5 to 6pm on Channel X. The show will go out live and unedited from 12 midnight to 4am. An omnibus show will air the Sunday after the final show on More X.

The Big Idea

10 teens + 7 days + 1 club + 30 music tracks + £250 food budget = ? The Premise

Choose 10 feisty sixteen-year-olds, lock them in a state of the art club with food and music – and throw away the key. And then give them some problems: a playlist of 30 copyright-cleared music tracks guaranteed to drive them bonkers; restricted food supplies; sleepless nights – and who knows what will happen?

The Characters

To create narrative tension and human interest, the contestants will be carefully selected to represent a range of different sub-cultural, ethnic and lifestyle groups. Thus we will meet an assortment of characters, for example: a chav, a metalhead, a celebrity wannabe, an environmental campaigner, a privately educated student, a NEET, etc – an explosive mix of personalities and cultural interests.

The journey

This is a social experiment. How will these young people cope in a situation of restricted lighting, isolated from the outside world, family and social networks, deprived of their usual systems of communication, restricted in their choice of music, diet and comfort? How will they pass the time? Will they manage to negotiate their different lifestyles, personalities and musical tastes?

The prize

A year-long presenter’s contract with Channel X, plus a year’s full PR support from celebrity PR guru Max Clifford.

The rules

– No contact with the outside world; no mobile phones, computers, social networking, games or MP3 players. Failure to comply will result in immediate eviction.

– The only entertainment in the club will be 100 pre-selected music tracks, and 30 minutes of digital radio per day. – The DJ booth will function as a ‘Diary Room’ in which the teens can talk privately to The DJ – the show’s producers. – At the end of each day, the contestants will vote one candidate out of the club. – On the final day, the three remaining candidates will be put to the public vote, and the one with the most votes will win the competition.

SR3:4

Student Resource 3c: The Role Cards Producer This show is your baby! You control and oversee the day-to-day production of the show. This includes: finance, legal, administration, marketing, personnel, legal issues, a watching brief on editorial and creative decisions etc. You’re responsible for everything, from contracts to Health and Safety.You need to ensure that all the necessary licences and clearances have been obtained, and how to comply with regulations relating to liability and indemnity when shooting at different locations. You have to make sure the show is a success – but if there’s any trouble, the buck stops with you! For each dilemma, you must base the way you report the events on: – How events on the show will go down with audiences – Whether the show could be found at fault in terms of Health and Safety, the law, copyright and permissions, abuse of privacy, etc – Your responsibility to the teens taking part – What your Channel Controller will say

✂ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tabloid Editor Your newspaper depends on the entertainment business and reality television to create newsworthy stories and attract readers. Your gossip and life-style pages rely on reality coverage, and many ex-reality stars write columns and appear regularly in picture spreads. Your readers expect you to take an editorial view on what’s happening in current shows, and your opinion page often includes dilemmas and issues featured in them. You represent the voice of the public, so you have to listen out for audience response and concerns about the show. For each dilemma, you must base the way you report the events on: – What will make a newsworthy story – What will keep your readers interested – What fits in with your paper’s views on the show, and on reality TV in general

✂ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Lawyer You are the head of the Channel X Legal Department. Your job is to ensure that the show does not get Channel X into any trouble, either by infringing the laws of copyright, jeopardising the safety or human rights of those involved in the show, broadcasting illegal material or harming the public. For each dilemma, you must base the way you report the events on: – The responsibilites of Channel X to the teens on the programme – Any legal issues Channel X might be liable for – Protecting the reputation of Channel X

✂ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Psychologist You are part of the team set up to support the ‘talent’ on tne show, to ensure that the contestants are properly looked after, in a safe environment, and not at risk. Although they have been carefully selected to weed out any vulnerable or unstable personalities, you are aware of the pressures of their situation, and are particularly interested in their state of mind and well-being. For each dilemma, you must base the way you report the events on: – What’s in the best interests of the participants in the show – How far issues or events in the show might impact on the audience’s well-being

✂ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Press Officer Your job is to organise appropriate publicity for the show, the contestants, and Channel X, and ensure that the press, news channels and other media are well-informed so they can cover stories about the show. You may also have to do damage limitation if bad news stories are leaked which will impact unfavourably on the show. On the other hand, bad news is sometimes good news ... For each dilemma, you must base the way you report the events on: – What’s in the best interests of Channel X

Student Resource 3d: The Dilemmas Day One:

Would you:

Despite being forbidden to bring any food or drink into the club, one clubmate has smuggled in a supply of legal drugs and shared them around the group. Although the drugs are available over the counter, they are known to have a strong euphoric effect, and medical experts have strongly discouraged their use.

• confiscate them off-air, and say no more about it • bring the naughty club-mate to the DJ Booth for a telling off, screened on air • evict the naughty club-mate, making it clear on air why you are taking this action? • do something else ... e.g.?

✂ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Day Two:

Would you:

One of the clubmates comes to the DJ Booth, having discovered that she is pregnant. She is very distressed, but unwilling to leave the show, which she sees as a life-changing opportunity. She is desperate to conceal the pregnancy from her fellow club-mates, from the public, and from her parents, who do not yet know.

• encourage her to leave the club voluntarily so she can talk to her parents • call her parents and ask them to come and talk to her • ignore the situation and hope it won’t come to light until after the show is over • do something else ... e.g.?

✂ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Day Three:

Would you:

One clubmate is a bully, and is dominating the selection of music in the club, which is driving the other clubmates mad. He has also smuggled in some non-copyright cleared tracks, and is plotting to play them on tomorrow’s live show.

• speak to the bully in the DJ Booth, and explain his behaviour is anti-social • evict the bully for breaking the copyright law and contravening the Lock-In rules • engineer a showdown between the clubmates and see what happens • do something else ... e.g.?

✂ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Day Four:

Would you:

You overhear one clubmate confessing that he is actually twenty, and therefore over-age.

SR3:6

• decide to turn a blind eye in case the show is exposed as fraudulent • evict the clubmate overnight and ‘cover up’ the next day • call a club meeting and ask the other clubmates to decide what to do • do something else . . . eg?

