Reality TV Audiences and Popular Factual Television

《Reality TV Audiences and Popular Factual Television》由会员上传分享，免费在线阅读，更多相关内容在学术论文-天天文库。

RealityTVRealityTVrestoresacrucial,andoftenabsent,elementtothecriticaldebateaboutrealitytelevision:thevoicesofpeoplewhowatchrealityprogrammes.AnnetteHillarguesthatmuchcanbelearnedfromlisteningtoaudiencediscussionaboutthispopularandrapidlychangingtelevisiongenre.Viewers’responsestorealityTVcanprovideinvaluableinformationtoenhanceourunderstandingofboththerealitygenreandcontemporarytelevisionaudiences.DoaudiencesthinkrealityTVisreal?CanpeoplelearnfromwatchingrealityTV?HowcriticalareviewersofrealityTV?RealityTVarguesthataudiencesareengagedinacriticalexaminationofthedevelopmentofpopularfactualtelevision.Thebookdrawsonquantitativeandqualitativeaudienceresearchtounderstandhowviewerscategorisetherealitygenre,andhowtheyjudgetheperformanceofordinarypeopleandtherepresentationofauthenticitywithindifferenttypesofrealityprogrammes,fromAnimalHospitaltoBigBrother.Thebookalsoexamineshowaudiencescanlearnfromwatchingrealityprogrammes,andhowviewersthinkandtalkabouttheethicsofrealityTV.AnnetteHillisProfessorofMedia,andResearchCentreDirector,SchoolofMedia,ArtsandDesign,UniversityofWestminster.Sheistheco-authorofShockingEntertainment:ViewerResponsetoViolentMovies(1997)andTVLiving:Television,AudiencesandEverydayLife,withDavidGauntlett(1999),andtheco-editor,withRobertC.Allen,ofTheTelevisionStudiesReader(Routledge,2003).Hercurrentresearchinterestsincludetelevisionaudiencesandfactualprogramming,andcompanionanimalsandthemedia. RealityTVAudiencesandpopularfactualtelevisionAnnetteHill Firstpublished2005byRoutledge2ParkSquare,MiltonPark,Abingdon,OxonOX144RNSimultaneouslypublishedintheUSAandCanadabyRoutledge270MadisonAve,NewYork,NY10016RoutledgeisanimprintoftheTaylor&FrancisGroupThiseditionpublishedintheTaylor&Francise-Library,2005.“TopurchaseyourowncopyofthisoranyofTaylor&FrancisorRoutledge’scollectionofthousandsofeBookspleasegotowww.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.”©2005AnnetteHillAllrightsreserved.Nopartofthisbookmaybereprintedorreproducedorutilisedinanyformorbyanyelectronic,mechanical,orothermeans,nowknownorhereafterinvented,includingphotocopyingandrecording,orinanyinformationstorageorretrievalsystem,withoutpermissioninwritingfromthepublishers.BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationDataAcataloguerecordforthisbookisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary.LibraryofCongressCataloginginPublicationDataAcatalogrecordforthisbookhasbeenrequested.ISBN0-203-33715-8Mastere-bookISBNISBN0–415–26151–1(hbk)ISBN0–415–26152–X(pbk) ToDonButler,andmyfamily,fortakingcareofbusiness ContentsAcknowledgementsvii1UnderstandingrealityTV12TheriseofrealityTV143Therealitygenre414Performanceandauthenticity575Theideaoflearning796Ethicsofcare1087Petdeaths1358Storyofchange170Appendices194Notes207Bibliography214Index224 AcknowledgementsIamindebtedtothepeoplewhohavesupportedandencouragedmyresearchoverthepastfewyears.Theaudienceresearchproject‘QuantitativeandQualitativeAudienceResearchinPopularFactualEntertainment’wasfundedbytheEconomicandSocialResearchCouncil,theIndependentTelevisionCommission,andChannel4.Ithanktheseorganisationsfortheirfinancialsupport.TheaudienceresearchprojectalsobenefitedfromthehelpandsupportoftheBroadcastingStandardsCommission,theBBC,Five,andtheBritishFilmInstitute.Theprojectgreatlybenefitedfromasteeringgroup,whoofferedpracticaladviceandvaluableideasregardingtheresearchdesign,datacollectionandanalysis.Inparticular,IwouldliketothankBobTowlerandPamHanleyfromtheITC,AndreaMillwoodHargravefromtheBSC,JanetWillisfromtheBFI,ClaireGrimmondfromChannel4,AndreaWillsfromtheBBC,andSusannaDinnagefromFive.NicholasGarnhamandBrianWinstonofferedsoundadviceintheearlystagesoftheprojectdesign.IwouldliketothankSarahSelwoodforhelpfulcommentsinearlystagesofthequantitativeresearchdesign.IwouldalsoliketothankVincentPorterforbeingsosupportiveabouttheprojectfromthebeginningtotheend.TheresearchbenefitedenormouslyfromtheassistanceofCarolineDover,whowasquitesimplythebestresearchassistantIcouldhavehopedtoworkwith,andwhomadethisprojectfarmoreinterestingandinnovativethanitwouldhavebeenifIhaddoneitonmyown–many,manythanks.ThisbookcouldnothavebeenwrittenwithoutthesupportoftheUniversityofWestminster,andtheSchoolofMedia,ArtsandDesign.IwouldinparticularliketothankmycolleaguesintheDepartmentofJournalismandMassCommunicationfortheirencouragementandsupport.IwouldalsoliketothanktheResearchOfficefordoingsuchagoodjobofmanagingeverythingattheUniversity.OverthepastfewyearsstudentsontheMediaConsumptionmoduleandtheCommunicationResearchMethodsmodulehavebeenpatientenoughto viiiAcknowledgementslistentometalkaboutmyresearchonmanyoccasions–thanksforlistening,andforgivingmegoodideasforthisbook.Anumberofcolleagueshaveofferedtheirhelpandsupportovertheyears.ThanksmustgotoRobertC.Allen,MinnaAslama,CharlotteBrunsdon,HanneBruhn,IanCalcutt,NickCouldry,PeterDahlgren,JonDovey,JanEkecrantz,DavidGauntlett,JosteinGripsrud,RichardKilborn,SoniaLivingstone,PeterLunt,ErnestMathjis,LotharMikos,GarethPalmer,LiinaPuustinen,ElizabethPrommer,CliveSeale,HenrikSøndergaard,andthetalentedgroupofaudienceresearchersatYLE,Finland.Inparticular,IneedtothankJohnCorner,JohnEllis,DerekPaget,JaneRoscoe,andanonymousreadersfortheirexpertadviceontheproposalandfinalmanuscript.JohnCorneralsoprovidedinvaluableadviceateverystageoftheresearchprojectandthewritingofthisbook,andthereforebecamemyguidinglightthroughouttheresearch–John,I’myournumberonefan.IwouldliketothankRebeccaBardenforbeingsopatientandencouraging,andKateAhlandLesleyRiddleforoverseeingthefinalstagesofthemanuscript.Andfinally,Iwouldliketothankthetelevisionviewerswhoagreedtotakepartinthisproject,andwhoarerepresentedinthisbook.WithoutyourcommentsandreflectionsonwatchingrealityTV,Iwouldbeoutofajob.Inparticular,Iwishtothankthefamilieswhoweresowelcomingandgenerous,andwhotookthetimetogettoknowus,andallowedustogettoknowthem.It’sbeenapleasure. Chapter1UnderstandingrealityTVWelcometoRealityTV.It’sFridaynightandI’mwatchingthefinaleofTeenBigBrother.It’sanemotionalexperience.Theremaininghousematessitaroundatable,choosingwhowillwinthefirstTeenBigBrother.Commissionedby4Learning,theeducationalwingofChannel4intheUK,TeenBigBrotherisanexperimentintherealitygenre.Partobservationaldocumentary,lifeexperiment,educationalprogramme,gameshowandsoapopera,thisrealityprogrammehashittheheadlinesforbeingthefirstUKBigBrothertofeaturesex.‘BonkonBigBruv’,saystheSun.‘HornyTeensShowBigBruvWaytoGo’,addstheDailyStar.Loveitorhateit,theprogrammeisapopulartopicforpublicdebate.I’mwatchingTeenBigBrothertoseewhatallthefussisabout.Imissedthetearsandtantrums,thebackbitingandbedroomantics,onlytotuneintothelasttenminutesofthefinalprogramme.I’mgripped.Thehousematesexplainwhytheyshouldwin.Theygoaroundthegroup,eachonespeakingwithtightnessintheirthroat.Everyonesaysthesamething:‘IshouldwinbecauseI’vebeenmyself–whatyouseeiswhatyouget.’Everyonecries.Everyonevotes.Thewinnerburstsintotearsofgratitude,excitementandsomethingelseknownonlytothem.AndIwatchwithmixedfeelings–fascination,anticipation,andscepticism.AsIwatchI’menjoyingthedramaofthemoment,andjudgingtherealityofwhatIseeonmytelevisionscreen.ThisismyviewingexperienceofTeenBigBrother.Duringthecourseofwritingthisbook,IhavewatchedalotofrealityTV,fromCopstoChildren’sHospital,UK’sWorstToilettoSurvivor,CelebrityDetoxCamptoWhenGoodTimesGoBad3.I’veseenalloftheseprogrammes,andmore.ButIalsowatchedalotofrealityTVbeforewritingthisbook.AndwillcontinuetowatchrealityTVlongafterthepublicationofthisbook.So,isthisabookaboutmyexperienceofwatchingrealityTV?LikemanyviewersofrealityTV,Ionlywatchcertaintypesofprogrammes.IlikewatchingAnimalHospitalbecauseI’mananimallover,butIdislikeWhenAnimalsAttackbecauseIthinkit’stacky.IenjoyTemptationIslandbecauseitismelodramatic,butIdon’tenjoyTheBachelorbecauseitisn’tdramaticenough.IloveTheEdwardianCountry 2UnderstandingrealityTVHousebecausethecharactersareengaging,butIhavefallenoutoflovewithBigBrotherbecausethecharactersarenotengagingenough.Ifthisbookwereaboutmypersonaltasteinrealityprogrammesthenyoumightlearnalotaboutme,butlittleaboutthesocialphenomenonofrealityTV.So,whatisthisbookabout?RealityTVisaboutthedevelopmentofatelevisiongenreoftencalledrealityTV.RealityTVisacatch-allcategorythatincludesawiderangeofentertainmentprogrammesaboutrealpeople.Sometimescalledpopularfactualtelevision,realityTVislocatedinborderterritories,betweeninformationandentertainment,documentaryanddrama.Originallyusedasacategoryforlawandorderpopularfactualprogrammescontaining‘on-scene’footageofcopsonthejob,realityTVhasbecomethesuccessstoryoftelevisioninthe1990sand2000s.TherearerealityTVprogrammesabouteverythingandanything,fromhealthcaretohairdressing,frompeopletopets.TherearerealityTVformatssoldallovertheworld,fromtheUKtoUruguay.TherearepeoplewholoverealityTV,andpeoplewholovetohaterealityTV.WhateveryouropinionofCops,NeighboursfromHell,BigBrother,orSurvivor,realityTVisheretostay.RupertMurdoch,themanwhogaveusFoxTVandCops,evenhasachanneldevotedtothegenre–RealityTV–withplansforfurtherpopularfactualchannelsinthefuture.WhereMurdochleads,othersfollow.RealityTVisalsoabouttheviewingexperienceofadevelopingfactualtelevisiongenre.Itiscommonlyassumedthataudiencescannottellthedifferencebetweenentertainmentandinformation,orfictionandrealityinpopularfactualtelevision.WithsuchconcernregardingaudiencesandrealityTVitisnecessarytoexplorethedevelopmentofthisgenre,andaudiencerelationshipswiththesetypesofpopularfactualoutput.IfthisbookisaboutexploringthegenreofrealityTV,thenwhataudienceshavetosayabouttheirexperienceofwatchingrealityprogrammesisparamount.AudienceresponsestorealityTVcanprovideinvaluableinformationandanalysisforunderstandingthetransitionalterrainoftherealitygenre,andcanenhancecriticalunderstandingofcontemporarytelevisionaudiences.RATINGREALITYTVTherealitygenrehasmassappeal.PopularseriessuchasAmericanIdolintheUSAorI’maCelebrity…intheUKhaveattracteduptoandover50percentofthemarketshare,whichmeansmorethanhalfthepopulationoftelevisionviewerstunedintotheseprogrammes.Toachievesuchratingstheserealityserieshavetobeallroundentertainers.Theproposedrealitycablechannel,RealityCentral,hassignedupmorethanthirtyrealitystarstoappearonandpromotethechannelin2004.Accordingto UnderstandingrealityTV3LarryNamer,theco-founderofE!EntertainmentandRealityCentral,thereisalargebaseofrealityTVfans:‘tothemrealityTVistelevision.It’snotafad.’1In2000,therealitygameshowSurvivorratednumberoneinAmericannetworkprimetime(27millionviewers)andearnedCBSduringthefinalthreeepisodesanestimated$50millioninadvertisingrevenue.In2002,thefinaleoftherealitytalentshowAmericanIdol(Fox,USA)attracted23millionviewers,andamarketshareof30percent,withalmosthalfthecountry’steenagefemaleviewerstuningintowatchtheshow.2InJanuary2003,AmericanIdoldrewnearly25millionviewerstwonightsrunning,makingit‘themostwatchednon-sportsshowinthenetwork’shistory’.3ByFebruary2003,Foxhadanotherwinner,thistimewiththefinaleofrealitydatingshowJoeMillionaire,whichdrew40millionviewers,makingitalmostaspopularasthebroadcastoftheAcademyAwards,and‘thehighestseriestelecastonanynetworksinceCBS’premiereofSurvivorIIinJanuary2001’.4Incomparison,only15millionviewerswatchedthenumberonecrimedramaseriesCSI:CrimeSceneInvestigation(CBS),orsitcomFriends(NBC),duringthesameperiod.Realityprogrammesregularlywinthehighestratingsforthemajorityofhalf-hourtimeslotsduringprimetimeAmericantelevision.5RealityTVisjustaspopularintheUK.In2000,over70percentofthepopulation(aged4–65+)watchedrealityprogrammesonaregularoroccasionalbasis(Hill/ITC2000).Thetypesofprogrammeswatchedmostoftenbythepublicin2000were:police/crimeprogrammes(e.g.PoliceCameraAction!,ITV1)watchedeitherregularlyoroccasionallyby72percentofadultsand71percentofchildren;‘places’programmes(e.g.Airport,BBC1)watchedby71percentofadultsand75percentofchildren;andhome/gardenshows(e.g.ChangingRooms,BBC1)watchedby67percentofadultsand84percentofchildren.Amongsttheunder16s(inparticular,theunder13s),petprogrammes(e.g.AnimalHospital,BBC1)wereaspopularasthecategoriescitedabove–watchedby83percentofchildrenand63percentofadults(Hill/ITC2000).Alloftheserealityprogrammeshaveperformedstronglyinpeaktimeschedules,andhaveattracteduptoandovera50percentmarketshare.Thehighestratedseries,suchasrealitytalentshowPopIdol(ITV1)orrealitygameshowI’maCelebrity…GetMeOutofHere!(ITV1),attractedover10millionviewers,whichmakessuchrealityseriesalmostaspopularasestablishedsoapoperassuchasCoronationStreet(ITV1).I’maCelebrity…wassosuccessfulitsingle-handedlychangedtheprofileofitssisterdigitalchannel,ITV2,fromthe‘mustnotwatchchannel’to‘thesecondmost-watchedchannelinmultichannelhomesatthattimeafterITV1’.6ThethirdseriesofI’maCelebrity…attractedrecordratings,witha60percentmarketshareforparticularepisodes(over15millionviewers).Thebroadcasterchargedapproximately£90,000per30second 4UnderstandingrealityTVadvert,comparedtoitsnormalchargesofbetween£40,000and£50,000forasimilarpeaktimeadvertisingslot.7Littlewoods,themajorgamblingorganisationintheUK,hassignedafive-yearinteractivetelevisiondealwithITV,anticipatingthatrealityseriessuchasI’maCelebrity…willprovidehigh-levelgamblingrevenuesforinteractiveTVgamingandbetting(estimated£2.8billionperyearintotalrevenue).8TelevisionproducerSimonFuller,thecreatorofPopIdol,‘shotupanastounding500placesintheSundayTimesRichList[2003],thankstohis£90mfortune,whichhasgrownby£40m’asaresultofthesuccessofthisrealityformatanditsspin-offmusicproducts.9BigBrothergaveChannel4itsmostpopularratingsinthehistoryoftheUKchannel,attractingnearly10millionviewersin2000;thesecondseriesofBigBrotheraveraged4.5millionviewers,givingChannel4morethana70percentincreaseontheiraveragebroadcastshare(Hill2002).BigBrother3generatedover10milliontextmessages,andattracted10millionviewersforitsfinale.10A30secondadvertisingspotduringBigBrother3cost£40,000,overthreetimesmorethanforanyothershowonChannel4in2003(forexample,Frasier’scashvaluewas£14,000fora30secondspot).11Thepictureisthesameinmanyothercountriesaroundtheworld.IntheNetherlands,thefirstBigBrother‘becameoneofthecountry’stop-ratedshowswithinamonth,anddrew15millionviewersforitsclimaxonNewYear’sEve1999’.12InSpain,morepeopletunedintowatchBigBrotherin2000thantheChampionsLeaguesemi-finalmatchbetweenRealMadridandBayernMunich(Hill2002).ThefinaleofExpeditionRobinson(theSwedishversionofSurvivor)waswatchedbyhalftheSwedishpopulationin1997.13InNorway,acountrywithapopulationof4.3million,PopIdol(2003)received3.3millionSMSvotes.14LoftStory,theFrenchversionofBigBrother,wasaratingshitin2003withover7millionviewers,despiteregulardemonstrationsby‘ActivistsAgainstTrashTV’callingfortheseriestobebanned,andcarryingplacardswhichread‘WithtrashTVthepeopleturnintoidiots’.15Thepan-AfricanversionofBigBrother,producedinMalawi,involvedtencontestantsfromtendifferentcountriesand,despitecallsbyChurchgroupsinseveralAfricancountriesforittobebanned,theshowremainedpopularwithviewerswhopraiseditforbridgingculturalgaps.16TheRussianrealitygameshowTheHouse(Dom)enthralledRussiantelevisionviewersin2003,astheywatchedcontestantsbuilda£150,000five-bedroomedhouse(theaveragewageinRussiaislessthan£150amonth).17WhenawomanwonBigBrother3inAustralia,ChannelTenattractedtwiceasmanyviewersasitsmainrival,ChannelNine,thenumberoneratedchannel(2003).18Morethan3millionpeople,abouthalfthepopulationoftelevisionviewersinAustralia,tunedintothehitrealitypropertyseriesTheBlockonChannelNine.TheseriesfeaturedtherenovationofapartmentsinSydneybyfourcouples,whoweregivenabudgetandelevenweekstorenovatetheir UnderstandingrealityTV5properties.Aftertwelveweekstheapartmentswereauctioned,andthecouplewiththehighestbidwon.TheconclusiontoTheBlockwas‘Australia’smostwatchedTVshowsincethe2000SydneyOlympics.OnlythefuneralofPrincessDianadrewabiggeraudienceforanon-sportrelatedprogram.’19TheformathasbeensoldtotheUSFoxnetwork,ITV1intheUK,TV2inDenmark,aswellasbeingpickedupbybroadcastersinBelgium,France,theNetherlandsandSouthAfrica.TheHerald-SuncalledTheBlock‘arunawaysmashthatshowsnosignoflosingsteam’.20TherearehundredsofrealityTVwebsitesdevotedtokeepingviewersinformedaboutarangeofrealityprogrammes,relatedmerchandise,news,andfanactivities.RealityTVplanet.comhasarealityTVcalendarwithup-to-the-minuteschedulinginformationonthelatestrealityprogrammesonUStelevision,plusepisodesummaries,news,a‘what’shot’gossipcolumn,variousgames,e-cardsandbulletinboards.Similarly,realitytvworld.comcontainsup-to-the-minuteschedules,newsitems,andpollsaboutarangeofUSrealityseries.Sirlinksalotcontainsasitefortherealitytelevisiongenrewithselectednewsitems,andwebsitesdevotedtoUSrealityseriesandselectedrealityseriesaroundtheworld.IntheUSAalone,sirlinksalotlistsatotalof130realityTVseries(duringNovember2003):17realityTVseriesforABC,15forCBS,22forNBC,25forFox,and20forMTV,aswellas31seriesforothercablechannelssuchasWBNetwork,UPN,andHBO.Eachserieshasitsownlistofselectedofficialandunofficialwebsites.Forexample,Fox’sJoeMillionaire(firstandsecondseries)hasoverfifteensiteslisted,includingFox’sofficialsite,andseveralfanforumsdevotedtodebateabout‘whowillhechoose?’andJoe’s‘manlythoughts’.Oneofthereasonstherealitygenrehasbeensopowerfulinthetelevisionmarketisthatitappealstoyoungeradultsinparticular.Forexample,realitygameshowsandtalentshowsintheUSAareespeciallypopularwith‘youngviewerswhohavewatchedrealityshowsinfarbiggernumbersthananythingelseontelevisionandaretheconsumersmostcovetedbyadvertisers’.21Foxrealityspecials,suchasWorld’sWorstDriversCaughtonTape2,specificallyattractmalesaged18–49,acoveteddemographicgroupforadvertisers.22IntheUK,realitygameshowssuchasBigBrotherspecificallyattractupwardlymobile,educatedviewersaged16–34,thetargetaudienceforChannel4whoshowstheseries(Hill2002).Anationalsurveyconductedin2000indicatedthat16-to34-year-oldsweretwiceaslikelytohavewatchedBigBrotherasolderviewers.Inaddition,viewerswithhigherincomejobs,collegeeducationandaccesstotheinternetweremorelikelytowatchBigBrotherthanthosewithlowerincomes,nocollegeeducationoraccesstotheinternet(Hill2002).EconomicchangeintheUSsyndicationmarketisanotherfactorinthesuccessofrealityprogramming.Asaresultofthederegulationofthe 6UnderstandingrealityTVfinancialinterestandsyndicationrulesduringthepastdecade,largercorporationshaveboughtupmanylocalstations.Localstationsprovidedasignificantrevenuesourceforindependentproducers,whowouldsellprogrammesspecificallymadeforlocalstations,and/orprogrammesthathadpreviouslybeenairedonnetworkstations.StaceyLynnKoerner,executivevice-presidentanddirectorofglobalresearchforInitiative,commented:Syndicationisavictimofbigcorporatemergersandever-expandingstationgroups.Thismakesitprettyhardforindependentproducerstogetnewprogrammesontheairbecausetherearesofewtimeperiodstobefilledbyprogrammingnotalreadylockedinbytheirowners.23Oneresultofthesechangestoownershipoflocalstationsisthatlessnon-networkdramaisbeingmadeforsyndication.Realityprogrammingprovidesacheapalternativetodrama.Typically,anhour-longdramacancostapproximately$1.5m(£875,000)perhour,whereasrealityprogrammescancostaslittleas$200,000(£114,000)perhour.24Realityprogrammingischeapertomakethandramabecauseitinvolvesasmallerproductioncrewfornon-scriptedprogramming,fewscriptwritersorprofessionalactors,andnon-unionisedcrews.25Realityprogrammesarethereforeeconomicallyattractivetolocalstationsandnetworks.Forexample,theratingssuccessoftherealitymakeoverformatQueerEyefortheStraightGuyonBravo(asmallcablechannel)ensureditscrossovertonetworkNBC(itsparentcompany).ForNBC,QueerEyefortheStraightGuyisawin–winsituation,asitisrelativelycheaptomakecomparedtodrama,andhasproveditselfinthecable/networkmarketplace.AccordingtotheNewYorkTimes,realityprogrammingissopopularithaschangedtheeconomicsofthetelevisionindustry.TheratingssuccessofnetworkrealityseriessuchasAmericalIdolorJoeMillionairehasensuredthatsometelevisionexecutivesare‘readytoembraceplansforaradicalrestructuringofthenetworkbusiness.’26Suchrestructuringmayinvolvetheprovisionofnewprogrammingfifty-twoweeksoftheyear,areductioninscriptedseriesbyHollywoodstudios,andanincreaseinproductplacementwithinprogrammes.AstelevisionwriterStephenGodcheauxpointsout‘youhaveaplayboybunnybeingdippedintoavatofspiders.Whatkindoffictitiousscriptcancompetewiththis?’27Networkexecutivesarepubliclycautiousabouttheircommitmenttorealityprogramming.LeslieMoonves,presidentofCBSTelevision,warns‘realityprogramminghasbeencalledthecrackcocaineofprogramming.Itgivesyouaquickfixbutitdependsonthequalityoftheprogramandthelongevityoftheprogram.’28But,theNewYorkTimessuggests,‘evenasexecutivesscornthegenre,TVnetworksstillrelyonreality’torescue UnderstandingrealityTV7ailingnetworktelevision.29CatherineMackay,regionalchiefexecutiveUS,AustralasiaandAsiaforFreemantleMedia,claimsthenetworksintheUShaverealisedthatarealityshowcangrabaprimetimeaudiencejustaseffectivelyasagooddramaorcomedy,butsometimesathalftheprice.Realityshowsarealotcheapertomake,andyettheyaregettingjustasmanyeyeballsinmanyinstancesand,sometimes,evenmorebecauseoftheeventnatureoftheseshows.30DEBATINGREALITYTVSincetheearlydaysofrealityprogramming,criticshaveconsistentlyattackedthegenreforbeingvoyeuristic,cheap,sensationaltelevision.Articlessuchas‘Danger:RealityTVcanRotYourBrain’,‘RagbagofCheapThrills’or‘TV’sTheatreofCruelty’aretypicalofthetypeofcommentarythatdominatesdiscussionofrealityprogramming.31WithseriessuchasWhenAnimalsAttackadvertisedwiththeimageofasnarlingdogandthewords‘LassieHeAin’t’,realityprogrammesaretargetsforallthatisthoughttobewrongwithcommercialtelevision.32InaUKreportfortheCampaignforQualityTelevisionin2003,realityTVwassingledoutbyMichaelTraceyoftheUniversityofColoradoasthe‘stuffofthevulgate’,encouraging‘moralandintellectualimpoverishmentincontemporarylife’.33RobertThompsonofSyracuseUniversitysuggeststhatrealityTVispopular‘becauseit’sstupidandmoronic’.34BroadcasterNickClarkearguesinhisbookTheShadowofaNationthatthepopularityofrealityTVhasledtoadangerousblurringofboundariesbetweenfactandfiction,andasaresultrealityTVhashadanegativeeffectonmodernsociety.Asonecriticcommented:‘Inessence,thismayaswellbenetworkcrack:realityTVisfast,cheapandtotallyaddictive…theshows[are]weaponsofmassdistraction…causingustobecomedumber,fatter,andmoredisengagedfromourselvesandsociety.’35Themixedmetaphorsofdrugaddictionandwarindicatehowtherealitygenreisoftenframedinrelationtomediaeffectsandcultural,socialandmoralvalues.SuchcriticismofrealityTVfailstotakeintoaccountthevarietyofformatswithintherealitygenre.TosaythatallrealityTVisstupidandmoronicistoignorethedevelopmentofthegenreoverthepastdecade.Thereareinfotainmentformats,suchas999,thatcontainstoriesofemergencyservicesrescueoperationsaswellasadvicetothepublicregardingfirstaid;therearesurveillancerealityformats,suchasHouseofHorrors,thatcontaininvestigativestoriesofconsumer-basedissues;therearefly-on-the-walldocu-soapformats,suchasAirport,thatshowbehindthescenesofpeople’severydaylivesinaninternationalairport;thereare 8UnderstandingrealityTVlifestyleformats,suchasChangingRooms,thatcontainstoriesofdo-it-yourself(DIY)makeoversaswellasideasoninteriordesign;therearerealitygameformats,suchasSurvivor,thatshowordinarypeopleinemotionallyandphysicallychallengingsituations;therearerealitylifeexperimentformats,suchasFakingIt,thatcontainstoriesofpersonalandprofessionaltransformation;therearerealitytalentformats,suchasPopstars,thattransformordinarypeopleintocelebrityperformers;therearecelebrityrealityformats,suchasI’maCelebrity…,thattransformD-listcelebrityperformersintoC-listcelebrityperformers;andtherearerealityclipshowformats,suchasWhenAnimalsAttack,thatshowspectacularstoriesofcrime,accidentsandnear-deathexperiences.Thetypeofrealityprogrammingthatwasassociatedwiththegenreintheearly1990s(unscripted,on-scenefootageofcrimeandemergencyservices)hasexpandedtoincludearangeofformatswithdistinctiveprogrammecharacteristics.Thedevelopmentofrealityprogrammingwithindifferentbroadcastingenvironmentsisalsosignificanttoourunderstandingofthegenreasawhole.IntheUK,thestronghistoricalpresenceofpublicservicebroadcastinganddocumentarytelevisionhasensuredthatcertaintypesofrealityformatsarerelatedtopublicserviceanddocumentaryideasandpractice.ThesamecanbesaidofotherNorthernEuropeancountrieswithpublicserviceanddocumentarytraditions(seeKilborn2003;Winston2000).Incomparison,thestronghistoricalpresenceofcommercialbroadcastingandtheweakhistoricalpresenceofdocumentarytelevisionintheUSAhasensuredthatcertaintypesofrealityformatsarerelatedtocommercialandentertainmentideasandpractice.Althoughthisisacrudecomparison,itservestohighlighttheculturallyspecificnatureofrealityprogramming,andthedevelopmentofparticularformatswithindifferentbroadcastingenvironments.EvenwhenrealityformatssuchasBigBrotherareboughtandsoldintheglobalmarketplace,theindividualseriesarelocatedinspecificculturalandproductioncontexts.Differenttypesofrealityformatsmayshareprogrammecharacteristics,suchascaughtoncamerafootage,orstoriesaboutordinarypeople,buttherealitygenreismadeupofdiverseanddistinctivesubgenres,thatare‘evolving…byaprocessbothof“longitudinal”subgenericdevelopmentsandintensivecross-fertilizationwithotherformats’(Corner2002b:260).Inaddition,whilstcertainrealityprogrammesperformwellintheratings,othersdonot.Forexample,JoeMillionairewasverysuccessful,butMarriedbyAmerica,asimilarrealityrelationshipformat,was‘consigned…toaratingscoma’.36AmericanIdol,brainchildofSimonFuller,wasalsoaratingswinner,buthisspin-offrealitytalentformatAllAmericanGirlwasmetwith‘wholesalerejection’bytheAmericanpublic.37AccordingtoonecriticofAllAmericanGirl:‘we’veseenenoughrealityshowsto UnderstandingrealityTV9expectacertainamountofsmokeandmirrors.WhatI–andAmerica–willnottolerateisaprogrammethattreatsuswithmorecontemptthanitsowncontestants.’38RealityTVmaybepopular,butaudiencesareabletomakedistinctionsbetweenwhattheyperceivetobegoodandbadrealityprogramming.Afterpublicprotestaboutaproposedreal-lifeversionofTheBeverlyHillbillies,CBSpresidentLesMoonvesadmittedtherearelimitstopublictasteinrealityprogramming.39WhenaudienceswatchrealityTVtheyarenotonlywatchingprogrammesforentertainment,theyarealsoengagedincriticalviewingoftheattitudesandbehaviourofordinarypeopleintheprogrammes,andtheideasandpracticesoftheproducersoftheprogrammes.AsJohnEllispointsout,audiencesofrealityprogrammingareinvolvedinexactlythetypeofdebatesaboutculturalandsocialvaluesthatcriticsnotearemissingfromtheprogrammesthemselves:‘ontheradio,inthepress,ineverydayconversation,peoplearguethetossover“arethesepeopletypical?”and“arethesereallyourvalues?”’.40ScholarlyresearchonrealityTVhasbeensomewhatthinonthegrounduntilrecentyears.EarlystudiesintothethenemergingphenomenonofrealityTVfocusedprimarilyonthedefinitionofthegenre,anditsrelationshipwithothertypesoftelevisiongenres.WorkbyBillNichols(1994),JohnCorner(1995,1996)andRichardKilborn(1994,1998)onthestatusofrealityprogrammingwithinfactualtelevisionisparticularlyusefulinhighlightingearlydebatesaboutthefactualandfictionalelementsoftherealitygenre.Inmanyways,suchearlydebatesaboutthe‘reality’ofrealityTVraisedimportantquestionsaboutactualityandtheepistemologyoffactualtelevisionthathavestillnotbeenansweredtoday.MuchoftheworkofNichols,CornerandKilbornwasrelatedtopositioninganemergentandhybridgenrewithinthearenaofdocumentarytelevision,andwithinexistingacademicdebatesaboutdocumentarystudies.ForCornerandKilborntheissuestheyraisedaboutthecharacteristicsofrealityprogrammingandtheimpactofpopularfactualtelevisiononthefutureofdocumentarytelevisionareissuestheyhavecontinuedtoaddressintheircontemporarywork.Bothscholarshavewrittenextensivelyaboutthechangingnatureofaudio-visualdocumentation,andtherolerealityTVhastoplayinopeningupdebateaboutthetruthclaimsoffactualtelevision(Corner2002a,2002b;Kilborn2003).AlthoughCornerandKilbornarecriticalofaspectsofrealityprogramming,theyrecognisethatitspopularityoverthepastdecadecannotbeignoredbyscholarsindocumentarystudies.Recentworkbyscholarsindocumentarystudiesandculturalstudiessuggeststhattherealitygenreisarichsiteforanalysisanddebate.BrianWinston(2000)inhisbookLies,DamnLiesandDocumentariesaddressesthelegalandethicalframeworktodocumentarytelevision,andarguesforgreaterresponsibilityforthemakingandregulatingoffactual 10UnderstandingrealityTVprogrammes.JonDovey(2000)inhisbookFreakshowconsidersgenressuchastrueconfessionsanddocu-soapsasexamplesoffirst-personmedia,atypeofmediathatoftenforegroundsprivateissuesattheexpenseofwiderpublicdebateaboutsocialandpoliticalissues.JohnEllis(2000,2002)inhisbookSeeingThingsarguesthatgenressuchaschatshowsordocumentariesinviteustowitnessthemodernworld,andthroughthisprocessunderstandtheworldaroundus.JohnHartleyinhisbookTheUsesofTelevision(1999)suggeststhatpopularfactualprogrammescanteachushowtobecomedo-it-yourselfcitizens,howtolivetogetherincontemporarysociety.GarethPalmer(2003)inhisbookDisciplineandLibertyconsidersthesurveillancecontexttomanypopularfactualprogrammes,andarguesthattelevision’suseofCCTVraisesimportantissuesaboutourcivilliberties.JaneRoscoeandCraigHight(2001)intheirbookFakingItexaminemock-documentaryasanexampleofpopularfactualformsthatplaywithboundariesoffactandfiction,andquestionthestatusofaudio-visualdocumentation.SuHolmesandDeborahJermyn(2003)intheireditedcollectionUnderstandingRealityTelevisionexaminetheeconomic,aestheticandculturalcontextstothegenre.TheseselectedexamplesofresearchintheemerginggenreofrealityTVillustratehowdebateaboutthegenreneednotbedominatedbyargumentsaboutdumbingdown,orvoyeurTV.WhilstthesedebatescanbefoundinmediadiscussionofrealityTV,manyacademicscholarshavemovedthedebatetofreshterrain.Alongwithavarietyofotherscholarsinmediastudies,suchasArildFetveit(2002),NickCouldry(2002),FrancesBonner(2003)andIbBondebjerg(2002),discussionaboutrealityTVisnowrichandvaried.WitheditedcollectionssuchasthosebyFriedman(2002),Mathjisetal.(2004),andHolmesandJermyn(2003)onarangeofrealityprogrammesthestageissetforfurtherdirectionsintherealityTVdebate.Myownresearchcontributestothebodyofexistingworkontheproduction,contentandreceptionofrealityTV.Mypreviousresearchincrimeandemergencyservicesrealityprogramming(Hill2000b,2000c),alongwithaneditedcollectiononBigBrother(HillandPalmer2002;Hill2002),representsamovetosituatetheaudienceindebateaboutrealityTV.Inthissense,thisbookfollowsdirectlyonfrommypreviousinterestsinthecriticalreceptionofrealityprogrammes.ThroughoutthisbookIsituatemyownresearchinaudiencesofrealityprogramminginrelationtoexistingknowledgeanddebateabouttherealitygenreindocumentary,mediaandculturalstudies.Myhopeisthattheresearchfindings,asoutlinedinthisbook,provideausefulcontributiontothethoughtfulandilluminatingresearchbyotherscholarsthatIhavealreadybrieflymentioned.ThefocusofthisbookistoexaminetheviewingexperienceofrealityTV.Justasthereisarangeofprogrammesandformatsthatmake UnderstandingrealityTV11uptherealitygenre,sotooistherearangeofstrategiesandresponsesthatmakeuptheviewingexperienceofdifferenttypesofrealityprogrammes.WhatisoftenmissingfromthegreatdebateaboutrealityTV,anditsimpactontelevisionanditsaudience,arethevoicesofpeoplewhowatchrealityprogrammes.Thereismuchtolearnfromlisteningtoaudiencediscussionaboutapopularandrapidlychangingtelevisiongenre.TothatendIdrawuponmyownresearchintelevisionaudiencesandrealityprogramminginordertoforegroundtheroleoftheaudienceinourunderstandingofrealityTV.RESEARCHINGREALITYTVTheresearchpresentedinthisbookisdrawnfromamulti-methodresearchprojectIconductedduring2000–2001.Theresearchaimwastoprovideinformationandanalysisregardingviewingpreferencesandstrategiesacrossallagerangesforavarietyofrealityprogramming,availableonterrestrial,satellite,cableanddigitaltelevisionintheUK.TheresearchwasfundedbythepublicorganisationtheEconomicandSocialResearchCouncil,theregulatorybodyTheIndependentTelevisionCommission(nowOfcom),andthetelevisioncompanyChannel4.TheresearchalsoreceivedsupportfromtheBroadcastingStandardsCommission(nowOfcom),theBBC,andChannel5(nowFive).Iusedquantitativeandqualitativeaudienceresearchmethods,inconjunctionwithanalysisofthescheduling,contentandformofrealityprogrammes.Thedatafromthequantitativesurvey,conductedusingthenationalrepresentativesample(over9,000respondentsaged4–65+)oftheBroadcasters’AudienceResearchBoard(BARB),enabledmetogatheralargeamountofinformationonaudiencepreferencesforformandcontentwithinrealityprogramming,andaudienceattitudestoissuessuchasprivacy,accuracy,informationandentertainment.OnthebasisofwhatIlearntaboutaudienceattitudestowardsandpreferencesconcerningrealityprogramminginthesurvey,Iusedqualitativefocusgroupstoexplorekeyissuessuchasauthenticityandperformance,informationandentertainment,andthesocialcontexttowatchingrealityprogramming.Iusedquotasamplingtorecruit(self-defined)regularviewersofarangeofrealityprogramming.Thereweretwelvegroups,consistingofmale/femaleviewers,aged11–44,inthesocialcategoryC1C2DE(skilledandworkingclass,andlowestlevelofsubsistence),livinginthesouth-eastofEngland.Ialsoconductedfamilyin-depthinterviewsoverasix-monthperiod,observingfamilyviewingpractices,andtherelationshipbetweenscheduling,familyroutine,andcontentofrealityprogrammes.Therewerefourvisitstotenfamilieslivinginthe 12UnderstandingrealityTVsouth-eastofEngland.Appendices1and2providemoredetaileddiscussionofresearchdesign,datacollectionandanalysis.BOOKOUTLINEThebookisorganisedaccordingtothecentralthemeoftheviewingexperienceofrealityTV.Chapter2chartstheriseofrealityTVatatimewhenbroadcasterswerelookingforquicksolutionstoeconomicproblemswithintheindustry.Thechapteruncoverstherootsoftherealitygenreintabloidjournalism,popularentertainment,andinparticulardocumentarytelevision,whichhasstruggledtosurviveinacommerciallydrivenbroadcastenvironment.Thechapterdefinesthemainformatswithintherealitygenre–infotainment,docu-soaps,lifestyleandrealitygameshows–andcriticallyexamineshowthesevarioushybridformatshaveensuredhighratingsinpeaktimeschedules.Chapter3providesanoverviewofthevariouswaysthetelevisionindustry,scholarsandaudiencesclassifyrealityTV.Thechapterarguesthatthereisnoonedefinitionofrealityprogramming,butmanycompetingdefinitionsofwhathascometobecalledtherealitygenre.Thechapterdrawsondiscussionbymembersofthetelevisionindustryaboutclassifyingrealityprogramming,byscholarsaboutthedevelopmentofrealityprogramming,andbyaudiencesabouttheviewingexperienceofrealityprogramminginordertosuggestitisvitaltodifferentiatebetweentherapidlyexpandingrangeofprogrammingthatcomesunderthecategoryofrealityTV,andtolocatetherealitygenrewithinabroaderunderstandingofgeneralfactual,andindeedfictional,television.Chapters4and5focusonaudiencediscussionofthetwinthemesofperformanceandauthenticity,andinformationandentertainmentwithinrealityprogramming.Chapter4arguesthatcontemporaryrealityprogrammes,especiallyrealitygameshowsanddocu-soaps,areconcernedwithself-display.Theserealityprogrammesencourageavarietyofperformancesfromnon-professionalactors(ascontestants,asTVpersonalities)andthislevelofself-displayensuresthataudiencesperceivesuchprogrammesas‘performative’.Themannerinwhichordinarypeopleperformindifferenttypesofrealityprogrammesissubjecttointensescrutinybyaudiences.Mostviewersexpectordinarypeopleto‘actup’forthecamerasinthemajorityofrealityprogramming.Theseexpectationsdonot,however,stopaudiencesfromassessinghowtrueorfalsethebehaviourofordinarypeoplecanbeinrealityprogrammes.Thechapteranalyseshowspeculationabouttheperformanceofordinarypeoplecanleadtocriticalviewingpractices,inparticularregardingtheauthenticityofcertaintypesofrealityprogramming.Chapter5criticallyexaminesthechangingroleof UnderstandingrealityTV13informationinpopularfactualtelevision.Thechapterassesseshowaudiencesjudgetheinformativeelementsinpopularfactualtelevision,andwhetherinformationisvaluedinhybridformatswhichdrawonfictionalorleisureformatsforentertainment.Thechapterarguesthatrealityformatscanprovidepracticalandsociallearningopportunitieswithinanentertainmentframe.However,viewersmakeadistinctionbetweenmoretraditionaltypesofrealityprogrammingandcontemporaryrealityprogramming,andoverallarecriticaloftheideaoflearningfromwatchingrealityprogramming.Thenexttwochaptersareconcernedwithfamilyviewersofrealityprogramming.Chapter6examinestherelationshipbetweenethicsandrealityTV.Ethicsisabouthowweoughttoliveourlives,andmuchrealityprogrammingisconcernedwithgoodandbadwaystolive.Thechapterfocusesonaparticulartypeofethicalreasoning,anethicsofcare,thathasitsoriginsintraditionalmoralphilosophyaboutcareoftheself,andmodernethicalwritingonsocialethicsandrightsethics.Thechapteroutlinestheconceptofanethicsofcare,andexaminesanethicsofcareasitisdevelopedinthecontentofcertainpopularrealityformats,andasitisdiscussedbyfamilyviewers.Chapter7isanextendedcasestudyofonepopularexampleofrealityprogrammingforfamilyviewers–petprogrammes.Thechapterexploresrealityprogrammingconcernedwiththeillhealth,ill-treatment,recovery,andinextremecases,deathofcompanionanimals,andarguesthatthecentraladdressofpetprogrammesrelatestoanethicsofcare.Families,especiallychildrenandmothers,watchpetprogrammesinordertounderstandsociallyacceptabletreatmentofpets.Thesentimentalstoriesofpetsincrisishighlightthemorallychargedarenaofhuman–animalrelations,andmarkthetransformationoftheculturalmeaningofpetsinthelatetwentiethcenturyfrom‘lifestyleaccessories’tovalued‘membersofthefamily’.Inaddition,suchstoriesofpetsincrisisraiseethicalissuesconcerningthepoliticsofanimalsuffering,andthepoliticsofviewinganimalsufferingontelevision.TheconcludingChapter8presentsanoverviewofkeyconcepts,issuesandargumentsdiscussedthroughoutthebook.Thechapterexaminesthetensionsandcontradictionsinthewayaudiencesrespondtoarealitygenreintransition.Inparticular,thechapterarguesforgreaterunderstandingofthecategorisationofrealityprogramming,theideaoflearningfromrealityprogramming,andtherelationshipbetweenethicsandrealityprogramming.Thechapteralsooutlinestheroleofcriticalviewingwithinaudienceresponsestodifferenttypesofrealityprogramming,andsuggeststhataudiencedebateaboutrealityprogrammescanonlybehealthyforthedevelopmentoftherealitygenreanditsrelationshipwithothertypesoffactualandfictionaltelevision. Chapter2TheriseofrealityTVSuccessfulrealityTVseriessuchasSurvivororBigBrotheraremarketedas‘allnew’–newconcepts,newformats,newexperiences.Fewtelevisionshowsare‘allnew’.Butitiscertainlythecasethatrealityprogrammesdrawfromexistingtelevisiongenresandformatstocreatenovelhybridprogrammes.‘Factualentertainment’isacategorycommonlyusedwithinthetelevisionindustryforpopularfactualtelevision,andthecategoryindicatesthemarriageoffactualprogramming,suchasnewsordocumentary,withfictionalprogramming,suchasgameshowsorsoapopera.Indeed,almostanyentertainmentprogrammeaboutrealpeoplecomesundertheumbrellaofpopularfactualtelevision.RealityTVisacatch-allcategory,andpopularexamplesofrealityprogramming,suchasChangingRooms(BBC,1996–),Cops(Fox,1988–),AnimalHospital(BBC,1993–),Airport(BBC,1996–),Popstars(ITV,2001–),orTheOsbournes(MTV,2002–),drawonavarietyofgenrestocreateratingswinners.ItisnowonderthatmediaownerRupertMurdochhaslaunchedarealityTVchannel–thereissomethingforeveryoneintherealitygenre.1Thehistoricaldevelopmentofpopularfactualtelevisionismultifacetedandworthyofabook-lengthstudy.Thereisagrowingbodyofliteraturethatprovidesexcellentanalysisofcrimereporting(e.g.FishmanandCavender1998;Palmer2003),tabloidjournalism(e.g.Langer1998),documentary(e.g.Nichols1994,Winston1995,Corner1995,Bruzzi2000,Kilborn2003,amongstothers),docu-drama/drama-doc(e.g.Paget1998),andmockdocumentary(e.g.RoscoeandHight2001),allofwhichhavearoletoplayinthedevelopmentofrealityprogramming.Inthischapter,Icanonlytouchonhistorical,culturalandindustrialcontexts,asmymainintentionistoprovideanoverviewoftheriseofrealityTVthroughoutthe1990sand2000s.Outofnecessity,myoverviewisselective,andmoredetaileddiscussionofspecificformatsandtheoreticalinsightsintopopularfactualprogrammingoccurinlaterchapters. TheriseofrealityTV15THEORIGINSOFREALITYTVWheredidrealityTVcomefrom?Thereisnoeasyanswertothisquestion.Thegenealogyofpopularfactualtelevisionisconvoluted,asthetypeofhybridprogrammingwehavecometoassociatewithrealityTVisdifficulttocategorise,andhasdevelopedwithinhistoricallyandculturallyspecificmediaenvironments.Therearethreemainstrandstothedevelopmentofpopularfactualtelevision,andtheserelatetothreeareasofdistinct,andyetoverlapping,areasofmediaproduction:tabloidjournalism,documentarytelevision,andpopularentertainment.Productionoftabloidjournalismandpopularentertainmentincreasedduringthe1980s.Thisgrowthwaspartlyaresultofthederegulationandmarketisationofmediaindustriesinadvancedindustrialstates,suchasAmerica,WesternEuropeandAustralasia,andpartlyaresultofanincreasinglycommercialmediaenvironment,whereconvergencebetweentelecommunications,computersandmediaensuredcompetitionamongstnetwork,cableandsatellitechannelsforrevenue(Hesmondhalgh2002).Thismediaenvironmentwasonewithinwhichdocumentarytelevisionstruggledtosurvive.Inthischapter,Ibrieflyoutlinethesethreemainareasofmediaproduction,providingnationallyspecificexamplesinordertohighlighttheriseofrealityTVwithindifferentcountriesandmediaindustries.TabloidjournalismThereareparticularelementsofrealityprogrammingwhichdrawonthestapleingredientsoftabloidjournalism,suchastheinterplaybetweenordinarypeopleandcelebrities,orinformationandentertainment.AseriessuchasAmerica’sMostWanted(USA,Fox,1988–)isanexampleofthetypeofrealityprogrammingoftenclassifiedastabloidTV.Itisdifficulttodefinetabloidjournalismas,likerealityTV,itreliesonfluidityandhybridityinformandcontent.JohnFiskedescribestabloidnewsasfollows:‘itssubjectmatteristhatproducedattheintersectionbetweenpublicandprivatelife;itsstyleissensational…itstoneispopulist;itsmodalityfluidlydeniesanystylisticdifferencebetweenfictionanddocumentary’(1992:48).Theintersectionsbetweenthepublicandtheprivate,factandfiction,highlighthowtabloidjournalismreliesonpersonalandsensationalstoriestocreateinformativeandentertainingnews.ElizabethBirdpointsout:‘journalism’semphasisonthepersonal,thesensational,andthedramaticisnothingnew.Streetliterature,ballads,andoralgossipandrumorallcontributetothedevelopmentofnews’(2000:216).Forexample,truecrimestoriesweredistributedthroughbroadsheets,pamphletsandpopularballadsduringtheearlymodern 16TheriseofrealityTVperiodintheUK.Trialpamphletssensationalisedthecriminal,suchasoneof1606thattoldofafemalerobberwho‘rippedopenthebellyofapregnantwomanwithaknifeandseveredherchild’stongue’(Biressi2001:45–6).TheNewgateCalendar,firstpublishedin1773,collectedsuchpamphletsintoboundvolumes,andbecamesopopularitoutsoldauthorssuchasCharlesDickens.Executionnarrativeswereespeciallypopularbecausetheycontained‘somethingforeveryone’;thesenarrativestypicallycontainedtrueaccountsof‘sorrowfullamentationandparticularsextractedfrompressreportsorpoliceintelligence’andbroadsheets‘carryingdetailsofthetrial,confession,execution,verses,woodcutportraitsorgallowscenes’(2001:60).Broadsideballadsweresoldbystreetpedlarsatmarketsandfairs,andoftencontainedcommentariesoncurrentaffairs,andcrimeinparticular.Thesecheapballads,(songsthattellastory)wereverypopular,withthousandsincirculaton,andlargeprintrunsofspecificsongs.Forexample,the‘broadsideofWilliamCorder’sconfessionandexecution(forthe“RedBarn”murder)soldover1,650,000copies’.2Thesepersonalandsensational‘real-life’storiesweredistributedtothegeneralpublicthroughpopularmediaandoralstorytelling,andparticularcaseswouldbecomepartofeverydayconversationandspeculation.Thetabloidstyleofstorytellinghascometodominatemuchpopularnews.Althoughnewsreportingvariesfromcountrytocountry,thesuccessofsupermarkettabloidsintheUSA,ortabloidpaperssuchastheSunintheUK,isanexampleofhowthehuman-intereststoryhasbecomeacentralpartofpopularjournalism.Forsomecritics,suchasGlynn,‘tabloidtelevisionistheelectronicdescendantofthedéclassétabloidnewspapersthatsurroundUSsupermarketcheckoutcounters’(2000:6).Bird(2000:213)arguesthatthe‘tabloidaudience’hasmovedonfromtabloidpaperstotabloidTVshows.Thepopularityofpersonalstorytellinginbothtelevisionnewsandprintmediahascontributedtotheproliferationofrealityprogramming.AsJohnLangerpointsout,the‘impulsetowardstabloidism’residesintherecirculationoftraditionalstoryforms,suchasordinarypeopledoingextraordinarythings(1998:161).Itisnosurprisethereforetoseeanimpulsetowardstabloidisminpopularnewsandpopularfactualtelevision.Indeed,readersoftabloidpapersandviewersofrealityTVsometimesmixandmatchtheirconsumptionofnewsandrealityprogrammes,turningtotabloidnewsinordertolearnmoreaboutrealityTVseries,suchasBigBrotherorI’maCelebrity…GetMeOutofHere!TabloidTVdidnotdevelopinavacuum.InAmerica,earlynetworktelevisiongavelittleconsiderationtopopularnews.Itwasafterthequizshowscandalsduringthe1950sthatnetworknewscastsattemptedtoreachawideraudience,byincreasingnewsandcurrentaffairsoutputandfocusingonvisualandnarrativeinterestinnewsstories.Duringthe1960s TheriseofrealityTV17‘networknewsheldaprivilegedandprofitableposition’,butduringthe1970s‘localnewsemergedasapotentiallyprofitableproduct,evolvingintoapopularhybridoftraditionalhardnewsandgossipychatthatwasoftenpreferredbyviewers’(Bird2000:214).Developmentsintechnology,suchassatellitesandMinicams,ensuredthatlocalnewsbulletinscould‘“transport”theiraudiencestothescenesofcrimesinprogress,unfoldinghostagesituations,urbanshootingsprees,ragingfires,andthelike’(Glynn2000:23).Thisrelianceonrawfootagewouldbecomeastapleingredientofrealityprogramming.WhenRupertMurdochtookadvantageofderegulationpoliciesduringtheReaganadministrationandlaunchedtheFoxTelevisionNetworkinthelate1980s,thechannelfeaturedprogrammes,suchasAmerica’sMostWantedorCops,whichtookadvantageofthegrowthofpopularjournalism,especiallyinlocalnews.AlthoughKilborn(1994:426)pointsoutthat‘NBCwerethefirstcompanytogetinontherealityactwiththeirUnsolvedMysteries(1987–)’,itwasFoxTVthatproducedarangeofrealityprogrammingbasedonthepoliceandemergencyservices.Indeed,Fox‘redefinedUSnetworkpractices’(Glynn2000:28)byproducingcheaprealityprogramming,whichcouldcompeteinacompetitiveenvironmentofnetwork,cableandindependentbroadcasting.Bytheearly1990s,realityprogrammingwasanestablishedpartofpeaktimenetworkschedules,andothercountrieswerebeginningtotakenote.DocumentarytelevisionIntheUK,theriseofrealityTVwasconnectedwiththesuccessofAmericantabloidTVandthedemiseofdocumentarytelevision.Inthe1960sand1970s,earlymagazine-styleseries,suchasTonight(BBC,1957–1965)orNationwide(BBC,1969–1984),providedamixtureofnewsandhumorousoreccentricstories.Thesemagazine-styleprogrammeswereforerunnersformuchcontemporarypopularfactualtelevision(Brunsdonetal.2001:51).ButitwastheintroductionofBritishversionsofAmericanrealityprogrammingintheearly1990sthatbeganatrendinwhatwascommonlyreferredtoatthetimeas‘infotainment’.Forexample,999(BBC,1992–)wasmodelledonRescue911(CBS).Thedifferencebetween999anditsAmericancousinissignificantinthat999ismadebytheBBC,apublicservicechannelthatpromotesitselfasaplatformforseriousfactualprogramming.AsKilbornpointsout:Giventheirmajorpreoccupationwiththehumaninterestaspectandwiththeiroverridingconcernwithaction-packedentertainment,realityprogrammessuchas999runtheriskofbeingseenastabloidtelevision.AtatimewhentheBBChaspubliclycommitteditselfto 18TheriseofrealityTVhigh-quality,lesspopulistformsofprogramming,thetabloidlabelisonewhichtheywillwishtoavoid.(1994:433)TheBBC’sinterestinpopularfactualprogrammingintheearly1990swasaresponsetopoliticalpressurefromtheConservativegovernmentinthe1980sandearly1990stobeapublic,i.e.popular,service.Thismovefrompublictopopularrepresentedamajorthreattothetraditionalrelationshipbetweendocumentaryandpublicservicebroadcasting:Publicservicebroadcasting(PSB)traditionallyassumedthataresponsibilitytotheaudiencewasofmoreimportancethan,say,acommercialdutytoshareholders.Inthiscontext,documentary,asaquality‘dutygenre’,flourishedeventhough(orperhapsexactlybecause)itdidnotachievemassappealanywhereuntilthelater1990s.TherelaxationandreformulationofPSBallowedbroadcasters,howeverfunded,tobecomemorelikeotherbusinesses.Itbecameclear,astheratingsbecamemoreparamount,thatdocumentarypresenceinthescheduleswasarealmarkofpublicservicecommitment.(Winston2000:40)The1992BroadcastingActopenedupcompetitionfromindependentproducersandplacedpressureontheBBCtodelivercheaperprogrammingtothegeneralpublic.Theemergenceofrealityprogrammingintheearly1990scameatatimewhendocumentary,alongwithnewsandcurrentaffairs,wasalreadyunderperformingintheratings.PopularfactualprogrammingbecameakeyweaponintheBBC’ssuccessfulratingsandschedulingwarwithitscommercialrivalITV.RealityTVfilledagapintheschedules,butattheexpenseofmoretraditionaldocumentaryandcurrentaffairs.Indeed,asKilbornpointsout,theBBC’suseofitsdigitalchannelBBC4asaspacefordocumentarysuggeststhatthesuccessofpopularfactualtelevisiononmainstreamchannelssuchasBBC1isattheexpenseof‘morechallengingtypesofdocumentarywork’whichhavebeenrelocatedtodigitalchannels(2003:48).AnotherwayoflookingatthepopularityofrealityTVistoarguethatitssuccessispossiblythe‘priceofsurvival’forcontemporarydocumentary(Winston2000:55).Itiscertainlythecasethattheperformanceofrealityprogrammesinpeaktimescheduleshasencouragedschedulerstoplacesomepopulardocumentaries,suchasJamie’sKitchen(Channel4,2002),inpeaktimeslotstogreatsuccess.TherelationshipbetweendocumentarytelevisionandrealityTViscauseforconcernamongstdocumentarypractitionersandscholars,astheformandcontentofprogrammessuchas999aresomewhatremoved TheriseofrealityTV19fromtraditionaldocumentaryvalues.Theprimaryaimofmuchrealityprogrammingis‘thatofdiversionratherthanenlightenment’;andalthoughsomemakersofrealityprogrammesarguethatcertainformatscanprovidesocialvalue,itisthecasethattherealitygenreasawholeisdesignedforentertainmentvalue(Kilborn2003:11).Andyetitisalsothecasethatpopularfactualtelevisionowesagreatdealtodocumentarytelevision.Howdoestheformandcontentofdocumentarytelevisionconnectwithrealityprogramming?Thereisarelationshipbetweenthedevelopmentofdocumentarytelevisionandthedevelopmentofrealityprogramming.Althoughthismaybeanuneasyrelationship,itisneverthelessthecasethatwecannotunderstandrealityTVwithoutconsideringitsplacewithinthecontextofothertypesofaudio-visualdocumentation.Eventhecategoryof‘documentary’canberelatedtothecategoryof‘realityTV’asbothcategoriesdefysimpledefinitions.JustasrealityTVisabroadcategorythatisdifficulttodefine,thecategoryofdocumentaryalso‘escapesanytightgenericspecification’,and‘whatweunderstandby“documentary”isalwaysdependentonthebroadercontextofthekindsofaudiovisualdocumentationcurrentlyincirculation’(Corner2002a:125).Thetypesofdocumentarytelevisiondirectlyrelevanttorealityprogrammingincludedocumentaryjournalism,documentaryrealism,and,inparticular,observationaldocumentary.Documentaryjournalismaddressestopicalsubjectsinaseriesformat,usingjournalisticconventions,andusuallyinvolvingthe‘“quest”ofapresenter/reporter…“delvingbehindtheheadlines”’(Corner1995:84).Thistypeofdocumentarywaspopularwithbroadcastersinthe1960sand1970sbecauseitperformedapublicservice,andprogrammescouldbecomeflagshipproductionsforparticularchannels,forexampleSixtyMinutes(CBS)inAmerica,orWorldinAction(ITV)intheUK.Therearelinksbetweentabloidjournalismanddocumentaryjournalism,asthelattertoosufferedfromthepopularityofmagazine-stylenewsbulletinsandinfotainment.Documentaryrealismiscentraltounderstandingthevaluesofdocumentarypractice.Corner(2001a:127)outlinestwopracticeswithindocumentarythatrelyonnotionsofrealism:observationalrealism,whichisa‘setofformalmarkersthatconfirmtousthatwhatwearewatching…isarecordofanongoing,andatleastpartlymedia-independent,reality’,andexpositionalrealism,whichisa‘“rhetoricofaccuracyandtruth”thatmanytelevisiondocumentariesvariouslydrawon’.Bothtypesofrealismasktheaudiencetoregisterthetechniquesusedtoobservereallife(forexample,hand-heldcameras),orthewayinwhichanargumentispresentedtous(forexample,theinterpretationofevidence).Theissuesofrealism,accuracyandtruthindocumentaryarecomplex,intermsofbothproductionandtheory;andkeybooks,suchas 20TheriseofrealityTVRepresentingReality(Nichols1991)orClaimingtheReal(Winston1995),addresstheepistemologicalclaimsofdocumentaryto‘representreallife’.Intermsofrealityprogramming,theextenttowhichprogrammessuchasCopsorSurvivoraddressissuesofrealism,accuracyandtruthissignificantpreciselybecausetheseprogrammesdonoteschewsuchvalues,andyetatthesametimeareunabletostaywithintheconventionsofdocumentaryrealismduetotheirrelianceonentertainmentformats,suchassoapoperaorgameshows.Popularfactualtelevision’sconflictingrelationshipwithdocumentaryisespeciallyapparentwhenweconsiderobservationaldocumentary.Thistypeofdocumentaryemergedfrom‘directcinema’in1960sAmerica,‘cinemavérité’in1960sFrance,and‘fly-on-the-wall’documentarytelevisionin1970sBritain.StellaBruzzicommentsthatobservationaldocumentaryreliesontheuseoflightweight,portablecamerasand‘tendstodealwithcurrentevents,eventsthatareunfoldinginfrontofthecamera’(2001:130).Thistechniqueclearlyinfluencedthe‘fly-on-the-wall’feelofdocu-soaps.DocumentariessuchasAnAmericanFamily(CraigGilbert,USA,1972),orPolice(RogerGraef,UK,1982)areantecedentstodocu-soapssuchasTheRealWorld(USA,MTV,1991–),orTheCruise(UK,BBC,1998).AsWinston(2000:55)remarks:‘thedocusoaptechniquerepresentsabastardisationoftelevision’susualvéritébastardisation’.ThereareeventracesofobservationaldocumentaryinrealitygameshowssuchasBigBrother,althoughitsclaimstoobservereallifeareheavilysubsumedwithinthegameshowformat.Othertypesofdocumentaryhaveinfluencedrealityprogramming,suchasreflexive/performativedocumentaries,docu-dramaandmockdocumentaries.Reflexivedocumentariescontainaself-consciousreferencetogenericconventions;performativedocumentariesblurboundariesbetweenfactandfiction(Nichols1991,1994).Bothtypesofdocumentaryrelyondramatictechniques,includingparodyandirony,toquestionthegenre.Docu-dramaandmockdocumentarytakethisquestioningofthedocumentarygenreonestagefurther.Docu-dramausesafictionalsettinginordertopresentasequenceofeventsastruthful,bydrawingongenericconventionswithindocumentary(Paget1998).Mockdocumentarytakes‘afictivestancetowardsthesocialworld,whileutilisingdocumentaryaestheticsto“mock”theunderlyingdiscoursesofdocumentary’(RoscoeandHight2001:44).Reflexivity,performance,andboundariesbetweenfactandfictionareallhallmarksofrealityprogramming,andarediscussedinmoredetailinlaterchapters.PopularentertainmentAswithtabloidjournalismanddocumentarytelevision,popularentertainmentdefiescategorisation.Itisanumbrellatermthatincludesa TheriseofrealityTV21collectionofprogrammesthatcomefromdifferentindustrialcontexts,andwhichareprimarilyentertaining.Formypurposes,popularentertainmentreferstoprogrammessuchastalkshows,gameshows,sportsandleisureprogramming,allofwhicharepartofthedevelopmentofpopularfactualtelevision.Thesepopularentertainmentprogrammesincludeinteractionbetweennon-professionalactorsandcelebrities,althoughincreasinglynon-professionalactorsareoftentreatedascelebritiesintheirownrightinsuchprogrammes.Manyoftheseprogrammesalsocontaininteractiveelements,drawingastudioaudience,andviewersathome,directlyintoaprogramme,usuallyasrespondentsorjudgestotheactivitiesofthenon-professionalactors/celebrities.Inaddition,talkshows,gameshows,sportsandleisureprogrammingoftenperformwellwithintheinternationalbroadcastingmarket,withsuccessfulformatssoldworldwide,andlocallyproducedtonationallyspecificrequirements.Perhapsoneofthebest-knownexamplesofapopularentertainmentseriesaboutordinarypeopleisCandidCamera(CBS,1948–),whichbeganonradio,andtransferredtoTVtobecomeoneofthetoptenUSnetworkshowsduringthe1960s,spawningimitatorsaroundtheworld.CandidCamerawasalsoaformatfamiliartoUKaudiencesinthe1950s,presentedbyJonathanRouthintheearlyyearsofITV,thefirstcommercialchannelintheUK.Beginningwiththetalkshow,thecelebritytalkshowhasbeenastapleoflatenightprogramminginAmericasincethesuccessofTheTonightShow(NBC,1954–)inthe1950s.Itsoffspring,theconfessionaltalkshow,hasdominateddaytimeAmericanTVsincethe1980s.Itisthecelebritytalkshow’sinteractionwiththestudioaudiencethatismostrelevanttorealityprogramming,especiallyintheway‘itallowsforaseemingly“democratic”momentasaveragepeoplearegivenasimilartreatmenttothecelebrityguests’(Shattuc2001a:83).Asthecelebrityguestgavewayto‘averagepeople’,thestudioaudiencebecameevenmoreactiveinthe‘issue-orientated’,emotionallyladenstoriesthatbecameatrademarkofconfessionaltalkshows,suchasTheOprahWinfreyShow(NBC,1984–).Confessionaltalkshowsencapsulatea‘tensionbetweencommercialtabloidexploitationandthepoliticisationoftheprivatesphere’(Shattuc2001b:84).Thistensionbetweenentertainmentimperativeswithintelevisionprogrammingandtheuseofpersonalstorieswithinpublicdebateisalsoapparentinrealityprogramming.ThereareconnectionsbetweenaformatsuchasTheJerrySpringerShow(1991–)andaformatsuchasBigBrotherasbothformatsfocusoninterpersonalconflict,emotionandsexualtitillation(Shattuc2001b).Thegameshowhaslongbeenastapleoftelevisionschedulesfortworeasons:itis‘cheapandeasytoproduce’andis‘extremelyexportable’(Boddy2001:80).TheexampleofWhoWantstobeaMillionaire?(UK,ITV,1999–)illustratesthegameshow’spotentialtodominateschedulesaround 22TheriseofrealityTVtheworld,andgeneratehugeprofitsforbroadcastingchannels–theformat,whichoriginatedinBritain,wassoldtomorethanseventycountriesinthespaceofafewyears(2001:81).Thegameshowformatcontainsseveralaspectswhichworkwellwhentransportedtopopularfactualprogramming:‘thevarioustelevisionquizformatsturnarounddifferentcalibrationsofluck,knowledgeandskill,andalmostallofferthespectacleofordinarypeoplefacinglife-transformingdecisionsinextendedrealtime’(2001:80).AseriessuchasSurvivor(UK,ITV,2000–)reliesoncontestantsfacinglife-transformingdecisionsinorderto‘survive’,bothphysically,emotionallyandinrelationtothegame.Theformatforrealitygameshowsisalsohighlyexportable.Forexample,theDutchformathouseEndemolhavesoldtheformatforBigBrotherworldwide,tocountriesincludingGermany,Spain,America,Argentina,SouthAfricaandAustralia.‘Sportstelevisiondoesnotconstituteasinglegenre,butratheramixofdifferentformsoftelevisionproductionpractice’(Brookes2001:87).Theseproductionpracticesincludelivesportsevents,sportsjournalism,sportingadvertisementsandotherkindsofpromotion.AccordingtoBrookesatypicalsportseventwillcombinearangeoftelevisionproductionpractices,from‘introductorytitlesthroughanopeningvideosegment,toanewsfeaturesegmentontheteamsorindividualsinvolved…toexpertdiscussionpanels,intothegameproper,andfinallyinterviewswiththeparticipants’(2001:88).AsimilarmixtureofproductionpracticescanbefoundinrealitygameshowssuchasSurvivor,whichfeaturesintroductorytitlesthroughanopeningvideosegmentoftheparticipantsinsurvivalmode,newsonthelatestactionsoftheparticipants,discussionbyexpertpsychologistsandothercommentators,thechallengesproper,andfinallyinterviewswiththewinnerandlosers.Inadditiontotheuseofsimilarproductionpracticestosportingevents,realityprogrammingdrawsonthedramaandexcitementofsportstelevision,highlightingparticularcharacters,orpersonalities,andtheiractionswithinthespectacleoftherealityprogramme.MikeDarnell,producerofFoxTVspecialssuchasWorld’sScariestPoliceChasesandSurvivingtheMomentofImpact,deliberatelydrawsonsportstelevisiontogenerateadrenalineinviewerswhenwatchinghisrealityprogrammes.3Leisureprogrammingreferstoastrandoftelevisionusuallyassociatedwithdaytimetelevision.Historically,daytimetelevisionaroseoutofacommercialisedinterestindomesticityduringthe1950s,andaddressedafemalevieweraboutdomesticdutiesandleisureinterests(Hartley2001a).Brunsdonetal.(2001)discusstherelationshipbetweenleisureprogrammingandpopularfactualtelevision.InBritain,leisureandinstructionalprogramminginthe1970sweregenerallyaboutgardening,cooking,dressmakingandDIY,‘allofwhichimplyanarrativeoftransformation’whichisassociatedwith‘skillsacquisition’(Brunsdonet TheriseofrealityTV23al.2001:54).Contemporarylifestyleprogrammingpicksuponthis‘narrativeoftransformation’,subordinatingtheinstructionaladdressinordertoforegroundtheresponsesof‘realpeople’tothistransformation:‘thustheviewerisshownhowtoperformcertainoperationsbuttheemphasisoftheprogramme,whattheproducerscall“thereveal”,iswhenthetransformedpersonorplaceisshowntotheirnearestanddearestandtheaudience’(2001:55).Indeed,‘theaffectiveclose-up…comesfromgameshows’,andisfurtherinstanceoftheinterconnectionswithinpopularentertainmentandpopularfactualtelevision(ibid.).Onefinalareaoftelevisionproductiontoaddresshereispopularfictionalprogrammingsuchassoapoperasormelodrama.Althoughthesefictionalgenresdonottechnicallyfitwithinthecategoryofpopularentertainmentasitincludesnon-fictionalprogramming,theyareneverthelesssignificantpopularandentertaininggenresthathavebeeninfluentialonthedevelopmentofrealityprogramming.Briefly,soapoperasareserialnarratives.Thecorefeatureofsoapoperaisitsabilitytopackage‘theexperienceoffictionoveranextendedperiodoftime,insegments’(McCarthy2001:47).Twodifferenttraditionsofsoapopera,thatofrealistsoapoperainBritain(e.g.CoronationStreet)andmelodramaticsoapoperainAmerica(e.g.TheYoungandtheRestless),havehadanimpactonrealityprogramming.Thewayinwhichrealistsoapoperaattemptstorepresentsocialrealitieswithinpopulartelevisioncanbedirectlyrelatedtothedocu-soap,arealityformatthatcombinesobservationaldocumentarytechniqueswithserialnarrativetechniquesofsoapopera.Thewayinwhichmelodramaticsoapoperaattemptstorepresentheightenedorsensationalrealitieswithinpopulartelevisioncanbedirectlyrelatedtorealitygameshowsaboutrelationships,suchasJoeMillionaire,thatcombineobservationaldocumentarytechniqueswithsensationalnarrativetechniquesofsoapopera.Docu-soapsandrealitygameshowsencourageparticipantsto‘indulgeingossipy,soap-likeformsofinterchange’and‘maintainnarrativepaceandinterest’byswitching‘thefocusofattentionfromonegroupofcharacterstoanother’(Kilborn2003:82).Inaddition,othertypesoffictionalgenres,suchascrimegenresorhospitalgenres,havealsobeeninfluentialonrealityformats(seeChapter7foradiscussionoftheinfluenceofmedicaldramaonanimal-basedrealityprogramming).Tosummarise,popularfactualtelevisionhasdevelopedduringaperiodofcrossfertilisationwithtabloidjournalism,documentarytelevisionandpopularentertainment.Thelate1980sand1990swereaperiodofincreasedcommercialisationandderegulationwithinthemediaindustries.Asaudienceshaveshoppedaround,channelsurfingbetweenterrestrial,satellite/cableanddigitalchannels,broadcasters(andnarrowcasters)havelookedtoproducecheap,oftenlocallymade,factualprogrammingwhichisattractivetogeneral(andniche)viewers.The 24TheriseofrealityTVdevelopmentofrealityprogrammingisanexampleofhowtelevisioncannibalisesitselfinordertosurvive,drawingonexistinggenrestocreatesuccessfulhybridprogrammes,whichinturngeneratea‘new’televisiongenre.REALITYTVARRIVESAlthoughexamplesofrealityTVcanbefoundthroughoutthehistoryoftelevision,realityprogrammesarrivedenmasseinpeaktimetelevisionschedulesduringthe1990s.ThefirstwaveofrealityprogrammingwasbaseduponthesuccessofcrimeandemergencyservicesrealityTV,or‘infotainment’,andtravelledfromAmericatoEuropeandbeyondinthelate1980stoearly1990s.Thesecondwaveofrealityprogrammingwasbaseduponthesuccessofpopularobservationaldocumentaries,or‘docu-soaps’,andlifestyleprogramminginvolvinghouseandgardenmakeovers,andtravelledfromBritaintoEuropeandbeyondinthemid-tolate1990s.Thethirdwavewasbaseduponthesuccessofsocialexperimentsthatplacedordinarypeopleincontrolledenvironmentsoveranextendedperiodoftime,or‘realitygameshows’,andtravelledfromNorthernEuropetoBritain,Americaandtherestoftheworldduringtheearly2000s.Thecurrentwaveofrealityprogrammingisafree-for-all,withAmericaleadingthewaywithcrimeandrelationshiprealityprogramming,BritainandAustraliaforgingaheadwithlifestyleandsocialexperimentrealityprogramming,andNorthernEuropedevelopingvariationsoftherealitygameshow.InfotainmentTobeginatthebeginning,infotainment,alsocalled‘tabloidTV’,beganlifeasone-offprogrammesinvariouscountries,butbecamepopularonAmericannetworktelevisionafterNBCairedthe‘on-scene’realityseriesUnsolvedMysteriesin1987.Raphael(1997:107)notes‘theinternationalspreadofReali-TVcannotbeexplainedastheoutcomeofUSproductinnovation,sincemanyEuropeanandJapaneseprogramspre-datedtheirUScounterparts’.Forexample,CrimewatchUK(BBC)wasfirstairedin1984,andwasinturnmodelledontheGermanprogrammeAktenzeichenXY…Ungelöst(ZDF,1967–).AlthoughCrimewatchUKwassuccessful(in1984itcommandedaudiencesofover9million)andinspiredimitators,itdidnotcreatealandslideinrealityprogramming.InAmerica,ontheotherhand,producersofrealityprogrammingquicklygraspedthepotentialofinfotainmenttoboostratingsathome,andincreaseforeignexportrevenues(Raphael1997).Afterthesuccessof TheriseofrealityTV25UnsolvedMysteries,othernetworksfollowedsuit.By1991,Varietyestimatedtherewereoverthirtyrealityprogrammesonair:Atanytimeofthedayornight,aviewercantuneintoemergencyrescues,sexscandals,re-enactmentsofgrislycrimes,unwarybystandersstumblingintopracticaljokesrecordedbyhiddencameras,andsalaciouspseudo-gameshowscentredonnone-too-subtlesexualvoyeurism…thebroadcastnetworksareschedulingmoreofthemthanatanyothertimeinTVhistory,mainlybecauseanhour-longrealityseriestypicallycostsabout$500,000anepisode,onlyhalfofwhatthenetworkspayinlicensefeesfora60minutedramaticseries.(Dempsey1991:32)ThedownsidestorealityTV–lowprofitsinoff-networksyndicationmarketsandcautiousadvertisers(Raphael1997)–weremorethancompensatedforbyeconomicandratingssuccess.Inthe1991–1992USseason,viewerscouldtuneintoAmerica’sMostWantedandCopsonFox,Rescue911andTopCopsonCBS,UnsolvedMysteriesandExposeonNBC,andFBI:theUntoldStoriesonABC(Raphael1997:109).Themajorityoftheserealityserieswerenotdeficit-financedwhichrepresentedamajorturnaroundfromthedeficit-financeddramaproductionsofthemid-1980s,whenproducerslostupto$100,000perepisodeforhalf-hourshows(1997:103).TheeconomicsuccessofrealityTVensuredthatproducersdevelopednewvariationsonexistingformats.Forexample,theformatforemergencyservicesrealityprogrammingwaspopularinthemid-1990s,withrealityseriessuchasCoastguard,aboutadventuresonUSwaterways,orExtreme,aboutamountainrescueteaminUtah,competingalongsidefamiliarseriessuchasRescue911.4KilborncallsthesetypesofrealityprogrammesAccidentandEmergency(A&E)formats,astheycontainrecurringstoriesofheroismandbraverybyordinarypeoplewhoworkforaccidentandemergencyservices(2003:55).EuropeanbroadcasterswerequicktopickuponthesuccessofinfotainmentinAmerica.SomeAmericanprogrammeswereacquiredbyEuropeanbroadcasters,suchasRescue911whichwasairedinGermanyandDenmark.Moreoftenformatsweresold,orcopied,inordertomakelocallyproducedversionsofAmericanrealityTV.Kilborn(1994:430)notesthatlocalresistanceto‘American-stylereality’TVensured‘stylesandforms…evolvedwhicharemoreintunewithnationalorculturalpriorities’.ThesuccessofEuropeanversionsofAmericanrealityformatsillustratesrealityTV’sstrongperformancewithintheglobaltelevisionmarket.ToillustratehowrealityTVformats‘havelegs’,IwanttoprofileitsearlyarrivalintheUK,markedbythelaunchof999bytheBBCin1992. 