There is much debate over what is 'right' or 'wrong' in terms of our television schedules. Of course many argue its purpose is to educate and culturalise as well as to entertain. But how do we strike the balance?
With the advent of specialist channels, we now have the platform to deliver whole channels devoted to minority topics, never mind individual programmes. There are therefore plenty of avenues for delivering the educational and so-called 'quality' programmes that some believe should be the norm.
But is it the responsibility of TV bosses to dictate what we SHOULD find entertaining, or to provide what we DO. Surely the old box in the corner is now capable of fuflilling roles from educator to entertainer, satisfying the tastes of everybody, whatever their needs at any particular time.
Of course some argue we shouldn't have that choice; that the more 'quality' programmes should be the only, or at least the more regular option.
My enjoyment of reality TV doesn't take away from my desire to know about the world, and my enjoyment of the many news and current affairs programmes are not diminished by my divulgence of the less educational alternative. And the beauty is I have access to both, and can make a decision based on my current mood. It's pure interactivity. Technology working for me.
And statistics show I'm not in a minority in indulging in my guilty pleasure. Viewing figures for shows like Britain's Got Talent have soared, as a large proportion of the population simply gobble them up. Whether it's celebrities learning to dance, hopefuls competing for a place in a west end show, or high brow business people fighting for a prestigious job it seems we can't get enough. But why? And does that alone justify the downsides?
Life itself shows that we have a growing interest in the lives of others. Maybe in the past it would be restricted to friends, family and the man in the local shop. Now, of course it has extended to those we don't actually know, but maybe aspire to be. Celebrities everyday lives are the subject of endless pages of magazines and inches of newspapers - devoured by 'Joe Public' on a daily basis.
We even follow our fictional friends....the popularity of soap operas shows our simple human interest in people - as we take the characters to our hearts and keep track of their everyday life.
And reality TV allows us this human indulgence, to 'meet' new people, to learn about them, to follow their story, and to see how they react to a certain situation.
So what is the problem?
The main issue appears to be concern those involved. And it is here that I find my problem. The motives of some that take part, and the effect it can have on them is maybe something that needs to be controlled.
When a talented singer ends up in a rehab centre, or a 10-year old child breaks down on live TV, you have to think there is something wrong. There's also the case of Big Brother, which seems to have evolved from a social experiment to a monster containing participants who are there solely to achieve celebrity status - not due to any talent, but simply brought through a period in the public eye.
And this is where show producers DO surely have to take a responsibility. It seems that in the attempt to maintain the interest of the public and to keep their ideas fresh, they go for increasingly extremes of people, rather than Mr or Mrs Normal.
But then it's our fault as well. We love to gawp at those who delude themselves they can be the next Whitney Houston, only to have the voice of a howling cat. We love the emotion of seeing a hugely talented youngster, with no thought as to whether they have the mental strength to deal with the attention.
And the media thrive on our desires. Their every moves are followed, their noteriety goes far beyond the original reason they came to prominence and we start to judge. Look at how public opinion swung over Susan Boyle. Suddenly, from gloryfying her talent, society seemed to change its mind. And there were phone-ins asking if she was overrated, too much for someone totally inexperienced at dealing with such attention.
But just like addicts we simply can't let go, and now we've shared the most extraordinary part of their existence, we want to know what happens next, just as if they were part of our favourite soap.
It is this addiction that allows people to become 'famous' for nothing. Sure, SOME have talents, but through the programmes, it is THEM we have subscribed to, not any sort of skill they may or may not have.
So what do we do next? We can't kill the interest, but can we filter those who are put in front of the cameras? Psychological testing, media coaching and age limits have all been mentioned, but some say this risks programmes losing their appeal.
There's no doubt that reality is here to stay, popularity dictates that. But bosses must find a happy medium in choosing who they allow into the limelight as the damage to the vunerable cannot be allowed to continue.
I will continue to watch them, after all, we can't resist a sneaky look at a car crash. But I hope society can start to realise when to pull back and that the media can make better decisions about what is IN the public interest and what is simply society's nosiness.
That combined with more responsible judgements from bosses, and an end to the pursuit of the extremes of reality will mean we can continue to indulge in people watching - hopefully without the guilty aftertaste.
Posts
