Reality Television and Well-Being of Participants Stakeholder Map

The blog I chose to do my essay/map on was “Should Reality TV Producers be Responsible for Participant Well-Being?” This specifically caught my attention due to the fact that I am currently an aspiring doctor. Health is a serious and important issue to me, and I thought it would be interesting to explore this side of reality television. Some serious things have happened to some participants and it’s important that this matter is addressed. I started off by opening the original article and reading it, and then following that by reading the blog posted written by the student. As I was doing this, I had a pencil and notebook by my side so I could record any stakeholders that came to mind as I was analyzing the two pieces of writing. Next, I made two lists of stakeholders for or against the subject and placed each under the appropriate column, leaving viewers in the middle of the two. I then constructed a venn-diagram correlating to my lists. In parentheses next to each item, I also put a very brief description of my reasoning. I left lawyers blank because it could go either way. There could be lawyers hired for the participant’s side or the company’s side. One of the most difficult parts in going about this assignment was trying to think of the last couple stakeholders and deciding which side of the venn-diagram I would place them on. In addition, deciding what type of map format I wanted to use was also an area that took some thought. Stakeholders such as doctors and viewers came to mind almost instantly, whereas others such as lawyers and media took a little bit of thinking. Depending on which viewpoint of the stakeholder you are looking at, they all for the most part could have gone on either side (for/against). Because of this, I placed them in the most common and logical side. I’m excited to further explore this topic because it sparks a big ethical debate. Many people are involved and every person is affected in some way. It is going to be interesting to see how each side weighs over the other.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2011/08/31/140082930/ethical-reality-a-proposed-code-for-producers-to-live-by

Writing Project One: Mapping Stakeholders

Materials:

+An original article selected from those on the Class Blog
+ The class blog post and comments about selected article
+ Textbook Excerpts: Writing Arguments: A Rhetoric with Readings 9th Edition by Ramage, Bean, and Johnson--Chapters 4, 6, & 7
+Additional Research to Explore Additional Perspectives

Project Scope:
There are two parts to the project. First) Create a physical “map” of the individual stakeholders in a particular argument. Second) Using the Toulmin strategy, identify the underlying assumptions (the warrants) which drive each stakeholder’s position. In essay format, create argument strategies for each stakeholder you can identify.

ASU English 102 Writing Programs Outcomes we are working toward in this project:

·  express a working knowledge of key rhetorical features, such as audience, situation, and the use of appropriate argument strategies

·  develop and support an argument that is convincing to a particular audience

·  identify and evaluate key rhetorical strategies, with an emphasis on ethos, logos, pathos, and kairos

·  engage in a variety of research methods to study and explore the topics. Research methods could include both secondary research (such as library and internet research) and primary research (such as fieldwork and observation)

·  explore the complexity of an issue by seeking multiple perspectives

For Tuesday 2/10

In creating this map, you’ll first want to explore the genre of stakeholder mapping. This is an oft-used technique in the world of business when solving problems involving multiple parties and complex interests. A quick google image search yields this:

As you can see, there are many ways to visually present relationships between stakeholders and their values.

Begin sifting through the comments in the blog as well as those posted in the comments section (where applicable) of the original article. Look for additional texts about the issue. List all of the possible groups and then begin to place them on “teams”: likely, a binary system like “for” and “against.” 

Once crudely divided, begin breaking down the reasons a particular stakeholder is either for or against something. Identify their underlying assumption about the issue. For example, you might have two stakeholders against the death penalty identified. One opposes it because of a religious values system and one opposes it because of a political ideal. These two positions, while aligned, will respond to arguments from the other side quite differently depending on the grounds presented.

Once you have identified your stakeholders and their underlying assumptions which lead them to hold their particular position, create a draft of your map. There are many resources for creating maps. My favorite one right now is MindMup but feel free to use whatever work for you: ms paint, photoshop for the fancy, you can even freehand it if you can digitize it and present it here.  

Group Four: Post a draft of your physical map and a process log for your Blog Posts. By process log I mean a reflection of the work you are doing in creating the project. What are the steps you are taking to complete the work? What are the most difficult parts of the work? What is surprising or exciting or causing you to suddenly feel inspired to do the dishes instead of doing this any longer?