26TheriseofrealityTVIhavediscussedthisserieselsewhere,anditsreceptionbythepressandviewers(seeHill2000b,2000c).Therealityseries999usesreconstructionsandfoundfootagetotellstoriesofrescueoperationsbyemergencyservicespersonnelandordinarypeople.Theseriescombinesapublicserviceaddresstotheviewerconcerninginformationaboutfirstaidwithamelodramaticnarrativeofaccidentandrescue.PeterSalmonwaspartoftheoriginalproductionteamforCrimewatchUK,whichhedescribedas‘aFrankenstein’smonster’,andbecametheproducerof999,arguablythebrideofFrankenstein(Murrell1992:48).CriticslookedonwithhorrorastheBBCcreated999inordertopopulariseitsfactualoutput;pressreviewscommentedontheprogramme’s‘lustforgore’andevenBBCexecutivesquestionedtheuseofsensationalstoriesofaccidentandrescueinapublicservicebroadcastingfactualseries(Hill2000b:196).AnarticleinTelevisionWeekcommentedonthearrivalof999inrelationtootherrealityprogrammes:Fly-on-the-wall,orvérité,documentaryhasbeenwithusfordecades,andCrimewatchUKisapproachingitstenthseries,butBBCBristol’s999,whichlaunchedlastweek,theCrimewatchspin-offCrimeLimited,andMichaelWinner’sTrueCrimesfromLWTsuggestthat,asaschedulingtool,realitytelevisionhasnowarrived.(Murrell1992:48)Thesetypesofprogrammesmainlyattractedolder,low-incomeviewers,unlikeUSrealityTVthat‘cutacrossalotofdemographics’.5Theywerealsonotcheaptoproduce.Forexample,999costdoubletheamountofRescue911,approximately£100,000per45-minuteepisode.Butwithratingsashighas11million,televisionproducerswerewillingtopaytheprice(ibid.).Ifwecomparetenyearsoffactualoutputfrom1984to1994,wecanseetherippleeffectcreatedbytheintroductionof999.In1984,thetopratedfactualprogrammeswerenaturalhistoryspecialssuchasSurvival(ITV/Anglia,11.3million)andTheLivingPlanet(BBC,9.9million).Theothertypesoftop-ratedfactualprogrammesincludedtheclipshowAutomania(ITV/Central,9.7million),theobservationaldocumentary28Up(ITV/Granada,9.4million),andtheinfotainmentseriesCrimewatchUK(BBC,9.1million),allofwhichwerein-houseproductions.In1994,thetop-ratedfactualprogrammesweredominatedbyinfotainmentseriessuchasPoliceStop!(ITV/Carlton,13.4million),PoliceCameraAction!(ITV/Carlton,13.2million),999Lifesavers(BBC1,10.2million),CrimewatchUK(9.7million),andSpecialBabies(ITV/Carlton,9.3million),threeofwhichwereindependentproductions.6In1984,therewasonlyonefactualseriesinthetop20aboutemergencyservices(CrimewatchUK),by TheriseofrealityTV271994thereweretwelve.7NotonlydidinfotainmentdominatefactualoutputfromtheBBC,italsodominatedcommercialnetworks.Phillipsnotedthenumberoftabloid-styleseriesonofferfromITVduringaperiodofdeclineinfactualoutput:ITVtransmitted71peaktimedocumentariesin1996–1999,fewerthanoneafortnight.Onaveragetheywereseenby7.19millionviewers,anaudienceshareof32percent,whichissixpercentagepointsbelowITV’soverallshareonthenightstheyappeared…inrealitymostofthemoresuccessfulprogrammesarenotPrixItaliacandidates.NineoftheTop20areintheFromHelloccasionalseries:cataloguesofconduct-unbecomingfromdifferentsources,whichsometimesofferedadvicetovictimsbutmoreoftenmerelywallowedintheawfulness.(2000:42)Withmarketssharesofupto50percentfortheFromHellseries(neighbours,holidays,nannies,builders,drivers,trafficjams,andevengaragesfromhell!),itwouldtakeabravecontrollertolimitthenumberofinfotainmentshowsinfactualprogramming.Aswehaveseen,duringthemid-1990s,publicserviceandcommercialchannelsweremorethanhappytoplacepopularfactualprogrammesinpeaktimeschedules(Phillips2000).Docu-soapandlifestyleThedocu-soapemergedasanalternative,insomewayscomplementary,popularfactualslottoinfotainmentintheUK.Docu-soaps,alsocalled‘fly-on-the-wall’documentaries,‘soap-docs’,or‘reality-soaps’,becamethe‘motorofpeaktime’duringthemid-tolate1990s(Phillips1999a:23).Therewereasmanyassixty-fivedocu-soapsbroadcastonthemainchannelsbetween1995and1999,attractingaudiencesofupto12million.Docu-soapsweresopopularthatthetermevenmadeitintotheOxfordDictionary(1999a:22).Thedocu-soapisacombinationofobservationaldocumentary,andcharacter-drivendrama.OneTVproducerexplained:‘We’dseenthatflashingbluelightdocumentariescouldwork,butmanyofthelatestonesarefactualsoaps,verycharacter-led…nothingseemstobetoomundane.It’sthetechniqueofasoapoperabroughtintodocumentaries’(Biddiscomb1998:16).Althoughtherehadbeenpredecessorstothedocu-soap,namelyPaulWatson’sTheFamily(BBC,1974)orCraigGilbert’sAnAmericanFamily(PBS,1973)itwasits‘prioritisationofentertainmentoversocialcommentary’thatmadethe 28TheriseofrealityTVdocu-soapsodifferentfromobservationaldocumentary,andperforcepopularwithgeneralviewers(Bruzzi2001:132).ItwastheBBCwho,onceagain,becamethedrivingforceintheproductionofdocu-soaps.Ayearafterthearrivalof999,theBBCairedChildren’sHospital,afly-on-the-walldocumentarywhichhadallthehallmarksofadocu-soap(seeHill2000cforfurtherdiscussion).Itspersonal,melodramaticstoriesappealedtoviewers,withmorethan8milliontuningintothefirstseries,despitewidespreadcriticismfromthepress(Hill2000c).In1995,theBBCairedHMSBrilliantwhichattracteda40percentshareduringmidweek,andproceededtoswampthepeaktimescheduleswithhalf-hourdocu-soaps,whichusuallyairedbetween8pmand9pm.Docu-soapsfilledtheholeleftbehindbythedeclineincomedyandlightentertainmentduringthisperiod,and,oncecommercialchannelsenteredthefield,becameammunitioninaratingswar,whereeventelevisiondrama–the‘dreadnoughtsanddestroyers’ofpeaktime–tookdirecthitsfromthedocu-soap.8Attheirpeak,docu-soapsfoughteachotherheadonforthecoveted‘8–9slot’.Dovey,inabriefanalysisoftheschedulesduring1998,counted36percentofpeaktimefactualprogrammingduringoneweek,andconcludedthat‘rightacrossthepeaktimeschedulethepatternisthesame:lightentertainment,sitcomanddramahavebeenreplacedbypopularfactualentertainmentprogrammes’(2000:19).IndustryanalystWilliamPhillips(1999a:23)commented:‘neverinthiswriter’sexperiencehasaclassofprogrammingrisenandfallensofast’.Numbersexpandedfromfourdocu-soapsontheBBCandITVin1995totwenty-twoin1998.Inthetop50docu-soapsbetween1995and1999,thehighestseries,XCars(BBC,1996)manageda51percentmarketshareoftheaudience(12.3million),andthelowest,HMSSplendid(BBC,1999),a21percentshare(4.8million)(ibid.).TheBBCandITVproducedtwoidenticalseriesaboutairports,andstillmanagedtogetbothseriesinthetop10docu-soapsfrom1995to1999–ITV’sAirlineattracted11.4millionviewers(50percentshare),andBBC’sAirport10.7million(44percentshare)during1998.ComparethiswiththenumberoneSaturdaynightdramaseriesfor1998–Casualty(BBC,13.8million):itsaveragemarketshareof55percentshowshowdramahadlostitspullingpowerduringthisperiod.9Forallthecriticismofthedocu-soapas‘documentary-lite’,Winstonisrighttopointoutthat‘theshowsreceivedanunexpectedlylargeaudience,largelywithoutcrimeor(much)sexualexploitation’andmanagedto‘escapefromdocumentary’straditionalsmall-audienceelitedemographicghetto[whichwas]nomeanfeat’(2000:55).Asthedocu-soapreacheditspeak,thegeneralaudiencebegantoswitchoff:‘in1997,nineof11soap-docrunsbeattheirnetwork’snightly[marketshare]averages;in1998itwas13outof22;andbetweenJanuarytoMay1999…4outof21’(Phillips1999b:23).Inaddition,thedocu-soap TheriseofrealityTV29didnotfarewellabroad.AmericandocumentaryproducerNancyWalzogcommented,‘someoneherehastotakeariskinschedulingifthisgenreistobecomeanythinglikethecommercialcrazeitisinBritain’(Biddiscomb1998:16).WhilstAmericanrealityTVchampionedtheordinarypersondoingextraordinarythings,inBritaintheoppositewasthecase,as‘over12millionviewersregularlywatchedafiftysomethinghousewifetrytopassherdrivingtestinTheDrivingSchool’(ibid.).SomeNorthernEuropeancountrieshaveproducedtheirownversionsofdocu-soaps,forexampletheGermanseriesWunschkinder(PlannedFamilies)(ZDF,2001–),andsomeBritishdocu-soapshavebeenscreenedabroad,e.g.AirportonPBS(USA),buttheformatseemstoworkbestonhometerritory.Criticsarguethatthedocu-soapis‘allwashedout’(Phillips1999a:22).Docu-soapsmaynotbethe‘motorofprimetime’,butstalwartssuchasAirline/Airportstillranknumberoneinthetop10factualprogrammes,withaudiencesofbetween6and10millionpreferringeverydaystoriesaboutairportstothecutandthrustofrealitygameshowssuchasSurvivor.10Inthetop100factualentertainmentprogrammesintheUKfor2003,twooftheprogrammesweredocu-soapsaboutairports–Airline(7.95millionviewers,anda31percentshare),andHolidayAirport:Lanzarote(7.65millionviewers,31percentshare).11AnotherstrandofrealityprogrammingthatdominatedthepeaktimeschedulesintheUKduringthelatterhalfofthe1990sisthatoflifestyleprogramming,inparticularmakeovershows.Notcontentwiththerangeofpopularfactualprogrammingalreadyonoffer,theBBCactivelydevelopeditsrangeofdaytimeleisureprogrammes,buildingonexistingformatsinleisureandinstructionalshows.Inordertocreatepeaktimefareabouthomeimprovement,fashion,andcookery,Britishlifestyleprogrammingborrowedideasfromwomen’smagazines,anddaytimemagazineformatseriesAprecursortopeaktimeleisureprogrammingwasthedaytimeseriesStyleChallenge(BBC,1996–),withitsfocusonimagetransformation,orthedaytimeseriesThisMorning(ITV,1988–2002),withitsfocusonhumanintereststories.Lifestyleprogramming,exemplifiedbyChangingRooms(BBC,1996–),tookitsplacealongsideinfotainmentanddocu-soaps,aspopularfactualforgeneralaudiences.Theessenceoflifestyleprogrammingistheinvolvementofordinarypeopleandtheirordinaryleisureinterests(gardening,cookery,fashion,homeimprovement)withexpertswhotransformtheordinaryintotheextraordinary.Usually,thetransformationofpeopleorhomesislinkedtoacompetition,butitisn’tthewinningthatcounts,butratherthemomentofsurprise,or‘thereveal’,whenordinarypeoplerespondtotheendresults.ChangingRooms,GroundForce(BBC,1997–),andCarolVorderman’sBetterHomes(ITV,1999–)alldrawonthemakeover,alongwithelementsfromthegameshow,toheightendrama.Brunsdonetal.comment: 30TheriseofrealityTVContemporarylifestyleprogrammesinmanycasesintroducethepossibilityofhumiliationandembarrassmentforparticipants,throughdevicessuchashavingneighboursdecorateeachother’sroom,orpartnersbuyeachotheroutfits.Whiletheprogrammesdoshowwhathasbeendonetotheroomorthenewoutfit,itistheexpressionflittingacrosstheparticipant’sfaceintheattempttoorganisetheirresponseinthepublicplaceofaclose-upthatissignificant.Itisthereaction,nottheactionthatmatters.(2001:56)Mostlifestyleprogramminginthe1990sadoptedthisformat,subsuminganinformativeaddress(theinstructionalpartoftheprogramme)withinthespectacleof‘thereveal’(themakeoverpartoftheprogramme).TheproducerofChangingRooms,PeterBazalgette,summedupthesuccessoftheseries:‘thekeyistheresolution,whethertheylikeitorhateit…theshowisreallyaboutwatchingotherpeopleintheraw’(citedinMoseley2000:312).ChangingRoomshasprovedaconsistentratingswinner,withregularaudiencesof10millionintheUK.Unlikethedocu-soap,lifestyleprogramminghasprovedsuccessfulintheworldmarket.Forexample,localversionsofChangingRoomshavebeenproducedinAustraliaandtheUSA.Thesuccessoflifestyleprogramminghasensuredmanyvariationsofthemakeoverformat.Therearelifestyleseriesinvolvingfood(ReadySteadyCook,BBC,1997–),fashion(WhatNottoWear,BBC,2001–),andevenscrapmetal(ScrapheapChallenge,Channel4,2000–).Thereisnowamakeoverseriesthatcombinesadviceonstyle,psychologyandbodylanguageinordertotransformanordinarypersonfromdatingdisastertosuccess(WouldLiketoMeet,BBC,2001–).Thereisalsogaylifestyleprogramming,withthemakeoverfashionseriesQueerEyefortheStraightGuy(Bravo,2003–),wherestraightguysaretransformedintostyle-consciousmales,ormakeoverdatingseriesQueerDatesforStraightMates(Living,2003–),whereheterosexualsinglesdategaymenandwomen.Therehasalsobeenariseinpropertylifestyleseriesduringthe2000s.IntheUK,therearevariousseriesabouthowtomakeapropertyfortune,suchasHowIMadeMyPropertyFortune(BBC2,2003–).InAustralia,thelifestyleseriesTheBlockisbasedontheideathatthehomeownerscompetetorenovatetheirhomesandsellthemtothehighestbidder.IntheUSA,themakeoveristakentoanotherextremeasordinarypeoplearegivenanewlookcourtesyofplasticsurgery(UltimateMakeover,ABC,2003–).IntheUK,anotherideaforthe‘ultimatemakeover’involvestheuseofaterminallyillpatientintheirtransformationfromlifetodeath,andindeathfrom‘ordinary’corpseto‘extraordinary’scienceexhibit.12Withsomanyvariationsonatheme,lifestyleprogrammingisableto TheriseofrealityTV31transformitselfoverandoveragain.Theabilitytomakeoveritselfmeanslifestyleprogrammingcontinuestoperformwellintheratings.RealitygameshowsTherealitygameshowhasbecomeaninternationalbestsellersinceitsarrivalin2000.ThebirthoftherealitygameshowformatcanbetracedtoBritishproducerCharlieParsons,whodevelopedtheideaforSurvivorintheearly1990s,andsoldanoptionontherightstoEndemol,beforeaSwedishcompanyboughttheformatandrenameditExpeditionRobinson.Inthemeantime,Endemolhadbeenworkingonasimilaridea,BigBrother,thebrainchildofDutchTVproducerJohndeMol,whodescribedtheformatasthevoluntarylockingupofninepeopleduringahundreddaysinahouse,watchedcontinuouslyby24televisioncameras,towhichtheviewers,attheintercessionoftheinmates,onceintwoweeksvoteagainstoneoftheinmateswhohastoleavethehouse,untilthelastpersontostayincanbecalledawinner.(CosteraMeijerandReesink2000:10)13Surprisingly,BigBrotherwasahit.Morethan3millionpeoplewatchedthefinaleintheNetherlands(RTL,1999)andvotedbytelephoneforthewinner.Thefactthattheformatworkedwellwithconvergingmedia,suchaswebsitesandtelephones,onlyaddedtoitsstrongeconomicperformanceinthetelevisionmarketplace.EndemolsoldtheformatforBigBrotheraroundtheworld,atthesametimethatSurvivorwasalsomakingtherounds.ParsonstookEndemoltocourtforallegedlycopyingtheSurvivorformat.14Althoughtherearesimilaritiesintermsofthehybridisationofthegameshowandobservationaldocumentary,theformatsaredifferentintoneandstyle.Survivorusesanexoticlocationasabackdroptotheemotionaltensionsandpsychologicalmachinationsofthecontestantswhocompetetowinamillion.Thesizeoftheprizemoneyisaclueastothescaleoftheshow:therearebigtasks,bigfights,bigtears,andbigproductionvalues.BigBrotherusesanordinarylocationasabackdroptotheemotionaltensionsandpsychologicalmachinationsofthecontestantswhocompetetowinmuchlessthanamillion.Again,thesizeoftheprizemoney–amere£70,000intheUK–pointstothenatureoftheshowwhichisaboutsmall-scale,everydayactivities,whicharethenmagnifiedinthehouseandonTVbecausethereislittleelsetofocuson(themainactivityissleeping).AlthoughSurvivorwasthenumberonehitofthesummerschedulesinAmerica(CBS,2001),itwasBigBrotherthatmadeitsmarkinternationally.ThefirstseriesofBigBrotherinGermany(RTL2andRTL,2000)wasso 32TheriseofrealityTVsuccessfulthatasecondwascommissionedimmediatelyfortheautumnschedule.InSpain,BigBrotherisbroadcastonTele5(2000),whoseaveragemarketshareis21percent.ForthefinalshowmorepeopletunedintowatchBigBrotherthantheChampionsLeaguesemi-finalmatchbetweenRealMadridandBayernMunich,givingTele5a70percentmarketshare.Belgium’stelevisionchannel,Kanaal2,hasanaverage9percentmarketshare;afterithadbroadcastBigBrothertheaudienceshareincreasedtonearly50percent.15InAustralia,BigBrotherwasshownonChannelTen(2001),whichattractedover50percentofitstargetaudience(19–39yearolds),andbecame‘themostexpensive12-weekshoottohitAustralia’,withanestimatedcostofA$13–16million(Roscoe2001:475).AmoredetailedbreakdownforBigBrotherintheUK(Channel4)revealstheextentofthesuccessofBigBrotheracrossconvergingmedia.Channel4hadthebestFridaynightratingsinitshistory,with9millionviewers(46percentshare)tuningintowatchthefirstseriesfinaleofBigBrother.Sixty-sevenpercentoftheUKpopulationwatchedBigBrotheratleastonce.Over7millionviewerstelephonedChannel4’shotlinetovoteforthewinner,whichbroketherecordforviewerparticipationinaUKTVprogramme.Asforthewebsite,itreceived3millionpageimpressionseachday,whichmadeitEurope’stopwebsiteduringthesummerof2000.Thesecondseriesaveragedmorethan4millionviewers,givingChannel4morethana70percentincreaseontheiraveragebroadcastshare.Channel4’sdigitalyouthchannel,E4,screenedBigBrother2continuouslyduringthesecondseries,andatpeakmomentsinthehouse(e.g.PaulandHelen’scandlelittryst)attractedrecordfigures,propellingthedigitalchannelaheadofterrestrialminoritychannels.16Morethan15millionviewersvotedtoevictcontestants,eitherusinginteractiveTVhandsets,orphonelines.Thewebsitereceivedatotalof159millionpageimpressionsand16.4millionvideostreamswererequested.17ThethirdseriesofBigBrotheraveraged4millionviewers,withthelivefinalattracting10millioninthesummerof2002.ThefourthseriesofBigBrotherunderperformedfromthepreviousyear,butwasstillinfifthplaceinthetoptenprogrammesforviewersaged16–25.18Table2.1illustratestheratingsforallseriesofBigBrotheratthetimeofwriting.Table2.1RatingsforBigBrotherSeriesAverageFirstshowFinalshow(weekdays)BB14.6m(25%)3.3m(17%)9m(46.5%)BB24.5m(25%)3.3m(16.5%)7.5m(46%)BB35.9m(28%)5.9m(25.9%)10m(50.6%)BB44.9m(24%)6.9m(29.3%)6.6m(34%)Source:Broadcast,1August2003 TheriseofrealityTV33Therehavebeenmanyspin-offsfromthesuccessofBigBrother,mostofthemoriginatingfromEndemol.TheseincludeTheBus,BigBrotheronabus,Chained,arealitydatingshowwherecontestantswerechainedtotheirprospectivedate,andTheMole,wherecontestantscompletedvariouschallengeswhilsttryingtoeliminatethesuspected‘mole’.TheBigDietwasaBigBrotherforweightwatchers,wherecontestantscompetedtolosethegreatestamountofweight,whilstlockedinacastlewheretheytookregularexercise,andtriedtoavoidthe‘temptationfridge’.AlthoughtheproducerofTheBigDietpromised‘itwon’tbelikeafreakshowwithsausagesfallingoutofeverydrawer’,criticismoftheseriessuggestedotherwise.19AnothersuccessfulinternationalformatwasPopstars,acombinationofrealitygameshowandvarietyshowthatoriginatedinNewZealand.Contestantsauditionedforaplaceinapopband,orinthecaseofSoapstars(ITV,2001),asoapopera.Theformatusuallyinvolvedaseriesofopenauditionsforthousandsof‘wannabes’,followedbyaknockoutcompetitionwherethefinalcontestantsperformedinfrontofapanelofjudges,who,alongwiththeviewers,votedforthewinners.Viewersgottoseebehindthescenesattheauditions,aswellasthemorepolishedperformancesofthefinalcontestantswhotookpartinvarietyshows.Thus,viewersobserved‘talentinthemaking’andalsoactedasexternaljudgesinanationaltalentcontest.IntheUK,Popstarswasahugesuccess,buttheformuladidnotworksowellforSoapstars,whichonlymanagedtoattract6millionviewers.20PopstarswassosuccessfulthatitledtothecreationofPopIdol(ITV,2002–),andFameAcademy(BBC,2003–),whichwentontodobattleintheSaturdaynightratingswar.In2003,PopIdolattracteda45percentmarketshare(11millionviewers),andFameAcademya34percentmarketshare(8millionviewers).21ThesuccessofPopIdolledtothecreationofWorldIdol(19TV,2003),aspin-offshowthat‘pitchedeleveninternationalPopIdolwinnersagainsteachother’.22WorldIdolwasshownintwenty-twodifferentcountries,withvaryingdegreesofsuccess–inAustraliaitwasthehighestratedshowonChristmasDay(NetworkTen),inNorway‘athirdofthepopulationwatchedtheresults,makingitthehighestratedshowinbroadcasterTV2’shistory’,whilsttheshow‘provedtobeaturkey’forITV1inBritain,andproduceddisappointingratingsfortheFoxnetworkinAmerica.23AnotherpopularrealitygameshowformatisthatofI’maCelebrity…GetMeOutofHere!ThefirstseriesofI’maCelebrity…attracted7.7millionviewers(34percentshare).Thesecondseriesincreaseditsaverageratingsto9.4millionviewers(38percentshare),andthefinaleattracted12millionviewers(50percentmarketshare),makingittheseventhmostpopularprogrammeontelevisionin2003.24Thethirdseriesdidevenbetter,withanaverageaudienceof10.4millionviewers(42percentshare),25andthefinaleattracted15.7millionviewers,witha 34TheriseofrealityTVstaggering61percentshare.26Theformatinvolvedagroupofcelebrities,wholivedtogetherforseveralweeksinapurpose-builtcampintheAustralianrainforest.Thecelebritiesunderwentvarious‘bushtuckertrials’,suchascrawlingthroughconfinedspaceswithhundredsofrats,inordertowinfoodforthecamp.Viewersvotedcelebritiesoutofthecampuntiltherewasonlyonekingorqueenofthejungle.Theuseofcelebritieswascentraltotheformat’ssuccess.Thehighestratedepisodesoftheserieswerealwayswhencertaincelebritieswerefacedwithemotionallydifficultsituations,and/orbecameromanticallyinvolvedwithoneanother.Thus,inthethirdseries(2004),theargumentsbetweentheglamourmodelJordanandthepunkrockmusicianJohnnyRottonwereespeciallypopularwithviewers(11million,46percentshare);likewisetheflirtationsbetweenpopmusicianPeterAndréandJordanwerealsopopularwithviewers(10million,42percentshare).27TheformatissimilartoSurvivor,butitisalsodifferentinthatitplacescelebritiesunderpressure,ratherthanordinarypeople.CastawayTVthreatenedcourtproceedings,whichwerelaterwithdrawnin2003,preciselybecausethecompanythatownedtherightstoSurvivorfeltthatGranada(themakersofI’maCelebrity…)hadcopiedtheSurvivorformat.CBS(themakersoftheAmericanversionofSurvivor)alsoissuedcourtproceedingsagainstGranada.TheCBScourtcaseagainstGranadawasunsuccessful,andCastawayTVwithdrewitsallegations.InthecaseofCBS,thejudgesaidthatI’maCelebrity…didnotborrowmoresubstantiallyfromSurvivorthanothertypesofUSrealitygameshows.Oneofthereasonswhythecasewasunsuccessfulwasbecausethejudgethoughtthatprogrammemakingwasa‘continualevolutionaryprocessinvolvingborrowingfrequentlyfromwhathasgonebefore’.28TheI’maCelebrity…andSurvivorcopycatcase,alongwiththeSurvivorandBigBrothercopycatcase,illustratehowrealitygameshowsfreelyborrowelementsfromexistingformatsinthetelevisionmarketplace.ThesuccessfulexportofrealitygameshowsfromEuropetotheUSAoccurredatthesametimeasgameshowsexperiencedaresurgenceininternationaltrade–WhoWantstobeaMillionaire?wasdescribedbytheNewYorkTimes,as‘England’smostsuccessfulculturalexportinthelast30years’(citedinBoddy2001:81).Survivorratednumberoneinnetworkpeaktime(27millionviewers)andearnedCBSduringthefinalthreeepisodesanestimated$50millioninadvertisingrevenue.Afterthe‘smashhit’ofSurvivor,thenetworksscrambledtoglutthemarketwithawinningformulaofgameshow,observationaldocumentaryandhighdrama.TemptationIsland,Fox’sanswertoSurvivor,involvedfourunmarriedcouplesona‘paradiseisland’.Thecoupleswereseparatedfromtheirpartners,andforcedtofraternisewitheligiblesingleson‘dreamdates’,beforebeingreunitedinafinalshowdown.Theheadymixtureofpassionandbetrayal,islandlocation,attractivecontestants, TheriseofrealityTV35stagedflirtationsandsurveillancefootageallmadeforafascinating,morallydubiousrealitygameshow–asonecontestantexplained,‘it’slikebeingabletogodownandtakepartinthePepsiChallengebuthavetheladiesbetheactualsoftdrink’.TemptationIslandattractedmorethan16millionviewers,mainlyinthe18–49demographic,andgaveNBCdramaTheWestWingarunforitsmoney.However,aftertwoseriesitwasaxed,althoughABC’santi-TemptationIsland,TheLastResort(2001–),wherecouplesindistresstriedtopatchthingsupinHawaii,suggeststheseriesmightbedueforarevival.OtherrealityshowsincludeJapanese-styleextremegameshowFearFactor(Fox,2001–),datingrealitygameshowJoeMillionaire(Fox,2002–),andtheUSversionofPopIdol,AmericanIdol(Fox,2002–).BigBrotherwasnotahitinitsfirstseasononNBC(thefinaleranked18inthenetworkprimetimetop20).ThereasonsforitslackofsuccesswerepartlybecauseBigBrotherranalongsideSurvivor,andpartlybecausethemundanityoftheBigBrotherhouse,whichEuropeanaudiencesfoundsoenthralling,failedtoenlivenAmericanviewers.AccordingtoEllis(2001),thefailureofBigBrotherwasrelatedtopoorcasting,andthefactthatitwasliveandhastilyeditedfornightlyreview,whereasSurvivorwaswellcast,editedafterfilminghadfinished,andcarefullyputtogethertomaximisedrama.Conversely,Survivor(ITV,2000–)didnotfarewellintheUK,withratingslowerthan5million,preciselybecauseitdidnotinvolveinteractionwithviewers,andwaspre-packagedforthem,ratherthanfilmedlive(Ellis2001).AlthoughNeilsonratingsforthefirstseriesofBigBrothersuggestitwastheliveevictionshowsthatattractedmostviewers(justasinEurope),laterseriessoughttominimisetherisksofliveTVbyintroducingalongertimedelaybetweenactualeventsandthenightlyreviewsoftheBigBrotherhouse.29AsimilarstrategywasadoptedforChannel4’sTeenBigBrother(2003)intheUK,althoughinthisinstancethemini-serieswaspre-recordedandtransmittedoveroneweek.Aswithdocu-soaps,realitygameshowsarereliantonpeaktimeschedulingfortheirsuccess.Mostrealitygameshowsarescheduledbetween7pmand10pmonAmericannetworkandcableTV.And,likedocu-soaps,realitygameshowsgohead-to-headintheschedules.Forexample,duringthesummerof2002,first-runrealityTVdominatedprimetimeschedules,withsevenofthetoptenshowsinthe18–49-year-olddemographicgroupbelongingtorealitygameshows.Duringmidweek,viewerscouldchoosefromTheBachelor(FamilyChannel),DogEatDog(NBC),MeetMyFolks(NBC),AmericanIdol(Fox),MoleII:theNextBetrayal(ABC)andBigBrother3(NBC),withBigBrother,TheBachelorandAmericanIdolcompetingagainsteachotherduringthesametimeslotonthesamenight.AlthoughJeffZucker,presidentofNBCEntertainment,claimsthat‘youhavetoprogrameverythingfromTheWestWingtoFearFactor’,schedulersareclearlyusingrealitygameshowsinaratingswar.30 36TheriseofrealityTVThefiercecompetitionbetweenrealitygameshowsinpeaktimeispartlytodowithincreasedcostsintheproductionofrealityshowslikeAmericanIdol(approximately$800,000perhour),whichplacespressureonproducersandschedulerstorecouprevenueduringhigh-profilefirst-runs.TheschedulingofrealitygameshowsintheUKisnotquiteascompetitive,primarilybecauseBritishschedulershavecontinuedtopositiondocu-soaps,lifestyleprogrammingandinfotainmentatpeaktime,andsorealitygameshowsarepartofthemixofpopularfactualtelevisiononofferfrom7pmto11pm.EventrealitygameshowssuchasI’maCelebrity…GetMeOutofHere!areoftenscheduledbeforethelateeveningnewsbulletin,andcanincreaseaudiencesofnewsbulletins.Forexample,thethirdseriesofI’maCelebrity…wasscheduledbeforeITVnewsat10.30pm;theratingsforITVnewswereashighas4.4million(24percentshare)duringtheshowingofI’maCelebrity…,butdroppedbyalmosthalfto2.4million(16percentshare)aftertherealitygameshowhadfinished.31Duringmidweekinthesummerof2002,viewerscouldchoosefromdocu-soapsVetsintheWildWest,andAirport,andmakeovershowDIYSOSonBBC1(7–9pm),tabloidTVSoapStarLives,makeovershowCarolVorderman’sBetterHomes,anddatinggameshowElimidateonITV(7–11pm),lifestyle/heritageseriesTheRealCountryHouseandBigBrother3onChannel4(8.30–10.30pm),andlifestyleseriesHotPropertyandHouseDoctoronChannel5(8–9pm).Althoughthiswasapackeditineraryforanydie-hardfanofrealityprogramming,BigBrotherandElimidateweretheonlyrealitygameshowsonoffer(overlappingfrom10pmto11pm),whilstitwaslifestyleprogramminganddocu-soapsthatcompetedforfamilyviewers.Thisisnottosaythatrealitygameshowsnevergohead-to-headintheschedules;theBBCtookonITVinthefightfortheSaturdaynightlightentertainmentslotbyschedulingthesecondseriesofFameAcademyagainstthesecondseriesofPopIdolandlosttheratingsbattle.Butinfotainmentanddocu-soapshavesecuredastrongplaceinBritishmidweekeveningschedules.ThetopfiveBritishpopularfactualprogrammesof2003includedrealitygameshows(I’maCelebrity…),infotainment(NeighboursfromHell),docu-soaps(Airport),lifestyle(DIYSOS),andlifeexperimentprogrammes(HolidayShowdown).32Lifeexperimentprogrammesarearecentdevelopmentintherealitygenre.Partsocialexperiment,partmakeover,andpartgameshow,lifeexperimentprogrammesusuallyinvolveordinarypeopleexperimentingwiththeirlivesinvariousdifferentways.Forexample,therearelifeexperimentrealityprogrammeswheretheexperimentinvolveslivingwithanotherfamily(WifeSwap,Channel4,2003–),livingwithyourfamily(TakeMyMother-in-law,ITV1,2003–),goingonholidaywithanotherfamily(HolidayShowdown,ITV1,2003–),learninganother TheriseofrealityTV37profession(FakingIt,Channel4,2001–),masqueradingasaman/woman(GenderSwap,Five,2003–),livingwithoutan‘essential’item(YouCanLiveWithout…,Channel4,2003–),livingbydomesticrulesimposedbyotherpeople(TrustMe,I’maTeenager,BBC2,2003–),managinganotherbusiness(BossSwap,Channel4,2003–),beingamasterofservants,andbeingaservanttomasters(MastersandServants,Channel4,2003–).Inalloftheseexamples,theordinarypeoplearefilmedastheyexperiencethetrialsandtribulationsofliving/workinginanalternativemannertothatwhichtheyareusedtointheireverydaylives.Lifeexperimentprogrammesareabouttransformation,asordinarypeopleexperimentwithdifferentlifestyles,values,andworkanddomesticarrangements.Sometimestheexperimentendswithalife-affirmativemessage–theparticipantswanttochangetheirlivesforthebetter;moreoftentheexperimentendswithanegativemessage–theparticipantsarejudgementalofotherpeopleandtheirdifferentlifeexperiences.WifeSwapisanexampleofapopularlifeexperimentformat.TheseriesideaoriginatedfromaseriesofdiscussionswiththeChannel4commissioningeditor,documentaries(HilaryBell),andthedirectorofprogrammesforRDFMedia(StephenLambert).LambertproposedaseriescalledWifeSwap,andBellresponded:‘itwassuchagreattitle,itjustmademelaughandyoucanimagineitinthelistingmagsand,onthatbasis,Isaid“Ohfuckit,let’scommissionit”’.33ThefirstseriesofWifeSwap(Channel4,2003)attractedanaudienceof6million.TheserieswontheBroadcastinternationalprogrammesalesawardin2004.TheserieshasbeenacquiredbyFrance(M6),Denmark(TV3),theNetherlands(RTL4),Australia(NetworkNine)andNewZealand(TVNZ),andtheformathasbeenboughtbyAmerica(ABC),Norway(TV3),Germany(RTL),Belgium(VTM),Spain(Zeppelin),andGreece(Freemantle).34Typically,WifeSwapinvolvesexperimentationwithdifferentlifestyles,valuesandpersonalcircumstances,forexampleasinglemotherwithsixchildrenwillswapwithaworkingmotheroftwo,orthemotherofawhiteBritishfamilywillswapwiththemotherofablackBritishfamily.Althoughallofthefamiliesprofesstolearnfromtheexperiment,itisrarelythecasethatpersonalcircumstanceschangedramaticallyuponthereturnofthewife/mothertoherownfamily.Moreoftenthannotthewives/motherscriticiseeachotherregardingtheirdomesticarrangements,thecleanlinessoftheirhomes,ortheirparentingskills.TherehasalsobeenaCelebrityWifeSwap,involvingacontestantinBigBrother3knownforheroutspokenness,andacontestantofWhoWantstobeaMillionaire?knownforhisdeception.AndwhatofthefutureofrealityTV?Television’sabilitytoendlesslyreinventitselfmeansthathybridrealityformatscontinuetobeapopularchoiceforproducersandexecutives(Kilborn2003).TheformatsforrealityTV–infotainment,docu-soaps,lifestyleprogramming,reality 38TheriseofrealityTVgameshows,andothers–donotlendthemselvestorepeatviewing.Indeed,theyquicklybecomeyesterday’snews.Realityformatsprovideanever-endingfreshsupplyofnon-professionalactorsinnewseriesofexistingformats.BigBrother,SurvivorandPopstarsarecasesinpoint,asminorchangestotheformats,suchasanewhouse/island/panelofjudges,allowtelevisionproducerstocreatenewseriesoutofessentiallythesameshows.And,ofcourse,noseriesofSurvivorisexactlythesame,asthecontestantsarenewtotelevision.Theproblemisthatcontestantsinrealitygameshowslearnhowtobehavefrompreviousseries,andtherecanbeanelementofparodytotheirperformances.Thus,inBigBrother3/4intheUK,contestantstalkedendlesslyabouthowtheywouldbeperceivedbythepublicandthemedia,knowingthatonceoutofthehousetheywouldbemediastars,evenifonlyforaday.Indeed,somecontestantshavealreadyappearedonotherrealityTVshows,andthereisadangerofrepeatperformersfloodingauditionsforrealitygameshows(KilbornandHibbard2000).Itisnosurprise,therefore,thatonedevelopmentwithintherealitygameshowistoincludemediacelebritiesascontestants.CelebrityBigBrother(Channel4)takescelebritiesandturnstheminto‘ordinarypeople’,beforereleasingthembackintotheworldofthemedia.AnotherexampleisofarealityprogrammethatusescelebritiesratherthanordinarypeopleisI’maCelebrity…GetMeOutofHere!ThetrendinAmericaforcelebritydocu-soaps,suchasTheOsbournes(MTV,2001–)orTheAnnaNicoleShow(E!,2002–),relyonjustthispremise.Itisinevitablethattheparticipantsofrealityprogrammeswillbeinvitedascelebritiesonothercelebrity-basedrealityprogrammes.BacktoReality(Five,2004–)isacaseinpoint,wherecelebritiesfromavarietyofpopularfactualprogrammesareinvitedtoparticipateinarealitygameshowthatinvolveslivinginapurpose-builtmansion,undertakingvarioustasks,andbeingeliminatedbyviewers.Wecanalsoseetheriseofdocu-drama,ordramadocumentaries,asdirectlyrelatedtothesuccessofpopularfactualtelevisioninpeaktimeschedules.Populardocu-dramassuchasPornography:theMusical(Channel4,2003)orfilmssuchasTheDayBritainStopped(BBC,2003)indicatethecrossoversbetweenrealityprogrammesanddocu-drama.TheBBChavecreatedanewrolewithintheirFactualandLearningdivisionforaproducerofcurrentaffairsdocu-drama,inordertotapintonewaudiencesforcurrentaffairs.35Finally,letusnotforgetthesignificanceofsurveillancefootage;asrealitygameshowsmoveintotherealmofpopularentertainmentandperformancebecomesevenmorecentraltothesuccessofcontestants,rawfootageofpeoplegoingabouttheirbusinesswithnoknowledgetheyarebeingfilmedwillinevitablyreappearonourtelevisionscreens.ThesuccessofTheSecretPoliceman,anundercoverinvestigativedocumentaryaboutracismintheBritishpoliceforce,indicatesaudienceattractiontosurveillancefootage,as5millionpeoplewatchedtheone-offdocumentary.ItwonaRoyal TheriseofrealityTV39TelevisionSocietyaward,andtheBBChavecommissionedaseriesofsimilarundercoverinvestigationsintopublicsectorinstitutions.36CONCLUSIONTheriseofrealityTVcameatatimewhennetworkswerelookingforaquickfixsolutiontoeconomicproblemswithintheculturalindustries.Increasedcostsintheproductionofdrama,sitcomandcomedyensuredunscripted,popularfactualprogrammingbecameaviableeconomicoptionduringthe1990s.Thederegulationandmarketisationofmediaindustries,especiallyinAmericaandWesternEurope,alsocontributedtotheriseofrealityTV,asitperformedwellinacompetitive,multichannelenvironment.RealityTVhasitsrootsintabloidjournalismandpopularentertainment,butitowesitsgreatestdebttodocumentarytelevision,whichhasalmostdisappearedfromtelevisionscreensinthewakeofpopularfactualprogramming.Documentarytelevision,a‘dutygenre’,haswitheredonthevineduringadecadeofthecommercialisationofpublicservicechannels.AlthoughthepopularityofrealityTVcomesatacost,thereishopethatitsverysuccessinpeaktimeisthe‘priceofsurvival’fordocumentary(Winston2000).Asforrealityprogramming,themainformats–infotainment,docu-soap,lifestyleandrealitygameshow–weresuccessfulinthe1990sandearly2000sbecausetheydrewonexistingpopulargenres,suchassoapoperaorgameshows,tocreatehybridprogrammes.Inaddition,thesehybridformatsfocusedontellingstoriesaboutrealpeopleandrealeventsinanentertainingstyle,usuallyforegroundingvisuals,characterisationandnarrativeaboveallelse.Itisthe‘seeithappen’styleofrealityprogrammingthatmakesitappealingtoaudiences,andtheratingssuccessofinfotainment,docu-soaps,lifestyleandrealitygameshowsistestamenttothemassappealofentertainmentstoriesaboutrealpeoplecaughtoncamera.Popularfactualtelevisionhasbeenthemotorofpeaktimethroughoutthe1990s,drawingattimesunprecedentedmarketsharesofover50percent,andregularlyappearinginthetop20showsonnetworkTV.Withsuchhighratings,itsplaceinpeaktimeschedulesisassuredforsometimetocome.Inaddition,popularfactualformatsareinternationalbestsellers,withlocalversionsofRescue911,ChangingRooms,BigBrother,andWifeSwapappearingallovertheworld.Onlythedocu-soap,auniquelyBritishformat,hasfailedtotravelwell,althoughithasemergedinsomewhatalteredformasthecelebritydocu-soap.Allinall,realityprogrammingisanextraordinarysuccessstory,anexampleoftelevision’sabilitytocannibaliseitselfinordertosurviveinacommerciallyuncertainmediaenvironment.However,thecostsincurredasaresultofitssuccesshavebeenfeltmostbypublicservice 40TheriseofrealityTVbroadcasting,inparticularnews,currentaffairsanddocumentary.Itremainstobeseenwhetherpublicserviceandcommercialnetworkscancontinuetopopularisefactualprogrammingwithoutdoingawaywithtraditionalfactualprogrammingaltogether. Chapter3TherealitygenreThecategoryofrealityTViscommonlyusedtodescribearangeofpopularfactualprogramming.ThereareavarietyofstylesandtechniquesassociatedwithrealityTV,suchasnon-professionalactors,unscripteddialogue,surveillancefootage,hand-heldcameras,seeingeventsunfoldastheyarehappeninginfrontofthecamera.However,thetreatmentof‘reality’inrealityprogramminghaschangedasthegenrehasdevelopedoverthepastdecade.Intheearlystagesofthegenre,realityTVwasassociatedwithon-scenefootageoflawandorder,oremergencyservices.Morerecently,realityTVisassociatedwithanythingandeverything,frompeopletopets,frombirthtodeath.So,howdowecategorisethisdiversegenre?Inthischapter,Ioutlinethecontradictoryandattimesconfusingtermsusedbythetelevisionindustry,scholarsandaudiencestodescribeagenreintransition.JasonMittell(2001:19–20)arguesforanexaminationoftelevisiongenresas‘culturalcategories,unpackingtheprocessesofdefinition,interpretation,andevaluationthatconstitutethesecategories’inordertobetterunderstand‘howgenresworktoshapeourmediaexperiences’.TheprocessofcategorisingrealityTVhighlightstheinherentproblemsforthetelevisionindustry,scholarsandaudiencesindefiningagenrethatbyitsverynatureisconcernedwithmultiplegenericparticipation,andconstantregeneration.RobertAllen(1989),inhisdiscussionofsoapopera,talkedaboutthelimitsofagenreinrelationtotheblurredboundariesbetweenfactandfictionintelevisionsoapoperas.Similarly,BillNichols(1994),inhisbookondocumentary,BlurredBoundaries,discussedthelimitsofthegenrerealityTV.Inthefollowingsections,discussionbythetelevisionindustry,scholarsandaudienceshighlightsthebordercrossingoffactual/fictionaltelevision,andthelimitsofthe‘reality’genre.TELEVISIONINDUSTRYThetelevisionindustryisagoodplacetochartthechanginggenreofrealityTV.Televisionthrivesonnewformats,and,astheprevious 42Therealitygenrechaptershows,televisionoftencannabilisesitself,feedingoffsuccessfulgenresandformatsinordertocreatenewhybridprogrammes.AsBrunsdonetal.(2001)note,itisthehybridisationofsuccessfulgenresthatgivesrealityTVsuchstrongmarketvalue.Thesoapoperaandobservationaldocumentarycametogetherinthecreationofdocu-soapsthatinturndominatedpeaktimeschedulesintheUK(e.g.Airport);thegameshowandobservationaldocumentarycametogetherinthecreationofrealitygameshowsthatinturndominatedprimetimeschedulesintheUSA(e.g.Survivor).PerhapsthemosttraditionalindustrytermforrealityTVisfactualentertainment.Thetermusefullymergesfactualprogrammingwithentertainment-basedtelevision,andhighlightshybridisation,acommongenericfeatureofmostrealityprogrammes.Anothertraditionalindustrytermisthatofpopularfactual,atermthatlinkspopularaudienceswithavarietyoffactualtelevisiongenresandformats.Theindustrytermsoffactualentertainmentandpopularfactualtelevisionareumbrellacategoriesforarangeofformattedaswellasnon-formattedprogrammesandseries.Previously,theBBCusedatelevisiongenrestructurethatdifferentiatedgeneralfromspecialist(history,religion,etc.)factualprogramming.Undergeneralfactualprogramming,thegenreofpopularfactualtelevisionincludedcelebrityprofiles,biographies,archivesandformats,andsportsfactual.Othergenreswithingeneralfactualincludeddocumentaries,leisure,anddaytimefactualprogrammes.However,in2003,theBBCchangedthestructureoffactualgenrestoreflectthechangingnatureoffactualtelevision,andtocreatea‘moreflexibleandfastmovingsystem’.1Thenewgenrestructurecontainssixcategories:documentariesandcontemporaryfactual;specialistfactual;currentaffairsandinvestigations;artsandculture;lifeskills;andnewmedia.2UnderDocumentariesandContemporaryFactualsitsPopularFactualTelevision,withitsowndirectorandcreativeheadofprogramming.ThedepartmentofPopularFactualTelevisioncommissionsformats,celebrityprofilesandentertainingdocumentaries.ThedepartmentofLeisure,alsosubsumedunderDocumentariesandContemporaryFactual,commissionslifestyle,history,relationshipsandpopulardocumentaries.DocumentariesandContemporaryFactualalsoincludesaFeaturesdepartmentthatcommissionspopularcrime,andconsumeraffairsprogrammes.EvenCurrentAffairsandInvestigationscommissionspopularformattedseries,andalsodocu-dramas.Thus,popularfactualcanintheorycomefromanycategorywithinfactualandlearning.Forexample,TheShip,ahistoryexperimentthatrecreatedtheepic1768journeyofCaptainCookaroundthenorth-eastcoastofAustralia,wascommissionedbyBBChistoryandeducation,butitsuseofordinarypeopleaspartoftheexperiment,andfly-on-the-wallfilmingtechniques,madeitdifficulttocategoriseasspecialistdocumentary– Therealitygenre43indeedindustryinsidersdubbedit‘extremehistory’.3TheBBCfactualcommissioningsystemisdesignedtodealwithexactlythistypeofhybridfactualprogramming.OtherBritishterrestrial,satellite,cableanddigitalchannelscategoriserealityTVunderavarietyofheadings.ITVcategorisesrealitygameshowsasEntertainment(TheClub),lifestyleprogrammesappropriatelycomeunderLifestyle(IWantThatHome),butfactualdoesnotfeatureaspartofitsgenrestructure,asoutlinedonitswebsiteforviewers.ThisisperhapsbecausethenumberofcompaniesworkingundertheITVumbrellameanstheoutputoffactualprogrammingcomesfromdifferentdepartments.Forexample,GranadaFeaturesisakeysupplierofpopularfactualtelevisionprogrammesforITV.GranadaFactualsuppliespopularobservationaldocumentariessuchasAirline,andalsorealitygameshowssuchasI’maCelebrity….GranadaEntertainmentmakesrealitytalentshowssuchasPopstars.Thus,classificationfortherealitygenreisdependentonthecompaniesworkingwithinITV,andotherindependentsuppliersofrealityprogramming.Similarly,Channel4categorisesrealityTVunderseveralheadingsonitswebsite.Forexample,realitygameshowsand/ortalentshowscomeunderEntertainment(BigBrother)andalsoCulture(Operatunity),realityhistoryshowscomeunderHistory(TheEdwardianCountryHouse),docu-soapscomeunderanycategory(TheClinicisHealth),andlifestylecomesunderLife(HouseHunting).In2002,Channel4restructureditsfactualoutputinordertoclarifyresponsibilitiesforspecificgenres.ThereisaContemporaryFactualgroup,andwithinitsitsthePopularFactualTelevisiondepartment,andtheDocumentariesdepartment.ThePopularFactualTelevisiondepartmenthousesseveralsubgroups:Features,Daytime,andCrossPlatformEvents.TheDocumentariesdepartmentcommissionspopularobservationalseriesandformattedfactualseries,aswellasdifferenttypesofdocumentaries.ThisbriefoverviewoffactualcommissioningsuggeststhatUKterrestrialchannelsarepositioningpopularfactualprogrammingclosertodocumentary,and,insomecases,currentaffairsandinvestigativejournalism.Themergingofdifferenttypesoffactualprogrammingunderoneroof–documentaryandcontemporaryfactual–speaksvolumesaboutthewayBritishtelevisionhascometorelyonthevarietyofsubgenreswithinpopularfactualtelevisiontomakeupahighquotaofcontemporaryfactualoutput.ThecommercialchannelFiveexplicitlyaddressesthemergerbetweencontemporaryfactualandrealityprogramminginitscompositegenrestructureforpopularfactualtelevisionthatincludesContemporaryBiography,PopularDocumentaries,PopularFactualTelevisionSeries,FormattedManipulatedDocumentaries,RealityFormats,Experiments/Stunts/Events,andFeatures. 44TherealitygenreIntermsofnon-terrestrialchannels,SkyOneproducesmanyin-houserealityformats,suchastheIbizaUncoveredseries,thatfeatureasfactualonSkyOne,andtravelonSkyTravel,andwillsoonfeatureasrealityTVinitsownright,owingtoBSkyB’splanstostreamrealityprogrammesondedicatedchannels.ThecreationofrealityTVnichechannels,suchastheproposedSkyOneReal,orUS-basedRealityTV,andtheproposedRealityCentral,illustratehowthetelevisionindustrycancapitaliseonthegenericbrandingofvarioustypesofpopularfactualprogrammingundertheheadingofrealityTV.TheRealityTVchannelfocusesprimarilyoncrimeandemergencyservicesrealityprogramming,andclipshowsofnear-deathexperiences.RealityCentralproposedtofocusondocumentarygameshowsandtalentshows.IfthenicherealitychannelsweretoincorporatethetypeofflexiblesystemofpopularfactualprogrammingoperatedbyterrestrialchannelsintheUK,thenthechannelscouldscheduledaytime,eveningandlatenightprogrammingaccordingtodifferenttypesofrealityshows–lifestyle(ChangingRooms)andinfotainment(Rescue911)duringthedaytime,observationalpopularfactual(Airport)andformattedpopularfactual(Survivor)duringtheevening,andadultorientedrealityprogramming(SexontheBeach)forlatenightschedules.IntheUSA,contemporaryrealitygameshowsandtalentshowsareclassifiedasrealityTV,whilstolderformats,suchasCops,arealsoclassifiedasrealityTV.ThisuseofthesamegenrecategoryforquitedifferentformatscanbeexplainedbythehistoryofthedefinitionofrealityTV.ThetermoriginallyappearedintheUStelevisionindustryinthe1980s,andwasusefulindefining‘theappealofthe“raw”amidstsomanyinventiveaswellastraditionalvarietiesof“cooking”’(Corner2003:290).AsrealityTVtookoff,otherrealityformatswereproduced,takingthe‘raw’ingredientsofon-sceneemergencyservicesrealityTVandprocessingthemintomore‘cooked’realityformatssuchasrealitygameshows.ThesetwotypesofrealityprogrammingarereflectedinthecontentofthetwoUS-basedrealitychannels.Asmentionedabove,RealityTVfavoursrerunsofmoretraditionalrealityprogramming.RealityCentralfavoursrerunsofrealitygameshows.RealityCentral’sLarryNamerclaimsthat‘realityisnowagenre,justlikeanyother’.4Buttheline-upforRealityCentralsuggeststhechannelisprimarilyinterestedindefiningrealityTVinrelationtocontemporaryratingssuccesses,withreality‘stars’frompopularseriessuchasRichardHatchfromSurvivor,orTristanRehnandRyanSlutterfromTheBachelorette,promotingthechannel.Thus,realityTVintheUSAprimarilyreferstothetypeofformattedpopularfactualthathasdominatedprimetimenetworkschedulessince2000.The43rdMonte-CarloTelevisionFestivalcalledita‘realityexplosion’,withrealityTVheadliningtheFormatsForumin2003.ThetermrealityTVissoflexiblethatitcanbeappliedtoanytypeof Therealitygenre45popularfactualprogrammingtheindustrywantstoselltochannelsandviewersathomeorabroad.IndustryawardsfortelevisionprogrammingcategoriserealityTVundervariousheadings.AtBAFTA2002,FakingIt,aseriesaboutrealpeoplewhotrytofakeitinanotherprofession,wasgiventheFeaturesAward;andPopIdol,arealitytalentshow,wasgiventheEntertainmentAward.AttheIndieAwards2003,FakingItwasgiventheFactualAward;Jamie’sKitchen,afly-on-the-wallseriesaboutthecelebritychefJamieOliver,wasgiventheDocumentaryAward;andPopIdolwasgiventheIndieAward,asthebestindependentproductionof2002.ThevarietyofcategoriesreflectsthesomewhatcomplicatedcategorisationofpopularfactualtelevisionintheUK.IntheUSA,industryawardcategoriesreflectatwo-tiersystemofoldandnewrealityprogramming.TheAcademyofTelevision,ArtsandSciencescreatedtwoEmmyawardcategoriesforrealityTV:formatsthatincludeagameshowelement,andformatsthatseektoentertainbyshowingdramaticincidentsinreallife(agenrehastoberepresentedbyatleastfourteenon-airseriestobecomeacategory).ThepeoplebehindrealityTValsodefinethegenreindifferentways.PeterBazalgettewasdescribedbytheRoyalTelevisionSocietyasamanwho‘changedthetermsoffactualtelevision’.5Bazalgetteisanindependenttelevisionproducer,andresponsibleforleisureformatssuchasChangingRoomsandrealityformatssuchasBigBrother,orFameAcademy.AsheadofthelargestUKindependentproductioncompany,EndemolUK,heisattheforefrontofpopularfactualprogramming:There’sahugefuture–justasthere’sbeenahugepast–inBritishTVforso-calledrealpeopleonTV…Someoftheseso-calledrealityshowsaremorefactual,somearemoreformatted,likePopIdol.Alotofthemusedtobecalleddocumentaries,butpeoplearenowjustmoreinventivewiththem.6ForBazalgette,itishumaninterest,ratherthan‘reality’,thatdefinespopularfactualprogrammes,andheisthereforeresistanttousingthe‘so-called’categoryofrealityTV.GaryCarter,internationaldirectoroflicensingatEndemol,preferstodescribethegenreas‘realityentertainment’.Infact,forCarter,whatismoreimportantisintellectualpropertyratherthancontent.CarterandBazalgetteareprimarilyinterestedin‘anentertainmentidea’thatcanbeinstantlyaccessedbyaudiences/usersacrossdifferenttypesofmedia–TV,radio,telephone,andtheinternet.7Aswehaveseen,thetelevisionindustryisflexibleinitscategorisationofrealityTV.Popularfactualprogrammingcanfitunderarangeoftraditionalcategories,suchasentertainment,and/ortopics,suchashealth,butitcanalsobelabelledasrealityTVwhenbeneficialtothe 46Therealitygenreindustry.PopularandbroadsheetpressdiscussionofrealityTVsuggestssimilaruseofthecategory.Thesuccessofrealitygameshowshasledtomorefrequentuseof‘realityTV’todescribepopularfactual,asthetermisinstantlyrecognisableandinstantlycategorisesprogrammesasaparticulartypeoftelevision,usuallycheap,tasteless,andcompelling.Bonner(2003:23)chartstheuseoftheterminfotainment,anearlyprecursorofrealityTV,inherbookOrdinaryTelevision.ThetermwasfirstusedintheUSAintheearly1980sinordertodescribetypesofprogrammingthatblurredboundariesbetweenfactandfiction.Butitwasnotuntiltheearly1990s,wheninfotainmentshowssuchasRescue911performedstronglyinthetelevisionmarketathomeandabroad,thatthecategorybegantobeusedonamoreregularbasis.Journalistsreportingontheriseoftherealitygenrestruggledtodescribetheprogrammes,usingtermssuchaspopularfactualtelevision,realpeopleshows,infotainment,topicalfeatures,on-scenerealityshows,tabloidTV,etc.,beforesettlingfortheinterchangeableterms,realityTV,realitygenre,orrealityshows(seeHolmesandJermyn2003).Cornerreflectsontheuseoftheterm‘realityTV’todescribewhatwasperceivedbytheBritishpressasanAmericanimportpretendingtobedocumentarywhenitwasreallyentertainment(2003:291).In1997,anarticleinTheJournaloftheRoyalTelevisionSocietybemoaned‘realpeopleTV’,whilstthebroadsheetUKnewspapertheGuardiancriticised‘VictimTV’.8In1999,theLondonlistingsmagazineTimeOutpublishedapolemicon‘edutainment’,askingwhy‘documentariesthatmerelyinformaresopassé?’,whilstthebroadsheetnewspapertheObserverpublishedapolemicon‘conflictTV’.9In2000,theIndependentinterviewedJohndeMol,thecreatorofBigBrother,callingthegenre‘realityprogramming’,‘psychoTV’,and‘deprivationalvoyeurism’.10SincethesuccessofBigBrother,thevarioustermsusedtodescribepopularfactualprogramminghavemainlydisappeared,tobereplacedby‘reality’TV/genre/show.TheGuardianwebsitehasaspecialsectiondevotedtoarchivearticlesaboutrealityTV.TheGuardianalsorananarticlein2003stating‘RealityTVisHeretoStay’,anindicationofthestrengthofthecategoryof‘realityTV’asmuchastheratingssuccessofthegenreasawhole.11TELEVISIONSCHOLARSSincetheearly1990stelevisionscholarshavedefinedrealityTVinavarietyofdifferentways.SteveNeale(2001:3)pointsoutthat‘thereisagenericaspecttoallinstancesofculturalproduction,andthattheseinstancesareusuallymultiple,notsingle,inkind’.IntermsofrealityTV,thereare‘numerousaspects’,‘numerousmeanings’, Therealitygenre47and‘numerousanalyticaluses’ofthegenrewithintheacademiccommunity(ibid.).OneoftheearliestdiscussionsofthegenreisbyRichardKilbornwhopointsoutthat‘realityprogramming,orrealitytelevisionasitissometimescalled,is…aterm[that]hasbecomesomethingofacatch-allphrase’(1994:423).AsKilbornsuggests,realityTVcaninclude‘slice-of-lifeobservationalmodesofdocumentaryfilmmaking’,‘fictionaldramarootedinreal-lifesituations’,andalsoinfotainment,orwhatKilborncallsrealityprogramming:‘therecordingonthewing…ofeventsinthelivesofindividualsorgroups,theattempttosimulatesuchreal-lifeeventsthroughvariousformsofdramatisedreconstructionandtheincorporationofthismaterial…intoanattractivelypackagedtelevisionprogramme’(ibid.).InamorerecentaccountofrealityTV(2003)Kilbornarguesthattheterms‘realityTV’or‘realityprogramming’have‘beenusedtocoverabroadrangeofpopularfactualformatsandhave,forthisreasonprobablyoutlivedtheircriticalusefulness’(2003:55).Kilbornsuggestsitwouldbemoreusefultorefertorealityprogrammesas‘realityformats’because‘theterm“format”bothunderscoresthecommerciallydrivenneedofbroadcasterstoproduceworkaccordingtoestablishedformulaeanddrawsattentiontothecrucialimportanceofpackaginginthedevelopmentofaprogrammeconcept’(ibid.).Kilborn’scategorisationofrealityprogrammesasrealityformatsindicatesthesignificanceoftheproductioncontexttohisunderstandingoftherealitygenre.Kilborn’searlierdefinitionoftherealitygenrewasechoedbyChadRaphael,whooptedfortheterm‘reali-TV’as‘anumbrellatermforanumberofprogrammingtrends’onUStelevisionsincethelate1980s(1997:102).AnotherearlydiscussionofthegenreisbyBillNichols(1994)inBlurredBoundaries,abookondocumentarythatincludesachaptertitled‘AttheLimitsofReality(TV)’.ForNichols,realityTV‘includesallthoseshowsthatpresentdangerousevents,unusualsituations,oractualpolicecases,oftenre-enactingaspectsofthemandsometimesenlistingourassistanceinapprehendingcriminalsstillatlarge’(1994:45).Thus,tabloidnewsprogrammesandinfotainmentsitwithinhisdefinitionofthegenre.HealsoreferstosoapoperaasaninfluentialgenrewithinrealityTV,somethingthatwouldbepickeduplaterbyscholarsindiscussionofthedocu-soap.Inasimilarvein,IbBondebjerg(1996)highlightstheblurredboundariesbetweenfactandfictioninhisarticleon‘true-life-story’genres.Here,tabloidjournalismbecomesakeyinfluenceonarangeofgenresthatincorporatetrue-life-stories,includinginfotainmentandhumaninterestdocumentaries.Inamorerecentarticle,Bondebjerg(2002:171–2)identifies‘threebasicsub-formsofrealityTV’:thedocu-soap(‘characterisedbyalinktorealitythroughitscharactersandsettings’);the 48Therealitygenrereality-magazine(‘presentingcasesfromreallife,mostlyaboutcrimeandaccidents,orotherspectacularhumanintereststories’);andthereality-show(‘aserializedformofgameshowwhereordinarypeopleareputinextraordinarysituationsinordertocooperatewithandcompeteagainstoneanother’).JohnCornerhasconsistentlyaddresseddevelopmentswithinnewsanddocumentary,andrealityTV.InhisbookTelevisionFormandPublicAddressCornerdiscussedearlyexamplesof‘real-life’programmingthatcontaineda‘mixofentertainingdramaanddocumentary/currentaffairsexposition’(1995:20).Corner’sinterestinthe‘capacitywhichtelevisionhastoletpeople“seeforthemselves”’(1995:30)ensuredawatchfuleyeamongmediascholarsonthedevelopmentofrealityTVoverthenextfewyears.Inareviewofdocumentarystudiesin2000Corneroutlinedseveralphasesinpopularfactualtelevision:Ahugeexpansionofactuality-basedprogramming…hasappropriateddocumentary’sfundamentaldynamicsforaverywiderangeofmoresensationalandalsomorecasualuses.Inthefirstphase,popularfactualtelevisionwas‘realitytelevision’,withafocusontheworkofpoliceandemergencyservices…Initssecondphase,inBritainandelsewhere,thereemergedthe‘docu-soap’,aformofnoseysociabilitywhichhastobeseennotonlyinrelationtothesoapoperabuttotheappealofthenewdaytimetalkshows…Inthelastfewyears,itispossibletoseeathirdphaseofdevelopment,whatwemightcallthe‘docushow’phase…(egthoseaboutcookery,DIY…).Togetherwiththoseshowswhichhaveadoptedtheframingandparticipantrolesofagame,perhapswithtime-limitsaspartoftherules(gamedocs?),thesehaveprovidedinnovativekindsofinfotainmentmixbydrawingextensivelyonthedocumentarymode.(2000:687)CornerdeliberatelylocatesrealityTVwithintheframeworkofdocumentary,summarisingdifferenttypesofrealityTVas‘documentary-lite’.However,heisalsocarefultosituaterealityTVinrelationtootherpopulargenres,suchassoapoperas,talkshows,gameshows,allgenresthathaveinfluencedformatswithintherealitygenre.Indeed,CornergoessofarastosuggestthatrealityTV,inallitsvariousguises,haspushedthelimitsoftherealitygenre,andinturnhaspushedthelimitsofdocumentary.Hesuggeststhat‘thinkingoutsideandbeyondthedocumentarycategory’canhelpustounderstandthe‘realities’infactualandfictionaltelevision(2002b:155).InCorner’s‘postdocumentaryculture’,realitytelevisionislessaboutgenreandmoreaboutthetreatmentof‘realities’inthe‘bordercrossing’betweenfactandfiction(2002b:156). Therealitygenre49MosttelevisionscholarswhodiscussrealityTVtendtoincludeavarietyoftelevisiongenresintheirdefinitionsofthe‘realitygenre’preciselybecauserealityTVborrowsfromsomanydifferentexistinggenres.Dovey(2000),forexample,inhisbookFreakshow:FirstPersonMediaandFactualTelevision,considerstheproliferationof‘subjective,autobiographicalandconfessionalmodesofexpression’(first-personmedia)withininfotainment,docu-soapsandtalkshows.Humm(1998)isalsointerestedinfirst-personmedia,butchartsthetrendin‘realpeopleshows’tolightentertainment,lifestyleandgameshows,aswellasdocumentary.Brunsdonetal.(2001)discusspopularfactualtelevisioninrelationtotwomainstrands–docu-soapandlifestyleprogrammes.Forsomescholars,eventhesubgenreswithinrealityTVaretheresultofacomplexborrowingfromothertelevisiongenres.Turner(2001:7)describeslifestyleprogrammesascontaining‘thefollowingtelevisiongenres:gameshows,soapopera,reality-TVor“fly-on-the-walldocumentary”,confessionaltalkshows,daytimeproduct-basedtalkshows,andgardeningadviceprogrammes’.Hartleydefinesinfotainmentasacombinationoflifestyle,realityTV,tabloidnews,investigativejournalism,talkshowsandanimalseries(Hartley2001b).Scholarsofpopularfactualtelevisioncanbeindangerofgenreoverloadwhendefiningtherealitygenre.Itisalltooeasytostrayintotheouterlimitsoftherealitygenre.Aswesawwiththediscussionof‘so-calledrealityTV’intheprevioussection,thetelevisionindustrypushestheboundariesofpopularfactualtelevisiontocreatenewhybridformats.CornertouchedononeofthecoreissuesinthedefinitionofrealityTV:byitsverynaturepopularfactualentertainmentsitsinthespacesbetweenfactandfiction.JaneRoscoeandCraigHight(2001),intheirbookFakingIt,haveidentifiedtheflexible,self-reflexive,andlimitlessappealoffact/fictionformats.RoscoeandHightassertthatratherthanthinkingabouta‘fact/fictiondichotomy’,they‘prefertothinkaboutdocumentaryasexistingalongafact–fictionalcontinuum,eachtextconstructingrelationshipswithbothfactualandfictionaldiscourses’(2001:7).Theirperspectiveondocumentarydrawsonexistingargumentswithindocumentarystudiesabouttheevidentialstatusofdocumentaryasarecordofreality,and/oracreativetreatmentofreality:Documentarydoesnotprovideanunmediatedviewoftheworld,norcanitliveuptoitsclaimstobeamirroronsociety.Rather,likeanyfictionaltext,itisconstructedwithaviewtoproducingcertainversionsofthesocialworld…Eventhoughwemayagreethatdocumentaryrepresentationsareasconstructedasfictionalones,thestancethatdocumentarytakestowardthesocialworldisonethatisgroundedonabeliefthatitcanaccessthereal.(2001:8) 50TherealitygenreThecontinuumbetweenfactandfictionisausefulwaytothinkoftherelationshipbetweencontemporaryfactualprogrammingandthevarioustypesofpopularfactualtelevisionthatmakeuptherealitygenre.Thereisafact/fictioncontinuumbetweencontemporarydocumentariesandpopularfactualtelevision.Thereisalsoaslidingscaleoffactualityinrealityprogramming.AtthefarendofthecontinuumaremoreinformativebasedprogrammessuchasAnimalHospital,andattheotherendaredocumentarygameshowssuchasSurvivor.Inthenextsection,televisionaudiencestalkaboutthestatusofrealityTVincontemporaryfactualtelevision.TELEVISIONAUDIENCESGiventhevarietyofcategoriesforrealityTVusedwithinthetelevisionindustry,andbytelevisionscholars,itisnosurprisethattelevisionaudienceshaveseveraldefinitionsforrealityprogramming.InfocusgroupdiscussionswithBritishtelevisionviewers,Iencounteredthefollowingunprompteddefinitionsofrealityprogrammes:‘peopleprogrammes’;‘documentariesofthereallife’;‘public,reallifesortofthing’;‘fly-on-the-wallstuff’;‘sortofalmostrealityprogrammes’.Thefollowingcommentbya26-year-oldestateagentsummedupthewayviewersperceivedthegeneralcontentofpopularfactualprogrammesas‘reallifedocumentaries,likethingswhichhavehappenedtopeople,peoplegettingevicted,youknow,camerasfollowingpeoplearound’.Thus,viewersequatedrealityTVwith‘camerasfollowingpeoplearound’.WhenconductingaudienceresearchwithviewersofrealityTV,oneofthefirstissuestoovercomewastofindaneutralcategoryforrealityprogrammes.Ichosetousethephrase‘entertainmentprogrammesaboutrealpeople’,andthenamesofindividualprogrammestopromptdiscussion(seeAppendix2).However,participantsquicklypickeduponthelackofclarityinmydefinition–oneparticipantasked‘haveyougotanameforthemall?’(31-year-old-housewife),andwhenIshookmyheadshelaughed.Asviewerswerelefttotheirowndevicesastohowtodefinerealityprogramming,discussionoftenfocusedonwhentheprogrammeswereon,andthedifferencesbetweenrealityprogrammes.Inthefinalsectionofthischapter,Iwanttoillustratethesignificanceofschedulingandsubgenreswithinrealityprogrammingtoaudienceawarenessandevaluationofpopularfactualtelevision.Inthepreviouschapter,Idiscussedthesignificanceofschedulingtotheviewingexperienceofpopularfactualtelevision.FollowingJohnEllis’accountofschedulingasindicativeofthepoweroftelevisiontoattractandmaintainviewers(2000),theschedulingforBritishpopularfactualprogrammingisprimarilyfrom6pmto11pm,themostcompetitiveand Therealitygenre51mostcovetedslotintheschedule.12Thus,viewersaremostlikelytowatchpopularfactualafterthesixo’clocknews,inbetweensoapoperas,drama,andoccasionallightentertainment,andbeforetheteno’clocknewsontheterrestrialchannels.Thisviewingexperienceisonethatismostconducivetowatchingarangeofpopularfactualoutput.Realityprogrammesarepartofthelandscapeoftheeveningschedule,bridgingthedividebetweentraditionalfactualtelevision(news)andtraditionalfictionaltelevision(soaps,drama,andlightentertainment).Inlaterchapters,Iconsidertheviewingexperienceforpopularfactualtelevisioninrelationtoviewingstrategiesforfactualandfictionalprogramming,buthereIwanttocommentonhowthescheduleisakeyfactorinthewayaudiencesdefinetherealitygenre.Perhapsoneofthekeyreasonswhythedifferentsubgenreswithinpopularfactualprogrammingaresosuccessfulintheratingsisbecausetheyappealtoabroadrangeofoccasionalviewers.RegularviewersofrealityTVareoftenintheminority,orlocatedaroundaneventshowsuchasI’maCelebrity…GetMeOutofHere!ThetypesofpopularfactualtelevisionprogrammeswatchedmostoftenacrossarangeofBritishviewersin2000were:police/crimeprogrammes(e.g.PoliceCameraAction!)watchedeitherregularlyoroccasionallyby72percentofadultsand71percentofchildren;‘places’programmes(e.g.Airport)–71percentofadultsand75percentofchildren;home/gardenshows(e.g.ChangingRooms)–67percentofadultsand84percentofchildren(Hill/ITC2000).Ifwebreakthesefiguresdownaccordingtoregularandoccasionalviewerswefindtheseprogrammesaremorelikelytoattractoccasionaladultviewers.Police/crimeprogrammeswerewatchedregularlyby24percentofadults,andoccasionallyby48percentofadults;‘places’programmes31percent(regular)and40percent(occasional)ofadults;home/gardenshows26percent(regular)and41percent(occasional)ofadults.Thepicturewasthesameforchildren,exceptregardingprogrammesaboutpets,andhome/gardenshowswhichattractedanevenmixofregularandoccasionalyoungviewers–e.g.home/gardenshowswerewatchedby44percent(regular)and40percent(occasional)ofyoungviewers(seeChapter6forfurtherdiscussion).Whydoespopularfactualprogrammingattractsomanyoccasionalviewers?These12–13yearoldboyscommentedonschedulinginrelationtotheirviewinghabits:Michael:Yeah,ChangingRoomsisafterEastEnders.Garry:WhichisprobablywhyIwatchit.Ed:Icanfindbetterthingstowatch’cosIdon’treallylikewatchingaboutnormallifestuff.Michael:Yeah,butwe’retalkingaboutthathere. 52TherealitygenreEd:Yeah,Iknow,I’mjustsayingIcanfindbetterthingstowatchbutIhavewatchedquitealotofthem.Thereisalackofinterestinprogrammesabout‘normallifestuff’,butalsoanacknowledgementthattheyarefamiliarwith‘quitealotofthem’.Ofcourse,therearerealityTVshowsthatdoexcitethisagegroup,BigBrotherbeingoneexampleIdiscussinthenextchapter.Butthereissomethingaboutmanypopularfactualprogrammesthatcausesyoungviewerstocategorisethemas‘boringprogrammesonabouteighto’clockwhenthere’snothingelsetodo’(14-year-oldschoolgirl).Anotherreasonwhypopularfactualprogrammesappealtooccasionalviewersrelatestotheaccessibleformatofmuchpopularfactualtelevision,suchasself-contained,shortsegments,and/orserialisedstorieswithstrong,identifiablecharacters.Theself-containedstoriesinprogrammessuchasPoliceCameraAction!attractoccasionalviewerswhodipinandoutoftheseries.Asthesetwoviewers(42-year-oldfemalechildminder,and26-year-oldmaleprofessionalgolfer)explained:Yolanda:Ithink’cos…mostoftheseprogrammesareon,sometimesforjusthalfanhour…youknow,soyoudon’thavetogettoointoit,it’snotaseries.Michael:It’seasywatching,isn’tit?Yolanda:Yeah.Michael:Youcanmissitforafewweeksandyoucanwatchit.Yolanda:Yeah,itdoesn’tmatter.Ofcourse,manypopularfactualformatsalsocontainotherstorytellingtechniques,suchasstrongcharacterisation,and/orserialnarratives,inordertoattractrepeatviewers.Butthewaytheseviewerstalkabouttheeveryday,almostthrow-awaynatureofcertaintypesofpopularfactualprogrammingsuggeststheappealoftheseprogrammesispartlyexplainedbyviewerslookingforundemandingfactualtelevision.WithinthegenreofrealityTV,viewersmakedistinctionsbetweendifferenttypesofprogrammes.In2000,Iexaminedpreferencesforthreecoretypesofprogramminginanationalsurvey(Hill/ITC2000).Thesetypesofrealityprogrammingincluded‘observation’programmes(oftenaboutwatchingpeopleineverydayplaces,e.g.Airport);‘information’programmes(oftenusingtruestoriestotellusaboutsomething,likedriving,firstaid,orpets,e.g.999);and‘createdforTV’programmes(oftenaboutputtingrealpeopleinamanufacturedsituation,likeahouseoranisland,andfilmingwhathappens,e.g.BigBrother).ThetypesofpopularfactualtelevisionlikedmostbytheBritishpublicwereobservation(67percent),information(64percent),andcreatedforTV(28percent). Therealitygenre53Viewersadoptedaslidingscalebetweenmoreinformative,‘real’programmes,like999,andmoreentertaining,less‘real’programmes,likeBigBrother:‘BigBrother[is]kindoflight-hearted,youknow,easytowatchand…IlikePoliceCameraAction!’cosit’slikereallife,whathappensandstuff’(16-year-oldfemalestudent).Itisnotthecasethatviewersprefertowatchinformativeprogrammesinsteadofentertainingones.ThetargetviewersofrealityTVarethetypeofviewerswhochoosepopularratherthantraditionalorspecialistfactualprogrammingpreciselybecauseitisfactualandentertaining.However,itisthecasethatviewersmakedistinctionsbetweendifferenttypesofrealityTVbasedonolder,morefamiliarformatssuchasinfotainment,ordocu-soaps,andnewerformats,suchasrealitygameshows.InthesamewaythatthenichechannelsRealityTVandRealityCentraldifferentiatethemselvesintherealityTVmarketbyprogrammingCopsononechannelandSurvivoronanother,audiencesofpopularfactualtelevisiondifferentiatethemselvesbyshowingawarenessoftheassortedformatsonoffer.Thus,viewersofrealityTVarenotamassofundifferentiatedpeoplewholikethesameprogrammes,butgroupsofviewerswhomakedistinctionsaboutdifferenttypesofrealityprogramming,anddifferentwaysofwatchingtheseprogrammes.RealityTVviewersclassifyprogrammesaccordingtofact/fictioncriteria.Corner(1995)arguesthatakeycharacteristicoftelevisionistoletpeopleseeforthemselves.Popularfactualtelevision’scoreattractionforviewersisitscapacitytoletviewersseeforthemselves.Almost70percentoftheBritishpublicliketoseestoriesaboutrealpeoplecaughtoncamerainpopularfactualtelevision(Hill/ITC2000).AfundamentalcharacteristicofrealityTVisits‘seeithappen’styleoffactualfootage.The‘seeithappen’styleoftherealitygenreensuresthatviewersoftenclassifyprogrammeswithinthegenreaccordingtohowrealtheyappeartobe.Thefollowingcommentbyavieweristypicalofthewayaudiencesdistinguishbetweenassortedformatswithintherealitygenreaccordingtotheirassessmentofthetruthclaimsoftheprogrammes:‘Well,likeChildren’sHospitalisfactualisn’tit?It’snot,it’snotglossingoveranything,you’reseeingwhatisactuallyhappeningsothat’sthegoodpointofit.Ifyou’reintorealTV,youcan’tgetmorerealthanthat…Imean,that’sarealfactualprogrammeand999reconstructions,they’renotmadeuparethey,they’reactualaccidents…Ifindalotofthesesocalleddocumentariesarenottruetolifeandthat’sannoying’cosIthinkpeopleareeasilytakenin,youknow.Ijustthinkit’saset-up…d’youknowwhatImean?Ijustcan’thackit,it’ssofalsetomeandtheyplayup,I’msuretheyplayuptothecameraandit’snothinglikereal-lifedocumentariesandthat.’