By Carman Neustaedter

June 2001

If you have heard or talked about the latest season of Survivor, or wondered if a contestant would stray towards infidelity on Temptation Island, couldn’t quite figure out who the outsider was on The Mole, or wondered who would get the boot next on Boot Camp then you have been infected. This infection is the latest craze of reality television. Whether you watch it or not, it enters into many everyday conversations involving you or those around you. It shapes opinions in contemporary culture about moral and ethical values, which in some way will affect you, whether it is directly or indirectly. The recent phenomenon of reality television in visual culture presents non-scripted drama arguably based on common everyday activities and people that we refer to as reality.

Most North Americans would contest that reality shows have only been on TV for a couple of years, however, their origins date back to the late 1980’s and early 1990’s with shows such as MTV’s The Real World. Some also argue that other once popular shows presenting humorous or outrageous home videos helped bring about the rise of contemporary reality television. Regardless of its origin, reality television has become an ever-increasing phenomenon of visual culture that attracts the attention of millions, whether they are drawn to the couch to catch the latest episode or vow to others not to join in on the latest craze.

Producers and television networks are in awe at the money making power of reality television. They are not faced with paying popular actors exorbitant amounts and can settle on paying out a comparatively mediocre prize to a few select individuals. Reality television creates an atmosphere compelling enough to draw many television watchers away from traditional situational comedies. The final episode of the first Survivor was watched by nearly 52 million viewers, which is a staggering number even to blockbuster sitcom Friends that was weekly out-watched by Survivor II: The Australian Outback.

Reality is defined in the strictest sense as "the quality or state of being actual or true." Is this what we see on reality television? Are the characters presented really reflections of you and me? Do the producers and camera crews show us the real truth of the activities that happen? You may begin to ask yourself if Rich, the eventual winner of the first Survivor, really was an arrogant person willing to connive and backstab his tribal mates. Perhaps you aren’t so sure now if Kathryn, the Law School Lecturer and secretive Mole, really is a kind and generous person. Could such a convincingly caring person sabotage the efforts of others? Were the contestants in the Australian Outback as friendly to each other as it seemed?

To analyze the basis and effects of reality television on contemporary visual culture, the popular series, Survivor and Survivor II: The Australian Outback, created by Mark Burnett, will be discussed. Both seasons of Survivor present elaborate character and plot development that will show how reality television has affected visual culture and answer the question: is reality television an accurate reflection of reality?

Take sixteen strangers with various careers, family backgrounds, and values, place them on a deserted island in the South Pacific, then watch reality unfold. This is in fact what was done on Survivor. There are no actors aside from the host, Jeff Probst. The contestants on the show are ordinary people. Unlike sitcom actors, they have no script to follow as they face challenges and obstacles not present in their normal lives. By using close-up camera shots of the participants and showing repetitive interviews containing thoughts and feelings, viewers get to know the characters on a personal level. Most people have a relative or friend that is a teacher like Gretchen, someone aging and set in his ways like Rudy, or someone with a strong religious background like Dirk. If you don’t, then likely you know of someone or have talked to someone with such personality traits.

Viewers are able to relate to a real person with real emotions. The contestants aren’t cued to cry or miss a family like Jenna. Likewise, nothing can stir up feelings of tension and anxiety over a hateful companion like Jerri, the aspiring actress, than actual deception. Some may even feel the same feelings of accomplishment in being victorious at a challenge like Colby, the athletic and competitive Texan. The characteristics you see are not fake or the result of acting. By using ordinary people, viewers are confronted with legitimate feelings of sympathy, aggravation, and excitement. One may even feel that it is he or she who is engaging in the adventure.

It has been shown that creators of reality based shows use people with common characteristics that we see in everyday society and portray their characteristics for the viewers to create a realistic feeling. Or do they? Before viewers see the characters on Survivor, each participant is handpicked out of thousands. Producers are looking for particular traits they can embellish or exaggerate and use to their own advantage. The characters that they pick represent the type of culture, moral values, and character traits they want to present. Choosing participants to them is equivalent to choosing moral or political viewpoints to express in the show.

