The article, written by Linda Holmes, editor of Monkey See on NPR, and titled "Reality TV Producers Should Be Responsible for Participant Well-Being", details a code of
ethics that she has come up with to supplement the tragic exploitation of the
reality television business. Underlying the emotional distress put on
participants of said reality shows, she continues to use Russell Armstrong, a
husband of a woman starring on “The Real Housewives”, and his suicide as an
example of a possible result of reality television’s psychological tendencies
on those involved. After this description she proceeds to nominate a voluntary
code of ethics for the producers of the reality shows to use on their
programming, in an effort of being more responsible for their participants and
in my opinion, to treat them more like human beings than props being utilized
for monetary gain. The code describes a list of requirements that the producers
will have to follow in order to properly reach a set ethical goal. Assuredly
the proposed requirements wouldn’t be forced down the throats of the producers,
but Linda rather suggests that they will be encouraged and optional, in order
to spread a more vast and ethical standpoint when making reality television.
Listed in order identical of the code’s draft thought up by
Linda Holmes, the ethical requirements go as such; counseling for up to three
months after appearance on the show, public contracts, alcohol limitations, a
sleep requirement of at least six hours, maximum help for minor participants,
limitations on isolation by familial contact, access to medical care or any
substitute they deem worthy with the responsibility of penalization for missing
time on the show, appropriate background checks to prevent violence, additional
fees in favor of repeat participants, lack of requirement to express themselves
in interviews, follow-ups, damage control on participant reputation, and
refrain of showing footage of participants who have died during the shooting
process unless noted otherwise by the family.
Some of these are blatantly obvious and I honestly have a
hard time they aren’t already commonly practiced in the reality television scene.
I haven’t recently watched many reality shows, except for my ironic interest in
The Kardashian Show with a few of my friends, but I can’t see the downside of
these being used as a common ethical code when producing these shows. On the
other hand, the product could be affected when implementing any sort of
limitation on the ability to produce the show more effectively, but the
participants in the said show aren’t props, they are human beings. As a
civilized nation, and a commonly civilized species, we cannot abuse other
people for monetary gain or any other sort of valued accruement. The producers
of the show DO in fact have an innate responsibility for the people they are
employing, and though I am one to usually favor the employer to know what is
best in the idea of wages and how his company (or television show) should work,
certain human rights cannot be essentially violated in order to produce. The
idea of creating this voluntary code is great, because shows that promote it
will be in a way praised by some, possibly upping their ratings and the shows
value. This in return will help the spread of the code, and eventually it will
become more and more common, avoiding tragic incidents of psychologically harshened
participants.
Article Source: Holmes, Linda. "Reality TV Producers Should Be Responsible for Participant Well-Being." Re ality TV. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. At Issue. Rpt. from "Ethical 'Reality': A Proposed Code for Producers to Live By." Monkey See 31 Aug. 2011. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 25 Jan. 2014.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/business/media/02reality.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 This article I found goes into more detail about the alcohol consumption and malnourishment that these reality television producers force on to their contestants. David mentioned alcohol limitations as being one of the things mentioned in this code of ethics by Linda Holmes. The producers of many of these reality television shows literally force their contestants to drink heavily in order to increase tension and emotion, therefore making the show more “interesting.” One example is from the 2006 season of “The Bachelor,” where contestants were required to wait in vans for several hours while producers set up a 12 hour long “arrival” party. The contestants were provided no food while waiting and upon arrival to the party, they were greeted by endless amounts of wine but little to no food. Later in the show, the producers judged the scenes as being too boring and therefore sent out required shots of hard liquor for the contestants in order to spice up the interactions around the house. Erica Rose, a contestant in the latter said, “If you combine no sleep with alcohol and no food, emotions are going to run high and people are going to be acting crazy.” Unfortunately, that is exactly what the producers want. Mark Andrejevic, a Communications professor at the University of Iowa said “The bread and butter of reality television is to get people into a state where they are tired, stressed and emotionally vulnerable; that helps make them more amenable to the goals of the producers and more easily manipulated.” These producers know exactly what they want and will treat their contestants any way to get them to do that. On top of this treatment, contestants are required to sign contracts saying they will never mention anything that happened on the set. When broken, some of these contracts had multi-million dollar penalties.