Television is one of the great
educators of our lives. Not only do we learn important facts (from History or
Discovery channels); useful skills (HGTV or the Food Network); and local,
national and global news (any major network), but we also learn about our
society. We see how people should or shouldn’t interact with each other, what
is considered appropriate or not, and, at our age, what we can expect of the “real
world.” Speaking of “The Real World,” reality television has had a huge impact
since this show began in the 1990’s. Now, almost every other show you turn on
is reality – whether it’s a game show like “Survivor” or a documentary-like show
like “The Jersey Shore.*” But is this content really considered reality? Are we
learning the truth about other people’s lives through reality television, or
are we cultivating nonsensical arguments and extreme, forced situations that we
believe to be true? “It has been around since the late 1960s, when media psychologist George
Gerbner stated that exposure to cultural imagery can shape a viewer's concept
of reality. Simply put, the more TV a person watches, the more that person
believes in the world of TV” (Jaffe).
I
think that the more reality television we watch, the less we know what reality
actually is. "’In general, one of
the negative things about television is that it gives a distorted image of what
the rest of the world is like,’ said APS Fellow and Charter Member Craig A.
Anderson, Iowa State University, who focuses mostly on violent media but sees some
overlap with reality shows. ‘TV changes the perception of what is normative’”
(Jaffe). Television totally changes
people’s ideas about what is considered normal.
Stereotypes abound in our culture and they are only reinforced, if not
created, from reality television. “Publication as a general social
process is the creation and cultivation of shared ways of selecting and viewing
events and aspects of life. Mass production and distribution of message systems
transforms selected private perspectives into broad public perspectives, and
brings mass publics into existence. These publics are maintained through continued
publication.” (Gerbner 146). Repeated viewings of Snooki getting drunk or
“ladies” on the Bachelor throwing hissy fits have led to generalizations that
people from New Jersey are uncontrollable guidos or that all single women are desperately
insane, respectively (?).While this effect is not the same as the “Mean World
Index,” which believes that “…heavy viewers held a ‘mainstreamed’ perception of
the world as a mean place even when they lived in a middle-class social world
much less threatened by actual crime” (Baran 345), there is definitely a
parallel “Real World Index.” People seem to think that the world is a lot more
crazy/dangerous/sketchy than it actually is. This certainly has to do with the
realness of it all. “’Reality TV is claiming it's real, even though there's a
striking lack of resemblance to what's really happening in the world. But the
average viewers, who aren't as savvy to know how the shows are being produced,
are being told that what they're seeing is true’” (Jaffe). It’s called REALITY
TV, for goodness’s sake, of course people think it’s true. (Naturally, we, as elite
media studies students, do not fall prey to this.)
CONTINUED....I believe that the future of the reality television cultivation is the identification with these characters/celebrities. “Identification…is ‘a particular form of imitation in which copying a model, generalized beyond specific acts, springs from wanting to be and trying to be like the model with respect to some broader quality’…” (Baran 194). While some may argue that a “Mean World Index” has resulted from an overdose of reality television, I think that identification is also occurring. More and more individuals are relating to reality TV stars; dressing alike, speaking similarly, purchasing their merchandise. Some have even gone so far as to dress their children up as the cast of “The Jersey Shore.” (See attached photo). Audiences have clearly cultivated enough knowledge from watching reality television to know what is the “cool” thing to do. They believe that this is the reality they are living in and wearing clothes like the Housewives or dressing up like ridiculous audition-ers on American Idol is acceptable. I feel like our reality is no longer real. Our reality is what is going on in the lives of television stars, other people’s drama, families, and dreams.
ReplyDelete*I am not a Jersey Shore fan, not even in an oh-my-goodness-this-is-so-awful-it’s-good kind of way.
Baran, Stanley J. and Dennis K. Davis. Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment, and Future. Boston: Wadsworth, 2009. Print.
Gerbner, George. “Toward ‘Cultural Indicators:’ The Analysis of Mass Mediated Public Message Systems.” Approaches to Media: A Reader. Eds. Boyd-Barrett, Oliver, and Chris Newbold. New York, NY: Arnold, 1995. 144-152.
Jaffe, Eric. “Reality Check.” Observer. Association for Psychological Science., Mar. 2005. Web. 4 Feb. 2012. http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/getArticle.cfm?id=1742
As an avid reality television fan, I have to agree with most of the arguments made in this post. In the past decade, the amount of reality television programming in America has increased exponentially, and I feel we are starting to see a shift in how media consumers relate and react to the shows that they watch.