Groups one, two, and three: respond with your own comments about the maps presented as well as the process log. Help your classmates identify any stakeholders they might have missed; commiserate with them in their struggles, offer advice, and comment on their progress. Post your own maps as suggestions via link. (Explore ways to store your drafts online so as to share them—google docs, drop box, other cloud solutions.)

Happy mapping! Next Thursday, we'll draft the essay portion and then schedule conferences. 

How Reality TV Really Works

David Rupel, author of the article, “How Reality TV Works” begins by talking about his background in not only writing episodes of TV shows, but also his experience in reality TV. He then goes on to talk about the truth about how reality TV actually works. He states that there are 4 rules of reality TV and they are: Planned story vs. followed story, less is definitely more, the rules of storytelling don’t change, and writing is producing.

Planned story vs. followed story talks about how there are two different categories that reality shows can fall into. The first is shows that have very little structure, where everyday events turn into stories such as shows like The Osbournes, The Real World, and Airplane. The second is shows that are heavily formatted, where events are planned before shooting such as shows like Survivor, The Bachelor, and The Amazing Race. The category for shows that have little structure generally take a lot longer to film because one can’t predict when something interesting will happen so shooting over a period of 6 days will cover a single 30 minute episode. When shows are heavily formatted and are planned before shooting, like the second category, generally take a shorter period of time, two to three days to be exact, to create an hour long episode. The second rule, Less is definitely more, talks about how people constantly complain about how edited the show is and that the real story wasn’t being told. He states that the truth is that nobody is interesting all the time, and that he knows this due to his background in reality TV where he watched thousands of hours of raw footage. The third rule, the rules of storytelling do not change, talks about how people tune into a reality TV show expecting that there will be a beginning, middle, and end but this is only an easy task in scripted TV. In reality TV, real people don’t live their lives in scenes, so producers of reality TV must fill in the gaps of stories in people’s lives. He then gives an ethics note stating that reality TV doesn’t make scenes to trick people, not many shows film 24 hours a day so stuff is missed and must be filled in to make it seem complete. The fourth and final rule is writing is producing, and this is simply put that, just like scripted TV, writing and producing go hand in hand.

 The only difference about reality TV is that the characters aren’t played by actors.

After reading the article and seeing all these rules I can say I have a better understanding of how reality TV works and that it is not just scripted and made to look real but be actually fake. Reality TV is something I have always thought of as obviously fake but now I see that it’s only like that to fill missing gaps that couldn’t be caught on camera. Reality TV is a far more intricate process than I think most people know about and it’s no wonder why reality TV is becoming the number one thing watched on television.

 http://www.wga.org/organizesub.aspx?id=1091

Casting Reality TV? It’s Now Difficult To Find Real People

In the article, "Casting Reality TV? It’s Now Difficult To Find Real People", Craig Tomashoff describes the difficulties that modern reality television producers face, when trying to recruit sincere and honest subjects.  In recent years, it has become increasingly hard for producers to find real genuine people to film.  With shows like the "Bachelor" and "Jersey Shore", which have really popularized reality television, more and more people have gone into reality programs with the intent of "showing off" for the camera.  One of the major problems leading to this, is that reality stars who act out and show ridiculous personalities, receive more fame, endorsements, and viewer attention.

 

Tomashoff mentions that it has been nearly twenty years since MTV's "The Real Life" premiered, which is considered to have brought reality TV focused on ordinary people into the mainstream.  Nearly two decades ago, most people were unfamiliar with how reality television worked, and it was much easier for producers to find real people, who would live their normal lives in front of a camera.  In an interview with Lacey Pemberton, a casting director of the "Bachelor", she told Tomashoff, “People have become smarter about these sorts of things, so is it harder to cast? Yes,”.  She went on to say “I want people fresh to the idea of doing this and not so focused on being on television. At the end of the day, I still find it, but do I have to go through more now? I do.”  From this statement, it is apparent that as people have discovered the fame and financial gain that can be made through reality television, many people have felt compelled to exploit this system.