Day Five:

Would you:

The food supplies are on the verge of running out. One clubmate is a recovering anorexic; she insists on giving her rations to feed her peers.

• let the remaining clubmates starve – after all there’s only two days left • intervene with exra food supplies • encourage the anorexic to eat, and insist she seeks counselling in the DJ Booth • do something else . .. eg?

✂ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Day Six:

Would you:

You have scheduled a dance-off task, in whch the remaining clubmates dance continuously for several hours; the winner earns extra food and music supplies for the club. However, they are utterly exhausted, tempers are frayed, there is conflict over the choice of music, and scuffles are breaking out.

• cancel the dance-off and find a more soothing but less televisual task • let the dance-off go ahead, and hope there’ll be fireworks • reduce the time-scale of the dance-off, and monitor it carefully • do something else . . . eg?

✂ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Day Seven:

Would you:

It’s the final day and only three housemates remain to face the public vote. Through a leak, you diiscover that one is a member of the BNP, and if he wins, will use his status to promote the BNP message.

• expose him on air, so that the public is aware of his political agenda • do nothing and hope he doesn’t win • ensure the other two clubmates know his views and confront him on air • do something else . .. eg?

SR3:7

Student Resource 3e: Ofcom Regulations Relevant to The Lock-In Simulation See the Ofcom website for the full regulations and the adjudication of the complaints against Celebrity BB5. Section 1: Protecting the Under-Eighteens 1.3 Children must...be protected by appropriate scheduling from material that is unsuitable for them. 1.11 Violence, its after-effects...whether verbal or physical, must be appropriately limited in programmes broadcast before the watershed...and must also be justified by the context. 1.12 Violence, whether verbal or physical, that is easily imitable by children in a manner that is harmful...must not be broadcast before the watershed... unless there is editorial justification.

Section 2: Harm and Offence

2.1 Generally accepted standards must be applied to the contents of television and radio services so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from the inclusion in such services of harmful and/ or offensive material. 2.3 In applying generally accepted standards broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context...Such material may include...humiliation, distress, violation of human dignity, discriminatory treatment or language (for example, on the grounds of...race...). Appropriate information should also be broadcast where it would assist in avoiding or minimising offence. 2.4 Programmes must not include material (whether in individual programmes or in programmes taken together) which, taking into account the context, condones or glamorises...seriously antisocial behaviour and is likely to encourage others to copy such behaviour.

Section Three: Crime 3.1 Material likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or to lead to disorder must not be included in television or radio services.

Section 7: Fairness: Dealing Fairly with Contributors and Obtaining Informed Consent 7.2 Broadcasters and programme makers should normally be fair in their dealings with potential contributors to programmes unless, exceptionally, it is justified to do otherwise. 7.3 Where a person is invited to make a contribution to a programme (except when the subject matter is trivial or their participation minor) they should normally, at an appropriate stage: • be told the nature and purpose of the programme, what the programme is about and be given a clear explanation of why they were asked to contribute and when (if known) and where it is likely to be first broadcast; • be told what kind of contribution they are expected to make, for example live, pre-recorded, interview, discussion, edited, unedited, etc.; • be informed about the areas of questioning and, wherever possible, the nature of other likely contributions; • be made aware of any significant changes to the programme as it develops which might reasonably affect their original consent to participate, and which might cause material unfairness; • be told the nature of their contractual rights and obligations and those of the programme maker and broadcaster in relation to their contribution; and • be given clear information, if offered an opportunity to preview the programme, about whether they will be able to effect any changes to it.

SR3:8

Taking these measures is likely to result in the consent that is given being ‘informed consent’. It may be fair to withhold all or some of this information where it is justified in the public interest or under other provisions of this section of the Code. 7.4 If a contributor is under sixteen, consent should normally be obtained from a parent or guardian, or other person of eighteen or over in loco parentis. In particular, persons under sixteen should not be asked for views on matters likely to be beyond their capacity to answer properly without such consent. 7.5 In the case of persons over sixteen who are not in a position to give consent, a person of eighteen or over with primary responsibility for their care should normally give it on their behalf. In particular, persons not in a position to give consent should not be asked for views on matters likely to be beyond their capacity to answer properly without such consent. 7.6 When a programme is edited, contributions should be represented fairly. 7.7 Guarantees given to contributors, for example relating to the content of a programme, confidentiality or anonymity, should normally be honoured.

a Tale of Two (Real) Women During 2009, tabloid press coverage has been dominated by the stories of two contrasting reality show contestants and the involvement of both old and new media in their rise and fall. Steph Hendry explores the central and ambivalent role of audiences in the lives of Jade Goody and Susan Boyle.

It’s been an odd year in the world of ‘reality’ television. Big Brother’s 2009 broadcast was less than enthusiastically received with declining viewing figures suggesting the country’s love-affair with BB and its tabloid spin-offs is at an end. This was confirmed by C4’s recent announcement that they will no longer broadcast the show after 2010. On the other hand, reality TV’s dominance in mainstream culture seems to have hit maximum capacity several times this year. Two events dominated the world of reality TV in the first half of 2009: the death of Jade Goody and the rise of Susan Boyle. Coming within a month of each other in March and April, the public and media responses to these two stories can be seen to represent the changing nature of modern media as we enter the second decade of the century. There is a decrease in ‘old media’s’ dominance in leading the way celebrity events are mediated and the phenomenon of Jade Goody was largely driven by ‘old media’ such as television broadcasting, tabloid newspapers and magazines. The Susan Boyle story symbolises the start of ‘new media’s’ power in disseminating information and allowing audiences to be part of the construction of a story; at the same time it highlights the rise in influence of new technologies such as YouTube and Twitter.

