MOTION INTRO
THIS HOUSE Reality television has become very
BELIEVES REALITY popular over the past decade with
TELEVISION DOES shows such as "Survivor", "Big
MORE HARM THAN Brother" and "The Apprentice"
GOOD attracting big audiences and
making a lot of money for
broadcasters worldwide. A
definition of reality television is
quite difficult but at its most basic
it means programmes that show
things really taking place, rather
than drama or comedy that follows
a script. Typically reality TV
involves a group of people who are
not trained actors being filmed in
unusual situations over a period of
time. Sport and news programmes
are not considered reality TV.
Documentaries that explore
aspects of society are a grey area,
with some closer to news reporting
and others blurring into reality TV
because they set up situations
which did not already exist.
Recently celebrity versions of
reality shows have made definition
even harder, because they show
the private lives of professional
singers, actors, sportspeople, etc.
as they cope with new situations.
Reality TV is often a hot topic as
proponents believe it paints an
unrealistic and inappropriate
portrait and is therefore bad for our
society and the children that make
POINTS FOR
1. The sheer number of reality programmes
is now driving TV producers to create
filthier, more corrupt reality shows
POINT
Reality TV is actually getting worse as the
audience becomes more and more used to the
genre. In a search for ratings and media coverage,
shows are becoming ever more vulgar and
offensive, trying to find new ways to shock. When
the British Big Brother was struggling for viewers
in 2003, its producers responded by attempting to
shock the audience that little bit more 1. "Big
Brother" programmes have also shown men and
women having sex on live TV, all in a desperate
grab for ratings to justify their continued
existence. Others have involved fights and racist
bullying. Do we let things continue until someone
has to die on TV to boost the ratings?
COUNTERPOINT
Reality shows are not becoming more corrupt or
more filthy. What has changed is rather what the
public defines as acceptable viewing. In other
words, the gap between what is actually real and
what is presented as reality is closing thanks to
modern reality programs. And the gap is closing
due to popular demand to see reality on their TV
screens. For example, the sex shown on
Scandinavian episodes of Big Brother is not
shocking or unrealistic, it is only unusual in the
context of what we expect to see on television.
The fact it was shown only illustrates that the gap
between what is actually real and what is
presented as reality on television is closing. If the
POINTS AGAINST
1. Reality television is popular
and TV producers should give
audiences what they want
POINT
Reality television programmes are
very popular with audiences of all
ages and types. They may not be
high culture but most people do not
want that from television. Most
viewers want to be entertained and
to escape for a while from the
worries and boredom of their
everyday life. American Idol
rejectees who stubbornly insist that
they have talent provide such
escapism.[1] Furthermore, and
importantly, such contestants are
good natured in doing so, they are
not exploited but offer themselves
to reality shows.[2] Therefore, there
is no harm in giving the people
what they want that is what the
free market is all about. Reality
shows are also popular because
they exploit new technology so that
millions of people can participate in
the programme typically by
voting. Britain is believed to have
had as many as 176 reality TV
shows in a single year.[3] Such
supply can only be driven by
excessive demand.
COUNTERPOINT
Reality television is not what
1
up the majority of the audience.
They call for a cut in the number of
hours given over to reality
programmes, or even to ban them
completely. Opponents meanwhile
maintain that people should be
allowed to watch what they like,
and that reality programmes make
good TV, as shown by consistently
high viewer figures.
proposition has an issue therefore with what
modern reality shows are presenting, they have
an issue with society at large, not reality
programs. Even if were the case that reality
programmes are getting more corrupt and filthy,
viewers should take the advice of former U.S.
President Bush Jr. and 'put the off button on.'
2.Reality TV encourages people to pursue
celebrity status, and discourages the value
of hard work and an education
POINT
Reality shows send a bad message and help to
create a cult of instant celebrity. They are typically
built about shameless self-promotion, based on
humiliating others and harming relationships for
the entertainment of each other and the viewers
at home. These programmes suggest that anyone
can become famous just by getting on TV and
"being themselves", without working hard or
having any particular talent. Kids who watch
these shows will get the idea that they don't need
to study hard in school, or train hard for a regular
job. As John Humphrys points out, 'we tell kids
what matters is being a celebrity and we wonder
why some behave the way they do' 1As American
lawyer Lisa Bloom fears, 'addiction to celebrity
culture is creating a generation of dumbed-down
women.'2 Reality shows encourage such
addictions and promote the generally misguided
belief that they should aspire to be the reality
audiences want, it is watched
simply because it is there. It is
what John Humphrys calls
carbohydrate television, it
probably hasnt done you much
harm and if it leaves you feeling a
bit bloatedwell you can search
out of a bit of quality stuff.[1]With
tens of television channels and
twenty-four hours of programming
to fill, reality is simply a cheap
means to ensure there is always
something on TV to watch. In Italy,
the evidence supports such claims,
with the state broadcaster Rai
deciding to scrap reality
programmes in 2008 due to low
demand.[2] As Rais President
stated, I dont believe they are the
type of shows the majority of our
viewers expect or want from a
public service broadcaster.[3]
2. Reality TV can be
educational and have real
effects in society in a way other
television programmes do not
POINT
Reality TV can be very educational.
They educate people by displaying
disastrous consequences of
someone's behaviour, thus
deterring others from doing
unplanned and silly actions.
2
stars they watch on their televisions.