 

Programming executives who, in the past, would travel across the country in search of potential subjects to film, now are approached by talent agencies everywhere.  The Discovery Channel's president, Eileen O’Neill, made a statement in regard to these agencies, basically saying that they have brought some benefits into the industry, accompanied by disadvantages.  She said that the assistance they have gotten from these talent agencies “has both helped and complicated the growth of characters in reality TV.”  With talent agencies involving themselves between television producers and clients, business seems like it is taking a priority over the actual subject of the show.  This makes it even more difficult for reality television producers to keep their cast genuine and real.

 

After reading Tomashoff's article, I personally feel that his perspective on reality television is justified and right for the most part.  The plunge in the quality of reality television seems like it might be largely due to a shift in attitude of both the viewers and the participants.  Viewers have shown that they give more attention towards characters of reality TV with outrageous personalities, and who make controversial choices.  As a result, the participants in reality shows often do questionable things and act out ridiculous personalities, which are far from real.  I believe that the only way for us to have reality television that is genuinely real, is for people to stop encouraging and ignore the participants that act absurdly.

Aristotle, drama and the craft of reality TV

Elizabeth White, author of “Aristotle, drama and the craft of reality TV” claims that Aristotle is the main reasons that reality TV shows exist today. She states that Aristotle found the answer to the question “What makes a play work?” The answer is Character matters, gimmicks and the plot. These essential elements are what it takes to keep the audience engaged and coming back for more. She brings up the show “Survivor” as being the main show to bring all three elements together.

Her first point she brings up is Character matters, a show without problems between characters is like watching paint dry, it’s boring and nobody gets into it. The problems created between characters gives the audience a chance to pick a side or character that they like and cheer for them to win while hoping the other loses. If there were no teams on the game of survivor and everyone was just playing for themselves (even though that’s how it ends up) it wouldn’t be as entertaining to the viewers, you wouldn’t be able to pick out the villains or good guys and root for them throughout. Another example she brings up is the MTV show “Real World” this show is literally pointless without problems between roommates and fights that break out. Every season they are brought to a huge, beautiful house and they always end up trashing the place and some people trying to rip each other’s heads off, and that’s what keeps the viewer’s coming back. More problems, more views in the producers eyes.

Elizabeth’s second point of why reality shows stay alive is gimmicks, “Gimmicks are a necessary evil” says white. A gimmick is a game or challenge that the players are put through in order to move on to the next round. When the players on survivor are put through challenges, which is just another way of getting viewers to watch and stay interested. Another gimmick is telling an emotional story about a certain character just so the audience will feel badly for that character and see how he or she does in the next episodes. However, white does say that too many gimmicks is a bad thing! If there are too many games or loopholes that the characters have to go through it just makes it too complicated to follow and in the end the show loses views, for example the show “The Mole” you probably have never heard of it because it only lasted one season, why so short? The show was filled with games inside of games and the audience couldn’t keep up with it and the ratings went down.

The final point that White makes is Plot, perhaps the most important of them all. The plot of the show at hand is arguably the most important reason viewers keep coming back. Watching a show about people surviving on a tropical island with no interaction with other people besides the ones on the island, and having to use their surroundings to survive is a great way to draw people in. Liz says that “Real people n real time are boring” and she lists the NBA and NFL as examples of being boring. I strongly disagree with that because the amount of people that watch sports on TV such as the NFL and NBA surpasses the number of people that watch reality shows by far. Yes there isn’t much of a plot when it comes to sports but it is still very entertaining and people keep coming back to watch their favorite teams. The producers of these reality shows often create the plot themselves by going through hours and hours of film and cutting out certain pieces to make a story come together to capture the attention of the viewers. These directors are almost like authors themselves except it is a show not a book.

All in all, I do agree with Elizabeth White on certain things such as the three basic elements to a reality TV show and what gets people to keep coming back. Other things such as sports being boring and Aristotle being the genius behind the entire reality TV department I don’t agree with as it is a little farfetched.

Storage Wars Scandal

We have yet another dispute over the reality of reality television. You may or may not be familiar with the popular A&E television show Storage Wars. In this hit “reality” show, optimistic business people bid on the unknown contents of abandoned storage containers with the hopes of making a profit on what they find inside. Sometimes they make a good investment and hit big and sometimes they come up short. As it turns out, the majority of the show including contents of storage units and interviews with characters have been tampered with even though in a press conference the producers denied that they used deceptive tactics in the filming of the show.

