Looking at how reality television reinforces gender roles – Part 5

I feel watching reality shows from Survivor to Apprentice there is some gender roles. First of all in each show there are diverse people from different back ground.

I feel women in each show does work hard to try to win the prize. If they are formed in teams than there has to be a leader and the followers. For example in Apprentice in the beginning the teams are men verses women. Usually depending on the task the women to win and raise enough money to be ahead of the men. It is intresting how women and men think differently to get the best results.

I think most of the time like in survivor and other shows women may get voted out because of something the viewers saw and the teammates seen that the task is not correct. In some situations women have a hard time to adapt especially with other women. Everyone treats each person as a friend and a enemy. They are all there to win.

Men have easier time to adapt to situation and make the most of it. When you put men together they have different type of compatition than women do. The men are wired differently than women.

Sometimes women lose for stupid reasons like fitting with there own teammates. They also tend to make little mistakes and that cost them to lose and get either voted out or not raise enough money.

Once they come over the differences with other women or teammates than I think the women tend to consentrate better and they win.

Men are more tolerable with situation and they often win because they are just there to win. There is no emotions envolved just win the game. Sometimes they are also calm and do not tend to stress out quickly. They consentrate on now and get everyone else to work with each other.

Also in some reality show men tend to make the task or challenge a fun thing to do. It is intresting how they come up with their answers and try to finsh first.

When women and men compete towards the end is the fun part because lot of the people got voted out. It gets intresting when the teams get smaller how they handle competition. When there is a larger group than there tend to be a lot of blame game on why they lost the task. For one thing in Apprentice I noticed in the celeberity competition women have more high contacts for there friends to come out and support their friend. Rasing money is not easy and selling products sometimes is not easy. Some shoppers are bargain hunters and do care of ghe cost of the product if they are not intrested in buying. In Survivor the competition is mostle out door in jungles and sometime the task they have to do is disgusting. For example eating worms or small bugs. In tihs situation women tend to say no way we rather starve than eat that and men will jump in and eat anything.

So I feel there is some gender roles in reality television. Both men and women does each challene differently and come up with results. There is only one winner and one loser in each task eith individually or as a team.

Evaluating reality TV – Part 1

Entertainment is a huge industry in the United States. People in the United States are constantly looking for sources of entertainment through media based sources. The television is something you can find in near every household in the United States. In an average United States home a television is on seven hours and twelve minutes a day. That is a lot of television. But what kind of show is on during those seven hours and twelve minutes a day that the television is on? Pretty much every time you flip through the channels on your television, you can find at least one reality show on, remember I say at least. Reality shows seem to be taking over in a real bad way. It’s something always on television and always reran and millions of Americans are watching these awful shows. Reality television shows are dehumanizing and watched way too much. Reality TV, in spite of how much it draws in viewers, is bad and has a negative affect on its viewers.

Is reality TV even reality? If you have ever watched a reality TV show, you will notice that many of the people starring on the shows are not your typical average Joe walking down the street. Many reality TV stars actually fall into the category of deviants. They do not follow the norms of most people. They lack the morals and values of the majority of people.

Let’s look at marriage. In the United States, marriage is considered to be for two people who love each other and commit to spending the rest of their lives together because they’re in love. Reality TV trivializes marriage. It violates the sanctity of marriage. Look at shows like The Bachelor and The Bachelorette, these shows expect a person to decide who they’re going to marry from a selected group of women/men that the producers have hand selected. Do they even really get to know them in that time frame of the show? Are they honestly presented the opportunity to fall in love with one another? Or are they forced to pick on what they can know in a short time like what a person looks like? In an article entitled “Four Christian Women Examine the Impact of Reality Marriage Shows,” one woman observed “On many of these shows, marriage is something women win. They earn it. They’re good enough for it. I think that sends a damaging message to singles. It communicates, If you aren’t married, you haven’t won; you’ve lost.” I agree that this is a bad message people could be receiving from these particular reality shows.

Reality TV has become very sexually exposing.

Has the trend toward Reality TV improved the quality of television shows? – Part 1

While the concept of “reality” TV existed before Survivor hit the airwaves in 2000, the few shoes that belonged in that genre were only on cable. The biggest examples of this, of course, are The Real World and Road Rules, both of which aired on MTV. Of course, arguments could also be made that shows such as The People’s Court and Judge Judy, which also aired before 2000, could count as “reality” programming; however, these shows were syndicated. However, “reality” was not being included on the networks’ prime time schedules.