COUNTERPOINT
Reality TV does not discourage hard work or
education, rather it creates a society whereby we
have shared experiences and a strong sense of
community. As such, reality TV provides an
important social glue. Once upon a time there
were only a few television channels, and
everybody watched the same few programmes.
The sense of a shared experience helped to bind
people together, giving them common things to
talk about at work and school the next day
water cooler moments. Reality programs like
Survivor play that role in contemporary society
with viewership being almost a cultural
imperative, the experience shared
simultaneously with friends and family.1
Furthermore, even if it were the case that the
moral lessons of reality programmes are not
always advisable, just as viewers can empathize
with characters in the Godfather without wanting
to be them, the same applies to questionable
characters and actions in reality shows.2
3. Reality shows make for bad, lazy and
corrupting television, encouraging such
behaviour in society
POINT
Reality shows are bad, lazy and corrupting
television. They mostly show ordinary people with
no special talents doing very little. If they have to
sing or dance, then they do it badly which
doesnt make for good entertainment. They rely
on humiliation and conflict to create excitement.
Programmes such as "The
Apprentice" have made people
think about business. Jamie Oliver
has raised issues of youth
unemployment and poor diet, and
"Fit Club" has got people thinking
about health and fitness. Jamie
Oliver's inaugural reality show,
'Jamie's Kitchen', offered jobless
youngsters the 'chance to train and
lead a nationwide campaign to
improve the quality of school
meals'1. Without the TV show's
popularity funding the initiative, the
youngsters involved would not
have had such an opportunity and
school meals would still reflect
what kids want to eat, not what
they should be eating. Such effects
on society are beneficial and should
be encouraged, not restricted.
COUNTERPOINT
The few reality TV programmes that
are educational and beneficial do
not balance the bad majority. The
majority are not educational, either
to the public or the participants,
and the insight they purport to offer
into the human psyche are
misguided. As Vanessa Feltz, a
contestant on the British Big
Brother series, describes,
contestants and viewers alike
'subscribe to this utterly specious
notion that fame is entirely
3
Joe Millionaire, where a group of women competed
for the affections of a construction worker who
they were told was a millionaire, was simply
cruel. The emotions of the contestants were
considered expendable for the sake of making
viewers laugh at their ignorance. Furthermore, the
programmes are full of swearing, crying and
argument, and often violence, drunkenness and
sex. This sends a message to people that this is
normal behaviour and helps to create a crude,
selfish society. One American reality show, Are
You Hot?, in which competitors submit to a panel
of judges for appearance-rating, was blamed by
eating disorder experts as encouraging the notion
that appearance is the most important
thing (Becker, 2003).1Furthermore, Paul Watson,
a former reality TV show producer, believes they
are predictable and just creates more of the same
and makes our film makers lazy (Jury, 2007).
COUNTERPOINT
Reality TV programmes are not corrupting. They
do reflect our society, which isn't always perfect,
but we should face up to these issues rather than
censor television in order to hide them. When
Adam Lambert, an openly gay contestant on
American Idol, lost in the final of the show despite
being widely regarded as the best singer, many
rightfully pointed out what it demonstrated about
the homophobia of American society. To deride
reality shows as 'corrupting' therefore is
misguided; it is society who is corrupt and reality
shows that offer a potential solution. To solve a
problem first requires accepting one exists, and
reality shows provide a means to do that; they are
a window into society, permitting everyone to
desirable' (BBC News, 2001), whilst
Narinda Kaur, another contestant
on the show, admitted "I came
away from this experience thinking
'oh my God, did I really say that?"
(BBC News, 2001). As Claudio
Petruccioli, head of the Italian state
broadcaster Rai, notes, 'reality TV
shows put people into
environments that are both
unrealistic and coercive'1 Any
lessons learned are therefore
inapplicable to real-world
situations.
3. The public can always just
turn reality programmes off, or
watch something else
POINT
Television provides a wide mixture
of programmes, including reality
television. For those who want it,
there is high quality drama such as
"The Sopranos" or "Pride and
Prejudice" whilst the BBC, CNN, Al-
Jazeera and other international
broadcasters also cover news and
current affairs in great depth.
Wildlife programmes on the
National Geographic or Discovery
bring the wonders of the natural
world into our living rooms. More
sports are covered in more detail
than ever before. So, ultimately,
reality shows have not ruined
4
reflect on the issues that are most harmful to
society. As such, reality show producers should
not be accused of a lack of creativity or laziness
for their programmes, but congratulated for
drawing attention to important issues.
television as a whole, they have
merely added another option for
viewers. Indeed, because they
make a lot of money for
broadcasters to spend on other
types of programmes, they are
actually good for all viewers,
regardless of personal taste for
genres.
COUNTERPOINT
Reality shows are driving out other
sorts of programmes, so that often
there is nothing else to watch.
Reality TV is cheap and series can
go on for months on end, providing
hundreds of hours of viewing to fill
schedules. TV bosses like this and
are cutting back on comedy, music,
drama and current affairs in favour
of wall to wall reality rubbish. This
is even worse when reality shows
crowd the schedules of public
service broadcasters. Stations such
as the BBC in the UK, France
Tlvisions, or Rai in Italy have a
duty to inform and educate the
public. They should be made to
meet that responsibility as Rai
has by saying it wont have any
more reality shows.
5
6