24 MediaMagazine | December 2009 | english and media centre

Jade Goody The story of Jade Goody is a tragic one. The death of any 27-year-old mother of two is sad, but in itself not particularly newsworthy; however this event was the resolution of the tumultuous narrative the media and Jade herself had presented of Jade’s life. As a Big Brother contestant in 2002, Jade was vilified by the tabloid press and despised for being ‘fat’, ‘ugly’ and ‘thick’. Despite not winning Big Brother, she went on to be the most successful ex-housemate in terms of her public profile and earnings. She became a regular fixture in magazines such as heat, OK! and Now! and was the subject of fly-on-the-wall documentaries which consolidated her fame. At the height of this time of positive representations she followed the lead of other celebrity ‘brands’ and a perfume was released under her name. Her popularity was hit when she was accused of racist and bullying behaviour whilst taking part in 2007’s Celebrity Big Brother and, until her illness, this scandal damaged her earning potential and her media presence dwindled.

Jade was in the process of rebuilding her career when, on India’s version of Big Brother (Big Boss), she was given the news that she had cervical cancer. From this time on, her media saleability increased as her illness, her treatments and ultimately her death were all reported in a range of media forms. Towards the end of her life she was being filmed by Living TV and the image of her physical deterioration was used in tabloid newspapers and in gossip magazines along with a range of stories following her and her family’s responses to the illness. Jade’s story was that of an underdog making good. She was an ordinary girl, who escaped from the mundanity of everyday life and found herself in the privileged world of celebrity. Not possessing a saleable talent, Jade’s unique selling point was her ordinariness and the fact that she represented a belief that ordinary people, with limited talent, little education and from poor and troubled backgrounds could experience a life of wealth and fame. Her illness and death became public property and it was recognised that this trying time in her life could

MM financially benefit her, her family and a range of media outlets. She epitomised a relatively new media phenomenon, that of the celebrity who lives their life on camera – she has subsequently been replaced by ‘Peter and Katie’ (and now ‘Peter’ and ‘Katie’ separately, of course) and Kerry Katona, who have film crews documenting the day-to-day details of their lives as well as the more glamorous activities they undertake. All of these celebrities turn the events of everyday life – children’s illnesses, marital disputes, bad moods and tantrums – into dramatic conflicts for their televised or reported narratives. Peter and Katie’s recent split and Kerry’s bipolar disorder, cocaine habit and assorted problems have become threads in the ‘soap operas’ provided for their audiences. At times it seems as if these lives are being presented to us as a way to make us feel good about our own lives as the audience is shown the downsides of celebrity life and we are often positioned to sit in judgement as celebrity marriages fray, careers take downturns and we see the human weaknesses behind the ‘public face’. Of course what we are shown is not their private life at all; the public watch lives that are carefully edited and constructed into stories. The audience gratifications received whilst watching such programmes or following tabloid reporting are complex: the aspirational desire for the lifestyles we see, combined with the pleasure we take in seeing these figures suffering, has been described as the modern equivalent of the medieval practice of public punishment. However, Jade’s illness took these ‘pleasures’ to another level as her ‘punishment’ didn’t fit her ‘crimes’: she died the way she lived, with the public watching.

Whilst the web is part of the communication of these stories, celebrity exposés and the ongoing reporting of these reality stars’ lives suits the tabloid format well. Tabloid newspapers like The Sun, The Star and The Mirror are constantly searching for front page stories/images that will persuade readers to buy their publications. One of the conventions of the tabloid is that they tend to use emotive stories to engage their audience – the emotion itself isn’t all that important: shock, outrage, anger, pity, sadness or joy all work well. The reporting of Jade’s illness saw several narrative devices being employed as she was transformed from a figure of hatred and mockery into a tragic hero the audience could identify with due to her ‘ordinariness’, and admire due to her courage and strength in adversity. Her whole family were recast into roles that supported this view (both her husband, Jack Tweedy, and her mother, Jackiey Budden, had received almost exclusively negative press before news of Jade’s illness broke) and the emotional story of Jade’s illness and subsequent death were used to sell newspapers. Tabloid/gossip magazines also contributed to the dominance of this story with their weekly or monthly front covers being devoted to the ‘next instalment’ of the story of her illness. OK! even went as far as to print a special memorial edition before Goody died (including the claim that the

magazine contained her ‘last words’). Although the magazine was dated March 24th 2009, it was, in fact, on sale from the 17th March – five days before Jade’s death on the 22nd. The magazine claimed that this was following the family’s wishes but, given the practicalities involved in printing and getting a magazine to the newsstands, it’s as likely that this was a cynical move by an organisation who knew Jade had very little time left and was determined to beat the competition in getting the ‘memorial’ edition to the public.

english and media centre | December 2009 | MediaMagazine

Susan Boyle

26 MediaMagazine | December 2009 | english and media centre

judging panel and the audience which were clearly based on her appearance. What is clearly visible in people’s faces is mockery and disdain because Boyle did not present the image expected of women singers. She was immediately judged on her appearance and seen to be ‘other’, an outsider in a culture that favours physical perfection, grooming and youth. Piers Morgan reacted with disgust when Boyle, responding to a question about her age, challenged the preconception of her by saying that being 47 was ‘just one side of me’ while gyrating her hips. Morgan reflected the contemporary focus on youth culture by being revolted at the idea that an older woman could be sexual – until she started to sing. Boyle’s voice created an unexpected juxtaposition to the expectations created by her physicality and shone a light on some naturalised contemporary values, forcing people to re-examine them. However, as the story progressed, Boyle’s emotional breakdowns became the focus of the story and reporting began to consolidate the ideas her performance had originally challenged. Her lack of urban sophistication and what was seen as her sheltered existence reinforced the notion that she is different – ‘not one of us’. The fact that she found the media attention difficult to handle reinforced the view that she was an anomaly, suggesting our initial surprise was, perhaps, the right response as she clearly was not cut out for the glamorous and exciting world of media celebrity. Boyle underwent a makeover and began to look more polished but nothing could alter the fact that she is a plump, middle-aged spinster from the country – not the usual candidate for tabloid attention. The original performance created a mininarrative in itself where an unlikely hero rose against the problems and conflicts in front of her to reach her goal. As the story developed further conflicts came to light and the heroic victory Boyle initially achieved on the Britain’s Got Talent stage began to diminish. It is still not clear how this story will resolve.

