REALITY TV
July 5, 2000

The ratings success of the CBS summer blockbuster "Survivor" has made so-called "reality TV" a force in summer programming. Four experts discuss the format's popularity. The NewsHour Media Unit is funded by a grant from the Pew Charitable Trusts.

Online Special Media Watch Online Forum: Experts respond to your questions on the rise of reality TV. Nov. 26, 1999: A look at a TV show with an impressive arrest record. Feb. 17, 1999: The amount of sex on TV is on the increase. Browse the NewsHour's coverage of media issues .     "Survivor" "Big Brother" "The Real World" "Road Rules"	SOUND TRACK: ("Gilligan's Island") Just sit right back and you'll hear a tale a tale of a fateful trip... TERENCE SMITH: As the old saying goes, "imagine you are stuck on a desert island." In the 1960's television version of this scenario, Gilligan and his cohorts lived a carefree existence on their piece of paradise. Now, in the case of "Survivor," the summer blockbuster on CBS, it's survival of the fittest. The eight men and eight women who are allegedly marooned on a Malaysian island struggle to find food and shelter. Each week, they gather for a tribal council on a set that one critic described as resembling a Holiday Inn Polynesian lounge, to expel the weakest of them.
	From 'The Real World' to 'Survivor'
	HOST: B.B., the tribe has spoken. It's time for you to go. TERENCE SMITH: The last person on the island wins a million dollars. But in order to get a shot at the pot of gold, contestants have to survive on a diet of bugs and rats, watch out for monkeys and sea snakes, and most of all, cope with ten cameras and countless crew members following their every move. The result is some intense personality conflicts. WOMAN: You want to vote me off? Fine, but we got to organize this. I don't want to sleep in that anymore. TERENCE SMITH: The concept, based on a European import, is an unscripted docu-soap set in a contrived wild where the characters reveal their private thoughts to the television public. Is it reality TV, as its creators call it, or simple voyeurism? In either case, "Survivor" is part of a trend that is rewriting the rules of summer television, normally a wasteland of reruns. This show, "Big Brother," caught fire in the Netherlands and Germany, and is about to be unveiled here by CBS. The premise for the American version is ten contestants cohabitating for a hundred days in a makeshift house on a lot in Studio City, California. Their every move is constantly monitored by 24 cameras and 60 microphones. Every two weeks, the housemates nominate two candidates for eviction, and the viewers pick the loser. The last inhabitant wins $500,000. The reality notion is new for the networks, but not cable. WOMAN: I don't know what to tell you. MAN: Come on. TERENCE SMITH: MTV, the music television network, has built ratings by using journalistic documentary techniques on its show "The Real World," now in its ninth season. Here, seven twentysomethings coexist and advertise their angst at every turn. There is no prize except the exposure to a national audience. PERSON: Oh, my God. TERENCE SMITH: A lesser-known MTV entry in this field is "Road Rules." Six young adults travel the country in a Winnebago, armed with maps and missions, in search of prizes of up to $100,000. MAN: All for love baby... TERENCE SMITH: ABC recently launched "Making the Band," a real-life drama providing a glimpse into a group of young men pursuing their dreams. ANNOUNCER: Take an ordinary home, gut it, rebuild it to 1900's specs... TERENCE SMITH: PBS, the public broadcasting system, has its own version of reality TV. On "1900 House," a huge hit in Britain, the Bowler family copes with the conveniences, customs, and foods of a century ago. GIRL: Everything's dirty, smelly, and greasy, and skanky. TERENCE SMITH: The already indistinct line between news and entertainment has be blurred even further by CBS, which has been vigorously cross-promoting "Survivor" on its third-place morning news show. ANNOUNCER: And we're back with the "early show" on this Thursday morning, "Survivor" Thursday around here, and as we always do, it's time now for our "Survivor" scorecard. TERENCE SMITH: The "Early Show" has featured interviews with the castoffs, and its news reader, Julie Chen, will actually host one night of "Big Brother." This cross-plugging has already paid off, attracting 100,000 new viewers a week since "Survivor" began. So hot is "Survivor" that the network has launched a Web search for participants for "Survivor II," which will be shot in the Australian outback.