ReplyDeleteIn the chapter on cultivation theory, Baran and Davis remind readers “television is the only medium in history with which people can interact at the earliest and latest years of life, not to mention all those years in between.” (Baran 342). Television is easily accessible, and doesn’t require much more effort than using a remote to find your favorite program. It is this ease of accessibility that contributes to how much television we consume; after a while, the lessons we repeatedly learn from our programs become common sense to us.
As Audrey mentioned, this is no truer than when we watch reality television. Because these programs are (supposed to be) unscripted, we are more inclined to believe that what we see is the truth, and the lessons we learn should be applied to our lives. If the Real Housewives drive expensive cars and live in mansions, we not only believe it, but we envy their success. If they have trouble in their marriage, we judge their relationships and learn from their mistakes. It is because the protagonists are real women with real money and not characters who can be written into any situation, that we allow ourselves to judge them and in some respects, compete with them. This is very similar to Gerbner’s definition of publication, which he believes “is the creation and cultivation of shared ways of selecting and viewing events and aspects of life. Mass production and distribution of message systems transforms selected private perspectives into broad public perspectives, and brings mass publics into existence.” (Gerbner 146) When reality television fans, myself included, discuss our favorite shows, it is not thought of as weird or unusual that we take sides in arguments on the show, or have passionate opinions about certain key players. Because we are talking about real people, and not characters, we can relate to the situations we see and discuss them as if they directly affect us, because in a way, they do. We choose to watch the drama that unfolds in these reality programs for a reason; it is because we are invested in the people on the show, and what is going to happen next in their lives.
I don’t mean to imply that all reality show viewers are unaware that there are producers behind the scenes who are editing footage and dialogue, and sometimes creating contrived situations for these shows, but I do think that viewers are starting to forget that people on these programs may have more to them than what is projected by the media. This relates directly to the “commodification of culture” theory that argues “the repackaging process involves dramatization of those elements of culture that have been selected.” (Baran 349) I think viewers need to remind themselves that the people doing the repackaging are going to look for the most dramatic moments to show to the public, because that is what gets viewers.
Baran, Stanley J. and Dennis K. Davis. Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment, and Future. Boston: Wadsworth, 2009. Print.
Gerbner, George. “Toward ‘Cultural Indicators:’ The Analysis of Mass Mediated Public Message Systems.” Approaches to Media: A Reader. Eds. Boyd-Barrett, Oliver, and Chris Newbold. New York, NY: Arnold, 1995. 144-152.
I too, must unwillingly admit to falling down the reality television rabbit hole. I agree with the points made in these posts and have seen the effects and the unfortunate development of television programming due to the popularity of reality television. And whether this popularity is due to a genuine belief of a new reality in our culture, or if viewers are tuning in just to witness the horrific car crash between personalities in order to get a reassurance that their lives are normal, is for the most part of this discussion, irrelevant. This is because the existence of such programming and the continuation of such may put an out of context timestamp on our culture. I only believe this because Baran and Davis have effectively illustrated the accessibility of television (342). Therefore, it shouldn’t be hard for us to voice our disapproval and simply change the channel. Thus, our actions symbolize our ability to say, “No, this isn’t my reality,” “This isn’t how my world should be portrayed.” However, we do not do this, for whatever reason, and the drama continues to seep into the homes and minds of our citizens. The very fact alone that the programs continue and that the behavior is executed among fans of these shows, is simply enough to make the discussion of publication and mass message systems come alive.
ReplyDeleteHowever, our distaste or pleasure from reality television isn’t the central issue, unfortunately. Instead, it is the lessons we are consciously and subconsciously taking from these shows and giving them power to transcend our television screens to the screens of our every day, actual life dramas. The shows we write ourselves every day. Whether conscious of it or not, we get the premise that being crazy makes you normal, you’re only fun when you’re drunk and the key to life is being presented as perfect and driving away in an excessively expensive car, wind blowing in your meticulously groomed hair. Watching the lives of these individuals, we gain a skewed understanding of what is desired and expected of us culturally. This is the direct of effect of scripting real people. The people on these shows are not made up, but they are molded for our entertainment. While we are supposed to reflect poetically on what we saw and grow from in within the context of normal life, instead we tend to compete and aim to make our lives similar to those real people we tune into week after week. This feeds directly into the article assigned for this week by George Gerbner. His entire premise is about the cultural consciousness and the analysis of public messages within a society. Particularly, he discusses the idea of publication. Gerbner identifies this as a way of dissecting and applying certain aspects of life to the culture as a whole. He says publication is a “creation and cultivation of shared ways of selecting and viewing events and aspects of life” (146). In relation to reality television, this is the concept that certain elements are honed in on and the distributed to represent an entire way of life or behavior of a select culture. Gerbner continues with, “ Mass production and distribution of message systems transforms selected private perspectives into broad public perspectives, and brings mass publics into existence” (146). Thus, the popularity of these shows gives birth to its power on our collective. Our invested interest in the viewing of these characters, or the discussion of their skillfully crafted and arguably entertaining “real lives” yeilds to a bigger problem of emulation and a notion that what we see on TV can and might always will have a profound impact on who we become as individuals.