(39-year-oldgroundsman) 54TherealitygenreForthisviewer,infotainmentanddocu-soapsarerealityTVbecausetheyare‘notmadeup’,wecansee‘whatisactuallyhappening’.Butnewformats,‘theseso-calleddocumentaries’,makefalseclaimsaboutthevisualevidenceintheprogrammes.Similarly,thefollowingextractfromagroupdiscussionillustratesthewayviewersapplyafact/fictioncontinuumtodifferentdegreesof‘reality’inpopularfactualformats:Interviewer:WhataboutsomethinglikeBigBrother?Eleanor:It’snotasrealasahospitalprogrammeIdon’tthinkbecausetheyknewcameraswereonthem.Charlotte:Andtheyhadactuallygonethereforthatreason,tobefilmed,soeverythingtheydoisforthecameras,isn’tit?Eleanor:Ithinktherewasalotofplayinguptothecameras.General:Yeah.Mary:Butafterawhiletheymighthavebeenthemselves,Ithink.Chris:Children’sHospitalissotruetolife,itjusthappens,there’snothingyoucandoaboutitbutwiththatitwasmorecontrived.Inanotherdiscussion,aviewercomparesparticularpopularfactualformatswiththeexperienceoffictionaltelevision:‘Well,BigBrotherisentertainment…you’djustwatchitlikeyou’dwatchEastEndersorCoronationStreet,really…sortofalongthatlinemorethanwatchingAirportorAnimalHospital’(40-year-oldfemalepart-timesecretary).ThiswayofclassifyingrealityTVaccordingtotheactualityofindividualprogrammes,and/orformats,iscomplexanddeservesmorediscussion.Inmanyways,theclassificationofrealityTVinrelationto‘reality’isconnectedwithaudienceunderstandingoftheperformanceofnon-professionalactorsintheprogrammes,andtheways‘realpeople’playuptothecameras.Clearly,realitygameshowssuchasBigBrotherinviteordinarypeopletoperformforthecameras,andviewersaremorethanawareoftheimpactofthegenreoflightentertainmentonthemoreobservationalfactualgenreadoptedwithinsuchformats.ViewersrefertoBigBrotheras‘entertaining’becausethehybridformatprioritisesthegameshowoverobservationaldocumentary.Thefact/fictioncontinuumisausefulwayforviewerstocategorisethedifferenttypesofhybridformatswithintherealitygenre–infotainmentordocu-soapsare‘moretruetolife’,theeventstheyrecord‘justhappen’,whereasrealitygameshowsare‘contrived’andthereforelesstruetolife.Thefact/fictioncontinuumisalsoanopportunitytoevaluatethegenreaccordingtoitstruthclaims.Aswehaveseen,audiencesofrealityTVclassifyprogrammesinamannerthatinvitescriticism.InpartthisreflectsacommonwayoftalkingaboutrealityTVas‘trashTV’,somethingI Therealitygenre55addressedearlier.Butitalsoreflectsaudienceexpectationsofthegenre,expectationsthatarebasedonatraditionalunderstandingoffactualtelevision.Theseexpectationsareconnectedtothetelevisionschedule,wherenewsframespopularfactualprogrammingintheeveningscheduleonUKterrestrialtelevision.AlthoughrealityTVisnotnews,neverthelesstheviewingexpectationsforpopularfactualtelevisionareframedbyaudienceunderstandingoffactualprogrammingas‘truetolife’,recordingeventsthat‘justhappen’.Theseexpectationscancreateacriticalapproachtotherealitygenre.Butthisdoesn’tmeantosaythatviewersdonotenjoythemoreentertainingformatssuchasBigBrother.Theyjustclassifythemdifferently.Inthenextchapter,IconsiderhowperformanceandsocialdramainpopularfactualformatssuchasBigBrothercanleadtocomplexandoftencontradictoryviewingexperiences.CONCLUSIONThischapterhasprovidedanoverviewofthevariouswaysthetelevisionindustry,scholarsandaudiencesclassifyrealityTV.Thereisnoonedefinitionofrealityprogramming,butmany,competingdefinitionsofwhathascometobecalledtherealitygenre.Thisisbecausetherealitygenreismadeofanumberofdistinctiveandhistoricallybasedtelevisiongenres,suchaslifestyle,ordocumentary.ThesetelevisiongenreshavemergedwitheachothertocreateanumberofhybridgenresthatwenowcallrealityTV,orpopularfactualtelevision.ThetermrealityTVneatlysumsupthetypeofprogrammingthetelevisionindustry,scholarsandaudiencesrefertointheirdiscussionofthegenre,butitfailstodifferentiatebetweenthedifferentstylesandformatswithintherealitygenre.Aswehaveseenindiscussionbymembersofthetelevisionindustryaboutcommissioningrealityprogramming,byscholarsaboutthedevelopmentofrealityprogramming,andbyaudiencesabouttheirviewingexperienceofrealityprogramming,theonethingincommonamongstthesegroupsofpeopleistheirdesiretodifferentiatebetweentherapidlyexpandingandsomewhatbewilderingrangeofprogrammingthatcomesunderthecategoryofrealityTV.ThewayinwhichtheUKtelevisionindustryhasredefineditsgenericstructurefordocumentaryandcontemporaryfactualprogrammingduetodevelopmentswithintherealitygenreisalsoreflectedinthewayscholarsandaudienceslocatethe‘so-called’realitygenrewithinabroaderunderstandingofgeneralfactual,andindeedfictional,television.Ifthereisonedefiningcharacteristicthatunitesthedisparategroupofprogrammesthatmakeuptherealitygenreitisthecapacitytoletviewersseeforthemselves.ThisuniquefunctionoffactualtelevisionhasbecomeakeyattractionforaudiencesofrealityTV.However,thecapacityof 56TherealitygenrerealityTVtoletviewersseeforthemselveshasensuredapredominantlycriticalviewingposition.Audiencesjudgethe‘reality’ofrealityprogrammesaccordingtoafact/fictioncontinuum,withatthefarendofthecontinuuminfotainmentordocu-soaps,andattheotherendformattedrealitygameshows.Asthegenrecontinuestodevelop,perhapsitisonlyamatteroftimebeforethetelevisionindustry,scholarsandaudiencesbegintoincludeothertypesoffactualtelevisionwithinthecategoryof‘reality’. Chapter4PerformanceandauthenticityThedebateaboutwhatisrealandwhatisnotisthemillion-dollarquestionforpopularfactualtelevision.Inthischapter,Iexplorethetwinissuesofperformanceandauthenticity,astheperformanceofnon-professionalactorsoftenframesdiscussionabouttheauthenticityofvisualevidenceinpopularfactualtelevision.Thewayrealpeopleandtheirstoriesarerepresentedontelevisioniscloselyconnectedtohowwejudgethetruthfulnessofvisualevidence.ToinvoketheworkofBrianWinston(1995),‘claimingthereal’isacommonpracticeofrealityprogramming,butthereislittleinterrogationofthesetruthclaimsintheprogrammesthemselves.Televisionaudiencesarecertainlyawareofthewaystelevision‘putsrealitytogether’(Schlesinger1978),andtalkabouthowvariousformats,oreditingtechniques,cancreatedifferentdegreesof‘reality’inpopularfactualtelevision.However,viewersofrealityprogrammingaremostlikelytotalkaboutthetruthofwhattheyareseeinginrelationtothewayrealpeopleactinfrontoftelevisioncameras.Themoreordinarypeopleareperceivedtoperformforthecameras,thelessrealtheprogrammeappearstobetoviewers.Thus,performancebecomesapowerfulframingdeviceforjudgingrealityTV’sclaimstothereal.Andtelevisionaudiencesarehighlyscepticalofthetruthclaimsofmuchrealityprogrammingpreciselybecausetheyexpectpeopleto‘actup’inordertomakeentertainingfactualtelevision.PARADOXAttheheartofthedebateabouttherealityofrealityTVisaparadox:themoreentertainingafactualprogrammeis,thelessrealitappearstoviewers.Cornernotes‘thelegacyofdocumentaryisstillatwork’inpopularfactualtelevision,butin‘partialandrevised’form(2002a:260).ThepartialandrevisedfactualelementsofrealityTVareborrowedfromdocumentarygenres,suchasobservationaldocumentary,andservetoputthefactualintopopularfactualtelevision.AsCornerexplains:the‘documentaryimperative’isusedasa‘vehiclevariouslyforthehigh- 58Performanceandauthenticityintensityincident(thereconstructedaccident,thepoliceraid),foranecdotalknowledge(gossipyfirst-personaccounts),andforsnoopysociability(asanamusedbystandertothemixtureofmessandroutineinotherpeople’sworkinglives)’(2002a:260).Kilborn(2003:119)notestheinfluenceoffictionalgenres,inparticular‘character-andspeech-focusedentertainments’,withinrealityprogramming.TheseentertainingelementsofrealityTVareborrowedfromfictionalgenres,suchassoapopera,andservetoputthepopularintopopularfactualtelevision.Forexample,‘alldocu-soaps–toagreaterorlesserdegree–makeuseofstructuringdevicesinheritedfromfictionalserialdrama’(2003:114).WithregardtoBigBrother,‘techniquesappropriatedfromnarrativefictionwereusedtoensurethatsufficientpaceandvarietywereintroducedintowhatwouldotherwisehavebeenahighlypedestriansequenceofevents’(2003:83).Viewersofrealityprogrammingareattractedtovariousformatsbecausetheyfeaturerealpeople’sstoriesinanentertainingmanner.However,theyarealsodistrustfuloftheauthenticityofvariousrealityformatspreciselybecausetheserealpeople’sstoriesarepresentedinanentertainingmanner.Inhisarticle‘RealityTVintheDigitalEra:AParadoxinVisualCulture’,ArildFetveitargues:Theadventofdigitalmanipulationandimagegenerationtechniqueshasseriouslychallengedthecredibilityofphotographicdiscourses.Atthesametime,however,weareexperiencingagrowinguseofsurveillancecameras,andaformoffactualtelevisionthatseemstodependmoreheavilyontheevidentialforceofthephotographicimagethananypreviousform:realityTV.(2002:119)Fetveit’sargumentdrawsonthedevelopmentofphotographicpracticestounderstandthegrowthofrealityprogramminginthe1990s.Thehistoryofphotographysuggeststhatthewaywelookatphotographicimageshaschangedovertime,fromviewingimagesasillustrativeofrealobjectsorpeople,toviewingimagesasevidenceofrealobjectsorpeople.Theintroductionofdigitalmanipulationasaphotographictechniqueduringthe1990shasensuredthatwearemorelikelytolookatdigitallyenhancedphotographicimagesasillustrationsofrealobjectsorpeople.Take,forexample,theplayfulphotographsoffamouspeoplethatregularlyfeatureonthefrontpagesoftabloidnewspapers;readersarelikelytoviewaphotographofPresidentGeorgeW.BushandPrimeMinisterTonyBlairkissingasillustrativeoftheircloserelationshipaspoliticalleadersoftheUSAandUK,ratherthanasactualevidenceofaromanticrelationship.Fetveitarguesthatitispreciselyatthismomentofchangeinour‘beliefintheevidentialpowersofphotographicimages’ Performanceandauthenticity59(2002:123)thatrealityTVhasflourished.ForFetveit,itisnocoincidencethatrealityprogrammingdirectsviewerstoitstelevisionimagesofreality,showingcaughtoncamerafootageofcarcrashes,orrescueoperations,againandagaininordertodrawattentiontotheevidentialpowersofon-scenerealityfootage.WithoneeyeonphotographyandanotheronrealityTV,FetveitsuggestsourlossoffaithintheevidentialnatureofdigitallyenhancedphotographyhasbeenreplacedbyourfaithintheevidentialnatureofrealityTV.Fetveit’sargumentisusefulinunderstandingwhyviewersmaytrustthetypeofon-scenefootage,orsurveillancefootage,socommontorealityprogrammingsuchasCopsorNeighboursfromHell.Audiencesplaceagreatdealoftrustintheabilityoftelevisioncamerastocapturerealeventsastheyhappen.However,asIdiscussedinthepreviouschapter,audiencetrustintheauthenticityofrealitytelevisioniscomplex,anddependentonthewaysinwhicheachrealityformatissetuptocapturethestoriesofeverydaypeople.Infact,audiencesarelikelytodistrustvisualevidenceinrealityprogramming–‘I’mnotquitesureItrustthatwhatwe’reseeingisnotbeingstaged’(31-year-oldhousewife).Justasthedevelopmentofphotographictechniquesisconnectedwiththechangingwayswelookatphotographicimages,sotooisthedevelopmentofproductiontechniqueswithinrealityprogrammingconnectedwiththechangingwayswelookattelevisionimages.Inthissection,Iwanttobrieflydiscussthesignificanceoffactualtelevision,andacademicresearchwithindocumentarystudies,asameansofunderstandinghowviewerscriticallyrespondtohybridformatswithinpopularfactualtelevision.Viewersexpectparticulartypesoffactualtelevisiontoofferthemvisualevidenceofreallife.Newsanddocumentaryarethetwomostcommongenreswithinfactualtelevisionwhereviewersplaceagreatdealoftrustinthetruthclaimsofaudio-visualdocumentation.IfwelookatresearchbythetelevisionregulatorybodiestheIndependentTelevisionCommission(ITC)andtheBroadcastingStandardsCommission(BSC)intheUKin2002,wecanseethatover90percentoftheUKpopulationwereinterestedinwatchingnews,andnearly90percentbelievedtelevisionnewsprovidedaccurateinformation(ITC/BSC2003:60).Inrelationtodocumentary,almost80percentofthepublicwereinterestedinwatchingdocumentarytelevision,andnearly60percentbelieveddocumentariesprovidedaccurateinformation.Withregardtopopularfactualtelevision,audiencetrustinthehonestyofthesituationsportrayedwaslowerthannewsordocumentary,andvariedaccordingtodifferenttypesofrealityprogramming.LessthanhalfoftheUKpopulation(42percent)believeddocu-soapswereaccurate,andonly20percentbelievedrealitygameshowswereaccurate.Infact,withregardtoaccuracy,infotainmentprogrammessuchas999scoredhigherthandocu-soapsorrealitygameshows,with68percentofviewersclaiming 60Performanceandauthenticitytheseprogrammesprovidedaccurateinformation.Thesestatisticsnotonlysuggestthattraditionalformatswithinrealityprogrammingareperceivedasmoreauthenticthanother,newertypesofrealityformats,butalsothatinfotainmentshowsarethoughttobemoreaccuratethantelevisiondocumentary.ThefindingsfromtheITC/BSCresearchraisesignificantissuesregardingauthenticitywithinfactualtelevision.Theaccuracyandhonestyofnews,documentaryandpopularfactualprogrammingformsthebasisofmuchdebatewithinthemediaitself.BrianWinston,inhisaptlytitledbookLies,DamnLiesandDocumentaries,summarisestheintensedebateintheBritishpressconcerningdocumentarypracticeduringtheinfamouscaseofTheConnection.TheConnectionwasaninvestigativedocumentaryaboutillegaldrugtradethatwasexposedbytheBritishpressforfabricatingcertaineventsintheprogramme,andasaresultCarltonwasfined£2millionbytheITCforbreachoftheprogrammecoderelatedtoaccuracyandimpartiality(Winston2000:9–39).Withheadlinessuchas‘CanWeBelieveAnythingWeSeeonTV?’,thescandal‘acquiredlegs’andotherdocumentarieswerealsosubjecttointensescrutiny(2000:2).TheConnectionscandalhadmajorconsequencesnotjustfordocumentarypractitioners,butalsoforviewers.Thedegreeofaudiencedistrustindocumentary,asoutlinedintheITC/BSCresearch,isrelatedtothefrequencyandforceofthefakerydebateintheBritishpressduringthelate1990s(seealsoKilborn2003).Audiencedistrustinthetruthclaimsofdocumentaryalsorelatestothewayviewerscarryoverexpectationsabouttheaccuracyofnewsintootherfactualgenres,suchasdocumentary.Inthepreviouschapter,Idiscussedthefact/fictioncontinuumappliedbyviewerstodifferenttypesofrealityprogramming.Wecanseefromthestatisticsabovethatviewersextendthiscontinuumtoothertypesoffactualprogramming,ratingnewsmorefactual,i.e.moreaccurate,thanothertypesoffactualtelevision.Onaslidingscaleoffactualprogramming,infotainmentscoreshigherthandocumentaryintermsofaccuracy.TheITC/BSCaudiencedatasuggestshowdamagingfakeryscandalscanbetoaudiencetrustintheevidentialstatusofdocumentaryfootage.Giventhedramatisednatureofreconstructionsandfactualfootageinrealityprogramming,itisdifficulttounderstandwhyaudiencesaremorelikelytotrusttheinformationtheyreceiveindramatisedreconstructionsofrealpeople’sstoriesinrealityprogrammesthandocumentaries.AsIdiscussedinChapter2,infotainment,orwhatwasoriginallycalled‘on-scene’realityprogramming,haditsoriginsintabloidjournalismandAmericanlocalnewsbulletins.Dramatisedreconstructionsofrealpeople’sstoriesprimarilyoccurincrimeandemergencyservicesrealityprogrammes,andaudiencesassociatetheserealityprogrammeswithnews.Audiencesalsoassociatedocumentarywithnews.Thedominance Performanceandauthenticity61oftwoparticularstylesofdocumentaryinBritishtelevision,documentaryjournalismandobservationaldocumentary(seeChapter2),hashadanimpactonaudiences.Viewerscommonlyassociatedocumentarywithfactualfootagethatclaimstobeaccurate,impartial,andbasedonfirst-handobservation.Inrelationtotheslidingscaleoffactualprogrammingwecouldexpectaudiencestoperceivedocumentaryasmoreaccuratethandramatisedreconstructionsofrealpeople’sstoriesinrealityprogrammes.However,thedamagecausedbythedocumentaryfakeryscandalshasbeensodetrimentalthataudiencesaredistrustfulofthedocumentarygenreasawhole.JohnEllis,inhisbookSeeingThings,talksabouthowtelevisionis‘avastmechanismforprocessingthematerialofthewitnessedworldintomorenarrativised,explainedforms’(2000:78).Factualtelevisionisaprimaryvehicleforwitnessingtheworld,andnewsbulletins,andcrimeandemergencyservicesrealityprogramming,offeranopportunitytowitnesseventsastheyhappen.Thestoriesincrimeandemergencyservicesrealityprogrammingmaybedramatised,theymaybereconstructed,buttheymakedirectclaimstojournalisticinquiry,eventotheextentofusingnewsreadersaspresentersoftheprogrammes(seeHill2000b).Whenfactualtelevision’sabilitytowitnesstheworldischallenged,asinthedocumentaryfakeryscandalintheUK,audiencescometoquestionthegenre,andjudgeitinrelationtootherfactualgenres.Itwouldbewrongtosuggestthataudiencesneverquestiontheaccuracyandimpartialityoftelevisionnews.Weknowfromtheresearchalreadyconductedinnewsanditsaudiencethatnewsstoriesareconstructedandframedaccordingtopersonal/political/socialinterests,andthataudiencescanbecriticalofjournalisticpractices,especiallyregardinghigh-profileeventssuchaswar.1AccordingtoJohnEllis,factualgenreshavecommunitiesofviewerswhounderstandthe‘protocolsandideasofappropriatebehaviourwhicharesustainedbyconcreteinstitutionsandcommonpractices’(2002:206).ForEllis,televisionviewersarepartofthecriticalevaluationoffactualgenres,andtheirabilitytoquestionanddebatethetruthclaimsofaudio-visualdocumentationisvitaltothecontinuationoffactualprogramming.Thus,‘thedocumentarygenredependsonaseriesofassertionsofthetruthfulnessofitsmaterial,andthecriteriaoftruthfulnessdifferbetweenculturesandhistoricalperiods’(ibid.).A‘criterionoftruthfulness’canbeappliedtonews,aswellastodocumentaryorrealityprogramming.Butwhatisthebasisforthiscriterionoftruthfulness?ForWinston,thecriterionappliedbytelevisionaudiencesandregulatorstodocumentaryisbaseduponanignoranceoftheoriginsofdocumentary,andthe‘establishedgrammarandprocedures’thatareassociatedwitharangeofdocumentarypractices(2000:2).Fortelevisionaudiences,thecriteriaappliedtodocumentaryarecloselyconnectedwithexpectationsaboutthe 62Performanceandauthenticityaccuracyandimpartialityoftelevisionnews.WhenviewerscometowatchrealityTVtheseexpectationsdonotdisappear.ViewersaremostlikelytotrustintheevidentialpowerofrealityTVwhenthefactualfootageisclosesttofootageviewersassociatewithnews,orinvestigativejournalism.Butitisimportanttopointoutthatonlyacertaintypeofmoretraditionalrealityprogramming,especiallycrimeandemergencyservicesprogramming,meetsthiscriterion.MostcontemporaryprogrammesclassifiedasrealityTVarefarremovedfromtraditionalfactualtelevisiongenressuchasnewsordocumentary.Therefore,mostcontemporaryrealityprogrammesfailtoliveuptoaudienceexpectationsabouttheevidentialstatusoffactualtelevision.Thus,thecommonviewingpositionwhenwatchingrealityTVisonethatiscriticaloftheevidentialclaimsoftheprogrammes.Theaudiencediscussionthatfeaturesintherestofthischapterisevidenceofacriticallyastuterealityviewer–avieweroftenignoredinpopularandacademicdebatesaboutrealityTV.ACTINGUPITC/BSC(2003)researchinaudiencetrustintheaccuracyoffactualgenresrevealsaninterestinglinkbetweennewsandnature/wildlifeprogrammes.Viewersofnatureandwildlifethoughtsuchprogrammeswerejustasaccurateasnews(89percent).Audiencetrustinthepresentersofnaturalhistoryprogrammesandnewsbulletinsmustsurelyplayapartinexplainingthesestatistics.Televisionaudiencesoftenperceivenewsandnaturalhistorypresentersas‘friends’,andassuchthesetelevisionpresentersaretrustedtopresentfactsinatruthfulmanner(GauntlettandHill1999).Theissueofperformanceisalsonotable,asthesetwogenresarelesslikelytocontainovertperformancesbyhumansoranimals.Audiencesarefarmoredistrustfuloffactualgenresthatmayappeartoencouragenon-professionalactorsto‘actup’,suchasdocu-soapsorrealitygameshows.TheITC/BSCresearchindicatesthatrealitygameshowslikeBigBrotherscoredlow(20percent)inaudienceassessmentofthehonestyofsituationsportrayedintheseprogrammes.Oneofthereasonsthisisthecaseisthattheformatisdesignedtopromoteperformance.Contestantsareengagedinapopularitycontest,wheretheyareondisplayintheperformancespaceoftheBigBrotherhouse(Corner2002b:257).AsoneviewercommentedonacontestantinBigBrother:‘Idon’tthinksheeverforgotthatthecameraswerethere…shewaspluckingher…pubichairswithhertweezers!Inthegardenwitheveryoneelsewatching!’(31-year-oldhousewife).Inthissection,Iconsiderhowthe‘criteriaoftruthfulness’(Ellis2002)appliedbyviewerstorealitytelevisionareoftenassociatedwiththeirbeliefthatthemorepeopleactupinfrontofcameras,thelessrealaprogrammeappearstobe. Performanceandauthenticity63Researchwithindocumentarystudieshasaddressedtheissueofperformanceprimarilyinrelationtothedevelopmentofspecificgenresandtheirtruthclaims.Theatricaldocumentaryfilms,suchasNightMail(Grierson,1936),orTheThinBlueLine(Morris,1988),reconstructeventsusingpeopleoriginallyinvolved.Despitetheobviousconstructionoftheatricaldocumentaries,accordingtoNichols(1991)weengagewithsuchfilmsasdocumentariesratherthanfictionfilms.However,thefactthatthismodeofdocumentaryisrarelyusedintelevisionsuggeststhatviewersareprobablyunfamiliarwiththistypeoftreatmentofrealevents.Anothertypeofdocumentaryistheperformativedocumentary,wherebytextsarelessaboutobjectiveaccountsoftheworldandmoreaboutsubjectiveinterpretationsofreality(Nichols1994).Performativedocumentariesblurboundariesbetweenfactandfiction.Bruzzisuggeststhattheperformativedocumentaryis‘amodewhichemphasises–andindeedconstructsafilmaround–theoftenhiddenaspectofperformance,whetheronthepartofthedocumentarysubjectsorthefilmmakers’(2000:153).ForBruzzi,documentaryfilmmakerssuchasNickBroomfieldorMichaelMooredrawattentiontotheinherentperformanceandartificeinanydocumentaryfilm.Alldocumentaryis‘necessarilyperformativebecauseitisgivenmeaningbytheinteractionbetweenperformanceandreality’(2000:154).AlthoughBruzzimakesasuggestivelinkbetweenperformativedocumentaryandrealityprogramminginherreferencetotheperformanceofdocumentarysubjects,herdefinitionofthisgenreismoreassociatedwiththefilmmakersthemselves,orcelebritiesinthefilms,ratherthantheperformanceofordinarypeopleinpopularfactualtelevision.AmoreappropriatemodeofdocumentaryforunderstandingperformanceinrealityTVisthedrama-documentary.DerekPaget(1998:82)definesdrama-documentaryasa‘sequenceofeventsfromarealhistoricaloccurrenceorsituationandtheidentitiesoftheprotagoniststounderpinafilmscriptintendedtoprovokedebate’.Whenrealpeoplewhohaveexperiencedanoccurrenceorsituationareinvolvedinadrama-documentary(usuallyasminor‘characters’),theyaretheretoauthenticatethedramatisationoftheevent.Eventhoughtheirsomewhatself-consciousactingstylemaydifferfromthenaturalist/realiststyleofprofessionalactors,theirperformancedrawsattentiontothetruthclaimsofthedocumentary.Anotherrelatedexampleoftheuseofprofessionalandnon-professionalactorsinrealityprogrammingisthatofdramatisedreconstructionsofaccidentsorcrime.Forexample,999oftentellsthestoryofarescueoperationbyincludingtheemergencyservicespersonnelinvolved,alongwithactorsrepresentingotherpeopleinvolvedintherescue.Althoughtechnicallytheemergencyservicespersonnelarere-creatingtherescueforthecameras,theirperformanceisanindicationof 64Performanceandauthenticitytheauthenticityofthestory–thisishowithappened,accordingtothepeopleinvolved.Thus,therearecertaintypesoffactualgenreswherebyrealpeopleperformforthecameras,andtheirperformanceistakenasevidenceofthetruthfulnessoftheprogrammeitself.However,intermsofrealityTV,manyprogrammesarejudgedbyviewersasunrealpreciselybecauseoftheperformanceofnon-professionalactors.Audienceshaveahighdegreeofcynicismregardingtheportrayalofrealpeopleinpopularfactualtelevision.In2000,73percentofthepublicthoughtstoriesinrealityprogrammingweresometimesmadeuporexaggeratedforTV,andonly12percentthoughtstoriesaboutrealpeoplereallyactuallyhappenedasportrayedintheprogrammes(Hill/ITC2000).Thegeneralpublic’slackoftrustintheactualityofpopularfactualtelevisionispartlyexplainedbythedocumentaryfakeryscandalsdiscussedintheprevioussection,andpartlybytheuseofformatsassociatedwithfictionalgenresinpopularfactualseries.DuringthefakeryscandalintheUK,severaldocu-soapswereaccusedoffakingcertainscenesfordramaticeffect.AccordingtoBruzzi(2000),DrivingSchool(whichattractedover12millionviewers)reconstructedcertainscenesandmanipulatedothersinordertomaximisethedramaofMaureen’sstoryaswesawherstruggletopassherdrivingtest.Theproducersintervenedintheoutcomeofthestory:‘theywereconcernedthatMaureen,theseries“star”subject,wouldnotpasshermanualdrivingtest,aneventtheyfeltwouldbetheseries’naturalanddesiredconclusion,andsosuggestedthatshelearninsteadinanautomatic’(2000:88).Despite,orperhapsbecauseof,pressdiscussionaboutthetruthfulnessofDrivingSchool,Maureenbecameacelebrityinherownright.Thisexampleoftheblurringoftheboundariesbetweendocumentaryandsoapopera,andbetweennon-professionalactorsandtelevisioncelebrities,isonlyoneexampleofthetypeofpublicdiscussionsurroundingrealityprogrammes.ThispublicdiscussionfuelsaudiencescepticismabouttheauthenticityofrealityTV,andleadstoahighdegreeofanticipationthat‘real’peopleperforminpopularfactualtelevision.In2000,70percentofadultviewersthoughtthatmembersofthepublicusuallyoveractedinfrontofcamerasinrealityprogrammes(Hill/ITC2000).Thewayviewerstalkaboutordinarypeopleinrealityprogrammesillustratestheirinherentdistrustinparticulartypesofrealityformats.This41-year-oldmalecarpentermakesacleardistinctionbetweenhiddencameraprogrammes,andothertypesofrealityformats:‘Ijustthinkthatthey’retwoentirelydifferentprogrammes–theoneswiththehiddencameraandtheoneswhere,likeBigBrother,wherethey’reactuallyactingtothecamera–tome,they’reentirelydifferent Performanceandauthenticity65categories,Idon’teventhinkthey’reinthesamething.Imean…it’sthesamewithChangingRooms,thesepeopleontherethey’rejustplayingto…I’dratherwatchsomethingwherethecamera’shiddenandyouactuallyseepeople…Imeanjustthroughtheday,talkingtopeople…thatissomethingnatural,youain’tacting,youknow.Thatisactuallywhathappens,thatisatruetolifething.’Thisviewer’sperceptionofhiddencameraformatsasmore‘truetolife’thanformats‘wherethey’reactuallyactingtothecamera’wascommontoalltherespondentsinmyresearch.Eventhoughhiddencameraprogrammesinvolveahighdegreeofconstruction,wherepeoplearesetupandfilmedwithouttheirpriorknowledgeorconsent,theveryfactthattheydonotknowtheyarebeingfilmedisaclearindicationforaudiencesthattheprogrammesareauthentic.Hereareagroupofadultviewersdiscussingaparticularhiddencameraseries,HouseofHorrors,whichattemptstoshamedishonestbuildersbysecretlyfilmingthemonthejob:Esther:Thisisafairlyrealone’cosnobodyknowsthecamera’sthere,sothey’rejustbeingnaturalandthey’rebeingcaughtoutandiftheyknewthecamerawasthere,they’dbehavecompletelydifferently,Ibelieve.Eric:Ithinkwe’dallbehavecompletelydifferently,wouldn’twe,iftherearecamerasthere.Esther:Butifyou’rebeingacrook,whichiswhatthesepeopleare,thenthey’rereallybeingcaughtoutthen,itwouldbeacompletelydifferentstoryiftheyknewthecameraswerethere.Pantelis:They’dbecompletelyhonestiftheyknewthecamerawasthere.Theirdiscussionofthenaturalnessofordinarypeopleontelevisionencapsulatesthewayaudiencesmakejudgementsaboutthe‘honesty’ofpeopleandprogrammes,dependingonwhetherthereispriorknowledgeoffilming.Theprogrammemightbe‘setup’,asinthecaseofHouseofHorrors,wherethebuildersworkonasitepre-fittedwithhiddencameras.Butpeople’sreactionsarenatural.InHouseofHorrorsdishonestyisactuallyasignofhonestybecausetheprogrammeisaboutcrookedbuilderswhopretendtobetrustworthy.Mostviewersarguethattheonlywayordinarypeoplewillbethemselvesontelevisionisiftheydon’tknowthey’reontelevisioninthefirstplace:‘Iwouldn’tbewhoIreallyam…tryingtotalkdifferently,talkposhandeverything![laughs]Youknow,Ijustwouldn’tbemyself’(40-year-oldfemalepart-timesecretary).Thereisalsoageneralassumptionthatifpeoplecould‘bethemselves’twenty-fourhoursadayonTV,thenthiswouldnotmakeforveryexcitingtelevision:‘Theycould 66Performanceandauthenticityfollowmealldaybutitwouldbeboring[laughs].Theycouldfollowmealldayandnight,somebodymightjumpinfrontofme,otherthanthattotallyboring’(38-year-oldundergroundtraindriver).Therepetitionoftheword‘boring’todescribethistraindriver’stypicaldayilluminatesthewaymanyviewersassumestoriesinrealityprogrammesareexaggeratedormadeupinordertomakeinterestingtelevision.Thereareexceptionstotherule.Forexample,emergencyservicesprogrammesalreadycontaindramaticstories,andfewviewersbelievethesearemadeup,orindeedthatthepeopleinvolvedareactingupforthecameras(eventhoughsomepeoplearedoingjustthatinordertore-createtheeventfortelevision).But,overall,audiencescategorisemostrealityTVasunrealbecausetheybelieveordinarypeoplecannothelpbutperformoncecamerasarerolling.BillNicholshasarguedthatourassumptionsaboutdocumentaryframeourreceptionofit.Wehave‘adocumentarymodeofengagement’(1991:25),wherebywewatchdocumentarytextswithknowledgeofhowthesetextsareputtogether,andwithexpectationsthattheportrayalofrealeventswillbetruthfulandaccurate.RoscoeandHightexplainthatwhenwewatchadocumentary‘weexpectthateventsweseeonscreenwouldhavehappened,astheyhappened,evenifthefilmmakerhadnotbeenpresent’.Inaddition,theyargue:Althoughitisessentialthatwerecogniseandbelievethatdocumentaryisconcernedwiththerealworld,italsosetsupapositionforviewersinwhichweareencouragedtointeractwiththoserepresentations,andnotnecessarilyaccepttheargumentspresented.Althoughdocumentaryhasbeenaccordeditsspecialpositiononthebasisofitsclaimstotruth,documentaryalsoincludesacontradictorypositionforviewersinwhichtheycanargueagainstitstruthclaims…theexpectations,assumptionsandpositionsconstructedbydocumentaryforviewersarealso…complexandcomplicated.(2002:21)Ifweacceptthereisadocumentarymodeofengagement,thenthisengagementischaracterisedbyacontradictoryresponsethatisbasedontrustinthetruthclaimsofdocumentary,andcriticismofthesetruthclaims.Thismodelhasimplicationsforarealitymodeofengagement.Arealitymodeofengagementischaracterisedbyacontradictoryresponsethatisbasedonaudienceassessmentoftheauthenticityofrealpeople’sstoriesandsituationswithintheperformativeenvironmentofpopularfactualtelevision.Thismodeofengagementinvolvescriticismofthetruthclaimsofrealityprogramming,butalsosomedegreeoftrustintheoldadage‘truthwillout’.Thenextsectionexaminesaudiencediscussionof Performanceandauthenticity67performanceinordertoillustratehowviewersjudgetheauthenticityofordinarypeopleinrealityprogramming.PERFORMINGTHEREALArealityformatlikeBigBrothercanbeunderstoodintermsofthetensionsandcontradictionsbetweentheperformanceofnon-professionalactors,andtheirauthenticbehaviourintheBigBrotherhouse.Thisis,ofcourse,nottheonlywaytounderstandBigBrother,andotherresearchershavecommentedonthesignificanceofsurveillance(Palmer2002a),ormediaevents(Scannell2002;Couldry2002),toourunderstandingofthepopularityandimpactofrealitygameshows.Intermsoftelevisionaudiences,thereisevidencetosuggestthattheimprovisedperformancesofordinarypeopleframediscussionofthisformat,andindeedotherrealitygameshows,suchasSurvivororTemptationIsland.InanarticleonBigBrothertitled‘PerformingtheReal’,JohnCorner(2002b:263–4)commentsonthe‘degreeofself-consciousness’and‘display’bythevariouspersonalitiesinthe‘predefinedstage’oftheBigBrotherhouse.AsCornernotes,theperformanceofcontestantsgivestelevisionaudiencestheopportunityfor‘thickjudgementalandspeculativediscoursearoundparticipants’motives,actionsandlikelyfuturebehaviour’(2002b:264).Iwanttofocusonthewayaudiencesspeculateandjudgemomentswhentheperformanceofnon-professionalactorsbreaksdown,andtheyare‘truetothemselves’.Cornersumsupthisviewingprocessasfollows:Onemightusetheterm‘selving’todescribethecentralprocesswhereby‘trueselves’areseentoemerge(anddevelop)fromunderneathand,indeed,through,the‘performedselves’projectedforus,asaconsequenceoftheappliedpressuresofobjectivecircumstanceandgroupdynamics.Acertainamountofthehumdrumandtheroutinemaybeanecessaryelementingivingthisselvingprocess,thisunwittingdisclosureofpersonalcore,ameasureofplausibility,aligningitwiththemundanerhythmsandnaturalisticportrayalsofdocu-soap,soapoperaitself,andattimes,theregistersofgame-showparticipation.(2002b:263–4)Otherresearchershavealsodiscussedthisnotionof‘performedselves’and‘trueselves’co-existinginhybridformatswithintherealitygenre.RoscoeandHight(2001:38)discussthe‘performed’natureofdocu-soaps,andhowthistypeofconstructionofdocumentaryfootagecanopenupspacefordebateaboutthedocumentarygenre.JaneRoscoecommentsonhowBigBrotheris‘constructedaroundperformance’(2001:482),with 68Performanceandauthenticityparticipantsinvolvedindifferentlevelsofperformance,basedontherolesof‘housemate’,‘gameshowcontestant’and‘televisionpersonality’,andhowaudiencesareinvitedtojoininwiththeseperformances‘acrosstheformatsofthedifferentshows’.LotharMikosetal.(2000),intheirresearchofBigBrotherinGermany,alsosuggestthataudiencesareengagedinanassessmentofperformanceandauthenticity.InmyearlierresearchonBigBrother,Inotedthatthetensionbetweenperformanceandauthenticityinthedocumentarygameshowformatinvitesviewerstolookfor‘momentsoftruth’inaconstructedtelevisionenvironment(Hill2002).Audiencesfrequentlydiscussthedifferencebetweenperformedselvesandtrueselvesinrealityprogramming,speculatingandjudgingthebehaviourofordinarypeople,comparingthemotivesandactionsofpeoplewhochoosetotakepartinarealityprogramme.Andtheydiscussthebehaviourofordinarypeopleinarealityprogrammeonaneverydaybasis.HereisatypicalexampleofthewayviewerstalkaboutactinginBigBrother:‘Sometimes,Ithink,canyoureallyactlikeyourtrueselfwhenthere’sacamerathere?Youknow.MaybeinBigBrotheralittlebitmoreyoucanactyourselfbecauseyou’regoingtoforgetafterawhile,aren’tyou?ButI’mabitdubiousaboutpeopleactingthemselves…Thewaytheywereallacting,thewayoftheirbodymovementsandallthat,itjustlookedtoofake…tome.’(21-year-oldmaledairyworker)Thisviewer’stentativequestionaboutbeingableto‘actlikeyourtrueself’infrontofatelevisioncameraopensthedoortospeculationaboutlevelsofactingintheBigBrotherhouse,andtojudgementofindividualcontestants’‘true’or‘fake’behaviour.IwanttohighlightseveralexamplesofaudiencediscussionabouttheimprovisedperformancesofcontestantsinBigBrotherinordertoexplorehowviewersengagewiththeinherentcontradictionsbetweenfactandfictioninthistypeofhybridgenre.ThereisacommonmodeofengagementwhenwatchingBigBrotherandthisischaracterisedbydiscussionthatgoesbackwardsandforwardsbetweentrustandsuspicionofthebehaviourofordinarypeopleinthehouse.Inthefollowingdebate,agroupofmaleandfemaleadultviewersdiscussthevarious‘selves’ondisplayintheBigBrotherhouse:Rick:WithBigBrotheryoudon’tknowifthey’replayingup,yeah,it’sjust,it’saweirdscenarioforthemtobein,youmustjustthink…well,youdon’tknowwhat’sgoingoninsidetheirhead.Paul:Maybeyouputyourselfinthatsituationand,see,it’slikeIwatchitandif,ifIwasonBigBrother,I’dwanteveryonetolike Performanceandauthenticity69meor…IthinkofmyselfasanalrightpersonbutthenifIwasonthereI’d,I’dbeactingdifferent,thinking‘I’vegottodothis’cospeoplearegoingtolikeme’,somaybethat’s,that’swhy,maybe,Ithinkthey’reactingup.Peter:Theymusthavethoughtabouteverythingthey’vedoneandsaidbeforetheyactuallysaidordoneit.Notlikereallife,justsomeonecomingoutwithacomment,but,thiscouldgetmeoutthisweek–Ibetternotsaythat,Ibetterjustsay‘doesanyonewantacupoftea?’Not’cosIwanttomakeitbutIbetteraskthemtolookgood.Pauline:’Cosattheendoftheday,it’sacompetition,isn’tit?Therewasseventygrandontheline,wasn’tthere?I’dactupforit![laughs]TheirdiscussionischaracterisedbyacautiousassessmentoftheabilitiesofBigBrothercontestantsto‘actup’.ApointtorememberisthattheBigBrothercontestantsarestrangerstothemselves,andtoviewers.Unlikecelebrityrealitygameshows,suchasCelebrityBigBrother,orI’maCelebrity…,whereweknowthe‘personality’ofthecontestantsbeforehand,inthecaseofordinarypeopleshowstheparticipantsarestrangerstous.Whenaudiencesattempttojudgethedifferencebetweenthecontestants’performingselvesandtrueselvesinBigBrother,theycannotrefertopastperformancesbutmustrelyontheirownjudgementofthecontestants’behaviourand‘what’sgoingoninsidetheirhead’.Inevitably,viewersturntotheirownexperience,andspeculateabouthowtheymightbehaveinasimilarsituation.Thediscussionthereforebecomesonebasedonhypotheticalsituations–‘ifIwasonBigBrother’–interspersedwithknowledgeoftheformat,andtheeffectofthegameoncontestants’behaviour–‘theymusthavethoughtabouteverythingthey’vedoneandsaidbeforetheyactuallysaidordoneit’.Audienceassessmentoftheperformanceofnon-professionalactorsinrealitygameshowscanoftenbebasedonhowwellthecontestantsplaythegame,andalsohowwellcontestantsremaintruetothemselves.Intheabovediscussion,viewerswerecommentingonthecontestantsinBigBrother2000intheUK,wherethewinnerwassomeonewhomanagedtoremainpopularwithhisfellowcontestants,andwithviewers,bycarefullybalancinghisperformingselfwithhistrueself–Craigwaslikeable,andcertainlymadelotsofcupsoftea,buthedidn’tgooutofhiswaytograbattention.EveninthefirstseasonofSurvivor(2000)inAmerica,wherethewinnerconstantlyremindedcontestantsandviewersofhisabilityto‘playthegame’,hemanagedtoportrayhimselfashimself–acompetitive,ruthless‘survivor’.KarenLury(1996:126)suggeststhattelevisionaudiencesmaybeanxiousaboutwatchingordinarypeopleperformbecause‘ifrealpeopleconvincingly“putonanact”wherecansincerity,authenticityandrealemotionbelocatedwithanyconviction?’. 70PerformanceandauthenticityInthecaseofrealitygameshows,any‘claimstothereal’areimmediatelyunderminedbytheabilityofcontestantsto‘putonanact’.AsLuryexplains:Whileactingmaybepleasurablewhenweknowwearewatchingaperformance(itisafteralla‘skillful’activity),whenanordinaryperformeracts,wemaybecomeuncomfortablyawareofhowappearanceandreality(thebehaviourandthefeelings)oftheperformermaybenomorematchedintheeverydaythantheyareonscreen.(1996:126)Realitygameshowshavecapitalisedonthistensionbetweenappearanceandrealitybyensuringthatviewershavetojudgeforthemselveswhichofthecontestantsarebeinggenuine.Infact,audiencesenjoydebatingtheappearanceandrealityofordinarypeopleinrealitygameshows.Thepotentialforgossip,opinionandconjectureisfargreaterwhenwatchingrealitygameshowsbecausethishybridformatopenlyinvitesviewerstodecidenotjustwhowinsorloses,butwhoistrueorfalseinthedocumentary/gameenvironment.Lury(1996:126)alsosuggeststhataudiencesmaybeuncomfortablewatchingordinarypeopleontelevisionbecausetheparticipantsintheshowhavebeen‘coercedintomakingafoolofthemselves,andthattheirpresenceorimageonscreenhasbeenmanipulatedbytechnicians,producersandbullyingpresenters’.Thistypeof‘uncomfortable’viewingpositionisapplicabletocertainformsofrealityprogramming,suchashealth-basedrealityprogrammes(or,forme,TheAnnaNicoleShow),wherepeoplemaybeperceivedas‘victims’ofratings-drivenpopularfactualtelevision(seeChapters6and7forfurtherdiscussion).However,withregardtorealitygameshows,themajorityofaudiencesarenotsomuchuncomfortablewiththemanipulationofcontestantsasscepticalthatanythingthatgoesonintheBigBrotherhousecanbeunscriptedandnatural.Thus,whencontestantsintheBigBrotherhousearegivenalcoholasarewardforcompletingvariouschallenges,viewersarelikelytonotblametheproducersforthedrunkenbehaviourofcontestantsbuttojudgethehousematescriticallyformakingfoolsofthemselves.Mostviewersthinkthehumiliation,oremotionaltrauma,experiencedbyhousematesisgeneratedbyhousemates,andthereforecannotbetrustedasgenuineemotionalexperiences,experiencesthatinothercircumstancesmightbeviewedmoresympathetically(e.g.,health-basedrealityprogrammes).MostofthepeopleinvolvedinthemakingofBigBrotherarguethatordinarypeoplecannotactuptwenty-fourhoursaday.Forexample,DermotO’Leary,thepresenterofBigBrother’sLittleBrother,which Performanceandauthenticity71accompaniesBigBrotheronChannel4andE4intheUK,claims‘noonecanactfor24hoursaday,orindeed,for24minutesanhour,soweknowthatthehousemates’reactionsaregenuine’.2Itisnotmyintentiontoquestiontheinsider’sperceptionoflevelsofactinginrealitygameshows.Thebeliefthatpeoplecan’tkeepupanactforeverisalsocommontodiscussionbyobservationaldocumentarypractitioners(seeBruzzi2000),andechoedbythistelevisionpresenter.Itismyintentiontoquestionhowaudiencesmakesenseofsuchtruthclaimsfromthemakersofdocumentarygameshows.ThebehaviourofordinarypeopleinBigBrotherallowsaudiencestoassessthetruthclaimsoftheprogrammeitself.Inthefollowingextract,agroupofteenagegirlsdiscussaninfamoussceneinUKBigBrother(2000).Inthescene,‘NastyNick’wasaccusedofattemptingtoinfluencethevotingbehaviourofothercontestants,andafterdenyingthecharge,heretreatedtothebedroomwherehepackedhissuitcase,shedafewtears,andlistenedtoadvicefromfellowhousemateMel.Thegirlsbegintheirdiscussionwithapromptaboutthepossible‘crocodile’tearsof‘NastyNick’:Interviewer:Doyouthinkinthatscenewhenhewascryingthatwasreallycomingfromhim?Sharon:Erm,itcouldhavebeen,’cosinawayhewaskickedoutandhedidn’thaveanywayofwinningnowand…asyousaw,thepublicwasreallynegativetowardshim.Nicola:Idon’tthinkthat’sasreallifeasitcouldhavebeen,’costheyknowthey’regoingtomakequiteabitofmoney.Angela:[shakesherhead]BigBrother.IfeltIknewthepeopleinthere,’cosafterawhile,althoughthere’scamerasthere,inthebeginningtheyalldidactupbutyoucan’tdoitallthetime.Youknowwhenyou’reupsetandcryingyoucan’tacthappy,youknowwhatImean.Andyougetreallyclosetothepeople,’cosyou,like,gettoknowthem.It’sreallyweird,’cos,like,we’retalkingaboutthemnowasifweknowthemandit’speoplewe’veneverevermetinourliveswhoareonTV.Interviewer:Aretheremomentswhenyou’renotsure?Howdoyoutellifsomeone’sactingupornot?Nicola:Ithinkifthey’rejust,like,actingoutofthenormal,howyouwouldn’texpectsomeonetoactandyoujustthinkthey’reactingupwhethertheyareornot.Interviewer:So,it’ssortofbasedonwhatyouthink?Nicola:Yeah,whatyouthinktheyshouldactlike,butifthey’renotactinglikethat.Laura:No,butsomepeopleareextrovertsthough,youcan’tsaythat.Somepeopleareveryforwardandopen-mindedand 72Performanceandauthenticitytheydon’tcarewhatpeoplethink.ButIthinkyoucanalwaystellwhenpeopleareshowingoff.Angela:Yeah,butifyougenuinelylikethem.Say,IlikedAnnaandifsomeonesaid‘Oh,Anna’sthis,oh,Anna’sthat’,Iwouldn’tthinkshe’sactingup,doyouknowwhatImean.Ithinkitdependsonyourattitudetowardstheperson.DoyouknowwhatImean?’Cospeoplegenuinelydidn’tlikeNick’costhey’dseenthathewasdoingthesekindsofthings…YeahandIhatedMelsowhateveranybodysaidthatwasgoodabouther,Iwas,like,‘oh,Idon’tlikeher,whatevershedoes,she’sabitch’.Sharon:Ithinktheonlypeoplethatcouldtellifthesepeopleareactinguparethepeoplethatknewthem.Wedon’tknowthemsowecouldn’treallyjudge.Interviewer:Doyouendupjudginganyway?Sharon:Yeah,wellIdo!Laura:Buttheyhavetobeactingupattheendoftheday’cosiftheywanttogetourvotes,theycan’tsitthereand…say,they’reareallybitchyperson,they’renotgoingtositthereandliterallybeabitchabouteveryone’costhenthey’regoingtobekickedout.They’vegottoputonanact,they’vegottotryandmaketheeffortandthey’vegottotryandsweetenusupsowewon’tkickthemout.Angela:Butnoneofthemknow,that’sthething,noneoftheminthehousewouldactuallyreallyknowif,like,oneofthemwasactingupornot.Laura:That’swhatI’msaying.Thereareseveralpointsraisedinthisdiscussionthatarerelevanttothetwinissuesofperformanceandauthenticity.ThefirstisthatthereisnoclearagreementabouttheperformingselfandtrueselfofthecharacterofNastyNick.Eventhoughheappearedtobreakdownandrevealhistrueselfinamomentofpersonalconflict,accordingtotheseviewersheneededsympathyfromthepublic,andthereforehistearscouldbeperceivedaspartofaperformance.TheyaresuspiciousofNickbecausetheyhavewitnessedhisduplicitousbehaviourpriortothehousemates’intervention,andbecauseheisacontestantinagameshow.Anotherpointisthatthediscussionhasabackwardsandforwardsrhythmcharacteristictotalkaboutwhatisrealandwhatisnotinrealitygameshows.BigBrotherisnot‘asreallifeasitcouldhavebeen’becauseofthegameshowelementtotheformat,butcontestantsinthehousecan’tactallofthetime,sopartsofitarereal.We‘gettoknow’thehousematesintimately,asiftheyarepeoplewehaveactuallymetinoureverydaylives,but‘wedon’tknowthem’becausewehaveneverreallymetthem.Inmanyways,their Performanceandauthenticity73discussionaboutactinghighlightsaphilosophicalconundrum–howcanwereallyknowwhatweareseeingisreal?TheseteenageviewersofBigBrotherstruggletocometotermswiththeage-oldquestion‘whatisreality?’.ThesociologistErvingGoffman,inhisbookThePresentationoftheSelfinEverydayLifeclaimsweareallperformingallofthetimeonvariousdifferentstages,suchasworkorhome,tovariousdifferentaudiences,suchasourbossorourfamily.ForGoffman,ourhouses,cars,clothing,andothersucheverydayitemsare‘props’and‘scenery’requiredforthe‘workofsuccessfullystagingacharacter’(1969:203).Inanysocialencounter,aperformerwillbeawareoftheiraudienceandviceversa.Theprocessofcommunicationbetweentheperformerandaudienceisan‘informationgame’,whereperformerswillrevealandconcealtheirbehaviourtoothers(1969:20).OntheBigBrotherstagetherearetwotypesofaudience,onethatisinsideandanotherthatisoutsidethehouse.Theinsideaudiencehasfirst-handknowledgeoftheperformanceofindividualswithinthegroup,butthisknowledgeisonlypartial,asthecontestantscannotwitnessalltheactions,orperformances,oftheothermembersofthesocialgroup.Theoutsideaudiencehassecond-handknowledge,butiswitnessto,inGoffman’sterms,the‘front’and‘backstage’behaviourofthehousematesviathetwenty-four-hoursurveillancecameras.ByfrontandbackstageGoffman(1969:34)referstomomentsinsocialinteractionwhenanindividualceasestoplayapartconvincingly,whenweseebeyonda‘personalfront’totherealpersoninsidetheperformer.Inthediscussionbytheteenagegirlsabouttheperformanceofhousemates,theyhighlightedhow‘noneoftheminthehousewouldactuallyreallyknowif,like,oneofthemwasactingupornot’.ThiswouldsuggestthatviewersofBigBrotherwouldhaveaprivilegedpositioninthe‘informationgame’,andbeabletoanticipatefutureincidentsorbehaviourbasedonpriorknowledgeofthefrontandbackstagebehaviourofhousemates.Certainly,inthescenewithNastyNickconfrontationbytheotherhousematesdisruptedthenaturalharmonyoftheBigBrotherhouse,literally‘creatingascene’whichmillionsofviewerstunedintowatch.Thehousemates’interventionprovidedabackstageviewofoneparticularperformerandcastashadowonthebelievabilityofhisremainingperformanceinthehouse.AudienceswerealreadysuspiciousofNick’sperformancepriortotheintervention,andremainedsuspiciousatthepointwhenhehadlosteverythingandwasmostlikelytorevealhis‘trueself’.Althoughtheabovediscussionsuggeststhatviewersdofeeltheyhaveabird’seyeviewofeventsintheBigBrotherhouse,thereisageneralquestioningofhowviewerscanreallygettoknowtheseperformersatall.AccordingtoGoffman,whensocialinteractionoccursthereisa‘naturalmovementbackandforthbetweencynicismandsincerity’(1969:31)on 74Performanceandauthenticitybehalfofperformersandaudiences.Intheteenagegirls’discussionofBigBrotherthereisa‘naturalmovementbackandforth’intheirtalkofhowviewersjudgethesincerityofordinarypeopleinrealitygameshows.Iwouldargueitisintheactoftryingtojudgethescenechangefromperformingselftotrueselfthataudiencesdrawontheirownunderstandingofsocialbehaviourintheireverydaylives.AsGoffman(1969:241–2)indicates,whenwedonothavefullinformationofafactualsituationwe‘relyonappearances…and,paradoxically,themoretheindividualisconcernedwiththerealitythatisnotavailabletoperception,themorehemustconcentratehisattentiononappearances’.AlthoughwhenwewatcharealitygameshowsuchasBigBrotherwerelysolelyonrepresentationsofrealpeople,wealsorelyonourknowledgeofsocialinteraction.Inthefinalpartofthischapter,Iconsiderhowwejudgeauthenticperformances–‘whatyouthinktheyshouldactlike,butifthey’renotactinglikethat’–inpopularfactualtelevision.AUTHENTICITYAccordingtoVanLeeuwen(2001),authenticitycanmeandifferentthingstodifferentpeople.Authenticitycanmeansomethingisnotanimitation,orcopy,butthegenuinearticle,asinanauthenticPicassopainting.Itcanalsomeansomethingisreconstructedorrepresentedjustliketheoriginal,asinatranslationofHomer’sTheIliad.Authenticitycanmeansomethingisauthorised,andhasasealofapproval,asinephemerasoldaspartoftheElvisPresleyestate.Andfinally,authenticitycanmeansomethingistrue.Itisthefinaldefinitionofauthenticitythatmostconcernsushere,asanordinarypersoninarealityprogrammeisoftenperceivedasauthenticiftheyare‘thoughttobetruetotheessenceofsomething,toarevealedtruth,adeeplyheldsentiment’(VanLeeuwen2001:393).Hereisanexampleofthewayaudiencestypicallytalkaboutauthentic‘performances’inrealityprogramming:Peter:It’sreallife,innit,Imean.Rick:Idon’tthinkitisthough…Theonesonholidayaremorereallifethanthesepeople,Idon’t,Idon’tbelieveanythingnow,Ithinkit’sallanactbutonholidaytheymightbeactingalittlebitmorebutbecausethey’redrunkaswellit’sreallife,innit?Nancy:It’snotreallifereally,isit?’Cosreallifedoesn’thappenlikethat?Rick:Ifitwasreallifeyou,you’dhavetonotknowthatthecameraswerethereandthat’sneverthecaseinanyofthoseprogrammes.Paul:IfitwasreallifeI’dbewatchingsomeonesittingdownwatchingtellyallday. Performanceandauthenticity75Thisgroupofadultviewerswerediscussingtravelrealityseries,suchasIbizaUncovered,thatoftenfeatureBritishtouristsbehavingbadlyabroad.Variationsontheword‘reality’areechoedineachturnintheconversation(‘real’,‘reallife’),andthispointstoacriticalexaminationofthetruthclaimsoftheseprogrammes.AswithotherexamplesofaudiencediscussionIhaveusedinthischapter,theauthenticityofrealityprogrammingisexaminedinrelationtotheperformancesofthepeoplefeaturedintheprogrammesthemselves.TheseviewersquestionhowthetalkandbehaviouroftheordinarypeoplebeingfilmedonholidayinIbizacanbejudgedasauthenticgiventhattheyareundertheinfluenceofalcohol.Foroneviewer,thefactthatBritishtouristsaredrunkisagoodindicationoftherealityoftheirbehaviourintheprogramme–themoredrunk,thelesscontrolthesetouristswillhaveoftheirbehaviour.Butforotherviewersinthegroupthefactthatthesetouristsknowtheyarebeingfilmedforarealityprogrammeisagoodindicationofthefalsenessoftheirbehaviour.Oneviewerreferstothecommon-sensebeliefthatinordertocreateentertainingtelevisionyouneedpeopletobeentertaining–‘ifitwasreallifeI’dbewatchingsomeonesittingdownwatchingtellyallday’.Theeffectofthefinalstatementistoenddiscussion–caseclosed.Montgomeryarguesthattherearethreetypesofauthentictalkinbroadcasting:Firstthereistalkthatisdeemedauthenticbecauseitdoesnotsoundcontrived,simulatedorperformedbutrathersoundsnatural,‘fresh’,spontaneous.Second,thereistalkthatisdeemedauthenticbecauseitseemstrulytocaptureorpresenttheexperienceofthespeaker.Third,thereisauthentictalkthatseemstrulytoprojectthecoreselfofthespeaker–talkthatistruetotheselfofthespeakerinanexistentialfashion.(2001:403–4)AlthoughforMontgomerythesecondtypeofauthentictalkismostcommontotelevision,inparticularrealityprogramming,audiencetalkaboutrealityprogrammingillustratesallthreeaspectsofauthenticity,notjustinthewayordinarypeopletalk,butalso,perhapsmoreimportantly,inhowtheybehaveontelevision.I’dliketoreturntotherealityseriesIbizaUncoveredinordertoillustratehowaudiencesassessauthenticperformancesofordinarypeopleaccordingtowhatappearsnatural,whatappearstruetothesituationportrayed,andwhatappearstruetotheselfofthepeopleportrayed.ThefollowingdiscussionisbasedonastoryinIbizaUncoveredabouttwomarriedmenonholidaywiththeirwivesandchildren.Thetwomenare‘Jackthelads’,whoareoutonthetown,lookingforsomeactionofthefemalepersuasion.Wefollowthemastheydrinkinbars,flirtwithsingle 76Performanceandauthenticitygirls,someofwhomflashtheirbreastsorbottomsatthemen(andthecameras),andstaggerhomeattheendofthenight,somewhattheworseforwear.Fromthepointofviewoftheprogrammeitself,theauthenticityofthetalkandbehaviourofthesetwoguysispresentedverymuchastruetotheirexperience–‘thisiswhatwearenormallylikeonholidayinIbiza.’Fromthepointofviewoftheaudience,theprogramme’struthclaimsaretreatedwithsuspicion,butnotrejectedoutright.Thesemaleviewers(aged18–44)drawontheirownexperiencetoassesstheauthenticityofthebehaviourofthetwomenonholiday:Max:YougotoSouthend,it’slikefilmingSouthendonaFridayorSaturdaynight,youseeexactlythesamething.Shaun:Ithinkthat’srubbishwhatthey’veputonthere,ifthecamera’sthere,everybody’sgoingtoactup.Max:Yeah,that’sright,especiallyonholiday.Shaun:Theywereinthebar,hadadrink,turnedaroundandthatwasit,straightaway.Itdoesn’twork,notsoquickasthat,butbecausethecamerasarethere,thegirlseesthecamera,thinks‘Oh,IwanttobeonTV’.Max:Andthethingis,itstartsthemoffsoberand‘we’regoingoutclubbing’,youcanseethemastheyget…asthey’regettingalittlebittipsybutthey’regettingalittlebit,they’regettingtipsyalittletooquickformyliking…andthenitshowsthembeingchildish.…Brian:Ithinkthey’dbeworseifthecamerasweren’tthere!Shaun:Theywereinadifferentskin.Max:Infact,Ithinkitcouldhavegotnaughtier…theywerebeingalittlebittheboys…peoplegooutthereanddoingwhattheyweredoingtothosegirls,theywouldn’tstillbeonthatdancefloor,Itellyouthatnow.Notachance,notachance.Terry:I’vebeentoSpainandallthat,withtheboysandeverything,andI’veneverseenanythinglikethat.Max:Let’sfaceit,ifyouhadtwootherguyswhoweren’ttwoguyswhowerecomingacrossJackthelad.Imean,allusguyshavebeenJacktheladatsomestage,mostprobablysomeofusstillare,but,iftheypickedanothertwoguysthatweremore,er,nervy,thenhowwouldithavegone?Theentertainmentmightnothavebeenthere.Brian:Buttheymighthavebeenactors,mightn’tthey?Max:Butyouwon’tget…Idon’tthinktheywereactors’cosanyguythattheysays‘Right,there’sacamera,we’remakingthis,doyoumindusfilmingyou?’andtheywouldhavelookedattheseguysandsaid‘Well,like,they’reabitJackthelad,they’regameandwe’reinthere’.Boom,that’swhattheygot. Performanceandauthenticity77Barry:You’vegottofindsomeonewhosewife,who’dletthemgoandfilmthemanyway.Imeanmywifewouldn’tletmedothat.ImeanI’dlovetogoanddoit.Imeanit’dbegreatcrack[laughs].Terry:She’dknowexactlywhatyouweregoingtogetupto!ThereareseveraloverlappingpointsbeingmadebythesemaleviewersabouttheauthenticityofthisscenefromIbizaUncovered.Mostoftheviewersreferredtotheirownexperienceofbeingoutforanightonthetown,being‘abitJackthelad’,tomakesenseofthescene.Theyallagreedthescenewasnotauthenticfordifferentreasons.ForShaun,thetwomenattractedanunnatural(i.e.instantaneous)interestfromgirlspreciselybecausetherewerecameraspresent.Thismeantthesituationwasunnatural,andthemenweren’tthemselves–‘theywereinadifferentskin’.ForMax,thescenarioseemedfalsebecausethemendidn’tactthewayheimaginedtheywouldact–theyweredrunktooquickly,theydidn’tflirtenough,‘itcouldhavegotnaughtier’.Thus,thescenewasn’ttruetothisviewer’sexperienceofsimilarsituations(SouthendonaFridaynight),andthemenweren’ttruetothemselves,inthesenseofbeingred-bloodedmales.Therewascertainlyagreementthatthemenperformedwell,andprovidedentertainment–oneviewerevensuggestedthemenwereactors.Butthefactthatthemengavesuchgoodperformancesdrewattentiontohowtheprogrammewasconstructed.Thefinalrealitycheckcomesfromoneviewerwhojudgesthesceneuntrueinrelationtohisownexperienceofbeingmarried–werethosemenreallygivenpermissionbytheirwivestobehavebadly?VanLeeuwen(2001:397)arguesthatauthenticityisincrisisbecauseitcanmeandifferentthingstodifferentpeople.Wehavecometoquestiontheconceptofauthenticity,‘justastheideaoftherealityofthephotographcameintocrisisearlier’.AtthestartofthischapterIdiscussedtherelationshipbetweenphotographyandrealityprogrammingintheworkofFetveit(2002).Istheauthenticityofvisualevidenceinrealityprogrammingincrisis,justliketheauthenticityofthedigitallyenhancedphotograph?Wehavetotakeintoaccountthevariousdifferenttypesofrealityprogramminginordertoanswerthatquestion.AsIdiscussedpreviouslyinthischapter,audiencesarefarmorelikelytoquestiontheauthenticityofordinarypeopleandtheirbehaviourinhighlyconstructedrealityprogramming,suchasrealitygameshowsordocu-soaps,wheretheformatisdesignedtoencourageself-display.Wecanseefromthewayviewerstalkaboutthecharactersinthistypeofrealityprogrammingthattheyarecertainlyscepticaloftheauthenticbehaviourofordinarypeopleintelevisedsituations.But,toquoteGoffmanagain,thereisa‘naturalmovementbackandforth’betweentrustandsuspicion(1969:31)inaudienceunderstandingofauthenticperformancesinformattedrealityprogramming.JustasVanLeeuwensuggeststhat 78Performanceandauthenticityalthoughauthenticitymaybeincrisisithasnotlostitsvalidity,Iwouldarguethattelevisionaudiencesmayquestiontheauthenticityofpeople’sperformancesinrealityprogramming,buttheyhavenotstoppedcriticallyexaminingtheconceptofauthenticity.Infact,thereverseisthecase.Asaudiencesquestiontheauthenticityofthebehaviourofordinarypeopleinrealityprogramming,theyalsoquestionthemeaningofauthenticityitself.CONCLUSIONIhavearguedthatthetwinissuesofperformanceandauthenticityaresignificanttoourunderstandingofpopularfactualtelevision.Muchcontemporaryrealityprogramming,especiallydocumentarygameshowsordocu-soaps,isconcernedwithself-display.ThesitesweassociatewithrealityformatssuchasBigBrotherarestageswhereordinarypeopledisplaytheirpersonalitiestofellowperformersandtoaudiences.Thefactthatrealitygameshowsaresetuptoencourageavarietyofperformances(ascontestants,asTVpersonalities)ensuresthatsuchprogrammesareviewedas‘performative’popularfactualtelevision.Themannerinwhichordinarypeopleperformindifferenttypesofrealityprogrammesissubjecttointensescrutinybyaudiences.Discussiontendstofocusongeneralhometruthsabout‘actingup’infrontoftelevisioncameras,andtheunrealityoftelevisionaboutrealpeople.Asoneviewerputit:‘ifitwasreallifeI’dbewatchingsomeonesittingdownwatchingtellyallday’.Mostviewersexpectordinarypeopletoactforthecamerasinthemajorityofrealityprogramming.Theseexpectationsdonot,however,stopaudiencesfromassessinghowtrueorfalsethebehaviourofordinarypeoplecanbeinrealityprogramming.Audiencesgossip,speculateandjudgehowordinarypeopleperformthemselvesandstaytruetothemselvesinthespectacle/performanceenvironmentofpopularfactualtelevision.AudiencediscussionischaracterisedbyanaturalmovementbackwardsandforwardsbetweentrustandsuspicionofthetruthfulnessofordinarypeopleandtheirbehaviouronTV.Inevitably,audiencesdrawontheirownpersonalexperienceofsocialinteractiontojudgetheauthenticityofthewayordinarypeopletalk,behaveandrespondtosituationsandotherpeopleinrealityprogrammes.WhetherpeopleareauthenticornotinthewaytheyhandlethemselvesintheBigBrotherhouse,oronholidayinIbiza,isamatterforaudiencestodebateandcriticallyexamineonaneverydaybasis.Whenaudiencesdebatetheauthenticityofperformancesinrealityprogrammingtheyarealsodebatingthetruthclaimsofsuchprogrammes,andthiscanonlybehealthyforthedevelopmentofthegenreasawhole. Chapter5TheideaoflearningWhatcanwelearnfromwatchingrealityTV?Inthischapter,Iconsidertheroleofinformationwithinourexperienceofpopularfactualtelevision.Initsearlyincarnation,realityprogrammingwasoftencategorisedasinfotainmentpreciselybecauseprogrammessuchasCopsor999blurredboundariesbetweeninformationandentertainment.ContemporaryrealityformatssuchasAmericanIdolorBigBrotherarecloselyassociatedwithlightentertainmentgenressuchastalentshowsorgameshows,andthereforeretainfewlinkswithtraditionalinfotainmentseries.Butthereareotherrealityformatsthatcontaininformativeelementswithinanentertainmentframe.Inparticular,lifestyleprogrammingoffersadviceandtipsonhowtomakeoveryourhome,relationship,business,healthandpersonalwell-being.Infotainmentandlifestyleprogrammes,indifferentways,containaninformativeaddresstotheviewer.Theserealityprogrammesencourageaudiencestolearnaboutfirstaid,ordecorating,whilstatthesametimeentertainingaudienceswithdramaticstoriesofrescueoperations,orrevelatorystoriesofDIYmakeovers.Wecancalltheinformativeelementsinsuchrealityprogrammes‘learningopportunities’,asviewershavetheopportunitytolearnfromtheadvicegivenintheprogrammes,butmaychoosenottotakeuporactonsuchadvice.Whatfollowsintherestofthischapterisanexplorationofdifferenttypesoflearninginrealityprogramming,andthewayaudiencesmakesenseofinformationinpopularfactualtelevision.INFORMATIONThesuggestionthatwecanlearnfromwatchingrealityTVisnotcommontodiscussionofthegenreoverall.ThetopicsthatdominatedebateaboutrealityTVinthemediamainlyrefertoissuessuchasvoyeurism,orqualitystandards(seeChapters1and2).However,thefirstwaveofrealityprogramminginthelate1980sinAmericacontainedarangeofprogrammesthatwereall,inonewayoranother,aboutinformation(see 80TheideaoflearningChapter2).America’sMostWantedandCrimewatchUKofferinformationtothepublicaboutlawandorder,andinvitethepublictoofferinformationaboutcriminalactivitiestorelevantauthorities.AnimalHospitalandChildren’sHospitalofferinformationtothepublicabouthealthcare,andencourageviewerstocarefortheirownchildrenandcompanionanimalsinaninformedmanner.Althoughcertaintypesofrealityformats(i.e.realitygameshows)havemovedawayfromtheoriginsofthegenre,thisdoesnotmeantosayallrealityprogrammingnolongerinformsviewersaboutavarietyofissues.Acorefeatureofpopularfactualtelevisionisthatitpresentsinformationinanentertainingmanner.Theoriginsofrealityprogrammingpointtowardsacloseassociationwithtabloidnews(seeChapter2).Althoughthetabloidnewsconnectionisoftenusedasevidenceofthe‘dumbingdown’offactualtelevision,theconnectioncanalsobeusedasevidenceofthewayrealityTVattemptstopresentinformationtoaudienceswhowanttobeentertainedandinformedatthesametime.Thisisnottosuggestthattabloidnewsisbetterthanothertypesofnews,orrealityprogrammingisbetterthanothertypesoffactualtelevisionsimplybecauseitattractspopularaudiences.Traditionalnewsbulletinsandnewspapersareprimaryprovidersofknowledge,andofferaudiencesandreadersmore‘accurateinformationorcogentanalysisandargument’thanotherfactualmedia(Corner1999:117).Butthetypeofaudiencethatchoosestoregularlywatchpopularfactualtelevisionisthetypeofaudiencethattendstotuneintotelevisionnewsbulletins,buttotuneoutofothertraditionalfactualprogrammingsuchascurrentaffairsordocumentary.TheratingsfornationalnewsbulletinsintheUKaresimilartotheratingsforpopularfactual,butfarhigherthanratingsfordocumentaryorcurrentaffairs(seeChapter2).Therefore,popularfactualservesanimportantfunctionasaproviderof‘entertainmentanddiversion,withitsknowledge-providingroleasasecondaryfunction’(ibid.).Althoughotherfictionalgenrescanalsoprovideknowledgeasasecondaryfunction(forexample,health-baseddrama),therealitygenrehasitsoriginsintelevisionnews,andthereforehasstrongassociationswithafactualgenretheprimaryfunctionofwhichistoprovideknowledge.Theresultsofmyresearch,inconjunctionwiththeIndependentTelevisionCommission(ITC)andtheBroadcasters’AudienceResearchBoard(BARB),indicatejusthowimportanttheissueofinformationistogeneralaudiencesofpopularfactualtelevision(Hill/ITC2000).In2000,informationwastheprogrammeelementlikedmostbytheUKpopulationinalltypesofrealityTV.Seventy-fivepercentofalladultslikedinformationmorethananyotherprogrammecharacteristics,suchas Theideaoflearning81lookingintootherpeople’slives(46percent),orre-createdaccidents(33percent).Thispreferencecutacrosssocialdifferences.Forexample,72percentofmenand78percentofwomenpreferredinformationtootherprogrammeelementsinalltypesofrealityTV.Seventy-fivepercentofsocialcategoryAB(uppermiddleclass),and74percentofsocialcategoryDE(lowerworkingclass)preferredinformationtootherprogrammeelementsinalltypesofrealityTV.Similarly,79percentof16–34-year-oldsand71percentof55-year-oldsandover,and78percentofpeoplewithsecondaryschooleducationand78percentwithcollegeeducation,preferredinformationtootherprogrammeelementsinrealityTV.Inadditiontoinformation,thegeneralpublicalsolikedotherprogrammeelementssimilartothecharacteristicsofnews.Seventy-fourpercentofalladultslikedup-to-the-minutestories,and68percentlikedstoriescaughtoncamerainrealityprogrammes,andagainsuchpreferencescutacrossallsocialdifferences.Thepicturewasdifferentforchildren,whopreferredanimals(83percent)andstoriescaughtoncamera(82percent)tootherprogrammeelements.Thisresultisnotsurprisinggivenchildren’snaturalaversionto‘learningprogrammes’,somethingIdiscusslaterinthischapter.Theimportanceofinformationcannotbeoverstressedinrelationtounderstandingaudienceexpectationsofpopularfactualtelevision.JohnCorner(1995:11)arguesthattelevisionisa‘messagesystem’thatis‘received“inprivate”,buthasastrong“public”character’.Fortelevisionaudiences,thepubliccharacteroftelevisionismostcommonlyassociatedwithnews.AsCornernotes,whentelevision‘sees’,itinvites‘viewersintoempathyandunderstanding;tocreatea“virtualcommunity”ofthecommonlyconcerned,ofvicariouswitness;tocutthroughaccommodatingabstractionwiththeforceandsurpriseof“thingsthemselves”’(1995:31).Theinformativeelementsofrealityprogrammingspeaktothepubliccharacteroftelevision.TheBritishpublicvaluetheprogrammecharacteristicsofinformation,up-to-the-minutestories,andstoriescaughtoncamerainrealityprogrammesbecausethesearecharacteristicsassociatedwiththenewsgenre.Corner’sargumentthatthepoweroftelevisionliesinitsabilitytoletpeople‘seeforthemselves’isusefulinunderstandingthepositioningofinformationwithintheentertainmentframeofpopularfactualtelevision.Corneracknowledgesthattheprocessesofproduction,andthenecessarypriorselectionoftelevisualrepresentationsforpublicconsumption,ensurethattelevisioncanonlyprovide‘second-handseeing’thatappears‘first-hand’toviewers(1995:30).Theconversionofsecond-handseeingintofirst-handseeingisaprimarycharacteristicofrealityprogrammingandaudiencesareawareoftheprocessesinvolvedinproducingareality 82Theideaoflearningprogrammethatpackagessecond-handexperiencesofordinarypeopleasfirst-handexperiencesforviewers.Cornerprovidesaconcreteexampleofthe‘seeing–knowingconnection’inanextendedanalysisofanemergencyservicesrescueoperationintheinfotainmentseries999:‘themultipleimmediaciesofthe999story,itsmovementbetweentenses,betweenobjectiveandsubjectiveviewpoints,betweeninstructionanddramaticentertainmentandbetweenparticularincidentandgeneraltruth,areilluminating’notonlybecausethestoryshedslightontheparticularitiesofrealitytelevision,butbecauseitalsoshedslightonhowtelevisioncanconvertsecond-handseeingintopowerfulfirst-handexperiences(ibid.).Theabilitytoseethroughtelevisionisfundamentaltoourunderstandingoftherealitygenre.Seeingthroughtelevisioninvolvestelevisionaudienceswitnessingrealpeople’sstoriesandexperiences,aswellascritiquingtheprocessofselectingthesestoriesandexperiencesfortelevision.Infotainmentisthemostobviousexampleofrealityprogrammingthatallowsviewersto‘seeforthemselves’andpotentiallylearnfromtheexperience.Lifestyleprogrammingisanotherexample.Butthereareotherformats,suchasrealitygameshows,thatappeartocontainfewcharacteristicsthatcouldbecategorisedasinformative.Thedevelopmentoftherealitygenrefrominfotainment-typeformatstoformatswithinastrongentertainmentframedirectlyrelatestoaudienceresponsestotraditionalandcontemporaryrealityprogramming.Althoughaudiencesplacegreatvalueontheideaofinformationinalltypesofrealityprogramming,inpracticetheyperceivemuchcontemporaryrealityprogrammingasentertainingratherthaninformative.In2000,only50percentoftheBritishpublicagreedwiththestatement‘Ithinktheseprogrammesarereallyusefulastheygiveyouallsortsofinformationaboutlife’(Hill/ITC2000).Whenwetakeintoaccountthepracticeofwatchingarangeofrealityprogramming,thereisadiscrepancybetweenpreferencesforinformativeprogrammecharacteristicsandattitudestowardsinformationinrealityprogramming.Thiswouldsuggestthataudienceunderstandingofinformationinrealityprogrammingiscomplexandcontradictory.However,justbecauseaudiencesbelievemuchrealityprogrammingtobeentertainingratherthaninformative,doesnotmeanthatinformationisnolongerimportanttoviewers.Inthesamewaythatauthenticityisessentialtoaudienceattractiontorealitytelevision,sotooisinformation.AudiencesmayexpectcertaintypesofrealityTVtobe‘fake’,buttheystilllookforandcritique‘momentsofauthenticity’inrealityprogrammes(seeChapter4).Similarly,audiencesmayexpectcertaintypesofrealityTVtobeentertainingratherthaninformative,buttheystilllookforandcritiqueinformationinrealityprogrammes. Theideaoflearning83ENTERTAINMENTIntheprevioussection,Ibeganwiththestatement‘thesuggestionthatwecanlearnfromwatchingrealityTVisnotcommontodiscussionofthegenreoverall’.AlthoughIwasreferringtomediadiscussionofrealityTV,thestatementisjustastrueofaudiencediscussionofthegenre.Infact,thetwotypesofdiscussion,onepublic,oneprivate,areconnected.TelevisionaudiencesarewellawareofpublicdiscussionofrealityTV,andtakethisdiscussionintoaccountwhentheyformulatetheirownattitudestowardsthegenre.InpreviousresearchIconductedonmediaviolence,filmaudiencesdisplayedasimilarawarenessofpublicattitudestowardstheallegednegativeeffectsoffilmviolence(Hill1997,2001a,2001b).Otherresearchersalsodiscoveredaconnectionbetweenpublicattitudestowardsmediaviolence,andaudiencediscussionoftheirviewingpractices(seeBuckingham1996,andBarkerandPetley2001,amongstothers).Whatviewersofhorrorfilms,oractionmovies,sharewithviewersofrealityprogrammesarethattheseexamplesofpopularculturearestigmatisedbythemedia,and,tosomedegree,bysociety.Toputitcrudely,tosaythatyouwatchviolentmoviesistosayyouareviolent;tosayyouwatchrealityTVistosayyouareavoyeur.Thesecrudestatementsaregeneralisations,anddonotholdtruewhenwelookatactualreceptionpractices.Butitistheveryfactthattheyaregeneralisations,thattheyare‘commontruths’,thatmakessuchassertivestatementsamatterofpublicknowledge.SincerealityTVbecamepopularprimetimefareintheearly1990s,ithasbeenunderrelentlessattackfromthepress,andothersocialcommentators.WhentheministerresponsibleforbroadcastingintheUKtoldtheBBCin2003tostopmaking‘mindlessprogrammes’suchasChangingRooms,sheechoedcountlesspressarticlesonrealityTV.1Forexample,PeterPatersonwrote:‘Rollup,rollupforBigBrother,thegreatestshowonearth–thegreatest,thatis,forpeepingtoms,voyeursandnosyparkers.’2Thecomiceffectofthecircusbarker,roundinguppuntersforatravellingfreakshowencapsulatesthegeneralassumptionofcriticsofrealityTVthatno‘normal’personwouldchoosetowatchsuchlowbrowentertainment.Aquickoverviewofpressarticlesontherealitygenrehighlightscommontopicsofdiscussion.Apopulartopicistheissueofharm,witharticlessuchas‘Danger:RealityTVCanRotYourBrain’featuringregularlyinthepopularandbroadsheetpress.3AnotherrelatedtopicisthenegativeimpactofrealityTVonothertypesoffactualtelevision–lowestcommondenominatorTVsyndrome;andarticlessuchas‘RagbagofCheapThrills’sumuppressdiscussionofrealityprogrammingastrashtelevision.4Yetanothertopicisthatof‘VoyeurVision’.Voyeurism,orpeepingtomsyndrome,linkswiththeothertwo 84Theideaoflearningtopicsofharmand‘dumbingdown’,asvoyeurismimplieswatchingrealityTVisaformofsociallydeviantbehaviour.5ErnestMathjis(2002:311–12)hasobservedhowrealityformatssuchasBigBrotherinvite‘controversyandmoraloutrage’,withjournalists,psychologists,opinionleaders,andcommentators‘condemningBigBrotherasan“inhumaneexperiment”,borderingonthebizarreandtheunacceptable,exploitingvoyeurismandinvadingpersonalprivacy’.OneGermannewspapercalledBigBrothera‘cagefullofshit’(2002:312).Suchcriticismofrealitygameshowsextendstoalltypesofrealityprogramming.ThepsychologistOliverJamesclaims:ThecontentoftoomuchrealityTVisvalues-rottinganddepression-inducing.Foralargesliceofthepopulation,watchingithaslargelyreplacedsociallifeitself.Whenwearenotatwork,viewingotherpeoplelivingtheirlivesonTVnowconstitutesaconsiderablepartofourexistence.Doesanyoneknowhowmuchharmthisisdoingtous?6TheconnectionbetweenrealityTVandnegativeeffectsisdeliberate,asJamesimpliesacausallinkbetweenwatchingrealityTVandthedeclineofsocietyasawhole.Similarly,broadcasterNickJamesthinksrealityTVhas‘destroyedBritain’,bypresentingfalseaccountsoftheworldtoviewerswhocannolongertellthedifferencebetweenrealityandfantasy.7SociologistErvingGoffmannoteshowthetermstigmarefers‘toanattributethatisdeeplydiscrediting’(1963:13).Stigmaislinkedtotheformationofoursocialidentities.Westigmatiseotherpeople,orarestigmatisedbyotherpeople,basedonsocialexpectationsaboutwhatarenormalandabnormalsocialattributes.Goffmancallspeoplewhostigmatiseothers‘thenormals’:‘theattitudeswenormalshavetowardsapersonwithastigma,andtheactionswetakeinregardtohimarewellknown…weconstructastigmatheory,anideologytoexplainhisinferiorityandaccountforthedangerherepresents’(1963:15).Goffmanarguesthatpeoplewhoarestigmatisedby‘thenormals’developwaysofmanaginginformationaboutthemselves,andinturndevelopwaysofmanagingstigma(1963:57).AlthoughGoffmanisreferringtothestigmatisationofpeople,wecanapplyasimilarconceptofstigmatopopularculturalreceptionpractices.ThebriefaccountofpresscoverageofrealityTVillustrateshowjournalistsandsocialcommentatorswhospeakonbehalfof‘thenormals’constructastigmatheorythatdiscreditsrealityTV.IfwatchingrealityTVis‘notnormal’,thenitisadiscreditedactivity.ThemetaphorofthecircusfreakshowcreatesanimpressionofrealityTVthatiswhollynegative.Thealleged‘risks’ofwatchingreality Theideaoflearning85TVaresogreatthatinextremecasesitcanbeadangertopeoplewhowatchsuchprogrammes,andtosocietyasawhole.TheconceptofstigmaasappliedtodiscussionofrealityTVinthepopularpressprovidessomecontexttothewaytelevisionaudiencestalkaboutinformationinrealityprogramming.IfviewersofrealityTVclaimcertainprogrammesareinformative,thenthisimplieswatchingrealityprogrammescanbebeneficial.ButviewersarehesitanttomakesuchclaimsbecauseofthecommonassumptionthatwatchingrealityTVisbadforyou.ThestigmaassociatedwithwatchingrealityTVissogreatthatthefirstresponseviewerscommonlymakewhenaskedaboutinformativeelementsinrealityprogrammingistomakeajoke.Theuseofhumourisawayofmanagingotherpeople’sresponses(‘thenormals’)tothestigmaofwatchingrealityTV.Herearesomecommonresponsestotheideaoflearningfromrealityprogramming:‘IstheresomethingyoucanlearnfromBigBrother?’