	A panel discussion
	TERENCE SMITH: For more on this popular television phenomenon, we turn to "Survivor" executive producer Mark Burnett; to Jill Geisler, a veteran journalist who now teaches ethics at the Poynter Institute for Media Studies; Robert Thompson, head of the Center for the Study of Popular Television at Syracuse university; and Frank Farley, past president of the American Psychological Association, who teaches now at Temple University. Welcome to you all. Bob Thompson, let me begin with you, and ask you the question: Is it reality, or is it voyeurism? ROBERT THOMPSON, Cultural Historian, Syracuse University: It's not reality any more than a football game is reality. You set the stage, you build the arena, you get the cameras ready, and then you put a bunch of people out there, turn on the cameras, and watch what happens. And that's very much what's going on here. I think it's best to compare this to a sporting event, perhaps what jazz is to traditional music. These programs are to real reality documentaries. Voyeuristic TV is probably, however, a better name than reality TV, because none of this would exist if there weren't cameras to record it. TERENCE SMITH: Jill Geisler, is there a danger, in your mind, that the audience will confuse this... with…this documentary approach, with news? JILL GEISLER, Journalist, The Poynter Institute: Well, I think that would make the networks happy if they did. My concern is that they're mortgaging the credibility of the anchor, and asking her, essentially, to put her truth- telling value on hold, and become a pure promoter. TERENCE SMITH: You're talking about Julie Chen and the CBS cross promotion? JILL GEISLER: Mm-hmm, yes. TERENCE SMITH: All right. Frank Farley, what are the psychological implications of this, both for the characters involved and for the audience? FRANK FARLEY, Past President, American Psychological Association: Well, I think that there's some positive things. You know, a lot of people are having fun with it. They're having office polls, you know, voting who will get blackballed next week, et cetera. So a lot of America's having fun with this show. And that's okay, that's positive. But there's a very destructive and negative side to this pretty much all the way around, which is the underlying themes are themes of humiliation and degradation. And it's part of a general trend in our culture towards making the private public, taking the inner life, the inner private emotional life, that weak, small center that people have, and getting it out in front of the whole country. And I think that's a very negative trend, and this whole idea of focusing on humiliation and degradation-- and it's obvious greed that's for sure-- and conflict. Everyone's looking for, you know, someone to crack, or some, you know, and who's going to go out first. The whole idea of blackballing people, that's a very destructive side of this type of programming. TERENCE SMITH: Mark Burnett, what's your reaction to these criticisms of the show? MARK BURNETT, Executive Producer, "Survivor:" I don't think they're criticisms. I think it's just discussion, really. I think, firstly, we've never said "Survivor" is reality, because what's real about dropping people on an island they never would have found without us? It's certainly not reality, is it? I mean, reality would be a show like "Cops," where a policeman is arresting a suspect, there happens to be a camera crew along with, so the cop would do the same job with or without the camera. I think the example of sports is pretty true. Those football players wouldn't be in that stadium were it not for the television. Clearly, these 16 people would not have found the island without us. So it's really - we joke around saying "dramality," a mixture of drama and reality. It's real people in an unscripted drama in a contrived situation. TERENCE SMITH: What about the words Frank Farley used - "degradation," "humiliation?" MARK BURNETT: Well, I think Frank should look each week at the people who are voted off and how positive they feel about their experience and the fact that the big joke amongst them is they would all have paid us for the same experience, and want to reapply next year -- so, frankly, just an opinion. The people who actually went through the experience, and therefore should be rather embarrassed, if Frank was correct, are clearly not embarrassed.
	Exposure and fame
	TERENCE SMITH: Bob Thompson, as somebody who studies television, how do you explain not only the thousands in the audience who watch, or millions who watch the show, but the thousands who apply to go on this show as participating contestants? ROBERT THOMPSON: Well, with "Survivor," you're offered two things: The possibility of becoming really famous and getting your own TV show without any acting lessons or tap dancing, or anything else that no one normally has to go through; and secondly, a million dollars. Fame and fortune are two pretty big plums in American society. I'm surprised... 6,000 applied. I guess I'm surprised six million didn't apply to this. The interesting thing about this type of programming I think we have to pay attention to, though, is that we have to look at each one differently. We're going to see hundreds of these things over the next several years, and some of them open up the possibility of really cashing in on some of the less noble parts of the human spirit. And I have to say that I and many of my professional colleagues, and it think a lot of intellectuals and thinking people, really wanted to hate "Survivor." We really saw it as something that was going to start something that we might not want to see happen. But if you watch that program, it's really not a bad show. I'd go so far as to say it's a pretty good show. For one thing, no one is really in danger there. There's no sense of blurring reality with fiction, because it's so completely contrived. The little contests they have are announced in doggerel on these little Boy Scout camp kind of messages that they get. All of the Tiki torches and the luau night kind of situations, there's no sense that you could turn this on and think that it's news by any stretch of the imagination. And lastly-- and this what people don't talk about much with "Survivor"-- unbelievably it's one of the closest things we've got to family programming on network television: Very little violence, unless you're a rat, a grub, or a stingray; not much swearing, and what there is is dropped out; there's been very little sex up until now; and there's no evidence of drugs, alcohol, or tobacco on that entire island. In an odd sort of way, this is old-fashioned television programming, of the kind that so many people are wishing we'd get back to again. FRANK FARLEY: Except that one of the underlying themes, again, is that idea that people