The role of e-media in the Boyle phenomenon is also significant. The speed with which her story spread, not only across the UK but also across the globe, makes this a unique news phenomenon. Twitter comments and the accessibility of the YouTube video ensured that within 24 hours those who had not seen the original broadcast were aware of it and had access to it. The fact that celebrity support was given to Ms Boyle, notably from Demi Moore, added to the story’s newsworthiness and as more traditional news outlets picked up on the story its impact increased. At the time of writing, the original YouTube video has had over 79 million views (and there are several other versions of the same clip).

Some conclusions Both of these stories identify the importance of the audience in today’s media landscape. In Boyle’s case, the audience response turned a non-newsworthy event into something that kept the world’s press busy for several weeks. The real story here was about the audience, not Boyle. The fact that millions of people found her performance noteworthy and, perhaps, felt guilty about their initial response to her appearance, was central to the media’s response. Similarly, the media’s focus on Jade’s illness and death was also a response to audience interest. If reality shows did not attract viewers and reality-show-led front page headlines did not enhance newspaper and magazine sales, it’s safe to say the story would not have dominated in the way it did. Given that these two events were followed by another celebrity media frenzy after the death of Michael Jackson (announced on a gossip website and passed round and commentated on via Twitter), it seems the modern audience may have been turned off by Big Brother of late, but the lives and deaths of celebrities big and small capture the public’s interest. New media are playing a major role in spreading the word and enabling audiences to be part of the story. Steph Hendry teaches Media at Runshaw College and is an examiner for AQA.

Channel 4 Press Site for images from Big Brother; Rex Features for images from Britain’s Got Talent

Where Big Brother’s ratings have been on a steady decline, the TV talent show has really hit its stride in 2009. One of the biggest stories of the year came out of reality television: the story of Susan Boyle who rose to national prominence when she took to the stage for Britain’s Got Talent in April 2009. The original broadcast of her performance was swiftly uploaded to YouTube and, thanks to Twitter, word rapidly spread about the ‘shock’ performance on the show. Hollywood stars, politicians and the news media quickly got involved in discussions about Boyle and the discussions included comment on the relatively new phenomena that has been developing over the last few years: the power of e-media technologies to spread information quickly and across national borders. Within days, Boyle’s’ performance was the ‘most watched’ video on YouTube and the singer had achieved international fame by the end of the week. This was, of course, just the start of the Susan Boyle narrative which continued for several weeks and had several threads: her past was scrutinised and judged; her next appearance on Britain’s Got Talent was eagerly anticipated; the impact of the sudden fame on a ‘simple woman from Scotland’ was discussed and her physical appearance and its changes became a story in itself. The story built to the climax that was the TV programme’s final. This climax became more of an anti-climax though, as Boyle came second to a dance troupe and the excessive media interest in her seemed to have tarnished her talent in the eyes of the voting audience – perhaps a victim of media saturation. After losing the competition, Boyle had a stint in ‘rehab’ and ironically the media that couldn’t get enough of the Boyle story began to blame the producers of the television programme for not protecting her from the pressures of stardom – perhaps that should have been the pressures of media attention? A subsequent tour had Boyle pull out of a number of performances and she has, until recently, been off the media radar as she is working on the recording of an album. Now the hype has died down it’s worth considering what the story was really about. ‘Woman can sing’ is hardly news even if ‘contestant in TV talent show can sing’ is slightly more unexpected. Boyle appeared to be newsworthy in the first instance, not because she could sing but because of the way she looked. Susan Boyle surprised people because she does not meet audience expectations: she is a middle-aged, plump woman who has talent. Any exploration of the news values of the Boyle story has to explore the idea of the representation of women, given that the most common positive representations of women, in today’s media are as being thin, young and attractive. Despite the recent ‘Size 0’ debates, the idealised physical image of women is still very narrow and often a woman’s accomplishments are secondary to her physical appearance. Myleene Klass for example is a classically trained pianist. This fact has been played on in recent Pantene ads but the main point of the campaign has been that Myleene has great hair. The surprise that was created by Boyle, is evident in the video of the original performance where the cuts focus us on the responses of the

doing reality tv

teachers’ guide unit 4 controlled assessment U

4:1

Contents Using the Sample Examination Paper

4:3

Please note: links, programme titles, newspaper articles in blue text are all ‘live’. When connected to the internet, you can access these pages directly by clicking on the link in the PDF.

4:2

Using the Sample Examination Paper Please note: this is very definitely a sample paper, modelled on the format of previous AQA Controlled tests, and therefore entirely speculative. It’s offered here for practice purposes to give students a feel for potential tasks and the ways questions might be framed; the breakdown of potential answers should provide an audit of the sorts of skills and knowledge students may need to demonstrate when tackling the pre-release brief.

1a. Give three key features of mainstream reality shows which particularly appeal to audiences, with examples from particular shows to support your ideas. Possible responses will depend on the examples chosen, but could include: – ‘real’ people – opportunities to observe how other people live and behave, and follow their stories; identifiable characters with whom audiences can identify – narratives – the organisation of events through editing to tell stories – the journey, the quest, the resolution of a problem, etc – apparent lack of script, allowing for the unpredictable – familiar formats and convention – similarities and differences to other shows – an element of competition – participants interacting with each other for a prize or reward, whether financial, career-related, or around talent or popularity; the narrative of who will win, who will lose; heroes and villains; – potential for conflict – opportunities to take sides in on-screen confrontation, personality clashes, divisions within a group (in reality game shows); – competitions and prizes – opportunities to influence content of a show through voting – participation in a community generated around the show – e.g. forums, Facebook groups, fan sites – entertainment – e.g. admiring development of skills, or lack of them; enjoyment in other people’s discomfort or success; diversion and escape fro personal reality, etc. This and the following question require students to ‘recall, select and communicate knowledge and understanding’ of media products in their production and consumption contexts; knowledge of noncontemporary texts is not required.