(interviewer)‘Yeah,turnitoff!’(39-year-oldmalegroundsman)‘Youlearnnottoturnupatanairportwithoutyourpassport![laughs]There’snotalotyoucanlearnfromAirport.’(39-year-oldmaleimporter)‘It’sentertainment[laughs].Itwasn’talearningthing,itwasjustentertainment.’(32-year-oldfemalenurseryassistant)‘IsthereanythingyoucanlearnfromBigBrother?’(interviewer)‘Yeah,neverlivewithtenpeopleinahouse!’(26-year-oldmaleestateagent)‘It’sjustmindless…entertainment.’(31-year-oldhousewifeandpart-timenanny)‘Twaddle.’(45-year-oldunemployedmale)‘It’sembarrassingtosayyouenjoyitreally…isn’tit?’(31-year-oldhousewifeandpart-timenanny)Thistypeofinstantresponsetoquestionsregardinglearninginrealityprogrammingistypicalofallthediscussions.Asviewersrejecttheideaoflearningoutright,theybelittlerealityprogrammes(‘twaddle’),andinturnbelittletheirownviewingpractices(‘mindless’).ThestigmatisationofrealityTVastrashTVinthepopularpressimpactsonviewers,whoattempttomanagetheimpressionsofotherpeople(includingacademic 86Theideaoflearningresearchers)bymakinglightoftheideaoflearningfromrealityprogramming.Itisimportanttomakeadistinctionbetweenentertainmentinfactualratherthanfictionalprogrammes.Infictionalprogramming,itisasignofagooddramaiftelevisionviewersfinditentertaining.Infactualprogramming,thereverseistrue.IfrealityTVismindlessentertainmentthenthisisacriticismofpopularfactualtelevisionanditsroleinthe‘dumbingdown’oftelevision.Commentslikethosemadebyjournalists,andviewersintheaboveextracts,relatetoawidercriticaldebateaboutthewaytelevisionhinders‘theformationandcommunicationofknowledge’(Corner1999:108).‘Television’sconventionsofdepictionandexpositionaresaidtohaveledtoadeteriorationintheknowledge-processingcapacitiesofthepublic’(Corner1999:110).AccordingtocriticssuchasOliverJamesthereisnobetterexampleofallthatiswrongwithsocietythanthepopularityofrealityTV.ThecommercialisationofrealityformatssuchasPopstarsorAmericanIdolisalsoafactorinunderstandingwhyaudiencescategorisecontemporaryrealityprogrammingas‘mindlessentertainment’.Thepopularityofrealitytalentshows,andaccompanyingmerchandisetotheseries,increasestheentertainmentvalueoftheprogrammeswhilstatthesametimedecreasingtheinformativevalueoftheprogrammes.Forexample,theBeechfamilywerefansofPopstars,andtalkedabouttheseriesonaregularbasis.TheBeechchildren,threegirlsallinprimaryschool,learntsomeofthesongsanddanceroutinesperformedbythebudding‘popstars’(Hear’Say).InadiscussionaboutPopstars,themotherandeldestdaughterbothmadelightofthepotentiallearningelementsoftheseries:Interviewer:IsthereanythingtobelearntfromPopstars?Rachael:She’s[hersister]gotaHear’Saytopon.Vivienne:That’swhatshelearnt…howtospendmoneyonthemerchandise![laughs]ShegotHarryPotterandshewantedHear’Say.Interviewer:Didyoubuythealbum?Sally:Yes,wegotthealbumandthesingle.Vivienne:Yes,joinedeverybodyelse.Interviewer:Didyoulearnanything?Sally:Well,aboutbeingfamous…[laughs]Vivienne:Absolutelynothing!Sally:Whatit’sliketobefamous,that’sabouttheonlythingIlearntfromit…andthethingstheywriteaboutyouinthepaper![laughs]Vivienne:Howeasyitistogetthere!Thousandsofpeoplecansing…Idon’tthinktheylearntthatmuch.Theydidenjoythatone Theideaoflearning87but,erm…there’snothing…well,perhapsthereissomethingeducational,Idon’tknow,butifthereisIcan’tseewhatitis[laughs].Theconversationispepperedwithjokesaboutthemerchandiseandthemarketingofcelebritiesintheseries.WhenthedaughtermentionsPopstarsinrelationtolearningabout‘whatit’sliketobefamous’,hercommentdoesn’tsomuchunderscorepotentiallearningelementsintheseriesasnegatethereisanythingreallytolearninthefirstplace.ThefinalpointmadebythemothersuggeststhatPopstarsissosuccessful,andentertaining,thatitisdifficultto‘see’howitcanbe‘educational’atall.Thereisanotherreasonwhyaudiencesaresodismissiveoftheideaoflearninginrealityprogramming.Andthisrelatestothestigmatisationoflearningitself.Intheaboveextractsfromaudiencediscussion,andfrompresscriticism,wesawhowrealityTVwasdescribedaslowestcommondenominatorTV.IntermsofwhatthesociologistPierreBourdieu(1986)referstoas‘culturalcapital’,realityTVhaslowculturalcapital,asitiscommonlyreferredtoasmindlessentertainment(‘twaddle’),andthereforehaslittlevalueintheculturalmarketplace.Ofcourse,issuesconcerningqualitycomeintoplayhere,asrealityTVisoftenusedasabarometeroflowversushighqualityfactualtelevision(seeChapter2).ButthereisanotherwayoflookingatthevalueofrealityTV.Forpopularaudiences,especiallyyoungeraudiences,thevalueofrealityTVisthatitisentertaining.Davies,BuckinghamandKelley(2000)discussthevaluechildrenplaceonchildren’stelevision.CitingBourdieu’sworkonculturalcapital,theyarguethat‘children’sassertionsoftheirowntastesnecessarilyentailaformof“identitywork”–apositioningoftheselfintermsofpubliclyavailablediscoursesandcategories’(2000:21).Forchildren,televisionis‘good’whenitisengaging,action-packed,funny,and,aboveall,entertaining.Thestigmatisationofrealityprogrammingasmereentertainmentworksinthereverseforyoungviewers,whoaredrawntorealityTVpreciselybecauseitpromisestobeentertaining.Thefollowingextractfromadiscussionbyagroupofyoungfemaleviewers(aged12–14)illustratesthedistinctionbetweeninformationandentertainmentforyoungadults:Rachael:No,butIthinkthat’swhatIlikedaboutBigBrother,’cosyoudon’thavetotakeanythinginfromitthatmuch,justlikewatchingit.Kim:Itwaskindofinteresting,thoughyoudon’thavetolearnaboutit.Peopleouragearen’treallyinterestedinfindingoutinformationabouthow,like,stuffhappens.Clare:Youlearnthatatschool. 88TheideaoflearningKim:Likeifthey’dshowedyou,erm,like,learningstuff,Idon’tthinkitwouldbehalfasinteresting.Theseviewersassociatedlearningwithwork,andworkwithschool.TheymadeadistinctionbetweenBigBrotherasengaging(‘interesting’)andasnon-engaging(‘learningstuff’).Mostimportantly,theydidnotwishtoextract,or‘take’,anythingawayfromtheirviewingexperienceotherthanthepleasureof‘just’watchingBigBrother.Anotherextract,thistimefromagroupofyoungmaleviewers,servestoemphasisethestigmatisationoflearningforyoungadults:Max:WhenIwatchTV,Idon’twatchitto,like,learnsomething,Iwatchittoenjoymyself,unlessitwassomething,like,really,reallyinteresting.Michael:NormallyIwatchTVwhenI’meitherboredor…well,thentoentertainmyself,butthenIdon’tusuallythinkabout‘Oh,whathaveIlearntfromthis?’Ijustenjoywatchingit.Max:Ithinkit’sgood…Iwouldn’twatchaprogrammeifit’scalledtheLearningProgrammebutsomeprogrammesIthinkcanbereallygoodandatthesametimeyoucan,like,learnstuffbutyoudon’tactuallyrealiseit.ButiftheprogrammeactuallyshowedthatitwasaLearningProgramme,Iwouldn’twatchit.Thereisadistinctionbeingmadebetweeninformalandformallearningintelevisionprogrammes.Formallearning(‘theLearningProgramme’)isclearlyassociatedwithprimaryfeaturesofaprogramme,whereasinformallearningismoreassociatedwithsecondaryfeatures.Whatcomesfirstisentertainment,andanysecondarypleasuresmayincludethepossibilityoflearning,butareoptionalextras.Comparetheabovequotewiththefollowingfromanadultviewer:‘Ilikelearningprogrammes,IthinkIdonow,morethananything.Sadly,butIdo,yeah’(43-year-oldself-employedbuilder).Foryoungviewers,formallearningisassociatedwithschool,andwithbeinganadult,andifatelevisionprogrammeadvertisesitselfas‘alearningprogramme’thenitlosesitsattractionandbecomesateacherratherthananentertainer.Inrelationtostigma,televisionaudienceshaveacomplicatedrelationshipwithwatchingrealityTV.WhenadultviewersclaimrealityTVisentertainingtheyarediscreditinganalreadydiscreditedtelevisiongenre.WhenyoungviewersclaimrealityTVisentertainingtheyarebeingcomplimentarytowardsthegenre.Ineachscenariotheideaoflearningisrejected.Inthenextsection,Iwanttoexploretheideaoflearning,inparticularinformallearninginrealityprogramming.Itismycontentionthatcertaintypesofrealityprogrammingcanofferlearningopportunitiesforviewers,butinordertoillustratethispointIneedto Theideaoflearning89explorefurtherthecomplicatedrelationshipbetweenseeingandknowingforpopularfactualaudiences.PRACTICALLEARNINGWhenaudiencesconsiderinformationinrealityprogrammestheyarelikelytotalkaboutinformationaslearning,andlearningaspracticaltipsandadviceforthemselvesandtheirlovedones.Theterm‘learning’suggestsaninformal,personalrelationshipwithfactsinpopularfactualtelevision,comparedtothemoreformalterms‘knowledge’,‘information’or‘education’thatweassociatewithmoretraditionaltypesoffactualtelevision.Apopularfactualprogrammeisjudgedasmoreinformativethanotherprogrammesifitofferspracticaladvice,andviewerscanpersonallylearnfromit.OfalltheUKrealityprogrammesavailabletoviewers,programmessuchasChangingRoomsor999arethoughttobethemostinformative.Thissuggeststhatviewersarelikelytojudgehowinformativerealityprogrammescanbebasedondifferenttypesofrealityformats,andtherelationshiptheseformatshavetoviewers’everydaylives.ThepersonalisationofinformationbyviewersissignificantbecauseithighlightshowviewersspecificallyrelatetoparticulartypesofrealityTV.AsIarguedintheprevioussection,realityTVcanenableviewersto‘seeforthemselves’,andthisprocessof‘seeing’isconnectedwiththeinformativeelementsinparticularprogrammes.Whenaudiencesconnectwhattheyseewithwhattheyknow,thenrealityTV‘elicitsfromviewerscertainkindsofinvestmentofselfwhichothermediacannotsoeasilygenerate,ifatall’(Corner1995:31).Theconceptoftheinvestmentoftheselfisconnectedtorealityprogramminginthewayordinarypeopleareportrayedincertaintypesofformats.Makeoverandinfotainmentprogrammesoftentakethespecificexperiencesofordinarypeopleandmakethesestoriesgeneralisable,sothatthestoriesareaboutMrandMrsXorYandtheirhealthorhomeimprovements,andaboutyouandyourhealthorhomeimprovements.Whenwerespondtoindividualstoriesinmakeoverorinfotainmentrealityprogrammesweoftendrawonourownexperiencestomakesenseofthesestories.SocialtheoristAnthonyGiddenshasexploredtheconceptoftheselfinmodernsociety.InhisbookModernityandSelfIdentity(1991),Giddensarguesthatweliveinapost-traditional(latemodern)societythatischaracterisedbyaquestioningoftraditionalvaluesandwaysoflife:‘Whattodo?Howtoact?Whotobe?Thesearefocalquestionsforeveryonelivingincircumstancesoflatemodernity’(1991:70).AccordingtoGiddens,ourself-identities,orlifebiographies,areconstructedonadailybasis.Weareengagedinongoingstories,creatinga‘narrativeofthe 90Theideaoflearningself’thatchangesdependingonourcircumstancesandouraudience(1991:20).TherearesimilaritieswithGiddens’conceptof‘narrativeoftheself’andErvingGoffman’sideaofthepresentationoftheselfineverydaylife,discussedinthepreviouschapter.BothGoffmanandGiddensclaimthatwhoweareatanygivenmomentofthedayisdependentonhowwewouldliketoappeartoothers.Wethereforeconstructdifferentnarratives,orperformances,forourworkcolleaguesorfamilydependingonwhetherweareatworkorathome.Themediacontributestotheconstructionofnarrativesoftheself.ShaunMooresarguesthatbroadcastingprovidesviewersandlistenerswithaconstant‘stream’ofsymbolicmaterialsfromwhichtofashiontheirsensesofself…thisflowofimagesandsoundsiscreativelyappropriatedbysocialsubjectsastheyseektoputtogetherpersonalidentitiesandlifestyles.(2000:139)Similarly,DavidGauntlett(2002:98)statesthat‘informationandideasfromthemediadonotmerelyreflectthesocialworld…butcontributetoitsshapeandarecentraltomodernreflexivity’.Thus,whenwewatchtelevisionwecancollectinformationandideasthatmayhelpustoconstructandmaintainourownself-identities,orlifebiographies.TheconceptoftheselfismostapplicabletorealityTVwhenprogrammesaredesignedtospeaktoviewersaboutissuesthatmattertothem.WatchingrealityTVcanbeareflexiveprocessinthesensethatthepersonalisedstoriesandtipsonlivingthatfeatureinsomerealityformatsareinternalisedbyviewers,andstoredforpotentialuseatappropriatemomentsintheirownlives.Realityprogramminghasbeencriticisedforitspreoccupationwiththeindividualratherthanthesocial.Comparedwithtraditionaldocumentary,anditsaspirationsasapublicform,realityTVcanbeseenashighlytrivial,preoccupiedwithpersonalstoriesaboutpersonallives(Dovey2000).Intermsofthecontentofmuchrealityprogrammingthisiscertainlytrue.StoriesabouthealthinChildren’sHospitalarestoriesaboutpeople’sindividualexperiencesofillhealthandrecovery,notthehealthcaresystem;storiesaboutholidaysinHolidaysfromHellarestoriesaboutindividualexperiencesofgoodandbadholidays,nottheholidayindustry;storiesaboutpopmusicinPopIdolarestoriesaboutindividualexperiencesofbeingapopsinger,notthemusicbusiness.Therearefewrealityprogrammesthatattempttolookatthebigpicture,andotherresearcherssuchasDovey(2000),Kilborn(2003)orPalmer(2003)havepaidattentiontowhythisisthecase,andtheimpactoftheprivatisednatureofmuchrealityprogrammingonfactualtelevisionasawhole.ButwhenweconsideraudienceresponsestocertaintypesofrealityTV,thefocusonindividualstoriesissomethingviewers Theideaoflearning91areattractedtopreciselybecausetheseparticularprogrammesoffernarrativestheycanrelateto.Health-basedrealityprogrammestypicallycontainaninformativeaddresstothevieweralongsidepersonalstories.999,forexample,mixespersonalstoriesofaccidentsandemergencyservicesrescueoperationswithgeneraladviceaboutfirstaid.Inpreviousresearch,Iexamined999inrelationtoitscommunicativeformandprogrammedesign,anditsreception(Hill2000a,2000b).999usesstoriesofeverydayaccidents,suchasabarbequefire,tospeaktoviewerswhomaywishtolearnhowtopreventsuchaccidentsfromoccurringtothemselvesandtheirlovedones.999alsoselectsstorieswithhappyendings,andviewersvalueitslife-affirmingstoriesbecausetheyofferanidealisedversionofacaringsociety(Hill2000c).Whentheprogrammeoffersadviceaboutfirstaidthesesegmentscanbeperceivedbyviewersaslearningopportunities,whereviewersmaystoreinformationorideasforlateruse.Asthisviewerexplains:‘Iwatch999to,sortof,seewhatcanIdoincaseofafire,or,Ibreakaleg,whatfirstaidIcoulduse,orstufflikethat’(40-year-oldfemalepart-timesecretary).Or,asthisviewerdescribes:‘Ithinkthebestthingis,it’sinformative.Youneverknowwhenyou’regoingtofindyourselfinasituationthat,maybeyou’veseensomethingthepreviousdaywhereyouthoughtthatmightcomeintopracticeatalaterpoint’(37-year-oldfemalesecretary).Inanotherexample,amotherexplainedhowshewasabletouseinformationfromahealth-basedrealityformattohelpherson:‘Myson’stoothwasknockedout…itwasthewholerootandeverything,and’cosI’dseenitontheChildren’sHospitalthatyouweresupposedtoputitinmilk,Ididthatandhe’sstillnow,sixyearson,gotthatsametooth.Theyputitbackin!’(37-year-oldhousewife).Consumer-basedrealityformatsalsotypicallycontainaninformativeaddresstothevieweralongsidepersonalstories.HouseofHorrors,forexample,mixespersonalstoriesofcustomers’experiencesofunprofessionalbuildersorplumbers,withgeneraladviceaboutconsumerawarenessandcomplaintsprocedures.Typically,apresenterundertakestoinvestigatecustomercomplaintsaboutparticulartradespeoplebygoingundercover,andhiringparticulartradespeopleto‘fix’variousbuildingproblems,whilstsecretlyfilmingtheiroftenillegalactivities.Oncethehiddencamerashaveproventheirguilt,thesepeoplearethenconfrontedbythepresenterandheldtoaccount.The‘horror’storiesofunprofessionalbuildersorplumbersarepresentedinanentertainingmanner,butthereisaclearaddresstotheviewertotakecaution,andlearnfromotherpeople’sbadexperiencesofroguebuilders.Thisdiscussionbytwomaleviewersillustratesthewayaudiencesrespondtoconsumer-basedrealityformats: 92TheideaoflearningBob:Ithinktheprogrammeisdesignedtotryandeducatethegeneralpublictobemorecarefulinanytrade.Shaun:But,attheendoftheday,tome,whatit’ssayingis‘Iwon’tgetthesedealsfromthepaperanymore,I’llgetsomebodywhomymateknowswhotheycantrust’.Bob:Somepeoplewillpickuponthatandsay‘Fromnowon,I’lltryandgetpeoplerecommended’.HouseofHorrorsis‘designed’toencouragethepublic‘tobemorecareful’whenemployingbuilders,andviewerspickuponthedidacticelementsoftheprogrammeandperceivethestoriesascautionarytales.I’dliketolookinmoredetailatlifestyleprogrammesinordertoexplorehowsuchprogrammesspecificallyspeaktoviewersabouttheirownlives,andhowviewersrespondtoinformationoradvicegivenintheprogrammes.Traditionallifestyleprogrammesareaboutpopularleisurepursuits,suchasDIYorcookery,andtypicallycontaininstructionsonhowtolookafteryourgarden,orhowtomakeameal.CharlotteBrunsdon,inheranalysisofoldandnewlifestyleseries,pointsoutthatthe‘hobbygenre’traditionallyfocusedon‘skillacquisition’(Brunsdonetal.2001:54).Forexample,inthelong-runningBritishBBCseriesGardeners’World‘weareshownappropriatespringpruning,howtodivideherbaceousperennials,andtheplantingoutofhardenedseedlingsin20minutesofcontinuousaddress…Bytheendoftheprogrammethelistenerwouldknowhowtodosomething’(ibid.).Brunsdonarguesthatcontemporarylifestyleprogrammesretainthedidacticelementsofearlierhobbyorenthusiastprogrammes,butthedidacticelement‘isnarrativelysubordinatedtoaninstantaneousdisplayoftransformation’,wherethefocusislessontheinformationprovidedbythepresenter,andmoreonthebeforeandafterofordinarypeople’shomes,gardensandpersons(2001:55).ThemakeoverhasbecomeastapleofcontemporarylifestyleseriesintheUK,theUSAandAustralia.Medhurst(1999:26)goessofarastoarguethatthe1990swascharacterisedbylifestyleTVthattoldviewers‘don’tjustwatchus,copyus’.Althoughthemakeoveroftenfeaturedinadvertisingandcookeryprogrammes,itsplaceinprimetimetelevisionwasuniquetothe1990s,whereadvice,transformationandconsumerawarenessbecamepartofthelanguageoflifestyletelevisionforpopularaudiences(Bonner2003:130–1).Inthe2000s,themakeoverhastransformeditselfand,nolongerlimitedtohomesandgardens,hasexpandedtoincorporateordinarypeopleandtheirwayoflife.Wecanwatch(andcopy)ordinarypeopletransformingtheirbusinesspractices,orpersonalrelationships,aswellastheirlivingarrangements,orpersonalappearances.Indeed,personalmakeoverstories,orwhattheBBCcalls‘narrativelifestyle’,arefundamentaltocontemporarylifestyleformats Theideaoflearning93thatattempttoconsiderthetransformationoftheself,aswellasthetransformationofthehomeenvironment.8AccordingtoBonner(2003:136)‘makeoverprogrammesarethemostovertsignsofthewaytelevisionperceivesitselftobeengagedinaprojectofadvisingitsordinaryviewersabouttheirtransformationintohappier,moresatisfied,moreup-to-dateversionsoftheirselves’.Thus,contemporarylifestyleprogrammesoffer‘narrativesoftheself’thatarelessaboutleisurepursuits,andmoreaboutlifeingeneral.TheUKbroadcaster,Channel4,evencategorisesitslifestyleprogrammesas‘Life’toreflectthetransformationoflifestyleprogrammingfromleisuretoliving.9Perhaps,thebest-knownmakeoverseriesaroundtheworldisChangingRooms,aBBCDIYseriesthatmixespersonalstoriesofhomeimprovement,withgeneraltipsoninteriordesign.Typically,ChangingRoomscontainsthestoryoftwosetsofneighbourswhotransformeachother’slivingspaceaccordingtoadesignbrief,budgetandtimeframeprovidedbytheprogramme.Apresenterjudgestheprogressofthetwoteams,andprovideshumorouscommentaryonthestylechangestakingplace.Therearealsointeriordesignerswhoassisttheteams,andwhocompeteagainsteachothertomakebolddesignstatementstotheordinarypeopleintheprogrammeandtoviewersathome.RachaelMoseley(2000:314)hasarguedthatmakeoverseriessuchasChangingRoomshavea‘doubledaudiencestructure’wherebythereactionsofordinarypeopleintheprogrammesareas,ifnotmore,importantthanthereactionsofviewersathome.Theprogrammepresentsaninsider’sviewofthereactionsofordinarypeopletothechangesmadetotheirhomes,andviewersmonitorthesereactions,judgingthosereactionsthoughttobe‘authentic’or‘false’.ThistypeofjudgementofthebehaviourofordinarypeopleinrealityprogrammingissomethingIdiscussedinthepreviouschapterinrelationtotheissueofperformanceandauthenticity.ForMoseley(2000),the‘doubledaudiencestructure’istroublingbecauseitcollapsespublicandprivatespaces,givingviewerstheopportunitytoseeprivateresponsestheywouldnotnormallybeabletoseeintraditionallifestyleprogramming.ChangingRoomshascapitalisedonitsabilitytoletaudiencesseeintotheprivatelivesofordinarypeople,asitisarguabletheprogrammeisaboutanythingbutthe‘momentoftruth’whenthetransformationisrevealedtothehomeowners.ChangingRoomsmaycontainamixofpersonalstoriesandgeneraladvice,buttheinformativeelementsaresubsumedunderthenarrativedriveofpeople’semotionalresponsestodramaticchangestotheirhomeenvironment.Televisionaudienceshaveambiguousresponsestotheideaoflearningincontemporarylifestyleprogrammes.ChangingRoomsisacommontypeofrealityprogrammeaudiencesassociatewithpracticallearning.Andyet,whenviewerstalkabouttheprogramme,theyarehard-pressedtocomeupwithconcreteexamplesoflearningfromwatchingChanging 94TheideaoflearningRooms,andinsteadrefertothe‘ideaoflearning’intheprogramme.Thiswouldsuggestcontemporarylifestyleprogrammesoffermoreinformal‘ideas’,ratherthanformaladviceaboutliving.Arguably,theshiftfromadvicetoideasinmakeovershowsisaresultofthehistoryoflifestyleprogramming.Traditionalleisureprogrammescontaindirectadvicetoviewers,whereascontemporarylifestyleprogrammescontaintheresponsesofordinarypeopletoideasfromexpertsintheprogramme(Brunsdonetal.2001).Andtheideasfromexpertsarenotnecessarilyideasviewerswouldwishtoapplyinpractice.Anexampleofaudiencediscussionoflifestyleformatswillillustratethedifferencebetweenadviceintraditionalleisureprogramming,andtheideasinmakeoverseries.TheBeechfamilylivedinthesouth-eastofEngland,andownedaterracedhousewithagarden,aswellastwotelevisions,andoneVCRandaPC.RobertandVivienne(astonemasonandpart-timenannyrespectively)havethreechildren,allofwhomattendedprimaryschool,andmanyafter-schoolactivities,suchasdramaandswimming.Thefamilyreadalocalnewspaper,andregularlywatchedrealityprogrammesaboutplaces,survival,petsandhomes/gardens.TheBeechfamilyhaddefiniteviewsonthedifferencebetweenoldandnewlifestyleprogrammes.Sally:DadhatesChangingRooms!AndGroundForce[laughs].ButMumloveswatchingChangingRooms!Vivienne:Youmakemesoundsobright,don’tyou![laughs]Uurgh!‘Gormlessmother!’[laughs]Oneofthosemothers,whatcanyoudo?Interviewer:Whatdoyouthinkaboutit?Sally:It’s…justreallyboring,it’sjustaboutwhatcolourtheycanputonwallpaper…Vivienne:Well,forsomeonewhodoesn’teventidytheirbedroom,itwouldn’treallybeofinteresttoyou,wouldit?Robert:Ithinkit’s’cosit’sdoneonabudgetanddonesocheaply,that’swhatIdon’tlikeaboutit.Vivienne:See,heseesthepracticalside,heseestheworkside.Interviewer:Doyouthinkyougetanyinformationfromit?Vivienne:Ithinkso,yeah,theydo,ifyou’rethatwayinclinedyoucouldprobablygetsomegoodideasoffthem,onhowtodothingsonthecheap.Robert:Nothingexpensive.Sally:ButDad,they’vegot…forGroundForce,andforChangingRoomsIthink,they’vegotthosebookslikeyou’vegotupstairsthattellyouallabouthowtodoit.Rachael:Butcouldyoubebothered? Theideaoflearning95Vivienne:Ithinkyou’dpickupalotmorewithGroundForcethanyouwouldwithChangingRoomsbecausetheyareactuallymakingpropergardens,ratherthan…thesearen’tproperroomsthey’remaking,arethey?Robert:No.Interviewer:Haveyoueveractedonanyideasthatyou’vegot?Vivienne:No.I’mnotverycreative,really,Ithinkeveryonewouldagree!Robert:ThetroublewiththingslikeGroundForce,youdon’tgetsomanynormalgardeningprogrammes,Gardeners’World,andthosesortofprogrammes.But,erm,that’sthetrouble..Vivienne:WhatwasGardeners’World?Wasn’tthatthesamesortofthing?Robert:No.Itwouldjustshowyoudifferentplantsanddifferentgardens.Vivienne:Oh,yeah.Thatwasmoreinthedetail,thesearemorelikegardenmakeovers,aren’tthey?Robert:It’sarushjob,isn’tit,tomakeitlooknicebeforetheownercomesback.Vivienne:Yeah,notsopracticalthen.Interviewer:WhataboutwhenthingsgowronginChangingRooms?Vivienne:Well,that’swhatIwaitforreally.There’sthatgirl,whatshedoestopeople’shouses,youraveragepersonwouldprobablyquitelike,Ithink,it’snotverywacky.ButthatLlewellynfella,that’sjustdonefortelevision.Imean,whoonearthisgoingtolikeit.Likeagothiclivingroominthemiddleof,youknow,Clapham![laughs]ThislengthyextractfromtheBeechfamilydiscussionoflifestyleprogrammingoffersrichinsightintothewaytelevisionaudiencesmakedistinctionsbetweendifferentkindsoflearningopportunitiesindifferenttypesoflifestyleprogrammes.RobertandViviennehavedifferenttastesinlifestyleprogramming.Robertlikesmoretraditionallifestyleprogrammesbecausetheyofferadvice,andtheyshowviewershowtomakequalityimprovementstotheirhomesandgardens.Viviennelikescontemporarylifestyleprogrammesnotbecauseoftheattentionto‘detail’butbecauseofthemakeover.Therearegender,classandageissuesthatshapethefamilydiscussion.Vivienneisembarrassedthatshemightbeperceivedasa‘gormlessmother’forwatchingChangingRooms,andforenjoyingthepersonalstoriesandthe‘badtaste’oftheinteriordesignerswhoregularlyfeatureintheseries.Theremaybeideasaboutinteriordesignintheprogramme,buttheseideasarenotreallyvaluedbyRobertorVivienne,astheideasaremainlyabout‘howtodothingsonthecheap’,andneitherwouldwishtosuggesttheywouldmakeovertheirownhouse 96Theideaoflearninginasimilarfashion.ChangingRoomsisn’tabout‘properrooms’,butaboutroomsmadeoverfor‘television’.ForRobert,lifestyleprogrammingis‘good’ifitisprimarilyabout‘theworkside’ofhomeimprovement,whereasforVivienne,lifestyleprogrammingisgoodifitisadiversionfromwork.Withregardtothechildren,theypointoutthatthereareinformativeelementstomakeoverseries,includingbooksthataccompanytheseries,butlearninghowtodosomethingisnotthemainappealofwatchingmakeovertelevision(‘couldyoubebothered?’).FortheBeechchildren,lifestyleprogrammesare‘reallyboring’,butthisdoesn’tmeantosaytheydon’twatchtheprogrammeswiththeirparents.Theappeal,orlackofappeal,ofrealityprogrammingforfamilyviewersissomethingIdiscussinthenextchapter.SufficetosaythattheBeechchildrenaremorelikelytowatchChangingRoomswiththeirmum,thanGardeners’Worldwiththeirdad,becauseoneisperceivedasmoreentertainingthantheother.AnotherexamplefromadiscussionaboutChangingRoomswillillustratethesubtledifferencebetweenlearningandthe‘ideaoflearning’inlifestyleprogrammes.ThePalmerfamilylivedinthesouth-eastofEngland,andownedalargedetachedfamilyhomewithagarden,andwithfivetelevisions,oneVCR,onePCandasatellitesubscription.Stevenwasanengineer,andVictoriawasapart-timecarer.Theyhadfourchildrenlivingathome;thetwoeldestchildren(RichardandSarah)workedfulltime,whilstthetwoyoungestwerestillinschool.TheparentsreadthebroadsheetnewspapertheDailyTelegraph,andtheyoungadultsreadthetabloidnewspapertheSun,andthefamilyregularlywatchedrealityprogrammesaboutmotorway/driving,police/crime,andhomes/gardens.Thefrontroomwasredecoratedatthetimeofvisitingthefamily,andVictoriasaidshehadredecoratedtheroominordertomakeithers,aroomwhereshewouldbeabletowatchtheTV‘inpeace’.Interviewer:YousaidyoulovedChangingRooms.Victoria:Yeah,IwatchthatwhenIgotowork.Richard:Mymumdoesn’twork!Victoria:Idowork…Thereareallsortsofthingsinthatvein,whetherornotit’sChangingRooms.They’reverymuchofamuchnessbutIstilllovethemall,Ican’tresistseeingwhatthey’redoing!Sarah:You’vegotideas…Richard:Stop!Theygetcladding–claddingisit?–andtheypaintitbrownorsomething,withawoodeffect![toneofdisgust]Victoria:Yeah,butforeverytwentybadideas,there’susuallyonethat’shandy.Richard:Youdowatchittogetideas.Victoria:Tofindouthowtodoityourself,really. Theideaoflearning97Interviewer:Andhaveyouactuallyusedanyideas?Victoria:Erm…Sarah:Youimagineideasyou’dlike.Steven:Bluepaint[thatVictoriausedonwallsinthegarden].Victoria:IthinkIheraldedthebluepaint,excuseme!Likethemotherinthepreviousextract,Victoriadefendshertasteinmakeovershowstotherestofthefamily.Shemixescriticismoftheprogrammeswithpraiseforthewaymakeovershowsenableherto‘see’whatotherpeopleare‘doing’intheirhomes.ForVictoriaandherdaughter,thepersonalstoriesofhomeimprovementoffer‘ideas’ratherthandirectadvice.ButwhenthePalmerfamilyconsiderthepracticalapplicationoftheseideas,theybecomeimaginedratherthanrealideas.Thus,theformatdoesnotcontainadvice,orevenideas,butimaginedideasforhomeimprovement.AndVictoriaevenrejectstheideaoftheideaoflearningfromChangingRooms.Shewantstobeperceivedas‘heralding’herowncreativeideasforhomeimprovementratherthanrelyingon‘bad’ideasincontemporarylifestyleprogrammes.Theseextractsfromfamilydiscussionofcontemporarylifestyleprogrammingsuggestthattelevisionaudiencesdonotreadilypickupinformationorideasfromwatchingtheseprogrammes.Thedifferencebetweenhealth-basedrealityprogrammesandlifestyleprogrammesisworthmentioningbecausetheconfidentmannerinwhichviewerstalkaboutthepracticallearningopportunitiesfromhealth-basedprogrammingisquitedifferentfromtherathermoreambivalentdiscussionofthewayviewerscould‘imagineideas’fromcontemporarylifestyleseries.OneofthereasonsIfocusedonlifestyleprogrammesinaudiencediscussionofpracticallearningispreciselytheambiguityofwhatexactlyislearningincontemporaryrealityprogramming.Asthemakeoverserieshasshiftedattentionfromdidacticaddresstotransformationanddisplay,theopportunitiesforlearningarerestrictedto‘ideas’ratherthanpracticalknowledge.Indeed,contemporarylifestyleprogrammingillustrateshowinformationhasbeentransformedintotheideaoflearning,ratherthanlearningitself.Althoughlifestyleprogrammingcontains‘narrativesoftheself’(Giddens1991:20)intheformofpersonalstories,audienceresponsesarelessabouthowtolearnfromthesestories,andmoreabouttheideaoflearning,ifatall,fromwatchingrealitytelevision.SOCIALLEARNINGThephrase‘peoplewatching’iscommonlyassociatedwithrealityTV.Forsomecritics,‘peoplewatching’isanothertermfornosiness,andthereis 98Theideaoflearningcertainlya‘noseysociability’(Corner2000)towatchingrealityprogramming.Intheprevioussection,viewerstalkedabouttheirpleasureinwatchingwhatotherpeopledototheirhomesinmakeoverprogrammes.Thereisadifferencebetweenvoyeurismandpeoplewatching,asvoyeurismimpliesadeviantcharactertrait,whereasnosiness,orpeoplewatching,isasomewhatmoresociallyacceptableformofbehaviour.RealityTVinvitesviewerstolookinontheworldaroundthem,andencouragesviewerstoenjoywatchingordinarypeopleandtheireverydayactivities.Inthissense,thescopicfunctionoftelevisionbecomespartoftheattractionforaudiencesofrealityprogrammes.Thisviewerexplainedherattractiontodocu-soapslikeAirportas,‘Ilikejustsittingonbenchesandjustwatchingeverybodywalkpast’(31-year-oldfemalepart-timecarer).Manyviewersinmyresearchusedsimilaranalogiesasawayofdescribingtheir‘natural’interestinwatchingotherpeopleontelevision:‘Youdoliketopeoplewatchinreallifeandthatisjustsomethingyoucandofromthecomfortofyourownhome.AndIthinkthat’swhyit’sinterestingbecauseyoujust…it’sanaturalinstincttowanttoseewhatotherpeopledo’(35-year-oldfemaletechnicalagent).Theactivityofpeoplewatchingisapplicabletotheconceptoflearninginrealityprogrammingbecauseobservationofsocialbehaviourcanbeinformative.JohnHartley(1999),inhisbookTheUsesofTelevision,referstoanassertionmadebyculturalhistorianRichardHoggartinthe1960sthattelevisioncanbeaneducator,ormoderatorofmanners:‘televisionisamajorsourceof“peoplewatching”forcomparisonandpossibleemulation’(1999:155).Hartleyarguesthattelevisioncanteachusawarenessofhowdifferentorsimilarwearetootherpeople,andhowdifferentorsimilarourowncultureistoothercultures.ForHartley,‘differenceisunderstoodasneighbourliness’andmanytelevisiongenres,suchas‘theworld’smostgruesomepolice-chasevideos’or‘neighboursfromhelldocumentaries’,haveincorporatedneighbourlinessintothepresentationofthestories,assumingthatviewersathomewillhaveanunderstandingofsocialbehaviouranddrawontheirpre-existingknowledgewhenrespondingtotheprogrammes(1999:159–60).InrealityprogrammessuchasPoliceCameraAction!,‘moralisticdiscoursesaboutgetawaycars…canonlyworkfortheaudienceonapriorpresumptionofneighbourlinessandcivilityinpersonal,socialanddomesticcomportment’(ibid.).AlthoughHartleylinksHoggart’sideaoftheusesoftelevisiontopoliticalparticipation,orwhathecalls‘culturalcitizenship’,IammoreinterestedinHoggart’snotionofpeoplewatchingasapossiblesourceoflearninginrelationtorealityprogramming.Therealitygenreisrichwithstoriesaboutsociallyappropriateandinappropriatebehaviour.Whetheraudiencescanlearnfromthisisanothermatter,andIwouldbehesitanttomakeclaimsaboutpotential Theideaoflearning99usesofrealityTVwhentheconceptoflearningissoopenlycriticisedbyviewersthemselves.Aswesawintheprevioussectiononentertainment,forthemajorityofviewerstheideaoflearningfromsomethingsoentertainingasrealityTVislaughable.Evenviewerswhoarepreparedtoentertaintheideaoflearningfromwatchingrealityprogrammingmakeacleardistinctionbetweenpracticallearningfromlifestyleprogrammes,andmoreobservationalprogrammes:‘Someprogrammesyoubenefitfrom,sayacookingprogramme,youmight,youmightthink“Oh,I’dtrythattonight”,oradecoratingprogrammeorwhatever,you’dtrysomethingout.ButthingslikeIbizaUncoveredorBigBrother,youjustwatchjustforthelaugh’(23-year-oldfemalebarrister’sclerk).If,asHoggartsuggests,televisioncanteachusaboutourownbehaviourbywatchinghowotherpeoplebehave,thenrealityTVisaprimesiteforthistypeoflearning.Intheprevioussections,wesawhowtheideaoflearningfromtelevisionprogrammesthatopenlysetouttoentertainusisproblematicforviewers.Foradultviewers,inparticular,itisproblematictoacknowledgethattheycanlearnfromwatchingpeopleonTVbecauseitimpliesalackofknowledgeaboutsocialbehaviour.WhenthisviewerspokeaboutBigBrothersherejectedtheideaoflearningfromwatchingpeopleintheprogrammebecause‘YouknowI,sortof,Isortofknowthat,Iknowhowpeopleareanyway,nastyandvindictive,niceorwhatever.Itmightopensomepeople’seyesthatdon’tgoout,maybe’(27-year-oldmother).HersuggestionthattheonlypeoplewhomightlearnfromwatchingBigBrotherarepeoplewhodon’tgetoutmuchsumsupageneralfeelingamongstaudiencesofrealityprogrammingthatifyouneedtowatchrealityTVtolearnaboutlifethenthisimpliesyoudon’thavealifeoutsideofwatchingTV.Whenaudiencesdiscusstheideaoflearningfromwatchingpeopleinrealityprogrammingtheyarehesitanttogiveconcreteexamplesofwhattheyhavelearntthemselves,andtalkinmoregeneraltermsabouthowotherpeoplemaylearnfromwatchingotherpeople’sexperiences:‘Youcanseethepressureof…thethingiswithAirportandallthat,youcanseethepeople,thepressurethatpeopleareputunderandhowthey’recopingwiththatsortofpressureandwhattheyhavetodealwith.If,programmeslikethat,wherethepublicisconcerned,theycanlookatthat,maybeseetheirjob–whateveritmightbeintheirpartofaindustry–willlookatthatandwill,like,“MaybeIcanlearnhowtohandlepressurebetterifIhandleitlikethat.MaybeIcantakethingsfromthatandhandlestressbetter.”’(34-year-oldmalebusdriver) 100TheideaoflearningThisviewer’sdiscussionofsociallearninginAirportisinterspersedwithqualificationsregardingthepossibilityoflearningatallfromwatchingthisprogramme.TheviewerneverdirectlyclaimsthathehaslearntsomethingfromwatchingAirport,butreliesonsecond-andthird-personpronouns(‘you’,‘they’)totalkabouthowotherpeoplecanlearnfromobservinghowairportemployeescopewiththepressuresofthejob.Evenwhenthisviewerdoesusethefirst-personpronounitisatechniquetotalkasifhewerethekindofpersonwho‘canlearnhowtohandlepressurebetterifIhandleitlikethat’.Similartothediscussionofthe‘ideaoflearning’incontemporarylifestyleprogrammesintheprevioussection,discussionoftheideaofsociallearningisframedinrelationtootherpeopleratherthanactualexamplesofsociallearning.CriticsofrealityTVwouldarguethataudiencesarehesitanttogiveexamplesofthingstheyhavelearntfromwatchingrealityprogrammingbecausethereisnothingtolearnfromthem.Evenwhenaudiencesaretalkingaboutpracticaltipsandadvicefromlifestyleprogrammingtheyarehesitanttogiveexamplesofideastheyhavetakenfromtheprogrammesthemselves.Butitistoosimpletosaythataudiencesdon’tlearnfromwatchingrealityprogrammingbecausethereisnothingthereforthemtolearn.Whenaudiencestalkabouttraditionallifestyleprogramming,orhealth-basedrealityprogramming,theyareconfidentintheirdiscussionoflearningfromtheprogrammes,whetheritisadviceaboutfirstaid,ortipsonhowtoplantshrubs.Whentheprogrammeadoptsadidactictone,andtellsaudienceshowtodosomething,thenaudiencesaremoreopenintheiracknowledgementoflearningfromrealityprogramming.Thereissomethingaboutmoreobservational,people-centredrealityprogrammingthatcausesviewerstoeithertalkinatentativemanneraboutsociallearning,orclosedowndiscussionoftheideaoflearningaltogether.Ifwelookattheformat‘extremehistory’whereordinarypeopleliveasiftheywereinthe1900s,ortheFirstWorldWar,wecanseehowaudiencesareopentotheideaoflearningfromsocialobservationiftherearecleardidacticelementstotheprogramme.Realityformatssuchasthe1900sHouse(UK,Channel4),orTheEdwardianCountryHouse(UK,Channel4)anditsAmericancounterpartPrairieHouse(PBS),combineobservationalstylefootagewithinaneducational/historicalframe.Typically,agroupofordinarypeopleagreetotakepartinasocialexperiment,andtheseriesdocumentstheirexperienceastheystruggletocometotermswithlifeinthepast,comparedwithlifeinthetwenty-firstcentury.Thus,TheEdwardianCountryHouse(mypersonalfavourite)involvedtheOlliff-Cooperfamily,wholearnedhowtoliveasEdwardianaristocrats,andagroupofunrelatedpeople,wholearnedhowtoliveasEdwardianservants(suchasMrEdgaranarchitect,whobecamethebutler).Needlesstosaytheservantshadamuchhardertimecomingto Theideaoflearning101termswithEdwardianlifethanLordandLadyOlliff-Cooper.BytheendoftheexperimenttheOlliff-Coopersweresadtoleavelife‘upstairs’asthelastlivingaristocraticEdwardians,whereastheservantscouldn’twaittoleavebehindthedirt,hardwork,andsocialconstraintsoflife‘downstairs’inordertoembracemodernliving.Similarly,inthe1940sHouse,afamilylivedlifeasLondonersduringtheSecondWorldWar,balancingtheirrationbook,andtakingcoverintheirairraidshelteratalltimesofthedayornight.Theseriesfilmedtheirexperiencesoverasix-weekperiod,andinterspersedobservationalfootageoflifeonthehomefrontwithvideodiarieskeptbythefamilymembers,andeducationalinsertsbyhistorianswhocommentedontheauthenticityofthere-created1940shouse.TheseriesalsotiedinwithanexhibitionattheImperialWarMuseum.Therewasalsothe1900sHouse,whereafamilylivedasVictoriansinthesuburbsofLondon.Audienceresponsestothesehistoricalsocialexperimentshighlighthowsocialobservationcanbeperceivedasinformativeifthesocialobservationispresentedwithinaneducationalframe.Forexample,thisfamilyoffivelivedinthesouth-eastofEnglandandownedtheirownhome.Thefather(Shaun)wasapoliceman,themother(Alison)ateacher,andallthreeboyswerestillatschool,aged15,11and8atthetimeofinterview(2001).Thefamilydiscussedprogrammeslikethe1900sHouseandthe1940sHouseinrelationtolearningaboutsocialhistorythroughtheeyesofordinarypeople:Shaun:Thisisaveryinterestingprogramme.Iwatchedthe1900sHouse,whichwasgood,andthiswasthesubsequentone.Alison:Iheardtheyfounditvery,verydifficult.Brian:Yeah,theycouldn’tlivewithoutshampoo.Theygoteggintheirhair,andtheyhadtousenormalVictoriansoap.Tom:IwatchedtheVictorianone,andtheyhadtogotothetoiletinthegarden,andtheyhadtokilltheirownchickens,theydid.Andgetthemtolayeggs.Brian:Thisishistorytoldfromthepointofviewofsomeone.Alison:Theschoolsprogrammestendtobedonewithsomeofitactedout,andthereissomeinformation,soit’snottoopersonal.Itislivinghistory,butyouarenotemotionallyinvolved.Tom:Youlearnhowharditistoliveinthemdays.Shaun:Programmeslikethis,theyrelatehistory.Thefactisthatwhenwegotobreakfastweputourcerealout,andgotothefridgeandgeteggs.Theygettheeggandtheslabofbutterandthat’stheweek’sration,anditcomeshometoyou.Wecanrelatetothetaskstheydo,butwe’vegoteverythingtohand,andtheyhaven’t. 102TheideaoflearningBrian:Youhavetobeintherightmoodtowatchsomeoftheseprogrammes.Youcaneitherthink‘Ohyes,thisisreallygood’,or‘Ohno,notanotheroneofthem’.Alison:Imean,iftheydidthe1960syouwouldstillhavethesamething,peoplewithoutfridgesandyouknow,havingthefirstwashingmachines,andhavingtogodowntothelocalshopeveryday.It’ssuchashorttime,ifwelookatthewaysthingshavechanged.Thefamily‘relate’tothetelevisionfamilyastheytrytolivetheirlivesinthe1900s,orthe1940s.Itisthelittlethingsthattheynotice,livingwithoutshampoo,orbreakfastcereal.Asoneoftheboyspointsout,they‘learnhowharditistolive’withoutmoderncomforts.Thehistoricalframingofthisrealityformatensuresthatthefamilyareinnodoubtaboutwhattheprogrammeistryingtoteachthem–‘historyfromthepointofviewofsomeone’.Andthemother’sconnectionbetweenthisrealityformatandschoolsprogrammingindicateshowthefamilycategorisethesetypesofrealityformatsasinformativeandeducational.Themother’sfinalcommentalsoindicateshowhistoricalsocialexperimentsallowaudiencestocriticallyreflecton‘thewaythingshavechanged’insociety.EarlieronIindicatedthatyoungviewerswerelikelytovalueentertainingratherthaninformativerealityprogrammes.Youngviewersclaimedtheywouldswitchoffthetelevisionifarealityprogrammeadvertiseditselfasa‘learningprogramme’.Althoughtheyoungviewersintheaboveextracthadwatchedthe1900sHousewiththeirparents,thecommentfromtheeldestsonthathehadtobeinthe‘rightmood’towatchitsuggestshisambivalencetowardsthesetypesofhistoricalsocialexperimentrealityformats.YoungviewersareespeciallyattractedtorealityprogrammessuchasPoliceCameraAction!orBigBrother.Indiscussionoftheseprogrammes,youngviewerstalkabouttheideaoflearningfromsocialobservation.Despitehavinganaturalaversionto‘learningprogrammes’,youngviewersareopentotheideaoflearningaboutlifeasaby-productofwatchinganentertainingrealityprogramme.Takethisdiscussionaboutcrimebyagroupofyoungmaleviewers(aged12–14):Interviewer:IstheresomethingaboutPoliceCameraAction!thatyoucanlearnfrom?Mike:Don’tstealacar.Michael:Thereisn’treallyanythingyoucanlearnfromit,it’sjustgoodtowatchreally.Grant:Learnhowtogoat130milesanhourandnotgointoanything. Theideaoflearning103Richard:Youlearnthatyoucan’t,youcan’treallygetawaywithit,thedriverknewhewasbeingfollowed’cosassoonashegotoutthecar,helookedup.Mark:Itkindof,kindofgivesthemessagethat,erm,youshouldn’tdostufflikethat’costhepolicehaveallthisnewtechnology,like,inthehelicopter,thatthey’llbeabletotrackyoudown.AndeventhoughIwouldn’tstealacar,afterseeingthat,peoplewouldprobablybelesslikelyto.Andalso,Ithink,theydon’tshowsomethingsonthatprogramme’costhepeoplewhodogetaway,theyprobablywouldn’tshowonthatprogramme.Mike:Yeah,’cositshowsupthepoliceforceasnotbeinggood.First,thereistheusualjokeaboutlearningfromPoliceCameraAction!,afavouriterealityformatforthisgroupofviewers,andtheusualdismissaloflearning‘anything’fromaprogrammethatis‘goodtowatch’.Butwhatfollowsonfromthisdiscussionisanexplorationofhowtheprogrammecanteachpeople‘thatyoushouldn’tdostufflikethat’.Whatismore,theseyoungviewershavealsolearntthattheprogrammeonlyselectssuccessfulstoriesoflawandorderinordertoteachviewersnottoengageincriminalactivities.Here,the‘message’oftheprogrammegetsthroughtotheseviewers,andatthesametimetheycriticallyreflectonhowthesecrimestoriesareselectedforviewers.Inanotherexample,agroupofyoungfemaleviewers(aged15–18)talkaboutsociallearninginrelationtoBigBrother,thefavouritetypeofrealityformatforthisgroupofviewers:Interviewer:IsthereanythingthatisinformativeaboutBigBrother?Angela:Well,youlearnaboutpeople.Hilary:No,it’sonly,like,youalwaysgetcaughtlying.Laura:No,itisinformativewhentheygointhatroomandtheystartgivingtheiropinionsonpeople.Angela:Ithinkyoucanlearnalotaboutpeoplefromthat.Laura:Yes.Angela:Youcanseethewaypeoplebehave,thewaytheybehavearoundTVs,ontheirown,thewaytheydealwiththings’costhey’relockedup…Imean…Whenpeoplethinkofittheythinkfirstofall‘Oh,no,youcan’tlearn’butyoucan.DoyouknowwhatImean?It’sreallyinterestingtowatchpeople,youknow,inanenvironmentwhereeveryoneisseenallthetime.Sally:IthinkBigBrotherwasalotmoreinterestingandmoreinformativethanAnimalHospital. 104TheideaoflearningEmma:Yeah,it’s,like,peopleskills,youlearntoseehowpeoplereacttocertainsituationsandit’s,like,they’reshutinahouseallthetime,witheachother,theycan’tgetawayfromeachotherandit’s,like,howtheyeitherputtheirdifferenceasideandtryandgetonortheyhavestand-uprows,or…it’sjusthowtheygetonandthewayyourelatetoitreally.Nicola:Well,erm,whatIgotfrompeopleatschoolwasthatitwasn’tfortheinformativepartoranythingitwasjustbasicallybitchingaboutotherpeople,theywerejust,like,‘Idon’tlikehim,Idon’tlikeher,Ithinkheshouldwin’…thatwasallbasicallyitwas,itwasjustentertainment.Sarah:Definitely.Itwasalotmorelight-hearted.Angela:Yeah,it’slikeentertainmentbutyoustillcan…youknowwhatImean,youcanstill,like,seethings,youcanlearnthings.No,youdon’tnecessarilylearnthingsfromitbutitshowsyouthingslike,youknow,people’sattitudesorwhatever.Again,thereisthefamiliardismissaloftheideaoflearningfromwatchingBigBrother,thistimeframedinrelationtogossipandentertainment.Butthereisalsodebateabouthowviewerscan‘learnaboutpeople’bywatchingtheactivitiesofthecontestantsintheBigBrotherhouse.Thus,thediscussionmovesbackwardsandforwards,assessingvariousresponsestotheseriesas‘light-hearted’ormoreserious,dependingonthewayviewersperceivetheactivityof‘peoplewatching’.Thereishesitationaboutwhattocallthistypeoflearning(‘youdon’tnecessarilylearnthingsfromitbutitshowsyouthings’).ButthereisalsoanopendebateabouttheideaoflearningfromwatchingarealityformatsuchasBigBrother.Fortheseyoungviewersatthisstageintheirlives,watchingthewaypeoplebehaveinsocialsituationsispotentiallyinformativebecausetheyarestillformingtheirownunderstandingofsociallyacceptableandunacceptablebehaviour.Althougholderadultsmainlyrejecttheideaoflearningfrompeoplewatching,youngeradultshaveavestedinterestingatheringasmuchknowledgeastheycanabout‘thewaypeoplebehave’becausetheyarestilllearninghowtoconductthemselvesinvarioussocialsituations,inparticularsituationsinvolvingpeers.RealitygameshowssuchasBigBrotherprovideausefulopportunityforyoungadultstolearnaboutsomethingthatmatterstothem.Asoneviewersuggests,watchingacontemporaryrealityformatsuchasBigBrothercanbemoreinformativethanatraditionalrealityformatsuchasAnimalHospitalbecauseyoungadultscanrelatetothecontentofonemorethantheother.Audiencediscussionoflearningincontemporaryrealityprogramminghighlightshowthegenrehas‘primarilydevelopedasamediumof Theideaoflearning105entertainmentanddiversion,withitsknowledge-providingroleasasecondaryfunction’(Corner1999:117).Themajorityofviewersdismisstheideaoflearningfrompopularfactualtelevisionpreciselybecausetheyperceiveitas‘mindlessentertainment’.TheirperceptionofrealityTVrelatestothestigmatisationofthegenreastrashTV.Someviewersarelikelytocategorisetraditionalrealityformatsasinformativewhentheentertainingelementsareframedinaneducationalmanner,andthedidacticelementsofferpracticaltipsandadviceviewerscanuseintheireverydaylives,asinhealth-basedrealityprogrammes.Mostcontemporaryrealityformatsarethoughttobeentertainingratherthaninformative,unlesstheformatsframetheentertainmentinaneducationalmanner,asinhistoricalsocialexperiments.Onlyaminorityofviewersconsidercontemporaryrealityprogrammes,inparticularobservationalstyleprogrammes,aspotentiallyinformativeinrelationtosocialbehaviour.Audienceresponsestoinformationarecomplexbecausethedidacticelementsofmoretraditionalpopularfactualtelevisionhavetransformedintomoreamorphouslearningelementsincontemporaryrealityprogramming.Evenwhenyoungviewersdiscusslearningincontemporaryrealityformats,theymakeadistinctionbetweenformalandinformallearningelementsintheprogrammes,wherelearningbecomesanoptionalratherthananintegralpartoftheviewingexperience.Thisiswhythemajorityofviewersofrealityprogrammingtalkaboutthe‘ideaoflearning’ratherthanlearningitself.WhenHartley(1999)talksabouttheusesoftelevisioninrelationtoitsabilitytoteachthepublic,weshouldbearinmindtheresistanceonthepartofaudiencestobeingtaughtbypopularfactualtelevision.Thewaythataudiencesdismissorqualifytheideaoflearningfromrealityprogramminghighlightsashiftinunderstandingtheroleofinformationintraditionalandcontemporaryrealityprogramming.Thedifferencebetweentraditionalhealth-basedandleisurerealityprogramming,andcontemporaryrealityprogramminghighlightshowthemorerealityformatsdevelopasentertainmentanddiversion,themoretheroleofknowledgebecomessidelinedinthecontentandreceptionoftheprogrammes.Thereareexceptions.HistoricalsocialexperimentssuchasTheEdwardianCountryHousecombineanumberofdifferentelements–historicalfacts,socialobservation,personalexperiences,timetravel–tocreateaninnovativepopularfactualprogrammethatoffersformalandinformallearningopportunitiesforaudiencesaboutlifeintheEdwardianera,andlifeinthetwenty-firstcentury.RealitygameshowssuchasBigBrothercombineanumberofdifferentelements–psychologicalfacts,socialobservation,personalexperiences,games–tocreateaninnovativepopularfactualprogrammethatoffersinformallearningopportunitiesforyoungaudiencesaboutbeingayoungpersoninthetwenty-firstcentury.Suchexamplesindicatethepotentialforcontemporaryreality 106Theideaoflearningformatstoprovide‘modesofcasual,inferredknowledge’(Corner1999:117)forpopularaudiences.However,ifaudiencesmainlyperceivecontemporaryrealityprogrammingasentertainmentanddiversionthenthissuggeststhereisanimbalancebetweenthedifferentelementsofentertainmentandinformationintheprogrammes.Thepowerofrealityprogrammingisthatitcanprovidebothentertainmentandinformationatthesametime,andifallcontemporaryrealityprogrammingcanofferistheideaoflearningthenithascomealongwayfromitsoriginsasinfotainment.Audiencediscussionoftheideaoflearningsuggeststhereisahealthydebateaboutthebalancebetweeninformationandentertainmentinpopularfactualtelevision.Whetherthisisdebateamongstadultviewersaboutpracticallearninginmakeovershows,ordebateamongstyoungviewersaboutsociallearninginrealitygameshows,audiencesareengagedincriticalviewingpractices.Thefactthatsomanyviewersarecriticaloftheideaoflearningwouldsuggestthatthereissomethingtheyhavelearnedfromwatchingrealityprogramming.Theideaoflearningthereforerelatesnotonlytohowviewersmightlearnfrompopularfactualtelevision,butalsotohowviewersmightlearntonotvaluelearninginpopularfactualtelevision.Ononelevel,viewerstalkabouthowthereislittletheycanlearnfromcontemporarypopularfactualtelevision.Here,audiencesinterpretlearningaslearningaboutsomething,whetherthisisformalorinformallearning,andwhetherthislearningisexplicitlyorimplicitlyaddressedbyarealityformat.Onanotherlevel,whenviewerstalkabouttheideaoflearningaboutsomethingfrompopularfactualtelevisiontheirtalkaboutthedifferencebetweentraditionalandmorecontemporaryrealityprogrammesisevidenceoflearning.Whenaudiencesreflectontheideaoflearninginrealityprogrammingtheyarereflectingonthedevelopmentofthegenreitself.Theabilityofaudiencestoseethroughrealitytelevision,andbythatImeanwitnessevents,aswellascritiquetheprocessofselectingevents,isfundamentaltothedevelopmentoftherealitygenre.CONCLUSIONThischapterhasexaminedthechangingroleofinformationinpopularfactualtelevision.Iassessedhowaudiencesjudgetheinformativeelementsinpopularfactualtelevision,andwhetherinformationisvaluedinhybridformatswhichdrawonfictionalorleisureformatsforentertainment.Myresearchindicatesthataudienceshavecontradictoryresponsestoinformationinpopularfactualtelevision.Ontheonehand,audiencesvalueinformativeelementswithinthegenre,andassociate Theideaoflearning107‘information’withthepubliccharacteroffactualtelevisionintheUK.However,audiencesconsidermuchrealityprogrammingtobeentertainingratherthaninformative.TheirdiscussionisframedbymediacoverageofrealityTVasastigmatisedformofpopularculture.Whenviewersdiscussinformativeelementsintraditionalrealityprogrammes,discussioncentresonthedeploymentofknowledge,suchaspracticaltipsforviewers.Forexample,programmesaboutconsumerissues,orhealtharethoughttobeinformativebecauseviewerscanrelatetothem,andstoreinformation,orideas,forlateruse.Theserealityformatsprovidepracticalandsociallearningopportunitieswithinanentertainmentframe.Whenviewersdiscussinformativeelementsincontemporaryrealityprogrammes,discussioncentresontheideaoflearningratherthanlearningitself.Theserealityformatsdonotprovideclearpracticalorsociallearningopportunities,andinsteadforegroundentertainment.Overall,televisionaudiencesarecriticaloftheideaoflearningfromwatchingrealityprogramming.However,suchcriticismisevidenceoflearning,asaudiencesdebatetheroleofinformationwithinpopularfactualtelevision,anddisplaycriticalviewingpractices,practicesthatarehealthyforthedevelopmentoftherealitygenre. Chapter6EthicsofcareTheethicsofrealityTVissignificanttoourunderstandingoftheproduction,contentandreceptionofthegenreasawhole.Therelationshipbetweenethicsandrealityprogrammingisproblematic,asrealityTVisoftencriticisedforitslackofethics.Suchcriticismwilloftenfocusontheunethicaltreatmentofordinarypeoplewhoparticipateinrealityprogrammes,orunethicalprogrammemakerswhousepeople’sprivatestoriesforthepurposesofpublicentertainment(Dovey2000).Thistypeofconcernfortheproductionoffairandresponsiblerealityprogrammingispartofawiderdebateabouttheethicsoftelevisionproduction,andincludesissuessuchasfairness,privacy,andtasteanddecency,issuesattheforefrontofcontentregulation(Winston2000).Debateabouttheethicsofrealityprogrammingisimportantbecausenon-professionalactorshavearighttobetreatedinafairandresponsiblemannerinrealityprogramming,andprogrammemakershavearesponsibilitytopresentstoriesofordinarypeopleandtheirexperiencesinanethicalmanner.Alltoooftenordinarypeoplehavelittlerecoursetocomplainaboutthewaytheyhavebeentreatedorrepresentedinrealityprogrammes(KilbornandHibbard2000;MessengerDaviesandMosdell2001).Ratherthanconsideringethicalpracticeswithintelevisionproduction,Iwanttofocusonethicsinrelationtotelevisionreception.Muchcontentofrealityprogrammingisconcernedwithethics.RealityTV,inthewordsofGayHawkins,has‘takenanethicalturn’(2001:412).Inthischapter,andthefollowingchapter,Iwanttoexplorehowcertaintypesofrealityprogramming,suchashealth-basedrealityformatsorlifestyleformats,havetakenethicalissuesconcernedwithhowweliveourlives,andabouthowotherpeoplelivetheirlives,andmadesuchissuesacentralcomponentoftheprogrammes.Inparticular,Iwanttofocusonanaspectofethicsrelatedtocare.Anethicsofcareisaformofmoralreasoningthatweusetounderstandhowweoughttocareforourhomeandfamily.Howtelevisionaudiencesrespondtothe‘ethicalturn’inrealityprogrammingissignificantinthatitilluminatesethicalvaluesasrepresentedintheprogrammes,andasdiscussedbyviewers.Thetypeofrealityprogrammesthatattractfamilyviewers,suchashealth-based Ethicsofcare109realityprogramming,arealsothetypeofprogrammesthatcontainimplicitandexplicitreferencestoanethicsofcare.Thischapter,therefore,explorestheconceptofanethicsofcareasappliedtorealityprogrammingpopularwithfamilyviewers.Inthefollowingchapter(7),Iapplytheconceptofanethicsofcaretoacasestudyofthecontentandreceptionofanimal-basedrealityprogramminginordertoillustratethesignificanceofmoralvaluestoourunderstandingoftherealitygenre.ETHICSEthicsarepartofoureverydaylives.Ethicsareconcernedwithmoralvalues,withtherightandwrongwaystoliveourlives.Thereareethicaltheoriesofmoralprinciples,andthereistheapplicationoftheseprinciplesinoureverydaylives.AsPeterSingernotes:‘wecannotavoidinvolvementinethics,forwhatwedo–andwhatwedon’tdo–isalwaysapossiblesubjectofethicalevaluation.Anyonewhothinksaboutwhatheorsheoughttodois,consciouslyorunconsciously,involvedinethics’(1993:v).Ethicsmeansthestudyofmorality,andissometimesreferredtoasmoralphilosophy.Ethicsalsomeansmoralityitself.Thus,therearenormativeethicswhichareassociatedwithabstractideasabouthowweoughttoliveourlives,suchasvirtuetheorywhichisconcernedwiththetypeofvirtuesthatweaspiretoinordertobea‘good’person.Therearealsoappliedethicswhichareassociatedwiththeapplicationofethicalreasoningtopracticalmoralissues,suchastheapplicationofvirtuetheorytopersonalrelationships.Ethicshasitsoriginsinancientcivilisation,andethicalwritingsfromancientGreek,EgyptianandHebrewcivilizationspointtothedevelopmentofethicalreasoninginsmall-andlarge-scalesocieties.Thereareanumberofgreatethicaltraditions,fromIndian,BuddhistandclassicalChineseethics,toJewish,ChristianandIslamicethics.IntermsofWesternsociety,thehistoryofmoralphilosophybeganwithancientGreekscholarssuchasSocrates,PlatoandAristotle,whosearched‘forarationalunderstandingoftheprinciplesofhumanconduct’;andthissearchhascontinuedthroughRomantimes,andmedievalandRenaissancetimes,tothepresentday(Rowe1993:121).Modernmoralphilosophyhasitsoriginsinclassicalethicalwriting,butisalsosomewhatdifferentfromtraditionalethicalreasoning.AccordingtoAnnas,traditionalethicalwritingisabouthowwecanachieveourown‘finalgood’,howwecanachievepersonalhappiness(1992:130).Thistypeofethicalinquiryis‘notthefundamentalethicalquestioninmoderntheories’;suchtheories‘characterisemoralityintermsofconcernforothers,whereasancientethicsbeginswithconcernforoneself’(ibid.).Modernmoralphilosophyisconcernedlesswiththe 110Ethicsofcare‘problemofexplainingandvalidatingthemorallyautonomousindividual’,asexemplifiedbytraditionalethics,andmoreconcernedwithmoralvalueswithingroupsorcommunities,andmoralissueswithinsocio/politicalcontexts.Forexample,‘questionsconcerningabortion,environmentalethics,justwar,medicaltreatment,businesspractices,therightsofanimals,andthepositionofwomenandchildrenoccupyaconsiderablepartoftheliteratureandteachingconsideredtobe[modern]moralphilosophyorethics’(Schneewind1993:156).Modernmoralphilosophyisthereforeprimarilyaboutpublicgood,andthedevelopmentofmoralvalueswithinparticularsocial,politicalandculturalgroups,andalsowithinparticularsecularsocieties.Therearenormativeethicaltheoriesthatareusefulinourunderstandingofcontemporaryeverydaylife.Forexample,modernvirtuetheoryarguesthat‘modernsocietieshaveinheritednosingleethicaltraditionfromthepast,butfragmentsofconflictingtraditions’(Pence1993:251).TheoristsclaimsthattraditionalethicalwritingonvirtuebytheancientGreeks,suchasAristotleorPlato,canhelpustoanchormodernmoralphilosophyinanunderstandingofhumangood,orpersonalintegrity.Ethicalquestionscanbeaskedabouthowapersonmayhandlepersonalrelationships,onthebasisofwhethertheyarea‘good’or‘bad’person.Ethicalquestionscanalsobeaskedabouthowparticularculturesencourageordiscourageparticularvirtuesorvices:modernphilosophersarepursuingmanyquestionsaboutvirtue,suchasthedegreetowhichoneisresponsibleforone’sowncharacter,connectionsbetweencharacterandmanners,connectionsbetweencharacterandfriendship,andanalysisofspecifictraitssuchasforgiveness,loyalty,shame,guilt,andremorse.