However, after Viacom acquired CBS, the company decided to take a gamble and introduce a “reality” show on network television. Thus, Survivor was born… and it became an instant hit. The other networks, seeing how successful Survivor was, jumped on the “reality” bandwagon. Of course, it was easy for the networks to quickly pump out new “reality” programs, because “reality” shows are cheap and easy to produce.

It’s been almost eight years since Survivor debuted on CBS, and the “reality” genre has really exploded over that time. As “reality” gained more and more ground on network television, there was less emphasis being put on scripted dramas and sitcoms. Even more and more cable channels jumped on the “reality” bandwagon. It’s gotten to the point where “reality” programming dominates so much of the television schedules these days… and it’s not helping that the writer’s strike is going on right now. The writer’s strike is going to cause even more of a demand for “reality” programming, so the networks have something to fill their airwaves with.

Overall, I have to say that the glut of “reality” programming has not improved the quality of television shows or the variety of shows available to watch on television. “Reality” television is a fad, much like the glut of game shows in the 1980s and the glut of talk shows in the 1990s. It’s only a matter of time before the American public overdoses on “reality” television and demands something else. Once that point is reached, I think we will start seeing an improvement to television, television shows, and the selection and variety of programs to watch.

Looking at how reality television reinforces gender roles – Part 8

This one’s a no-brainer. Just take a look at the “contestants” on each Reality Show. No matter which show you see the same kind of people.

On Survivor you usually have a diverse group of people from virtually every racial group. Everyone seems to be divided equally – on one season they even segregated them to see which race is better (you’d think they’d call it “The Amazing Race”, but that name’s already taken, I guess). However, all of the men were straight out of a copy of GQ strutting around in their swimming trunks wearing either tank tops or no tops at all to show off their perfectly tanned chests. The women were all busty girls that looked like something out of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue (complete with name brand swimsuits!). The men strut around like each one is god’s gift and the women spend all of their time yelling at each other.

Then we have The Real World/Road Rules. The contestants look about the same except they’re supposed to be about college age. Once again, you’ve got a nice diverse group (although minorities are usually under-represented and those that are on the show help to reinforce their own stereotypes). All the guys act like they’re walking sex machines and all of the girls act like they’re dying to sleep with every guy – except for, of course, the token gay guy that only talks about how the other members of the show are intruding on his sexuality.

Although, it might not be considered a reality show, per se there’s Fear Factor. Once again the top 1% (at least aesthetically) of the human population is cast (I think that the requirement is that they have to make host, Joe Rogan look ugly). They guys act macho as they do all of the stunts and consume whatever disgusting edibles are presented to them. The girls act all scared and all look totally frightened of the consumable insects that laid out for them.

My last selection is My Super Sweet 16. Even though the show only features girls on the verge of their 16th birthday they all act like spoiled brats and they get their way throughout the show. Nice role models for teen aged girls.

The real problem I have with shows like this is that they’re so popular and the brain-dead public that help them get their high ratings actually think that this is what common people in America look like. It’s setting an unrealistic example of what our society is really made up of.

Find Your Own Barbie-World

-Ferret

Has the trend toward Reality TV improved the quality of television shows? – Part 3

When did we as a society decide that filming a group of people arguing, hooking up, and throwing hissy fits was a good substitute for a television series with a script, a plot, and some substance?

Reality TV seems to have taken over America, and we have allowed this by continuing to watch every week. Ratings are good for reality television how could they not be? Watching reality TV is more often than not like watching a train wreck it’s awful, but we can’t seem to look away. This means a good outcome for the networks, since reality television is cheap to produce, yet draws inexplicably high ratings from the public.

I understand that the networks and the American public are constantly searching for something new however, do we have not originality left any more? Do we no longer appreciate plot? Well-written dialog? Emmy-worthy acting?

I, for one, am disappointed in the quality of television of late. I’m upset to see television shows with potential being pushed off the air so that networks can pick up yet another reality television show to compete with reality TV on other stations.

It seems that, for the time being, we’ve lost a huge portion of network television to reality TV I just pray that this doesn’t happen to our movies as well.

What makes a great reality TV show?

Reality Television is famous (or perhaps infamous!) for making celebrities out of nobodies but the question is what makes a great reality television show stand out from all the others?

The answer lies partly in familiarity – the more used to a reality TV show concept we become, the more bland and less appealing that show becomes. The more formulaic the concept is, the less ‘realistic’ the resulting programe is. There is also a balance to be achieved between forced realism and true realism and by that I mean just how far people are being themselves or are they just acting up for the camera. In the first series of Big Brother in the UK the contestants, the audience and the shows creators had no real idea of how the concept would work and whether it would be engaging enough to deliver high ratings – it soon became apparent that they were onto a winner but as subsequent series have come and gone and we know what to expect, the contestants have become less realistic as they try too hard to be entertaining and therefore less like their true selves, and the formula has begun to look very tired. The same could be said of Wife Swap where more and more ridiculous swaps are engineered to secure high ratings.Perhaps the answer lies in not repeating a successful programme to such an extent that it becomes a parody of its original concept.