1b. One criticism of British reality TV is that the editing process often manipulates audiences and contestants by constructing sensationalised or unfair representations of groups of people in society. How far do you agree? Give examples to support your views A strong answer here will: – identify and address the key elements of the question – the role of editing in reality TV, and ways it can be used to misrepresent individuals or social groups – demonstrate an understanding of representation and stereotyping in reality TV – be able to make coherent arguments both for and against this critique, drawing on a range of different reality sub-genres – quote recent examples which both support and challenge this critique – refer in close detail to one or more examples from different programmes to illustrate points made – use media terminology accurately to describe particular editing techniques or conventions in detail, and explain their impact on audiences – communicate competently and effectively, using accurate spelling, punctuation and grammar

2a. Provide us with your pitch for a new family reality show. You need to think about: – location and mise-en-scène – contestants – an appropriate title – how it will appeal to a family audience. This task requires students to demonstrate research, planning and presentation skills. They will be rewarded for sketches, designs and illustrative material that support their ideas. Strong candidates will show imagination and creativity. While originality may be hard to achieve, the tweaking or re-cycling of existing features for a new context should be possible. This particular brief requires students to avoid a celebrity focus, and to produce for a family audience; strong answers will show an understanding of these demands. A strong answer will: – offer a convincing and persuasive pitch addressing each of the points – demonstrate a clear grasp of ‘product’ which shows a confident understanding of the forms and conventions of reality television – demonstrate how the proposed show will appeal to the different interests of a family audience – propose imaginative and creative variations on the genre – meet the demands of the brief and communicate competently and effectively using mainly accurate spelling, punctuation and grammar – use media terminology with confidence – be likely to made in role.

2b. We plan to use the internet to promote our new show. EITHER Give us your design for the homepage of a website for your programme, and explain how you think it will attract audiences. You should use the A3 sheet enclosed OR Sequences from the winning pitch will be placed on the website. Storyboard a 30-second extract from the opening sequence of your show which introduces its main themes and visual style. You should use the storyboard sheet attached. This task assesses students’ production and evaluation skills, as well as the content of their ideas. It requires that candidates respond to the exact requirements of the brief – i.e. a home page, or part of the opening sequence; those who misinterpret or offer a variation on the task will not access the highest mark bands. Strong candidates should be able to demonstrate one of the following: – understanding of the ways home pages can be used to promote the programme, engage the audience, and exploit the interactive potential of the internet – a secure understanding of the purpose of an opening sequence in constructing and introducing to audiences the format and sub-genre of the show, its narrative and main characters, and its visual style and appeals. A strong answer will – show a secure understanding of homepage/or storyboard conventions, and annotations or rationales should use terminology accurately. – include a well-presented design wholly appropriate both to the brief, the show, and its target audience – show evidence of creativity and imagination so that the design created has an engaging and persuasive impact – show flair and sophistication within the constraints of a 30 second storyboard or web site home page. – in role, use colour, diagrams, approximations of fonts, and sketches of images, but supplement with annotations or explanations where artwork skills are limited.

4:4

doing reality tv

student resources unit 4 controlled assessment U

Doing Reality TV â&#x20AC;&#x201C; an EMC Online Resource ÂŠ 2010

SR4:1

Contents The Sample Controlled Assessment Paper

SR4:2

SR4:3

Sample Controlled Assessment Paper Read the letter below, then complete the tasks on the following page.

Simulacrum Productions Box Street London E8 Dear Student, Channel Real is a new cable television channel specialising in a range of documentary and factual programming. We are always on the lookout for new ideas and pride ourselves in the role we have already played in launching new and innovative formats. We are currently working on a project to reignite the previous success of British reality shows in attracting family audiences. We are aware that recent shows have focused on either the big budget franchised reality talent show format, or on quirkier productions for smaller and niche audiences – BBC3 has done very well with the youth market. In spite of this, we believe that successful mainstream reality TV can cut across all age groups and social classes. However, we also recognise that it is important to respond to the concerns and identity of our modern culture and we are not interested in reproducing the over-the-top celebrity focus which has recently been such an important feature of reality television. We are also keen to use technology to respond to changing television viewing habits and audience involvement, building on such successes as the iPlayer, interactive web forums, and spin-off prgramming. We are planning a launch of a new reality series for an eight-week run in the autumn schedules and here is where you have a chance to become involved. We would like to commission a treatment for the format of this series, together with some ideas about how we can use new technologies to engage our target family audience. Remember we want our new series to keep all the appeals of reality TV, whilst offering something fresh and relevant to the lives of our target family audience in the 21st century. We are working to a tight deadline so it would help us if you could complete the following tasks to help us draw up a short list of entries for our final selections. Remember to do the following: • keep your responses sharp and to the point • use diagrams and illustrations to support your ideas. We look forward to receiving your entry. Yours faithfully,

S. C. Riter Commissioning Editor

Complete all tasks You should spend 45 minutes on Tasks 1(A) and 1(B) and 45 minutes on Tasks 2(A) and 2(B) 1a. Give three key features of mainstream reality shows which particularly appeal to audiences, with examples from particular shows to support your ideas. (15 marks AO1)

END OF TASKS

SR4:4

An interview with Annette Hill MM: How would you define Love it or loathe it, there’s no escaping it – Reality TV is everywhere. reality TV? To define reality TV is the million MediaMag interviewed Annette Hill, dollar question because it really resists definition. We could say that Professor of Media at Westminster there are two broad elements of University, academic guru and fan a genre that make it reality TV: an observational strand, where you follow people of the genre, on why there’s so around and see what happens, and a created much of it, its impact and appeals strand where you make a situation work in front of the television, almost like made-for-TV reality. to audiences, and where it’s going. Both of those strands always rely on a mix of fact Along the way she raises important and fiction, of popular elements of documentary or news, combined with popular elements of issues about its ethics and morality, lifestyle or talk shows and even little bits of broadcasters’ duty of care to its drama like melodrama or soap opera. participants, and its role in television’s The wonderful thing which makes reality television so interesting to study is that it blurs survival of the fittest. the boundary between factual programming

14 MediaMagazine | December 2009 | english and media centre

like news and documentary and fictional programming like soap opera or melodrama – and it works precisely because it blurs these boundaries. So when you study it, it’s quite difficult to pull apart the crucial key elements that make something more factual or more entertaining. But if you look at examples like 999 there’s a very clear instruction; you can see it’s coming from a much more documentary frame, where you want to teach the public to improve their knowledge of something quite specific. Shows like The X Factor or Britain’s Got Talent on the other hand are lovely examples of programmes with a minimal amount of instruction and information; they are much more about working in an entertainment/drama frame, where the audience is brought into the entertainment to make a difference to the outcome of the story in the end. Reality TV is a hybrid of the two things coming together.