It is no coincidence that a character portraying traditional immoral values of having children out of wedlock, such as Gervase, was selected. It was an act to bring this aspect out of contemporary culture and into your lunch hour discussion. It is also not surprising that Rich’s homosexuality became a major focus of attention. Creators sought to put the controversial issue of homosexuality before the general population. It is the creators and editors of the show that have the power to decide what characteristics are presented to the audience and in what amount. Essentially, despite each character containing a unique set of characteristics, the show creates a character with the personality that they desire. There may be no director calling "cut" and no script to follow, but someone is saying what is "in" and what is "out" of the final production.

It can also be argued that the common people presented in reality television don’t even display their normal personalities while in front of a camera. Many people "put on a show" when they know they have the attention of others. What you are watching then may be in fact a common, everyday person much like yourself, pretending to act out a personality that they desire, which is in turn depicted and twisted by the editors and producers of a reality show. A character such as this is not reality.

With characters come social interaction. It is inevitable that sixteen individuals on a deserted island or in the middle of the Australian outback will interact. Friendships are formed along with hateful relationships. Certain individuals are open and social, while others are shy and introverted. In Survivor, viewers are presented with a romantic twist that perhaps Greg and Colleen have a sexual attraction towards one another. Moreover, in Survivor II: The Australian Outback Keith becomes quite hateful towards Jerri and her condescending remarks. Rodger and Elisabeth become close friends with an agape love for one another after a very short time. Colby is also seen to share a quiet evening with his mother in the back of a Pontiac Aztec, alluding to sexual or incestuous relations.

Social interactions like these are brought before the viewer as being realistic. The social interactions and story line, as seen by the viewers, are really just manifestations of the characteristics presented by the camera crews and producers. If the producers want a character to elicit deception towards others such as Jerri, then this is the interaction they will show. Furthermore, is it not quite preposterous to conclude that Colby engages in incestuous sexual acts? It seems just as exaggerated that Elisabeth and Rodger would share such intimacy and love as seen between a father and daughter in less than a few weeks. The producers in the end will show the social interactions that will excite viewers’ minds whether reality or exaggeration.

Along with social interactions comes the syntagmatic unfolding of a story line much like in real life. Contestants are faced with atypical hardships such as finding and hunting for food or building a place to live. Tragedies such as a camp being wiped out from a flooding river or a lack of food present viewers with a melodramatic soap opera. They are events with which the viewers can sympathize. There is a sense that you are seeing everything as it unfolds. Perhaps this is somewhat true, but really you are just seeing what provides a good story line or plot. Mark Burnett, producer of Survivor, even states this fact, "Survivor’ isn’t just about who gets voted off anymore. It’s about compelling storytelling. I think we made good dramatic TV."

It is of no surprise that any signs of antagonism are shown, such as rifts in the relationship between Kelly and Susan. Less emphasis is placed on relationships that are mediocre such as between Amber and Jerri. Once Jerri was eliminated however, Amber’s character received attention because of a struggle for acceptance with the remaining contestants. It is also no surprise that the slaying of a pig by Michael received a vast amount of camera time. Michael used the pig’s blood as war paint on his face, much to the disgust of Kimmi, a vegetarian. This controversial issue was bound to stir up water cooler and lunchroom discussions.

Essentially, by looking at various incidents, one can see that the plot is chosen specifically for the purpose of producing controversy or excitement and does not always reflect the real atmosphere or conditions. Generating a plot is of utmost importance, even if it means human suffering as in the case of Michael when camera crews, because of contractual obligations, were not allowed to help save him from burning in a fire. People can not pick and choose what they see or face in their own life. Reality television can. This is not reality. Former Federal Communications Commission chairman, Reed Hundt, says it quite succinctly when he states, "It's no secret that reality TV shows like Survivor do not, in fact, reflect reality. They are slickly produced records of contrived events – ‘fiction embedded within fiction.’"

In an era of sitcom dominance on the television, it isn’t a wonder why reality television has become so popular. People are interested in fresh ideas. Real people and real events are interesting. Most sitcoms have generalized to mere copycats of the popular Friends TV show, depicting people simply "hanging out." As reality television becomes popular, the problem that arises is that people do not always realize the construction of reality in mass culture. Robert Thompson, director of the Syracuse University’s Center for the Study of Popular Television writes, "Reality programming not only provides suspense that conventional narratives have a difficult time matching; it seems to vanquish the threat of (writerly) manipulation altogether."