So what is reality television? – ‘Reality television is a genre of television programming which presents purportedly unscripted dramatic or humorous situations, documents actual events, and features ordinary people instead of professional actors’- using this definition will help to show which 3 key elements should go into making a classic reality television show.

1. No Script – this means that the contestants are not coached into producing certain reactions to specific situations instead the events are allowed to unfold naturally as they would in the real world. Don’t engineer it just let it happen!

2. Real People – more and more people who are not ordinary and who may be models, actors etc are being used which detracts from what reality TV should be about unless of course the programme relates directly to one of those disciplines. Reality television needs real people!

3. Know when to stop! – Leave the people wanting more would be a good adage for reality TV! Just because something works once or twice does not mean it has to be repeated incessantly until ratings plummet!

One in seven teenagers in the UK hope to become famous through Reality TV which is quite a frightening statistic but let them have their fifteen minutes of fame for the right reasons and not because they have been humiliated in front of millions on live television. Reality TV can be great so producers and programme makers really need to think before they start!

Reality television: A baby boomers perspective – Part 1

Human sacrifice seems to be a factor in the downfallof civilizations..

The decline of the Roman Empire was marked by increasingly bloody spectacles in the arean, while Maya and the Inca offered human lives to appease angry gods, and asily ;laid themslves open to conquest.

Reality TV is human sacrifice. It is a sign that our civilization is onits last legs. Why else would we watch the humiliation and degradation of other human beings with such relish? This is the principle of `bread and circuses’, meaning that if the populace has basic food and entertainment, no matter how vile, it will accept the worst excesses of the times.

Reality TV started innocently enough, with a program called Candid Camera, catching people in unscripted situations. But this was more of a `practical joke’ kind of genre and had little in common with today’s `reality’ shows. Today the format is to throw a bunch of strangers together in an unfamiliar situation and see what happens. MTV started the ball rolling with The Real World, but no one really foresaw what the genre would become, only that it was a ratings winner.

Big Brother, a show in which contestants lived under constant surveillance in a share house, proved one of the most popular of the new reality shows. If nothing else it proved to some of us that `ordinary people’ were just as boring on TV as in real life. Surely as much, if not more, entertainment could be gained from watching your own family and friends in their living rooms? Ah, but then we wouldn’t have the `privilege’ of following them into their bedrooms and bathrooms.

The titillating `peek a boo’ factor in Big Brother brings to mind the old `What the Butler Saw’ machines at fun fairs, only here we are witnessing live action and thee is always the poosibility that we will even get to see a couple having sex. What differentiates this from actual porn is that these are real people, unscripted, behaving as honestly and directly as they would in the real world – or so they tell us.

But watching people bore each to death with inane conversation, petty feuds and half hearted attempts at grappling under the bedcovers wasn’t a big enough thrill for viewers, it seems. It was only a stepping stone to the kind of humiliation and cruelty that is now the norm on TV reality shows, from So You Think You Can Dance to The Biggest Loser.

You can argue that the people who go on these shows know what they doing. They will be ridiculed for their lack of talent, forced to parade their

Has the trend toward Reality TV improved the quality of television shows?

The trend towards reality television caters to short attention span of television viewers and the need to divert themselves. The ability to laugh at one’s self has always been important. In old days, fools and jesters held an important place in the royal courts. Today we have situation comedies and reality television to make us laugh. If we look closely, we often see there’s more than just laughter going on though. There’s sadness, pain, regret and bitterness. The difference between situation comedy and reality television, however, is that the former features scripted characters while the second portrays real people in allegedly real scenarios whether they are crammed on top of each other in a small house or fighting for survival in the African wilderness. For many people, laughter and tears come from the same well. It’s appropriate then, that these shows also come from the same well. They come from the television, a device designed to entertain and inform.

One would have to live, well, on a deserted island in the South China Sea, not to be swept up by the recent wave of reality television. Or so Beth Rowen wrote in her History of Reality TV article. Reality television, however manic now, is not a new phenomenon. As early as fifty years ago with Allen Funt’s Candid Camera and as recent as the PBS documentary An American Family airing in 1973, reality television has crept into the interest of the worldwide viewing public. (Rowen, 1.)