MM: Why reality TV, why now? What were the factors that have contributed to it? From the nineteenth century onwards the development of popular culture has been about the survival of the fittest in a difficult economic creative environment: how does something survive and grow and make money and be entertaining to the mass audience? Reality TV is a direct response to that. For example, in the 1980s, the growth and huge success of the talk show, with people talking about themselves, arguing and debating and fighting over their emotional and personal lives became high conflict situations, could be seen as a precursor of reality TV. In the 1980s there was an actors’ strike and a big conflict around what was paid to writers of drama. And this created a wonderful gap in the market which was filled by reality TV. It also exploited the success of local news, which was a boom area in the 1980s, where we had ‘on-scene/as-it-happened’ styles of news. Throughout the 1990s reality TV took over from the talk show and became the most dominant genre in factual entertainment in America and in Britain, and we’ve seen it spread around the world with different kinds of formats like Big Brother or Idols or Strictly Come Dancing today. Now in the Noughties, we have strikes going on around writers’ pay and actors’ pay once again, and we can see the huge

growth of the reality talent show genre as a direct response to this. So it’s always a creative and economic response to a crisis going on within broadcasting.

MM: Is there a difference between reality TV on BBC and on other commercial broadcasters? Public service broadcasters like the BBC came in early on the more instructional observational styles of reality television. So 999 or the very popular lifestyle show Changing Rooms were good examples of reality television which, though entertaining, also had an instructional public service element. Meanwhile the response from commercial broadcasters was much more about shows which would produce income, for example, voting revenue; that voting revenue didn’t feed back into a public service environment but into a direct commercial environment. Channel 4, being a hybrid of public service and a commercial channel, can pick a format like Big Brother where the revenue feeds back into the commercial environment of the show. The BBC has to be much more careful with the styles of reality TV that it adopts. So the created-for-TV type reality shows – especially the ‘high conflict’ shows – are more likely to be broadcast on commercial channels.

One very recent example is Living TV, one of the success stories of the multichannel environment, producing a show like Dating in the Dark – a lovely, crazy mix of lifestyle and something to do with senses and sensory journeys. This would be almost an impossible show for the BBC to make because it’s just too risky. Whereas for Living, it’s exactly the kind of risky, sexy mix of different styles that they can get away with.

english and media centre | December 2009 | MediaMagazine

MM: What kind of impact has it had on other factual genres? The reality genre has had a huge impact on other kinds of factual genres. In fact, I’d go as far as to say that there’s been a more general restyling of many kinds of factual content, from news and investigative programmes, through documentary to lifestyle and reality TV as a whole. The mix of different styles – that focus on drama and entertainment, that focus on conflict – that characterises reality TV has become much more present within other kinds of factual programming. In the audience research I’ve done, one of the viewers described it as ‘things were becoming reality-infected.’ For many viewers this was a problem, a cause for concern. They don’t want their news to be like Big Brother, they want it to be trustworthy and good and proper, so they know about what’s going on in the world; and they want Big Brother to be entertaining and a game.

MM: How do different audiences relate to reality TV, and how do they use it? It’s often claimed that reality TV only appeals to stupid people, and we have to start by saying that that’s just simply not true! Firstly, it’s precisely the experimental nature of it, the fact that it is a mix of the things you like in other shows, a bit of soap opera, a bit of documentary, a bit of a talk show. We’re attracted to that hybrid nature of the genre. Sometimes, in a programme like Britain’s Got Talent the experimental mixing of genres works perfectly. A second factor would be the emphasis on emotions, drama, relationships: our hopes and fears and dreams, and what makes us angry, what makes us cry, what makes us happy. All of that is performed within these kinds of reality TV shows. And we get to interact with these people, whether through arguing with them, relating to them, or voting for or against them. And we get to think about our own relationships and what we do in similar situations in some way. So the ‘people’ element and the emotions is crucially important. Another big factor is that because sometimes half of the population is watching one show at any one time we become part of the event of a reality TV show, where it builds up momentum week by week. Strictly is a wonderful example of that; it builds week by week on the BBC and we not only watch the show, but we read the newspapers about the show, we follow the training of the dancers, the comments of the celebrities, we vote for them. And the show becomes like a big juggernaut coming towards us, gathering viewers, through to the end to the big finale. That’s a wonderful example of the way that the genre works so well in drawing in the public so that they can participate in something really truly social in society.

16 MediaMagazine | December 2009 | english and media centre

MM: What about different demographics – in terms of class, gender, age, etc? Reality TV couldn’t be the success story it is if it didn’t appeal to lots of different kinds of audiences. It’s an all-round pleaser, an allround entertainer. It manages this by drawing on the things we like about other genres. However, we do know some things: first of all, it appeals to younger viewers. I would call some older viewers ‘reality refuseniks’, whereas a lot of younger viewers, especially around 15-35 are much more attracted to the experimental nature of the genre, and the fact that it’s about people, about following ideas and subjects and emotions, and seeing what unfolds. Women tend to like it a bit more than men, and that’s certainly related to the fact that much reality TV draws on soap opera which, traditionally, has been a genre that appeals to women. Over the last 10 years it’s become much more appealing to both men and women, with big talent shows like Strictly or The X Factor, while shows like The Apprentice or Dragons’ Den are aimed specifically at a more male market. And as the genre develops I think it’s going to need to cover both men and women. The third area we should look at is class. Different kinds of classes are represented in the shows themselves. The Secret Millionaire is a

wonderful example of a programme in which somebody who has made a lot of money and taken themselves out of their working-class roots, goes back in to have another look at it. Regardless of whether they’re rich or poor, viewers tend to have similar responses. So in this case, reality TV unites the public across gender, and across class, and this makes it appealing to the audience, even though it’s representing different classes within the shows themselves.

