ok so, Reality TV vs. News in the case of the Iraq show. We had a small discussion on this in class: how the reality series was able to get access to the Pentagon that a news network was not able to get. Is this logical? I like what someone was arguing in class that news brings a biased opinion to what is reality, they only show us what they want us to see. Reality TV on the other hand will dish out what they are given and not necessarily give only one side. OR if they do...it's the side that maybe the government is willing to show. I don't know...but I think it makes sense to allow a reality crew access to certain government things that were not granted to news stations.
Everyone is trying to cover their butts. What I mean by this is the government is letting reality TV has this inside view because it is controllable whereas News companies such as Cnn, Fox, msnbc... have an addenda. News stations know which party the majority of their viewers represent. By knowing this they need to meet what their viewer expects. Reality TV is about the shock and exposing so the government knows someone is watching so they can act to appeal to the American public. The reality cameras will also be more objective then those of a news agency so both sides of heated topics like the war have a chance of being presented. Being a fan of both Fox and CNN I get both views right and left. Even though both claim to be in the middle, just by the titles of each segment it shows biased views .
Msapper I agree with you on the point of the government allowing reality tv but not news stations. I wish I would have read yours first because I would have directed my first post towards yours. I agree the news stations really will only show one side or the other. I think it is sad the we can trust reality tv to bring a story to us more then the news.
So the government let a reality show crew go somewhere they wouldnt let a news crew? I dont know a lot about this situation, let alone the government, but I bet the government let the reality show in because they know that they would put a twist on what is actually happening, and make for an appropriate and interesting story, compared to a news team who would show it like it is. I do agree with Matt when he says that reality TV is about the shock, and they can expose the "behind the scenes" government work to the public, which would make for an interesting topic. I mean, I bet Americans would tune in if there was a reality show in Bush and why he thinks the way he does, and behind the scences things. Granted, it would be totally modified to only show the best of the best, but I bet it would make for good TV.
While I agree that reality tv can show us more angles and shocking information than the news, I also think that reality tv is not taken nearly as seriously as news stations. The news stations have a reputation to uphold as providing important information accurately and with class. Whereas reality tv shows have no rules and in my opinion are more interested in the reaction of the viewers than the quality of the information.
Well, this week I watched I Love New York, Part 2. It is the same type of reality show as The Bachelorette. As mentioned in Gamson, "the men about to compete are not merely Joe Well Below Average but Joe Out of the Question". I know that this quote refers to Melana but it also pertains to New York. Most of them were geeks with dumbo ears, some cant even express themselves appropiately, there was even a midget as one of the contestants. When Gamson mentions that "although the sight of Melana's suitors is intended to amuse and titillate rather than to touch us, it would take a heart of stone not to be moved by the moment when the men take a look at one another and realize that their inclusion in this confraternity of nerds is probably not a mistake". This exact occurrence happened in I Love New York when her mom introduced "better" contestants. The original contestants felt threatened because the other ones had money, intelligence and class. However, unlike Melana, New York likes sexually expressive men and thus chooses the midget over an intelligent, classy man.
I agree with Matt's point when he mentions that "Reality TV is about the shock and exposing so the government knows someone is watching so they can act to appeal to the American public". The 'I Love New York' is based entirely on the shock value. With her geeky guys and midget contestants, even she was a little bit shocked when she first saw them.
Msapper, I agree with your point that news is a biased opinion of reality. I feel like news today is not what it should be. It is pathetic that people in our country know that our news is not completely accurate, well -documented, and unbiased. At the same token, I wouldn't go as far as saying that a reality TV show is a substitute or solution. I agree with Gilbert in that the news has an agenda, which I believe is a good thing. I think anything that shows access to the Pentagon is a serious ordeal. While I think it would be nice to have a reality TV show given access to the Pentagon, I think there needs to be an agenda. Just as the news can show one side or the other, reality TV can do the same thing. Even worse reality TV gives even a more realistic impression of something that isn’t accurate. There is no way that viewers can have completely true representation of life at the Pentagon, hence why we all aren’t part of government. I’m not really too sure on how I feel about either getting access. I would usually say that the news should get access before reality TV. But after I have written my paper on the news; I really started seeing how problematic the news actually is. With this said, I don’t think it is right for either of the two to have access as neither of the two are worthy.
