Australian contestant, Merlin Luck, protests refugee detention in 2004 after being voted out of the house by the national viewing audience
Television programming formats have proven to be successful when tailored to fit local, regional, or national languages and customs. Scripted programs, like ‘The Office,’ that have proven popular in their countries of origin have generated comparable success when adapted to local audiences. While there are several examples of such scripted television series, the preponderance of series retooled for foreign markets are of the reality genre. There is an X Factor, Top Model, Survivor, and Big Brother in nearly every country from the Philippines and Serbia to the U.S. and Australia. The prevalence of reality television programs is not surprising. The genre’s global ubiquity is attributed to the low cost of production, interactivity, and favor with audiences.
Big Brother, a format created by international television production and distribution company, Endemol, exemplifies the success and demographic-shattering appeal of the reality genre. The program’s concept varies by country but the fundamental theme of the show was inspired by George Orwell’s “1984.” Contestants are isolated in a compound equipped with cameras and microphones to record their every move. They systematically and secretly nominate their housemates for eviction from the compound with the viewing audience vote ultimately determining which nominee is to be removed from the show permanently. Viewers observe how social dynamics evolve throughout the program and occasionally witness discourse of relevant social, political, and culturally issues.
The program is not without its share of controversy and moments where its value has been questioned. An alleged instance of sexual harassment in Big Brother Australia and a kissing scene involving a knife in Big Brother USA prompted commentators and politicians to decry the format’s display of sex, violence, and offensive material.
However, the program has served a platform for the discourse of important issues. Australian contestant Merlin Luck’s 2004 silent protest against the government’s mandatory detention of asylum seekers sparked debate of the issue ahead of federal elections. Luck defended utilizing the program as a forum for discussion stating that, "if national television is not the place for debate about an issue about this magnitude then that's a sad reflection on our nation's priorities."
Transnational versions of the program have been even more effective at encouraging debate and fostering greater understanding of racial, cultural, and national diversity. Big Brother Africa, which casts contestants from 14 different countries and polls audience votes by nation, has been celebrated as a forum for discussion of relevant social, economic, and political issues across the continent. The program has shed light on complex topics excluded from mainstream debate. The Zambian winner of a previous season even went on to be named a goodwill ambassador for the country, only the second citizen to do so. The 2004 Pan Arab Big Brother was considered a progressive move for broadcasters. “The show featured individuals who did not conform to the narrow traditions of Islam that prevail in many regions,” while respecting traditional values like a prayer room and segregated sleeping quarters. However, even before the program’s premiere it was mired with controversy and vehemently denounced by conservative protestors. Ultimately, the program was cancelled after just 11 days. Although the region’s adaptation suffered from a truncated longevity it nonetheless catalyzed discussion of censorship issues in Arab media while highlighting the evolving perceptions of the population.
Although the model varies greatly from country to country and is generally perceived as a showcase for wanna-be actor-model-singers it has demonstrated its potential to facilitate communication of relevant issues to the mainstream. It also represents an opportunity to achieve a compromise between popular revenue-driven pursuits and culturally beneficial programming. Pandering to advertisers by appealing to the widest swath of the population while promoting thought-provoking material is clearly a difficult balance to maintain. But, programs like Big Brother can come pretty close to such balance if casting directors and producers strive to assemble a diverse cast with strong opinions, beliefs, and values.
While the trash-to-value ratio of the content may be in the former's favor, the fact that the program has been successfully used as a platform for debate demonstrates its ability to harness public attention of a relevant issue to stimulate action. Inevitably elements of the program will devolve into the occasional melodramatic argument over who peed on the seat before the march of bikini-clad Barbies into the pool. But, they’re human and so are we. We aren’t serious all the time. We don’t sit around and discuss politics, social issues, and history all the time, do we? No. We all indulge in the temptation of reveling in the latest celebrity scandal or sensationalized trial. With the right combination of authentic, diverse, and opinionated personalities such formats have the potential to appeal a mainstream audience while cultivating an environment ideal for discourse of relevant local, national, and global issues.
The case of Merlin Luck using Big Brother as a forum for political protest is extremely interesting, and I'm actually surprised it hasn't happened more often. I wonder if whenever they are screening contestants, especially in the U.S., they look into their activism on issues and if that dissuades them from ever choosing contestants. Obviously the show gains more buzz if there are scandals and controversies revolving around sex and housemate fights, and that's in part what has allowed Big Brother for continue to be on the air as long as it has. I hadn't realized the show was that widespread, and it's really interesting, and makes sense, that Africa pooled different nations for contestants and even more so that the winner then became a Goodwill Ambassador. Part of me wishes that the U.S. show would develop into that and be less trash, but I do realize that will never happen since there isn't a market for that type of show. And those TV commercials would probably be uninteresting, because unfortunately no one wants to see a segment of people fighting for important issues outside the news. We want the mindless entertainment of the sort that Big Brother provides.
ReplyDeleteJeff,
ReplyDeleteYou're absolutely right when you say the "trash-to-value ratio" of reality TV content leans heavily toward "trash." Don't get me wrong—I've enjoyed more than a few guilt-ridden hours of "Ru Paul's Drag Race" in my day, but I certainly don't think a man in a feather boa and six-inch heels bellowing about saving the baby turtles is going to get me to adopt a nest.
Ridiculous imagery aside, you bring up an interesting point—I just don't think reality TV is the most effective outlet for the kind of activism you're talking about. It's not a question of trash vs. value. Trash has its place. But so does meaningful coverage of important issues. You say casting directors on shows like "Big Brother" can strike a socially beneficial balance between pedestrian pandering and thought-provoking material if they only "strive to assemble a diverse cast with strong opinions, beliefs, and values." That may be. But what if our news producers did that? What if, instead of trying to win the ratings game with sensationalism, superficial analysis, hot anchors and "Seriously?!" trash, they applied themselves to providing thoughtful, in-depth analysis of real, pressing issues?
Maybe then our news wouldn't have to turn itself into reality TV, and our reality TV wouldn't have to turn itself into news.
(Just don't sass me for this.)
Marc
Marc,
ReplyDeleteI agree 100%. I don't think reality television can, should, or will ever be a legitimate platform for activism or at least a singular impetus for action.
However, because reality television has proven to be a popular genre throughout the globe I feel like it is important that those involved with its creation, production, and distribution consider what the product is. I think because it appeals to an audiences across several demographics it is important to consider capitalizing on the captive audience. I think the opportunity exists to inform an audience who may not seek out traditional news. In doing so you may pique the interest of a percentage of the audience who may decide to investigate particular subjects or issues further.
For example, I can recall in the early days of MTV's Real World when cast members affected by HIV/racism/homophobia discussed their respective issues with other members of the cast and creating what I viewed as an informal entertainment PSA that encouraged viewers to look into these issues further.
While reality TV and television in general will never save the world I think it is a powerful platform to educate an audience who may be unaware or uninterested in relevant social and political issues through entertainment. Even if a majority of the audiences disregards discourse of relevant issues, it still has the potential to help promote awareness and understanding. I think television has the potential to promote awareness of serious issues in a manner that is entertaining and has the ability to captivate attention of a mainstream audience.