(Pence1993:257)Wemightapplymodernvirtuetheorytoanunderstandingofgoodandbadprofessionalpractices,orgoodandbadcharactertraits.Wemightalsoconsiderhowourjudgementofwhethersomeoneis‘good’or‘bad’isinfluencedbysocialandculturalcontexts,orpersonalprejudices.AnotherexampleofethicaltheoryisthatofKantianethics,aformofethicalreasoningthatclaimsrationalhumanbeingsshouldfollowuniversallawsofreason.Kantwasaneighteenth-centuryEuropeanphilosopherwhoarguedthatourthinkingshouldbeestablishedonthenatural,ratherthanthemetaphysical,world.Kantianethicsarebuiltontheideaofageneralmorallaw,orcategoricalimperative.AccordingtoKant,moralprinciplesshouldbeapplicabletoeveryone–theyshouldbeuniversal.ModernethicaltheoristsinfluencedbyKantargueforuniversalmoralprinciplesthatcanbeappliedtoissuesconcerninglaw,orhumanrights.CriticsofKantarguethatuniversalmoralprinciplesaretoo Ethicsofcare111abstract,andseparatefromsocio-historiccontexts.Kantwasinfluentialinthedevelopmentofdeontologicaltheoriesofethics,whicharguethatweoughttoliveourlivesaccordingtomoralrulesthatshouldnotbebroken,eveniftheconsequencesaresuchthatourliveswouldbeimprovedifweignoredthesemoralrules.Deontologicaltheoriesofethicsaretheoppositeofconsequentialism,whicharguesthatweshouldmakedecisionsabouthowweoughttoliveourlivesbasedonwhateverhasthebestconsequencesforus.Anothertypeofethicalreasoningisthatofthesocialcontracttradition.Asocialcontractapproachtoethicsisonebasedonsocialagreement.Socialcontractarianismrequiresthatwe‘joinothersinactinginwaysthateach,togetherwithothers,canreasonablyandfreelysubscribetoasacommonmoralstandard’(Diggs1981:104,citedinKymlicka1993:186).AccordingtoKymlickatherearetwoformsofcontemporarysocialcontracttheory,bothofwhichdrawonEnlightenmentphilosophies.Thefirstsocialcontracttheoryisinfluencedbytheideasoftheeighteenth-centuryphilosopherHobbes,whoarguedthatacommunityagreesoncommonmoralstandardsaccordingtotheprincipleofmutualadvantage.Forexample,itismutuallyadvantageousforacommunitytoagreethatstealingiswrongbecausethisensuresthattheindividualswithinacommunitydonot(intheory)havetospendvaluabletimeandmoneydefendingtheirproperty.Thisformofsocialcontracttheoryprivilegesthoseinpower.Ourunderstandingofmoralvaluesisshapedbytheprincipleofmutualadvantageratherthannaturalduty,andwethereforedonothaveauniversalrespectfortherightsofothers,butratherarespectforrightsthatarebeneficialtoourselves,andthecommunity.ThesecondsocialcontracttheoryisinfluencedbytheideasofKant,whoarguedfor‘anaturalequalityofmoralstatus,whichmakeseachperson’sinterestsamatterofcommonorimpartialconcern’(Kymlicka1993:188).Thistypeofsocialcontracttheoryisunderpinnedbytheassumptionthat‘eachpersonisentitledtoequalconsideration.Thisnotionofequalconsiderationgivesriseatthesocialleveltoa“naturaldutyofjustice”’(1993:191).Thus,asocialcontracttheoryinfluencedbyKantianethicsisonethatdoesnotprivilegethoseinpower,andreinforcestheassumptionthatwehaveanaturaldutytorespecttherightsofothers.ModernethicaltheoristshavemainlybeeninfluencedbyaKantianapproachtosocialcontractarianism,forexampleinrelationtotheissueofsocialjustice.Criticsofsocialcontractarianismpointoutthattheidealsofmoralequalityandnaturaldutyhavenofoundation,andarethereforeabstractconceptsthataredifficulttoapplytocontemporaryethicalissues.PublicservicebroadcastingisausefulexampleofthecontemporaryapplicationofKantianethicsandsocialcontractarianism.Publicservicebroadcastingisaboutthreecoreideas:diversity,universality,andimpartiality(Collins2003).IntheUK,theBBCisthemainpublicservice 112Ethicsofcarebroadcaster,anditsmissiontoinform,educateandentertainthepublicisamissionthatisfoundedontheprinciplesofdiversity,universalityandimpartiality.Forexample,BBCnewsshouldbeavailabletoallmembersofthepublic,itshouldaddresstheinterestsofdiversemembersofthepublic(includingethnicminorities),anditshouldbeimpartialinitsreportingofnationalandinternationalevents.TherelationshipbetweentheBBCanditspublicisasocialcontract.TheBBCexistsforthepublic,andthepublicpaythelicensefeeinreturnforapublicbroadcastingchannelbasedonthegeneralprinciplesofdiversity,universalityandimpartiality.Collins(2003:45)suggeststhataKantianenlightenmentphilosophyunderpinsthehistoricalpremiseoftheBBCasapublicservicedevotedtoinstructingpublicopinionandcontributingtohumanwell-being.PublicservicebroadcastingalsohasitsrootsinthehistoryofBritishpolitics,asthepoliticalassertionoftheimportanceofthecollectiveagainsttheindividualisanassertionfoundedonsocialism,andindeedcanberelatedtoanethicsofcare,asdiscussedinthenextsection.CriticsoftheBBCwouldarguethatthesocialcontractbetweentheBBCanditspublicisunderthreat.Inahighlycompetitivecommercialenvironment,theBBCcouldbeperceivedasoperatinginitsowninterests.TheLordHuttoninquiryintotheBBC’sreportingoftheIraqwarin2003addressedexactlytheseethicalissues,andcametotheconclusionthattheBBChadnotbeenimpartialinitswarreporting,andhadbeenoverlycriticalofthegovernment’sroleintheIraqwar.HuttonsuggestedthattheBBChadcriticisedthegovernmentinordertomaximiseratings.Theresignationoftwoleadingfigures(theChairofGovernorsandtheDirectorGeneral)intheBBCasaresultoftheHuttoninquirymightsuggestthattheBBCwasinbreachofitssocialcontractwithitspublic.However,publicopinionaftertheHuttoninquiry,andtheresignationofGavinDaviesandGregDyke,suggestedthatpublictrustandsupportfortheBBChadincreasedasaresultoftheinquiry.ThelevelofpublicsupportfortheBBCwaspartlyduetothehighvaluetheBritishpublicplaceonpublicservicebroadcasting;thelevelofpublictrustintheBBCwaspartlyduetopublicperceptionoftheBBCasprofessionalandimpartialinitsnewsreporting,andalsotheirdistrustofthegovernmentanditsinvolvementintheIraqwar.ThesocialcontractwiththeBBCanditspublicisacontractthatisprofoundlyethical.WhenweconsidertheBBC,wecanapplyethicalreasoningtothekeyconceptsthatunderpintheremitoftheBBC.WhyshouldtheBBCbeimpartial?WhatcommonmoralstandardscanweapplytoBBCbroadcastingpractices?HowoughttheBBCtoaddressdiversityinBritain?Inordertoanswerthesequestionswecanuseappliedethicstohelpuscometoanunderstandingoftheroleofethicsinoureverydaylivesandincontemporarysociety. Ethicsofcare113ETHICSOFCAREAnethicsofcareisanestablishedformofethicalreasoningthathasitsrootsintraditionalBuddhistsocialethics,feministethics,andanethicsofrights.Anethicsofcaredrawsontraditionalandmodernethicalreasoninginordertopromoteawayoflifegroundedinthemoralvaluesofcareandrights.Howcanwecareforandhowcanweberesponsibleforourselvesandotherpeople?Howdoweexpressourcompassion,andourresponsibilitytowardsothers?Howmuchshouldwecare?Theseareallmoralquestionsthatareattheheartofanethicsofcare.Anethicsofcareisassociatedwithbothnormativeandappliedethics.Itisprimarilyrelatedtotwoethicalpositions,thatofanethicofcare,andanethicofrights.IntraditionalBuddhistethicsthesetwopositionsarefundamentaltosocialethics:‘theprinciplesofhumanisticaltruismandthenotionofrighteoussocial,moralandpoliticalorder…providetheethicalfoundationsofsociety’(DeSilva1993:65).ThefamilyiscentraltoBuddhistsocialethics;andwithinthefamilyfemalesaretraditionallyassociatedwithdutiesofcareandcompassion,whilstmalesaretraditionallyconcernedwiththevalueofrighteousness.ContemporaryBuddhistethics,inparticularWesternBuddhistethics,arestronglyassociatedwithvirtueethics(Whitehill1994).ThefocusongenderedsocialethicsintraditionalBuddhistmoralphilosophyistangentiallyrelatedtocertainaspectsoffeministmoralphilosophy.Therehavebeenanumberoffeministscholarswhohavearguedthattherearespecificallyfemaleformsofvirtuethatcanbecharacterisedinrelationtocare.Somefeministshavearguedthatthepracticesinwhichwomenengage,inparticularthepracticesofchildcareandthephysicalandemotionalmaintenanceofotherhumanbeings,mightbeseenasgeneratingsocialprioritiesandconceptionsofvirtuewhicharedifferentfromthosethatinformotheraspectsofsociallife.(Grimshaw1993:496)Inparticular,the‘practicesofcaringforothers’canoffer‘anethicalmodel…whichisverydifferentfromthecompetitiveandindividualisticnormsofmuchsociallife’(ibid.).Noddings,inherbookCaring:AFeminineApproachtoEthicsandEducation(1978),arguesthattherearedistinctiveattributestofemaleethicalthinking,andwomentakemoraldecisionsbasedondetailedknowledgeofthepeopleandthesituationinvolved(Grimshaw1993:492–3).Theideaofanethicsofcare,asaddressedintraditionalBuddhistsocialethicsandfeministethics,isproblematicasitsuggeststhatthepracticeofcaringforothersisdistinctivelyfemale.Awomanisoftentheprimary 114Ethicsofcarecarerinahousehold,andoftenrepresentedastheprimarycarerincultureandsociety,butthisdoesnotmeantosaythatonlywomenarecapableofcaringforothers.Thatwomenarecommonlyengagedinthepracticeofcareisrelatedtofactorssuchasclass,incomeandethnicity,aswellaspersonalchoice.Grimshawpointsoutthat‘essentialistviewsofmaleandfemalenatureareofcourseaproblemifonebelievesthatthe“nature”ofmenandwomenisnotsomethingthatismonolithicorunchanging,butis,rather,sociallyandhistoricallyconstructed’(1993:493).Grimshawisreferringtodebateconcerninggenderroledevelopment.Thisdebateischaracterisedbytwopositions:(1)thatwearebornwithparticularchromosomesandhormonesthatmakeusbehaveinmasculineorfeminineways,or(2)thatwearesocialisedtobehaveinmasculineorfemininewaysaswedevelopfromchildrenintoadults.Althoughthereissomeevidencetosuggestgenderisdeterminedbybiologicalfactors,thisevidenceisbynomeanstroublefree(Gauntlett2002:34).Alternativeresearchingenderroledevelopmentsuggestswelearnaboutgenderrolesfromourfamilyorfriends,welearntoimitatethebehaviourofothermalesandfemalesaroundus(MalimandBirch1998:518,citedinGauntlett2002:34).Researchalsosuggeststhatsocietyreinforcesparticulargenderrolesandbehaviourasmoresociallyacceptablethanothers.Whatismore,socialattitudestowardssexualityandgenderchangeovertime,andthereforewhatisconsideredtobesociallyacceptablegenderrolesandbehaviourgraduallychangesovertime(seeHillandThomson2001forfurtherdiscussionofchangingsocialattitudestowardssexinthemedia).Kittayarguesthattheroleofthecarerneedstobere-evaluatedincontemporarysociety.Sheproposesa‘publicethicofcare’(2001:526).Apublicethicofcaredrawsontheconceptofreciprocity:‘weareobligedtoprovidecarebecausewehaveall,atsomepointinourlives,beentherecipientofcare’(2001:535).Kittaycallsforacollective,socialresponsibilityforcarethatsupportscareworkersandfamilymembersinthepracticeofcare:anindividualinneedofcareislikeastonecastinthewater.Thosefeeltheimpactmostimmediatelywhoareinclosestproximity,buttheeffectscomeinwiderandwiderripples.Eventhoughthewell-beingofanindividualmaybetheimmediatedutyofthosewhoareclosest,itistheobligationofthelargersocietytoassurethatcarecanbeandisprovided.(2001:535)Thus,apublicethicofcareisonethatdrawsonsupportfromindividuals,societyandthestate.Kittayarguesthat‘societybenefitsfromthosewhoworktocarefordependents,whetherornotthedependentindividualis Ethicsofcare115oneforwhosewell-beingwearemostdirectlyresponsible’(ibid.).Kittayalsocontendsthatalthoughcarersareprimarilyfemale,societyandthestateshouldencouragemalestoparticipateincareworkinordertoensuremoreequaldistributionofcareduties.Theideaofanethicsofcareasbeingfundamentallyfemaleisbasedontheassumptionthatfemalebehaviourisdeterminedbybiologicalfactors.Thisideaofanethicsofcareisnotonethatreflectscontemporaryunderstandingofthesocialconstructionofgenderroles.Theideaofanethicsofcareasfundamentallysocialismoreusefulforanalysisofcontemporarysocialrelationshipsandwaysofliving.Ifweframetheconceptofanethicsofcareinrelationtocontemporarygenderroledevelopmentandmodernmoralphilosophythenanethicsofcarecanbeunderstoodinrelationtomoralvaluesofcompassionandresponsibilitywithingroupsorcommunities,andmoralissuesofcompassionandresponsibilitywithinparticularsocial/politicalcontexts.Anethicofrightsisbasedupontheconceptthatanindividualhasanaturalandmoral,andinsomecaseslegal,righttolivetheirlivesinthesamewayasotherpeople.AccordingtotheBritisheighteenth-centuryphilosopherJohnLocke,everyonehasarighttolife,libertyandproperty,orthepursuitofhappiness(Almond1993:260).Rightsaremostcommonlyassociatedwithuniversalhumanrights.Therearegroupsthatcampaignagainsthumanrightsabuse,forexamplethenon-governmentalorganisationAmnestyInternationalcampaignsforthereleaseofillegallydetainedsocialandpoliticalcommentatorsaroundtheworld.Anethicofrightsalsoincludeslegalrights.Forexample,universalhumanrightsweregivenlegalforcebytheestablishmentoftheUnitedNationsDeclarationofHumanRights(1948),aftertheSecondWorldWar.Inaddition,anethicofrightsalsoincludesmoralrights.Forexample,universalhumanrightsarealsomoralrights,asahumanbeinghasthecapacitytosufferanditismorallywrongtoinflictsufferingonothers,unlessthereispriorlegalandmoraljustification.Anethicofrightsisrelatedtoanethicsofcareinthesensethatrightsarebaseduponsocialresponsibility.Theconceptofuniversalhumanrightsisapplicablenotjusttoourselvesbuttootherpeopleaswell–thisiswhatmakesituniversal.Contemporaryethicalthinkingonrightshasarguedforgreaterapplicationofrightstosocialissues,suchasenvironmentalism,oranimalrights(Almond1993).Ifwetakethecaseofanimalrights,wecanseehowanethicsofcareisboundupwithanethicofrightsinmoralreasoningonthetreatmentofanimalsinWesternsociety.Itiscommonlyagreedthatanimalshaverights,andthat‘therearenodefensiblegroundsfortreatinganimalsinanywayotherthanasbeingsworthyofmoralconsideration’(Gruen1993:352).ThemoralrightsofanimalshavelegalforceintheEUConventionoftheProtectionofAnimals.Inordertoensureethicaltreatment,animalsshouldbecaredfor 116Ethicsofcareinsuchawaythattheydonotexperienceunnecessarysuffering.Thereareargumentsabouthowtoenforceethicaltreatmentofanimals,andorganisationssuchastheRoyalSocietyforthePreventionofCrueltytoAnimalsexistinordertocareforanimalsthathavebeenmistreatedbyhumans.Nevertheless,animalshaveamoralandlegalrighttobetreatedinaresponsible,compassionateandcaringmanner.Idiscussfurtherthedualethicsofcareandrightsinrelationtoanimalsinthefollowingchapteronanimal-basedrealityprogramming.Thereareothertypesofethicsthatespousemoralvaluesofcare,compassion,responsibilityandrights.Forexample,virtuetheoryisabouttheintegrityofanindividualandhowtheyattempttolivetheirlivesina‘virtuous’manner.Themoralvaluesofcompassionorresponsibilityarecommonlythoughtofascharacterbuilding,andaspositiveattributesinmodernsociety.Modernmoralphilosophyprimarilylocatesanethicsofcareinrelationtosocialethics,feministethics,andanethicofrights.Inthenextsection,Iconsiderhowethicscanhelpustounderstandrealityprogramming,beforespecificallyaddressinganethicsofcareinhealth-basedandlifestylerealityformats.ETHICSANDREALITYTVHowcanethicshelpustounderstandrealityprogramming?Ethicsareaboutmoralityineverydaylife.Therearemanyaspectsofrealityprogrammingthatraisecomplexmoralissuesconcerninghowweliveourlives.Forexample,thepremiseofBigBrother–tolockpeopleinahouse,filmingtheireverymove‘twenty-four/seven’–isonethattakesawayanindividual’srighttofreedominreturnforthesocialandeconomicrewardsoffameandfortune.HousematesandvotersjudgesocialinteractionintheBigBrotherhouseaccordingtotheirperceptionof‘good’or‘bad’behaviour.TelevisionaudiencesdebatehowtruetothemselvesthehousemateshavebeenwhilstintheBigBrotherhouse.Audiencesquestionhowtruthfulprogrammemakershavebeenintheirrepresentationofactivitiesinthehouse.Televisionregulatorsquestionwhethertheordinarypeopletakingpartintheprogrammehavebeentreatedinafairandresponsiblemanner.ThepopularpresstestsboundariesoffairnessandprivacyintheirquestforthelatestscoopfrominsideandoutsidetheBigBrotherhouse.Theseissuesconcerningtheproduction,contentandreceptionofBigBrotherareallinonewayoranothermoralissues,andourunderstandingofthisrealitygameshowisconnectedinonewayoranotherwithourunderstandingofmoralvalues. Ethicsofcare117ParticipationinrealityprogrammesContemporaryrealityformats,inparticularrealitygameshows,providerichdataforanalysisoftheethicsofparticipationintelevisionprogrammes.TwostudiesconductedbytheUKtelevisionregulatorybodytheBroadcastingStandardsCommission,ConsentingAdults?(KilbornandHibbard2000)andConsentingChildren?(MessengerDaviesandMosdell2001),examinetheethicaltreatmentofnon-professionalactorsintelevisionprogrammes.Forexample,UKregulationregardingthetreatmentofchildreninprogrammingstipulatesthatchildrencannotparticipateinprogrammesunlesstheprogrammemakershaveacquiredtheconsentofparentsorguardians.Thereportrecommendsthatinadditiontotheexistingprovisionsandsafeguardsfortheprotectionofchildrenintelevisionprogrammes,programmemakersshouldprovide‘apersononhand…tomonitorandensuretheapplicationoftheseguidelinesforthewelfareofthechildrenduringthecourseofproduction’(MessengerDaviesandMosdell2001:12).Thereportalsosuggeststhat‘parentsmaybemoreenthusiasticaboutseeingtheirchildrenontelevisionthanthechildrenthemselvesare,whichreinforcestheimportanceofchildren’sconsenttoappearontelevisionbeingsoughtindependentlyoftheirparents’(2001:13).Ultimately,thereportrecommendsthatinordertoensuretheethicalandlegalrightsofchildrenintelevision‘guidelinesforprogrammemakersshouldbebasedoncurrentgoodpracticeinchildandfamilylawaboutthetreatmentofchildrenandproceduresforobtainingconsentornot’(2001:14).Inrelationtocontemporaryrealityprogramming,therearemanyexamplesofprogrammeswhichfeaturechildrenthatdeserveclosescrutinyintermsofethics.Forexample,therealitysocialexperimentseriesWifeSwap,madebyindependentproductioncompanyRDFMediafortheUKandUSA,involvestheparticipationofordinaryfamiliesinachallengingsocialexperiment,wherefamilieswithdifferentlifestylesandvaluesattempttolivetogetherfortwoweeks.InoneepisodeofthefirstseriesintheUK(Channel4,2003),aworking-classwhitefamilyswappedliveswithaworking-classblackfamily.The‘whitewife’,whoconfessedherfearsthattheotherfamilymightbenon-white,openlyarguedwithheradoptivehusband,andhereldestdaughteropenlyarguedwithheradoptivemother,atonepointcallinghera‘blackbitch’.Whilsttheparentswillhavegivenconsentforthemselvesandtheirchildrentoparticipateintheprogramme,didthechildrenknowthetypeofexperiencetheywerelettingthemselvesinfor,anddidtheyhaverecoursetocomplainabouthowtheywererepresentedintheprogrammeoncetheprogrammehadbeenaired?WithsuchanemotionallychargedsocialexperimentasWifeSwapitisimportantthatprogrammemakersareregularlymonitoredontheirethicaltreatmentofchildreninareality 118Ethicsofcareprogrammeforadultviewers,broadcastafterthefamilyviewingwatershedofnineo’clock.Similarly,althoughadultsaregivenachoiceastowhethertoparticipateinrealitygameshowsornot,andsignconsentformsallowingprogrammemakerstofilmthemtwenty-four/sevenwhilsttakingpartintheshow,theyarenotnecessarilyawarebeforehandofhowemotionallydifficulttheirexperiencemightbe,orhowtheymayfeelafterfilminghasbeencompletedandtheprogrammehasbeenaired.Althoughprogrammemakersclaimthattheyreceivethousandsofapplicationsfromordinarypeopletoparticipateinrealitygameshows,andthatthesepeoplegiveinformedconsent,theverynatureofrealitygameshowsisto‘playthegame’,evenifthegameaskspeopletomakemorallydifficultdecisions,andtoengageinmorallydubiousactivities.Forexample,intherealitygameshowTheBachelorthenameofthegameisgroupdating,andaseriesofsinglewomendateoneeligiblebachelorwho,throughaprocessofelimination,chooseshissoulmate.IntheUKversionofTheBachelor,airedonBBC3in2003,thesinglewomenweretakenonwhatappearedtoberomanticdateswiththebachelor.Inthefinaleoftheseries,itbecameapparentthatthebachelorhadbecomesexuallyintimatewithseveralwomenduringthesedates.Onewomaninparticularhadfoundhisadvancesunwelcome–hehadenteredherhotelroomuninvited,andsherepeatedlyhadtoaskhimtoleave.Sheexplained:‘HewastryingtogetmeintohisroomandIsaidno.Andthenatfourinthemorning,drunk,inhispants,withahardon,hetriedtohelphimselftome.’Thestudioexchangebetweenthiswoman,thepresenterandthestudioaudiencehighlightsthemannerinwhichtheprogrammemakersrepresentedthisparticipant’sclaimstohavebeensexuallyharassedbythestaroftheshow.Vanessa’sexperiencewasrecountedinthestudiotoamalepresenterandthestudioaudience,whichincludedhermother,theothersinglewomenwhoparticipatedintheprogramme,andfriendsofthebachelor.Afterdescribingwhathappenedinthehotelroom,theinterviewcontinued:Presenter:Itakeitthatwasanoff-cameramoment?Vanessa:Yes,unfortunatelyitwasalloffcamera.Presenter:Impressed?Vanessa:Notreally.Presenter:[laughing]Ihadtoask.Somepeoplemaysaythatyouwereawomanscorned.Vanessa:Hestillthinksnomeansyes…AtnotonepointdidIgiggleandlaughandgivehimtheimpressionthatIwasenjoyinghimtryingtogetinbedwithme.Iwasfurious.[offcameraamemberofthestudioaudienceshoutssomethingatVanessa,andsheasks‘Whatwasthat?’] Ethicsofcare119Presenter:Let’sfindoutwhatyourmumthinks.Vanessa’sMum:I’veseenthewayhehasbehavedwithalotofgirls,ledthemontobelievetheyareveryspecialandthenvotedthemoff.Ifagirlbehavedlikethatshewouldbeclassedasatart…Ibelievemydaughter…Ithinkhehasbehavedinatotallydishonourablemanner.[thesinglewomencheer]Presenter:[tofriendsofthebachelor]Howwouldyoudefendhim?Friend:IthinkDavidhasjustactedlikeanyyoungman.Womenarejustnotlikeus,arethey?Presenter:[laughs]I’mgladyousaidthat.Vanessa,finalword?Vanessa:Ithinkheisabitofaslapperreally.[hecklesfromtheaudience]He’saniceguyreally…butIjustthinknomeansno.TheBachelorillustratestheconceptofvirtueethics,asappliedtogroupdating.Theformatisbasedoncharactervirtuesandvices,suchashonestyandtrust,ordishonestyandsexualconquest.Typically,theeligiblebachelorisshownmakingdifficultchoices–whichgirltotakeonadate,whichgirltoeliminate.Thesinglewomenareshowncompetingforhisattention,andrespondingtothechanginggroupdynamic–howtostandoutfromthecrowd,howtomaintaininterest.Intheprogrammeitself,thesemoralchoicesarerepresentedasillustrationsof‘good’and‘bad’moralconduct,andweareaskedtojudgethebachelorandhisdatesaccordingtotheircharactertraits.Isthebachelorhonourable?Arethewomenhonest?Offcamera,theparticipantsarealsoaskedtomakemoralchoices,andinthestudiofinalewelearnthatseveralofthewomenexperiencedemotionallychallengingsituations,especiallyconcerningtheissueofsex,thatarenotfeaturedintheprogrammeitself.TheBachelorreflectstraditionalsocialattitudestowardsmenassexualpredators,asthestarisencouragedtobesexuallyactive,andisrewardedforhisbehaviour.Hisviceistransformedintoavirtue.AsVanessa’smotherpointsout‘Ifagirlbehavedlikethatshewouldbeclassedasatart.’Thesinglewomenarerepresenteddifferently.Theveryfactthattheyhavechosentotakepartintheprogrammeisperceivedasanegativecharactertrait.Asthepresenterpointsout,‘somepeoplemightsayyouwereactuallydesperatetocomeonaTVshowlikethistofindaman’.Thus,theprogrammereflectstraditionalsocialattitudestowardswomenas‘golddiggers’.AlthoughthesisterrealityformatTheBacheloretteattemptstocounteractsuchgenderstereotypes,thedifferentwaysinwhichthemaleandfemalestarsoftheshowsarerepresentedonlyservestounderscorethegenderedapplicationofvirtueethicsinthistypeofrealityformat.TheBachelor,andotherrealityformatssuchasJoe 120EthicsofcareMillionaire,constructsnegativerepresentationsofsinglewomen,asitisthejobofthesinglemantofindtheonehonestwomanamongstmanydishonestwomen.WhenitcomestoparticipatinginrealityformatssuchasTheBachelor,non-professionalactorsdeservetobetreatedinanethicallyinformedmanner.ThefinaleofTheBachelorisanexampleofhowwomencanbeunfairlytreatedinrealityprogramming.Theparticipant’sexperiencediscussedhereraisessignificantethicalissuesabouttherightsofwomenthatarenotaddressedsatisfactorilybytheprogrammeitself.Thepracticeofinformedconsentneedstobeaddressedbyprogrammemakersandprogrammeregulatorsinordertoensurenon-professionalactorsaretreatedwiththerespecttheydeserve,before,during,andafterthetransmissionoftheprogramme.Itiscertainlythecasethattelevisionaudiencesregularlydiscussthepotentialexploitationofordinarypeopleinrealityprogrammes.Theirdiscussionfocusesnotonlyonthemisrepresentationofnon-professionalactors,orinformedconsent,butalsohowordinarypeopleshouldtreateachotherwhilstparticipatinginarealityprogrammesuchasTheBachelor.InChapter7,Iexamineaudiencediscussionoftheparticipationofpetownersandtheirpetsinanimal-basedpopularfactualtelevisionThecontentofrealityprogrammingIntermsofthecontentofrealityprogramming,thereisalsorichdataforanalysisofethics.Bonnerpointsoutthat‘awholepanoply’oftelevisionprogrammescanbe‘accusedofrewardinggreedorshowingoff,leadingpeopletoexpect“quickfixes”toproblems,advocating“shallow”interpersonalandsexualrelationshipsanddestroyingcommunitysentiment’(2003:154).GayHawkins,inanarticletitled‘TheEthicsofTelevision’(2001),arguesthatethicshasbecomeentertainment,andtelevisionhasfoundavarietyofwaystoentertainus.TalkshowssuchasTheJerrySpringerShow,orrealityprogrammessuchasNeighboursfromHell,makeaspectacleofethicalcrises.Inanotherrelatedarticle,HawkinssuggeststhatrealitygameshowssuchasBigBrotherorTemptationIslandinvite‘ustoenterintotheworldofethicaluncertainty,thezonewhereclearpositionsorsidesarenotnecessarilyevident’(2002:1).HawkinsiscriticalofprogrammessuchasTemptationIslandthatencourageaudiencestotake‘pleasureintheplightofothers’(2002:6).ThetypeofrealityprogrammingcommontoFoxTV,cablechannelRealityTV,anddigitalchannelSkyOne,isatypeofcommercialrealityTVthatlendsitselftoethicalanalysis.TemptationIslandteststhefidelityofcouplesbytemptingthemtocheatontheirpartners.Asonemalecontestantputit,‘Ihaven’tcomeheretoplayscrabble’(TemptationIsland(SeriesTwo),UK,SkyOne,2002).JoeMillionairerequiresthattheeligible Ethicsofcare121bachelormustdeceivesinglegirlsintobelievingheisamillionaireinordertowinamilliondollars(USA,Fox,2002)–‘hisname’snotJoeandhe’snotamillionaire’.1SexontheBeachshowsyoungBritishholidaymakersdrunkandbehavingbadly(UK,SkyOne,2002).WhenGoodTimesGoBad3showson-scenefootageofcaraccidents,andpersonalinjuries(suchasaman’sarmcomingawayfromitssocketinagameoftug-of-war)asspectaclesforentertainment(USA/UK,RealityTV,2003).Wecouldanalyseanynumberofthesetypesofrealityprogrammesfromanumberofethicalpositions,suchasthevirtuesandvicesofordinarypeople,ortheethicalissuesofprivacy,ortasteanddecency.Ifweconsiderthetypeofrealityprogrammingconcernedwithoutrageousbehaviour,suchasIbizaUncoveredorBigBrother,wecanseehowsuchprogrammestestthemorallimitsofacceptablebehaviour.Theserealityprogrammesprovideanopportunitytodiscusssociallyacceptable,orunacceptablebehaviour.InChapter4,Idiscussedhowtelevisionaudiencesdebatedthebehaviourof‘NastyNick’andMelinthefirstseriesofBigBrother.WhenonewomancommentedonMel’spersonalgroominghabits–shepluckedherpubichairsinthegardenwhilstchattingtootherhousemates–shedidsoinordertopointoutthatshefoundthispersonalgroomingsociallyunacceptable.Similarly,thediscussioninChapter5regardingIbizaUncoveredisalsoconcernedwithwhetherthetwo‘Jackthelads’whotookpartinthisprogrammebehavedinasociallyacceptablemanner.Whilstthemaleviewerswhodiscussedtheprogrammethoughttheirbehaviouracceptableinaprivatesetting,theydidnotthinkitwasappropriatefortelevision,wheretheirwivesandchildrenmightwitnesstheirdrunkenandflirtatiousbehaviour.Inthissection,Ifocusonparticulartypesofrealityprogrammesthatareabouttakingcareofoneselfandothers.Forexample,lifestyleprogrammingsuchasGardeners’Worldinvitesustoexamine‘waystolive’(Hawkins2001:412).Lifestyleprogrammingcanteachusabouttheapplicationofethicsinoureverydaylives.Theserealityformatscan‘showusthatethicsispractical,various,creative,experimentalandrelational;thatwhileethicscanbeimplicatedwithwidermoralcodes(theyoftenare),theycanalsoberelativelyautonomous,aproductofourownparticularsensibilities,principlesandmicro-moralcommunities’(2001:418).Thestuffoftheeverydayinlifestyleprogrammingcanbetransformedintomoralinstructionforaudiences:‘televisionisnowdeeplyimplicatedinshapingourethicalsensibilities,inmarkingoutfieldsandactivitiesthatwarrantethicalattention,inadvisingusonhowtocultivateparticularpracticesandconductsintheinterestsofrealisingethicalgoals’(2001:413).Hawkinssuggeststheexperienceofwatchingethicsontelevisioncanencourageaudiencestoparticipatein‘questsforthetruthoftheself’(2001:412).Sherefersinherresearchtoabodyofworkconcernedwith 122Ethicsofcarethepoliticsoftheself.MichelFoucault,inhislaterworkTheHistoryofSexuality,volumestwoandthree(TheUseofPleasureandTheCareoftheSelf,1992,1990),exploredtheideaoftheselfinrelationtoethics.Ethics,Foucaultsuggests,is‘thekindofrelationshipyououghttohavewithyourself’(2000:263).FoucaultarguedinTheCareoftheSelf(1990)thatancientGreekandRomanmoralphilosophycouldhelpustounderstandourrelationshipwithourselves.Theideaofthe‘cultivationoftheself’inancientGreekandRomanethicalwritingisbestcharacterisedbythephrase‘takecareofoneself’(Foucault1990:43).Thisethicalprincipleofthecareoftheselfisdependentonthreerelatedconcepts:‘individualisticattitude’,‘thepositivevaluationofprivatelife’,and‘theintensityoftherelationstoself’(1990:42).BythisFoucaultmeansthatthecareoftheselfisdependentonmoralvaluesassociatedwiththecentralroleoftheindividualinsociety,thecentralroleofthefamilyinsociety,andtheimportanceofself-improvementinrelationtoanethicalwayoflife.FoucaultnotesthatthecultivationoftheselfinancientGreekandRomancivilisationwas‘notarestcure’,andinordertoensurecareoftheselfonewouldbeencouragedtoundertakeavarietyofphysicalandmentalactivitiesassociatedwithself-improvement(1990:51).Foucault’sideaof‘theself’srelationshiptoitself’involvestheprincipleofthecareoftheself,andthepracticalapplicationofthisethicalprincipletothewaywethinkandact,somethingFoucaultcalls‘technologiesoftheself(Gauntlett2002:124–8).HawkinsarguesthatFoucault’sideaoftheshapingandregulatingoftheselfis‘thestuffofinfotainment’(2001:417).Thepracticalandmoralinstructionoflifestyleandmakeoverprogrammesprovideexternaladviceonhowtoimproveourhome,orourappearance,andinternaladviceonhowtoimproveourrelationshipwithourselves.Theideaofanethicsofcare,asdiscussedintheprevioussection,specificallyrelatestoFoucault’sconceptofthecareoftheself.However,theancientGreekandRomanethicalprincipleofcareoftheselfissomewhatdifferenttocontemporaryunderstandingofanethicsofcare.AsIsuggestintheprevioussection,anethicsofcaredrawsontraditionalandmodernethicalreasoninginordertopromoteawayoflifegroundedinthemoralvaluesofcompassionandresponsibilityforourselvesandotherpeople.Theethicofrightsiscentraltotheprincipleofcaringforourselvesinthesamewaywewouldwishtocareforotherpeople.Anethicofrightsisabsentfromancientphilosophicalwritingaboutcareoftheselfprimarilybecausetheselfisthefocusofsuchwriting.Modernphilosophicalreasoningforegroundstheapplicationofanethicsofcarenotjusttoindividualethicaldilemmasbutalsotosocialgroupsandissues.Realityprogrammingoccupiesacomplexpositionregardingcareoftheselfandanethicsofcare.Ontheonehand,thecontentofmuchlifestyleprogrammingisaboutindividualwaystoimprovecareofthe Ethicsofcare123self.Ontheotherhand,thecontentofmuchhealth-basedrealityprogrammingisabouthowotherpeoplecareforindividualsincompassionateandresponsibleways.FrancesBonner,inherbookOrdinaryTelevision(2003),addressesthecomplexrelationshipbetweenlifestyleandhealth-basedrealityprogramming.Shecommentsthat‘lifestyletelevisionaddressesanindividualisedviewerwithadviceaboutconsumptionpracticesostensiblydesignedtoimprovethequalityoflifeintheareaaddressedbytheprogramme’(2003:106).ShereferstoAnthonyGiddens,andhisworkonself-identity,inordertoexplainthewaylifestyleprogrammingaddressesviewersasconsumers:‘lifestylecanbedefinedasamoreorlessintegratedsetofpracticeswhichanindividualembraces,notonlybecausesuchpracticesfulfilutilitarianneeds,butbecausetheygivematerialformtoaparticularnarrativeofself-identity’(Giddens1991:81,citedinBonner2003:105).ThereareechoesofFoucault’sconceptofcareoftheselfinGiddens’notionoflifestyleandself-identity.AccordingtoBonner(2003:104),lifestyleprogrammes‘alertviewerstotheexistenceofmoreproductsandservicesfortheirutilityintheendlessprojectoftheself’.Asimilarfocusontheindividual’sinterestincareoftheselfisalsoapparentinhealth-basedrealityprogramming:‘theindividualtowhomtheadviceisdirectedisconcernedasbeingabodyeagertobeimprovedbydietarychanges,exerciseregimes,cosmeticenhancementsandsurgicalcorrections’(Bonner2003:107).Foucault(1992:56)alsonotedinancientethicalphilosophy‘increasedmedicalinvolvementinthecultivationoftheself…expressedthroughaparticularandintenseformofattentiontothebody’.Thisrelationshipbetweencareoftheselfandthebodyisreflectedintherelationshipbetweenlifestyleandhealthinrealityprogramming.Althoughlifestyleandhealth-basedrealityprogrammesaddressanindividualisedvieweraboutcareoftheself,theyalsoaddresstheviewerabouthowtocareforothers.ThemoralinstructionofChangingRoomsorChildren’sHospitalisrelatedtoboththeindividualandthesocial.Forexample,inChangingRoomsthestoriesabouthomeimprovementareprimarilyabouthowordinarypeoplecanbenefit,ornot,fromprofessionaladviceaboutinteriordesign.Weseethebefore,duringandafterofthehomeimprovement,andwitnessthe‘reveal’,ashomeownersreacttotheDIYtransformation.Asecondarypartofthesestoriesisthatneighboursvolunteertotransformeachother’shousesforthesakeofhomeimprovement(andparticipatinginatelevisionprogramme).Uponcompletionofthetransformation,theresponsesofthehomeownersareinpartaresponsetodesignintervention,andalsothetreatmentoftheirhomebytheirneighbours.Hence,weregularlyseeneighboursaskingfellowneighbours‘nottopaintthemarblefireplace’,ortotakecareofitemsofsentimentalvalue,andiftheirwisheshavebeenignoredthenitistheneighbours,aswellasthedesigners,whoareresponsiblefor 124Ethicsofcareunwantedchangestothehome.Althoughtheprogrammeitselfismoreconcernedwiththeentertainmentvalueofdesignfauxpas,thereisanunderlyingemphasisoncareandresponsibilityintheprogrammeasawhole.InChildren’sHospital,thestoriesabouthealthcrisesareprimarilyabouthowordinarypeoplebenefitfromprofessionalmedicaltreatment.Weseethediagnosis,treatmentand(inmostcases)recoveryofsickchildren,andthereactionsofthechildrenandparentstothevariousstagesintheirrecovery.Asecondarypartofthesestoriesisaboutthecaringprofession:thedoctors,nurses,andemergencyservicespersonnelwhodevotetheirlivestocaringforothers,andtheparentswhocarefortheirchildrenintimesofacuteillness.Thus,astoryofthesuccessfulrecoveryofachildfromacuteillnessisinpartaboutthestrengthandbraveryofthepatient,andalsoabouttheinformedcareofmedicalprofessionalsandparents.Thisfocusonthehealthandwell-beingofchildreniscentraltotheprogramme’semphasisonindividualandsocialcare,andresponsibilityforchildren.Inmyaudienceresearch,theconceptofanethicsofcareincorporatestraditionalethicalreasoningregardingcareoftheselfwithinawiderunderstandingofsocialethicsandrightsethics.Asweshallseeinthenextsection,andinChapter7,whenwatchingsuchprogrammes,audiencesstoreinformationorideasforthecareoftheirfamily,friendsandhomeenvironment.AsHawkinsandBonnerhavesuggested,wecaninterprettheseaudienceresponsesinrelationtotheconceptsofself-identityandcareoftheself,asoutlinedbyGiddensandFoucault.Audiencesalsodiscusslifestyleandhealth-basedrealityprogrammingintermsofamoresociallyorientatedideaofcaringforothersaswellastheself.Ihavesuggestedintheprevioussectionandherethatwecaninterprettheseaudienceresponsesinrelationtocompassionandresponsibility,asoutlinedinphilosophicalmoralreasoningonethicsofcare.ETHICSANDAUDIENCESBritishlifestyleandhealth-basedrealityprogrammesappealtofamilyviewers.FamiliesaredefinedbySocialTrends,theofficialpublicationofBritishdemographicandsocialtrends,as‘amarriedorco-habitingcouplewithorwithouttheirnevermarriedchildren(whohavenochildrenoftheirown),oraloneparentwithsuchchildren.Peoplelivingalonearenotconsideredtoformafamily’(SocialTrends1999:43,citedinHughesandFergusson2000:50).In2000–2001theaveragehouseholdcontained2.4people(SocialTrends2002).Thetypesofpeoplelivinginhouseholdsweremainlycoupleswithchildren(39percent),orcoupleswithoutchildren(24percent).Twelvepercentofthepopulationwereclassifiedaspeoplelivingalone,and6percentasloneparents(SocialTrends2002).In Ethicsofcare125termsoftimespentonvariousactivitiesinthehome,womenspentanaverageof2.2hoursperweekdaywatchingthetelevisionandVCR,2.5hoursperweekdayinvolvedinhouseholdandfamilycare,and0.2hoursperweekdayonchildcare(SocialTrends2003).Incomparison,menspentanaverageof2.4hoursperweekdaywatchingthetelevisionandVCR,1.8hoursperweekdayinvolvedinhouseholdandfamilycare,and0.1hoursperweekdayonchildcare(SocialTrends2003).At8pmonweekdays,mosthouseholdswereinvolvedinleisureactivities(57percent),orhouseworkandchildcare(15percent)(SocialTrends2003).Thisstatisticalsnapshotisusefulinindicatingwhomightbeathome,watchingtelevisionand/orengagedinotherhouseholdorleisureactivitiesduringthetimeperiodwhenrealityprogrammingaboutlifestyleandhealthcareisscheduled.Astelevisioncommissionersandschedulerspayattentiontodemographicandsocialtrends,itisnotunreasonabletoassumethatweekdayeveningrealityprogramminghasbeendesignedtotargetthelargestgroupofviewerswatchingtelevisionatthattime–families.Accordingtoresearchinthesociologyofthefamilythereisevidencetosuggestthat‘althoughthetwo-parentfamilyremainsnumericallydominanttoday,thisinstitutionalformnolongerdefinessoexclusivelywhatitistoliveinafamily,orwhatafamilyis’(HughesandFergusson2000:57).DavidMorgancommentsthat‘notionsof“family”arerarelystaticbutareconstantlysubjectedtoprocessesofnegotiationandre-definition’(1999:18).ForMorgan,theconceptofthefamilyisrelatedtofamilypracticesthatinvolvecaringforotherfamilymembersandbeingresponsiblefortheirneeds(1996).AllenandCrow(2001:2)arguethatthereshouldbegreaterprecisionabouthowtheterms‘family’and‘household’areused.Thehousehold,inwhichfamilymembersmayormaynotlivetogether,canbecharacterisedasthe‘divisionofresponsibilityandworkloadbetweenhouseholdmembers’,whereasthefamilycanbecharacterisedas‘thesolidarityandconflictdevelopingbetweenpeoplewhoarelinkedthroughkinship’(2001:6).Thehouseholdandthefamilyoverlapwhenpeoplewhoarelinkedbykinshiplivetogetherunderthesameroof(2001:7).Mostfamilyhouseholds,therefore,willofteninvolvefamilypracticesrelatedtocareofthefamilyandthehousehold.Theideaofsocialethicsissignificanttothefamilyhousehold,asfamilymembersareexpectedtocareforeachotherandthehome,andberesponsibleforeachotherandthehome.Anethicsofcare,asdiscussedintheprevioussections,isaformofethicalreasoningthatcanbeappliedtothecareandmaintenanceoffamilyhouseholds.Inanationalsurveyin2000,adults(aged16–65+)livinginhouseholdswithchildrenwatchedparticulartypesofrealityprogrammes(Hill/ITC2000).Forexample,thetypesofrealityformatswatchedregularlyandoccasionallybyadultswithchildreninthehouseholdincludedprogrammessuchasChangingRooms(78percent),PoliceCameraAction! 126Ethicsofcare(75percent),999(63percent),AnimalHospital(62percent),andChildren’sHospital(60percent).Ifwelookattheprogrammeschildren(aged4–15)watchedmostoftenduringthesameperiodweseeacorrelationbetweentheviewinghabitsofparentsandchildren.ThetypesofrealityformatswatchedregularlyandoccasionallybychildrenwereprogrammessuchasChangingRooms(84percent),AnimalHospital(83percent),PoliceCameraAction!(71percent),Children’sHospital(66percent),and999(58percent).Intermsofgenderedpreferencesforrealityformats,menwereaslikelyaswomentobeoccasionalviewersofthesetypesofprogrammes.Forexample,therewaslittledifferencebetweenthepercentagesofmenandwomenwhooccasionallywatchedprogrammessuchasChangingRooms(43percentand39percentrespectively),AnimalHospital(36percent,37percent),PoliceCameraAction!(48percent,47percent),Children’sHospital(33percent,37percent),or999(42percent,44percent).Butwomenwerefarmorelikelytoberegularviewersoflifestyleandhealth-basedrealityprogrammesthanmen.Forexample,therewasadifferencebetweenthepercentagesofmenandwomenwhoregularlywatchedprogrammessuchasChangingRooms(18percentand35percentrespectively),AnimalHospital(17percent,30percent),andChildren’sHospital(12percent,25percent).Forcrimerealityprogrammes,suchasPoliceCameraAction!,thegendersplitforregularmaleandfemaleviewerswasequal(24percentand25percentrespectively).It’sasimilarstoryintermsofsocialclass.AgreaterpercentageofpeopleinthesocialcategoryC2DE(skilledandworkingclass,andlowestlevelofsubsistence)thanABC1(uppertolowermiddleclass)regularlywatchedlifestyleandhealth-basedrealityprogrammes,buttherewasnotmuchdifferentiationbysocialclassintermsofoccasionalviewing.Forexample,thebreakdownforpeoplewhooccasionallywatchedprogrammeslikeChildren’sHospitalwasAB–34percent,C1–35percent,C2–36percent,andDE–35percent,whereasthebreakdownforregularviewerswasAB–12percent,C1–17percent,C2–21percent,andDE–23percent.Thesefiguressuggestthatparentsandchildrenwatchlifestyle,emergencyservicesandhealth-basedrealityprogrammestogether.Onereasonwhyfamiliestendtowatchthesetypesofrealityprogrammesisbecausetheyhappentobeonatatimewhenfamiliesarerelaxingafterworkandschool,andarelookingtowatchtelevisiontogether.Asthis14-year-oldschoolboycommented‘IwatchChangingRoomseveryweek.I’mabitsadreally…Ialwayswatchthatwithanyoneelsewho’sintheroom,usuallymymum’.Thefiguresalsoindicatemothersandfatherswatchthesetypesofprogrammesoccasionallywiththeirchildren,whilstmothersintheC2DEsocialcategoryaremoreregularviewersoftheseprogrammes.Onereasonwhymotherstendtowatchthesetypesofprogrammesisbecausetheyspendmoretimewatchingtelevisionwiththeirchildrenthanmen.Asthis35-year-oldhousewifeexplained,‘Itend Ethicsofcare127towatchChildren’sHospitalandAnimalHospitalwithmytwolittlegirls,andthenChangingRooms…thoseoneslikethat,allofuswouldwatchthem,thefamilyreally’.ThefactthatthesemotherstendtobeintheC2DEsocialcategoryisinparttodowiththeirlowincomestatusasfull-timemothers,aswellastheincomestatusoftheirspouseorpartners.Thesurveyresultsalsoindicatethatparentsandchildrenlikesimilarprogrammeelements,suchasstoriescaughtoncamera(75percentofadultswithchildreninthehousehold,67percentofchildren).Onedifferenceinthelikesanddislikesofprogrammeelementsforparentsandchildrenisthatparentsmostlikeinformationinrealityformats(82percentofadults,49percentofchildren),whilstchildrenmostlikeanimalsinrealityformats(72percentofchildren,63percentofadults).Thisdifferenceinpreferencesforprogrammeelementsinrealityformatsisrelatedtothefactthatparentstendtolikeprogrammestheycanlearnfrom,andwatchanimal-basedrealityprogrammingprimarilysothattheyandtheirchildrencanlearnmoreabouthowtocareforfamilypets,whereaschildrentendtolikeanimal-basedrealityprogrammingaboveallothertypesbecausetheylikestoriesaboutanimals(seeChapter7forfurtherdiscussion).Overall,theresultssuggestlifestyleandhealth-basedrealityprogrammesappealtoparentsandchildrenbecausetheycontainpotentiallyinformativestories,especiallyaboutanimals,thatarecaughtoncamerafortelevision.Howaudiencestalkaboutethicsinlifestyleandhealth-basedrealityprogrammingisassociatedwithhowtheywatchtheseprogrammesasafamily.Thecontentoftheseprogrammesisdesignedtoappealtofamilyviewers,asthestoriesaboutordinarypeopleandhomeimprovementorhealthcrisesarestoriesaboutthecareandmaintenanceofmembersofthefamilyandthehouseholdtheylivein.GayHawkinscommentsthatlifestyleprogramming:Transformswiderquestionsabouthowweshouldwelive,aboutwaysofbeing,intotechnicaladvice.Howshouldwebeinourgarden,howshouldwerelatetofood,toourlovers,toourpets?Thistechnicaladviceisneverpurelytechnical–itisalsoatthesametimeethicalbecauseitinvolvesgivingprivilegetocertainconductsoverothers,theclassificationofcertainconductsasgood.(2001:418)Iwouldextendthisobservationaboutemphasisongoodconductinlifestyleprogrammingtohealth-basedrealityprogramming,asadviceabouthealthisalsoaboutprivilegingcertainlifestyles,eatinghabits,andwaysofbeing,overothers.Thewaythatfamilyviewersdiscussethicalissuesinlifestyleandhealth-basedrealityprogrammingreflectsthe 128Ethicsofcare‘ethicalturn’intelevisiontosituateadviceandideasaboutwaysofbeingintoethicalreasoningaboutgoodconductwithinthefamilyandthehousehold.Forexample,thisfamilyoffivelivedinthesouth-eastofEngland,andownedtheirownhome.Thefatherwasastonemason,andthemotherapart-timechild-carer,andtheyhadthreegirls,aged10,8and5atthetimeoftheinterview(2001).Themotherandchildrenwereregularviewersoflifestyleprogrammes,suchasChangingRooms,aswellasprogrammessuchasChildren’sHospital,AnimalHospitaland999.Thefatherwasanoccasionalvieweroftheseprogrammes.Inadiscussionabouttheappealoflifestyleprogrammingtheyreflectedongoodandbadpracticesinthehome:Sally:’CossometimestheyhavekidsandtheydotheirbedroomsandIlikeitwhentheycomeandseeiftheylikeit,thedifferentdesigns.Whentheygobacktodifferenthousesandseeifthey’vekeptitthatway,thenthat’squitegood.Vivienne:WhydoIthinkthechildrenlikeit?Ithinkit’sthetransformation,isn’tit?It’sallveryquick,isn’tit?It’snotgoingonforhours.Robert:Andtheyknowthere’sgoingtobeasurprise.Interviewer:Haveyoutwoeverhelpedyourparentswiththedecorating?Robert:They’vewantedto.Rachael:Well,Ihavepaintedonthewall,likedoinginpink,byaccident...Robert:Byaccident!Rachael:ButthenDaddypaintedgreenoverit.OneofthereasonstheeldestdaughterwatchedprogrammessuchasChangingRoomswasbecauseshelikedtoseehowotherchildrenreactedtotheirredesignedbedrooms.Ashermotherpointsout,itisthewayhomescanbetransformedinamatterofminutesthatappealstochildren.But,justastherearegoodandbaddesignsforchildren’sbedroomsintheprogramme,sotooaretheregoodandbadwaystotransformthehome.Thus,whentheyoungestdaughtertalkedabouthercontributiontothechangingcolourschemeofherbedroomherfatherwasquicktopointoutthatthiswasnothisideaofhelpwithhomeimprovements.Inanotherfamilydiscussionoflifestyleprogramming,theideaofgoodandbadconductwithinthehomewasexpandedtoincludetheideaofanethicsofcareforthehome,andbyextensionthefamily.Thisfamilyoffivealsolivedinthesouth-eastofEnglandandownedtheirownhome.Thefather(Shaun)wasapoliceman,themother(Alison)ateacher,andallthreeboyswerestillatschool,aged15,11and8atthetimeofinterview(2001).ThemotherregularlywatchedprogrammessuchasChanging Ethicsofcare129Rooms,andwasanoccasionalviewerofChildren’sHospital,AnimalHospital,PoliceCameraAction!and999.Theireldestson,Brian,wasanoccasionalviewerofPoliceCameraAction!,butrarelywatchedotherrealityprogrammes,althoughheusedtobearegularviewerofChangingRoomswhenhewasyounger.TomandSteven,theiryoungersons,regularlywatchedprogrammessuchasAnimalHospitalandChangingRooms,andoccasionallywatchedChildren’sHospital,PoliceCameraAction!and999withtheirmumanddad.ThefatherregularlywatchedChildren’sHospital,andoccasionallywatchedotherrealityprogrammeswiththefamily.Thefollowingextractisanexampleofthekindofrichdiscussionthatarisesfromwatchinglifestyleprogrammes:Tom:Iliketoseehowtheychangetheroomssoquicklyand…Alison:TheyparticularlylikeGroundForce.Tom:ButthepeoplefromGroundForce,theyactuallyhavepersonalities.ThepeoplefromChangingRooms[inboringvoice]‘Oh,we’regoingtochangethatTVoverthere,putthatoverthere…’.Alison:Yes,wegetwhatyoumean!Yougettoknowthepeoplewhoarerunningtheprogramme,yeah?Brian:It’salittlebitmorein-depth,lessartificial.Shaun:Steven,whydoyoulikeGroundForce?Steven:Errr…Idon’tknow![giggles]Brian:WhenitfirststartedChangingRoomswasgoodbutnow…Interviewer:Whatdidyoulikeaboutitwhenyouusedtowatchit?Brian:Thewayyoucouldseehowtheychangedit.Itwas,Idon’tknow…itwasentertainment!Ifitwasonyouwouldwatchit.Youmaybewouldn’t…saymakeaspecialeffort.Ifitwason’cos,like,theywerewatchingit,I’dbe,like,‘Oh,it’son,I’llcomeandsitdown.’Alison:Whenit’son,they’llsitandwatchitevenifI’mnot.They’llsometimeshavere-runsandthey’llsitandwatchit…Idon’tknowiftheywatchitbecauseItendtowatchthosethings,whethertheywatchitwithmebecausetheyknowIdothedecoratingandthegardening…theyknowIhavemoreaestheticsenseandIwillchangethings.Brian:Thisroom’sbeendecoratedaboutsixtimes!Alison:No,ithasn’t.Interviewer:Haveyouguyseverdoneyourbedrooms?Brian:Ididmybedroom,wasitEaster?Interviewer:Wasanyofitbasedonanythingyoumighthaveseenonthetelly? 130EthicsofcareBrian:No.Actually,youmaybepickupideasjustsubconsciouslybywatchingit.Youjustrememberlittlebitsandyouthink‘Oh,yeah,Imightusethat’.Alison:Ididhisroomlastyear,anddiscussedideaswithhim.Brian:Whichisprettycool.Shaun:Ifthere’sstufftobedone,DIYroundthehouse,orthegarden…formepersonally,myfatherwouldbe‘Helpmedothisinthegarden’andI’dbeholdingthecanofpaintandthatwasasmuchasIdid!Buteverythingwedoaroundthehouse,theysay‘canwetakepart?’andasmuchasitcantakeyoutwiceaslongtodo,wetrytogettheminvolved.Alison:Yeah,Ialwaysusedtohelpmymum.Ijustliketofeelthey’llbeinvolvedintheirhomefromhelpingusbecauseotherwisetheynevertakeprideinanything.Ithinkthemoreyou’reinvolvedinsomething,themoreyou’relikelytocareaboutit.Tom:We’realwaystryingtorubdownthewalls…maybenotthepainting,butwehelp.Alison:Theyhelpincolourchoice.Thereisanaturalprogressionfromdiscussionabouttheirfamilyviewingpractices,andpreferencesforlifestyleprogrammingtodiscussionabouttheirownwayoflifeasafamilyhousehold.Aswiththepreviousextract,theyoungermembersofthehouseholdlikethewaythestoriesinlifestyleprogrammesareabouttransformation.Buttheyarealsocriticalofmorecontemporarylifestylemakeoverformats,suchasChangingRooms,forbeingtooformulaicandlackingincharacter.EventhoughtheeldestsonpreviouslyenjoyedwatchingChangingRooms,heisquicktopointoutthathewouldn’tchoosetowatchit,itisjustsomethingthatiseasytowatchwiththerestofhisfamily.Theirmotherhasastronginterestinlifestyleprogrammes.Hercomment‘Iwillchangethings’indicatesherpersonalinterestinadviceandideasinlifestyleprogrammingthatshecanputintopracticeinherownhome.Bothparentsmakeaconnectionbetweentakingresponsibilityforthemaintenanceofthehouseholdandthemaintenanceofthefamily.Theydrawontheirownsomewhatdifferentexperiencesofhelpingtheirparentsaroundthehomeinordertoillustratetheimportanceof‘helpingout’.Whentheirchildrenhelpoutwithhomeimprovementtheyare‘involved’inthefamily.Themother’schoiceofwords‘themoreyou’reinvolvedinsomething,themoreyou’relikelytocareaboutit’isilluminatingasshesuggeststhatthemoreherchildrenareinvolvedincaringforthehomethemoretheywillbeinvolvedincaringforthefamily.Theaboveextracthighlightshowwatchinglifestyleprogrammingcangivethefamilynotonlyideasabouthomeimprovement,orwaysofliving,butalsoideasaboutgoodandbadfamilypractices. Ethicsofcare131Inhealth-basedrealityprogramming,audiencediscussionaboutprogrammessuchasChildren’sHospitalsuggestsanexplicitlinkbetweenrealityprogrammingandanethicsofcare.InpreviousworkonChildren’sHospital,Iarguedthatviewersvaluelife-affirmingstoriesofsuccessfultreatmentandrecoveryinspecialistchildren’shospitalunits(Hill2000c).ViewersknowprogrammemakershaveeditedthestoriesinChildren’sHospitalinordertoensurehappyendings,andtheyhavecometoexpect,andindeedwant,theprogrammetoconcentrateonpositivestoriesattheexpenseofamorerealisticportrayalofhealthcareinBritain.Partofthereasonwhyviewersliketowatchstoriesofchildren’sacuteillnessisbecausethestoriesaremelodramatic,andofferanemotionalrollercoasterridethatusuallyhasapositiveoutcome.Asthis36-year-oldmothercomments:‘IlikeChildren’sHospitalandIalwaysendupintearswatchingitbutIalwaysstillwatchit…Ican’tturnoff.Iknowit’sgoingtoupsetme.’Or,asthis15-year-oldschoolgirlexplains:‘thechildreninChildren’sHospital,they’reillbutthey’rereallysweet…It’sliketheupsideoflife.Eventhoughthey’reill,they’restillhappy.’Themixtureofsadandhappystoriesintheseriesmakesforpowerfulmelodrama,andviewersfeelcompassionforthechildrenandtheirfightforsurvival.ThestorieshaveadualroleinChildren’sHospital:toentertainviewerswithmelodramaticstoriesofacuteillness,andtoinformviewersaboutthemedicaltreatmentandcareofchildren.Asthis41-year-oldfatherpointsout:‘Yeah,Imeanyou’vegotthekidspullingheart-stringsandthingsandalsoeverymedicalconditionseemstobesomethingnew.Soit’snotthesame,everykidtheytreattheyseemtofindanewillnessornewtreatmentandyouthink“Oh,god,Ididn’tknowtheycoulddothat”,soyou’relearningaswell.So,it’stworolesifyoulike,inone.’Viewerscanfeelcompassionforthechildrenfeaturedintheprogramme,andtheycanalsolearnabouthowthemedicalprofessioncaresforotherpeople’schildrenandhowparentscarefortheirownchildrenintimesofneed.Thestoriesofordinaryparentsandchildrencopingwithacuteillnessalsohaveanotherrole,astheyremindmanyviewersathomeaboutotherpeoplelessfortunatethanthemselves.This37-year-oldmotortradespersonandfatherofthreeexplainswhywatchingChildren’sHospitalgiveshimperspectiveonhisownlifeandthatofhisfamily:‘Yeah.Ifeelit’saverygoodprogrammeanditdoesupsetmequitealottowatchitbutitisaprogrammeIdolikewatching…becauseitmakesyourealizethatmaybeyourselforotherpeopleroundyou,youhaven’treallygotaproblematall…untilyoulookatsomeonelikethat.Andthenitmakesyoustartthinking,whyamIworried 132Ethicsofcareaboutmycarwhen,er,thepersonyou’vejustwatchedthenightbefore,their6-year-oldsonisdyingofcancer…Ithinkthemajorityofpeopleontheoutsideworldhaven’treallygotaclueofwhataproblemisuntiltheyseesomethinglikethatand,erm,Ithinkitmustbereallyhardtodealwithsomethinglikethatifiteverhappenstoyou,whichIhopeitdoesn’t…SoIthinktheprogrammeisgood’cosyoudoactuallyseewhatotherpeople,outthere,aregoingthrough.AndIthinkyoudoneedremindingthatitdoesgoon.’Thesadstoriesofacuteillnesscanbetransformedintolife-affirmativestoriesthatviewerscanlearnfrom.Thestoriesmaybeupsetting,buttheyarealsolifelessons.Forthisfather,Children’sHospitalisa‘goodprogramme’becauseitremindshimhowhealthyandwellcaredforhisownfamilyiscomparedwith‘otherpeople,outthere’.Health-basedrealityprogrammessuchasChildren’sHospitalencourageviewerstothinkaboutcareandresponsibilityforthehealthandwell-beingofthemselvesandtheirfamilymembers.Theprogramme’sexplicitemphasisonanethicsofcareisreflectedinthewayviewerstalkabouttheirresponsestothestoriesofacuteillness.Thefactthatviewersfeelcompassiontowardsthepeoplefeaturedintheprogrammessuggeststheycareaboutotherpeople,andthefactthatviewerscanlearnfromotherpeople’sexperiencessuggeststheyfeelresponsibilityforcareofthemselvesandtheirfamily.Similarly,lifestyleprogrammessuchasChangingRoomsencourageviewerstothinkaboutcareandresponsibilityforthehousehold,andbyextensionfamilymembersofthehousehold.Theprogramme’simplicitemphasisonanethicsofcareisreflectedinthewayviewerstalkabouthomeimprovementinrelationtogoodandbadconduct,andgoodandbadfamilypractices.Lifestyleandhealth-basedrealityprogrammingcanpotentiallygiveviewerstheopportunitytolearnaboutanethicsofcare,andtoapplyanethicsofcareintheireverydaylives.However,thesekindsofrealityprogrammesareproblematicinthattheycontainstoriesaboutotherpeople’sprivatelives,andotherpeople’ssuffering.Thewayinwhichlifestyleprogrammes,especiallymakeoverprogrammes,offerusawindowintotheprivatelivesofordinarypeopleraisesissuesforprogrammemakersregardingtheethicaltreatmentofthesepeopleinemotionallydifficultsituations.AlthoughrealityformatssuchasChangingRoomsareprincipallyaboutthemakeoverofpeople’shomes,therevealisanemotionallychargedmomentbecausepeopleareoftenemotionallyinvestedinthewaytheirhomeslookandfeeltothemselvesandotherpeople.IndatingmakeoverformatssuchasWouldLiketoMeetthestoriesareaboutthemakeoverofpeople’slives,andthereforemorelikelytoshowpeopleinemotionallydifficultsituations.Lifestyleprogrammesraiseissuesforviewersintermsoftheethicsof Ethicsofcare133watchingpeople’sprivatelivesontelevision.Therepresentationofsufferinginhealth-basedrealityprogrammingraisesissuesforprogrammemakersintermsoftheethicaltreatmentofordinarypeopleintimesofacutedistress.Therepresentationofsufferingalsoraisesfurtherissuesforviewersintermsoftheethicaldilemmaofwatchingthesufferingofothersontelevision.Inthenextchapter,Iconsideraudienceresponsestorepresentationsofsufferinginpetrealityprogrammesinordertoexplorefurtherthecomplexrelationshipbetweenanethicsofcareandrealityprogramming.CONCLUSIONInthischapter,Ihavearguedthatjustas‘wecannotavoidinvolvementinethics’(Singer1993:v),wecannotavoidinvolvementintheethicsofrealityprogramming.Ethicsinformsourunderstandingofthetreatmentofordinarypeoplebyprogrammemakers,thecontentofmanystoriesaboutpeople’sprivateexperiencesanddilemmas,andthewayaudiencesrespondtotherepresentationofthesestoriesinrealityprogramming.Althoughsomepeoplemightarguethatethicsareabsentfromrealityprogramming,infactethicsareattheheartofrealityprogramming.Rightstoprivacy,rightstofairtreatment,goodandbadmoralconduct,andtasteanddecencyarejustsomeoftheethicalissuesthatarisewhenexaminingtherealitygenre.Ihavechosentofocusonanaspectofethics,anethicsofcare,inparticulartypesofrealityprogramming,lifestyleandhealth.Theconceptofanethicsofcareincorporatestraditionalethicalreasoning,regardingcareoftheselfinancientGreekandRomanethicalwriting,withinawiderunderstandingofsocialethicsandrightsethicsinmodernmoralphilosophy.Anethicsofcarecanalsobeunderstoodinrelationtotheconceptsofself-identityandcareoftheself,asoutlinedbythesociologistsAnthonyGiddensandMichelFoucault.Lifestyleandhealth-basedrealityprogramminghas‘takenanethicalturn’(Hawkins2001:412),andstoriesabouthomeimprovementoracuteillhealthareconstructedinsuchawaythattheyimplicitlyandexplicitlyaddressviewersaboutgoodandbadwaystolivetheirlives,andgoodandbadwaystocareforthemselvesandotherpeople.Lifestyleandhealth-basedrealityprogrammesarepopularwithfamilyviewers,andthewayparentsandchildrentalkaboutanethicsofcareisconnectedwiththewaytheyoftenwatchtheseprogrammestogether.Viewersrelatethestoriesofordinarypeopleandtheirexperiencestotheirownfamilypractices,andtheirownunderstandingofcareandresponsibilityforthefamilyandthefamilyhousehold.Thus,theseprogrammescanencourageviewerstoapplyanethicsofcareintheireverydaylives.However,therelationshipbetweenethicsandrealityprogrammingiscomplex,andalthoughthere 134Ethicsofcarearereasonsforapositivereadingofthe‘ethicalturn’inlifestyleandhealth-basedrealityprogrammes,therearealsocausesforconcern.Theseprogrammesraiseethicalissuesregardingprivacy,andtherepresentationofsufferinginrealityTV.Amorecriticalreadingofthe‘ethicalturn’inhealth-basedrealityprogrammingisconsideredinthefollowingchapteronaudienceresponsestothesufferingofanimalsinpetprogrammes.Thischapter,therefore,isthefirstpartinamoredetailedexaminationofanethicsofcareinrealityprogramming,andonethatIhopeleadstofurtherdiscussionaboutethicsintherealitygenre. Chapter7PetdeathsSomeofthemostpopulartypesofrealityprogrammescontainstoriesabouthumansandcompanionanimals.ThereareobservationalformatssuchasVetsinPractice(BBC,1994–),infotainmentsuchasAnimalHospital(BBC,1994–2004),andadviceformatssuchasThePetPsychic(AnimalPlanet,2002–)orTheDogListener(Channel5,2001–2002).ThereisevenacableTVchanneltargeteddirectlyatpets;MiowTVincludesvisualsthatappealtocats,alongwithinformationforcatowners.Giventhevarietyofrealityformatsforpetsontelevision,thecontentissurprisinglysimilar:mostformatsareconcernedwithpetsincrisis.Inthischapter,Iwanttoexplorepopularfactualtelevisionconcernedwiththeillhealth,illtreatment,recovery,and,inextremecases,deathofcompanionanimals.Thischapterappliestheconceptofanethicsofcare,asdiscussedinthepreviouschapter,toacasestudyofthecontentandreceptionofanimal-basedrealityprogrammes.ProgrammessuchasAnimalHospitalarepopularwithfamilyviewers,andregularviewersoftheseprogrammestendtobemothersandchildren.WhenaudiencestalkaboutprogrammessuchasAnimalHospitaltheyframetheirresponsesinrelationtocompassionandresponsibilitytowardspetsinthehome,andsociallyacceptabletreatmentofpets.Thestoriesofpetsincrisishighlightthemorallychargedarenaofhuman–animalrelations,andmarkthetransformationoftheculturalmeaningofpetsinthelatetwentiethcenturyfrom‘lifestyleaccessories’tovalued‘membersofthefamily’.Inaddition,suchstoriesofpetsincrisisraiseethicalissuesconcerningthepoliticsofsuffering,andthepoliticsofviewingsufferingontelevision.HUMAN–ANIMALRELATIONSThehistoryofhuman–animalrelationsisahistoryofchangingsocialattitudesandbehaviourtowardstheco-existenceofhumansandanimalswithinthenaturalworld.AdrianFranklin,inhisbookAnimalsandModernCulture,summarisesthemaintheoreticalapproachtohuman–animalrelationsasfollows: 136PetdeathsMostsociologistsandhistoriansofhuman–animalrelationshavebeeninfluencedtoagreaterorlesserextentbyanearlierbodyofanthropologicalworkwhichfoundthathumanconceptualisation,classificationandtheorisationofanimalssignifyorencodesocialthought.First,socialstructuresandmoralityareroutinelyextendedintotheanimalworldtoprovidealogicalorderingtothisparallelmetaphoricalsociety.Second,thesociallyconstitutedanimalworldisthenusedtothinkthroughorresolvesocialtensions,conflictsandcontradictions…Animalsareuniquelypositionedrelativetohumansinthattheyarebothlikeusbutnotlikeus…humansareintimatelyinvolvedwithanimalworldseverywhere;somuchsoinfact,thathumanandanimalsocietiesareoftenbelievedtoexistonthesameplaneandtobesociallyandmorally,aswellasphysically,interactive.Animalsarethereforegoodtothinkaboutwhatitistobeproperlyhuman.(1999:9)Human–animalrelationsthereforetellussomethingaboutwhoweareashumanbeings,andwhoweareinoursocial,culturalandnaturalenvironment.Abriefoverviewofthehistoricaldevelopmentofhuman–animalrelationssuggeststhatcontemporaryattitudestowardsanimalshavearisenfromchangingsocialattitudestowardsmanandnature.Forexample,inTudorEngland‘theChristiantheologicalorthodoxymaintainedtheviewthatGodhadgivenhumansabsoluterightstouseanimalsastheysawfit.Thisincludeddomesticatingthem,eatingthem,andsportingwiththem–fairlyorotherwise’(Franklin1999:11).However,KeithThomas(1983)hasarguedthatthisanthropocentricviewofanimalschangedduringtheseventeenthandeighteenthcenturies.Oneofthereasonswhyattitudestowardshuman–animalrelationschangedwasthatdevelopmentswithinnaturalhistoryandthebiologicalsciencesopenedupunderstandingofthenaturalworldasaworldthatdoesnot‘existformanalone’(1983:166).Anotherreasonforchangingattitudestowardshumans/animalswasruraltourbanmigrationduringthenineteenthcentury.Asmorepeoplebecamelessdependentonanimalpowerasaresultofindustrial-technicaldevelopment,attitudestowardsanimalsbecamemoresentimental,and‘theoldwayoftreatinganimals(“badly”)becameincreasinglyunacceptabletourbansensibilities’(Franklin1999:12).Itwasduringthisperiodthatcampaignsdevelopedtostopcrueltytoanimals,andvariousanti-crueltylegislationswerepassed.Bythetwentiethcentury,adiscourseofanimalrightshademerged,alongwithgreaterunderstandingofanimalsintheirnaturalenvironment. Petdeaths137Thisbriefandselectivehistoryofhuman–animalrelationsillustrateshowsocialattitudestowardsanimalsgraduallychangedfromananthropocentrictoanthropomorphicunderstandingofanimals.However,thistransitionisnotasconsistentastheabovehistoricaloverviewsuggests.Forexample,atatimewhennineteenth-centurysocietycondemnedcrueltytoanimals,ruralanimalsports,suchashuntingandangling,flourished(Franklin1999:16).Nineteenth-centuryreformofhuman–animalrelationsthereforewasareformaboutworking-classanimalsports,suchascockfighting,andnotupper-classsportssuchasfoxhunting.Thiscontradictionbetweenlegislationregardinganimalcrueltyandupper-classsportingpracticesisonethatisstillpresenttoday.Debateaboutfoxhuntingreflectsa‘webofrelationshipsinvolvingwildanimals,domesticatedanimals,andhumans’(Marvin2002:154).Foxhuntingisnot‘anaturalencounterbetweenpredatorandprey’,buta‘sportingculturalevent’,andassuchis‘aneventthatisbothalternatelyandsimultaneouslynaturalandartificial’(2002:152–3).Thenaturalelementsoffoxhuntingincludeman’srighttohuntanimalsjustasanimalshunteachotherinthewild.Thesenaturalelementsarecontradictedbytheartificialelementsofastagedculturalevent,wherehumansrelyonhorsestotakepartintheevent,andthehoundsaretrainedtohuntforhumansratherthanforthemselvesinthewild(Marvin2002).SociologistNorbertElias,inhisbookTheCivilisingProcess(1994),arguesthatthesocialformationofmannersandtasteisconnectedwithsocialrestraintofthebody,inparticularrestraintregardingviolencetowardshumanbeingsandanimals.Thecivilisingprocessisagradualhistoricalprocessthatinvolvesself-restraint,andawarenessofsociallyacceptablecodesofbehaviour.Elias(1986)usedthecaseoffoxhuntingtoindicatethegradualcivilisationofthesportfromaviolentcontestbetweenhumansandanimalstoaviolentcontestbetweenanimals.FranklintakesupElias’argumentaboutsportandviolenceasoneexplanationofsocialattitudestowardscrueltytoanimals.ForFranklin,foxhuntingindicateschangingthresholdsoftoleranceforviolencetowardsanimals.Intheeighteenthcentury,thresholdsoftoleranceforviolencetowardsanimalschanged,andthisinturnledtoachangeinthewayhumanshuntedfoxesforsport,removinghumaninvolvementintheritualisedkillingofthefox.Inthetwenty-firstcentury,thresholdsoftoleranceforviolencetowardsanimalshavechangedtotheextentthatthereisapoliticalcampaigntobanfoxhuntingaltogether.Ontheonehand,thedebateaboutfoxhuntingcanbeseenasanexampleofchangingsocialattitudestowardsthehumanetreatmentofanimals.Inthissense,thecampaigntobanfoxhuntingisacampaignthatillustrates‘animalprotection,animalrights,andthecivilisingofmanners’(Franklin1999:25).Ontheotherhand,thefactthatfoxhuntersvigorouslydefendtheir 138Petdeathsrighttohuntinruralareasillustratesthecontradictorynatureofhuman–animalrelations,ashumanscontinuetoasserttheirdominanceoveranimalsinthenaturalenvironment.Intermsofthehistoryofhuman–companion-animalrelations,therehasbeenatransformationofculturalandsocialattitudestowardspetsandtheirowners.AccordingtoThomas(1983),itwasn’tuntiltheEnlightenmentthatpeoplebegantokeeppetsinearnest.Althoughtheupperclasseskeptpets,ittooktheadventoftheindustrialrevolutionforpetkeepingtofilterdowntothemasses.Duringthenineteenthcentury‘petsweresignificantinsocietyasmuchfortheirqualitiesaspositionalgoodsandentertainmentvalueasshowy,fashionaccessoriesorintelligentcompetitors,asfortheircompanionability’(Franklin1999:88).Duringthetwentiethcentury,therehasbeenagradualincreaseinthevalueofanimalsinhumanleisure,particularlyinWesternsocieties.Forexample,inpostwarculture,closecompanionshipwithpetswasoftensubjecttodisapproval,astand-infor‘normal’humanrelationships,buttodaypeople,especiallychildren,areoftenencouragedtodevelopcloserelationshipswiththeirpets(Serpell1986).Thesocialconstructionofpetsascompanionsillustrateshowtheboundarybetweenhumansandanimalsisgraduallyblurring;themoreweperceivepetsassharingthesamephysical,emotionalandpsychologicalneedsashumans,themorelikelywearetoacceptpetsasmembersof‘ourfamily’(Franklin1999).ResearchbySalmonandSalmon(1983)inAustraliaindicatesthatpeoplewhohaveexperiencedthelossofarelative,orlivealone,aremorelikelytoownapet,tovaluetheircompanionshipaboveallotherqualities,andtoanthropomorphisetheirpets’activities.AsimilarstudyintheUSAbyAlbertandBulcroft(1988)predictedthatpetkeepingwillincreaseinurbanhouseholdsasaresultofsocialchangestothemake-upoffamilyunits.ResearchbyBodmer(1998:237))ontheimpactofpetownershiponthewell-beingofadolescentswithfewfamilialresourcesindicatesthat‘petownersreportahigherlevelofwellbeingandmorefamilialresourcesthannon-owners’.Franklinarguesthat‘thenatureandextentofhumansurrogacyandanthropo-morphismfromthe1980sisamajorlandmarkinthesocialhistoryofthefamilyandthehome’(1999:97).Petscanprovidesocialbenefitsnotreadilyavailableinmodernsociety:‘familialfriendship,neighbourhoodandcommunityties…arerelationshipswhichprovidetheday-to-daynormsandculturalexchangesformostpeople’andyettheserelationshipsare‘mostatriskfrom…newflexibilitiesandfreedomsinthecreationanddissolutionofdomesticrelations’(1999:4).ForFranklin,petsprovidesecurityatatimeofsocialrisk,confusionandunpredictability.Theearlierexampleoffoxhuntingrelatestodiscussionofthetransformationofsocialattitudestowardscompanionanimals.Justas Petdeaths139foxhuntingisanexampleofcontradictoryattitudestowardswildanimals,sotoopetkeepingisanexampleofcontradictoryattitudestowardsdomesticanimals.Ontheonehand,thehistoryoftherelationshipbetweenhumansandcompanionanimalsindicatesthetransformationofsocialattitudestowardsdomesticanimalsascompanionsratherthanaccessories.However,althoughpetpopulationshaverisenexponentiallyoverthepastfewdecades,crueltytowardspetshasalsorisentotheextentthattherearethousandsofanimalsheltersformistreatedandunwantedpets.Irefertotherelationshipbetweenpetownershipandpetcrueltyinmoredetailinthenextsectioninordertosetthesceneforcontemporaryrepresentationsofpetsinpopularfactualtelevision.ThefollowingcasestudyofthecontentandreceptionofpetsinpopularfactualtelevisioninBritainisacasestudythatdrawsonthehistoryofhuman–animalrelations.ThewaypetsarerepresentedontelevisionisindicativeoftheanthropomorphismofanimalsinWesternsociety.Itisalsoindicativeofanincreasingsentimentalisationofcompanionanimals,andthelegalandmoralframeworktohuman–animalrelationsinthetwenty-firstcentury.Forexample,manypetprogrammesreportontheworkofanti-crueltycampaigngroupssuchastheRoyalSocietyforthePreventionofCrueltytoAnimals(RSPCA).Thesereportsblurboundariesbetweenhumansandanimals,andpresentstoriesofanimalsufferinginasentimentalandmoralisticmanner.Thus,ourunderstandingofcompanionanimals,asrepresentedinthemedia,isframedaccordingtothewidermoralandlegalcontextofhuman–animalrelationsincontemporarysociety.ThefactthatmanyofthesepetprogrammesareaboutanimalsufferingindicatesaconnectionwithFranklin’sargumentaboutsocialattitudestowardsthresholdsoftoleranceforviolencetowardsanimals.Intheseprogrammes,animalsufferingcausedbyhumansissocially,morallyandlegallyunacceptable.Bywatchingsuchprogrammes,viewersareencouragedtoempathisewiththeanimals,andtocondemninhumanepet-keepingpractices.Assuchpetprogrammescanbeseenasanexampleofchangingsocialattitudestowardsthehumanetreatmentofcompanionanimals,andalsoanexampleofchangingthresholdsoftoleranceforviolencetowardscompanionanimals.Inthiscasestudy,IexaminedomesticpetsinBritain.ThenationallyspecificnatureoftheserepresentationsofcompanionanimalsissignificantinthatBritainisanationwithalargeurbanpopulation,andalargedomesticcatanddogpopulation.Britishpeoplearefamousforbeing‘petlovers’(Franklin1999).Petprogrammesdrawontheseculturalandsocialfactorsintheirrepresentationofpetsandtheirowners.AcasestudyofBritishpetprogrammes,byitsverynature,focusesonparticularaspectsofhuman–companion-animalrelations.Thiscasestudyexcludes 140PetdeathsothersignificantaspectsofBritishpets,suchaspetkeepinginruralareas,workingdogsandtheirowners,andexoticpets.Italsoexcludeswildanimals,andfarmyardanimals.ByfocusingonBritain,thecasestudyalsoexcludestherepresentationofcompanionanimalsinothercountries.Alloftheseareasdeserveseriousacademicattention.Giventheconstraintsofthiscasestudy,Ihopethefollowinganalysiswillbeusefulinopeningupdebateaboutthecontentandreceptionofpetsinpopularfactualtelevision,andwillilluminateunderstandingofculturalresponsestohuman–companion-animalrelationsincontemporaryWesternsociety.PETSANDPEOPLEBeforelookingatpopularfactualprogrammesaboutpets,weshouldfirstassessthedevelopmentofthepetindustry,andpetorganisations.ThepetindustryandpetorganisationshavedevelopedinpostwarWesternsocietyasaresultofanincreaseinpetpopulationsandarelatedincreaseinthevalueofanimalsinhumanleisure.IntheUSA,morethanhalfofallhouseholdsownapetdogorcat.In1981,therewere44millionpetcats,andover50millionpetdogs;by2001dogownershiphadincreasedtoover60million,andownershipofcatsto75million.1InAustralia,60percentofhouseholdsownapet(Franklin1999).Approximately55millionEuropeansownatleastonepet–41milliondogs,47millioncats.2ThegrowthrateforownershipofdogsandcatshasincreaseddramaticallyinBritain.Between1963and1991thenumberofdogsroseby66percent,andthenumberofcats,byover70percent(Franklin1999:89).In2002,justunderhalfofthepopulationownedapet,withownershipofcatsanddogstotalling14.5million.Catownershipisatitshighestinthe35–44agegroup(27percent)anddogownershipinthe45–54agegroup(30percent).3Withsomanydogsandcatsintheworld,petfoodmanufacturershaveexperiencedrapideconomicgrowth.AccordingtoFranklin(1999:89),‘theBritishspentmoreonpetfoodin1993(£1.3billion)thantheydidonfreshfruitandvegetablesforthemselves(£1.2billion)’.In2000,dogownersintheUKspentover£800milliononpreparedpetfood,andcatownersspent£700million–evenbirdownersspentover£3milliononseed.4InEurope,thereare450petfoodcompanies,selling5milliontonnesofpetfood,valuedatEuro8.5billion.5Petfoodmanufacturershavecapitalisedoncurrentattitudestopetsascompanionsandsellproductsbypromotingawarenessofthehealthandtherapeuticbenefitsofpetownership.Companiesoutlinethevariouswayspetsplaysignificantsocialandpsychologicalrolesintoday’ssociety,drawingoncurrentstudiesofpetsandhealthcarethatsuggestpetscanhelptopreventillnessandaidrecoveryfromillhealth(Franklin1999).Claimsaremadethatpetseaseloneliness,improvefamilyrelationships,provide Petdeaths141playmatesforchildren,providesecurityforsingles,reducebloodpressureandanxietylevels,andcombatdepressionandinactivityamongsttheelderly.AccordingtoGarrityandStallones(1998),areviewofresearchsuggeststhatthebenefitsofpetownershiprelatetophysical,psychological,socialandbehaviouralissues.Emphasisisplacedonvaluingpetsbybuyingpreparedpetfood.Forexample,thePetFoodInstitute(PFI)inAmericaisdedicatedto‘promotingtheoverallcareandwell-beingofpets’.ThePFIbelieves‘ahealthypetisahappypet’,andbyspending‘tensofmillionsofdollars…todevelopandenhancepetfoodstoprovidethebestpossiblenutrition’petscanlivelongandhealthylives.6Mediaadvertisingechoessuchrhetoric.Anadvertfor‘Whiskas®withLifecare’catfooddepictsasinglewhitefemaleandhertabbycat,readingthepapertogether,withthecaption‘Longlivethosewhohelpustotakelifealittleslower’.7Thisproducthasa‘unique,newimmune-strengtheningformula’,andpromisesessentialnutrients‘proventokeep[cats]healthierforlonger’.Rivalproductsincludethe‘Friskies’“seethedifferenceinthreeweeks,oryourmoneyback”VitalBalancerange,andtheIams“reversetheeffectsofaging”range’.8Thistypeofpublicrelationsexerciseforthepetfoodindustrycrossesoverintogeneralpetservices,whichdrawonthe‘petascompanion’rhetorictocreatearangeofservices,fromthepoodleparlourtopetcremation,whichareprimarilyextensionsofhumanamenities.Petservicescombinetwoapproachestopets:petsarecompanionanimalsontheonehand,andontheother,positionalgoods.Thus,therearepetselectionagenciesthatoperateonthesameprinciplesashumandatingagencies,petnanniestolookafteranimalswhilsttheirhumansareatwork,andpetpsychiatristsforpetsandtheirowners.Otherservicesincludepetpampering,petholidays,pethotels(roomserviceoptional)andpetfashion,suchasthe‘Cosipet’joggingsuitfordogs.The‘Burberry’lineofdesignergiftsfordogs(the‘Burberry’beanbag,a‘classygift’,retailingat£92)9illustrateshowhumanfashionisextendedtoincludepetfashion.Alongsidechangesinsocialattitudestopetsfromplaythingstocompanions,therehasalsobeenanincreaseinanimalrescueorganisationsinWesternsociety.Thiscentralparadoxinthehuman–companion-animalbondmirrorstheparadoxofanimalsinmoderncultures–alongsideanincreaseinunderstandingofanimalsasaculturalspecies,therehasbeenmassdestructionofanimalsintheirnaturalenvironmentandinagriculturalindustry(Franklin1999).10IntheUSA,thereareover1,000officialanimalrescuecentres,fiftyinNewYorkalone.11ItisestimatedthatathirdofthedogpopulationintheUSAaresenttoanimalshelters(Garner1993:82).Althoughsomeofthesedestructionsoccurduetomedicalreasons,manyaretheresultofowners’ 142Petdeathstreatmentofpetsas‘throwawayobjectstobediscardedwhentheybecomeinconvenientorceasetogivepleasure’(ibid.).TheRoyalSocietyforthePreventionofCrueltytoAnimals(RSPCA)istheoldestanimalwelfareorganisation,foundedin1824.Althoughithasbeensubjecttocriticism,theRSPCAisthemosthigh-profileorganisationintheUK,andislinkedtothemostpopularpetseriesontelevision,AnimalHospital.12AccordingtotheRSPCAAnnualReviewfor1999,theyreceived1,572,344phonecalls,investigated132,021complaints,rescued9,929animals,andprosecuted701humansatacostof£1,812,465million(RSPCA1999:7).Inthesameyear,theRSPCAre-homednearly100,000unwantedanimals,andhumanelydestroyednearly90,000(1999:9).OtheranimalwelfareorganisationsintheUKincludetheNationalCanineDefenceLeague(NCDL),whichrescued/re-homed11,000dogs,andtheCatsProtectionLeague,whichrescued/re-homed70,000catsin2000.Theseorganisationsallrelyondonationsandlegaciesfromthepublic:theRSPCAreceivedincomingresourcesofover£57millionin1999,£45millionofwhichcamefromlegaciesanddonations;NCDLreceivedatotalincomeof£16.9millionin2000,£13millioninlegaciesanddonations(RSPCA1999;NCDL2001).PETCAREThepreviousoverviewofthepetindustryandpetorganisationshighlightsthevalueofcompanionanimalsinhumanleisure.Thevalueofcompanionanimalsinvolvesbotheconomicandmoralvalue.Themanypetservicesnowavailabletofeed,groom,trainandmaintainpetsalltestifytotheincreasingeconomiccostsofpetkeeping.Petservicesprimarilydrawonthemoralvalueofpetstopersuadeownerstospendmoneyonitemsoncethoughtnon-essential,andnowperceivedasessentialtothehealthandwell-beingofcompanionanimals.Inmanywaysthisisasocialcontract,andthesymbolicappealofthesepetservicesisthatownerswhobuyintothemaintenanceofthehuman–animalcompanionbondareresponsible,lovingpetowners.Thecontradictionintheriseinpetpopulations,petservicesandpetcrueltyhighlightsthissocialcontract,asthosehumanswhocareforanimalwelfaredonatemoneytowardsrescuinganimalsfromirresponsible,uncaringhumans.VivianaZelizer(1985),inPricingthePricelessChild,studiedthechangingsocialvalueofchildrenthroughinsurancepoliciesandlegislation.HerresearchdrawsontheworkofPhillippeAriesandhissociologicalandhistoricalstudyofchildhood(1962).ZelizerarguesthatsocialattitudestowardschildmortalitychangedduringtheEnlightenment,andespeciallyduringthenineteenthcenturyinEurope.Priortotheeighteenthcentury,thedeathofachildwas‘metwitha Petdeaths143mixtureofindifferenceandresignation’,andthechild’sburialprobablytookplace‘inthebackyard,asacatordogisburiedtoday’(1985:24).However,duringthenineteenthcentury,a‘dramaticrevolutioninmourningchildrenhadtakenplace’.Bereavementliterature,burialmonuments,insurancepoliciesandlegislationallindicatedatransformationintheculturalresponsetodeath(1985:27).Zelizerexplains:Insuringchildrenbecamebigbusinessattheturnofthecentury.Butitwasauniquecommercialenterprise,profoundlyshapedbythesentimentalvalueofitsyoungcustomers’lives.Aschildrenwereexcludedfromtheworkplace,insurancebenefitsfromthedeathofachildcouldhardlybejustifiedineconomicterms,thatis,asareplacementofachild’slostwages.Insuringthesacred,economically‘useless’childturnedintoasemi-ritualisticbusiness.Attheturnofthecentury,itprovidedfundsforachild’sproperburial;lateron,itservedasasymbolicexpressionofparentalloveandconcern.