I watched a reality television show entitled “What Not to Wear” and did not care for it. The show’s purpose is to change the style of a person who dresses poorly, which has the potential to be interesting. However, the person with inadequate style is selected by their family or friends’ nomination, rather than by their own. This highlights the possibility, perhaps even the probability, that the person might go back to wearing the type of clothes they preferred before the show. Additionally, the selected person gets $5,000 to go purchase a new wardrobe, but only after their old clothes have been either thrown out or given away. It is wonderful that the person is given money to shop, but $5000 is not enough to replace the amount of his or her clothing that has, by that time, been discarded. Overall, what I disliked most about the show was the outcome. Although the results I saw, or lack thereof, might be specific to that one episode, I did not observe a drastic change in the level of style in the individual’s new wardrobe. She had improved slightly, but not immensely as the show had implied she would. Also, as previously stated, since it was not her decision to transform her wardrobe, I did not see the point in featuring her as the show’s subject.
I agree with Megan's opinion. I think most of reality tv shows only reveal things that would interest viewers. It can be dangerous to let reality tv shows use such serious issues as their topics.
I think that the reality show about the soldiers in Iraq is completely outrageous. The fact that news crews were not able to get clearance from the government but a reality tv show was, makes it almost seem like propaganda trying to make the us government look like the good guys. By putting a biased on the show which the news is not supposed to do makes the entire idea behind the show questionable. It may just be the government trying to get more americans citizens to support the war. By showing a good aspect what is really going on in iraq it sells a tv show as well as aid the government. Another issue is that the producers of the tv show like any other show had a large amount of material to use, and most likely just used the material they wanted to create a certain story, again to sell television.
Yes i agree with Msapper as well, that the news crews are not supposed to show a biased program, but the television reality show is allowed to show what they feel will sell television or what they want to show, not necesarily showing the whole truth. I think the bottom line is that the television show about iraq is PROPOGANDA!!!!!
Another reality show that we haven’t touched upon yet is “America’s Most Smartest Model.” The show is not only interesting but it keeps you entertained by how the models do in the tasks. For one task they had to walk the catwalk while naming certain things in different categories such as elements on the periodic table, species of dinosaurs, and types of flowers. It was funny to watch them struggle on the simplest categories, which make you wonder what was going on inside their heads. In this survivor type show there are all different kinds of characters who you build relationships with, depending on which one you feel connected to. It is trash T.V because of the way it creates drama and shock value behind the scenes just like the others. In its title it pokes fun at itself and the fact that bad grammar is frequent on the show. Some of the things that come out of their mouth make you think, “Did they really just say that?” America seems to have an addiction to watching beautiful people make fools of them selves on national television. This should be another thing to add to the list of defining trash television. (Think Jessica Simpson and her famous “is this chicken or tuna?” line.) Producers seem to be asking them to be more ditzy because it gets the ratings up, and it seems to work.
I agree with what Brianna said about the show "what not to wear." After watching an episode of that I couldn't help but feel bad for the person on the show. She is put on televisin in front of thousands of viewers while they pick out her imperfections and make her feel even more insecure. It reminded me of our discussion in class about "average Joe." That show is cruel and unattractive men are picked for entertainment. Reality tv is cruel. It manipulates people and is able to portray any person however the producers want to. In "what not to wear," they told the girl on the show that she looked like trailer trash, which is cruel and hurtful to anyone.
While I agree that reality tv can show us more angles and shocking information than the news, I also think that reality tv is not taken nearly as seriously as news stations. The news stations have a reputation to uphold as providing important information accurately and with class. Whereas reality tv shows have no rules and in my opinion are more interested in the reaction of the viewers than the quality of the information.
Ok Megan Bailly brought up a point that I'm going to have to disagree with (sorry...) I beleive some "reality tv" actually though, yes they want a reaction from their viewers, but I think they are also trying to get a message across that will MAKE the viewers react. Of course this doesn't go for ALL reality tv, but I think certain shows (don't ask me for an example yet, I don't know it off the top of my head...i'll take an IOU.) aim to create the reaction.
Okay so I just finished watching the premier of Tila Tequila and I am still in shock. I think this show may be the new definition of trash TV and may even be trashier then Jerry Springer. Any of the people on this show look like you could have pulled them off of a Jerry Springer show. On Springer the people on the show are only on camera for less then an hour and there are people keeping them from physically fighting. On Tila Tequila, however, these people are all living together and competing for the “love” of one women. Actually, not only do they live in the same house but all 24 contestants sleep in the SAME bed! That’s right 12 lesbians and 12 straight guys all sleeping in one huge bed. I’m sure you can only imagine what kind of conflicts and drama may come from this. One of the contestants described the living situation as, “The Real World on crack.” This television show also tries to give the idea that they are trying to do something good. It tries to seem as though the whole point of the show is to find true love. One of the female contestants stated that she was ,“excited to be part of the first show about lesbian love,” and that it was going to “groundbreaking.” Unfortunately I don’t think she realized what she was getting herself into when signing up for this show.
Reality TV vs news has been a question in my mind for many years, it is tough to decided between the two at times. One way i would put it is that reality TV is only meant to entertain while the news is ment to inform, but the news has created competition between each other. THis competition creates the idea that every news station needs to have the most entertaining stories. Therefore i cannot say that the news is above reality TV in any way.
I agree with courtney when she says she does not know much about the IRaq situation and the reality TV over the news. THis is kind of a scary idea though, having the gov't control the ideas of "reality" TV. Where does the the reality start and the enditing stop? is this really a real story, or is it modified to appease or ease its veiwers? the idea of fake reality TV brings up many question and concerns, and hopefully will continue as long as it exists.
Well, to take the opposite position from Msapper and Matt, perhaps news has always been biased. Now they are more obvious in their bias, but we are also more cynical viewers. Maybe this means that Americans are less likely to be manipulated? More likely to take all the viewpoints and come to their own conclusions?
My areas of study include autobiography, slave narratives, mystery novels, Puritans, and American literature. I have done quite a bit of work with popular culture. I am not yet an expert on television or trash television but I'm working on it.
20 comments:
ok so, Reality TV vs. News in the case of the Iraq show. We had a small discussion on this in class: how the reality series was able to get access to the Pentagon that a news network was not able to get. Is this logical? I like what someone was arguing in class that news brings a biased opinion to what is reality, they only show us what they want us to see. Reality TV on the other hand will dish out what they are given and not necessarily give only one side. OR if they do...it's the side that maybe the government is willing to show. I don't know...but I think it makes sense to allow a reality crew access to certain government things that were not granted to news stations.
Everyone is trying to cover their butts. What I mean by this is the government is letting reality TV has this inside view because it is controllable whereas News companies such as Cnn, Fox, msnbc... have an addenda. News stations know which party the majority of their viewers represent. By knowing this they need to meet what their viewer expects.
Reality TV is about the shock and exposing so the government knows someone is watching so they can act to appeal to the American public. The reality cameras will also be more objective then those of a news agency so both sides of heated topics like the war have a chance of being presented. Being a fan of both Fox and CNN I get both views right and left. Even though both claim to be in the middle, just by the titles of each segment it shows biased views .
Msapper I agree with you on the point of the government allowing reality tv but not news stations. I wish I would have read yours first because I would have directed my first post towards yours. I agree the news stations really will only show one side or the other. I think it is sad the we can trust reality tv to bring a story to us more then the news.
So the government let a reality show crew go somewhere they wouldnt let a news crew? I dont know a lot about this situation, let alone the government, but I bet the government let the reality show in because they know that they would put a twist on what is actually happening, and make for an appropriate and interesting story, compared to a news team who would show it like it is. I do agree with Matt when he says that reality TV is about the shock, and they can expose the "behind the scenes" government work to the public, which would make for an interesting topic. I mean, I bet Americans would tune in if there was a reality show in Bush and why he thinks the way he does, and behind the scences things. Granted, it would be totally modified to only show the best of the best, but I bet it would make for good TV.
While I agree that reality tv can show us more angles and shocking information than the news, I also think that reality tv is not taken nearly as seriously as news stations. The news stations have a reputation to uphold as providing important information accurately and with class. Whereas reality tv shows have no rules and in my opinion are more interested in the reaction of the viewers than the quality of the information.
Well, this week I watched I Love New York, Part 2. It is the same type of reality show as The Bachelorette. As mentioned in Gamson, "the men about to compete are not merely Joe Well Below Average but Joe Out of the Question". I know that this quote refers to Melana but it also pertains to New York.
Most of them were geeks with dumbo ears, some cant even express themselves appropiately, there was even a midget as one of the contestants.
When Gamson mentions that "although the sight of Melana's suitors is intended to amuse and titillate rather than to touch us, it would take a heart of stone not to be moved by the moment when the men take a look at one another and realize that their inclusion in this confraternity of nerds is probably not a mistake".
This exact occurrence happened in I Love New York when her mom introduced "better" contestants. The original contestants felt threatened because the other ones had money, intelligence and class.
However, unlike Melana, New York likes sexually expressive men and thus chooses the midget over an intelligent, classy man.
I agree with Matt's point when he mentions that "Reality TV is about the shock and exposing so the government knows someone is watching so they can act to appeal to the American public".
The 'I Love New York' is based entirely on the shock value. With her geeky guys and midget contestants, even she was a little bit shocked when she first saw them.
Maria Altamirano
Msapper, I agree with your point that news is a biased opinion of reality. I feel like news today is not what it should be. It is pathetic that people in our country know that our news is not completely accurate, well -documented, and unbiased. At the same token, I wouldn't go as far as saying that a reality TV show is a substitute or solution. I agree with Gilbert in that the news has an agenda, which I believe is a good thing. I think anything that shows access to the Pentagon is a serious ordeal. While I think it would be nice to have a reality TV show given access to the Pentagon, I think there needs to be an agenda. Just as the news can show one side or the other, reality TV can do the same thing. Even worse reality TV gives even a more realistic impression of something that isn’t accurate. There is no way that viewers can have completely true representation of life at the Pentagon, hence why we all aren’t part of government. I’m not really too sure on how I feel about either getting access. I would usually say that the news should get access before reality TV. But after I have written my paper on the news; I really started seeing how problematic the news actually is. With this said, I don’t think it is right for either of the two to have access as neither of the two are worthy.
I watched a reality television show entitled “What Not to Wear” and did not care for it. The show’s purpose is to change the style of a person who dresses poorly, which has the potential to be interesting. However, the person with inadequate style is selected by their family or friends’ nomination, rather than by their own. This highlights the possibility, perhaps even the probability, that the person might go back to wearing the type of clothes they preferred before the show.
Additionally, the selected person gets $5,000 to go purchase a new wardrobe, but only after their old clothes have been either thrown out or given away. It is wonderful that the person is given money to shop, but $5000 is not enough to replace the amount of his or her clothing that has, by that time, been discarded.
Overall, what I disliked most about the show was the outcome. Although the results I saw, or lack thereof, might be specific to that one episode, I did not observe a drastic change in the level of style in the individual’s new wardrobe. She had improved slightly, but not immensely as the show had implied she would. Also, as previously stated, since it was not her decision to transform her wardrobe, I did not see the point in featuring her as the show’s subject.
I agree with Megan's opinion. I think most of reality tv shows only reveal things that would interest viewers. It can be dangerous to let reality tv shows use such serious issues as their topics.
I think that the reality show about the soldiers in Iraq is completely outrageous. The fact that news crews were not able to get clearance from the government but a reality tv show was, makes it almost seem like propaganda trying to make the us government look like the good guys. By putting a biased on the show which the news is not supposed to do makes the entire idea behind the show questionable. It may just be the government trying to get more americans citizens to support the war. By showing a good aspect what is really going on in iraq it sells a tv show as well as aid the government. Another issue is that the producers of the tv show like any other show had a large amount of material to use, and most likely just used the material they wanted to create a certain story, again to sell television.
Yes i agree with Msapper as well, that the news crews are not supposed to show a biased program, but the television reality show is allowed to show what they feel will sell television or what they want to show, not necesarily showing the whole truth. I think the bottom line is that the television show about iraq is PROPOGANDA!!!!!
Another reality show that we haven’t touched upon yet is “America’s Most Smartest Model.” The show is not only interesting but it keeps you entertained by how the models do in the tasks. For one task they had to walk the catwalk while naming certain things in different categories such as elements on the periodic table, species of dinosaurs, and types of flowers. It was funny to watch them struggle on the simplest categories, which make you wonder what was going on inside their heads. In this survivor type show there are all different kinds of characters who you build relationships with, depending on which one you feel connected to. It is trash T.V because of the way it creates drama and shock value behind the scenes just like the others. In its title it pokes fun at itself and the fact that bad grammar is frequent on the show. Some of the things that come out of their mouth make you think, “Did they really just say that?” America seems to have an addiction to watching beautiful people make fools of them selves on national television. This should be another thing to add to the list of defining trash television. (Think Jessica Simpson and her famous “is this chicken or tuna?” line.) Producers seem to be asking them to be more ditzy because it gets the ratings up, and it seems to work.
I agree with what Brianna said about the show "what not to wear." After watching an episode of that I couldn't help but feel bad for the person on the show. She is put on televisin in front of thousands of viewers while they pick out her imperfections and make her feel even more insecure. It reminded me of our discussion in class about "average Joe." That show is cruel and unattractive men are picked for entertainment. Reality tv is cruel. It manipulates people and is able to portray any person however the producers want to. In "what not to wear," they told the girl on the show that she looked like trailer trash, which is cruel and hurtful to anyone.
While I agree that reality tv can show us more angles and shocking information than the news, I also think that reality tv is not taken nearly as seriously as news stations. The news stations have a reputation to uphold as providing important information accurately and with class. Whereas reality tv shows have no rules and in my opinion are more interested in the reaction of the viewers than the quality of the information.
Ok Megan Bailly brought up a point that I'm going to have to disagree with (sorry...) I beleive some "reality tv" actually though, yes they want a reaction from their viewers, but I think they are also trying to get a message across that will MAKE the viewers react. Of course this doesn't go for ALL reality tv, but I think certain shows (don't ask me for an example yet, I don't know it off the top of my head...i'll take an IOU.) aim to create the reaction.
Okay so I just finished watching the premier of Tila Tequila and I am still in shock. I think this show may be the new definition of trash TV and may even be trashier then Jerry Springer. Any of the people on this show look like you could have pulled them off of a Jerry Springer show. On Springer the people on the show are only on camera for less then an hour and there are people keeping them from physically fighting. On Tila Tequila, however, these people are all living together and competing for the “love” of one women. Actually, not only do they live in the same house but all 24 contestants sleep in the SAME bed! That’s right 12 lesbians and 12 straight guys all sleeping in one huge bed. I’m sure you can only imagine what kind of conflicts and drama may come from this. One of the contestants described the living situation as, “The Real World on crack.”
This television show also tries to give the idea that they are trying to do something good. It tries to seem as though the whole point of the show is to find true love. One of the female contestants stated that she was ,“excited to be part of the first show about lesbian love,” and that it was going to “groundbreaking.” Unfortunately I don’t think she realized what she was getting herself into when signing up for this show.
Reality TV vs news has been a question in my mind for many years, it is tough to decided between the two at times. One way i would put it is that reality TV is only meant to entertain while the news is ment to inform, but the news has created competition between each other. THis competition creates the idea that every news station needs to have the most entertaining stories. Therefore i cannot say that the news is above reality TV in any way.
I agree with courtney when she says she does not know much about the IRaq situation and the reality TV over the news. THis is kind of a scary idea though, having the gov't control the ideas of "reality" TV. Where does the the reality start and the enditing stop? is this really a real story, or is it modified to appease or ease its veiwers? the idea of fake reality TV brings up many question and concerns, and hopefully will continue as long as it exists.
Well, to take the opposite position from Msapper and Matt, perhaps news has always been biased. Now they are more obvious in their bias, but we are also more cynical viewers. Maybe this means that Americans are less likely to be manipulated? More likely to take all the viewpoints and come to their own conclusions?
(It would be nice . . . )
The camera lens maybe objective but the person holding it is not. Is there anyway to protray the news without being subjective?
Post a Comment