People easily realize that when viewing a sitcom on television they are viewing actors depicting events that may or may not be real. There exists a skepticism amongst viewers. The morals that are presented are subject to the same skepticism. Contrarily, if a character in a reality-based television show presents a moral or ethical viewpoint, or even commits a controversial act, it will be interpreted differently because it is in relation to a common person that the viewer can relate to. Reality television is presented as reality and in connection so are the values and messages it presents. In essence, reality television is selling a cultural norm and not the program.

Survivor depicts many different values from homosexuality to deception, or even hatred. Depending on one’s religious background, homosexuality may be considered sinful, but Survivor portrays it as a cultural and acceptable norm. The deception that is presented by the character of Rich creates an acceptance for people to undermine the trust of others and lie. Susan’s outrageous ranting towards Kelly near the conclusion of Survivor shows that it is acceptable to "call others names." Survivor also presents viewers with a stereotypical view for both women and men. The show mostly contained women with thin bodies and men with physically fit physiques. Viewers receive the impression that because these are normal and real people they need to look the same way. Reality television ultimately tells people how they should act towards others and how they should view themselves, but on a grander scale than traditional sitcoms.

For many of the aforementioned reasons, reality television has become a "like it or leave it" phenomenon; most either love it or hate it. With the rise in the number of reality television shows, some say they hate it for the simple reason of not wanting to "jump on the bandwagon" or to not follow the societal trend. With such an influx of reality television shows, there is a sense that viewing has been saturated to the point that it is just boring to watch more reality television. Others contest that real people and real events are just not exciting enough and reality television can actually be quite predictable. Advertisements have also produced ill feelings towards reality television by accentuating a show to a level it is not capable of sustaining. This often leads to disappointment and disgust. Those drawn to reality television are in the millions however and despite its lack of reality representation they still find it compelling to watch week after week. They find the characters easy to relate to and the spontaneity exorbitantly exciting.

Reality television whether you want to believe it or not, has affected your life either directly or indirectly. Producers are not concerned about presenting reality, they are really only concerned about making money and attracting audiences. The characters that are portrayed by reality television are not real people. They are in fact the creation of producers, editors, and camera crews. These people shape the information that is being presented to viewers according to their own liking. The social context that is presented and the story line that accompanies it are constructed for the viewer based on what may have once been reality. The construction of characters, social interaction, and story line in reality television continually produces cultural acceptance of controversial values and actions.

Reality television has the power to attract attention by alluding the viewers to think that they are seeing real people and real events. With an increase in the number of reality television shows, the effects of distributing new and controversial norms will only increase. Before you cast your next vote against a co-worker in your office, think about how reality television has affected your life.

ABC, "The Mole", 2001.

ABC, "The Mole", 2001, <http://abc.go.com/primetime/themole/mole_home.html> (12 June 2001).

CBS, "Survivor", 2000.

CBS, "Survivor: The Australian Outback", 2001.

CBS, "Survior: The Australian Outback", 2001, <http://www.cbs.com/primetime/survivor2/> (12 June 2001).

CBS, "Survivor: Season One – The Greatest and Most Outrageous Moments," Paramount, 2000.

CBS, "Survivors Home", 2000, <http://www.cbs.com/primetime/survivor/> (12 June 2001).

Cook, John, "Brill’s Content: Regulating Reality TV," April 16, 2001, <http://www.brillscontent.com/2001may/notebook/survivor.shtml> (12 June 2001).

Leopold, Todd, "How Much ‘Reality’ TV Can We Survive?" <http://www.cnn.com/2001/SHOWBIZ/TV/05/01/reality.tv/> (12 June 2001).

Moore, Frazier, "Past is Prologue for Reality TV," April 30, 2001, <http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/566169.asp?cp1=1> (12 June 2001).

Neill, Rosemary, "Killing in the Name of Reality TV," May 4, 2001, <http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,1960819%255E1683,00.html> (12 June 2001).

Sullivan, Robert, "Reality Rules: Behind the Cameras with the Makers of Reality TV," Style.com: Vogue, June 2001, <http://www.style.com/vogue/feature/052401/page2.html> (12 June 2001).

Thompson-Jennings, Trisha, "Reality TV: Whose Fault Is It Anyway?" April 17, 2001, <http://onthebox.netfirms.com/Articles/Realitytv/Realitytv.html> (12 June 2001).