MM: What’s your own favourite reality show? Most recently my favourite show is anything to do with the chorister Gareth Malone. In his recent series Unsung Town we see him taking a deprived community that’s had its share of problems and along he comes and tries to persuade people that singing together can

MM somehow make a difference in their lives. And it’s an uphill struggle, and in some ways it doesn’t matter if he succeeds or not because we want to see him struggle and go through the process. And, in fact, as the show unfolds what we begin to see is people initially reluctant to join a choir coming together and becoming more and more enthusiastic and making the community mend in some way. A wonderful feel-good story, with a fantastic character and a set of supporting characters within the community that make the story an amazing emotional and personal journey.

MM: Can you talk about the moral panics around reality TV, and why it’s become so contentious? As a new genre, reality TV introduces a whole set of new and controversial elements into the existing media environment. It’s a new style using different kinds of techniques and technologies across the multimedia, multi-platform environment, all of which are unfamiliar and which can therefore feel scary and frighten people. And their responses often emerge as moral arguments and highlight a fear that something new can threaten the current state of the quality of television. So some of the biggest and still most dominant discussions about reality TV are precisely that it’s trash TV, junk food TV. Reality TV as junk food TV has become such a dominant discourse in society that even viewers who watch it are repeating the same arguments back to us. And that’s a natural reaction to something new. Also, because reality TV is controversial in the way it mixes different things, it often makes mistakes and can produce something that’s terrible as well as something brilliant. And these concerns are not only about the quality of the content – is it good? – but about the impact of the content on the audience. Those are assumptions about the moral impact of a genre on an audience which just don’t take into account the audience themselves. We have to take these recurring concerns about reality TV and put them into a much bigger social, political, economic context and add some balance to it. We have to make sure that we talk to people who watch the shows, and to people who make the shows, in order to make an informed evaluation of reality TV. It’s here to stay, and we have to learn to deal with it, to understand it, to analyse it and predict where it’s going in order to make sense of it.

MM: Let’s take an obvious example – Jade Goody and the racism row. Could that be seen as a positive learning experience for audiences and for broadcasters? The elements of bullying and accusations of racism within Celebrity Big Brother had an immediate impact on the public. The thousands of complaints that came through from the public clearly showed that the

issue of respect and disrespect was uppermost in their minds. They knew that this was something that was not okay, and that fair treatment not only of the celebs in Big Brother but of people more generally, is really, really important. So there you have something negative going on in a show that actually set up a much broader dialogue, in a much more positive way.

MM: In your research you’ve argued that reality TV is, by definition, a genre which requires viewers to view and debate critically. Reality television is very much a people-orientated kind of genre. It is about emotional relations, social relations, the way we communicate, the way we don’t communicate. It draws people in and forces them to take a position, often a critical position, often by imagining, would I do that in that situation? Would I behave in that way? In some ways it provides a kind of safe space in your own home to watch the social relations, the way people fight and argue and love and hate, and so on. It’s what we might call a second order experience of intense social communication; but from a distance, when we’re not actually there live with these people. I think it encourages viewers to be critical of people in the shows, and then to be critical of themselves: ‘how do I feel watching the show, you know, do I feel good about watching something like Big Brother? Do I feel good about my opinions about Jade Goody? Is it okay to have these opinions?’ It brings up quite complex and messy moral issues which are difficult to resolve. So it invites the viewer to be critical, for sure. What reality TV does is bring up a moral issue and make people confront it and say, well, what kind of position are we going to take? Whether it resolves the issue for people is another matter.

MM: What about the broadcasters themselves? What is their duty of care? Should there be more exercise of control? Well, the policy environment for the treatment of ordinary people in reality TV is a fairly light-touch policy. And that’s enough for some programme-makers; they feel that, if people have signed an informed consent where they allow the programme-makers to film them in difficult situations and the programmemakers have the end choice about how that’s represented on screen, then that’s enough. And that comes from the documentary tradition where signing an informed consent allows the film-maker to create the story out of what they see unfolding. The problem is with the createdfor-TV types of reality shows, especially the talent shows, which include a lot of ‘humiliation TV’, signing that informed consent isn’t necessarily quite enough. I think the editorial policy will have to catch up with the development of the genre, and with the way people participate in reality TV shows. When people go into these talent shows, they know the formats but, at the same time, they’re really not prepared for how programme-makers will make them look at the end. Take an example like Brat Camp, where you have parents at the end of their tether, with teenagers with serious behavioural and emotional problems who supposedly go to a camp that’s going to fix them – fix their behaviour – in some way. This is a show that is absolutely about a high crisis situation. And you do feel for the families who are having to cope with a teenager who’s really exhibiting quite extreme challenging behaviours. One debate with the programme-makers is about the fact that, in order to make the kind of show we like to watch about high conflict situations and

english and media centre | December 2009 | MediaMagazine

challenging behaviour, they’re going to treat the teenagers in particular kinds of ways. Somehow we have to allow producers the leeway to do that. We have to weigh up how far do we want this kind of reality TV as entertainment and how far we want the ethical treatment of people who are really challenged within these shows. And I don’t have an easy answer to it.

MM: How much can we ‘trust’ reality TV? Renowned documentary maker, Roger Graef’s idea of chains of trust and distrust is a wonderful concept for us to use in the analysis of reality television. I would say at its best, reality TV can invoke a chain of trust. Gareth Malone’s The Choir is a great example of that, where the documentary elements really allow us to place trust in the programme-makers and build up that bond with the audience where we do trust that this show has been made fairly and ethically and with a lot of consideration. If the genre continues to deal with big issues to do with health and education and mind, body and spirit matters or family breakdown, or the ‘broken Britain’ theme, then the programme-makers really need to build trust with the viewers.