want to see people fail, or crack, or some kind of serious conflict happen. I still submit that an underlying theme for this is some form of humiliation. ROBERT THOMPSON: I'm not sure... FRANK FARLEY: It's sort of like gladiators, in a sense. ROBERT THOMPSON: I'm not sure with "Survivor," though, that's true. And I'm sympathetic to the idea that we're going to see more of that in the other kinds of programs like this that come out. And I think you're right, we will. With "Survivor," though, these people really aren't subjected to humiliating sorts of situations. It's a sporting event, and any more than the Indiana Pacers felt humiliated because they lost to the Lakers in the NBA Championships, I'm not sure people who get voted out on "Survivor" have really been subjected to anything that really is humiliating. FRANK FARLEY: Well... TERENCE SMITH: Jill, Jill... Let me ask Jill Geisler if you think Bob Thompson's right. In other words, does the audience successfully sort out that which is supposed to be news and that which is entertainment? JILL GEISLER: I think my real concern is, the audience may be able to do that, but for the last three years, I've led a seminar at the Poynter Institute called "Anchors as Newsroom Leaders." And anchors come here from all around the country, and they talk to us about the problems they're having in their newsrooms, and trying to grow their skills in dealing with it. And more and more they say that they're being asked to essentially shill for entertainment programs that are produced by the same companies that own their news divisions -- and not just to do a story about it, but to do that story and have it look like news, and cast a totally uncritical eye. In this format tonight, you're hearing people debate about the merits of these programs. The anchors are being told, your role is to promote the programs, and put them out there as though they look like news. And that, when you add the components of a network anchor, now becoming part of the program, I guess the analogy that I'd use, Terry, is if an anchor goes to see a stunt, like the human cannonball. If a journalist is there, the journalist's role is to maybe do a feature, maybe check on the safety of the cannon, how Mr. Cannonball is doing, and if he lands and hurts anybody. But in this case, we're asking the journalist to come in and be the ringmaster, and her only obligation is to help get more people in the tent. And that erodes her credibility, but also journalism's credibility. TERENCE SMITH: Mark Burnett, do you think there is a blurring of that line? MARK BURNETT: Clearly with "Survivor"-- I can only comment about my own show. Clearly, "Survivor's" a lot of tongue in cheek, as obviously one guest here actually got. Clearly, there's no real tribal council, no one's being thrown to the wolves, and I think it would be pretty silly to think that "Survivor" is actual news. But the point of the blurring of lines between news and entertainment, "Survivor's" the least of our worries. How much of news shows on American television is actual news? And that's the big question. It's now about whether "Survivor" is news of not, it's how much supposed news shows really cover news.
	Peering through time
	TERENCE SMITH: Bob Thompson, how does the PBS entry strike you? ROBERT THOMPSON: Well, it shows how that this kind of program is the universal donor. I mean, you could do "Survivor" at an accounting firm, and show it on CNBC if you wanted to. And I love the idea of how PBS, in fact, is now doing the real world by way of a merchant-ivory production. And of course, "1900" is just so PBS. (Laughter) But here's another example of taking these things individually. There's clearly no blurring... If you're flipping through the dial and come on to "1900 House," you don't say "oh, Y2K has kicked in. All the electricity is off." You're obviously watching something different. And it does help us to kind of think about what it was like before electricity, and all of the rest of it. I think it's an amusing little show, and in the end so many of these can provide so much amusement. We're about to see another one on July 5 on CBS, "Big Brother," which may begin to move this into other more arch directions: An Internet component, a live night that it's going to play. So far, however, what we've seen, I think, has been surprisingly innocent, and I've got to admit, professor or no, I'm thinking to myself, only six more nights until the next "Survivor." TERENCE SMITH: (Laughs) Frank Farley, what do you think is the effect, or the message, on children? What do they derive from this? FRANK FARLEY: Well, I don't know, but I watched it with my six-year-old, and she was bored. It's... I think the idea of this being family fare... If this is positive family fare in some way, where you're trying to see if people are willing to eat bugs and rats, that doesn't strike me as being very good family fare. Again, it's almost as if CBS has been taken over by a psychology professor, I must admit, who wants to create shows that will test people's limits-- how far can we get people to go for money? And that's not very ennobling to me. I mean, the show is interesting to a lot of people, and there's actually... with the real people involved, it's better than many sitcoms, where it's mainly actors. And so, we can all identify much more with this kind of show. But again, I come back to the underlying theme, sort of seeing what people are willing to do basically for money. TERENCE SMITH: Testing people's limits, you say? FRANK FARLEY: Yeah. TERENCE SMITH: Mark Burnett, is that what you're doing? MARK BURNETT: Actually, you're missing a very big point, which is, at the end of "Survivor," when there are two left, we bring back the seven who were most recently kicked off, and payback is sweet. The whole point of "Survivor" is you reap what you sow. And the lesson that comes away from it is, behaving badly doesn't necessarily benefit you. There's a lesson there. TERENCE SMITH: All right, final word from you, Jill Geisler. Isn't journalism really intrusive in its... By its very nature? JILL GEISLER: It's intrusive, but I'd like to point out that when you say "reality television," that isn't news. And when you mentioned "Cops," for example, those aren't independent observers who are going along. They are program producers who have cut a deal with those police officers, and you don't know what you're not being shown -- because in order to go along with them, they have to keep them happy with the final product. TERENCE SMITH: Okay. A distinction worth making. Thank you all very much.

REGIONS TOPICS RECENT PROGRAMS ABOUT US FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS / FEEDS:

Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station.
PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved.