Reality TV: Is this what we have come to?

Reality TV is all over our screens at present and there is absolutely no escaping it. For one, it is a hugely broad genre that goes back to the middle of the 20^th Century as it encompasses any programme involving un-scripted or unstaged characters or scenes and as such includes all prank shows (e.g. Candid Camera and Trigger Happy TV). Nowadays the more sensational series are the non or soft scripted “dramatic reality” shows such as TOWIE, Made in Chelsea, Jersey Shore and so on. All of these shows draw polarised opinions and so I will See/Saw my way through what they mean to us as viewers and the creative content of media entertainment.

See/

The thin veil of “reality” over these shows is often lambasted by those that look down on reality TV. They are either accused of not being “real”- hence ‘staged reality- and/or that watching other people live their own lives is a futile waste of time and a depressing slight on our existence. The typical scenario would be one ridiculous character interacting with an equally or more ridiculous character within a hugely stereotypical setting with a few dramatic storylines thrown in to light the fuse. And whilst everyone conveniently collides into each other in as many awkward and increasingly more typical places as possible, the audience is drawn into this world. 

But it is the ridiculous element which is so appealing. The more outrageous they are, the more we warm to them. Joey Essex with his astounding lack of knowledge, Francis Boulle with his so-socially-awkward-it-hurts demeanour are hugely endearing and what drive the programmes on. What sets these shows apart from regular programming is that they take reality- real lives, real people, real places- and push them to the extreme. And what makes this exciting is that reality is unpredictable, the classic ‘you couldn’t write this stuff’. Scripted television is getting old and tired. Look through most scripted shows and characters are static, rigid and bound by very blatant characteristics. (90% of comedies probably have the endearing, slow witted ‘Joey’ character). And this was very fine in days gone by, but as history dictates, audiences require engagement and realism in their entertainment. Throughout the ages people have striven towards involvement and engagement in various media; this is the genesis of the modern novel as we know it. What formed the basis of novel writing was the acceptance and inclusion of everyday people, events and activities. And this audience involvement is what gave rise to Reality TV. It made the people part of the product and as a result, inspired creativity and innovation. 

So this is the evolution that television has embraced. Gone are the dry, stagnant characters which have been replaced by dynamic and eccentric variations of real people that reflect portions of our society. It is the people that are focus of attention as they contend with the trials and tribulations of their reality and how they act and react provide the entertainment. The creativity lies in the subtle manipulation and staging to allow these personalities to flourish.

Saw/

A recent advert for “The Only Way Is Essex” contained not a lot more than the words “erm” “shu’up” and “what’s an asset?” Now it is easy to call this lazy advertising, but in actual fact it is more of an acknowledgement of the entire content of the programme. By taking extreme sections of society, producers are playing upon the aspirational element of entertainment. In our modern society we engage with every product and brand we consume. Everyone has an opinion and now not only feels the need to share it, but also feels empowered by it. The level of engagement by grounding shows in reality enhances our experience of it, but the result of this is idolisation and what amounts to extreme delusion. 

The wave of death threats targeting Made in Chelsea star Louise Thompson emphasise the extent to which our society feels very strongly about our entertainment stars and the need to express these views.  This empowerment most likely stems from the ability of the public to affect shows such as Big Brother and the X Factor. Being able to control the outcome of a verdict has given the viewing public a heightened sense of engagement and inclusion within these settings. What is the point of this long winded explanation? Viewers are now idolising people whose talent includes spending a lot of money on their appearance and skill set consists of ‘being from Essex/Chelsea/Newcastle’. What is so mind numbing and unsettling is that there is absolutely no evolution, no change and no progression. Year in year out we are treated to the same X Factor formula, and the same endless cycle of Geordie Shore nights out. The only method to spice up the action is to add new characters, or repeat the program in a different location. When it comes to the allegedly “higher class” reality shows of the Apprentice and Come Dine With Me, the more nutty the participants, the more exciting the program. 

What this results in is the trigger for this post, Channel 4’s Summer Days Daze…whatever. This show is the culmination of glorifying eccentricity as a primary quality. For anyone who hasn’t seen it (you lucky people), it follows a bunch of now stereotypically ‘alternative’ teens who work at festivals over the summer. What is wrong is that it is reveals the fact that the lifestyles and attitudes these shows represent is now filtering down the generations. Summer Days (whatever) endorses the kind of qualities that will do society no good.

If you take anything away from this post, make it that Summer Dayze is an AWFUL AWFUL show (just felt that needed to be said)

John Terry: How racist is racism? (Saw)

“Why do we fall? So we can learn to pick ourselves up again?” Know the film? If not go and watch Batman Begins, then the Dark Knight and the go straight to the cinema to see the Dark Knight Rises. You’re welcome. The reason for the quote? Over the past football season we have seen 2 high profile cases of racial accusations being dealt with badly. It has brought to light for many that racism has not been extracted from football and still exists in the minds of some at least. Perspective See dissected Rio Ferdinand’s “choc-ice” tweet and how the entire situation could have been dealt with. Here I will examine the lessons to be learned from the past 12 months and what they mean. It has been stated that racism still exists in football as highlighted by the Luis Suarez and the John Terry case but this just isn’t so. What it really means is that idiots still exist in football and this seems to have been overlooked. Were they racist comments? Maybe. But are they racists and is this full blown racism? Probably not. This is not excusing their relative comments in any way, but what it means is that extrapolating the issue to a problem within an entire industry is an extreme reaction. Luis Suarez will almost definitely not reoffend. An 8 match ban was due punishment and an example to others that racism will not be tolerated. The implications of several matches out are huge for a player, and a second occurrence could spell the end of their contract. Similarly Kenny Dalglish can pretty much put his sacking to the laughable handling of the entire situation and I don’t think anyone envies the media scrutiny that John Terry has been under. The John Terry court case is now a prime example of how that situation should not be dealt with, and should prevent any further cases being brought before a legal court rather than an FA hearing. Bringing back the Rio Ferdinand extension, the upside to the public display of idiocy is that it should remind other players that Twitter is public and now, it seems, scrutinised by the police for offences. Some clubs have already put their players through social media training to learn what and what not to display to their fans in order to maintain the credibility of the careers and their clubs. What he thought was an innocuous tweet may land Ferdinand in a heap of trouble and as such a well known and respected player, his fall will act as a warning to younger players to watch their fingers. And whatever the outcome for John Terry, he will surely have learned to watch what he says even on the pitch. This is NOT as many people claim, a slap in the face of free speech, it is a hazard light to recklessness. Hopefully the lessons to be learned are that whether on a pitch in front of tens of thousands of fans and Televsion cameras or online where you can see how many people can read your every comment, …well isn’t it obvious.


(Please comment below on either post, all opinions welcome unless they are abusive)

John Terry: How racist is racism? (See)

Perspective a)

Racism has become the buzzword in football over the summer. The entire John Terry fiasco has highlighted the ridiculousness behind how we perceive footballers. Should Terry have been found guilty, he would have faced a £2,500 fine and a criminal record. Next to his weekly wages and the disturbingly large number of criminal records amongst football players, it would have been more effective to lock him in a room with Jedward…for an hour. Using entirely subjective means to determine whether one is guilty in a court of law seems like a contradiction in itself, and if you read Judge Riddle’s judgement, the process seems laughable. The case was essentially, both in and out of court, a decision of “how terrible a person do we think John Terry is?” An entirely arbitrary threshold had to be made as to what point racism occurs. If Ferdinand called Terry a “white c*nt” would the case be switched round? I think not but that’s not the point. The point is that this is a relatively minor act to be brought to a court of law, one which has cost the tax-payer at least £500,000 and achieved nothing but rile people up. 

Immediately following the decision, anti-racism groups spoke out, essentially claiming that racism has won and black players will now fear speaking up (I’m going to ignore that fact that  most statements I have read ignore any other race as being potentially affected by racism). Even when the judicial process clears the charges, it is clear that many had already made up their minds. This ethical balance here is questionable at best. Along with the reactions was Rio Ferdinand’s monumental act of stupidity and, unlike Terry’s court case, this judgement is not subjective. Agreeing that Ashley Cole is a ‘choc ice’ (black on the outside, white on the inside) on TWITTER is not only moronic but potentially more racist that original accusation. Let’s analyse this term; racism is discrimination of an individual due to their ethnicity. The concept of being a ‘choc ice’ implies that being black and being white are separate states of being. The use of this term implies that white is antagonistic to black and that being black on the outside is some kind of lie, a façade that covers your true person (not in general, but for the accused). Moreover, being white thus represents being ‘not black’ and within this context, generalizes whiteness with racist tendencies. I wish I was being farfetched with this description, however in this context it is hard to disagree. Ashley Cole is being singled out, his race is being brought into question, he is being discriminated on for being black and that several implications are being placed on both him and the concept of being white. I accept, ‘choc ice’ and ‘coconut’ have a wide range of uses, but here it is a degree of racism far worse than John Terry’s utterances. And as it is placed on a public sphere, knowingly to millions of people its context is far more damning than heated interchange on a football pitch. Ferdinand’s response sums up the complete idiocy of it all, 

“What I said yesterday is not a racist term. Its (sic) a type of slang/term used by many for someone who is being fake. So there.”  

‘So there’! Is he 16 now?! He isn’t even aware of the implications of what he has said, despite the entire issue surrounding a disputed case of racism.

Idiocy and ridiculousness aside, the main problem of it all is that this could all have been resolved more easily. In October 2011 Luis Suarez (Liverpool FC) was accused of racially abusing Patrice Evra (Manchester Utd FC) and by the end of the year, was handed a £40,000 fine and an 8 match ban. The punishment was an adequate level of severity for a footballer and an effective deterrent against future offences. Had the FA taken the Terry case themselves, the situation would have resolved in a timely, effective manner. The matter would have been handled, dealt with and likely to be forgotten by now. Yet instead we have an intensely bloated news storm which has bred exaggeration and stupidity that could so easily have been missed.

Welcome to the See Saw Section

Welcome!

The See Saw section is a balanced approach to how to view news, topics and issues. Dealing with contemporary issues, I will be laying out the most controversial or engaging stories of the moment and offering both sides of the argument. The focus will be on balance and neutrality. This blog will dissect the issue in order to uncover the implications and motivations behind current events. The aim is not to "out the truth" or uncover conspiracies, lies and deceit, rather it will shine a light on an issue to hopefully give perspective and, at times, objectivity.

Most of the time I will resist slathering my personal opinions all over a story as senseless ranting will result in being no more than a glorified comment under a Guardian news story. The intention will always be to offer both sides, both perspectives and maintain as neutral an outcome as possible. Granted, there are never only two sides to one story, but essentially the split will be between why something can be perceived as "good" for happening and "bad". Obviously the topics will be hand picked so that balance is viable and realistic- I'm not going to find a reason why the Colorado Batman shooting can be perceived as good for society- but I will be trying to find areas where only single aspects are focused upon by the media and understandably so- if everything is going swimmingly, that's hardly news. An example would be the Olympics; the news aren't going to report that the buses are going fine, the stadium is ready, and everyone is enjoying their hotels, but they are going to focus on what is more sensational and what jarrs expectations (but this is an issue for a later post).

So the format will be as follows: Each week I will offer up a new, current news story or issue and outline its foundations and complications. Each post will then be split into two opposing sections, antagonising over largely the same points. I will be attempting to make this less of a debate between the two and more a change of perspective but this will have to wait until I get into some more to see how viable this is.

*note* I say each week but this will depend on me, though I am a hugely un-busy person  at the moment.

The topics I have lined up so far are (in a potential order):

• Terry/Ferdinand - How racist is racism?
• The Coalition and how we view the Government
• The Olympics (hopefully in full swing by then)
• Facebook cashing in off personal data
• Syria and foreign policy/the UK's army
•  #YOLO+ Twitter- does anyone give a damn?
• The Recession- it's coverage and public understanding

Obviously these can all change if some unexpected gold mine of a story occurs but this is a draft list. I may find the recession topic is too great and leave it out, the last thing I want to do is cut swathes of information about something as that essentially goes against the entire point of this blog.

So there we have it. The first post should be appearing sometime today and of there are any issues or stories anyone wants to see covered, please comment. (and in general, comment away).