(1985:137)Zelizer’sworkisparticularlyusefulinconsideringinstitutionaldiscoursesandhowthesediscoursesindicatechangingsocialandculturalvalues.Heranalysisoftheeconomicandmoralvalueofchildrencanbeappliedtotheeconomicandmoralvalueofcompanionanimalsinhumanleisure.Inthesamewaythatnineteenth-centurylegaldocumentsaskedthequestion‘howmuchisachild’slifeworthtoitsparents?’,sotootwenty-firstcenturylegaldocumentsask‘howmuchisapet’slifeworthtoitsowner?’.ThepetinsuranceindustryisthethirdlargestinsuranceindustryintheUK.Thereareoversixtydifferentinsurancecompaniesofferingpetinsurance,fromPetPlan,thelargestpetinsurerwithover40percentoftheUK’spetinsurancemarket,toanimalcharityRSPCA,orretailcompanyMarksandSpencers.Thepetinsurancemarketisworthmorethan£160million.Therewere1.8millionpetinsurancepoliciesin2003intheUK.AccordingtotheRSPCA:40percentofthecostsincurredfromowningapetcomefromunexpectedvetbills,averagingaround£250peryearperpet.Withveterinaryinflationrunningat11percentayear–thankslargelytoadvancesinthemedicinesandtechnologyusedtotreatanimals–conditionspreviouslyleftuntreatedsuchascancer,areroutinelydealtwithbyexpensiveproceduressuchaschemotherapy.13TheRSPCAalsoadvisepetownersthat‘treatmentsarebecomingmoreexpensivewhichiswhyit’ssoimportantforpeopletotakeoutpet 144Petdeathsinsurancetoensuretheycanmeetthecostofalleventualities’.14Themostcommonailmentsclaimedforincludearthritis,lameness,dermatitis,heartdisordersandtumours.Itismoreexpensivetobuyinsuranceforapedigreepet.Forexample,PetPlancharge£155–326forpedigreedoginsurance,incomparisonwith£119–246forcross-breeddogs.Therearemoreinsuranceclaimsforpetsthanthereareforhousingorcarinsurance.15In2002,‘claimsfordogbitescostinsurancecompanies$310million’intheUSAandmanycompanieshavealteredtheircoveragetoexcludebreedswithbitestatistics.16Petinsuranceisbasedonthepremisethatpethealthcareissimilartohumanhealthcare.Petscangeturinaryinfections,heartdisease,arthritis,andresponsiblepetownersshouldprepareforsucheventualitiesbyspreadingthecostsofveterinaryhealthcare.Petinsuranceforegroundsthemoralchoicesfacedbypetowners.Insurancecompaniesofferavarietyofpackageswhichincludeholidaycancellationduetopetillness,recoveryoflostanimals,deathbenefitfromillnessoraccident(upto£750intheUK),andthird-partycoverifapetshouldcauseaccidentorinjury(upto£1millionintheUK).TheKennelClubHealthcarePlanoffers‘peaceofmind’foralldogownersbecause‘owningadogisagreatsourceofprideandpleasure,butitcanalsocausegreatanxietyandexpenseifillnessorinjuryshouldarise’.17Theadjective‘great’isthekeyhere.Forthesmallpriceof40penceaday,adogownercaninsureagainstthepotentiallylargeveterinaryfees,andclaimupto£5,000foraccidentorillness.TheKennelClubhelpfullyoutlinesthe‘rising’costsinvolved,withcasestudiesofpastveterinarytreatment,suchastheEnglishSpringerSpanielwhoneeded‘X-Raysandemergencysurgerytorepairmultiplefractures,followingatrafficaccident’(cost£1,442),whichisthemostcommonformofaccidentfordogs.18Aspetinsurancecompaniesremindus,thereisnoNHSforpets.Thus,companiespromisetohelppetownersthroughthe‘difficulttimes’,and‘taketheworryoutofpetownershipbymakingsurethatownersneverneedfaceagonisingchoicesaboutwhetherornottheycanaffordthebesttreatmentfortheirpet’.19Inrelationtothelossordeathofcompanionanimals,petinsurancepoliciesofferarangeofservicesthatcoveradvertisementsformissingpets,burialcostsandbereavementcounselling.TheinsurancecompanyRoyal&SunAllianceensurepetownershaveaccessto‘a26-strongteamofbereavementcounsellorstohelpthemthroughtheemotionaltormentfollowingthedeathofamuch-lovedfamilydogorcat’.20Thisbusinessinitiativefollowedonfromasuccessful£20millionadvertisingcampaignfortheRoyal&SunAlliancearmMoreTh>n,whichadvertiseditspetinsuranceviaawidespreadposterappealforinformationaboutalostdogcalledLucky.ThecampaignwassosuccessfulmembersofthepubliccalledthetelephonenumbertohelplocateLucky,onlytofindtheywerethevictimofanadvertisinghoax.Thesepetinsuranceservicesindicate Petdeaths145thepricepetownersarepreparedtopayforthecareoftheircompanionanimals.Petinsurancepoliciesnotonlyprovidethenecessaryfundsforveterinarytreatment,buttheyalsoprovidesymbolicexpressionofpetowners’loveandconcernfortheircompanionanimals.Thesuccessofthepetinsuranceindustryisconnectedwiththeincreaseinpetpopulations,andtheincreaseinthesentimentalisationofcompanionanimalsinpostwarWesternsociety.Anotherindustrytobenefitfromtheincreasingvalueofpetsinhumanleisureisthepetmortuaryindustry.Whilstsomepetownersstillrelyondiscreetburialinthebackgarden,thereareincreasingnumberswhowishtodrawonprofessionalservices,relatedtoburialand/orbereavementcounselling.AccordingtoFranklin(1999)petcemeterieshaveincreasedsincethe1970sinWesternsocieties.IntheUKandUSAhumanscanbeburiedalongsideanimals–itisillegalinAustralia(Franklin1999:93).Insuchcases,animalsare‘laidtorest’,althoughamorepopularalternativeforownersispetcremation.FarewellPetCremationServices(UK)sellcaskets,handcarvedintheshapeofacatorkennel;intheUSA,AngelPaws™sellspetmemorials,withphrasessuchas‘averygooddog’inscribedinstone.Thesemonumentstocompanionanimalssymboliseimmortality.Theyalsosignifyanincreaseinawarenessoftheimpactofpetdeathonhumans,whichinturnsignifiesanincreaseinthecorevaluesofthehuman–companion-animalbond(Seale1998).Despiteanincreaseinthepetmortuarybusiness,thereremainsasocialstigmatopetbereavement,andownerscanoftenfeelisolatedafterthedeathofapet.TheSocietyforCompanionAnimalStudies(SCAS)launchedapetbereavementtelephonesupportlinein1994,andclaimtohavehelpedover4,000petownerscopewiththelossofacompanionanimalintheUK.SCASsupportsbereavedpetownersbecausethereislittlesocialsupportavailable:Grievingforthelossofapet,whetherthroughdeathorenforcedseparation,canbeaverysadanddifficultexperience.Life,oncefilledwiththeloveandfriendshipofapet,maysuddenlyseemveryempty.Feelingsofdespair,lonelinessandevendepressioncanbeoverwhelming.Theremayalsobeastrongsenseofguiltandself-doubt,particularlywhenadecisionhasbeentakentoeuthanaseapet.Thesefeelingsarenormalandatestimonytothespecialbondbetweenpeopleandtheirpets.Unfortunately,noteveryoneunderstandsthisgrief,anditcanbeaverylonelyexperience.21(SCAS2002)Petbereavementserviceshavegraduallyincreasedinrecentyears,withsomeinsurancecompaniesofferingbereavementcounselling,aswellasanimalsocieties,andselectedveterinarypractices.Thereisagrowing 146Petdeathsbodyofliteratureonpetbereavementforowners,suchasGoodbye,DearFriendbyVirginiaIronside,orCompanionAnimalDeathbyMaryStewart,apracticalguideforveterinaryteams,who,despiteperformingeuthanasiaonaregularbasis,receivelittleformaltrainingineffectivestrategiesformanagingpetownerbereavement.Animalwelfareorganisationsoriginatedatthesametimeaschildwelfareorganisations.Duringthetwentiethcenturyattitudeshavegraduallychangedtowardsanimalcruelty,andpreventablepetmortalityisnowperceivedasasocialcrimeinWesternsociety(Zelizer1985:24).Legislationoncompanionanimalsstatesthattocauseananimalunnecessarysuffering,toilltreatorterrifyananimal,isanoffenceofcrueltyandownerscanbeprosecutedundertheProtectionofAnimalsAct(UK),andtheEUConventionoftheProtectionofAnimals.Suchlegislationdoesnotstopanimalcruelty,butitdoesframethelegalandmoralcontextofanimalwelfare.Animalwelfareorganisationsutilisetherhetoricofthepricelesspetintheirpromotionalmaterial.InanadvertforNCDL,adogasks‘Howmuchdoyouloveme?’Thistypeofemotiveadvertisingillustratessocialattitudestowardsthresholdsoftoleranceofviolencetowardscompanionanimals.Themessageoftheadvertisthathumansaremorallyculpablefortheirtreatmentofcompanionanimals,andthatcareofcompanionanimalsshouldnotbemeasuredineconomicterms.ForZelizer,thelegalevaluationofchildrenashavingsentimentalworthworkedalongsidethemoralevaluationofchildren’srights(1985:227).Thereareparallelstobedrawnregardingthesentimentalworthofcompanionanimalsandtheirrightsasa‘socialgroup’.However,animalrightsactivistswouldarguefortheseparationratherthancomingtogetherofhumansandanimals,becausetheybelieveallanimalsaredistinctfromhumansandshouldbeallowedtoliveintheirnatural,i.e.non-human,environment.AccordingtoGarner(1993:79),‘thekeepingofanimalsaspetspersewouldnotseemtobeaproblemfromtheperspectiveofthemoralorthodoxyregardinganimals’.However,problemsoccurinthemistreatmentofpetsandthedestructionofhealthyanimals.Aswesawintheprevioussection,manyanimalrescueorganisationsoperateadestructionpolicy.ItislegaltohumanelykillananimalundertheProtectionofAnimalsAct(solongastheanimaliskilledwithoutunnecessarysuffering,andtheowner’sconsentisobtained).Butfromananimalrightsperspectivethisdestructionismorallywrong.Accordingtothemoralorthodoxy,animalsaresentientbeings,andthereforehumanshavemoralobligationstoensurethatanimalsarenotunnecessarilyharmed.Amoreradicalposition,adoptedbynewanimalrightsgroups,isonewhicharguesweshouldtreatanimalsasiftheyarehumans(Garner1993).ThemostcommonpositionadoptedinWesternsocietyisthatofmoralorthodoxy.Mostproductsrelatedtocompanion Petdeaths147animals,whetherthisbepetinsuranceorpetcremation,emphasisethecloseemotionaltieshumanshavewiththeirpets,butatthesametimeemphasisetheresponsibilityhumanshavetocareforpets,tobehaveinanethicalmannertowardspets,alwayswiththeunderstandingthathumansareautonomousbeingsandanimalsaredependentonhumansfortheirwelfare.Themoralorthodoxpositioninanimalrightsconnectswithmoralreasoningregardinganethicsofcare.Asdiscussedinthepreviouschapter,anethicsofcareisanestablishedformofethicalreasoningthathasitsrootsinancientGreekandRomanethicalwritingoncareoftheself,Buddhistsocialethics,feministethics,andanethicsofrights.Anethicsofcaredrawsontraditionalandmodernethicalreasoninginordertopromoteawayoflifegroundedinthemoralvaluesofcareandrights.Howcanwecareforandhowcanweberesponsibleforourselvesandotherpeople?Howdoweexpressourcompassion,andourresponsibilitytowardsothers?Howmuchshouldwecare?Theseareallmoralquestionsthatareattheheartofanethicsofcare.Feministswithintheanimalprotectionandliberationmovementhavearguedthatcaringtheoryissignificanttounderstandinghuman–animalrelations.DonovanandAdamsexplain:‘caringtheorydevelopedoutofunequalrelationships,wherethecarerhasmorepowerthanthecaredfor…valuestheemotionsandconsiderssympathy,empathy,love–feelingsthatoftencharacterisehumans’responsestoanimals’(1996:15–16).Theconceptofanethicsofcare,therefore,isusefulinunderstandingtherelationshipbetweenhumansandcompanionanimals,arelationshipcharacterisedbythelegal,moralandsentimentalevaluationofthevalueofcompanionanimalsinWesternsociety.Whenweconsiderpetinsuranceandanti-crueltylegislation,thelegalandmoralframeworkforcompanionanimalsisbasedonanethicsofcare.Petownersareencouragedtopayfornon-essentialitemsinreturnfor‘peaceofmind’regardingthecareoftheiranimals.Bereavementliterature,burialmonuments,andinsurancepoliciesandlegislationallindicateatransformationintheculturalresponsetothedeathofcompanionanimals(Zelizer1985:27).Whereasinthepast,petbereavementwaslargelyignored,orwentunnoticed,inthetwenty-firstcenturythereisapublicacknowledgementofaneedforgreaterunderstandingofpetbereavement.Thisiscloselyassociatedwithanethicsofcare.Theculturalresponsetopetdeathisonecharacterisedbysympathyandempathyforcompanionanimals.Whenweconsiderpopularfactualprogrammesaboutpets,thepremiseandnarrativedriveofthestoriesintheprogrammesisbasedonanethicsofcare.Individualcasesofanimalillhealth,crueltyandsufferingarepresentedtoviewerswithinthemoralcontextthathumansshouldtreattheircompanionanimalsinasympatheticandempathetic 148Petdeathsmanner.Inthefollowingsections,Iexaminehowpetsufferingandmortalityisrepresentedinrealityprogrammes,andhowviewersrespondtorepresentationsofanimalsuffering.Myargumentisthatpetprogrammesconstructsentimentalstoriesofpetsincrisisinordertoelicitsympathyandempathyfromviewers,andinordertoforegroundsociallyresponsiblecareofcompanionanimals.Thewayviewersrespondtothesestoriesofanimalsufferingisframedinrelationtotheircompassionforcompanionanimals,andtheirunderstandingofanimalrights.PETS,VETSANDTVSETS22InanarticlepublishedinBroadcastin1999,NikkiCheetham(managingdirectorofBazalandcreatorofPetRescue)prophesiedthatthetrendforUKanimal-basedrealityprogrammingwasabouttoend.Shewasright.The1990sprovedtobeadecadeinwhichanimalsdominatedtelevisionscreensandscoredhighratingsinprimetimeslots,regularlyappearinginthetop30programmesintheUK.Post-2000,onlyafewremain,andthesearestalwartprogrammessuchasAnimalHospital,whichbeganthetrendinanimal-basedrealityprogrammes.Thisisnottosaythatpetprogrammeswilldisappearfromtelevisionscreens,thegrowthinpetownershipandpetservicestestifytotheeconomicstrengthofpetproducts,buttheparticulartypeofpetprogrammesofthe1990smaybedueforamakeover.TheBBC’sDeathbyPets(2003)isonepossibleindicationofthedirectionpetprogrammescouldtakeinthe2000s.However,giventheBBC’sownadmissionthat‘DeathbyPetswasmeanttobeajoke–butasitwasitwasn’taverygoodjoke’itisunlikelytherewillbemanymorehumorousrealityformatsaboutanimalmortality.23Televisionhasalwaysshownaninterestinanimal-basedfactualprogrammes,fromnaturalhistoryseries,ordocumentaries,tochildren’sprogrammeswhichfeaturepetsandexoticanimals.However,therapidriseinpetkeepingduringthe1980sand1990sensuredarapidriseinpetprogrammesthatprovedtoberatingswinners.PetRescuewasoneofthefirstseriestotapintoaudienceinterestinpets,withanaverageviewingshareof16percent,morethantheaverageshare(10percent)forChannel4throughouttheday(Carter1999:16).AnimalHospitalwasalsoaratingswinnerfortheBBC,attractingover7millionviewersduringitsfirstandsubsequentseries,andaviewingshareofupto40percent.Similarly,VetsinPractice,alsofortheBBC,attracted8millionviewers,withanaudienceshareofover30percent.Table7.1outlinestheratingssuccessofpetsinselectedpopularfactualseries. Petdeaths149Table7.1Ratingsforselectedpetprogramming(UK)SeriesAverageAverageNetworkTimeaudienceshare(million)(%)AnimalHospital10.1743BBC120:00AnimalsinUniform9.3137BBC120:00VetsinPractice8.0939BBC120:00People’sVets6.5933ITV20:00AnimalRescuers6.4529ITV20:30BatterseaDog’sHome6.2524BBC120:30BarkingMad6.1330BBC20:00DogSquad5.7324ITV19:00AnimalDetectives5.3425ITV20.30AnimalPeople4.9024BBC119:00AnimalHospitalRoadshow4.6930BBC118:30AnimalPolice4.2824BBC121:35Source:BARB1995–199924AbriefoverviewofaudiencesofpetprogrammesintheUKin2000illustratesthegeneralall-roundsuccessoftheseprogrammes(Hill/ITC2000).Outofalltypesofpopularfactualtelevision,formatssuchasAnimalHospitalratedhighlywithadultviewers–61percentofthegeneralpublicwatchedsuchprogrammesonaregularoroccasionalbasis.Petprogrammeswerepopularwithfemaleviewers(67percentcomparedto53percentofmaleviewers),appealedtoaudiencesacrossageranges(16–65+),acrosssocialcategoriesABC1(uppertolowermiddleclass)andC2DE(skilledandworkingclass,andlowestlevelofsubsistence)(58percentofABC1,comparedto62percentofC2DE),andacrosseducationallevels(school,collegeanduniversity).Familieswereparticularlylikelytowatchpetprogrammes.Sixty-twopercentofhouseholdswithchildrenwatchedsuchprogrammesonaregularoroccasionalbasis,andover80percentofchildren(aged4–15)watchedanimal-basedrealityprogrammes,althoughinteresttaperedoffintheyoungadultagerange.Theprofileofregularviewersindicatesgender,socialcategoryandagearealsosignificantfactors.Regularviewersaremorelikelytobefemale(30percentfemales,comparedto17percentmales),intheDEsocialcategory(29percentDE,comparedto16percentAB),andundertheageof16.However,theprofileforoccasionalviewerssuggeststhatpetprogrammeshavebroadappeal,especiallywithchildrenandparents.Schedulingisakeyfactorinthesuccessofpetprogrammes.Althoughsomeseries,suchasPetRescue,areoftenshowninatraditionalschedulingslotforchildren,itisthepeaktimeschedulingofseriessuchasAnimalHospitalwhichgarneredfamilyviewers,freshfromwatching 150PetdeathspopularsoapoperassuchasEastEnders,andlookingforsomethingtowatchinthe8–9pmslot(Brunsdonetal.2001,Ellis2000).Ofcourse,schedulingisnottheonlyreasonforthepopularityofanimal-basedrealityprogrammes.Whenaprogrammefocusesoncompanionanimalsthereisastrongchanceviewerswilltunein.Cartersumsupthesuccessofpetprogrammesfromthepointofviewoftelevisionproducers:Theinteractionbetweenpetownerandpethasastrongemotionalappeal,’saysChannel4daytimestrategydirectorJuliaLeStage.‘It’stodowithcaring–there’saneedtofeelneedednowadaysandtheseshowstapintothat,’saysRichardEdwards,executiveproduceratElementProductions,whichmakesHTV’sPeopleandPets.‘Itshowsthenationhowcaringweare,’addsElaineHackett,executiveproduceratBazal,whichproducesPetRescueandAnimalSOS.(Carter1999:16)Withanethicsofcareinmind,petsarepackagedintoprogrammeswhichfocusondramaticnarrativestructure,eachpersonalstoryframingamomentofcrisis,whenpetsneedtobecaredforbyowners,rescueorganisationsandveterinarians.Inmanyways,petprogrammesmakeuseofexistingformatsinhealth-basedrealityprogrammes,whichinturnmakeuseofmedicaldrama.InanoverviewofmedicaldramaintheUSA,Turow(1996)outlinesthemaindramaticformulainhealth-basedtelevisionseries,whichconsistofthreebasicingredients:thedefinition,preventionandtreatmentofillness.Thisnarrativeformulabeganin1960spopularmedicaldramasuchasDrKildare,wherethecentralplotrevolvedaroundacutephysicalillnessthatdramaticallyescalates,andrequiresimmediatesurgeryattheendofeachepisode.Minorchangesweremadetotheformula,suchasthe‘urgentlyrelevant’dramaof1970sseriessuchasBoldOnes,Emergency!,withafocusoncutting-edgeemergencymedicalprocedures,butthebasicplotremainedthesame.Turowcomments‘byactingouttalesoflifeanddeath…TVfictionabouthealthcarecanpresentcompellingscenariosaboutwhatcaregiversmightdo’.ButheisalsocriticalofUSmedicaldrama’sfailuretodiscussandcritique‘thereal-lifepoliticalandeconomicbattles’inthepolicyandprovisionofhealthcare(Turow1996:1240–2).Popularfactualprogrammesabouthealthcarearesimilartomedicaldramainthattheyfocusonthedefinition,preventionandtreatmentofillness,andoftenoverlookpoliticalandeconomicissues.Brunsdonetal.(2001:42)notethatrealityprogramming‘usesthecodesofentertainment,ratherthandocumentary,inrepresentingthereal’.Health-basedrealityprogrammes,suchasChildren’sHospital,usethecodesofmedicaldramatocreateacharacter-based,sympatheticrepresentationofhumanhealthcare,whichatthesametimetellsrealstoriesofhumansuffering, Petdeaths151braveryandrecovery.InpreviousresearchIconductedinaudienceresponsestoChildren’sHospital,theveryfactthattheseriesalmostalwaysshowedsuccessfultreatmentofchildren’sillnesswasaprimaryreasonforwatchingtheseriesinthefirstplace.Inthiscase,‘viewerenjoymentislinkedtoanunrealdepictionofsuccessfulrescueandmedicaloperationswhichcreatesamorepro-social,positiveportrayalofsocietythanviewersknowtoexistinreallife’(Hill2000c:207).Petprogrammesalsoseektoreplicatethislife-affirmingviewingexperience.Brunsdonetal.discusshowChildren’sHospitalandAnimalHospital‘areessentiallyconcernedwithtransformations’and‘thetraumaoftragediesthatoccurtoordinarypeople(andanimals)canbevicariouslyenjoyedinacondensednarrativethatguaranteesafavourableoutcome’(2001:43).ItisbecauseofthetransformativequalitiesoftheseprogrammesthatBrunsdonetal.arguethat‘thenarrativestructure…ismuchclosertotheformattypicalofthemake-overorcookeryshowthanthetraditionaldocumentaryorcurrentaffairsprogramme’(2001:43).Thealchemictransformationofthenegativeeventofcriticalillnessintopositivelife-enhancingexperienceissimilartothephysicaltransformationofapersonorenvironment,wherebytheemphasisisusuallyonthenegativetopositiveexperience.However,thestoriesinhealthbasedpopularfactualprogramminghaveamoralagendaoftenmissingfromlifestyleseries.InsomewaysthetransformationfromnegativetopositiveexperiencemirrorsthedominantculturalscriptsCliveSealeassociateswithdiscussionofdeathinAnglophonecountries(1998:127).ForSeale,discussionofdeathasheroicjourneyprovidesopportunitiesforpeopleto‘imaginethattheirexperiencesbelonginawider,indeed,universal,communityofcare’(1998:144).Thedramaticformulaofhealth-basedrealityprogrammes–definition,preventionandtreatmentofillness–wouldsuggestthatthetransformativecharacteristicsofsuchprogrammesprimarilyrelatetoanethicsofcare.Inpetprogrammes,thetransformationisprovidedwithinthenarrativearc,sothatcriticalillnessleadstorecoveryandrecoveryreaffirmsacommunityofcare,inthisparticularinstanceacommunityofanimals,vetsandtheirowners,butinthewidersenseacommunityofcarersanddependants.InordertoillustratethecaringcomponentofpetprogrammesIwanttoanalysetwoseriesindetail.ThefirstisAnimalHospital,madeforapublicservicebroadcastingchannel(BBC1),andthesecondisAnimalER,madeforacommercialchannel(Channel5,nowknownasFive).Iamparticularlyinterestedinacuteillness,whenthemelodramaticmomentofthepetandpetowner’sstoryisatitsmostintenseandthehighlevelofcarerequiredfortherecoveryofthepetmostwarranted.Ifthenarrativedriveofpetprogrammesistofocusonthetransformationfromnegativetopositiveexperience,providingalife-affirmingstoryforviewers,whathappenswhenthisnarrativebreaksdown?Asweshallsee,thefactual 152Petdeathsrepresentationofthedeathofapetisnotgeneric,andpublicservicebroadcastingandcommercialimperativesarenoticeableinthedifferenttreatmentofpetdeathsinAnimalHospitalandAnimalER.AnimalHospitalusesaninformativeaddresstotheviewertoframeitsrepresentationsofpetmortality,whereasAnimalERusesamoresensationaladdresstotheviewer.AnimalHospitalFromtheoutset,AnimalHospitalwaspopularwithviewers.JohnElliscommented:Initially,AnimalHospitalWeekhadbeenaweekly‘stripped’specialeventwhichfollowedtheworkofavet’spractice,frontedbyRolfHarris,bythenanover-the-hillchildren’spresenter…ItwasthequintessenceofpopularpublicservicebroadcastingastheBBCconceivesit,providinginformationaboutanimalcareinanentertainingformat.Afteritsunexpectedsuccess,itwasre-commissionedasaweeklyhalfhourforThursdaysat8.00pm…inthisnewweeklyform,ithadmorepronouncedsoapaspects.Itdevelopedregularcharacters,plentyofchatandspeculationandweektoweekcliff-hangersuspenseabout‘howtheanimalswilldo’.(2000:141)Theserieswasre-commissionedovertentimesduringthe1990s,andledtovariousspin-offproducts.TheseincludetheBBCvideo‘AnimalHospitalwithRolfHarris’whichcontains‘heart-warmingstories’of‘someofthehospital’smemorablepatients’,thenumberonebestsellerTrueAnimalTales,acollectionofstoriesaboutheroicandremarkableanimalsaroundtheworld(Harrisetal.1997),andAYearintheLifeofTheAnimalHospital,thestoryofDavidGrant(‘television’sbest-lovedvet’)andhisday-to-daydealingswithpetsandtheirownersattheRSPCA’sHarmsworthMemorialHospital(Grant1998).25ThelocationsforAnimalHospitalarevariousRSPCAveterinaryclinicsthatoperateratherlikeanNHSforpets,offeringfreeveterinaryhealthcareforurbanpet-owners.ThecharitableworkoftheRSPCAactsasabackdroptotheprogramme’sfocusonthesentimentalisationofpetsascompanionanimals.AccordingtoLorraineHeggessy,theexecutiveproducerofthefirstseries,when‘peoplesawtheGermanShepherdbeingputdownandRolfcryingliveonnationaltelevision…thenextdayitwasthetalkingpointofthenation.Thenextnightourratingshotuptonearlytenmillion’.26RolfHarrisaccompaniesthepetstothetreatmentroomsandoperatingtablesasananimallover,ratherthanananimalexpert.Hisquestionsareprimarilydirectedatthevets,andserveasapromptfor Petdeaths153informationandadviceonpethealthcare.Eachepisodebeginswiththethemetune,anupbeat,high-pitchedhornprovidingthekeysound,whichcanbesloweddownwhennecessarytoachieveamoremelancholyeffect.ThefirstpersonweseeisRolfHarris,whooftenbeginsbysaying‘G’day,andwelcomebacktoAnimalHospital’beforelaunchingintonewstoriesandupdatesonpreviousstories.Eachstoryisrelativelyshort,withsixtoeightstoriesfeaturinginanyoneepisode,usuallydepictingavarietyofpets,exoticanimalsandwildanimals,bothintheRSPCAhospitalandonlocation.Thestaplevisualstyleisthatoftheclose-up,usuallyaclose-upofasickanimal,butalsooftheowner,thevetsornurses.Theclose-upisusedasanemotionaldevicethatworksalongsidethestorystructure,whichusuallycomprisesthearrivalofthesickanimal,treatment,andrecovery,wherethepetisreunitedwiththeirowner,ofteninthe‘privacy’oftheirownhomes.Forexample,inthecaseofSnowythepoodle,webeginwiththediagnosisofthestraydogatthehospital(ithasbeenbadlymistreated,andhasmange),cueclose-up,cuttothetreatmentofthedog(itisshaved),andthenfinishwithashotofthedogplayinginagardenwithitsnewowners–chosenfrom‘hundredsofpeople[who]offeredSnowyahome’.27Thenarrationisvitalasthesubjectsofthestoriesaresilent,andtheanimals,whilstclearlyabletoshowtheirsuffering,cannottalktothecameraabouttheiranxietiesregardingtheirillnessandhopesforrecovery.Theprogrammemakersusenarrationtoframethestoriesinrelationtoanimalcare.Thus,RolfHarristranslatesanimalbehaviourforhumanswhocareaboutanimals.Forexample,whenSpike,aGreatDanewithaninternaltesticle,wakesupfromhisoperation,thecameraclosesinonhismiserableexpression,thencutstoRolfwhoreassuresusthatthedogisfine–‘he’djustcomeroundfromtheoptheresohe’slookingabitgroggy’.28Thenarrationalsoservestoheightentensionandtoemphasiseanethicsofcare.Inoneepisode,Rolftalkstocamerainthewaitingroomofthesurgery:‘itisalwaysworryingifourpetsfallill,butiftheyhavestraightforwardsymptomswecanusuallytakethemtothevet,getsomethingtomakethembetter.Butitisveryfrighteningwhenyourpethasdramaticsymptoms’–cueadogwithconvulsions.29Or,inanotherepisode,hetellsusthattheoutcomeis‘touchandgo’forSammythepuppywhoswallowedratpoison.30Thesestoriesservetoemphasisethecommonalitiesofexistencebetweenhumansandcompanionanimals.Animalshavesimilarillnessesandaccidentstohumans,andwewatchstoriesaboutanimalsufferingbecausewecareabouttheirwelfare,becausewearehumane.TheethicsofcareinAnimalHospitalismostcompellingwhentheanimalillnessismostacute.Althoughpetsoftendiefromseriousinjuryorillness,suchdramaticincidentsarerarelyshownonAnimalHospital,wheretherecoveryrateisfarhigherthaninmostveterinaryhospitals. 154PetdeathsWhenastoryofpetmortalitydoesfeatureintheseries,theprogrammemakersattempttobalancethemelodramaofthestorywithfactualdetailsofthereasonsforthedeathofthepet.TheexampleofSusiethekittenwillillustratethetreatmentofpetdeathinAnimalHospital.Oftentheviewerispreparedforanacutecasewithageneralwarning,inthisinstance‘thepressureisneveroffforvets’,whichactsasareminderthataccidentsandillnesscanoccuranytime.WemovedirectlytothestoryofSusie,whohasanintersesection,whichiswhenpartofthestomachturnsinonitselfandbecomesinfected.31First,webeginwiththediagnosis,andtheclose-upofSusielookingdistressedandinneedofurgentmedicalattention.TheownersarenotpresentandRolfHarrisstandsinasconcernedpetowner.Next,wecuttothetreatmentofSusie,whoislyingontheoperatingtable,herfuturebleak.Thevetinformsusoftheprocedure,showingushowsheisremovingtheinfectedpartofthegut,andsewingthehealthypartstogether.Thereareclose-upsofthesurgicalprocedure,highlightingtheseriousnessofSusie’scaseandfunctioningasareminderoftheprofessionalskillsofthevet.WemovetoSusie’srecovery,withRolfHarrisinformingusthatSusieisstillalive,andevidentialshotsofthekittenmeowing,andeatingmorselsoffood.Thisisthehighbeforethelow–cuttoaclose-upofSusielyinglistlesslyinhercage.ThisisthelasttimeweseeSusie,andthesceneisanemotionalone,underscoredbythemelancholymusicthataccompaniesthefinalclose-upofthekitten,andtheconfirmationthat‘Sadly,Susiedied.’WefinishwithaninformativeaddresstotheviewerbyRolfHarriswhoasksthevettodemonstratetheintersesectionwiththevisualaidofarubberglove.Thisdemonstrationservesadoublepurpose;itemphasisesthepublicservicecomponentofthestory,andalsore-enforcesanethicsofcare,asRolfcomfortsavisiblyupsetvetwhoacknowledgesshehas‘sleeplessnights’whencopingwithanimalmortality.Inrelationtotherepresentationofsuffering,AnimalHospitalprovides,inthewordsofLucBoltanski,‘awindowontheplaceoftheheart’(1999:85).Thiswindowisclearlyconstructed.AccordingtoBoltanski,whenarepresentationofsufferingisobviouslydesignedtobe‘moving’,therepresentationfails‘becauseemotionisanticipatedbythe“visiblestrings”fixingittotheimages,soundsandwordsinthewayapropertyisattachedtoaproduct’(1999:83).Onewaytoovercomepossiblefailureistoblendtwokindsofreportwithinarepresentation:Onewhichdescribestheunfortunate’ssufferingandwhichturnedtowardstheoutsideworldcanbetermedanexternalreport,andanotherwhichcanbetermedaninternalreportinthesensethat,devotedtoinnerlife,itseekstodepictwhattakesplaceintheheartofthereporter,thestatesthroughwhichtheheartpasses.(1999:85–6) Petdeaths155IntheexampleofthestoryofSusiethekitten,RolfHarrisandthevetprovideanexternalreport,chartingthekitten’sprogress,explainingmedicalprocedure.Theinternalreportisprovidedbythenon-verbalcues,thenon-diegeticmusic,theclose-upshotsofthekitten,andbythevisualandverbalresponsesofthenarratorandvet,whoalongwiththeirtechnicalobservations,offeranapparentlymorespontaneousresponsetosuffering.ItisthisbalancebetweentheinternalandtheexternalreportwhichallowsAnimalHospitaltotreadafineethicallinebetweentheuseandmisuseofsufferinginpopularfactualtelevision.AnimalERChannel5tappedintothesuccessofestablishedanimal-basedfactualprogrammesbyreplicatingtheformatforAnimalHospital.TheseriesAnimalERwasfirstbroadcastinthewinterof1998,scheduledfrom8.30to9pm,withanaverageaudienceofover1million,andanetshareofupto7percent.ThefirstserieswassuccessfulenoughforChannel5tocommissiontwomoreseries,andrepeatthefirstintheautumnof1999,scheduledattheearliertimeof7.30pm.Ataglance,thereislittletodifferentiateAnimalHospitalfromAnimalER:botharebasedatveterinaryhospitals,bothinviteempathywithanimalvictimsofaccidentandillness,bothstressanethicsofcare.However,AnimalERisbasedataprivateveterinarypractice,ratherthanacharitypractice.Inaddition,thecommercialcontextofChannel5ensuresthateachprogrammecontainsmorestoriesofacuteillnessinordertomaximiseratings.InAnimalER,deathisaneverydayoccurrence.ThesefactorsmakewatchingAnimalERadifferentviewingexperiencefromAnimalHospital.AccordingtoTomBrisley,theseriesproducer,‘theprogrammesdelveintothegrittyworldofreal-lifeveterinarywork…andit’snotalwaysahappyending’(Knowsley1999:3).ReverendGrahamStevens,thenpresidentoftheNationalViewers’andListeners’Associationcommented:‘thetraditionalvetprogrammesarefun,helpfulandgoodfamilyviewing,butthisisgrotesque’.Anationalbroadsheetnewspaper,theDailyTelegraph,accusedChannel5ofproducingashockingdocumentarythat‘haspromptedrenewedaccusationsthatthenetworkisoversteppingtheboundariesoftasteanddecency’(ibid.).Anothernationalnewspaper,theExpress,summedupcriticalresponsetotheseriesasfollows:IfyoulikeseeingrehabilitatedanimalsonTV,inVetsinPractice,say,chancesareit’sbecausetheyoffercute,heartwarmingtriumphsofthespirit.Ontheotherhand,ifyouwatchER,it’slikelytobeforthefastmovingdramaandnotforthegore.Buthereweareinavets’practice…withX-certificateshotsofhorses’guts,acalfwithitseyehanging 156Petdeathsoutandacatwitharankandrottingwomb.Delightful.Whoisthisaimedatexactly?32Theopeningcreditssetthetone,asanurgentpianosoundaccompaniesamontageofanimalsincrisis.NarratedbytheactorTomConti,theprogrammecutsbetweenapproximatelythreestoriesofacuteaccidentandillness,editingbetweenstoriestoheightentension.Thecamerautilisestheclose-uponpets,ownersandvets,butwhereasinAnimalHospitalthecameraisfairlystatic,inAnimalERitisenergetic,switchingbackandforthfromthepointofviewofthepet/owner/vet.SimilartoAnimalHospital,deathcanoccurasaresultofaccidentorillness,butinAnimalER,deathcanalsooccurasaresultofneglectandfinancialconstraint.Thus,thereisaconfrontationalaspecttoAnimalER,andahighrateofmortality–usuallyonedeathperepisode.Inmanyways,theseriesborrowssuccessfullyfromdramasuchasCasualtyorER,andviewersareencouragedtousestrategieslearnedfrommedicaldramawhenwatchinganimal-basedrealityprogrammes.Forexample,regularviewersoftheseriescansecond-guesstheoutcomeofthestoriesbecauseoftheexpectationthatatleastoneanimalwilldieineachepisode.ThedifficultywiththisinterchangebetweenmedicaldramaandfactualprogrammesisthatthedeathsinAnimalERarereal,andraisemoralissuesthataredifficulttoresolvewithintheprogramme.InAnimalHospital,storiesconcerningcrueltytoanimalsarearegularfeatureintheseries.Aswesawintheprevioussection,whentheRSPCArescueananimal,oftenthestoryisoneofhope;althoughtheanimalhasbeenabused,itrecoversfromitsphysicalandemotionalinjurieswiththehelpoftheRSPCAandresponsiblepetowners.InAnimalER,storiesconcerningpetcrueltyregularlyfeatureintheseries,butthesestoriesareoftenmorallessonsinirresponsiblepetownership.Forexample,thestoryofanabandoneddogrunsalongsidethatofthebirthofacalf,thusjuxtaposinglifeanddeathinthesameepisode.33Thedoghasbeenneglectedformanyyears.Ithasextensivewounds,andlargeballsofmattedfurencaseitsbody.Thevetcomments:‘itistheworstcaseofcrueltyIhaveeverseeninmylife…Ijustcannotbelievethatpeoplecanstooptothisdepth.’Thecamerazoomsinonthedogasitisexaminedbythevet,whotalksabouttheextentoftheinjuriesinflicted,thesufferingthedoghasendured,beforestating‘Ifeelobligedtohaveiteuthanased.’Pianomusicaccompaniesimagesofthedog;andasthevetgivesthedogalethalinjectionthecameramonitorsitsbreathasitslowsdownandeventuallystops.Thedogisthenplacedinabodybag,readyfordisposal.Similarly,thestoryofJodithedoghighlightsmoralissuesrelatedtoprivateveterinaryhealthcare.Jodihasaninjuredspine,andafterX-raysdeterminetheseriousnatureoftheinjury,thedogundergoesanoperation.34Musicaccompaniesthediagnosisofthedog,creatingasoft, Petdeaths157melancholymood.Afterinter-cuttingwithtwootherstories(ahorsewithbowelproblems,acalfwithaninjuredeye),wereturntoJodi,asthevetsurgicallyexploresthespinalinjury,andtellsusthatthedogwillneedacomplicatedoperationtoreleasepressureonthespinalcord,anoperationthatwillcostthousandsofpounds.ThevettakestimeoutfromsurgerytocallJodi’sownerswhooptforeuthanasia.Cueclose-upofJodi,stillunderanaesthetic,thenursestrokingthedog’shead.Onceagain,twootherstoriesinterruptthenarrative,andwhenwereturntoJodi,itistowitnessherfinalbreath.Thisrepresentationofpetdeathhighlightstheeconomicfactorsinpethealthcare,andraisesimportantethicalissuesconcerningtherightsofcompanionanimals,issuesnotaddressedbythevetorcommentatorintheprogrammeitself.AnotherexampleoftherepresentationofpetdeathinAnimalERhighlightsethicalissuesconcerningtherighttoprivacyforpetownersandtheirpets.Inasceneinvolvingthedeathofakitten,weseetheownersstruggletocometotermswiththedecisiontoeuthanasetheirpet.Inthisinstance,thepositionofthecameraisilluminating,asatfirstthecamerarecordsthekittenanditsownersinsidethetreatmentroom,providingclose-upsoftheownersasthevetinformsthemthatthekittenhasaseriousbowelcondition,andthereisnohopeofrecovery.Cuetearfulreactionshotsoftheownerstothebadnews.Asthevetleavestheroom,heforcesthecameracrewtoleavewithhim,physicallyclosingthedoortoensureadegreeofprivacyforthepetowners.However,aroundwindowinthedoorprovidesanopportunityforfurtherfilming,andthelastimageweseeisoftheownershuggingeachother,andthekitten,accompaniedbymelancholypianomusic.Thus,anessentiallyprivatemomentismadepublic,andtheprogrammemakerstestboundariesofprivacyandtasteanddecencybychoosingtofilm‘throughthekeyhole’.Inthisinstance,theprivacyissuesrelatetothepetowners,butinotherscenesinAnimalER,thereisacasetobemadethattheanimalsthemselveshavearighttoprivacyinthefinalmomentsoftheirlives.InAnimalER,thestoriesofpetdeathhighlightethicaldilemmasregardingpetownershipandanimalrights.Theseriesattemptstoshowtherealityofpethealthcareinacommercialveterinarypractice.TherepresentationofpetdeathinAnimalERisdifferenttothatinAnimalHospital.InaccordwithBoltanski(1999),thevetandthecommentatorprovideexternalreportsofthepets,thereasonsfortheiracuteillnessandsuffering,andproceduresinvolvedineuthanasia.Thereisnodirectinformativeaddresstotheviewer,butthecommentaryattemptstotelluswhatisgoingonandwhycertainactionistaken.Theinternalreportofsufferingisprovidedbynon-verbalcues,thenon-diegeticmusic,andtheclose-upshotsofanimalsindistress.Theuseofsentimentalmusicaccompanyingimagesofdyinganimalsservestoemphasisetheemotionallychargednatureofpetdeath,inparticularwheredeathis 158Petdeathsoftenaresultofhumanactions.Theabsenceofapresenterissignificant,aswithoutaninternalreportfromsomeonesuchasRolfHarris,ananimallover,theserepresentationsofsufferingappeardistant,observedfromafar,ratherthanexperiencedbysomeonewhovisiblycaresaboutanimals,andwhosharestheirexperiencewithviewers.Thus,thereisanimbalancebetweentheinternalandtheexternalreportofsufferinginAnimalER.AlthoughstoriesofpetsincrisisinAnimalHospitalandAnimalERappearsimilar,therearesubtleandnotsosubtledifferencesinthetreatmentofsufferingthatraiseissuesabouttheviewingexperienceofpetdeathinrealityprogramming.Theserepresentationsofanimalmortalityinviteviewerstoconsiderethicalissuesrelatedtothecareofcompanionanimals.35Inthefinalsectionofthischapter,IexaminehowtelevisionaudiencesrespondtorepresentationsofsufferinginAnimalHospitalandAnimalER.WATCHINGPETDEATHThestoriesofcompanionanimalsinrealityprogrammingunderscorethevalueofcaringforothers.Inthecaseofanimalmortality,suchstoriesmaybedistressing,butcanallowchildren(andparents)to‘faceuptotherealityofdeath’(Seale1998:71)throughwatchingsecondorderexperiencesofpetdeathontelevision.Thenegativeeventofapetdeathcanbetransformedbyrelatingsuchexperienceto‘awider,indeeduniversal,communityofcare’(1998:144).Ifwelookataudienceresponsestoanimalmortality,theexperienceofwatchingpetdeathisframedinrelationtoaudiencecriticismofrepresentationsofsuffering,orwhatBoltanski(1999)callsthepoliticsofsuffering.Childrenandparentsarecriticalofprogrammemakersforexploitinganimalsforthepurposesofmakingentertainingpopularfactualprogrammes,andcriticalofthemselvesforwatchingsuchsuffering.Thus,althoughtherearepotentiallypositiveaspectstowatchingpetdeathinrealityprogramming,suchaslearningaboutcaringforanimals,televisionaudiencesaremainlycriticaloftheideaofshowinganimalmortalityontelevision.Audienceresponsestorepresentationsofsufferingareoftenframedinrelationtotheconceptofcompassion.Compassioncanbeexperiencedatanexplicitorlatentlevel,dependingontherepresentationofsuffering.‘Compassionfatigue’isatermusedtodescribetheideathattelevisionaudiencesfailtofeelcompassiontowardsthesufferingofothersbecausetherepresentationspresenthumansufferingasmoreorlessequal,andthereforefailtotakeintoaccountdifferenttypesofsufferingandthecausesofsufferingintheworld(Tester2001:51).Theideaofcompassionfatigueassumesthataudiencesremainimpassivetostoriesofsuffering,suchasnewsstoriesoftheplightofrefugees,and‘anypossibilityofa Petdeaths159moralbondbetweenaudiencesandthesufferingandmiserableotherswillbeavoided’(2001:56).Theproblemwiththisassumptionisthatrepresentationsofsufferingvaryacrossdifferentgenres,andprogrammes.Aswesawintheprevioussection,programmesthatcontainsimilarstoriesofanimalsufferingvaryinthewaytheypresentthissufferingtoaudiences.Inlightofaudienceresearchpresentedinthischapter,itismorehelpfultoconsidercompassioninrelationtoanethicsofcare,ratherthandrawingontheideaofcompassionfatigue.Contemporaryresearchsuggeststhatweexperiencecompassionwhenrepresentationsofsufferingare‘harnessedtothemoralvoiceofjusticeortothemoralvoiceofcare’.Thisresearchalsosuggeststhatourexperienceofcompassionisgendered:‘whilementendtoupholdanethicofjusticeandfairness,womentendtoupholdanethicofcareandresponsibility’(2001:69,66).Inrelationtoanimal-basedrealityprogrammes,discussionofrepresentationsofsufferingisframedinrelationtoanethicsoffairnessandtoanethicsofcareandresponsibility.Inmyresearch,genderandagearesignificantfactorsinunderstandingaudiencediscussionofscenesofanimalsufferingandmortalityinAnimalHospitalandAnimalER.36Childrentendtoframetheirresponsestopetdeathinrelationtoanethicsoffairnessandtheissueofanimalrights,whilstmotherstendtoframetheirresponsesinrelationtobothanethicsoffairnessandanethicsofcareandresponsibility.Theseresponsestoanimalsufferingaresimilarinthesensethatbothtypesofviewersfeelcompassionforthepetsandtheirownersintheprogrammes.However,children’sresponsesaredifferenttoparentalresponsesbecausechildrenarefarmorecriticalofrepresentinganimalmortalityontelevisionthantheirparents.Viewersdrawontheirknowledgeofthesubgenreofanimal-basedpopularfactualprogrammingwhendiscussingparticularstoriesofpetsincrisis.ViewersmakedistinctionsbetweenstoriesinAnimalHospitalandAnimalER.Thesedistinctionsarebasedonthedifferenceinchannel(publicserviceversuscommercialchannel),narrativearc(happyorsadendingstostories),andthepresenceofapresenter.Thegeneralnarrativedriveofstoriesaboutpetsincrisisisfamiliartoviewers,asthis14-year-oldschoolgirlindicates:‘Alltheydoreallyisshow…ananimalbeingcutopenandthentheyclosethethinganditlivesorit’sdead.’Inaddition,viewersareawarethatAnimalHospitalpredominantlyhasstorieswithhappyendings,unlikeAnimalER:‘AnimalHospital…youknewwhatwasgoingtohappen.Itwaslike,animalcomesin,it’shalfdying,cureit,gohome.’(15-year-oldschoolboy)‘Idon’tfindAnimalERveryappealing’cosit’s,like,youjustseepeople,likecatscominginanddogscominginandhavingtheir 160Petdeathsstomachsuntiedandstuff[laughs].Andthentheyputthembacktogetherandthentheyjustdie.’(12-year-oldschoolgirl)Viewers,especiallyparents,perceiveAnimalHospitalascontainingstoriesofanimalillnessandrecoverythataremoreappropriateforyoungeraudiencesbecausetheycontainoptimisticmessages.ParentsconsiderRolfHarrisanimportantfactorinthecompassionatepresentationofstoriesaboutanimalsuffering:‘RolfHarrisdoesagoodjob…youknow,heshowsabitofcompassionandwhathaveyou.’(41-year-oldmalecarpenter)‘RolfissogoodonAnimalHospital.He’seversoemotional…butyoucanbelievehim.’(32-year-oldfemaleunderwriter)‘WithRolfHarris,wheneveryougetlikeathingthatdies,thenextsegmentisathinganditgoesgood,sohealways…alwaysleavesitona,onagoodnote.’(39-year-oldmaleimporter)OneviewerclaimedthathisfatherwasupsetaftermeetingtheactorRolfHarrisatanRSPCAhospital,becausehisfatherwasexpectingHarristobesympathetictowardshisfather’spetdogwhowascriticallyill,andfoundHarristoactdifferentlyfromhison-screenpersonality:‘he’s,like,allcaring[gesturesthisisanact]andwhenmydadactuallymethim,hewas,like,[actsdisinterest],hedidn’tcare’(26-year-oldmaleplasterer).Asimilarcommentwasmadeaboutthevetsintheprogramme.OneviewercommentedonhowimportantitwasthatthevetinthestoryaboutSusiethekittenshowedshecared:‘sheobviouslycaresfortheanimalsandshe’sdoingajobthatshereallylikes,shelikestheanimalsand…shereallywantsittolive.Youcouldseethatshewassad,thattheanimalhadn’tlived’(41-year-oldfemalechildminder).AnotherviewerclaimedtohavemetavetinAnimalHospitalandhadexpectedhimtobelikehison-screenpersonality,butinsteadfoundhimtobe‘miserable’.Audiences,therefore,placeagreatdealofimportanceonthepresenceofanempatheticpresenterandvet,andviewersarelikelytobemorecriticalofapetprogrammethatlacksempatheticpresentersandvetsbecausetheseprogrammeswouldbeperceivedaslackingcompassion.ThewayviewersexpectAnimalHospitaltobedifferentfromAnimalERispartlytodowiththetypeofstoriescommontotheseries,andalsotodowiththeidentityoftheBBCandChannel5.Forexample,thismother Petdeaths161anddaughter(aged9),werecriticalofthewayChannel5showed‘sadthings’comparedtotheBBC:Vanessa:Channel5justtrytopusheverythingalittlebitfurther,don’tthey?Idon’tthinktheywouldhavedonethatonAnimalHospital.Sarah:That’sjusthorrid,showingthat.Vanessa:Ithinkitis.Sarah:Itwasonlyakitten.Vanessa:Itwasjustunnecessary,wasn’tit?Iknowtheyarejusttryingtoshowthingsreal,becauseobviouslythatdoeshappen,doesn’tit?Youdogetlotsofkidswatchingtheseprogrammes.Imeanmylotarenotoverlysensitivethatway,butIknowlotsofchildrenare…Themusicjustaddstoit,makesitmoresad…TheyshowsadthingsonAnimalHospitalbutIthinkit’sdonemoretastefully.Here,theBBCandAnimalHospitalserveasayardstickfor‘tasteful’treatmentofpetillnessandmortality.ThemothercriticisedChannel5forpushingboundariesoftasteanddecency,andshewasespeciallycriticalbecausesheknewsuchprogrammeswerepopularwithyoungchildren.WhenIshowedthestoryfromAnimalERabouttheowners’decisiontoeuthanasetheirkitten,asdiscussedintheprevioussection,thedaughterwasvisiblyupsetbytheprogramme,andhercomment–‘that’sjusthorrid’–illustratedherinstantaneousresponsetothestory.InanotherexampleoffamilydiscussionofAnimalER,amotherandson(aged9)expresssimilarconcernsaboutthetreatmentofanimalmortalityinacommercialtelevisionprogramme.Tom:Channel5alwaysdorubbishstuff–likeChannel5news[intoneofnewsreader]‘Someone’sjustboughtanewpairofsocks!’[laughs]Amy:Idon’tknowifthatisanappropriatethingtoshowontelevision.Tom:It’supsetting.Amy:Iknowit’stuggingatyourheartstrings.InsomerespectsIthinkmaybeit’sappropriateinthatitexplainstochildrenthatsometimesitisanecessity.Tom:Idon’tlikeit.It’supsetting.Interviewer:Isthereanythinginformativeaboutit?Tom:No.Amy:Ithinkwhattheyaretryingtogetacrossisthatmedicalsciencecanonlygosofar,andwedoexpectmiracles,weexpectthemtosolveeverything,don’twe?Tom:Apartfromkittenslookcute. 162PetdeathsAmy:No,no,wedoexpecttogotoadoctororvetandsaythisistheproblemandthisishowwesolveit.So,maybethatisinformativeforyoungsterssotheycansee,yes,theresometimesareoccasions…Butthethingis,therearetimeswhenyoudon’twanttobeintrudedupon–youknowifyouarereallyemotional,whetheritisaboutapersonorananimal.Tom:Youdon’twantitbroadcastonTV.ThisdiscussionofAnimalERhighlightshowparents,especiallymothers,andtheirchildrenrespondtotherepresentationofpetdeath.Here,thesoniscriticalofthechannel,theprogramme,andthestoryitself.Hemakesfunofthechannelforitslowproductionvalues,anditsfocusontrivialstories.HisstrongreactiontothestoryofthekitteninAnimalER(asdiscussedintheprevioussection)leavesnoroomfordoubtastohisaversionforstoriessuchasthis–hedoesn’tlikeit,itupsetshim,thereisnothingbeneficial(i.e.informative)aboutit,infactthestoryshouldn’tbebroadcastatall.Hismotherismoreambivalentinherresponse,andalthoughsheiscriticaloftheintrusivenatureofthestory,sheisalsowillingtothinkaboutpotentiallybeneficialaspectstothestory,aschildrenmaylearnaboutcaringforanimalsthroughwatchingdisturbingscenessuchasthosepresentedintheprogramme.IfwelookatdiscussionofthestoryofSusiethekitteninAnimalHospital(seeprevioussection)wecanseesimilarresponsesfromyoungandolderadultsabouttheethicaltreatmentofanimalmortalityinrealityprogramming.AlthoughingeneralviewersfindAnimalHospitalmoresensitiveinitstreatmentofanimalsuffering,andmoreappropriateforchildreninitsemphasisonsuccessfultreatmentandpositiveoutcomes,whenastoryofanimalmortalitydoesoccurintheseriesaudiencesaremainlycriticalofsuchrepresentations.Inparticular,childrenandyoungadultsarecriticalofrepresentationsofacutesuffering,andframetheirresponsesinrelationtoanethicsoffairnessandresponsibility,andtherightsofanimalstoprivacyintimesofacuteillness.Forexample,this16-year-oldschoolgirlmakesherpositionquiteclear–‘Watchinganimalsdiedoesn’tappealtome!’Or,asthis14-year-oldschoolgirldescribes:‘It’s,like,[thekittenis]reallyyoungandit’s,like,vulnerableandforsomereasonyoualmostfeelresponsibleforit.Like,whenitdiesyoufeel,like,reallybad.’StoriesofpetdeathinAnimalHospitalraiseethicalissuesregardingtheuseofpetsinrealityprogrammes.Manyyoungviewersareunconvincedthatacuteanimalsufferingisacceptabletelevisionviewing,especiallywhenthesufferingresultsinmortality.Thefollowingcommentsillustratehowyoungviewerspickuponthemoralcontexttorepresentationsofsuffering: Petdeaths163‘Thingslikethat,Idon’tthinkreallyshouldbeputonTVbecause,like,whetherit’sChildren’sorAnimalHospital,it’s,like,it’skindadifferentfrom,like,watchingBigBrother’cosit’stheirlivesbutitseems,like,private,kindof.Ican’treallyexplainbutit’stheirprivatelives,seeingoperationsandstuffandthat’smoreprivateandshouldn’tbeonTVforeveryonetosee…It’stoopersonal.’(16-year-oldfemalestudent)‘It’smuchtoopersonal,Ithinkit’swrong.’(17-year-oldfemalestudent)‘Ithinkthatsortofthingtheyshouldkeepprivate.’(16-year-oldfemalestudent)Theseyoungviewersarticulatetheirviewsregardingtherightsofanimalsinrealityprogrammes.Therepetitionofthewords‘private’and‘personal’highlights,inBoltanski’sterms,‘thepoliticsofsuffering’,astheircompassionforthesufferingofthekittenturnsintoindignationatitstreatmentbytheprogrammemakers.Ratherthandrawingonanethicsofcare,asvocalisedintheprogrammeitself,theseviewersdrawonanethicsofjustice,andtheyraiseissuesaboutthefairtreatmentofanimalsinrealityprogrammes.Incontrast,parents,especiallymothers,discusstherepresentationofsufferinginAnimalHospitalinrelationtoanethicsofcareandresponsibility.Mostmothersclaimedtheydidn’twatchpetprogrammesoutofchoice,butinsteadwatchedbecauseoftheirchildren:‘Ionlywatchitbecausemychildrenlikeit,Iwouldn’tchoosetowatchit.’(36-year-oldhousewife)‘Yeah,youwouldn’tturnitonyourselfreally,wouldyou?Theywantyoutowatchitwiththem.MysonalwayscallsmeandI’llcomeandwatchit,’coshewantstowatchitbutIthinkhelikesmetobethere[laughs].’(40-year-oldfemalepre-schooladvisor)‘Incasesomethinghappenstothedog,orsomething[laughs].’(40-year-oldfemalepart-timesecretary)Thejokeaboutthedogtouchesonseveralissues.Forchildren,concernsaboutanimalmortalitycanhighlighttheirownfeelingsofvulnerability,andparentalpresenceisonemeansofreassurance.Forparents,storiesofanimalmortalitycan,intheory,beasecondorderexperienceofpetdeath 164Petdeathsthatcanhelpchildrentolearnabouttherealityofcaringforanimals(andbyextension,humans).37Asthis41-year-oldfemalechildminderexplained:‘Ithinkit’s…quiteagoodexperience,really,’cosit’slife,isn’tit?Andifyouhavegotyourownanimals,Ithink,sometimes,itcanpreparethemforwhenyourownanimalsgoand,sortof,die…itdoeshappen,theydodie![laughs].’Whilstchildrenthemselvesfindlittlepositivetodiscusswhenwatchingrepresentationsofpetdeath,parentsaremorelikelytodiscusschildren’sexperiencesofwatchingpetdeathinamoreconstructivemanner.TheabovequoteechoesthenarrationinAnimalHospital,whichplacesemphasisonlearninghowtocareforcompanionanimals.Parentsdoexpressconcernaboutthetreatmentofanimalsufferingontelevision,buttheyalsoconsiderhowsuchnegativestoriescanbetransformedintopositivemoralitytalesforyoungerviewers.Thisgroupofmothersdiscussedtheirconcernsaboutchildrenwatchingscenesofanimalsufferingandmortality:Sally:Childrenwouldtakethatbadly,wouldn’tthey?Margaret:Yeah,mysonwouldbemortified.Ellen:Youcouldalmostgetattachedtoitifyoufollowastorythrough,likethevetdid.Sally:Ithink,youknow,itshouldalwayshaveahappyending.Margaret:Butthatisn’tlife.Marion:Thatisn’tlifebutthenputtingitonatthattimeofnight,Ithinkit’sabittoosadforchildren!Forthesemothers,theirconcernsfocusonthereactionsofchildrentosuchstoriesas‘toosadforchildren’.Althoughintherealworld,storiesofanimalsufferingdon’talwayscontainhappyendings,themothersworrythatchildrenshouldnotbeexposedtotherealityofpetcare.Thismotherexplainedherresponsetostoriesofanimalillnessandmortality:‘Isupposeifyou’vegotananimal,thenit’sinformative,isn’tit?Ithink…Idon’tknowreally![laughs]NottosaythatyouranimalwasevergoingtohavethatbutIjustthink,it’s,everyonelikestoknow,um,iftheiranimalhasgotaproblem,or…andyouthink“Oh,itmightbethisoritcouldbethat”,justasinthesameway,Isuppose,ifyoudoloveanimals,likeyouwouldwithyourchildren–“Iwonderifit’sgotacold,orIwonderifit’sthis?”Um…Idon’tknow,really,Ithinkit’snicejusttoseethatthey’redoingtheirbestfortheanimals…mysonwatchesitandhedoesn’tfinditgory,but…Ifsomething…ifananimalcomesonthat’sbeenmistreatedandit’s…it’sgotsignsofbeingmistreated,thatupsetsmebut,actuallyseeing Petdeaths165thegutsoutonthetable,Ithinkmaybethey’retryingtohelptheanimalsothey’vegottodothattohelpit.But,otherwise,itwoulddistressmeifit’s,youknow,infestedorsomethinglikethat,thatdoesupsetme.’(37-year-oldhousewife)Sherelatesthestoriesofanimalsufferingtotheroleofcompanionanimalsasfamilymembers,andframeshercompassionforthesufferingofanimalsinrelationtoanethicsofcareandresponsibility.ShealsounderscoresthepublicserviceaddresswithinAnimalHospital,inparticularhowviewerscanpotentiallypickupinformationandadvicethatisusefulforthecareoftheirownpets(andbyextension,families).Butsheisalsoambivalentaboutherresponsetorepresentationsofsuffering(‘Idon’tknow’,‘Ithinkmaybe’,‘Isuppose’),andemphasiseshercompassionforanimalswithreferencestostoriesthatdo‘distress’or‘upset’her.Inanotherexample,amotherdiscusseshowchildren’sexperiencesofwatchingstoriesofanimalsufferingcanteachthemtofeelcompassion,andinparticularengagewiththeiremotions:‘Withmychildren,whenwehavewatchedit,andananimalhasdied,they’revery…[pullsface]…Idon’tknowhowotherpeople’schildrenreact,whetherthey’rethesame?Youknow,they’reblinkinghardandIthink“Ah”,sotheyknowitreallyhappensandIthinkit’shardtoseeithappenbutIthinkit’salsogoodforthemtoseeithappening,’coswe’vegotpetsandthere’sgoingtocomeatimewheretheanimalswilldie.Ijustwonder,’cos,youknow,theydo…youknow,they’reblinkinghardanditisreallysad,isn’tit?Youknow,I’vegottearsinmyeyestoo,sothattheyknowit’salright,youcangetupsetwhenthingsdie.’(35-year-oldfemaletechnicalagent)Here,thismotherdrawsona‘vocabularyofsentiment’(Boltanksi1999:91)inordertoexplainhowherchildrenrespondtosomethingthatis‘reallysad’.Forthismother,storiesofpetdeathcanteachchildrenhowtorespondinanappropriatewaytosuffering.Anotherexampleillustrateshowmothersperceivethesepetprogrammesasopportunitiesfortheirchildrentolearncompassionforanimals:Martha:Mydaughterabsolutelyadoresanimalsandshenevermissesaprogramme,soIwatchit…Ican’twatchthegorybitsliketheoperationbutIwouldhavebeenreallysadhadIbeensittingathomewatchingthatwithher’cosIknowshewouldhavebeenreallysad. 