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that reality Television producers should be held accountable for the actions of the television participants. They are the ones who are producing the television show, and it is their job to make sure that the show runs smoothly, and that no one causes any damage. Having an ethical requirement for the participants on the show is a great way to make sure that no psychological or physical damage was done to someone on the show. Like David stated, counseling, public contracts, alcohol limitation, and sleep requirements are in place to help avoid any injuries or hazards to the participants. In the comments, Kyle states that producers of reality television shows force contestants to drink in order to increase tension and emotion. If this claim is true, then more harm is being done to the participants.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the article entirely. When a person signs up to be on a reality show they know exactly what they are getting themselves into. Take for example Heidi and Spencer from The Hills, Heidi and Spencer were both seen as being the villains on the reality show. They recently had a special on E! where they discussed how they wish they could have taken being on the show back because they knew what they were getting into beforehand. It is not a producer’s job to determine the wellbeing of participants. It is up to the participant to analyze whether they think airing their life is a good decision and how it will effect them in the long run, and most people know that being on a reality show 90% of the time brings negative publicity to those involved. So no there should not be a set of rules, people should be smart enough to make the right decision and opt out when necessary.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the fact that television producers should be held accountable for their actions. They are the main source of everything that is displayed to the public. They get to choose what goes and doesn’t and because of this they twist and turn the participants/actors to do what they want. Most of the time these participants don’t really know what they’re getting themselves into, such as Heidi and Spencer, and regret ever going on the show. There should definitely be an outline of rules and regulations that producers have to follow to protect these people. In the end, this would decrease controversy and allow the participants to essentially have a “safer” experience. Some of these are honestly just common sense to help the actor themselves also. Alcohol limitations and sleep requirements only help their health and help them stay out of trouble with the cops. The link I found below backs up my point about how shows should ultimately be held responsible for their actions. For example, in shows like Dr. Oz, the public just takes in and listens to whatever they hear and see. There should definitely be some type of filter and safeguard put up.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.debate.org/opinions/should-television-hosts-be-held-legally-accountable-for-the-quality-of-medical-advice-theyre-giving-on-their-talk-shows
I think that having a code of ethics for producers is a smart idea. The purpose is to suggest to producers some requirements for the participants such as alcohol limitation or counseling after the show in order to maybe avoid tragic incidents involving the participants. While I believe that having a code of ethics for the producers is a smart idea, I think it would be a complete failure. Producers want people to expose their life and scandals on national television because that’s what makes a show interesting. I personally believe that producers are not responsible for the well-being of the participants. Like Natalie said, those who are participating in a reality show know what they’re getting themselves into. They know that reality shows are usually full of drama and should expect anything to happen. It’s their choice to sign up for a reality TV show and expose little details of their life on television.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that the producers of the reality show should be help accountable at all for what happens on the show because frankly the person knew what they were getting themselves into when they signed up and if they weren't 100% positive on the decision then they should have never made it in the first place. Before almost every show, the producers have you sign a form that says they are not responsible for something's and the contestant should read that to the fullest and make sure it is what they are looking for before they jump into the show.
ReplyDeleteI am a bit neutral/on the fence regarding this topic. I think that the people participating in the show should know what they are getting themselves into and should be capable of taking care of themselves. They should also be given a choice to leave the show if it gets too intense and it involves something they think is unsafe or something they aren't comfortable doing with. At the same time, I don't think the TV producers should take advantage of the participants on the television show in order to get more viewers and higher ratings. I think that even if there was a code of ethics, the producers would still find a way to do what they want for the sake of the show, even if it means hurting the participant's well being. Overall, I think both the participants in the tv show as well as the tv producer should be somewhat responsible.
ReplyDelete