Fat on Reality TV

This is a very well written article. I really liked the way the point of these reality shows is really voyeurism and humiliation. Bingo! The reality shows are a reflection of our American media. They show what our media believes. But does the "average" American think the same way? Or are they a little smarter?

The American viewing public is definitley smarter than this and the viewers themselves know it but as long as shows like these, which appeal to the lower nature, continue to garner big ratings, tv execs will continue producing this kind of nonsense.

Which is one of many reasons I refuse to watch those stupid reality shows. They are unintelligent, have no plot other than humans making fun of other humans, and serve only to make the networks more money. (Yeah, I know, all TV shows make money, but these are usually the worst of the bunch.)

I tend to think, actually, that the popularity of these shows has nothing to do with the smartness of the American public. Reality shows wouldn't be aired, or picked up, or even conceived of, if the writers and directors didn't think there was a audience, a big audience, for them. Networks rarely take interest in a program that doesn't promise to earn back the cost of production and bring in a new audience. Reality shows make copious amounts of money at a very small cost, and then they proliferate like rabbits. The American public loves them for the amount of ridicule the shows can dish out. I just think that there's real ugliness in these shows (like Jerry Springer ugly), but not in the contestants (as nutty as they are for signing up for the abuse), but in the people who make them and the people who watch them. I agree with Carolyn said - these shows reflect American tastes and values. Which means, to me at least, that American taste in media is both terrible and moralistic.

Good point, Maria, "that American taste in media is both terrible and moralistic". Shrill moralising has little to do with morality. And less than little to do with thinking. Which is why it should be unsurprising that the more uptight, moralistic, finger-pointing a culture becomes, the deader its arts. Desperate-to-be-delighted, Disneyfied deadness or cynical greed pretending to irony define most of what passes for arts in the USA today. And the easy, predigested entertainment available wall-to-wall is so numbing, and trains folks to be incurious and insular and inbred-of-thought. As Lily Tomlin said, "No matter how cynical you become, you just can't keep up." (May not be exact quote, but close...apologies to LT)

Terrific points, Maria and Skeptyk. I'll add that the threatened actor's strike back in the 90's helped spark this latest round of "reality" shows and we just haven't been able to get out from under them. I remember reading recently that back in the 70's there was another threatened strike by actors and the same formula you see today was used to avert financial disaster. Studios came up with shows like "Real People", "That's Incredible" and "The Gong Show" because they were cheap and quick to produce and people watched in huge numbers. If Standards and Practices were looser then, the reality shows of today would have reared their ugly heads then too. The American people will watch quality programs if they're offered but if lowbrow stuff is the only thing on and all they want to do is veg-out in front of the set in the evening, they'll tune in -- even if they know its awful. Sometimes it feels like we're in the days of gladiator fights and christian-eating lion shows.

Hey Skeptyk, While I can't remember the exact quotation either, and while Lily Tomlin did say it, it was her partner, Jane Wagner, who wrote it. Reality TV has posed a threat not only to actors, but to writers as well, so I'm doing my bit. :)

And while I'm here, I do have to say that I was very pleased with an essay that was so thoughtful, and that at no point offered crude fat jokes or derisive language to distance itself from the subject matter. Nor did it include the standard medical caveat. But I did want to comment on the "Fat Actress" promo which is so offensive it undoes any of the good it seemed to promise. A show that seemed it might deal with issues of weight and discrimination offers a promo of Kirstie Alley eating relentlessly, and pasta, too, natch, what with the carb phobia of today. Yep, fat people are just like that. Fortunately I've developed a mechanical fork so I can keep eating even as I type here. And then to end the promo of Alley's endless eating with a tired "Can I get a diet coke?" joke-- ugh. I've always hated that joke because embedded in it is evidence of food monitoring and snarky attitudes regarding the perceived knowledge drawn from that small data set. And really, it is so tedious, so old, can't it just be put to pasture already?

"the more uptight, moralistic, finger-pointing a culture becomes, the deader its arts." Hear, hear, skeptyk. I just want to point out some simple corporate cause-and-effect mathematics as well. The more tv programming opportunities there are, the less concentrated an audience is. The less concentrated an audience is, the lower the rates advertisers may be charged for commercial airtime. The lower the commercial advertising airtime rates, the greater the need for broadcasters to consolidate an audience/demographic that will appeal to advertisers. It is no coincidence that the highest quality programming is on the public and pay-tv broadcasters that do not solicit advertising. PBS, HBO, and NPR programming just keeps getting better and better, imho. Do not yet sound the eulogy for the arts. In lieu of broad support, they've moved to greener pastures.

Unfortunately, there is an open casting call for the NEXT season of "The Biggest Loser" tomorrow in NYC. Looks like this thing isn't going to die a quiet death.