166PetdeathsNatalie:Oursongetsreallyemotionalaswell,I’veseenhimintearsbeforenowwhenananimal’sdied!Verymuch,Ithink,hedoesn’thidehisfeelings…hisheart’sonhissleeve.JustasRolfHarrisisseentocryatsadstoriesofanimalsufferingandmortality,sotoocanviewersopenlyexpresstheircompassionforthesufferingofothers.Forthesemothers,watchingsadstoriestogetherwiththeirchildrenisonewaymoralvaluescanbepassedonfromparentstotheirchildren.Insummary,adultviewers,inparticularmothers,believethattheBBCissensitiveinitstreatmentofanimalsufferingbecauseitdealsprimarilywithupliftingstoriesofanimalrecoveryfromacuteillness.WhenanimalsufferingisshowninAnimalHospital,viewersvalueanempatheticpresentersuchasRolfHarris,whoisabletoprovidebothaninternalaswellasanexternalreportofthesufferingtoviewers.Hisapparentcompassionandcarefortheanimalsensuresthatevenwhentheprogrammeshowsrarecasesofanimalmortality,thesestoriescanbetransformedfromanegativetoapositiveexperienceforviewers.Mothersdiscusstheirresponsestorepresentationsofsufferinginrelationtoanethicsofcare,andstresshowchildrencanpotentiallylearnhowtocarefortheirpets,andbyextensionotherfamilymembers,throughwatchingsuchstoriesinAnimalHospital.Theseviewingstrategiesforrepresentationsofsufferingareguidedbythewayprogrammemakersconstructstoriesofanimalillnessanddeath.AnimalHospitalpresentsstoriesofanimalillnessandrecovery,andinextremecasesdeath,asmoraltaleswherebywecanlearnhowtocareforourownanimalsthroughwatchingthesufferingofotheranimals.Suchmoralmessagesareproblematicbecausebytheirverynaturetheyrelyonthesufferingofanimalstomakedramaticandsentimentalstoriesforpopularfactualtelevision.But,nevertheless,theyarenecessaryinordertoteachchildrenabouttheemotionalrealityofcaringforfamilypets.WhenanimalsufferingisshowninAnimalER,adultviewersfindthestoriestoonegative,andtoosadforyoungerviewers.StoriesinAnimalERhighlightmoralandeconomicissuesconcernedwithpetownershipandanimalrights,andsuchstoriesarenotwellreceivedbyparents(andpetowners).InAnimalHospital,themessageisthatpetsarepriceless,andbecausetheprogrammeissetinacharitableveterinarypracticetherearenoreferencestotheeconomicrealityofcaringforpets.InAnimalER,themessageisthatpetscomeataprice,andbecausetheprogrammeissetinaprivateveterinarypracticetherearefrequentreferencestotheeconomicvalueofpets.ParentsprefertheirchildrentowatchAnimalHospitalbecauseitplacesemphasisonthemoralandsentimentalvalueofpets.Thissomewhatidealisedrepresentationofcompanionanimalsmirrorstherepresentationofpetsinthepetfoodandinsuranceindustry.A Petdeaths167healthypetisahappypet,andthepetindustryattemptstopersuadeownersofthemoralandsentimentalvalueoftheirpetsinordertoensureownersperceivenon-essentialitems,suchasgourmetfood,orinsurance,asessentialfareforthecaringpetowner.InthesamewaythatAnimalHospitalemphasisesanethicsofcareforcompanionanimals,sotoodoesthepetindustryemphasisethecostofcaringforthefamilypet.AsFranklin(1999)hasargued,companionanimalsareperceivedasmembersofthefamilybytheirpetowners,and,withcontemporarydomesticrelationsinastateofflux,petscanbeseenasloyalandconstantcompanionswithinthehome.Ontheonehand,petprogrammesdolittletoreassurefamilymembersofthisconstancy,astherepetitivethemeofpetsincrisisonlyservestohighlightthevulnerabilityofcompanionanimals.But,ontheotherhand,seriessuchasAnimalHospitalsituatethestoriesofpetsincrisiswithinawidercommunityofcare.Caringforanimals,caringforanimalsasiftheywerehumans,andcaringaboutthewayhumanstreatanimalsallworktoemphasiseapositive,life-enhancingaspecttowhatisessentiallyanegativeexperiencefortheanimal,thecarerandtheviewer.Incontrast,youngviewershavesomewhatdifferentresponsestotheexperienceofwatchinganimalsufferingandmortalityinrealityprogramming.Youngviewersarecriticaloftheuseofanimalsufferingforthepurposesofmakingatelevisionprogramme.Theseviewers(andpetowners)feelcompassiontowardsthesufferingofanimals,andvocalisetheircompassioninrelationtoanethicsoffairnessandanimalrights.Intheirview,itmakeslittledifferenceifthestoryofpetdeathisshownonBBCorChannel5,thestoryshouldnotbeshownatall.Youngviewersrejectoutrighttheideathattherecanbeanythingpositiveoreducationalaboutwatchingpetdeathontelevision,nomatterifthestoryisrepresentedinasensitiveandcompassionatemanner.Intheirview,whenacompanionanimalexperiencesacutesuffering,theanimal(anditsowner)hasarighttoprivacy.ItisworthreturningtotheworkofZelizer(1985),andherobservationthatthelegalevaluationofchildrenashavingsentimentalworthworkedalongsidethemoralevaluationofchildren’srightsinthetwentiethcentury.Agenerationofchildrenaregrowingupwatchingpetdeathontelevision.Willtheirchildrenbewatchingsimilarpetprogrammesinthefuture?PetprogrammesmarkanearlystageinthetransformationofculturalresponsestoanimalmortalityincontemporaryWesternsociety.Petprogrammesalsomarkanearlystageinthetransformationofsocialattitudestowardsthehumanetreatmentofcompanionanimals.Thedifferenceinthewaychildrenrespondtotherepresentationofcompanionanimalsufferingcomparedtoanoldergenerationsuggeststhatattitudestowardshuman–companion-animalrelationsaregraduallychanging,asonegroupofviewersframetheirresponsesinrelationtoarhetoricof 168Petdeathsanimalcare,whilstanotherframetheirresponsesinrelationtoarhetoricofanimalrights.Theseculturalresponsestothemoralisationofcompanionanimalsandtheevaluationofanimalrightscallintoquestionthetreatmentofanimalsinpopularfactualtelevision.CONCLUSIONTheriseinpetpopulationsinWesternsocietyhasledtoariseinthepetindustryandpetorganisationsandservices.WithapproximatelyhalfofthepopulationoftheUK,USAandAustraliaowningadogorcat,thepetfoodindustry,petinsuranceindustry,andpetmortuaryindustryhavebenefitedfromlargenumbersofhumanskeepingdomesticanimals,especiallyinurbansettings.Thesepetindustriesutilisetherhetoricofthepetasacompanionanimal,avaluedmemberofthefamily,andassuchamemberofthefamilywhoneedstobecaredforinasimilarmannertothecareofhumanmembersofthefamily.Inparticular,thelegalandmoralframeworkforpetsandtheirownersinWesternsocietyindicatesthathumansshouldberesponsibleforthehealthandwell-beingoftheirpets,andshouldnotcauseunnecessaryharmtotheircompanionanimals.Thisattitudetowardscompanionanimalsisconnectedtoamoregeneralunderstandingofhuman–animalrelations,whereanimalshavegraduallybecomeanthropomorphisedinWesterncultureduringthenineteenthandtwentiethcenturies.Itiswithinthisenvironmentthatpopularfactualtelevisionaboutcompanionanimalshasflourished.ThesepetprogrammeswerepopularonBritishtelevisionduringthe1990s.Theprogrammeswereespeciallypopularwithchildrenandparents.Onecommonfeatureofanimal-basedrealityprogrammesisthenarrativeofthediagnosis,treatmentandrecoveryofpetsincrisis.Inthemajorityofcasesthesestoriesofacuteanimalsufferinghaveahappyending;however,inextremecasesthestoriesareaboutanimalmortality.Whatallthestoriesshareisanemphasisonthecareofcompanionanimals,buthowhumanscareforanimalsispresentedsomewhatdifferentlyinpetprogrammesonpublicserviceandcommercialchannels.Audienceresponsestorepresentationsofpetdeathareframedinrelationtotheconceptofanethicsofcare.Audiencesfeelcompassionandempathytowardstheanimals,andtalkabouthumanresponsibilitytocareforanimalsinasociallyappropriatemanner.Inthissense,petprogrammescanteachpetownersthattheyhavearesponsibilitytocarefortheirpets.However,thereisadifferenceinthewaychildrenandmothersrespondtorepresentationsofanimalsufferinginrealityprogramming.Mothersareconcernedabouthowtheirchildrenmightbeupsetbythese‘sadstories’,andatthesametimeperceivethatsuchstoriescanteachchildrenaboutcompassionandcaringforothers.Childrenontheotherhanddo Petdeaths169notperceiveanysocialbenefitfromwatchinganimalsuffering,andarecriticaloftheprogrammemakersforexploitinganimalrightsforthepurposesoftelevisionentertainment.Thus,audienceresponsestotherepresentationofpetdeathontelevisionsuggestchangingculturalresponsestohuman–companion-animalrelations.Audienceresponsestopetprogrammesalsosuggestthesignificanceofanethicsofcaretoourunderstandingofpopularfactualtelevision. Chapter8StoryofchangeInordertounderstandaudienceresponsestorealityprogrammingweneedtoconsiderhowaudiencescategorisetherealitygenre,andhowtheyjudgetheperformanceofordinarypeopleandtherepresentationofauthenticitywithindifferenttypesofrealityprogrammes.Wealsoneedtoconsiderhowaudiencesunderstandtheideaoflearningfromwatchingrealityprogrammes,andhowtheythinkaboutethicsinrelationtorealityprogrammes.Iwouldliketocriticallyreflectoneachissueinturninthisconcludingchapter,beforeopeningupdebateaboutaudiencesofpopularfactualtelevisiontowiderdiscussionoftelevisionaudiencesandtelevisiongenres.OnepointIwouldliketoraiseatthestartofthischapteristheissueofculturalspecificity.MuchofthediscussioninthisbookhasbeenaboutBritishpopularfactualtelevisionanditsaudience.ThisisbecausetheresearchIconductedwasinthereceptionofBritishpopularfactualtelevision.Ihavetried,whereverpossible,toopenupdebateaboutrealityTVinrelationtoothercountries,inparticulartheUSA.Nevertheless,thefindingsinthisbookcouldbeperceivedasfindingsabouttheBritishviewingexperienceofrealityTV.Ihopethegeneralpointsmadeinthisconcludingchapteraretakeninthespiritwithwhichtheyareintended,whichistofurtherourcriticalunderstandingoftheproduction,contentandreceptionofpopularfactualtelevision.AlthoughthefindingsareundoubtedlyinfluencedbymyexperienceofrealityTVinBritain,ItrustthatreaderscaninterpretthesefindingsinrelationtothebroaderpictureofrealityTVaroundtheworld,andcanfindsimilaritiesanddifferenceswiththeviewingexperienceasoutlinedhere,andtheviewingexperiencefortheseprogrammesinothercountries.Asmoreaudienceresearchisconductedaroundtheworld,wewillbeabletoconstructarichanddiversedatabaseforthereceptionofpopularfactualtelevision. Storyofchange171CATEGORISATIONFirst,letmebeginwiththecategorisationoftherealitygenrebythetelevisionindustry,scholarsandaudiences.Withinthecurrenttelevisionclimate,popularfactualprogrammescutacrossseveralareasofproduction,includinginvestigativejournalism,documentary,lifestyle,lightentertainment,andnewmedia.Thequestionofwhatpreciselyconstitutespopularfactualtelevisionisadifficultone.Muchofthedebateaboutpopularfactualtelevisionhasrightlyconcentratedonitsrelationshipwithdocumentary.Howsimilarordifferentarerealityprogrammestodocumentarytelevision?Andhowdoaudiencesmakeadistinctionbetweendifferenttypesoffactualprogramming?Itisclearfromthetelevisionindustry’sperspectivethatthereismuchtobegainedfromopeningupdefinitionsofdocumentaryandpopularfactualtelevision.Theclimateforfactualprogrammingischanging,andthisisaresultofinnovativeprogrammedevelopment,andtheratingssuccessofpopularfactualinpeaktimeschedules.The2004FactualForumadvertiseditselftotheBritishtelevisionindustryas‘maximisingopportunitiesintelevision’sfastestgrowinggenre’.Butwhatisafactualgenre?Ontheonehand,eachbroadcastercategorisesfactualprogrammingsimilarlyasallfactualprogrammingisessentiallynon-fictionprogramming.Ontheotherhand,eachbroadcastercategorisesfactualprogrammingdifferently,basedoninternalproductionhistories,andinternalmanagementpractices.Categorisationcangetinthewayofthebusinessoftelevision,aseachbroadcasterisinthebusinessofputting‘eyeballsinfrontofthescreen’.1Overthepastdecade,documentarypractitionershavearguedthatpopularfactualformatshavetakenoverpeaktimeschedulesattheexpenseofgeneralandspecialistdocumentaryprogrammes/series.BrianWinstonarguesthat‘the[documentary]formisnolongeradiscreteandvaluedgenre.Despiteagrowthinitspopularity,paradoxicallyitsverycontinuedexistenceisunderthreatbecauseithasbeensubsumedbyanewamorphouscategory,“factualprogramming”’(2000:1).JaneRoscoepointsoutthatpopularfactualhasmuchtoofferdocumentaryintermsofhowthe‘real’canberepresentedas‘engaging,entertainingandinformative’,howpopularfactualcanengageyoungeraudiencesinfactualtelevision,andhowpopularfactualcanencouragepublicengagementwith‘socialandpoliticalissues…throughtheexperienceofbeingentertained’.2Butshealsogoesontosaythatitisimportanttoacknowledgethedifferencesbetweendocumentaryandpopularfactualtelevision:‘theyofferdifferentopportunitiesfordocumentaryasaform, 172Storyofchangeandfordocumentarypractitioners.Theyinvolvedifferentaestheticschoicesthatstemfromthedemandsofsubjectmatter,andtheapproachofthepractitioner.Theyareconstructedarounddifferentinstitutionalpractices,andconstructtheiraudiencesinquitedistinctways.’3Thus,RoscoeandWinstonclaimthecategorisationofpopularfactualanddocumentarytelevisionneedscarefulconsiderationintermsofthedifferencesandsimilaritiesacrossbothgenresandprogrammecultures.Cornerhasarguedthattheterm‘documentary’mayhavereachedtheendofitsusefulnessasabroadgenericcategory(2000).Hehasalsoarguedthattheterm‘realityTV’‘hasbecomestretchedalittle(!)beyondanalyticusefulness’(Corner2003:291).Similarly,KilbornmaintainsthatthetermrealityTVhas‘probablyoutlived[its]criticalusefulness’(2003:55).Whatbothauthorsrefertoisapointintheevolutionofdocumentaryandrealityprogrammeswherebywecanmarkthe‘widespreaddispersal’oftheseprogrammes‘acrossamuchlargerareaofaudio-visualculture’(Corner2000:688;Kilborn2003:6).Thedifficultythattelevisionaudienceshavewithdefiningpopularfactualprogrammessuggeststhatbroadgenericcategoriessuchasdocumentaryorrealityareshorthandformuchmorecomplexandvariedformatswithinfactualtelevision.AcaseinpointisthedevelopmentofpopulardocumentaryincontemporaryBritishtelevisionschedules.ExamplesofpopulardocumentariesincludeLifeofGrime(BBC1)andJamie’sKitchen(Channel4).LifeofGrimeiscategorisedbytheBBCasacontemporarydocumentaryseries.InLifeofGrimetheseriesfollowsagroupofpeoplewhoworkforanenvironmentalhealthdepartmentinLondon.Theseriesreliesonobservationalfilming,combinedwithparticipants’directcommunicationstocamera.Jamie’sKitcheniscategorisedbyChannel4asanobservationaldocumentaryseries.InJamie’sKitchentheseriesfollowsthecelebritychefJamieOliverandagroupofyoungpeoplewhoaretrainingtobecomechefsinOliver’snewrestaurantinLondon.Theseriesreliesonobservationalfilming,combinedwithparticipants’directcommunicationstocamera.Scholarswritingabouteitherseriesmaywellcategoriseeitherorbothasdocu-soaps.Kilborndescribesthecharacteristicsofthedocu-soap,suchas‘largerthanlifecharacters’or‘occasionaldramaticoutbursts’,as‘essentialfeaturesofpopularfactualentertainment’(2003:102,89).BothLifeofGrimeandJamie’sKitchencontainjustsuchcharacteristics.TelevisionaudiencesmightdescribeeitherseriesasdocumentaryorrealityTV,butmorelikelytheywilldescribebothseriesinrelationtothetreatmentofatopic–behindthescenesofanenvironmentalhealthdepartment,behindthescenesofJamie’skitchen.Wecouldsaythattelevisionaudiencesdonotreallycareifafactualprogrammeiscategorisedasdocumentaryorreality.Whataudiencescareaboutiswhetherthefactualprogrammewillinterestthem.Butmuchof Storyofchange173myanalysisoftheviewingexperienceofpopularfactualtelevisionhasbeenabouthowmuchaudiencescareaboutfactualprogramming,andhowmuchtheycareabouthowtocategorisefactualprogramming,especiallyrealityprogramming.Whentelevisionaudiencestalkaboutpopularfactualprogrammestheydosowithaslidingscaleoffactandfictioninmind.Thisfact/fictioncontinuum(RoscoeandHight2001)isawayaudiencesmakesenseoftherangeoffactualprogrammingavailabletothem.Atthefarendofthefact/fictioncontinuumaremoretraditionaltypesoffactualprogrammingsuchasnewsandcurrentaffairs,whilstattheotherendofthescalearenewrealityprogrammessuchasBigBrother,orJoeMillionaire.Amyriadofothertypesoffactualprogramming,frompopulardocumentary,tohiddencameraformats,aresomewhereinthemiddleofthefact/fictioncontinuum.Evenatthefurtherendofthecontinuum,realityformatsarecategorisedaccordingtoaslidingscale.Traditionalrealityformatssuchas999orChildren’sHospitalarecategorisedasmorefactualthanlifestyleformatssuchasChangingRoomsorWouldLiketoMeet.Thefactthataudiencesapplyaslidingscaleoffactualitytorealityprogrammessuggestsoneofthewaystheyhavelearnedtolivewiththisgenreoverthepastdecade.Audienceswatchpopularfactualtelevisionwithacriticaleye,judgingthedegreeoffactualityineachrealityformatbasedontheirexperienceofothertypesoffactualprogramming.Inthissense,viewersareevaluatorsoftherealitygenre,andoffactualprogrammingasawhole.Ifthecategorisationoffactualprogrammingisimportanttoviewers,thenitshouldalsobeimportanttothetelevisionindustryandscholars.Ifaudienceswatchpopularfactualtelevisionwithacriticaleye,andthisisthemostcommonformoffactualprogrammingtheywillwatchonaregularbasis,thenitmaybethecasethataudiencesturntheircriticaleyetodocumentaryandnews.WehaveseenthisalreadyinthewayaudiencesrespondedtothedocumentaryfakeryscandalsinBritain.Theconsequencesofthefakeryscandalsweresuchthataudiencesbecamedistrustfulofthetruthofwhattheywereseeinginobservationaldocumentaries.MycurrentresearchinaudienceattitudestowardsaccuracyofinformationandactualityinBritishfactualprogrammingindicatesthataudiencesvalueaccuracyofinformationandtruthfulnessinnews,currentaffairsanddocumentarymorethaninpopularfactualprogrammes.4However,audiencesarecriticalofnewsandcurrentaffairs,anddocumentaryfornotbeingaccurateortruthfulenoughintheprovisionofinformationandrepresentationofrealevents.Audiencecriticismoffactualprogrammingcanbeagoodthing,andsomethingIdiscusslateroninrelationtocriticalviewingstrategies.Butitisessentialthattherearedistinctionsmadebetweeninvestigativejournalismanddocumentary,andmorepopularfactualprogrammes.JustasRoscoearguesthatitisimportanttoconsiderthedifferencesand 174Storyofchangesimilaritiesintheproduction,contentandreceptionofdocumentaryandpopularfactualtelevision,sotooisitimportanttoconsiderthedifferencesandsimilaritiesinthetruthclaimsofnewsandcurrentaffairs,documentaryandpopularfactualprogrammes.Forexample,theintroductionofacurrentaffairsdrama-docproducerinthecurrentaffairsdepartmentoftheBBC’sFactualandLearningdivisionindicatesamovewithintheBBCtoattractadifferentkindofaudiencetocurrentaffairs,anaudiencethattraditionallyhasbeenattractedtopopularfactual,lightentertainmentanddramaprogrammes.Drama-docusesthecodesandconventionsofdramatorecreaterealevents,andaudiencesprimarilywatchdrama-docasfictionaldramasratherthanasfactualprogrammes;currentaffairsusesthecodesandconventionsofinvestigativejournalismtorepresentrealevents,andaudiencesprimarilywatchcurrentaffairsasinformativefactualprogrammesratherthanasfictionaldramas(Paget1998).Althoughthereishybridisationacrossthegenres,intheuseofthecodesandconventionsofdramaanddocumentary,ortheuseofnewsstoriesasthesubjectmatterofdrama-docs,ortheuseofdramatisedreconstructionsincurrentaffairsanddocumentary,therearestilldifferencesinthewayaudiencesjudgethetruthclaimsofthesetypesoffactualprogramming.CharlotteBrunsdon(1997:108)arguesthattheaestheticjudgementsusedtoassessthequalityoftelevisionprogrammesareoftenbasedonanassessmentofthequalityoftheprogrammeitself(isitagoodorbadprogramme?),andalsothequalityofthegenre(isitagoodorbadgenre?).InthecaseofrealityTV,thegenreiscommonlyperceivedbyaudiencesaslowqualitytelevision,buttherearegoodandbadprogrammeswithinthegenre.BrunsdonreferstoJohnMepham’sthreecriteriaforthejudgementofhighqualitytelevision–diversity,usablestories,and‘theethicoftruthtelling’(Mepham1990:59,citedinBrunsdon1997:108).Audiencesofpopularfactualtelevisionapplyanethicoftruthtellingtotheirjudgementofgoodandbadrealityprogrammes.Timeandagainwehaveseenaudiencesmakedistinctionsbetweendifferenttypesofrealityformats,anddifferenttypesofprogrammeswithinthoseformats,accordingtothetruthclaimsoftheformats/programmes.Forexample,inChapter4wesawviewersdebategoodandbadrealityprogrammesbasedonanethicoftruthtelling–Children’sHospitalwasperceivedasmoretruthfulthanBigBrother,andwasthereforeperceivedasa‘good’realityprogrammeaccordingtothisparticularcriteria.Althoughaudiencesapplyothercriteriatojudgethequalityofrealityprogrammes,forexamplecharacterisationandstorytelling,anethicoftruthtellingisbyfarthemostcommontypeofcriteriausedtojudgethequalityofpopularfactualprogrammingasawhole. Storyofchange175Thequalitycriterionofcharacterisationandstorytellingisoftenabsentfromdiscussionpresentedhere.ThisabsenceisprimarilybecausewhenviewersevaluateandinterpretrealityTVtheycriticiseitinrelationtootherkindsoffactualtelevision.Thisiswhyperformanceandauthenticityissoimportanttoviewingstrategiesfordifferenttypesofrealityprogrammes.Ifviewersvaluefactualtelevisionforitstruthfulness,thenthissharedvaluehasasignificantinfluenceontheircriteriaforassessingrealityprogrammesasfactualprogrammes.Iwouldarguethatcharacterisationandstorytellingaresignificanttothewayviewersrespondtorealityprogrammes.However,forviewerstoforegroundtheseelementstheywouldperhapsneedtovaluerealityprogrammesfortheirdramaandentertainment.Inmyresearchin2000–2001,whenviewerstalkedaboutrealityTVasentertainingtheywerebeingcriticalofthegenre.However,itmaywellbethecasethatastherealitygenredevelops,viewershighlightthepositiveentertainmentvalueofrealityTV(seenextsectionforfurtherdiscussion).Audiencesvaluethetruthfulnessoffactualprogramming.Themorefictionalisedfactualprogrammingbecomes,thelessviewersvalueit.Thetruthclaimsofdifferenttypesoffactualprogrammingarestrengthenedorweakenedbytheuseofthecodesandconventionsofdramaorlightentertainment.Ifthedistinctionsbetweennewsandcurrentaffairs,documentaryandpopularfactualbecomesoblurredthataudiencesaredistrustfulofeverythingtheyseeontelevision,thenthetelevisionindustry’scategorisationoffactualprogrammingwillceasetobemeaningfultoviewers.Regularresearchintochangingattitudestowardsfactualprogrammingwillassistthetelevisionindustryandscholarsinthetriangulationofevidence,fromaudienceresearch,industrycommissioningpractices,andscholarlyarticles,thatisnecessaryformeaningfulcategorisationoffactualtelevision.PERFORMANCEOneofthesignificantwaysthataudiencesevaluatetherealitygenreisbyquestioningthetruthclaimsofvariousdifferentrealityprogrammes.Ellis(2002)arguesthatthereisa‘communityofunderstanding’offactualgenres.Theideaofacommunityofunderstandingisusefulinthinkingabouthowviewersdebatethetruthofwhattheyseeontelevision,bothinternallyandwithotherviewers.Theverytensionbetweentruthandfictioninrealityformatsispartoftheexperienceofwatchingpopularfactualtelevision.‘Oneofthepleasuresofferedbythenewrealityformatsistheknowledgethatwhatisbeingofferedforconsumptionismanifestly“stagedreality”’(Kilborn2003:149).Thedegreestowhichareality 176Storyofchangeformatisstagedandthedegreestowhichitisrealareissuesaudiencestalkaboutonaregularbasis.Ontheonehand,audiencesvaluewitnessingeventscaughtoncamera,andjudgingeventsbasedondegreesofactualityinpopularfactualprogramming.Ontheotherhand,viewersjudgetheperformanceofrealpeopleinrelationtotheactualityofaprogramme.Themorepeopleperforminfrontofcameras,theless‘real’aprogrammeis.Theyexpectnon-professionalactorsto‘actup’inmanypopularfactualprogrammes.Audienceshavethereforedevelopedviewingstrategiesthatassesstheimprovisedperformanceof‘real’peoplebylookingfor‘momentsofauthenticity’whentheperformancebreaksdownandpeopleare‘true’tothemselves.SuchmomentsusuallyoccurduringscenesofemotionalconflictandareoftentobeexpectedinrealityformatssuchasBigBrother.RogerSilverstonecomments:‘weliveinapresentationalcultureinwhichappearanceisreality’(1999:69).HeisreferringtotheworkofErvingGoffman,andtheconceptofthepresentationoftheselfineverydaylife(asdiscussedinChapter4).Silverstone(1999:70)pointsout:‘thesuccessofperformance,ineverydaylifeasontheboundedspaceofstageandscreen,dependsonthejudgementsandacceptanceofanaudience’.Wejudgethequalityofperformancebyreferringtoourownsocialbehaviour,ourownperformancesineverydaylife,andalsotheperformancesweseeinthemedia(1999:71).InChapter4,audiencesassessedtheperformanceofnon-professionalactorsinrealityprogrammesaccordingtohow‘realistic’theirperformanceappearedtothem,basedontheirownpersonalexperiences,andknowledgeofrealityprogrammes.IfwerefertoMepham’scriteriaforqualitytelevision,wecanseeaudiencesassessgoodandbadperformancesinrealityprogrammingaccordingto‘theethicoftruthtelling’(1990:59).Theimprovisedperformancesofnon-professionalactorsinBigBrotherarejudgedasgoodorbadperformancesbasedonhowauthentictheyseemtoviewers,howtruthfultotheirexperiencesineverydaylife.Thefactthataudiencesknowthatmuchrealityprogrammingis‘madeup’doesnotstopthemfromassessingthesuccessoftheperformanceofordinarypeopleintheprogrammesaccordingtohowauthenticitappearstothem.However,anotherwayinwhichaudiencesjudgeperformanceinrealityprogrammingistoconsidercharacterisationandstorytelling,orwhatMephamcalls‘useablestories’(ibid.).Thus,aperformancemaybeconsideredbadbecauseitisnottruthful,anditmayalsobeconsideredgoodbecauseitisdramatic.Iftelevisionaudiencesdebatethetruthclaimsofrealityprogrammesthenwemightwellaskwhydotheywatchtheminthefirstplace?AsKilbornpointsout,realityprogrammesaremultivalent:‘viewersmay,atonelevel,treattheunfoldingdramaashavingadegreeofcredibility…atanotherlevel,however,theyaresufficientlymedialiterateastobeaware Storyofchange177thateverythingplayedoutbeforethemhasbeencontrivedtomeettheirperceivedentertainmentneeds’(2003:82).Viewersenjoythestagedrealityofmanypopularfactualprogrammes.WifeSwapisasuccessfulformatbecauseitstagestherealityoftwoparticipatingfamilies,ensuringbothfamiliesaredifferentenoughtocreatedramaandconflictduringtheexperiment.WhenaudienceswatchWifeSwaptheydosoononelevelasasocialexperiment,andonanotherlevelasanunscriptedsocialdrama.Audiencesareabletoswitchfromappreciationoftheseordinarypeopleandtheirexperiences,toawarenessofthestagednatureoftheirexperiencescreatedfortelevision.Atanotherlevelaudiencesdonotwanttoseetoomuchrealityortoomuchdramainpopularfactualtelevision.Thereisafinebalancebetweenapopularfactualprogrammebeingtoorealistic,andtoounrealistic.Forexample,audiencesofAnimalHospitalknowthattheBBCpre-selectstoriesofanimalillnessinordertoensurethatthemajorityofthestorieshaveasuccessfuloutcome.Audienceshavecometoexpectstorieswithhappyendingsinthisprogramme.Thestoriesmayberealisticineveryothersense–theyareaccurateaccountsoftheseparticularanimalsandtheirmedicalconditions.Buttheyareunrealisticinthatthestoriesmainlyreportsuccessfulmedicaltreatmentofanimalswithacuteillness.Whenasuccessfuloutcomeisnotforthcoming,audiencesarecriticaloftheprogrammeforshowinganimalmortality(seeChapter7).Similarly,inlifeexperimentformatssuchasFakingIt,audiencesknowthattheprogrammemakerspre-selectthepeopletotakepartintheexperiment,andtheypre-selectthetypeofemploymentthesepeopleareexpectedto‘fake’.Itisamoresatisfyingexperienceforthevieweriftheexperimentisasuccess.Thenarrativedriveisoneoftransformation,andassuchthetransformationfrom,say,aclassicalcelloplayertonightclubDJisonlyreallycompletewhentheendresultissuccessasanightclubDJ.Whenthetransformationisnotasuccess,theprogrammeendsonaflatnote.Asviewers,weknowthechancesofaclassicalcelloplayersuccessfullybecominganightclubDJareslim,especiallyinashorttimeframe,butneverthelesswewanttoseethestoryaslifeaffirming.Ifthismeanstheprogrammemakershavetoworkhardtoensurealikelypositiveoutcomebypre-selectingsomeonewhohasahighchanceofsucceeding,thenmanyviewerswouldacceptthisconstructedelementoftheprogrammeinreturnforasuccessfuloutcome.Iftheprogrammemakersweretomakeadjustmentstootherareasoftheprogramme,suchassomeonepretendingtobeaclassicalcelloplayerwhenreallytheywereanactor,audienceswouldcomplain.Realitycanbestaged,butthestaginghastobeclearlymarkedbyprogrammemakersforaudiences.Thewayaudiencesnegotiatethestagedrealityofpopularfactualtelevisionisatestamenttotheirunderstandingofthewayrealityisputtogether(Schlesinger1978).Audiencesassesstheauthenticityofreal 178Storyofchangepeople’sstoriesandsituationswithintheperformativeenvironmentofpopularfactualtelevision.Thisviewingstrategyinvolvescriticismofthetruthclaimsofrealityprogramming,butalsosomedegreeoftrustintheoldadage‘truthwillout’.Thisviewingstrategyalsoinvolvesexpectationthatrealityprogrammingwilldramatiserealpeople’sstoriesandtheirsituations,andthatthiswillenhancetheviewingexperience.Bothofthesetypesofviewingstrategiesrelyonprogrammemakerssendingclearsignalstoviewersabouttheirclaimstothereal(Winston1995).Aslongasthesesignalsareclear,thenthereisanunwrittencontractbetweenaudiencesandprogrammemakersthatacertaindegreeofstagingisexpectedinpopularfactualtelevision.Forexample,whenadrama-docclaimstobebasedonrealevents,andusesacaptioninformingviewersabouttheproximityofthedrama-doctoitssubjectmatter,thisisaclearsignaltoviewersastothetruthclaimsoftheprogramme.Similarly,whenalifestyleformatsuchasQueerEyefortheStraightGuyundertakesamakeoverinaspecifictimeframe,inthisinstancetheprogrammemakersclaimitisoneday,thenviewersunderstandthatthemakeover,nomatterhowdramatised,actuallyoccursinthechallengingtimeframeofonedayinthelifeofitsparticipants.Thesocialcontractbetweenpopularfactualtelevisionanditsaudiencedoesnotnecessarilyapplytoothertypesoffactualprogramming.Forexample,whenaudienceswatchthenewsoraninvestigativedocumentarytheyexpectthesegenrestobeaccurateandtruthful(seeChapter4).Intermsofdocumentary,thestoryissomewhatmorecomplicated,assomescholarshavearguedthatdocumentary’scontractwithitsaudienceisbasedonthefalsepremisethatdocumentarycantellthetruthinthefirstplace(seeWinston1995).Butpublicresponsetothedocumentaryfakeryscandalsinthe1990sindicatesthataudiencesdoexpectdocumentarytotellthetruth(onthewhole),andarecriticalofdocumentarywhenthiscontractisperceivedtobebroken.Itisthereforeimportanttorememberthatalthoughaudiencesapplyafact/fictioncontinuumtofactualprogramming,theyhavedevelopeddifferentviewingstrategiesfordifferenttypesofgenreswithinfactualtelevision.LEARNINGPopularfactualprogrammescanprovidebothentertainmentandinformationatthesametime.However,audiencesmainlyperceiverealityprogrammingasentertainment.Thisputsintoquestiontheknowledge-providingroleofpopularfactualprogrammes.Canpeoplelearnfromwatchingrealityprogrammes?And,iftheycan,dotheywanttolearnfromwatchingrealityprogrammes? Storyofchange179Audiencesaredismissiveoftheknowledge-providingroleofpopularfactualtelevisionbecausetheyperceiveitas‘mindlessentertainment’.ThiscommonphraseusedbyviewerswhendescribingrealityprogrammesechoescommonphrasesusedbycriticsofrealityTVinthemedia.WhenaudienceswatchrealityprogrammestheydosowithpriorknowledgeofsocialattitudestowardsrealityTVastrashTV.Itisnotsurprising,therefore,tofindaudiencesrejectingtheknowledge-providingroleofpopularfactualinfavourofitsentertainment-providingrole.Thecommunicativeformanddesignofrealityprogrammingtendstore-enforcethisperceptionofthegenreas‘mindlessentertainment’.Theuseofvisualstylesandnarrativetechniquesassociatedwithlightentertainment,soapopera,ordramahelptopaintapictureofpopularfactualasentertainment.However,thecontentofmuchrealityprogrammingcontainsinformativeelements.Theseinformativeelementsmaynotbetheprimaryelementsintheprogramme,buttheyareneverthelesspartoftheprogramme.Forexample,thelifestylemakeoverformatChangingRoomsfunctionsasentertainment,andalsoasinformation.Thereisthedramaofthestyletransformation,andthespectacleofthereveal,andtherearethepracticaltipsandadviceoninteriordecoration.Inmoretraditionalrealityformatssuchas999,theinformativeelementsoftheprogrammearemademoreexplicit,asthestoriesofdramaticrescuesareframedasstoriesviewerscanlearnfrominordertoprotecttheirownfamilyorlovedonesincaseofanemergency.Thebalancebetweeninformationandentertainmentinpopularfactualtelevisionhasshiftedoverthepastdecade.Whereasintraditionalrealityformatstherelationshipbetweeninformationandentertainmentwasfairlyexplicit(inparticular,crime,healthandemergencyservicesformats),incontemporaryrealityformatstherelationshipismoreimplicit(inparticular,documentarygameshows).Thisdistinctionbetweentraditionalandcontemporaryrealityprogramminginrelationtoinformationisreflectedinthewayaudiencestalkaboutlearningfromrealityprogramming.WhenIanalysedaudiences’responsestomoretraditionalrealityprogrammingsuchas999andChildren’sHospitalinthemid-1990s,audiencediscussionofthestoriesofrescueoperationsandacutehealthproblemswereframedinrelationtowhattheycouldlearnaboutlifefromtheprogrammes(Hill2000c).Viewerswerequiteclearthatbywatchingthesetypesofstoriesin999andChildren’sHospital,theycouldlearnhowtoapplyfirstaidincaseoffamilyemergencies,orlearnabouthowfamiliescopewithmedicaltrauma.AsthegenreofrealityTVhastransformedtoincludeothertypesofhybridformatssuchasrealitygameshows,audiencesarelessclearaboutwhattheycanlearnfromwatchingtheseprogrammes.Thisiswhyinmyresearchin2000–2001themajorityofviewerstalkaboutthe‘ideaoflearning’ratherthanlearningitself.Althoughsomecontemporaryrealityprogrammesdopresent 180Storyofchangestoriesofordinarypeopleinaneducationalframe(extremehistoryformats,forexample)theseareintheminority.Mostcontemporaryrealityprogrammesretainaconnectionwithinformation;thereistheideaoflearning,buttheseprogrammessubsumetheideaoflearningwithinanentertainmentframe.Theconceptoftheideaoflearningraisesissuesaboutwhatwemeanbylearning.Fortelevisionaudiences,theirideaoflearningisrelatedtoformallearning.Wecanlearnaboutworldeventsfromnews.Wecanlearnhouseholdtipsandadvicefromlifestyle.Thesetypesoffactualgenresprovideformallearningopportunitiesforaudiences.Foryoungertelevisionaudiences,theirideaoflearningisrelatedtoschoollearning.Ifaprogrammeadvertisesitselfasa‘LearningProgramme’thentheseviewerswillswitchoff.Youngerviewersalsoassociatetheideaoflearningasrelatedtolearningaboutlife.Aprogrammemayadvertiseitselfasan‘EntertainingProgramme’,butyoumightlearnsomethingalongtheway.Thesetypesofpopularfactualprogrammesprovideinformallearningopportunitiesforyoungeraudiences.Researchinyoungadultsandeducationindicatesthatyoungadultslearninavarietyofformalandinformalways(Kirwanetal.2003).Thisisreflectedinthedifferencebetweenthemoreflexiblemannerinwhichyoungadultsassociatetheideaoflearningwithpopularfactualprogramming,andthemoreinflexiblemannerinwhicholderadultsthinkaboutlearningfrompopularfactualtelevision.Ifweopenuptheideaoflearningtoincludearangeofformalandinformallearningopportunities,thereispotentiallymuchtolearnfromwatchingpopularfactualtelevision.Wecantalkaboutlearninginrelationtogenerallearning.Thismightincludegeneralknowledgeabouttheworldandthewaywelive.Forexample,aclipshowsuchasWorld’sWildestWeathercanhelpustolearnaboutthenaturalenvironment.Wecantalkaboutsociallearning.Thismightincludelearningaboutworldornationalevents,orsocialissuesandpublicopinion.Forexample,alifeexperimentprogrammesuchasWifeSwapcanhelpustoformopinionsaboutsubjectssuchasracism.Wecantalkaboutpracticallearning.Thismightincludelearningabouthealth,orDIY,orpersonalimprovement.Forexample,ananimal-basedrealityprogrammesuchasAnimalHospitalcanhelpustolearnhowtocareforanimals.Wecantalkaboutemotionallearning.Thismightincludelearningaboutpeople’severylivesandday-to-dayexperiences.Forexample,adocumentarygameshowsuchasBigBrothercanhelpustolearnaboutotherpeople’slives.Giventhelevelofaudiencecriticismoftheideaoflearningfrompopularfactualtelevision,Iamcautiousaboutmakinggeneralclaimsthataudiencesdolearnfromwatchingthesekindsofprogrammes.Itiscertainlythecasethataudienceschoosetowatchmanypopularfactualprogrammestobeentertainedratherthaninformed.Thereareothertypes Storyofchange181offactualprogrammingthataudiencesexplicitlywatchforinformation,suchasnews.However,althoughIamcautiousofmakinggeneralclaimsbasedonwhataudiencessayabouttheideaoflearning,Ithinkaudiencescanlearnaboutavarietyofthingsfrompopularfactualtelevisioniftheychoosetodoso.Ibasethisobservationonthewayaudiencescriticallyreflectontheideaoflearning.Theircriticalreflectiononpopularfactualtelevisionisevidenceoflearning(LivingstoneandThumim2003).Theideaoflearningthereforerelatesnotonlytohowviewersmightlearnfrompopularfactualtelevision,butalsotohowviewersmightlearnnottotrustthetruthclaimsofpopularfactualtelevision.Ononelevel,viewerstalkabouthowthereislittletheycanlearnfromcontemporarypopularfactualtelevision.Here,audiencesinterpretlearningaslearningaboutsomething,whetherthisisformalorinformallearning,andwhetherthislearningisexplicitlyorimplicitlyaddressedbyarealityformat.Onanotherlevel,whenviewerstalkabouttheideaoflearningfrompopularfactualtelevisiontheirtalkaboutthedifferencebetweentraditionalandmorecontemporaryrealityprogrammesisevidenceoflearning.Viewershavelearnedthattheycanlearnmorefrom999thanfromBigBrother.Viewershavelearnedtotrustthetruthfulnessofwhattheyseein999morethanBigBrother.Thus,viewersshowknowledgeofhowrealityprogrammesareputtogether,intermsofeditingtechniques,characterisation,presentationalstyles;theyshowknowledgeofthehybridisationofrealityprogramming,suchastheimpactofsoapoperaorgameshowsonrealityformats;theyshowknowledgeofthetruthclaimsofdifferentrealityformats;andtheyshowknowledgeoftheuneasyrelationshipbetweeninformationandentertainmentinpopularfactualtelevision.Thewayaudiencescriticallyreflectontheknowledge-providingroleofpopularfactualprogrammessuggestthedifferentwaysaudiencesjudgeknowledge.Thefactthataudiencesrarelyusetheterm‘knowledge’,andprefertousetheterm‘learning’isalsosuggestiveofthewayaudiencesjudgeknowledgeassomethingformal,somethingeducational.Thedifferencebetweenthewayyoungadultsandolderadultstalkaboutlearninghighlightsdifferentwaysofjudgingtheknowledge-providingroleofpopularfactualtelevision.Ifyoungadultscarryovermoreflexibleattitudestolearningintoadulthood,thenwecanexpecttoseemorediscussionofformalandinformallearninginpopularfactualtelevisioninfutureyears.Thisinturnwouldopenupdiscussionabouttheideaoflearningfromtelevision,adiscussionthatismuchneededifwearetounderstandtheimportanceoftelevisionasaknowledgeproviderforfuturegenerationsofviewers.DavidBuckingham,inhisresearchonyoungadultsandthenews,arguesthatthereisaneedfor‘fundamentalrethinking’ofthepresentationofnewsforyoungadults,bothintermsofthe‘formal 182Storyofchangestrategiesofnews,andwhatisseentocountasnewsinthefirstplace’(2000:210).Youngadultslikenewsthatisinnovativeinitspresentation,thatmakestheminterestedinnewseventsthatareofrelevancetothem,thatispolemicalratherthanneutral–asonegirlputsit:‘itgivesyouroomtoagreewiththemordisagreewiththem,andthereforeyouthinkaboutitmore’(ibid.).Thistypeofqualitativeresearchisimportanttoourunderstandingofinformationinfactualprogramming.Buckinghamarguesthatyoungadultswillbemorelikelytorespondtonewsifit‘invitesscepticismandactiveengagement’(ibid.).Similarly,myargumentisthatweneedtorethinkwhatcountsaslearninginpopularfactualtelevision.Ifaudiencesarescepticaloftherealityofcontemporaryrealityprogrammes,ifaudiencesareactivelyengagedwiththetruthclaimsofrealityprogrammes,thenweshouldconsiderhowtoincludesuchviewingstrategiesinourassessmentoftheideaoflearningfrompopularfactualtelevision.Mycurrentresearchontelevisionaudiencesandfactualprogrammingconsidershowaudienceslearnfromdifferenttypesoffactualprogramming,suchasnewsandcurrentaffairs,documentaries,andpopularfactualprogrammes.Iamusingquantitativeandqualitativeresearchtechniques–nationalsurvey,focusgroupsandin-depthinterviews–inordertofindoutwhatyoungeradultsandolderadultsunderstandaslearningfromdifferenttypesoffactualprogramming.Oneoftheprimaryresearchquestionsis:whatdoaudiencesvalueaboutfactualtelevision?Oneofthewaystoanswerthisquestionistoexaminetheknowledge-providingroleoffactualtelevision.InthesamewaythatIdiscussedhowaudiencesuseanethicoftruthtellingasacriterionintheirassessmentofgoodandbadrealityprogrammes(seeprevioussection),sotooaudiencescanuselearningasawaytopositivelyvaluefactualtelevision.Ifaudiencesarecriticaloftheideaoflearningfromspecifictypesoffactualtelevision,inparticularpopularfactual,thentheseprogrammeswillbelessvaluedthanothers.OneofthethingsIexpecttofindoutinthisresearchprojectisthataudienceunderstandingoflearningfromfactualtelevisionwillbedifferenttobroadcasters’understandingoflearning,anddifferentagainfromacademicunderstandingoflearning.Thisisbecauseaudienceswillusedifferentcriteriafromthoseusedbybroadcastersoracademicsastowhattheyperceiveaslearning,andwhattheyperceiveasfactualtelevision.Audienceassessmentoflearninginfactualtelevisionwillbebasedontheirunderstandingofthegenericformofdifferenttypesoffactualprogrammes.Audienceassessmentoflearninginfactualtelevisionwillalsobeintransition,astheprogrammesthemselvescontinuetodrawonavarietyoffictionalandfactualgenres,andutiliseavarietyofplatforms–terrestrialchannels,digitalchannels,radio,printmediaandtheinternet.Andaudienceassessmentoflearninginfactualtelevisionwillalsobecontradictory,asthewaytheyhave Storyofchange183learnedtolivewithfactualtelevisionwillhavebeeninfluencedbytheinherenttensionsandcontradictionswithinthedevelopmentoffactualtelevision.5ETHICSCarryingonfromtheprevioussection,theconceptoftheideaoflearningcanbeappliedtoaudienceunderstandingofethicsinpopularfactualtelevision.Althoughsomepeoplemightarguethatethicsisabsentfromrealityprogramming,infactethicsisattheheartofrealityprogramming.Ethicsinformsunderstandingofthetreatmentofordinarypeoplebyprogrammemakers,andthecontentofstoriesaboutpeople’sprivateexperiencesanddilemmas.Rightstoprivacy,rightstofairtreatment,goodandbadmoralconduct,andtasteanddecencyarejustsomeoftheethicalissuesthatarisewhenexaminingpopularfactualtelevision.InChapters7and8,Iappliedtheconceptofanethicsofcaretohealthandlifestylerealityformats.Anethicsofcareisaboutcareandresponsibilityforourselvesandotherpeople.Iarguedthatmuchofthecontentofhealthandlifestylerealityformatsisframedinrelationtoanethicsofcare.Ialsoarguedthatoneofthewaysviewerstalkaboutthesetypesofrealityformatsisinrelationtotheirunderstandingofcareandresponsibilitytowardsthefamilyandthehousehold.Oneoftheissuesarisingfromaudiencediscussionofhealth-basedrealityprogrammesaboutcompanionanimalsandtheirownersisthelevelofcriticismdirectedtowardsprogrammemakersintheirtreatmentofanimals.Youngeradultsinparticulartalkedaboutanimalrights,andwerecriticalofprogrammemakersfornotallowinganimalsarighttoprivacyintimesofacutedistress.Theideaoflearningbecomesrelevantwhenweconsiderhowaudiencestalkabouttheethicaltreatmentofcompanionanimalsinpopularfactualtelevision.Ifethicsisaboutrightandwrongwaystoliveourlives,thenwecanlearnaboutmoralvaluesfromwatchingandtalkingaboutpopularfactualprogrammes.Inthissense,realityprogrammescanofferlifelessonstoaudiences.6Therearetwolevelsatwhichaudiencescanlearnaboutmoralvaluesfromparticularpopularfactualprogrammes.Atonelevel,viewerscanlearnaboutmoralvaluesasrepresentedintheprogrammes.InthecaseofAnimalHospital,theprogrammerepresentscompanionanimalsasvaluedmembersofthefamily,andshowsushowtobecompassionateandunderstandingtowardscompanionanimals,andhowtocareforanimalsinaresponsiblemanner.Atanotherlevel,viewerscanlearnaboutmoralvaluesasarticulatedindiscussionarisingfromtheprogrammes.InthecaseofAnimalHospital,youngviewerswereinagreementwiththeprogramme’semphasisonanethicsofcare,buttookthisonestagefurther 184Storyofchangeincriticisingtheprogrammemakersfornotbeingcaringenoughtowardstherightsofanimals.Adultviewers,inparticularmothers,werealsoinagreementwiththeprogramme’semphasisonanethicsofcare,butwerecriticaloftheprogrammemakersforshowinganimalmortalityatatimeintheeveningwhenchildrenwouldbewatching.BywatchingandtalkingaboutAnimalHospitalviewerscanexpresstheirunderstandingofethics.Thereareotherwaysinwhichwecanlearnaboutethicsfrompopularfactualtelevision.TaketheexampleofTemptationIsland.Hereisaprogrammecriticisedforitslackofethics.Thepremiseoftheprogrammeisthatcouplescompetetoremainfaithfultoeachother.Theformatisbasedonvirtueethics;theprogrammemakerstesttheintegrityofparticipantsandhowtheyattempttolivetheirlivesina‘virtuous’manner.Audiencescanlearnaboutvirtueethicsbywatchingthecouplesastheystruggletoremainfaithfultotheirpartners.Wecouldsaythatsomeaudienceslearnhowtocheatontheirpartners,orlearnthatiftheopportunityarisesitisacceptabletocheat.Wecouldalsosaythatsomeaudienceslearnthereisahighpricetopayforinfidelity.Whenaudiencestalkabouttheprogramme,theyarecriticaloftheparticipantsfortakingpartinarealitygameshowwheretheirrelationshipisontheline.Audiencesarealsocriticalofthewaytheparticipantsshowtheirtruecolours,theyarenothonestabouttheirrelationships,theylackintegrity.ThereareotherreasonswhypeoplechoosetowatchTemptationIsland.Thepromiseofsexualtransgression,thesemi-nakedmenandwomen,thetropicallocation,areallreasonspeoplewatchthisprogramme.Butanotherreasonforwatchingtheprogrammeistobecriticalofthebehaviouroftheparticipants,andtojudgethecharactersaccordingtotheirvirtuesandvices.ArealityprogrammesuchasTemptationIslandteststhelimitsofacceptablesocialbehaviour,andcanprovideanopportunityforaudiencestodiscusssociallyacceptableorunacceptablebehaviourtowardsotherparticipantsintheprogramme.Muchpopularfactualtelevisionimplicitlyandexplicitlyaddressesviewersaboutgoodandbadwaystolivetheirlives.Fromapositiveperspective,certainrealityprogrammescanencourageviewerstoapplyanethicsofcareintheireverydaylives.Thisisaformofethicalreasoningthatencouragespeopletotakecareofthemselves,andtheirfamily,andiscloselyassociatedwithtraditionalethicalwritingabouthowwecanachievepersonalhappiness,orself-improvement.Anethicsofcareaspresentedinlifestyleprogrammesisprimarilyaboutcareandresponsibilityofindividualhouseholds.Inhealth-basedrealityprogrammes,weseeamorepublicethicsofcare,basedontheconceptofreciprocitywherewe,asindividualsandasmembersofasociety,are‘obligedtoprovidecarebecausewehaveall,atsomepointinourlives,beentherecipientofcare’(Kittay2001:535).Sometimeslifestyle Storyofchange185programmesattempttoaddressapublicethicsofcare,forexamplewhentheChangingRoomsteammakeoverachildren’scarehome.Sometimeshealth-basedrealityprogrammesaddressaprivateethicsofcare,forexamplewhenfamilymembersareshowncaringfortheirlovedones.Itwouldbegoodtoseemorerealityprogrammespromoteanethicsofcarebasedontheconceptofreciprocity,wherewecanlearnawayoflifegroundedinthemoralvaluesofcareandrightsforourselvesandotherpeople.Fromanegativeperspective,certainrealityprogrammescanexploitordinarypeopleforthepurposesofentertainment.Althoughthereissomeevidencethatviewersarecriticalofprogrammemakersforunethicaltreatmentoftheirsubjects,thisisonarelativelysmallscale,andmainlyrestrictedtothetreatmentofanimalsandchildren,twosocialgroupsperceivedas‘vulnerable’,andthereforecauseforconcern.Audiencestendtoperceiveadultswhotakepartinrealityprogrammesasconsentingadults(KilbornandHibbard2000).However,adultsarenotimmunefromunethicaltreatment.Oneparticularcaseinpointisthetreatmentofadultswithmentalhealthproblemsinpopularfactualprogrammes.Thereareexamplesofprogrammeswheretheadultparticipantsareemotionallyandmentallyvulnerable,andthisvulnerabilityisexploitedtomakeaninterestingstory.Althoughprogrammemakerswouldarguethattheseadultshavesignedconsentforms,andtheyhavebeentreatedwithsensitivity,itissometimesalltooevidentthatthesepeoplehavementalhealthproblemswhicharenotaddressedbytheprogrammemakers.Itwouldbegoodifmorerealityprogrammeswereaboutbehindthescenesofmakingarealityprogramme.Thiswouldbeonewayaudiencescanlearnabouttheprocessoftakingpartinatelevisionprogramme.Themoreaudiencesknowabouttheexperienceoftakingpartinaprogramme,themoretheycanjudgetheethicaltreatmentofordinarypeopleforthemselves.CRITICALVIEWINGThekeypointsraisedinthischaptersofarreflectthemainfindingsoftheaudienceresearchdiscussedinthisbook.Inthepenultimatesectionofthischapter,Iwanttoreflectontelevisionaudiencesascriticalviewers.Televisionaudiencesareengagedinacriticalexaminationofthedevelopmentofpopularfactualtelevision.TheabilityforaudiencestoseethroughrealityTV,andbythatImeancritiqueaswellaswatchstoriesinrealityprogrammes,isfundamentaltoourunderstandingoftherealitygenre(Corner1995).Inthissense,mostviewerscometowatchrealityTVinadefaultcriticalposition. 186Storyofchange‘Criticalviewing’isatermusedtodescribethewayaudiencesevaluateandinterpretthemedia.Audiencesevaluaterealityprogrammesdifferentlyaccordingtohowcriticaltheyareoftherealitygenre,and/orparticularprogrammeswithinthegenre.Audiencesinterpretrealityprogrammesdifferentlyaccordingtowhatcriticalframeworkstheyapplytotherealitygenre,and/orparticularprogrammeswithinthegenre.AccordingtoLivingstoneandLunt(1994:90–1),thereissomethingfundamentallysocialaboutbeingacriticalviewer:‘differentinterpretivestrategiesarealwaysexpressedinasocialsituation…socialdesirabilityworkstosupportcriticalcommentsasclever,impressiveself-presentation…people’scriticaljudgementsdrawonsocialknowledge…[and]throughtheirresponsestotelevision,peoplegeneratesocialidentitiesforthemselvesandothers.’InthecaseofcriticalresponsestorealityTV,asillustratedinthisbook,audiencesevaluatedandinterpretedrealityprogrammesinthesocialsituationoftheirhomes,andinfocusgroupsettings(inotherpeople’shomes).Therewasacommonconsensusthattherealitygenrewas‘mindlessentertainment’,andthemajorityofviewersthereforeagreedwithgenerallycriticalcommentsontherealitygenre.Therewaslessconsensusthatspecificrealityprogrammeswere‘good’or‘bad’,butoverallmostviewerswerecriticalofspecificprogrammes,evenprogrammestheywatchedonaregularbasis.Viewersbasedtheircriticaljudgementsonknowledgeoffactualgenres,howtheprogrammeswereconstructedfortelevisionviewers,andsharedvaluesabouttheknowledge-providingroleoffactualtelevision.Whencriticallyrespondingtorealityprogrammes,peoplepositionedthemselvesasparticulartypesoftelevisionviewers,inthiscaseknowledgeableviewers.Inaddition,whenpeoplepositionedthemselvesascriticalviewersofrealityTVtheydifferentiatedthemselvesfromthecommonportrayaloftherealityTVviewerasstupid,orvoyeuristic,oreasilyduped(seeChapters1and5).Theaudienceresearchpresentedinthisbookthereforesupportstheconceptofcriticalviewingassocialaction,asdefinedbyLivingstoneandLunt(1994).Buckinghamarguesthat‘therearesignificantmethodologicaldifficultiesinidentifyingandevaluatingevidenceofcriticalviewing…criticaldiscoursesaboutthemediamayemergeasafunctionoftheinterviewcontext’(2000:212).Buckinghamreferstotheideaof‘cynicalchic’asawayofseeingcriticalresponsestothemediaassociallydesirable,somethingLivingstoneandLuntalsomentionintheiranalysisofcriticalviewersoftalkshows(1994).LikeLivingstoneandLunt,Buckingham(2000:212)seescriticalviewingas‘aformofsocialactionwhichisintendedtoaccomplishparticularsocialpurposes’.Hecautionstheresearchertotakeintoaccountthecontextoftheinterviewwheninterpretingqualitativedata.Inparticular,hearguesthattheresearcher Storyofchange187mustconsiderbothanobjectiveinterpretationofthedata(whatdoesthedatatellme?),withamoresubjectiveinterpretationofthedata(whatdoesthedatatellmeaboutthepracticeofresearchingaudiences?).Myownapproachtothedatapresentedinthisbookhasbeentointerpretthedatabothinrelationtowhatisbeingsaid,andthecontexttotheprogrammesunderdiscussion.Althoughtosomeextentviewerswerecriticalofrealityprogrammes,perhapsinpartbecausetheythoughtitchictobecynical,itwasalsothecasethatviewerscollectivelyandindividuallydrewuponreadilyavailable‘criticaldiscourses’whentalkingaboutrealityTV(ibid.).Buckingham(2000:217)arguesthat‘trulycriticalviewingshouldbecharacterisednotonlybyaformofprincipledscepticism,butalsobyawillingnesstoengagewiththesocialrealitythatisrepresented,torelateittoone’sdirectexperienceand(ifappropriate)totakeactioninordertochangeit.’Wecanseeevidenceofthistypeofcriticalviewingintheaudiencediscussionspresentedhere.Whenviewersarecriticalofrealityprogrammes,theyusesuchcriticismasameanstocynicallyrejectthe‘reality’oftherealitygenre,andoftentheircommentsaresimilartogeneralcriticismofrealityTVinthemedia.Viewersalsocriticallyengagewiththesocialrealityrepresentedinparticularprogrammes,usuallyrelatingthisrealitytotheirownpersonalexperiences.Inparticularcircumstances,viewersmaytakeaction,basedonwhattheyhavelearntasaresultofcriticalengagementwithspecificrealityprogrammes,forexamplewithregardtoanethicsofcareandcompanionanimals.TheDepartmentofCulture,MediaandSport’sMediaLiteracyStatement(2001)includesadefinitionofmedialiteracyas:Theabilitytoanalyseandrespondtoarangeofmedia…andtothinkcriticallyandreflectivelyaboutwhathasbeen‘read’;Theabilitytoweighuphowreliablethematerialis,whetheritisfactorfiction,whetheritisrealisticallypresentedornot…;Anunderstandingofhow[we]respondtoandinterpretexperiencesgainedthroughmediatexts,andalsothat[we]arepartoflargeraudiences,andthat[our]responsesarealsoshapedbythatexperience.(LivingstoneandThumim2003:6–7)Ifweapplythisdefinitiontotelevisionaudiencesandfactualprogrammingwecanseehowtheformationofcriticalviewingcanpotentiallyleadtotheacquisitionofgreatermedialiteracy.Thewayinwhichtelevisionaudiencesrespondtoethicalissuesinarangeofpopularfactualprogrammesillustratestheirabilitytothinkcriticallyandreflectivelyabouttheseprogrammes.Thewayinwhichtelevisionaudiencesweighupwhetherwhattheyareseeingisrealisticallypresentedornotillustratestheirabilitytoevaluatewhetherpopular 188Storyofchangefactualprogrammesarefactorfiction.Thewaytelevisionaudiencesreflectontheirexperienceofwatchingpopularfactualprogrammesbythemselvesandwithotherpeopleillustratesthedegreetowhichtheyareabletorespondtoandinterprettheirexperiences.ResearchbyLivingstoneandThumim(2003)andKirwanetal.(2003)onmedialiteracyindicatesyoungadultsandolderadultswishtoimproveunderstandingofaudio-visualcontent,throughformalandinformallearningopportunities.TheresearchrecommendsthatthegovernmentestablishacoherentpolicytoincreasemedialiteracyamongsttheUKpopulation.Weneedtoopenupourunderstandingoftheideaoflearninginordertoestablishacoherentpolicyregardingmedialiteracy.Weneedtoknowmoreabouthowcriticalviewingconnectswithmedialiteracy.Weneedtoknowmoreabouthowadultsandchildrenperceiveandunderstandformalandinformallearning.AsLivingstoneandThumimsuggest,wedonotknowenoughaboutmediaaudiencesto‘developappropriatemeansofbothpromotingandevaluatingmedialiteracy’(2003:23).Criticalreceptionisonlyonemeansofincreasingmedialiteracyskills.Otherareastoconsiderareaccesstoaudio-visualmediaandcontentproduction(LivingstoneandThumim2003).InaspeechbytheSecretaryofStateforCulture,MediaandSportataMediaLiteracySeminarin2004,TessaJowellaskedthequestion‘whydoesmedialiteracymatter?’7ForJowell,medialiteracymattersbecausethereiscontinuousdebateaboutthemediaatwork,atschool,athome,andinthemediaitself,andthesedebateshaveanimpactonourlives.Shestates:‘Iwanttoknowwhetherpeoplefeelequippedtodealwiththegrowingclamourofvoicesseekingtheirattention,andwhethertheyfeeltheyhavetheabilitytosortoutthewheatfromthechaff,thegenuinefromthefake,thefactualfromthepolemical,theobjectivefromthebiased.’8NomatterwhatouropinionofrealityTV,itisacommontopicofdiscussioninoureverydaylives.IwouldhazardaguessthatrealityTVismoretalkedaboutthanwatched.Evenwhen16millionpeopletunedintowatchthefinaleofI’maCelebrity…GetMeOutofHere!,morepeopleprobablytalkedaboutitafterwardsthanwouldhavewatchedtheprogramme.IhavearguedinthissectionthattelevisionviewersofrealityTVhavedevelopedcriticalviewingstrategies,andthatthesestrategiescanbeaformofmedialiteracy.ThegreatdebateaboutrealityTVisausefulexampleofhowyoungeradultsandolderadultsaremorethanequippedtodealwith‘thegrowingclamourofvoicesseekingtheirattention’,andtodecidewhatmatterstothemaboutrealityTV.ResearchintelevisionaudiencesofpopularfactualprogrammingcanhelpustounderstandthetransitionalterrainofrealityTVasagenre,andcanenhancecriticalunderstandingofcontemporarytelevisionaudiences.Inmanyways,thestoryofpopularfactualtelevisionanditsaudienceis Storyofchange189astoryofchange.9Ifwesituatethecasestudyofpopularfactualtelevisionwithinthewiderenvironmentofpolicydebateaboutmedialiteracy,wecanseethatthestoryofmedialiteracyisalsoastoryofchange.Inthisrespect,criticalviewersofpopularfactualtelevisionindicateonepossiblefuturedirectionforthisongoingnarrative.CONTEXTMuchoftheevidenceputforwardaboutaudienceevaluationofrealityTVsupportstheclaimthatrealityTVissignificant‘toourbroadersenseofwhytelevisioncontinuestobeimportant’(Corner2003:298).ButjusthowimportantisrealityTVtoaudiences?Ifweconsiderthesocialcontexttotelevision,itispossibletoarguethattelevisionisimportanttoitsaudience.IntheUK,adults(overtheageof16),spendonaveragetwentyhoursaweekwatchingtelevision(SocialTrends2003).Adultsspendnearlytwohoursofthedaywatchingtelevisionwhilstnotdoinganythingelse.Mostofthepeoplewhowatchtelevisiondosowithotherpeople–morethanhalfthetimewespendwatchingtelevisioniswithhouseholdmembers,orfriends.At8pmonaweekdaythemajorityofBritishpeoplearerelaxingafterworkorschool,andeitherinvolvedinleisureactivities(57percent),eatingorpersonalcareactivities(13percent),orhousework/childcare(15percent)(SocialTrends2003).Althoughleisureactivitiesincludeotheractivitiesapartfromwatchingtelevision,thefactthatadultsspendapproximatelytwentyhoursaweekdoingjustthatindicatesthattelevisionisthenumberoneleisureactivityfortheBritishpublic.SimilarfigurescanbeshownforotherWesternsocietiessuchasAmerica,andNorthernEurope,althoughSouthernEuropetraditionallyscoreslowerintermsoflevelsoftelevisionviewing.10ThesesocialtrendsindicatetheimportanceoftelevisioninWesternsociety,andtheimportanceoftelevisioninpeople’sday-to-dayroutinesandsocialrelationships.Televisionbroadcastershaveconstructedthescheduleaccordingtothese,andother,socialtrends.AsIdiscussedinChapter6,itisnocoincidencethatpopularfactualprogrammesaremorelikelytobeshownfrom6pmto10.30pm,andinparticularfrom8pmto10pm.Overthepastdecade,peaktimetelevisionscheduleshaveaccommodatedmoreandmorepopularfactualprogrammes,squeezingotherkindsoffactualoutputsuchasdocumentaryorcurrentaffairsintootherlesspopularslotsintheschedule(seeChapter2).Turnonthetelevisiononanyweeknightandyouwillfindavarietyofpopularfactualtelevisiontochoosefrom.Notonlyhasthesuccessofpopularfactualprogrammessqueezedoutmoretraditionalfactualprogrammes,butpopularfactualhasalsomadelifedifficultforsitcom,comedyanddrama. 190StoryofchangeRealityTVbecamepopularinthe1980sbecauseitofferedbroadcastersandaudiencesanalternativetofictionalprogramming.Itsdominanceinpeaktimeschedulesoverthepastdecadeistestamenttothestrengthofpopularfactualprogrammesforawiderangeofviewers.Televisionbroadcastershavemadetimeforpopularfactualprogrammes.Andtheratingssuccessofmanypopularfactualformatsindicatesbroadcasterswillcontinuetoprioritisepopularfactualinpeaktimeschedules(seeChapter2).GiventhehugeratingsforrealityformatssuchasJoeMillionaire(USA),TheBlock(Australia),andI’maCelebrity…(UK),itwouldappeartelevisionaudienceshavealsomadetimeforpopularfactualprogrammes.Weshouldnote,however,thataudienceshavenotmademoretimeforpopularfactualprogrammes,buthaveprioritisedpopularfactualoverotherkindsofprogramming.RobertPicard,inhisanalysisofaudienceexpendituresandmediause,hasarguedthatduringthe1990stherehasbeenanincreaseinthenumberofprogrammesandnumberofhoursprogrammesaretransmittedontelevision.11OneargumentforthesuccessofrealityTVisthatitfillsagapcreatedbythecommercialdemandsofmultichanneltelevisiontwenty-fourhoursaday.Buttelevisionviewinghasonlyincreasedbyanaverageoftwominutesperyear.Picardarguesthatmediauseisrelatedtooveralltimeuse,andtimeisascarceresource.Althoughduringthe1990swesawarapidincreaseinthenumberoftelevisionchannelsandprogrammes,wealsosawanincreaseinworkinghoursatworkandathome,andmorerestrictionsonpersonalandleisuretimeasaresultofthis.Therefore,althoughrealityTVisimportanttobroadcastersandaudiences,itisimportantinthesensethatitisonatatimeinthetelevisionschedulewhenpeoplewanttowatchtelevision,andchoosetowatchthesetypesofpopularfactualprogrammesoverotherkindsoffictionalandfactualprogramming.AnotherpointtobemadeisthatrealityTVisnotthatimportantinpeople’slivesoverall.Indeed,televisionisnotthatimportantinpeople’slives,whencomparedwithpressingsocialconcernssuchashealthoreducation.OneofthecentralfindingsoftheBritishFilmInstituteAudienceTrackingStudy,asreportedinTVLiving(GauntlettandHill1999),isthatpeople’slivesaremoreimportantthantelevision.Timeandagainwhenpeoplereflectontherelationshipbetweentelevisionandtheireverydaylives,itishealth,orfamilyandfriends,orpersonalrelationshipsthataremoreimportanttothemthantelevision.TheresultsofanationalsurveyonBritishsocialattitudesin2000indicatethathealthisthenumberonesocialissuepeoplearemostconcernedaboutintermsoftheirownlives,andthelivesofotherpeople.Supportforprioritisingextragovernmentspendingonhealthhasrisenfrom37percentto47percentbetween1983and1999(Jowelletal.2000:17).Eightintenpeople,irrespectiveofage,believethattheNHSshouldnevercutdownorcutout Storyofchange191anytypesofhealthtreatment(2000:32).Thereisalinkbetweenhealthandwatchingtelevision.Duringperiodsofillhealth,peopletendtowatchmoretelevision,andastheyrecovertheyreducetheamountoftimewatchingtelevisioninfavourofothertypesofsocialactivities(GauntlettandHill1999).Howthendoweexplaintheimportanceofpopularfactualtelevisiontoaudiences?Itisamajorpremiseofthisbookthatwhenpeoplewatchrealityprogrammestheytalkaboutwhattheyareseeingwithotherpeopleathome,atwork,atschool.Popularfactualtelevisionfacilitatesintercommunication.Itsparksdebate.Manyofthetopicsaddressedbypopularfactualtelevisionaretopicsaboutordinarypeopleandtheireverydaylives.Popularfactualprogrammesinterconnectwithpeople’severydaylives,addressingissuespeoplearecuriousabout,interestedin,orcareabout.ForBritishaudiencesthemostpopulartypesofrealityprogrammesareaboutissuesthatarerelevanttothem–healthcare,crime,workandleisure,personalrelationships.Britishaudienceswanttoseepopularfactualprogrammeswheretheycancomparethemselvesandtheirexperienceswithotherpeopleandtheirexperiences.Theimportanceofpopularfactualtelevisiontoitsaudiencewillcontinuetochangeaspopularfactualprogrammeschange,andasfactualprogrammeschangeovertime.Atpresent,popularfactualtelevisionisimportanttoviewersbecauseitisscheduledatatimewhenviewerswanttowatchtelevision,anditfacilitatescommunicationwithotherpeople.Popularfactualtelevisionissomethingtotalkabout,andweshouldnotunderestimatethesignificanceoftalktotheroleoftelevisioninoureverydaylives(Scannell2002).Butpopularfactualtelevisionisonlyimportantinthatitspeakstotheconcernsofordinarypeopleandtheireverydaysituations.Thefactthataudiencesareoftencriticalofpopularfactualtelevisionsuggeststheyarenotaltogetherhappywiththewayordinarypeoplearerepresentedinrealityprogrammes.Wereaudiencesgiventheopportunitytobecomemoreinvolvedinpopularfactualtelevision,theywouldhavetheopportunitytochangethegenreforthebetter.Iwouldliketoendwithapersonalreflectiononresearchingandwritingaboutpopularfactualtelevisionanditsaudience.InonewayoranotherIhavebeenworkingonthereceptionofpopularfactualtelevisionforthepastfiveyears.Muchofthiswork,andthinkingabouttheissuesinvolvedinthestudyoftelevisionaudiencesofpopularfactualprogrammingisreflectedinthisbook.Ihavefoundresearchingandwritingaboutthistopicchallenging.WhenIbeganlookingintothistopicIdidsowithlotsofenthusiasm,butlittleactualknowledgeofrealityTV,orthekeyconceptsandauthorsinthefield.Overtime,andwiththehelpofcolleagues,I’ve‘brushedupmyrealityTV’.Butitisstillthecasethat 192StoryofchangeresearchingrealityTVisliketryingtoresearchamovingtarget.Justasyougetyourbearingsonthelatestrealityformat,anotherformatstepsin,andyouhavetochangedirection.IwasfacedwiththisproblemwhenIbeganmyaudienceresearchinpopularfactualtelevisionin2000.Theresearchwasoriginallydesignedtoexamineaudienceresponsestoinfotainmentanddocu-soaps,butquicklyhadtoadapttoincludethenewformatofrealitygameshows.AndonceIbegantalkingtoaudiencestheresearchhadtoadaptagaintoincludelifestyleformats.Thus,whathadseemedlikeacontainedaudienceresearchprojectintotwoexistingpopularfactualformats,turnedintoamuchlargerprojectonawiderangeofexistingandemergentrealityformats.Inmanyways,theaudiencetooktheleadinthisproject.Therewerethreestagestotheresearch–quantitativesurvey,focusgroups,in-depthinterviewswithfamilies.AteachstageIhadtore-evaluatemythinkingonrealityTVtotakeintoaccountthewayaudiencesunderstoodthegenre.Theywerealwaysonestepaheadofme.Foraudiences,realityTVispartofthelandscapeoffactualtelevision.Whenanewrealityformatarrives,audiencesunderstanditinrelationtootherrealityprogrammes,andotherfactualprogrammesaswell.Inmanyways,audiencesdefinerealityTVinrelationtowhatitisnot:it’snotfiction,butit’sentertaining;it’snotinformative,butit’sfactual;it’snotreal,butit’ssometimestrue.Aboveall,Ilearnttobeflexiblewhenresearchingaudiencesofpopularfactualtelevision.ItiseasytowriteyourselfintoacornerwhenwritingaboutrealityTV.First,thereistheproblemofdefinition–whatexactlyisrealityTV?Myapproachistolookatdifferenttypesofrealityprogrammingandassessthemeachinturnaspartofabroaderunderstandingofpopularfactualtelevision.AndyetasIwriteaboutformatsasvariedasPoliceCameraAction!,ChangingRooms,andBigBrotheritisalltooeasytomakespecificpointsaboutdifferentformatswithinthegenreratherthantothinkaboutthebigpictureoverall.Also,thewayImightmakesenseoftheseformatsisdifferentfromhowaudiencesmakesenseofthem,anddifferentagainfromhowprogrammemakersmakesenseofthem.Second,thereistheproblemofcriticismoftherealitygenre–the‘howlowcanyougo’syndrome.Myapproachistoevaluatedifferenttypesofrealityformatsbasedonwhataudiencessayaboutthem,notwhatcriticssayaboutthem.AndyetofcoursewhataudiencessayaboutrealityTVispartlyinfluencedbywhatcriticssayaboutthegenre.TelevisionaudiencesarerealityTV’sharshestcritics.Howbesttoreflectaudienceandmediacriticismofthegenre?Finally,thereistheproblemofwritingaboutaudiences–whatdoaudiencesreallymeanwhentheysayXorY?Myapproachistovarytheselectionofquantitativeandqualitativedata,cross-referencingwhereverpossible,andconsideringthecontextfromwhichthedataisdrawn.However,audienceresponsestopopularfactual Storyofchange193televisionareinherentlycontradictory.AlltoooftenIhavefoundmyselflookingatcontradictionswithinthedataonlytofindIhavecontradictedmyselfwhenwritingaboutthedata.WhatIhavefoundduringthecourseofwritingthisbookisthatjustasIstruggletowriteaboutagenreintransition,sotooaudiencesstruggletounderstandtheirownresponsestoagenreintransition.IhopeIhavedonejusticetotheviewingexperienceofrealityTV,becausewithoutwatchingandtalkingtopeopleaboutwatchingandtalkingaboutrealityTVthisbookwouldn’texistatall. Appendix1ResearchmethodsTheESRC,ITCandChannel4fundedprojectusedamulti-methodapproach,combiningquantitativeandqualitativetechniquestogatherdataandsubsequentanalysisoftelevisionaudiencesandpopularfactualprogrammingintheUK.Themainmethodsusedwereaquantitativesurvey,semi-structuredfocusgroupsandin-depthinterviews,andthedatawascollectedduringaparticularperiodinthedevelopmentofthegenreofpopularfactualtelevision(2000–2001).Thefirststageofresearchreliedonindustryanalysisandvisualanalysis.Iusedavailabletelevisionguidestoassesstheschedulingofarangeoffactualentertainmentacrossdays,weeks,monthsandseasons.Ianalysedtheformandcontentofselectedpopularfactualprogrammes,obtainingcopiesofindividualprogrammesandwholeseriesbyrecordingliveprogrammes,andbyrequestingpreviouslyairedandtobeairedprogrammesfromproductioncompanies.Ialsoconsultedproductioncompaniesonprogrammesinproduction,specificallyBigBrother.Thisdataallowedmetoproduceacomprehensiveaccountoftherangeandtypeofprogrammesavailabletoviewersatparticulartimes,andtogaugewhichcategoriesofpopularfactualtelevisionviewerswouldbefamiliarwithduringthemaindatacollectionperiod(autumn2000–summer2001).Thedataalsoallowedmetonavigatemywaythroughthewiderangeofprogramming,chartingexistingsubgenres(infotainmentanddocu-soaps),andrespondingtonewdevelopmentswithinthegenre(realitygameshows).Thesecondstageintheaudienceresearchinvolvedanationalsurveyofaudiencepreferencesfor,andattitudesto,factualentertainmentintheUK.ThissurveywasfundedbytheIndependentTelevisionCommission(ITC),andtheITCwereconsultedonthedesignofthesurvey,whichcontainedaseriesofclosedquestionsrelatingtoaudiencepreferencesforform,content,subgenres,anduseofmultimedia,andaudienceattitudestowardsissuesofprivacy,information,andentertainmentinpopularfactualprogramming.Thesurveywasaself-completionquestionnaire,andwasdistributedbytheBroadcasters’AudienceResearchBoard(BARB)toarepresentativesampleof8,216adults(aged16–65+)and937 Appendix1195children(aged4–15)duringAugust2000.ThedatacollectedallowedmetodevelopasourceofinformationonthegeneralpublicandtheirpreferencesforandattitudestoarangeoffactualentertainmentintheUK.Ianalysedthedatafromanumberofperspectives,lookingatprogrammetypesandcontent,andaudienceattitudes,comparingthisdatawithkeydemographicinformationrelatingtoage,gender,class,education,householdswith/withoutchildren,andethnicity.Withregardtoethnicity,thesampleofethnicrespondentsistoosmallintheBARBsampletoallowforusefulanalysis.Thethirdstageoftheaudienceresearchinvolvedsemi-structuredfocusgroups,wheretheresultsofthesurveywereusedtodesignfocusgroupinterviewswithchildren(aged11–14),youngadults(aged15–18)andadults(aged18–44),whodefinedthemselvesasregularviewersofpopularfactualtelevision,andwereintheC1C2DEsocialcategory.Therecruitmentofparticipantsinvolvedtheuseofaprofessionalqualitativerecruitmentagency,andquotasamplinginavarietyofsuburbanlocations.Iselectedtheseparticipantsbecausetheresultsofthesurveyindicatedthatregularviewersofpopularfactualtelevisionwereprimarilyintheabovecategories.Theprimaryaimofthesefocusgroupswastoexploreaudienceattractiontodifferenttypesofpopularfactualprogramming,andtounderstandwhatstrategiestheyusedtowatchhybridformatswithinthegenre.Thefocusgroupscontainedaseriesofopenquestionsrelatingtoviewerresponsestosubgenreswithinfactualentertainment,theuseofnon-professionalactors,andissuesrelatingtoinformationandentertainmentinhybridformats.TwelvefocusgroupswereconductedinLondon,eachgroupcontaining7–8participants,andweredividedaccordingtoage,gender,andaccesstoterrestrialorsatellite/cable/digitaltelevision.Iselectedthesegroupsbecausethedatafromthesurveyindicatedthatageandgenderwerekeyvariablesrelatingtoaudienceattractiontofactualentertainment,anditwasnecessarytoconsiderarangeofprogrammingavailableacrosstelevisionplatforms.Followinganinitialcodingofthetranscripts,Iconductedamorediscursiveanalysisthatconsideredgroupdynamicsaswellassubstantivejudgements.Thefinalstageoftheaudienceresearchinvolvedin-depthinterviewswithtenfamilies,withchildrenofvaryingages,overasix-monthperiod(recruitedfromthefocusgroups).FourvisitsweremadetothefamilyhomesduringtheperiodJanuary–July2001.Combinationsofmethodswereused–opendiscussions,observationoffamilies,andparticipationinwatchingprogrammes–inordertounderstandthesocialcontexttowatchingfactualentertainment.Inaddition,keyissuesthatarosefromthefocusgroupsrelatingtoinformation/entertainmentwereexploredfurtherduringthefamilyvisits.Inmyselectionofinterviewsubjects,thetypesofquestionsaskedduringthevisits,andthetimingofthevisits,I 196Appendix1wasguidedbyadesiretofollownewdevelopmentswithinthegenre,andtounderstandfurtherhowfamilyviewersrespondedtothesedevelopmentsinthehomeenvironment.Interviewswerelogged,andpartiallytranscribed,andfieldnoteswrittenupduringandaftertheperiodofdatacollection.Thein-depthinterviewsprovidedawealthofrichdataandthickdescription,andallowedfurtherflexibilityfortheprojecttoassessthepopularityof,andresponsesto,newhybridformatsandmorefamiliarformatswithinfactualentertainment. Appendix2ResearchdesignQUESTIONNAIRE:ENTERTAINMENTPROGRAMMESABOUTREALPEOPLEManyentertainmentprogrammesontelevisionareaboutrealpeople.ShowssuchasAirport(BBC1),PoliceCameraAction!(ITV),BigBrother(Channel4),FamilyConfidential(Channel5)andWeCanRebuildYou(SkyOne),allinvolvedmembersofthepublicandtheirpersonalexperiences.Wewouldliketoknowwhatyouthinktothesetypesofprogrammes.Q1Whatkindsofentertainmentprogrammesaboutrealpeopledoyouregularly/occasionally/neverwatch?(Pleaseplaceacrossinoneboxoneachlineacross.)RegularlyOccasionallyNeverHospitals/doctors(e.g.Children’sHospital)¶¶¶Building/DIY(e.g.TheBuilders)¶¶¶Weather(e.g.StormoftheCentury)¶¶¶Motorways/driving(e.g.SoYouThinkYou’reaGoodDriver)¶¶¶Holidays/travel(e.g.RealHolidayShow)¶¶¶Petshows(e.g.AnimalHospital)¶¶¶Homesandgardens(e.g.ChangingRooms)¶¶¶Realpeople(e.g.BigBrother)¶¶¶Police/crime(e.g.PoliceCameraAction!)