Are 'reality shows' turning us Americans into a nations of haves and have-nots

Great Debates
21

ummm . . . the whole point of reality shows is that they’re about real people. They’re not characters that had their lines written for them, they’re actualy people who were chosen to have an adventure (a very highly publicized adventure, but an adventure nonetheless.) There are no laugh tracks, Erckel isn’t going to have a wacky but harmless mishap with a crocodile, Kramer isn’t going to make a crazy entrance into the tent. I think it’s a lot more entertaining than most sitcoms because those people are winging it. No one told that guy to pass out in the fire and it was very emotional to see how upset his teammates were for him. Sure, they know how they should act, but at a certain point, their real personalities come out and it’s fascinating to watch the dynamincs between people who are in a strange situation. In my mind, it’s sort of a nature show with lots of drama. People are braving the elements and pushing themselves to compete against each other, sometimes for food. It’s a lot more interesting than watching a leopard track a gazelle for the millionth time. The leopard never bursts into tears when the gazelle says “Don’t even go there!!”

One thing that I really like about reality shows is that they have a definite start and end. When it’s over, it’s over, it’s been played out and you see if the villians get their just desserts or if the nice guy finished last. And no one knows how it will end until it ends. Neat!

Well, that may be true, but it’s more a question of taste, isn’t it?

I don’t think it’s fair to label an entire form of entertainment and it’s fans as stupid just because you don’t like it. I really don’t think it’s specifically made to keep people from being intelligent, I think it was made to give people an exciting new type of ENTERTAINMENT.

What makes a nature show or cartoons any better than a reality show? Nature shows are great, but how many times can I watch a show on ants. And cartoons aren’t exactly handing people college educations. If you like them, great, but they’re also forms of entertainment and are a matter of taste.

I honestly don’t think the American public or the human race is going to be adversely affected by these shows. I think they spark way more imagination than most shows, and I don’t think it’s sad to have a conversation about it. As a matter of fact, everyone in this thread is conversing about it, even if you hate it, you’re talking and thinking about it. I for one refuse to be made to feel bad about it.

22

If you think the show’s stupid, don’t watch it, but bleating on about how you’d have to be stupid to watch it and that staring at the wall would be more worthwhile is pointless.

Yes, everyone who doesn’t watch reality TV is morally and intellectually superior to the rest of the human race, and all the rest are going to end up as mush-brained zombies. Because everyone knows: if you don’t waste time sitting on your ass in front of the TV, you must be out living life to its fullest potential. Everyone else should be pitied and talked down to. :rolleyes:

For what it’s worth, I’ve never seen one single second of survivor, but I have to admit that it sounds a little interesting. Why? I actually enjoy seeing the way people interact with one another. When I hear real people having a spontaneous argument, for example, I argue with both of them in my head, which sharpens my debating skills. You can’t do this with scripted shows, because arguments are always so predictable. Back when the Real World started, I had a TV, and I enjoyed watching it until it got stale (which, as I see it, was when the residents were on it because of an expectation of fame, which affected how they acted, and the conflicts and relationships ended up seeming staged).

The only reason I have disdain for survivor is the amount of hype it’s gotten. I don’t have any problem with the show itself. But back to the topic at hand: why is it any worse than, say, “Friends”? Are mindless sitcoms somehow socially redeeming?

23

I’m in the middle of the pack here. I have never watched a reality show in my life and don’t intend to start, and I watch very little TV in general. On the other hand, let’s not talk about how much time I spend online!

But let me tell you what gets me, as I think it relates to some of the concerns expressed here.

I work in a small office (about 12 employees), so every one or two months one of us has a birthday, and we gather in the conference room for cake and a mini “party” for an hour or so.

I cannot remember a SINGLE ONE of these events in which the conversation has not, after the passage of a few minutes, turned to the latest movies everyone has seen – or just as likely, to movies that are a few years old.

The movies discussed are inevitably either action flicks or lowbrow comedies. And the “conversation,” as it were, takes on exactly two characteritics. It’s either “that was a good movie,” or else “I like the part where…” followed by the speaker acting out the scene and recreating the big lines from it.