CONTINUED...
ReplyDeleteUltimately, it is not fully known to me to what degree these shows have on the formation of our characters, but at least in my experience, there have been fragments of envy and emulation that I have witnessed. The glamorous life is slowly becoming the collective right way of living and is what we strive for in regards to normal. In our attempts to attain such a lifestyle, I question if we have blurred the line between scripted and off the cuff speaking, between the values of previous generations, or if we have created our own sets of values. And I question how soon reality and television will merge to an unrecognizable degree?
Baran, Stanley J. and Dennis K. Davis. Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment, and Future. Boston: Wadsworth, 2009. Print.
Gerbner, George. “Toward ‘Cultural Indicators:’ The Analysis of Mass Mediated Public Message Systems.” Approaches to Media: A Reader. Eds. Boyd-Barrett, Oliver, and Chris Newbold. New York, NY: Arnold, 1995. 144-152.
It is no mystery that many Americans own a television or another source of media, easily accessible in their household. For a long time people have made connections between the increase of violence with children’s consumption of violent media. The children who watched WWII take place in 1945 grew up to be apart of the tumultuous 1960s. Baran and Davis observe, “(t)his new social landscape took shape precisely the same time that the new mass medium arrived...The rapid rise in the number of teenagers brought sharp increases in delinquency and crime...Crime waves swept one city after another” (Baran, Davis, 190). However one must argue, couldn’t the increase in crime correlate with having seen the violence of WWII at a young age? Baran and Davis also stated that “(e)vidence amounted that families, schools and churches had become less important to children” (Baran, Davis, 190) I understand that religion is not as prevalent in society anymore, but where did these authors get this so called “evidence” that people had become more violent and less religious? In fact there is no scientific evidence to prove this, or that television has any impact on the decisions that people make.
ReplyDeleteIt is claimed that through social learning, children learn through observation. One can argue that it is not media that children mostly learn from, but family. I can speak for myself that it is already implied that violence in wrong when we look at the crime shows, and the news. If children come from a stable environment, we are taught at a young age that violence is not the answer. Therefore I believe media is not to be blamed, but the psychology of consumer that is watching the television and what they have been brought up to believe is right and wrong. Take for instance the term that Baran and Davis use, “operant learning theory” (Baran, Davis, 195) . The operant learning theory “asserts that learning occurs only through the making and subsequent reinforcement of behavior.” Our parents are responsible if this theory is indeed accurate. Take for instance the countless times one may have been involved in a quarrel between a sibling that may have eventually turned physical. Our parents would have supposedly stepped in and using “operant learning theory,” would have reinforced that this behavior is negative. I feel for most people, over time this would cause the actions to cease.
Furthermore I do not believe that it is violence that we should be worried about. I feel that it is the provocative music that has changed children for the worst. I think of some of the Billboard Top 100 songs of 2012, David Guetta and Nikki Minaj’s “Turn Me On” where they sing, “ I need your lovin/ You got that kind of medicine that keeps me comin’” (directlyrics.com). These kind of lyrics are not appropriate for children to listen to and are sending the wrong message. Message being the key word I look to George Gerbner’s analysis of media influence, “(o)ur theoretical point of departure, then, is that changes in the mass production and rapid distribution of messages across previous barriers of time, space, and social grouping bring about systematic variations in public message content....” (Gerbner, 144) Thus it is not only the current message that our music has been giving children but the messages throughout history of what society deems acceptable. Thus in 1997 one of the Top 100 hits was “Hypnotize” by Notorious B.I.G. Once again this song is not acceptable for children to listen too, yet you can’t avoid listening to what is popular on the radio as a child.
Baran, Stanley J. and Dennis K. Davis. Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment, and Future. Boston: Wadsworth, 2009. Print
Gerbner, George. “Toward ‘Cultural Indicators:’ The Analysis of Mass Mediated Public Message Systems.” Approaches to Media: A Reader. Eds. Boyd-Barrett, Oliver, and Chris Newbold. New York, NY: Arnold, 1995.
it help me
ReplyDelete