¶¶¶Emergencyservices(e.g.999)¶¶¶Survival(e.g.Castaway)¶¶¶Places(e.g.Airport)¶¶¶Marriage/relationships(e.g.Streetmate)¶¶¶ 198Appendix2Q2Whatdoyoulikeordislikeaboutentertainmentprogrammesaboutrealpeople?(Pleaseplaceacrossinoneboxoneachlineacross.)LikeDislikePresenters¶¶Membersofthepublic¶¶Animals¶¶Storiescaughtoncamera¶¶StoriesrecreatedforTV¶¶Accidentscaughtoncamera¶¶Re-createdaccidents¶¶Rescuescaughtoncamera¶¶Re-createdrescues¶¶Reactionsofpublictopresenters/realpeople¶¶Argumentsanddisagreements¶¶Intrusivecameras¶¶Up-to-the-minutestories¶¶Information¶¶Lookingintootherpeople’slives¶¶Other¶¶(Pleasewriteyouranswerinsidethebox.)LikeDislike Appendix2199Q3Herearesomethingspeoplehavesaidaboutentertainmentprogrammesaboutrealpeople.Howmuchdoyouagreeordisagreewithwhattheysaid?(Pleaseplaceacrossinoneboxoneachlineacross.)AgreeAgreeNeitherDisagreeDisagreestronglyagreestronglynordisagreeReallifestoriesaremoreentertainingthanfiction¶¶¶¶¶Ithinktheseprogrammesarereallyusefulastheygiveyouallsortsofinformationaboutlife¶¶¶¶¶TheseprogrammesgiverealpeopleachancetospeakonTVaboutwhatmatterstothem¶¶¶¶¶Ithinktrue-lifeTVtakesadvantageofpeoplewhoareintheprogrammes¶¶¶¶¶Programmesaboutrealpeopleareboringbecausetheyareallthesame¶¶¶¶¶Idon’tlikewatchingTVprogrammeswhererealpeoplefacedifficultemotionalsituations¶¶¶¶¶Q4WhichONEofthefollowingstatementscomesclosesttoyourownopinionaboutentertainmentprogrammesaboutrealpeople?(Pleaseplaceacrossinoneboxonly.)IthinkthestoriesinentertainmentIthinkthestoriesinentertainmentprogrammesaboutrealpeopleprogrammesaboutrealpeoplereallydohappenlikethis¶sometimeshappenlikethis,andaresometimesmadeup¶IthinkthestoriesinentertainmentIthinkthestoriesinentertainmentprogrammesaboutrealpeopleprogrammesaboutrealpeoplehappenlikethis,butpartsofthemareallmadeup¶areexaggeratedforTV¶ 200Appendix2Q5Howmuchdoyouagreeordisagreewitheachofthefollowingstatementsabouttheentertainmentprogrammesaboutrealpeople?(Pleaseplaceacrossinoneboxoneachlineacross.)AgreeAgreeNeitherDisagreeDisagreestronglyagreestronglynordisagreeMembersofthepublicusuallyactthesameonTVasinreallife¶¶¶¶¶Membersofthepublicusuallyoveractforthecameras¶¶¶¶¶Icanalwaystellthedifferencebetweensomeone’sactualstorybeingcaughtoncamera,orbeingre-createdforTV¶¶¶¶¶Q6Therearethreetypesofentertainmentprogrammesaboutrealpeople.Observationprogrammesareoftenaboutwatchingpeopleineverydayplaces(e.g.Airport).Informationprogrammesusetruestoriestotellussomething,likedriving,firstaid,orpets(e.g.999).CreatedforTVprogrammesareaboutputtingrealpeopleinamanufacturedsituation,likeahouseoranisland,andfilmingwhathappens(e.g.BigBrother).Howmuchdoyoulikeordislikeeachtypeofprogramme?(Pleaseplaceacrossinoneboxoneachlineacross.)LikeaLikeaNeitherDislikeDislikelotlittlelikenoralittlealotdislikeObservation¶¶¶¶¶Information¶¶¶¶¶CreatedforTV¶¶¶¶¶ Appendix2201BigBrotherisanightlyseriesonChannel4whichbeganonTuesday18Julyat9pm,aboutrealpeoplewholiveinahousewithcamerasineveryroom.Thereisalsoawebsitewhichshowspeoplelivinginthehouse24hoursaday.Everyweekviewersvoteonepersonoutofthehouse,untilthreeremain.Viewersthenvoteforthewinnerwhowillgetacashprizeof£70,000.Q7HaveyouwatchedBigBrother?(Pleaseplaceacrossinoneboxonly.)Yes¶PleaseanswerQuestion8onwardsNo¶PleasegotoQuestion9onwardsQ8WhatdoyoulikeordislikeaboutBigBrother?(Pleaseplaceacrossinoneboxoneachlineacross.)LikeDislikeWatchingpeopledoeverydaythings¶¶Watchingpeopledoprivatethings¶¶Watchingindividualpeopleunderstress¶¶Watchinggroupconflict¶¶Seeingpeoplelivewithoutmoderncomforts,e.g.TV¶¶SeeingpeopledotaskssetbytheTVmakersandviewers¶¶Seeingcontestantsvisittheconfessionroom¶¶Seeingcontestantstalkabouttheirexperience¶¶Suggestingtasks¶¶Choosingthelosers¶¶Choosingthewinner¶¶WatchingthenightlyTVprogramme¶¶Watchingthelive‘eviction’programme¶¶Visitingthe24-hourinternetsite¶¶Mediacoverageoftheprogramme¶¶Talkingabouttheprogrammewithfriends/family¶¶Talkingabouttheprogrammeinchatrooms¶¶ 202Appendix2Q9Ifyouhavepersonalexperienceofacertainjoborparticularsituation,doyoufindarealityprogrammeaboutitmoreinterestingorlessinteresting:Forexample,ifyouhavehadanaccidentorillness,wouldyoufindhospitalprogrammesinteresting,orifyouhaveapet,wouldyoufindpetprogrammesinteresting?(Pleaseplaceacrossinoneboxonly.)Muchmoreinteresting¶Alittlemoreinteresting¶Makesnodifference¶Alittlelessinteresting¶Alotlessinteresting¶Q10aSomeentertainmentprogrammesaboutrealpeoplehavewebsiteswhereyoucangetinformationabouttheprogramme,chattopeopleontheprogrammeandtalktootherviewers.Haveyouusedthesewebsites?(Pleaseplaceacrossinoneboxonly.)Yes,once¶Yes,morethanonce¶Yes,often¶No,never¶Pleaseanswerquestion10bQ10bWhichONEofthefollowingreasonsdescribeswhyyouneverusedthesewebsitesforprogrammesaboutrealpeople?(Pleaseplaceacrossinoneboxonly.)Idonothaveaccesstotheinternet¶Iamnotinterestedintheseparticularwebsites¶Idon’tknowabouttheseparticularwebsites¶ Appendix2203FOCUSGROUPS•Semi-structured,mediumlevelofmoderatorinvolvement.Standardkeytopicsforallfocusgroups,butprobingquestionsandclipswillalterwithcertaingroups.•Questionnairetobefilledinbyallparticipants.IntroductionWelcome;summaryofresearchtopic;emphasisonhearingdifferentpointsofview;ontheirexperiencesandperspectives;trytonottalkallatonce;askthemtointroducethemselves,sayingnameandfavouriteentertainmentprogrammeaboutrealpeople.KeytopicsProgrammecharacteristicsUSELIST:Entertainmentprogrammesaboutrealpeoplemainlyinvolvestoriescaughtoncamera.Whatdoyouthinkofthestoriesinyourfavouriteprogramme?Probethecharacteristics,thestories,rescuesandaccidents,howtheyaretold.Probewhatelsetheylike,e.g.presenters,argumentsanddisagreements.RealpeopleAlotoftheseprogrammesareaboutrealpeopleandtheireverydaystories.Whatdoyoulikeordislikeaboutthis?Probeifyouhavepersonalexperienceofacertainjoborsituation,areyoumoreorlesslikelytowatchaprogrammeaboutthis?Lookforspecificexamples.SHOWCLIPFROMOBSERVATIONPROGRAMMEForyoungadultsandsatellite/cableviewersuseIbizaUncovered.ForothergroupsuseclipfromAirline.ActualityCanyoualwaystellthedifferencebetweensomeone’sactualstorybeingcaughtoncamera,orbeingchangedforTV?Probestagemanagedevents.ProbemembersofthepublicoveractingonTV.Probecelebrities,realpeople,andTVcelebritiesaspresenters. 204Appendix2SHOWCLIPFROMCREATEDFORTVPROGRAMMEForallgroupsuseBigBrother.Information/entertainmentWhat’sinformativeabouttheseprogrammes?Probehowuseinformationinreallife.Probewhether‘information’isproblematic.Probeinrelationtothreeclips.Probeinrelationtoobservation.SHOWCLIPFROMINFORMATIONPROGRAMMEForallfemalegroupsuseclipfromAnimalHospital.FormalegroupsuseclipfromPoliceCameraAction!FormixedgendergroupsuseclipfromHouseofHorrors.FuturefactualTVWhatentertainmentprogrammesaboutrealpeoplewouldyouliketoseeonTV?Probelong-termlifeexpentancyofthreesubgenres.Probemultimedia,andapplicationsoutsideofTV.FORYOUNGADULTSONLYProbeprogrammesforyoungadults.SumupandquestionsIN-DEPTHINTERVIEWSThethirdstageofthestudyintotelevisionaudiencesandpopularfactualprogrammingcomprisedin-depthresearchinselectedhouseholds.Aswellasenablingfurtherinvestigationofissuesraisedbythefirsttwostagesoftheresearch(alarge-scalequantitativesurveyandmultiplefocusgroupdiscussions),thehouseholdvisitsprovideddataconcerningtheeverydayanddomesticcontextofwatchingpopularfactualprogrammes.Methods•Fromthefocusgroupparticipantsinvolvedinthesecondstageoftheresearch,individualswereselectedascandidatesforthehouseholdstudy.Theywereinvitedtoparticipateiftheywerelivinginafamily Appendix2205unitwithatleastonechildovertheageof11years.(Allfocusgroupparticipantshadbeenselectedbecausetheywereregularviewersoffactualentertainmentprogrammes.)•Tenfamilieswereselected.(Seebelowforanoutlineoftheirprofiles.)•Eachfamilywasvisitedfourtimesoveraperiodofsixmonths,fromJanuary2001toJuly2001.EverysessionlastedforoneandahalfhoursandwasconductedbyeitherAnnetteHillorCarolineDover(researcher);eachfamilywasvisitedbythesamepersonthroughouttheresearch.•Visitsinvolvedall,orasmanyaspossible,ofthehouseholdmembers.Sessionsconsistedofin-depthinterviewsand/orobservationofthefamilieswatchingprogrammes/videoclipssuppliedbytheresearchers.(Seebelowforanoutlineofeachsession.)FamiliesAllofthefamiliesliveintheGreaterLondonarea;socialclassesC1C2DE.Family1:2parents(blackEnglishfather,whiteEnglishmother);4children(aged9–16).Householdincome:c.£40,000.Occupations:recreationdutymanager;primaryschooladministrativeassistant.4TVs,2VCRsandSkyDigitalaccess.1PCwithoutinternet.Family2:2parents(Italianfather,Englishmother);2children(aged14and12).Householdincome:c.£40,000.Occupations:restaurantmanager;part-timeadministrativeassistant.5TVs,1VCR,1DVDplayeranddigitalaccess.1PCwithinternet.Family3:2parents(Cypriotfather,whiteEnglishmother);2children(aged12and6).Householdincome:c.£40,000.Occupations:drycleaningcompanymanager;part-timepersonnelofficer.4TVs,1VCRanddigitalTVaccess.1PCwithinternet.Family4:2parents(blackEnglishfather,whiteEnglishmother);4children(aged2–11).Householdincome:c.£20,000.Occupations:painter/decorator;housewife.2TVs,1VCRandSkysatelliteaccess.1PCwithinternet.Family5:2parents(bothwhiteEnglish);4children(aged8–20).Householdincome:c.£75,000(4workingadults).Occupations:engineer;part-timecareworker;estateagent;officeclerk.5TVs,1VCRandcableTVaccess.1PCwithoutinternet.Family6:2parents(whiteEnglishfather,blackEnglishmother);3children(aged16,12and1).Householdincome:c.£25,000.Occupations:copierengineer;careattendant.4TVs,3VCRs;nocable/digitalaccess.1PCwithinternet.Family7:1parent(BritishCypriot);2children(aged15and14).Householdincome:c.£10,000.Occupations:(ex-dentalnurse,currently 206Appendix2onbenefits).3TVs,1VCRandSkyDigitalaccess.1PCwithoutinternet.Family8:2parents(whiteEnglish);4children(aged12–20).Householdincomec.£55,000(3workingadults).Occupations:builder;customerservicesofficers(x2).3TVs,3VCRsandSkyDigitalaccess.1PCwithoutinternet.Family9:2parents(whiteEnglish);3children(aged10,8and5).Householdincome:c.£25,000.Occupations:stonemason;housewife.3TVs,1VCR,1DVD.1PCwithinternet.Family10:2parents(whiteEnglish);3children(aged15,11and8).Householdincome:c.£45,000.Occupations:policeofficer;supplyteacher.3TVs,2VCRsandcableaccess.1PCwithinternet.Sessions•Session1:discussionofthefamily’sviewinghabits.Typesofprogrammesregularlywatchedbydifferentmembers;programmeswatchedtogetherandseparately;individualwork/school/leisureschedules;whenandinwhichroomdifferentmemberswatchdifferentprogrammes;leisureactivitiesbeyondtelevisionwatching.•Session2:discussionofnewrealityTVformatsandclipsfromCelebrityBigBrotherandPopstars.Themesexplored:celebrity;performance;reality.Generaldiscussionofrecentprogrammingviewed.•Session3:discussionsaroundtheissueof‘information’,aidedbyaseriesofprogrammeclips.Thekindsofprogrammesandtypeofcontentandformatconsideredinformative.Generaldiscussionofrecentprogrammingviewed.•Session4:discussionsaroundBigBrotherIIandSurvivor.Themesexplored:participation;performance,reality;characters;gendertastes.Generaldiscussionofrecentprogrammingviewed. Notes1UnderstandingrealityTV1Cozens,Claire(2003)‘RoundtheClockRealityArrives’,Guardian,Tuesday29April2003.Online.Availableathttp://media.guardian.co.uk/realitytv/story/0,7521,945285,00.html(accessed27June2003).2Online.Availableathttp://media.guardian.co.uk/story/0,7493,787312,00.html(accessed27June2003).3Online.Availableathttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/25/entertainment/main537964.shtml(accessed27June2003).4Online.Availableathttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02018/entertainment/main541100.shtml(accessed27June2003).5InthelastweekofJanuary2003realityprogrammeswon15outof18half-hourtimeperiodsonMonday–Wednesdayevening.Online.Availableathttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/25/entertainment/main537964.shtml(accessed27June2003).6Tryhorn,Chris(2003)‘CelebrityBoostforITV2’,Guardian,Tuesday6May.Online.Availableathttp://media.guardian.co.uk/realitytv/story/0,7521,948519,00.html(accessed27June2003).7Broadcast,13February2004:5.8Bulkley,Kate(2003).‘I’maCeleb,HaveaBetonMe’,Guardian,Monday19May.Online.Availableathttp://media.guardian.co.uk/mediaguardian/story/0,7558,958629,00.html(accessed27June2003).9Online.Availableathttp://media.guardian.co.uk/realitytv/story/0,7521,943020,00.html(accessed27June2003).10Gibson,Owen(2002)‘ProfitsRollinFromPopstars’,Guardian19November.Online.Availableathttp://media.guardian.co.uk/realitytv/story/0,77521,842831,00.html(accessed27June2003).11SeeBroadcast,20June2003:16–17.12Online.Availableathttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/1346936.stm(accessed26August2003).13Online.Availableathttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/1346936.stm(accessed26August2003).14Online.Availableathttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/18/entertainment/main541100.shtml(accessed27June2003).15Online.Availableathttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/1341239.stm(accessed26August2003).16Online.Availableathttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3110681.stm(accessed26August2003).17Online.Availableathttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/3141021.stm(accessed26August2003). 208Notes18Online.Availableathttp://newsstore.f2.com.au/apps/news(accessed26August2003).19Online.Availableathttp://newsstore.f2.com.au(accessed26August2003).20Broadcast,31October2003:11.21Online.Availableathttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/25/entertainment/main537964.shtml(accessed27June2003).22Vanderbilt,Tom(1998)‘WhenAnimalsAttack,CarsCrashandStuntsGoBad’,NewYorkTimes,SundayMagazine,6December:12–20.23Broadcast,16January2004:20.24Broadcast,16January2004:20.25TheInternationalAllianceofTheatricalStageEmployeeswantstounioniserealityprogrammesonUSnetworkandcablechannels,inordertoensurethattheiremployeesreceivethesamepayandbenefitsasotherunionisedworkers.Thiswouldraisethecostsperhourfornetworkrealityprogramming.Online.Availableathttp://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/25/business/yourmoney/25union.html(accessed26January2004).26Online.Availableathttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/22/entertainment/main541600.shtml(accessed27June2003).27Online.Availableathttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/22/entertainment/main541600.shtml(accessed27June2003).28Online.Availableathttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/22/entertainment/main541600.shtml(accessed27June2003).29Carter,Bill(2003)‘EvenasExecutivesScorntheGenre,TVNetworksStillRelyonReality’,NewYorkTimes,19May,SectionC:1.30Broadcast,16January2004:20.31SeeTheTimes,20December2002:4–5;FinancialTimes,11November1999:22;TheObserver,20August2000:15.32Vanderbilt,Tom(1998)‘WhenAnimalsAttack,CarsCrashandStuntsGoBad’,NewYorkTimes,SundayMagazine,6December:12–20.33SeeBroadcast,20June2003:2.34Citedin‘RealityTVTakesOff’.Online.Availableathttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/16/entertainment/main536804.shtml(accessed27June2003).35Conlin,Michelle(2003)‘America’sRealityTVAddiction’.Online.Availableathttp://aol.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jan2003/nf20030130_8408.htm(accessed31January2003).36Bernstein,Jonathan(2003)‘AerialViewofAmerica’,GuardianGuide,22–8March2003:98.37Bernstein,Jonathan(2003)‘AerialViewofAmerica’,GuardianGuide,22–8March2003:98.38Bernstein,Jonathan(2003)‘AerialViewofAmerica’,GuardianGuide,22–8March2003:98.39Online.Availableathttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/16/entertainment/main536804.shtml(accessed27June2003).40Ellis,John.(2003)‘BigDebateisHappeningEverywherebutonTV’,Broadcast,27June:11.2TheriseofrealityTV1Byrne,C.(2002)‘NewsCorpPlansRealityTVChannel’.Online.Availableathttp://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,769885,00.html(accessed10August2002). Notes2092Hopkin,D.(2002)‘Introduction:BroadsideBalladsandtheOralTradition’.Online.Availablehttp://www.cc.gla.ac.uk/courses/scottish/ballads/introduction_broadside_ballads_.htm(accessed12August2002).3Vanderbilt,Tom(1998)‘WhenAnimalsAttack,CarsCrashandStuntsGoBad’,NewYorkTimes,6December:2.4Variety,9–15January1995:55.5Variety,9–15January1995:55.6Sourceforratings,BARB,compiledbyBroadcast,3December1994:22.7Sourceforratings,BARB,compiledbyBroadcast,3December1994:22.8Phillips,William.(1998)‘DramainaCrisis’,Broadcast,30October:20.9Broadcast,30October1998:20.10Broadcast,18May2001:34.11Broadcast,30January2003:17.12Wells,Matt(2002)‘TVtoGiveTerminallyIllPatientaMakeover’,Guardian,25September:11.13ThisquotationwascitedintranslationindeLeeuw,Sonja(2001)‘BigBrother:HowaDutchFormatReinventedLivingandOtherStories’,unpublishedpaper.14SeeWells,Matt(2001)‘KeepitReal’,Guardian,Monday14May:2.15AllfiguresinthissectionaretakenfrompresspacksforBigBrother(Channel4presspack),publishedratingsdata(BARBandNielson),andtheindustrymagazineChannel21International,Nov/Dec2000(p.42).16TheBARBratingsforWednesday11July2001showthat626,000viewerstunedintowatchE4,comparedto300,000viewersforChannel5and400,000viewersforChannel4atthesametime,11pm.17SeeBroadcast,31July2001.18SeeBroadcast,1August2003.19QuotationtakenfromanewsreleasefromReuters,byJanaSanchez,22March2001.TheBigDietisnolongerbeingmadeintheNetherlands.20Deans,Jason(2001)‘ViewersTireofRealityTV’.Online.Availableathttp://media.guardian.co.uk/realitytv/story/0,7521,548313,00.html(accessed12August2002).21Broadcast,30January2004:17.22Broadcast,9January2004:7.23Broadcast,9January2004:7.24Broadcast,13February2004:5.25Broadcast,30January2004:17.26Broadcast,13February2004:5.27Broadcast,13February2004:5.28Plunkett,John.(2003)‘I’maCelebrityCopycatClaimWithdrawn’,MediaGuardian,25April.Online.Availableathttp://mediaguardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,943008,00.html(accessed24February2004).29IamgratefultoPamWilsonforprovidingmewithratingsforBigBrother1inAmerica.30QuotationtakenfromGoodale,Gloria(2002)‘RealityTV’sFallMix:Dogs,DatingandCircusStunts’,TheChristianScienceMonitor.Online.Availableathttp://www.csmonitor.com(accessed9August2002).31Broadcast,5March2004:5.32Broadcast,30January2004:17.33Broadcast,21November2003:20.34SeeBroadcastAwards,28January2004.35Broadcast,5March2004:5.36Broadcast,5March2004:1. 210Notes3Therealitygenre1Holmwood,Leigh(2003)‘BBCLaunchesMajorShake-upofFactual’,Broadcast,23February:1.2Holmwood,Leigh(2003)‘BBCLaunchesMajorShake-upofFactual’,Broadcast,23February:1.3Carter,Meg(2002)‘HistoryisUpdated’,Independent,Review,Tuesday20August:12.4Elber,Lynne(2003)‘All-RealityTVChannelPlannedfor2004.’Online.Availableathttp://apnews.myway.com/article/20030428/D7QMBL600/html(accessed3May2003).5Dignam,Conar(2003)‘ColdSteelandSilkyCharm’,Broadcast,28March:12–13.6Deans,Jason(2003)‘RealityTVisHeretoStay’.Online.Availableathttp://media.guardian.co.uk/realitytv(accessed12March2003).7CharlieParsons,creatorofSurvivorandPopIdol,callsdocumentarygameshows‘documentaryinacontrolledenvironment’,or,moreexplicitly,‘producer-createdenvironmentsthatcontrolcontestantbehaviour’(BrentonandCohen2003:52).8Bishop,L.(1997)‘FameorShame’,TheJournaloftheRoyalTelevisionSociety,May:6–7;Mapplebeck,Victoria.(1997)‘VoyeursandVictimTV’,Guardian,1December:4–5.9Howard,Tom(1999)‘That’sEdutainment’,TimeOut,24November:98;Collins,Michelle(1999)‘RageHard,andHarderStill’,Observer,11April:2–3.10Cater,Meg(2000)‘FromtheManWhoGaveYouBigBrother:CouplesinChains’,Independent,5September:8.11Deans,Jason(2003)‘RealityTVisHeretoStay’,Online.Availableathttp://media.guardian.co.uk/realitytv(accessed12March2003).12SeeHillandCalcutt2001forfurtherdiscussionofschedulinginrelationtotelevisionanditsaudience.4Performanceandauthenticity1Forfurtherresearchinnews,seeDahlgrenandSparks(1992),andThussuandFreedman(2003),amongstothers.2SeeHeat,31May–6June2003:10.5Theideaoflearning1Ahmed,Kamal(2002)‘BBCFacesFinesThreatfromJowell’,Observer,5May:3.2Paterson,Peter(2000)‘Brother,WhataMess’,DailyMail,19July:67.3James,Oliver(2002)‘Danger:RealityTVCanRotYourBrain’,TheTimes,20December:4–5.4Dunkley,Christopher(1999)‘RagbagofCheapThrills’,FinancialTimes,5November:22.5Wells,Matt(2000)‘VoyeurVisionPutsContestantsinFocus’,Guardian,28June:7.6James,Oliver(2002)‘Danger:RealityTVCanRotYourBrain’,TheTimes,20December:4–5.7Keighron,Peter(2003)‘TV’sAlteredRealities’,Broadcast,6June:20–1.8Fordiscussionof‘narrativelifestyle’,seethefactualandlearningcomponentsoftheBBCwebsite(www.bbc.co.uk). Notes2119SeeChannel4website(www.channel4.com).6Ethicsofcare1AdvertisementforJoeMillionaireonUKdigitalchannelE4.7Petdeaths1PetFoodInstitute(2002b)‘NewStudyFindsPetDogsandCatsinOverHalfofallUSHomes’.Online.Availableathttp://www.petfoodinstitute.org/reference_pet_population_releasecfm(accessed4April2002).2TheEuropeanPetFoodIndustryAssociation(2002)‘FactsandFigures’.Online.Availableathttp://www.fediaf.org/Pages/figures.html(accessed4April2002).3PetFoodManufacturers’Association(2002)‘PetOwnership’.Online.Availableathttp://www.pfma.com/petownership.htm(accessed4April2002).Morethan50percentofdogsarepedigree,andthetopthreepopularbreedsareLabradorRetriever,YorkshireTerrier,andGermanShepherd.4PetFoodManufacturers’Association(2002)‘PetOwnership’.Online.Availableathttp://www.pfma.com/petownership.htm(accessed4April2002).5TheEuropeanPetFoodIndustryAssociation(2002)‘FactsandFigures’.Online.Availableathttp://www.fediaf.org/Pages/figures.html(accessed4April2002).6PetFoodInstitute(2002a)‘WhatisPFI’.Online.Availableathttp://www.petfoodinstitute.org/what_is_pfi.cfm(accessed4April2002).7AdvertinTheGuardianWeekendMagazine,30June2001.8Amphlett,Lisa(2001)‘HungryforaChange’TheGuardianWeekendMagazineJune302001:75.9SeePetsPajamas,aninternationalcompanywhichhasonlineservices(http://www.pets-pajamas.co.uk).10In2001,over2millioncattlewerekilledduringthe‘madcow’diseasescareinEurope(Independent,Monday29January2002:15).11SeeKylerLaird’sanimalrescueonlineresourceforafulllistofshelters–Availableathttp://www.ecn.perdue.edu/~laird/animal_rescue/shelters(Accessed4April2002).12Forexample,Thomas(1993)arguesthattheRSPCAwasprimarilyinterestedinsocialreform,andusedanti-crueltylegislationtocontrolworking-classformsofleisureinVictorianEngland(seealsoFranklin1999).13O’Hara,Mary(2003)‘ThePriceofAnimalLove’.Online.Availableathttp://www.guardian.co.uk/guardian_jobs_and_money/story/0,3605,679341,00.html.Accessed20February2003.14O’Hara,Mary(2003)‘ThePriceofAnimalLove’.Online.Availableathttp://www.guardian.co.uk/guardian_jobs_and_money/story/0,3605,679341,00.html.Accessed20February2003.15O’Hara,Mary(2003)‘ThePriceofAnimalLove’.Online.Availableathttp://www.guardian.co.uk/guardian_jobs_and_money/story/0,3605,679341,00.html.Accessed20February2003.16TheWeek,24May2002:35.17QuotationstakenfromTheKennelClubHealthcarePlanpromotionalmaterial,UK,2002. 212Notes18QuotationstakenfromTheKennelClubHealthcarePlanpromotionalmaterial,UK,2002.19QuotationstakenfromPetPlanpromotionalmaterial,UK2002.20O’Hara,Mary(2003)‘ThePriceofAnimalLove’.Online.Availableathttp://www.guardian.co.uk/guardian_jobs_and_money/story/0,3605,679341,00.html.Accessed20/02/2003.21TheSocietyforCompanionAnimalStudies(SCAS)(2002)Online.Availableathttp://www.scas.co.uk(accessed20February2003).22TitletakenfromCarter(1999).23BBC1controllerLorraineHeggesseyquotedinBroadcast,24October2003:8.24RatingscompiledbyPhillips(1998,1999a).25AnimalHospitalwithRolfHarris(BBCvideo)isbasedontheoriginaltransmissionofthefirstseries29August1994–30March1995.Otheranimal-basedseriesprovidedextratextualmaterial,suchasBatterseaDog’sHome,abooktoaccompanytheseries(McGibbonandLong1998),andtie-intoysforPetRescue,suchasSkip,thethree-leggedtoyterrier.26QuotedinBirkett,D.(2000)‘IGotRhythm’,inTheObserverMagazine,24September:37.27AnimalHospitalwithRolfHarris,1995BBCvideo.28AnimalHospital,transmitted19October1999BBC1,8-8.30pm.29AnimalHospital,transmitted27April1999BBC1,8-8.30pm.30AnimalHospital,transmitted27May1999BBC1,8-8.30pm.31AnimalHospital,transmitted27April1999BBC1,8-8.30pm.32George,G.(1999)‘PicksoftheDay’,Express,Monday15February:43.33AnimalER,transmitted15March1999Channel5,8-9pm.34AnimalER,transmitted15February1999Channel5,8-9pm.35ItissurprisingthatnoviewerscomplainedtotheITCorBSCaboutthis,oranyotheranimal-basedrealityprogrammes.ThismayinpartbeduetothefactthattheBritishpublicdonotwishtobelabelledascomplainers(seeHill2000bforfurtherdetails).36Twoscenesofanimalmortalitywereshowntoviewersinthequalitativeresearch(seeAppendix1fordetails).ThefirstscenewasfromAnimalHospital,involvingthedeathofakitten,andthesecondscenewasfromAnimalER,alsoinvolvingthedeathofakitten.37SeeIndependent30April2001,p.7,‘TheTruthaboutCatsandDogs(AndHamstersandRabbits,Too)’fordiscussionofparentalresponsestopets.8Storyofchange1QuotefromPeterDale,HeadofDocumentaries,Channel4,inBroadcast,24October2003:8.2Rosco,Jane(2003)‘OutofCollision:TheStateoftheArt’,unpublishedarticle:20-21.3Rosco,Jane(2003)‘OutofCollision:TheStateoftheArt’,unpublishedarticle:21.4Hill/Ofcom(2004)‘ReportonTelevisionAudiencesandFactualProgrammingQuantitativeResearch’,forthcoming.5LivingstoneandLunt(1994)alsosuggestsimilarcontradictionsintheirexaminationoftalksshows.6ThankstoJaneRoscoeforpointingoutthelifelessonsofrealityprogrammes. Notes2137SpeechbyTessaJowell,SecretaryofStateforCulture,MediaandSporttoBFI/UKFC/C4MediaLiteracySeminar,27January2004.Online.Availableathttp://culture.gov.uk(accessed27/02/04).8SpeechbyTessaJowell,SecretaryofStateforCulture,MediaandSporttoBFI/UKFC/C4MediaLiteracySeminar27January2004.Online.Availableathttp://culture.gov.uk(accessed27/02/04).9IamgratefultoSoniaLivingstoneforsuggestingthisphraseinheranalysisofyoungadults,newmediaandmedialiteracy,presentedatthe2003IntensiveProgrammeforDoctoralResearchinCommunication,26August–4September2003,UniversityofWestminster.10Picard,Robert.(2003)‘AudienceExpendituresforMediaUse’,2003IntensiveProgrammeforDoctoralResearchinCommunication,26August–4September,UniversityofWestminster,unpublishedpaper.11Picard,Robert.(2003)‘AudienceExpendituresforMediaUse’,2003IntensiveProgrammeforDoctoralResearchinCommunication,26August–4September,UniversityofWestminster,unpublishedpaper. BibliographyAbercrombie,Nicholas,andLonghurst,Brian(1998)Audiences,London:Sage.Albert,A.andBulcroft,K.(1988)‘PetsandUrbanLife’,Anthrozoos,1,1:9–23.Allen,GrahamandCrow,Graham(2001)Families,HouseholdsandSociety,Basingstoke:Palgrave.Allen,RobertC.(1989)‘BurstingBubbles:“SoapOpera”,Audiences,andtheLimitsofGenre’,inE.Seiter,H.Borchers,G.KreutznerandE.Warth(eds)RemoteControl:Television,AudiencesandCulturalPower,London:Routledge.Almond,Brenda(1993)‘Rights’,inP.Singer(ed.)ACompaniontoEthics,London:Blackwell,pp.259–69.Andrejevic,Mark(2003)RealityTV:TheWorkofBeingWatched,Maryland:RowmanandLittlefield.Annas,Julia(1992)‘AncientEthicsandModernMorality’,inPhilosophicalPerspectives,6:119–36.Aries,Phillippe(1962)CenturiesofChildhood,NewYork:VintageBooks.Barker,MartinandPetley,Julian(eds)(2001)IllEffects:TheMedia/ViolenceDebate(secondedition),London:Routledge.Berkmann,Marcus(1994)‘ANosyFlyontheWard’,DailyMail(25November):59.Biddiscomb,Ross(1998)‘RealLife:RealRatings’,BroadcastingandCables-TelevisionInternational,January:14,16.Bird,Elizabeth(1997)‘WhataStory:UnderstandingtheAudienceforScandal’,inJ.LullandS.Hunerman(eds)MediaScandals:MoralityandDesireinthePopularCultureMarketplace,London:PolityPress,pp.99–121.Bird,Elizabeth(2000)‘AudienceDemandsinaMurderousMarket:TabloidizationinU.S.TelevisionNews’,inC.SparksandJ.Tulloch(eds)TabloidTales:GlobalDebateoverMediaScandal,London:RowmanandLittlefield,pp.213–28.Biressi,Anita(2001)Crime,FearandtheLawinTrueCrimeStories,Hampshire:Palgrave.Boddy,William(2001)‘TheQuizShow’,inG.Creeber(ed.)TheTelevisionGenreBook,London:BritishFilmInstitute,pp.79–81.Bodmer,N.M.(1998)‘ImpactofPetOwnershipontheWell-beingofAdolescentswithFewFamilialResources’,inC.C.WilsonandD.C.Turner(eds)CompanionAnimalsinHumanHealth,London:Sage,pp.3–22.Boltanski,L(1999)DistantSuffering:Morality,MediaandPolitics,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Bondebjerg,Ib(1996)‘PublicDiscourse/PrivateFascination:Hybridizationin“True-life-story”Genres’,Media,CultureandSociety,18:27–45. Bibliography215Bondebjerg,Ib(2002)‘TheMediationofEverydayLife:Genre,DiscourseandSpectacleinRealityTV’,inA.Jerslev(ed.)Realismand‘Reality’inFilmandMedia,Copenhagen:MuseumTusculanumPress,pp.159–92.Bonner,Frances(2003)OrdinaryTelevision,London:Sage.Bourdieu,P.(1986)Distinction:ASocialCritiqueoftheJudgementofTaste,London:Routledge.Bourdon,Jerome(2000)‘LiveTelevisionisStillAlive:OnTelevisionasanUnfulfilledPromise’,Media,Culture,andSociety22,5:531–56.Brandt,A.M.andRozin,P.(eds)(1997)MoralityandHealth,LondonRoutledge.Brants,Chris(1998)‘CrimeFightingbyTelevisionintheNetherlands’,inMarkFishmanandGrayCavender(eds)EntertainingCrime:TelevisionRealityProgrammes,NewYork:AldineDeGruyter,pp.175–92.Brants,Kees(1998)‘Who’sAfraidofInfotainment’,EuropeanJournalofCommunication,13,3:315–35.Brenton,SamandCohen,Reuben(2003)ShootingPeople:AdventuresinRealityTV,London:Verso.Brookes,Rod(2001)‘Sport(TheSuperBowl)’,inG.Creeber(ed.)TheTelevisionGenreBook,London:BritishFilmInstitute,pp.87–8.Brunsdon,Charlotte(1997)ScreenTastes:SoapOperatoSatelliteDishes,London:Routledge.Brunsdon,C.,Johnson,C.,Moseley,R.andWheatley,H.(2001)‘FactualEntertainmentonBritishTelevision:TheMidlandsTVResearchGroup’s“8–9Project”’,EuropeanJournalofCulturalStudies,4,1:29–62.Bruzzi,Stella(2000)NewDocumentary:ACriticalIntroduction,London:Routledge.Bruzzi,Stella(2001)‘Observational(“Fly-on-the-wall”)Documentary’,inG.Creeber(ed.)TheTelevisionGenreBook,London:BritishFilmInstitute,pp.29–132.BSC(2000)ConsentingAdults?London:BroadcastingStandardsCommission.Buckingham,D.(1996)MovingImages:UnderstandingChildren’sEmotionalResponsestoTelevision,Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress.Buckingham,David(2000)TheMakingofCitizens:YoungPeople,NewsandPolitics,London:Routledge.Busfield,Steve(1995)‘AQuestfortheSleuth’,Broadcast,17March:18.Byrant,ChristopherandJary,David(2001)TheContemporaryGiddens:SocialTheoryinaGlobalisingAge,London:Palgrave.Caldwell,John(2002)‘PrimetimeFictionTheorisestheDocu-Real’,inJ.Friedman(ed.)RealitySquared:TelevisualDiscourseontheReal,NewBrunswick,NJ:RutgersUniversityPress,pp.259–92.Calvert,Clay(2000)VoyeurNation:Media,PrivacyandPeeringinModernCulture,Boulder:WestviewPress.Carter,M.(1999)‘Pets,VetsandTVSets’,Broadcast,9July:16–17.Chambers,Deborah(2001)RepresentingtheFamily,London:Sage.Christians,Clifford(2003)‘TheMediaandMoralLiteracy’,EthicalSpace,1:1–15.Clarke,Nick(2003)TheShadowofaNation:TheChangingFaceofBritain,London:WeidenfeldandNicholson.Collins,Richard(2003)‘IsesandOughts:PublicServiceBroadcastinginEurope’,inRobertC.AllenandAnnetteHill(eds)TheTelevisionStudiesReader,London:Routledge,pp.33–51.Corner,John(1995)TelevisionFormandPublicAddress,London:EdwardArnold. 216BibliographyCorner,John(1996)TheArtofRecord:ACriticalIntroductiontoDocumentary,Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress.Corner,John(1999)CriticalIdeasinTelevisionStudies,Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Corner,John(2000)‘WhatCanweSayAbout“Documentary”?’Media,CultureandSociety,22:681–8.Corner,John(2001a)‘DocumentaryRealism’,inG.Creeber(ed.)TheTelevisionGenreBook,London:BritishFilmInstitute,pp.126–9.Corner,John(2001b)‘FormandContentinDocumentaryStudy’,inG.Creeber(ed.)TheTelevisionGenreBook,London:BritishFilmInstitute,pp.125–6.Corner,John(2002a)‘DocumentaryValues’,inA.Jerslev(ed.)Realismand‘Reality’inFilmandMedia,Copenhagen:MuseumTusculanumPress,pp.139–58.Corner,John(2002b)‘PerformingtheReal’,TelevisionandNewMedia,3,3:255–70.Corner,John(2003)‘Afterword:FramingtheNew’,inD.JermynandS.Holmes(eds)UnderstandingRealityTelevision,London:Routledge.CosteraMeijer,I.andReesink,M.(eds)(2000)RealitySoap!BigBrotherendeOpkomstvanhetMultimediaconcept,Amsterdam:Boom.Couldry,Nick(2000)ThePlaceofMediaPower:PilgrimsandWitnessesoftheMediaAge,London:Routledge.Couldry,Nick(2002)‘PlayingforCelebrity:BigBrotherasRitualEvent’,TelevisionandNewMedia,3,3:283–94.Cummings,Dolan(ed.)(2002)RealityTV:HowRealisReal?,Oxford:HodderandStoughton.Dahlgren,Peter(1995)TelevisionandthePublicSphere:Citizenship,DemocracyandtheMedia,London:Sage.Dahlgren,PeterandSparks,Colin(eds)JournalismandPopularCulture,London:Sage.Dauncey,Hugh(1996)‘French“RealityTelevision”:MorethanaMatterofTaste?’,EuropeanJournalofCommunication,11,1:83–106.Davies,Hannah,Buckingham,DavidandKelley,Peter(2000)‘IntheWorstPossibleTaste:Children,TelevisionandCulturalValue’,EuropeanJournalofCulturalStudies,3,1:5–25.DeSilva,Padmasiri(1993)‘BuddhistEthics’,inP.Singer(ed.)ACompaniontoEthics,London:Blackwell,pp.58–68.Dempsey,J.(1991)‘HotGenreGlutsTVMarket’,Variety,3June:32.Derosia,Margaret(2002)‘TheCourtoftheLastResort:MakingRace,CrimeandNationonAmerica’sMostWanted’,inJ.Friedman(ed.)RealitySquared:TelevisualDiscourseontheReal,NewBrunswick,NJ:RutgersUniversityPress,pp.236–58.Diggs,B.J.(1981)‘AContractarianViewofRespectforPersons’,AmericanPhilosophicalQuarterly,18:56–88.Donovan,J.andAdams,C.J.(1996)BeyondAnimalRights:AFeministCaringEthicfortheTreatmentofAnimals,NewYork:Continuum.Donovan,Pamela(1998)‘ArmedwiththePowerofTelevision:RealityCrimeProgrammingandtheReconstructionofLawandOrderintheUnitedStates’,inMarkFishmanandGrayCavender(eds)EntertainingCrime:TelevisionRealityProgrammes,NewYork:AldineDeGruyter,pp.117–40.Dovey,J.(2000)Freakshow:FirstPersonMediaandFactualTelevision,London:Pluto.Dovey,Jon(2001)‘RealityTV’,inG.Creeber(ed.)TheTelevisionGenreBook,London:BritishFilmInstitute,pp.134–6. Bibliography217Dower,Nigel(1993)‘WorldPoverty’,inP.Singer(ed.)ACompaniontoEthics,London:Blackwell,pp.284–93.Dugdale,John(1992)‘NottheNineO’ClockNews’,Independent(29July):13.Elias,Norbert(1986)‘AnEssayonSportandViolence’,inN.EliasandE.Dunning(eds)QuestforExcitement,Oxford:Blackwell.Elias,Norbert(1994)TheCivilisingProcess,Oxford:Blackwell.Ellis,J.(2000)SeeingThings:TelevisionintheAgeofUncertainty,London:I.B.Tauris.Ellis,John(2001)‘SurvivorandBigBrother’,SightandSound,February:56.Ellis,John(2002)‘AMinisterisAbouttoResign:OntheInterpretationofTelevisionFootage’,inA.Jerslev(ed.)Realismand‘Reality’inFilmandMedia,Copenhagen:MuseumTusculanumPress,pp.193–210.Fennell,J.(2000)TheDogListener:LearningtheLanguageofYourBestFriend,London:HarperCollins.Fetveit,Arild(2002)‘RealityTVintheDigitalEra:AParadoxinVisualCulture’,inJ.Friedman(ed.)RealitySquared:TelevisualDiscourseontheReal,NewBrunswick,NJ:RutgersUniversityPress,pp.119–37.Fishman,Mark(1998)‘RatingsandReality:ThePersistenceoftheRealityCrimeGenre’,inMarkFishmanandGrayCavender(eds)EntertainingCrime:TelevisionRealityProgrammes,NewYork:AldineDeGruyter,pp.59–78.Fishman,MarkandCavender,Gray(1998)EntertainingCrime:TelevisionRealityProgrammes,NewYork:AldineDeGruyter.Fiske,John(1992)‘PopularityandthePoliticsofInformation’,inP.DahlgrenandC.Sparks(eds)JournalismandPopularCulture,London:Sage,pp.45–63.Foucault,Michel(1990)TheCareoftheSelf:TheHistoryofSexuality,VolumeThree,translatedbyRobertHurley,London:Penguin.Foucault,Michel(1992)TheUseofPleasure:TheHistoryofSexuality,VolumeTwo,translatedbyRobertHurley,London:Penguin.Foucault,Michel(2000)EssentialWorksofFoucault1954–1984:Ethics,P.Rabinow(ed.),London:Penguin.Franklin,A.(1999)AnimalsandModernCulture:ASociologyofHuman–AnimalsRelationsinModernity,London:Sage.Freedman,Eric(2000)‘PublicAccess/PrivateConfession:HomeVideoas(Queer)CommunityTelevision’,TelevisionandNewMedia,1,2:179–92.Friedman,James(2002)‘AttractiontoDistraction:LiveTelevisionandthePublicSphere’,inJ.Friedman(ed.)RealitySquared:TelevisualDiscourseontheReal,NewBrunswick,NJ:RutgersUniversityPress,pp.138–54.Garner,R.(1993)Animals,PoliticsandMorality,Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress.Garrity,T.F.andStallones,L.(1998)‘EffectsofPetContactonHumanWell-being’,inC.C.WilsonandD.C.Turner(eds)CompanionAnimalsinHumanHealth,London:Sage,pp.3–22.Gauntlett,David(2002)Media,GenderandIdentity:AnIntroduction,London:Routledge.Gauntlett,DavidandHill,Annette(1999)TVLiving:Television,CultureandEverydayLife,London:Routledge.Giddens,Anthony(1991)ModernityandSelf-identity:SelfandSocietyintheLateModernAge,Cambridge:Polity.Glynn,Kevin(2000)TabloidCulture:TrashTaste,PopularPower,andtheTransformationofAmericanTelevision,Durham,NC,andLondon:DukeUniversityPress. 218BibliographyGoffman,Erving(1963)Stigma:NotesontheManagementofSpoiledIdentity,London:PelicanBooks(reprint).Goffman,Erving(1969)ThePresentationofSelfinEverydayLife,London:PelicanBooks(reprint).Goffman,Erving(1981)FormsofTalk,Oxford:Blackwell.Grant,D.(1998)AYearintheLifeofTheAnimalHospital,London:SimonandSchuster.Grimshaw,Jean(1993)‘TheIdeaofaFemaleEthic’,inP.Singer(ed.)ACompaniontoEthics,London:Blackwell,pp.491–9.Gruen,Lori(1993)‘Animals’,inP.Singer(ed.)ACompaniontoEthics,London:Blackwell,pp.343–53.Harris,R.,Leigh,M.andLepine,M.(1997)TrueAnimalTales,London:ArrowBooks.Hartley,John(1999)TheUsesofTelevision,London:Routledge.Hartley,John(2001a)‘DaytimeTV’,inG.Creeber(ed.)TheTelevisionGenreBook,London:BritishFilmInstitute,pp.92–3.Hartley,John(2001b)‘TheInfotainmentDebate’,inG.Creeber(ed.)TheTelevisionGenreBook,London:BritishFilmInstitute,pp.118–21.Hawkins,Gay(2001)‘TheEthicsofTelevision’,InternationalJournalofCulturalStudies,4,4:412–26.Hawkins,Gay(2002)‘PerformingEthics’,conferencepaperforVisibleEvidence,Marseille.Hesmondhalgh,David(2002)TheCulturalIndustries,London:Sage.Hight,Craig(2001)‘DebatingReality-TV’,Continuum:JournalofMediaandCulturalStudies,15,3:389–95.Hill,Annette(1997)ShockingEntertainment:ViewerResponsetoViolentMovies,London:JohnLibbeyMedia,UniversityofLuton.Hill,Annette(2000a)‘CrimeandCrisis:BritishRealityTVinAction’,inEdBuscombe(ed.)BritishTelevision:AReader,Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Hill,Annette(2000b)‘TheLanguageofComplaint’,Media,CultureandSociety,22:233–6.Hill,Annette(2000c)‘FearfulandSafe:AudienceResponsetoBritishRealityProgramming’,TelevisionandNewMedia,2,May:193–214.Hill,Annette(2001a)‘LooksLikeitHurts:Women’sResponsestoShockingEntertainment’,inMartinBarkerandJulianPetley(eds)IllEffects:TheMedia/ViolenceDebate(secondedition),London:Routledge,pp.135–49.Hill,Annette(2001b)‘MediaRisks:TheSocialAmplificationofRiskandtheMediaViolenceDebate’,JournalofRiskResearch,4,3:209–26.Hill,Annette(2002)‘BigBrother:TheRealAudience’,TelevisionandNewMedia,3,3:323–40.Hill,AnnetteandIndependentTelevisionCommission(ITC)(2000)‘QuantitativeResearchinTelevisionAudiencesandPopularFactualEntertainment’,inassociationwiththeBroadcasters’AudienceResearchBoard,unpublisheddocument.Hill,AnnetteandCalcutt,Ian(2001)‘VampireHunters:TheUKMarketingandReceptionofBuffytheVampireSlayerandAngel’,inIntensities:TheJournalofCultMedia(http://www.cult-media.com)Hill,AnnetteandPalmer,Gareth(2002)‘BigBrother:SpecialIssue’,TelevisionandNewMedia,3,3,August. Bibliography219Hill,AnnetteandThomson,Katarina(2001)‘SexandtheMedia:AShiftingLandscape’,inR.Jowell,J.Curtice,A.Park,K.Thomson,L.Jarvis,C.BromleyandN.Stratford(eds)BritishSocialAttitudesthe17thReport:FocusingonDiversity,London:Sage,pp.71–99.Hoggart,Richard(1970)SpeakingtoEachOther,London:PenguinBooks.Höijer,Birgitta(1992)‘Socio-cognitiveStructuresandTelevisionReception’,Media,CultureandSociety,14:583–603.Holmes,Su(2004)‘“RealityGoesPop!”:RealityTV,PopularMusicandNarrativesofStardominPopIdol(UK)’,TelevisionandNewMedia,5,2,May:123–48.Holmes,SuandJermyn,Deborah(eds)(2003)UnderstandingRealityTelevision,London:Routledge.Hughes,GordonandFergusson,Ross(2000)OrderingLives:Family,WorkandWelfare,London:Routledge.Humm,Peter(1998)‘RealTV:Camcorders,AccessandAuthenticity’,inC.GeraghtyandD.Lusted(eds)TheTelevisionStudiesBook,London:Arnold,pp.175–97.ITC/BSC(2003)Television:ThePublic’sView,London:IndependentTelevisionCommissionandBroadcastingStandardsCommission.Jerslev,Anne(ed.)(2002)Realismand‘Reality’inFilmandMedia,Copenhagen:MuseumTusculanumPress.Jost,François(1998)‘ThePromiseofGenres’,TheFrenchJournalofCommunication,6,1:99–121.Jowell,R.,Curtice,J.,Park,A.,Thomson,K.,Jarvis,L.,Bromley,C.andStratford,N.(eds)(2000)BritishSocialAttitudesthe17thReport:FocusingonDiversity,London:Sage.Katz,S.(1997)‘SecularMorality’,inA.M.BrandtandP.Rozin(eds)MoralityandHealth,London:Routledge,pp.297–330.Kilborn,Richard(1994)‘HowRealCanYouGet?’:RecentDevelopmentsin“Reality”Television’,EuropeanJournalofCommunication,9:421–39.Kilborn,Richard(1998)‘ShapingtheReal:DemocratizationandCommodificationinUK-FactualBroadcasting’,EuropeanJournalofCommunication,13,2:201–18.Kilborn,Richard(2003)StagingtheReal:FactualTVProgrammingintheAgeofBigBrother,Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress.Kilborn,R.andHibbard,M.(2000)ConsentingAdults?London:BroadcastingStandardsCommission.Kilborn,R.andIzod,J.(1997)AnIntroductiontoTVDocumentary:ConfrontingReality,Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress.Kim,L.S.andBlasini,G.M.(2001)‘ThePerformanceofMulticulturalIdentityinUSNetworkTelevision:Shiny,HappyPopstars(HoldingHands)’,11,2:287–308.Kirstein,Arine(2002)‘DecenteringtheSubject:TheCurrentDocumentaryCritiqueofRealism’,inA.Jerslev(ed.)Realismand‘Reality’inFilmandMedia,Copenhagen:MuseumTusculanumPress,pp.211–26.Kirwan,Tony,Learmouth,James,Sayer,MollieandWilliams,Roger(2003)MappingMediaLiteracy,BFI/BSC/ITC.Kittay,EvaF.(2001)‘AFeministPublicEthicofCareMeetstheNewCommunitarianFamilyPolicy’,Ethics,111,3:523–47.Knowsley,J.(1999)‘LuridScenesonVetsShowareLikelytoUpsetViewers’,DailyTelegraph(14February):3. 220BibliographyKymlicka,Will(1993)‘TheSocialContractTradition’inP.Singer(ed.)ACompaniontoEthics,London:Blackwell,pp.186–96.Langer,John(1998)TabloidTelevision:PopularJournalismandthe‘OtherNews’,London:Routledge.Leichter,H.M.(1997)‘LifestyleCorrectnessandtheNewSecularMorality’,inA.M.BrandtandP.Rozin(eds)MoralityandHealth,London:Routledge,pp.359–77.Livingstone,Sonia,andLunt,Peter(1994)TalkonTelevision:AudienceParticipationandPublicDebate,London:Routledge.Livingstone,SoniaandThumim,Nancy(2003)AssessingtheMediaLiteracyofUKAdults,BSC/ITC/NIACE.Lury,Karen(1996)‘TelevisionPerformance:Being,Actingand“Corpsing”’,NewFormations,27:114–27.McCarthy,Anna(2001)‘StudyingSoapOpera’,inG.Creeber(ed.)TheTelevisionGenreBook,London:BritishFilmInstitute,pp.47–9.McGibbon,R.andLong,B.(1998)BatterseaDog’sHome:InsidetheWorldFamousHomeforDogs…andCats,London:BBC.Malim,TonyandBirch,Ann(1998)IntroductoryPsychology,London:Macmillan.Marvin,Garry(2002)‘Unspeakability,Inedibility,andtheStructuresofPursuitintheEnglishFoxhunt’,inN.Rothfels(ed.)RepresentingAnimals,BloomingtonandIndianapolis:IndianaUniversityPress,pp.139–58.Mathjis,Ernest(2002)‘BigBrotherandCriticalDiscourse’,TelevisionandNewMedia,3,3:311–22.Mathjis,Ernest,Jones,Janet,Hessels,WouterandVerriest,Lara(eds)(2004)BigBrotherInternational:Critics,FormatandPublics,London:WallflowerPress.Medhurst,Andy(1999)‘DayForNight’,SightandSound,June:26–7.Mepham,John(1990)‘TheEthicsofQualityinTelevision’,inG.Mulgan(ed.)TheQuestionofQuality,London:BritishFilmInstitute,pp.50–70.MessengerDavies,MáireandMosdell,Nick(2001)ConsentingChildren?TheUseofChildreninNon-FictionTelevisionProgrammes,London:BroadcastingStandardsCommission.Midgley,Carol(1997)‘AnotherSliceofRealityinBBC’sPeepingTomTV’,TheTimes(18December):11.Mikos,Lothar,Feise,Patricia,Herzog,Katja,Prommer,ElizabethandVeihl,Verena(2000)ImAugederKamera:DasFernsehereignisBigBrother,Berlin:Vistas.Miller,Toby(2001)‘ThePopulistDebate’,inG.Creeber(ed.)TheTelevisionGenreBook,London:BritishFilmInstitute,pp.76–9.Mittell,Jason(2001)‘ACulturalApproachtoTelevisionGenreTheory’,CinemaJournal40,3:3–24.Montgomery,Martin(2001)‘Defining“AuthenticTalk”’,DiscourseStudies,3,4:397–405.Moores,Shaun(2000)MediaandEverydayLifeinModernSociety,Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress.Moran,Albert(1998)CopycatTV:Globalisation,ProgramFormatsandCulturalIdentity,Luton:UniversityofLutonPress.Morgan,David(1996)FamilyConnections,Cambridge:Polity.Morgan,David(1999)‘RiskandFamilyPractices’,inE.SilvaandC.Smart(eds)TheNewFamily?,London:Sage.Moseley,Rachael(2000)‘MakeoverTakeoveronBritishTelevision’,Screen,41,3:299–327. Bibliography221Murrell,Rachel(1992)‘CrimePays’,TelevisionWeek,3July:48.NationalCanineDefenceLeague(2001)AnnualReview,London:NCDL.Naughton,John(1994)‘TheRiseofGhoul-on-the-wallTV’,DailyTelegraph(16September):23.Neale,Steve(2001)‘StudyingGenre’inG.Creeber(ed.)TheTelevisionGenreBook,London:BritishFilmInstitute,pp.1–3.Nichols,Bill(1991)RepresentingReality:IssuesandConceptsinDocumentary,BloomingtonandIndianapolis:IndianaUniversityPress.Nichols,Bill(1994)BlurredBoundaries:QuestionsofMeaninginContemporaryCulture,BloomingtonandIndianapolis:IndianaUniversityPress.Noddings,N.(1978)Caring:AFeminineApproachtoEthicsandEducation,Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.Oliver,MaryBeth(1994a)‘InfluencesofAuthoritarianismandPortrayalsofRaceonCaucasianViewers’ResponsestoReality-basedCrimeDramas’,CommunicationReports,9:141–50.Oliver,MaryBeth(1994b)‘PortrayalsofCrime,Race,andAggressionin“Reality-based”PoliceShows:AContentAnalysis,JournalofBroadcastingandElectronicMedia,38:179–92.Oliver,MaryBethandBlakeArmstrong,G.(1995)‘PredictorsofViewingandEnjoymentofReality-basedandFictionalCrimeShows’,JournalismandMassCommunicationQuarterly,72:559–70.Oliver,MaryBethandBlakeArmstrong,G.(1998)‘TheColorofCrime:PerceptionsofCaucasianandAfricanAmericans’InvolvementinCrime’,inMarkFishmanandGrayCavender(eds)EntertainingCrime:TelevisionRealityProgrammes,NewYork:AldineDeGruyter,pp.19–38.Paget,Derek(1998)NoOtherWaytoTellIt,Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress.Palmer,Gareth(2002a)‘BigBrother:AnExperimentinGovernance’,TelevisionandNewMedia,3,3:295–310.Palmer,Gareth(2002b)‘NeighboursfromHell:ProducingIncivilities’,inJ.Friedman(ed.)RealitySquared:TelevisualDiscourseontheReal,NewBrunswick,NJ:RutgersUniversityPress,pp.221–35.Palmer,Gareth(2003)DisciplineandLiberty,Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress.Pence,Greg(1993)‘VirtueTheory’,inP.Singer(ed.)ACompaniontoEthics,London:Blackwell,pp.249–58.PetFoodInstitute(2002)‘WhatisPFI’.Online.Availableathttp://www.petfoodinstitute.org/what_is_pfi.cfm(accessed4April2002).PetFoodInstitute(2002)‘NewStudyFindsPetDogsandCatsinOverHalfofallUSHomes’.Online.athttp://www.petfoodinstitute.org/reference_pet_population_releasecfm(accessed4April2002).PetFoodManufacturers’Association(2002)‘PetOwnership’.Online.Availableathttp://www.pfma.com/petownership.htm(accessed4April2002).Phillips,W.(1998)‘Pop-factFabulous’,Broadcast,9October:20.Phillips,William(1999a)‘AllWashedOut’,Broadcast,2July:22–3.Phillips,William(1999b)‘SummertimeBlues’,Broadcast,1October:22.Phillips,William(2000)‘RealLifeRatings’,RoyalTelevisionSocietyJournal,January:42–3.Porter,Henry(1992)‘ShouldWeIndulgeThisLustforGore?’,EveningStandard(2July):9. 222BibliographyRaphael,Chad(1997)‘PoliticalEconomyofReali-TV’,inJumpCut,41:102–9.Roscoe,Jane(2001)‘BigBrotherAustralia:Performingthe‘Real’Twenty-four-Seven’,InternationalJournalofCulturalStudies,4,1:473–88.Roscoe,JaneandHight,Craig(2001)FakingIt:Mock-documentaryandtheSubversionofFactuality,Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress.Rose,Nikolas(1998)InventingOurselves:Psychology,PowerandPersonhood,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Rose,Nikolas(1999)PowersofFreedom:ReframingPoliticalThought,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Rothfels,Nigel(ed.)(2002)RepresentingAnimals,BloomingtonandIndiana:IndianaUniversityPress.Rowe,Christopher(1993)‘EthicsinAncientGreece’,inP.Singer(ed.)ACompaniontoEthics,London:Blackwell,pp.121–32.RoyalSocietyforthePreventionofCrueltytoAnimals(1999)AnnualReview,London:RSPCA.Rozin,R.(1997)‘Moralization’,inA.M.BrandtandP.Rozin(eds)MoralityandHealth,London:Routledge,pp.379–402.Salmon,P.W.andSalmon,I.M.(1983)‘WhoOwnsWho?PsychologicalResearchintoHumanPetBondinAustralia’,inA.H.KatcherandA.M.Beck(eds)NewPerspectivesinOurLiveswithCompanionAnimals,Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvanniaPress.Scannell,Paddy(2001)‘AuthenticityandExperience’,DiscourseStudies,3,4:405–11.Scannell,Paddy(2002)‘BigBrotherasTelevisionEvent’,TelevisionandNewMedia,3,3:271–82.Schlesinger,Phillip(1978)Putting‘Reality’Together,London:Constable.Schlesinger,P.andHoward,T.(1993)‘FightingtheWarAgainstCrime’,BritishJournalofCriminology33,1:19–32.Schlesinger,P.,Dobash,R.E.,Dobash,R.P.andWeaver,C.K.(1992)WomenViewingViolence,London:BritishFilmInstitute.Schneewind,J.B.(1993)‘ModernMoralPhilosophy’,inP.Singer(ed.)ACompaniontoEthics,London:Blackwell,pp.147–60.Seale,Clive(1998)ConstructingDeath:TheSociologyofDyingandBereavement,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Seale,Clive(2002)MediaHealth,London:Sage.Serpell,J.(1986)IntheCompanyofAnimals,Oxford:Blackwell.Shattuc,Jane(2001a)‘TheCelebrityTalkShow’,inG.Creeber(ed.)TheTelevisionGenreBook,London:BritishFilmInstitute:81–4.Shattuc,Jane(2001b)‘TheConfessionalTalkShow’,inG.Creeber(ed.)TheTelevisionGenreBook,London:BritishFilmInstitute,pp.84–7.Silverstone,Roger(1999)WhyStudytheMedia?,London:Sage.Singer,Peter(1993)‘Introduction’,inSinger,P.(ed.)ACompaniontoEthics,London:Blackwell,pp.v–vi.SocialTrends(1999)SocialTrends29,London:OfficeforNationalStatistics/HMSO.SocialTrends(2002)SocialTrends32,London:OfficeforNationalStatistics/HMSO.SocialTrends(2003)SocialTrends33,London:OfficeforNationalStatistics/HMSO. Bibliography223Sparks,Colin(1992)‘PopularJournalism:TheoriesandPractice’,inP.DahlgrenandC.Sparks(eds)JournalismandPopularCulture,London:Sage,pp.24–44.Summers,Sue(1997)‘CrimeTV:TurningViewersintoVoyeurs’,EveningStandard(25June):51.Tester,K.(2001)Compassion,MoralityandtheMedia,Buckingham:OpenUniversityPress.TheEuropeanPetFoodIndustryAssociation(2002)‘FactsandFigures’.Online.AvailableHTTP:http://www.fediaf.org/Pages/figures.html(accessed4April2002).Thomas,K.(1983)ManandtheNaturalWorld:ChangingAttitudesinEngland1500–1800,London:AllenLane.Thussu,DayaandFreedman,Des(2003)WarandtheMedia,London:Sage.Thynne,Jane(1992)‘RescueoftheRatings’,DailyTelegraph(6August):25.Tinknell,EstellaandRaghuram,Pavrati(2002)‘BigBrother:Reconfiguringthe“Active”AudienceofCulturalStudies?’,EuropeanJournalofCulturalStudies,5,2:199–215.Truss,Lynne(1994)TheTimes(21October):47.Turner,Graeme(2001)‘Genre,Formatand“Live”Television’,inG.Creeber(ed.)TheTelevisionGenreBook,London:BritishFilmInstitute,pp.6–7.Turner,Victor(1988)TheAnthropologyofPerformance,NewYork:PAJPublications.Turow,J.(1996)‘TelevisionEntertainmentandtheUSHealth-careDebate’,TheLancet,347:1240–3.VanLeeuwen,Theo(2001)‘WhatisAuthenticity?’,DiscourseStudies,3,4:392–7.White,Mimi(2002)‘Television,Therapy,andtheSocialSubject;or,TheTVTherapyMachine’,inJ.Friedman(ed.)RealitySquared:TelevisualDiscourseontheReal,NewBrunswick,NJ:RutgersUniversityPress,pp.313–22.Whitehill,James(1994)‘BuddhistEthicsinWesternContext:TheVirtuesApproach’,JournalofBuddhistEthics,1:22–45.Wilson,C.C.andTurner,D.C.(eds)(1998)CompanionAnimalsinHumanHealth,London:Sage.Winston,Brian(1995)ClaimingtheReal:theDocumentaryFilmRevisited,London:BritishFilmInstitute.Winston,Brian(2000)Lies,DamnLiesandDocumentaries,London:BritishFilmInstitute.Zelizer,V.A.(1985)PricingthePricelessChild:TheChangingSocialValueofChildren,NewYork:BasicBooks. Index99917,26,52,53,63,173;ethicsofcareanimalprogrammes135–69;Animal126,128–9;learning79,82,89,91,Hospital152–5animalrights115,179,181147999Lifesavers26AnimalSOS1501900sHouse100,101–2animalwelfareorganisations1461940sHouse101AnnaNicoleShow,The38,70Annas,J.109AcademyofTelevision,Artsandanti-crueltylegislation147Sciences45Argentina22accuracy19–20Aries,P.142actingup62–7Aristotle109,110‘ActivistsAgainstTrashTV’4audiencesandethics124–33actuality203–4Australia4,92,190;animalAdams,C.J.147programmes138,140,145,168;riseage11,95,149,159,195ofrealityTV22,24,30,32,33,37Airline28,29,43authenticity82,170,175,176,177;seeAirport3,7,14,29,36;learning85,98,alsoperformanceandauthenticity99–100;realitygenre42,44,51,52,Automania2654AktenzeichenXY...Ungelöst24Bachelor,The1,35,118–20Albert,A.138Bachelorette,The44,119AllAmericanGirl8–9BacktoReality38Allen,G.125BAFTA45Allen,R.C.41Barker,M.83Almond,B.115Bazalgette,P.30,45AmericanIdol2,3,6,8,35–6,79,86Belgium5,37America’sMostWanted15,17,25,80Bell,H.37AmnestyInternational115BeverlyHillbillies,The9AnAmericanFamily20,27Biddiscomb,R.27,29AnimalER151–2,155–8,159,160,BigBrother1,2,4,5,8,10,163;24;34,161–2,16635,36,37,38;438;categorisationAnimalHospital1,3,135,142,148,173,174;context192;ethicsofcare149–50,151,152–5,156–67;ethicsof116,120,121;learning79,83–5,88,care126,127,128–9,183–4;learning99,102–5,180,181;performance80,103–4,180;performance177;andauthenticity58,62,64,67–9,70,realitygenre50,54;riseofreality71–4,78,176;realitygenre43,45,TV1446,52,53,54,55;researchmethods194;riseofrealityTV14,16,20,21, Index22522,31–3,34,35,38,39;seealso128–9,130,132,185;learning83,89,CelebrityBigBrother93–7,179;realitygenre44,45,51;BigBrother’sLittleBrother70riseofrealityTV14,29,30,39BigDiet,The33characteristation175,176Birch,A.114chatshows10Bird,E.15,16,17Cheetham,N.148Biressi,A.16children3,51,188,195;animalBlock,The4–5,30,190programmes162,164,167,168–9;Boddy,W.21,34ethicsofcare117,127;learning81,Bodmer,N.M.13887–8,180BoldOnes,Emergency!150Children’sHospital1,28,53,54,150–1,Boltanski,L.154,157,158,163,165163;categorisation173,174;ethicsBondebjerg,I.10,47–8ofcare123–4,126,127,128–9,Bonner,F.10,46,92–3,123,124131–2;learning80,90,91,179BossSwap37‘cinemavérité’20,26boundaries20CIS:CrimeSceneInvestigation3Bourdieu,P.87Clarke,N.7Brisley,T.155class11,81,95,126,149,195BritishFilmInstituteAudienceClinic,The43TrackingStudy190clipshowformats26,44Broadcasters’AudienceResearchclose-ups153Board11,80,194,195Club,The43BroadcastingAct(1992)18Coastguard25BroadcastingStandardsCommssionCollins,R.111–12seeOfcomcompassion116,158–9,165–6,168;broadsideballads16fatigue158–9Brookes,R.22Connection,The60Broomfield,N.63content:production188;ofBrunsdon,C.17,22,29–30,42,49,174;programmes11;ofrealitylearning92,94programming120–4Bruzzi,S.14,20,28,63,64,71Conti,T.156Buckingham,D.83,87,181–2,186–7Cops1,2,44,53,59,79;riseofrealityBulcroft,K.138TV14,17,20,25Corder,W.16CandidCamera21Corner,J.8,9,14,19;change172,185,CarolVorderman’sBetterHomes29,36189;learning80,81–2,86,89,98,Carter,G.45105,106;performanceandCarter,M.148,150authenticity57–8,62,67;realityCasualty28,156genre44,46,48,53categorisation171–5CoronationStreet23CatsProtectionLeague142CosteraMeijer,I.31Cavender,G.14Couldry,N.10,67CelebrityBigBrother38,69createdforTVprogrammes52CelebrityDetoxCamp1crimegenreseepolice/crimegenreCelebrityWifeSwap37CrimeLimited26Chained33CrimewatchUK24,26,80change170–93;categorisation171–5;criticalviewing185–9context189–93;criticalviewingcrossplatformevents43185–9;ethics183–5;learningCrow,G.125178–83;performance175–8Cruise,The20ChangingRooms3,8,65,173,192;culturalspecificity170ethicsofcare123,125,126,127,currentaffairs42,174,175 226IndexDarnell,M.22Elias,N.137datingprogrammesseeinparticularJoeElimidate36MillionaireEllis,J.9,10,35,50,175;animalDavies,G.112programmes150,152;performanceDavies,H.87andauthenticity61,62DayBritainStopped,The38emergencyservicesgenre10,17,24,DeSilva,P.11325,26,126,179;seealsoinparticularDeathbyPets148999;Rescue911debatingrealityTV7–11EmmyAwards45Dempsy,J.25emotion21Denmark5,25,37empathy168DepartmentofCulture,Mediaandenlightenment111,112Sport(MediaLiteracy)187entertainment2,15,23,43,83–9,Diggs,B.J.111178–9,181,204;award45;popular‘directcinema’2020–4;seealsolightentertainmentdiversity111–12,174ER155,156DIYSOS36ethicoftruth-telling174,176,182docu-drama14,20,38,63,174,178ethicsofcare108–34,170,183–5;docu-soaps10,27–31,98,192,194;animalprogrammes147,150,celebrity39;performanceand153–4,162–3,166–7,168,169;andauthenticity58,59,62,67,78;audiences124–33;Buddhist113;realitygenre42,47,48,49,53,54;contentofrealityprogrammingriseofrealityTV20,23,24,35,36,120–4;criticalviewing187;ethics39109–16;feminist113;participationdocumentary2,9,10,171,179;awardinrealityprogrammes117–20;45;categorisation147,172,173,175;virtue184formattedmanipulated43;ethnicity195investigative178;journalism19,61;Europe140,142,189;riseofrealityTVmock14,20;performanceand15,24,25,29,32,34,35,39authenticity59,60,62,64,66;EuropeanUnionConventionofthepopular43;realism19,20;realityProtectionofAnimals115,146genre42,43,44,49,55;events43reflexive/performative20;riseofexecutionnarratives16realityTV14,23,39;theatrical63;ExpeditionRobinson4,31seealsodocu-drama;docu-soaps;experiments43observationaldocumentaryExpose25DogEatDog35Extreme25DogListener,The135Donovan,J.147fact/fictioncontinuum173,178Dovey,J.10,28,49,90,108factualawards45DrKildare150FactualForum(2004)171drama2,175;seealsodocu-dramafactualandlearning174DrivingSchool,The29,64factualprogrammes42,43,190Dyke,G.112fakeryscandals61,64,173,178FakingIt8,37,45,177EconomicandSocialResearchCouncilFameAcademy33,36,4511familyroutine11education5,81,149,195Family,The27EdwardianCountryHouse,The1–2,43,fanactivities5100–1,105FBI:theUntoldStories25Edwards,R.150FearFactor35 Index227Fergusson,R.124–5Hesmondhalgh,D.15Fetveit,A.10,58–9,77Hibbard,M.38,108,117,185fictionalprogramming,popular23Hight,C.10,14,20,49,66,67–8,173–4Fishman,M.14Hill,A.3,4–5,10,26,28,62,114,179,Fiske,J.15190–1;animalprogrammes149,fly-on-the-wallformat20,26;seealso151;ethicsofcare125,131;learningdocu-soaps80,82–3,91;performanceandfocusgroups203–4authenticity61,64,68Foucault,M.122,123,124,133historyformat43;extreme180France4,5,20,37HMSBrilliant28Franklin,A.135–6,137,138,139–40,HMSSplendid28141,145,167Hobbes,T.111Frasier4Hoggart,R.98–9Friedman,J.10HolidayAirport:Lanzarote29Friends3HolidayShowdown36Fuller,S.4,8HolidaysfromHell90Holmes,S.10,46Gardener’sWorld92,95,96,121home/gardenprogrammes51;seealsogardeningprogrammesseeinparticularlifestyleformat;leisureGardener’sWorld;Groundforceprogrammes;makeoverformatGarner,R.141,146hospitalgenreseeinparticularGarrity,T.F.141Children’sHospitalGauntlett,D.62,90,114,122,190–1HotProperty36gender5,11,81,95,195;animalHouseDoctor36programmes149,159;ethicsofcareHouseofHorrors7,65,91–2114,115,125,126HouseHunting43GenderSwap37House,The4Germany22,24,25,29,31,37,68HowIMadeMyPropertyFortune30Giddens,A.89–90,97,123,124,133Hughes,G.124–5Gilbert,C.20,27human–animalrelations135–42;Glynn,K.16,17bereavement147;burialGodcheaux,S.6monuments147;euthanasia157;Goffman,E.73–4,77,84,90,176fashion30;peopleandpets140–2;Graef,R.20petcare142–8;pets,vetsandTVGrant,D.152sets148–58;watchingpetdeathGreece37158–68;seealsoinparticularAnimalGrierson,J.63ER;AnimalHospitalGrimshaw,J.113–14Humm,P.49GroundForce29,94–5,129Huttoninquiry112Gruen,L.115IWantThatHome43Hackett,E.150IbizaUncovered44,75–7,99,121Harris,R.152–4,155,158,160,166I’maCelebrity...GetMeOutofHere!2,Hartley,J.10,22,49,98,1053–4,8,69,188,190;realitygenre43,Hatch,R.4451;riseofrealityTV16,33–4,36,38Hawkins,G.108,120–2,124,127,133impartiality111–12health-basedformat43,91,179,191;IndependentTelevisionCommissionethicsofcare108,123–7,131–4,seeOfcom183–5IndieAwards45Heggessy,L.152industryawards45heritagegenre36information2,15,50,52,79–82,178–9,Hermyn,D.46181,204 228Indexinfotainment7,24–7,192,194;learninglifestyleformat27–31,171,178,192;79,82,89;performanceandethicsofcare108,121–8,130,132–3,authenticity59–60;realitygenre44,183–5;learning79,82,92–7,99–100,46,47,49,53,54;riseofrealityTV179–80;realitygenre43,44,49,55;17,24,25,26,27,29,36,39riseofrealityTV23,24,29,30,31,internetaccess536,39;seealsoleisureprogrammes;interpersonalconflict21makeoverformatandinparticularinvestigations42ChangingRoomsinvestigativejournalism171,173,174lightentertainment49,171,174,175investmentofself89LivingPlanet,The26Iraqwar112Livingstone,S.181,186,187–8Ironside,V.146Locke,J.115LoftStory4James,N.84Lunt,P.186James,O.84,86Lury,K.69–70Jamie’sKitchen18,45,172Japan24McCarthy,A.23Jermyn,D.10Mackay,C.7JerrySpringerShow,The21,120makeoverformat6,122,130,178;JoeMillionaire3,5,6,8,173,190;ethicslearning89,92–3,94,95,96,97,98;ofcare119–21;riseofrealityTV23,riseofrealityTV29,30,31,3635Malawi4Jowell,T.188Malim,T.114MarksandSpencers143Kant,I.110–11,112MarriedbyAmerica8Kelley,P.87Marvin,G.137Kilborn,R.8,9,38,47,90,108,117,MastersandServants37185;change172,175,176–7;Mathjis,E.10,84performanceandauthenticity58,Medhurst,A.9260;riseofrealityTV14,17–19,23,medialiteracy187–925,37MeetMyFolks35Kirwan,T.180,188melodrama23Kittay,E.F.114–15,184Mepham,J.174,176Knowsley,J.155merchandise5Koerner,S.L.6MessengerDavies,M.108,117Kymlicka,W.111Mikos,L.68Mittell,J.41Lambert,S.37Mol,J.de31,46Langer,J.14,16MoleII:theNextBetrayal35LastResort,The35Mole,The33LeStage,J.150Montgomery,M.75learning79–107,170,178–83;Moonves,L.6,9emotional180;entertainment83–9;Moore,M.63formal88,105;informal88,105;Moores,S.90information79–82;practical89–97,moralrights115180;social97–106,180MoreTh>n144leisureprogrammes21,22–3,42,191Morgan,D.125lifeexperimentgenre36;seealsoinMorris,E.63particularEdwardianCountryHouse;Mosdell,N.108,117WifeSwapMoseley,R.30,93LifeofGrime172Murdoch,R.2,14,17Murrell,R.26 Index229Namer,L.3,44petfoodindustry168narration153PetFoodInstitute141NationalCanineDefenceLeague142,petinsuranceindustry143–5,147,168;146KennelClubHealthcarePlan144Nationwide17petmortuaryindustry145,168Neale,S.46PetPsychic,The135NeighboursfromHell2,36,59,120PetRescue148,149,150Netherlands4,5,22,31,37Petley,J.83newmedia171PetPlan143,144NewZealand33,37Phillips,W.27,28,29NewgateCalendar,The16Picard,R.199news5,14,17,174,175;learning180,placesprogrammes51;seealsoin181,182;performanceandparticularAirport;IbizaUncoveredauthenticity59,60,62,178PlannedFamilies(Wunschkinder)29Nichols,B.9,14,20,41,47,63,66Plato109,110NightMail63Police20Noddings,N.113PoliceCameraAction!3,26,51,52,53,Norway4,33,37192;ethicsofcare125,126,129;learning98,102–3observationprogrammes52PoliceStop!26observationaldocumentary19,20,24,police/crimegenre10,14,17,23,24,26,42,44;performanceand51,179,191;seealsoinparticularauthenticity57,61,71Cops;PoliceCameraAction!Ofcom11,59–60,62,117PopIdol3,4,33,36,45O’Leary,D.70Popstars8,14,33,38,43,86–7Oliver,J.45Pornography:theMusical38Operatunity43PrairieHouse100OprahWinfreyShow,The21programmecharacteristics203originsofrealityTV15–24;ProtectionofAnimalsAct146documentarytelevision17–20;publicservicebroadcasting18popularentertainment20–4;tabloidjournalism15–17QueerDatesforStraightMates30Osbournes,The14,38QueerEyefortheStraightGuy6,30,178questionnaire197–202Paget,D.14,20,63,174Palmer,G.10,14,67,90Raphael,C.24,25,47paradox57–62ReadySteadyCook30Parsons,C.31Reagan,R.17participationinrealityprogrammesRealCountryHouse,The36117–20realpeople203Paterson,P.83RealWorld,The20Pence,G.110realism19–20peopleandpets135–42realitygameshows4,5,31–9,82,192,PeopleandPets150194;dating36;ethicsofcare116,performance20,170,175–8;seealso118,120;learning79,80,84,106,performanceandauthenticity179;performanceandauthenticityperformanceandauthenticity57–78;59,62,67,68,69,70,71,72,74,78;actingup62–7;authenticity74–8;realitygenre42,44,46,48,49,50,paradox57–62;performingthereal53,54;riseofrealityTV14,20,21,67–7423,24,35,36,39;seealsoinpersonalrelationships191particularBigBrother;I’mapetbereavementservices145–6 230IndexCelebrity...GetMeOutofHere!;WhoSinger,P.109,133WantstobeaMillionnaire?SixtyMinutes19realitygenre41–56;televisionSlutter,R.44audiences50–5;televisionindustrysoapopera14,20,23,39,42,48,6441–6;televisionscholars46–50SoapStarLives36realitymagazine48soap-docsseedocu-soapsrealitysoapsseedocu-soapsSoapstars33reciprocity184–5socialcontracttradition111,112;Reesink,M.31experimentprogrammes24;trendsreflexivity20189Rehn,T.44SocietyforCompanionAnimalStudiesRescue91117,25,26,39,44,46145researchdesign197–206;focusgroupsSocrates109203–4;in-depthinterviews204–5;SouthAfrica5,22questionnaire197–202Spain4,22,32,37researchmethods194–6SpecialBabies26researchingrealityTV11–12sportsgenre21,22responsibility116Stallones,L.141rights115,116Stevens,G.155riseofrealityTV14–40;docu-soapsStewart,M.146andlifestyleformat27–31;stigma84–5,87–8infotainment24–7;realitystorytelling16,174–5,176gameshows31–9;seealsooriginsofstunts43realityTVStyleChallenge29Roscoe,J.10,14,20,32,49,171–2,Survival26173–4;performanceandSurvivingtheMomentofImpact22authenticity66,67–8Survivor1,2,3,4,8,67,69;realityRouth,J.21genre42,44,50,53;riseofrealityRowe,C.109TV14,20,22,29,31,34,35,38Royal&SunAlliance144Sweden4,31RoyalSocietyforthePreventionofCrueltytoAnimals116,139,142,tabloidjournalism14,15–17,23143–4,152–3,156,160tabloidnewsprogrammes36,47Russia4TakeMyMother-in-law36talentshows5,44,79;seealsoinSalmon,I.M.138particularAmericanIdol;FameSalmon,P.W.26,138Academy;PopIdol;PopstarsScannell,P.67,191talkshows21,48,49,120;celebrity21scheduling11,149–50TeenBigBrother1,35Schlesinger,P.57,177television17–20;audiences50–5;Schneewind,J.B.110industry41–6;scholars46–50ScrapheapChallenge30televisionratingsforrealityTV2–7Seale,C.145,151,158TemptationIsland1,34–5,67,120,184SecretPoliceman,The38ThinBlueLine63Serpell,J.138ThisMorning29SexontheBeach44,121Thomas,K.136,138sexualtitillation21;seealsoinparticularThompson,R.7IbizaUncovered;TemptationIslandThomson,K.114sexuality114Thumin,N.181,187–8Shattuc,J.21Tonight17Ship,The42–3TonightShow,The21Silverstone,R.176TopCops25 Index231Tracey,M.7Walzog,N.29TrueAnimalTales152Watson,P.27trueconfessions10websites5TrueCrimes26WestWing,The35trust59–60,62,66,68,77;lackof64WhatNottoWear30TrustMe,I’maTeenager37WhenAnimalsAttack1,7,8truth19–20;seealsoethicoftruth-WhenGoodTimesGoBad3121tellingWhitehill,J.113Turner,G.49WhoWantstobeaMillionnaire?21–2,Turow,J.15034,37WifeSwap36,37,39,117–18,177,180;UK’sWorstToilet1seealsoCelebrityWifeSwapUltimateMakeover30Winner,M.26understandingrealityTV1–13;Winston,B.8,9–10,108;change171–2,debating7–11;rating2–7;178;performanceandauthenticityresearching11–1257,60,61;riseofrealityTV14,18,UnitedNationsDeclarationofHuman20,28,39Rights115WorldinAction19UnitedStates5,7,8,170;animalWorldIdol33programmes138,140,141,144,145,World’sScariestPoliceChases22150,168;context189,190;ethicsofWorld’sWildestWeather180care117;learning79,92,100;World’sWorstDriversCaughtonTape2performanceandauthenticity60,569;realitygenre42,44,45,46;riseWouldLiketoMeet30,132,173ofrealityTV15–17,19–26passim,29–30,33–5,37–9XCars28universality111–12UnsolvedMysteries17,24,25YearintheLifeofTheAnimalHospital,A152VanLeeuwen,T.74,77–8YouCanLiveWithout...37varietyshows33YoungandtheRestless,The23VetsinPractice135,148,155VetsintheWildWest36Zelizer,V.A.142–3,146,147violence83Zucker,J.35voyeurism79,83–4,98