But what is reality television? It’s a genre of television programming in which the fortunes of ‘real life’ people are followed. Given the way producers manipulate what is actually broadcast, and that they can control the format of the show, it is questionable how ‘real’ reality television actually is.

There are two main types of reality television program – in the first, the viewer and the camera are passive observers following people going about their daily personal and professional activities. In the second, the so-called ‘reality game shows’, participants are filmed intensively in an enclosed environment while competing to win a prize. In these game shows the viewing public usually (but not always) play an active role in deciding the outcome, by eliminating participants or voting for the most popular choice to win. Two of the most popular reality-based game shows are Big Brother and Survivor.

In a world where advertisers rely on ratings and the network executives value ratings over quality, there is a plethora of the so-called

Are you proud to be a fan of reality tv?

I am proud to be a fan of reality television because reality television is educational. As a Communication professor, I encourage my students to watch reality television because it allows them to see real people communicating. Some people communicate effectively and some do not. Reality television makes it crystal clear just what goes into good communication and what goes into bad communication.

Most reality television throws together a group of unrelated people in a contrived situation and asks them to all get along for a period of time. During that time, cameras follow their every move and record their every word. We see conversations, arguments, and group dynamics at work. It’s like a miniature communication laboratory and we the viewers are right in the middle of it.

Many reality shows provide opportunities for each contestant to speak privately to the camera and at these times we get to find out even more about each contestantwhat motivates them, what they are thinking, what their strategies are. As fans of reality television, we keep in mind that what we know about each contestant based upon their revelations during the personal confession time is not known by the other contestants. We are, as viewers, somewhat like a director. We can anticipate how that contestant may act in upcoming situations because we are privy to their thoughts. Sometimes contestants confirm our evaluations and sometimes they surprise us-just like in real life.

I realize that for many people reality television has a bad reputation. Many consider the contestants self-centered, juvenile, and lacking intelligence. This may be true, but this is not because these traits are a requirement for reality television. That may be how it has developed, but it doesn’t have to be that way forever. Indeed, reality television is most effective when the contestants are bright and sophisticated. For example, the most recent Survivor winner Bob was certainly one of the most inventive and clever contestants in Survivor history. His brilliance may have been an anomaly among Survivor contestants but was definitely appreciated by fans, as he not only won Survivor, but also won the fan favorite award as well.

If a person grew up totally isolated and had only reality television to learn about how to interact with people, they could still learn what effective interaction entailed just by watching some of the best of reality television showsSurvivor, Big Brother, The Amazing Race. If we were all perfect communicators and we all got along well with each other, then maybe we wouldn’t need reality television. However, that is hardly the case. Even if reality television as it is now presents some less than desirable people doing some less than desirable things, it still shows us how people communicateand we cannot help but learn from that.

Looking at how reality television reinforces gender roles

Reality television looms large over the television viewing audience and has for several years. At first, most viewers were aghast at the rawness of the episodes while at the same time eagerly taking it all in. They, the young adults who gobble it up are as well educated about the world as anyone could be, yet still lacking some practical experience. This make-believe-world offers something missing in their lives.

Two of these missing elements are men being men and women being women. In the world of everyday reality the demarcation lines have been blurring for quite a few years now and these shows emphasize the distinctions between the two. And too, they like being challenged and this is something that the newer generation of Americans – those outside of military experiences that often thrust enormous challenges too soon on un-prepared youngsters – lack in their over-protected lives.

And the reverse is true: It gives girls situations where they can act out their fantasies of superwoman and prove their worthiness as being equal, if not superior, to the males competing on the same level playing field. And this situation is often repeated for the males who have not had a chance to show how manly their are and how superior their gender. On the show these attitudes take on extra dimensions for the edification of the back-to-the-nitty-gritty bunch.

This article is not to approve, nor to disapprove, but is attempting to get beneath the surface of this television phenomenon. The media in itself now around sixty years old need new challenges to prove its worthiness. The everday availability of computers and the internet threaten it. This kind of programming is/was one more way in which it proves its worth and manages to stay afloat and to pay its bills.

Charles B. Slocum, Assistant Executive Director of Television, looks backward at reality in an online article. He tells us that reality TV has been around almost from the beginning. Alan Funt’s Candid Camera debuting in 1948 was reality television. Of course, now that he pointed it out it was reality television but it had a peeping tom look to it that today’s reality television does not.

Present day reality television stars are not caught in the act of being themselves; they are seen acting out the fantasies those innovators such as Alan Font dreamed up. Most are in it for the money and hopefully, a start on an acting career. Other oldies he mentioned are Truth and Consequences (1950). Game shows

Next Page »