Occasionally, movies will be replaced by last night’s situation comedy (I never had to watch “Seinfeld” – I knew I’d get the whole thing played back to me the next day!), with exactly the same routine.

You might gather that I see very few contemporary movies, either, but this shit bores me to tears. Now it’s not that I expect our birthday parties will serve as forums for us to debate the great issues of the day. Understandably, the mood is light, and so should be the conversation.

But honest to God, can’t anyone think of anything else worth talking about? I’ve been at this company almost 13 years, and it’s been like this from day one. It’s like these people don’t have lives of their own, so they have to talk about the imaginary ones they see on the screen.
Rant over, but I can see where the OP is coming from.

24

just because they are sad doesn’t mean you have to be, all things in moderation and all that… its true… it DOES work…

25

dude; what do you do when most people watch TV?

26

Let’s look at the arguments:
“TV is bad.”
Does this mean everything on TV is ‘bad’ (I’m using bad to mean utterly without redeeming value)? If it does, the statement is erroneous, as I shall demonstrate with examples. I can flip to Bloomberg TV and check stock prices. I can go to the History channel and watch various works with educational, if not entertainment, value. I can flip to HNN (Headline News Network, owned by CNN) and see the day’s headlines, and then go to C-Span and watch Congress work. Then, if the time is right, I can see opera or other works of artistic merit on PBS. All of those examples show that TV can be used to disseminate works with redeeming value.

Does this mean TV is inheriently good? TV is inheriently nothing. It is simply a medium, and projects without complaint anything it is given to project. Is most of the information it is given to project irredeemable? Perhaps, perhaps not. Does ownership of a TV in any way imply that the person will watch anything said TV projects? Hopefully not. Do some people display addictive tendancies to certain shows or to TV in general? Yes, but they are hardly the majority. I think dude has grotesquely overestimated the incidence of TV addiction in light of the fact that most homes (92.1 million in 1992, as reported in The Encyclopedia Britannica) have TV sets and yet it can be shown by simple observation that most people do not display addictive tendencies to TV usage.

So, are TVs bad? I would submit they are not. Certainly, there are things shown on TV that have no redeeming value, but there are plenty of programs that have immense value and perform a service for those who watch them.

27

Hmmm.
Among those saying that those who watch TV “reality” shows should get a life are those who spend how many hours each day reading and replying to posts on this board.
Think I’ll go take a walk in the night air.

28

what i do instead of watching tv ?

well, generally, after work…
exercise bike ( alternate days because the weather is bad and can’t go for a run in my local wood which is ACE ! )

cook, eat, wash up ( while listening to cd sometimes)

bath while listening to radio ( generally alternate days )

bed by 10pm-sleep deprivation is hell,do you live off coffee ?

I often do some housework like cleaning or ironing because I have been running around at the weekend.

I do watch a bit of tv now and then but am selective in that i check the guide before turning on and then will only turn on for the program i want and then turn it off.

The problem I find with tv is that it has an hypnotic effect and you can end up at midnight thinking ‘i must go to bed, why am i watching
this !’ Can you actually remember what you watched last night ?

I sit at a desk all day so its good to move about on an evening.

When you turn the tv off then you suddenly get back to your ‘must do this’ list.

Thinking about it, it may not be TV that is bad, just the fact that you are sitting down and doing nothing makes you feel all tired and sleepy.

I know what i do sounds boring BUT i feel happier and healthier so all i say is TRY it and see.

29

Exactly! Years ago I interviewed Marie Winn, author of the book “The Plug-In Drug,” and that was precisely her premise…that the concern should be not so much over the content of TV as with the fact that, when you watch TV, you AREN’T doing anything else.

This is fine in moderation, of course…everyone deserves some mindless veg out time. The problem comes when it’s not in moderation, which is frequently.

As for the previous comment (spending “…hours each day reading and replying to posts on this board”), I would argue that at least you’re actively exercising your mind a bit and interacting (if only digitally) with others – not the case when passively watching TV.

30

so its back to ‘all things in moderation’ as some greek dude said