They’re dealing with serious issues and this requires a basis of trust that people have been treated fairly, that it’s a well-made programme with an ethical consideration to participation.

MM: Can you give an example that you think really shouldn’t be broadcast? One personal example for me of an area where I think reality TV maybe crosses the moral line and where you have to say no, I don’t want to watch that, I wish that hadn’t been made, is a show on Five called The Baby Mind Reader. This was a show where a psychic felt that he could improve the lives of very, very distraught families by somehow psychically accessing the minds of their babies. And whilst he made some behavioural improvements with the show, it was so incredibly difficult and it was in such a grey area of belief and hopes and faith in something that felt just too personal for

18 MediaMagazine | December 2009 | english and media centre

the programme-makers even to be covering. It was so contentious that, in fact, I felt maybe this wasn’t a topic for television, and it was something that should have been kept private.

MM: Can you foresee where we might be going next with reality TV? The trend that we’ve seen already set over the last few years for reality talent shows is going to continue, for lots of reasons. One is that variety is an absolute fundamental part of popular culture, and it’s part of its history from day 1, and it will continue to be a crucial part of the way popular culture develops in the future. And secondly, economically and in terms of production issues, the birth of the format, which allows a particular show to be reproduced around the world, will continue to ride the wave in popular TV genres. Looking at social and cultural trends more broadly, I think we’re going to see some kind of move towards issues to do with the mind, body and spirit, perhaps to do with religious beliefs but, more importantly, in the way that

we relate to our dead relatives – getting in touch with them; speaking to psychics. These issues are already featuring in daytime TV, and talk shows; Most Haunted is one quite longrunning example. I expect to see examples of spiritual transformation shows in the future. We can also expect to see even more short-term examples of programmes that deal directly with the economic crisis – how to make more money, how to improve your CV, how to get a job in a difficult environment. So we’ll see some short-term responses to specific issues that we’re dealing with right now and I think, some longer-term trends that clearly raise much bigger questions to do with what happens to us when we die. And I think reality TV will absolutely deal with that. Annette Hill was interviewed by Jenny Grahame.

MoreMediaMag Watch Annette Hill discussing reality TV in MediaMagClips.

Autopsy Life and Death by kind permission of Dragonfly Film and Television Productions Ltd; Strictly Come Dancing Judges (L-R) Craig Revel Horwood, Arlene Phillips, Len Goodman, Bruno Tonioli 2008 BBC Photo Library © BBC Rex Features.com for images from Britain’s Got Talent; Twenty Twenty TV for images from The Choir; Image.net for Most Haunted and Changing Rooms; Channel 4 Press Site for Dating in the Dark and Secret Millionaire

Play the Xtreme-Supersize-Embarrassing Celebrity-Docusoap-Talent-Lifestyle Reality TV Quiz!

The English & Media Centre

Round 1: Finish that title! 1.

Snog, Marry …

Embarrassing …

Dating in the …

Blood Sweat and … The English & Media Centre

Round 2: Celeb Associations! With which shows are the following people associated? 1.

Katie Price

Dermot O’Leary

Raymond Blanc

George Galloway

The English & Media Centre

Round 3: How many … 1.

How many reality shows can you name in 10 seconds featuring:

Animals Food Homes Jobs (1 mark for each title)

How many cameras were installed in the Grewal family’s home for the filming of the C4 series The Family?

By what % of the vote did Susan Boyle lose Britain’s Got Talent?

How many countries (approx) has Big Brother been franchised to?

The English & Media Centre

Round 4: Name the first (probably) … 1.

… animal reality show

… family-based docusoap

… home renovation lifestyle reality show

… Big Brother house-type show

The English & Media Centre

Round 5: Featuring Simon Cowell 1.  2.

How many viewers tuned into The X Factor 2009 final? How much money was earned for ITV from advertising during the 2009 series of The X Factor? Name: a)  b)

the production company Simon Cowell currently runs the production company he is setting up with fashion mogul Sir Philip Green

Why has Simon Cowell resigned from his £20 million contract hosting American Idol for Rupert Murdoch’s Fox TV Channel? The English & Media Centre

Round 1: Finish that title! 1.

Snog, Marry, Avoid

Embarrassing Bodies

Dating in the Dark

Blood Sweat & T shirts/Takeaways The English & Media Centre

Round 2: Celeb Associations! With which shows are the following people associated? 1.

Katie Price: I’m a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here; Katie & Peter

Dermot O’Leary: Big Brother’s Little Brother; The X Factor, Shattered, SAS: Are you Tough Enough?

Raymond Blanc: The Restaurant

George Galloway: Celebrity Big Brother

The English & Media Centre

Round 3: How Many … 1.

How many reality shows can you name in 10 seconds featuring:

Animals Food Homes Jobs (1 mark for each title)

How many cameras were installed in the Grewal family’s home for the filming of the C4 series The Family? 28

By what % of the vote did Susan Boyle lose Britain’s Got Talent? 4.7%

How many countries (approx) has Big Brother been franchised to? Approx 70 The English & Media Centre

Round 4: Name the First (Probably)… 1.

… animal reality show One Man and His Dog, UK 1976

… family-based docusoap An American Family, US, 1973

… home renovation lifestyle reality show This Old House, US, 1979

… Big Brother house-type show The Real World, US 1992

The English & Media Centre

Round 5: Featuring Simon Cowell 1.

How many viewers tuned into The X Factor 2009 final? £19.1 million How much money was earned for ITV from advertising during the 2009 series of The X Factor? £100 million Name: a)  the production company Simon Cowell currently runs Syco b)  the production company he is setting up with fashion mogul Sir Philip Green Greenwell Why has Simon Cowell resigned from his £20 million contract hosting American Idol for Rupert Murdoch’s Fox TV Channel? Because he does not own that franchise (Simon Fuller does) and he can launch The X Factor (which he does own) in the USA for lots more money The English & Media Centre