Now, the producers of the show are being sued by one of the characters from the first three seasons for being fake. A distraught David Hester claims that since he refused to let the producers “salt” or falsely load his purchased storage containers with interesting finds he seemed less competent than the other business people portrayed on the show. As a result his business suffered and he was forced to close it down.

Hester is arguing that the tactics of Storage Wars violates the Communication Act of 1934, which prohibits “influencing, prearranging, or predetermining outcomes” in “contests of knowledge, skill, or chance,”. This seems like a legitimate claim since the title Storage Wars implies that it is in fact a competition or contest but a judge ruled against a few parts of Hester’s lawsuit because the show is under the protection of the 1^st amendment. “It is not commercial speech, but “expressive free speech” so it has more latitude in what it does and says about itself.”

The show may not have initially been meant for commercial use but the content portrayed by the show includes real business owners and their real businesses.  Even though the main purpose of the show is entertainment, viewers can knowingly and unknowingly form opinions on the people that they see in the show. Since the outcomes and scenes from the show are fake they result in a false portrayal of these business people and unfortunately as Hester claims, bad publicity for him.

Personally, I feel like Hester would have a point if he had said something after the first season but he continued to be a major character on the show for three seasons and only sued A&E after his termination. If the shows portrayal of him was so detrimental to his business then why didn’t he say something immediately?

Is it fair that David Hester’s business had to suffer because of A&E’s quest for high ratings? Do you feel like the law is interpreted properly in this case? Is David Hester to blame for being part of the show for three years and not saying anything until now? Do you think that reality television shows should be able to manipulate their output to such an extent? How fake is too fake? Do you think the laws regarding speech need to be altered to accommodate the changing times?

Full article here: http://www.salon.com/2013/03/13/protecting_reality_tvs_right_to_be_fake/

Does Reality TV Attract Larger-than-life Characters?

The article, “Reality TV attracts, um, larger-than-life characters”, written by Paul Farhi discusses how reality television attracts certain people with “extraordinary” lives. Fahri begins by using three different examples of specific people to prove that reality television is looking for participants that are basically borderline crazy. The first example is about a couple that has previously been on a reality TV series, who had made up a story to get on another television show. The couple had created a horrific story that a runaway balloon had carried their 6-year-old son away. The next story is about a 32-year-old man that had been on two reality television shows, who was suspected of murdering and then dismembering his wife and fleeing the country, later committing suicide. The third story consisted of a couple, who previously appeared on “Real Housewives of D.C.”, who had snuck into a state dinner at the White House, then later bragged about it on Facebook. The author goes on by stating that all three of these stories lead to public attention, getting them all in the spotlight, which is exactly what they wanted.

Farhi goes on by stating that nobody wants to watch a TV show about regular people doing regular things, but would rather watch individuals with ridiculous personalities and individuals who commit outrageous acts. I agree with this because people want entertainment and what provides more entertainment than a TV show starring ridiculous people doing stupid things? Because producers are looking for participants that will provide the most entertainment, a new question is proposed, “How far will producers go in trying to get the best participants who will receive the most ratings and views for the show?” If producers continue to look for these kinds of participants, who knows, maybe murderers will be starring in the next reality television show.

According to Farhi, outrageous behavior is the goal, which, I think, is sadly true. The more outrageous the behavior is, the higher the views and ratings. The author claims that in recent years, reality show participants are chosen from people who are deadbeat dads, who have committed assaults, been tax cheats, appeared in porn films, etc. This goes to show what kind of people producers are looking for to star in their reality show. To me, it’s almost as if they are being rewarded attention for committing crimes and breaking laws.

The article later states that it’s not all the producers’ fault for this and that they aren’t the only ones who need to step up. Fahri says that advertisers could step up by choosing not to sponsor the show and that the audience, the viewers, could also just stop watching and giving the shows more attention.

All in all, I think that reality shows are attracting the wrong kind of people. People with psychological disorders who commit crimes don’t need to be and shouldn’t be in the spotlight. The article states, “Appearing on a reality television show can distort even the most balanced individual’s self-image and self-esteem.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/30/AR2009113004267_2.html?sid=ST2009113003525