Cost of the shows: Creating reality TV shows is not an expensive proposition and brings more bucks for money in comparison to the sitcoms and the soap operas. Social issues: One of the most positive effects of the reality TV shows is that they address numerous social issues and introduce people to the ills plaguing the society. For instance, they have played a very important role in enhancing the women empowerment in society. With active discussion on the TV forums, the reality shows have made people more aware of what is happening in their vicinity. Harmful effect on teen: The new generation of reality TV celebrity stars does not thrive on talent but use sensationalism to always be in the news. One of the worst effects of their action is on teens who try to emulate their behavior. Stunts that are performed on televisions under controlled conditions are imitated by the people in real life resulting in death. Some of the shows where contestants participate to win prizes show them in poor light as they use meanness and greed to outdo each other. The negative traits can manifest themselves in the audiences and create behavioral problems. It’s good to remember that JUST because something is common, it really doesn’t make it okay. Not that it is not okay to want something like what was mentioned above, that is perfectly fine. Though, just because every other girl is going off and getting pregnant before they’re eighteen doesn’t mean it’s alright, and everyone can do the same thing. Reality TV makes it seem that way, as does other media. There are many “common” things that are considered okay, even though they aren’t truly okay at all. After reading the facts above, I believe that reality TV shows are ruining society because they destroy relationships, exalt bad morals, and exploit their stars. There are many other places to read up on this. I’m just trying to persuade you to look at this, and what you think it’s doing to the world. The next time you decide to turn on the TV, what will YOU watch? What’s going to be absorbed into YOUR brain? It’s completely up to you, but take the previous to mind. “If a production companies creates a show with the explicit intention of trying to make money from the humiliation and suffering which they themselves create for unsuspecting people, then that seems to me to be immoral and unconscionable. I simply cannot think of any excuse for such actions - pointing out that others are willing to watch such events does not relieve them of the responsibility for having orchestrated the events and willed the reactions in the first place. The mere fact that they want others to experience humiliation, embarrassment, and/or suffering (and simply in order to increase earnings) is itself unethical; actually going forward with it is even worse. ” Wrote this for 7th Grade English, and got a C+ on it. / we had to make the essay 6+ pages. Reality shows encourage negative aspects such as promoting sexualisation, overindulgence and irresponsibility amongst youth. What has become acceptable in society is shocking, because it is dramatically lowered, compared to how it used to be. ‘’On average love story essay short, a teen will watch twenty-eight hours of reality television per week, which is about fifteen thousand hours per year’’ it should come as no surprise then that our generation nowadays has such low standards and morals. This means our generation has constant access to vulgarity, sex, drugs, etc. I also believe that certain reality shows, such as Jersey Shore, The Valleys, The Only Way Is Essex and so on, provide youngsters with a bad image of sexual intercourse and having a relationship. Certain images in reality shows may change the youth’s idea of a normal and healthy relationship. Another important point I wanted to discuss, to as why reality shows seem to provide poor role models case study report format, is that sadly this has become the perception of nowadays entertainment content on television. Reality shows such as these give people a wrong perception of what’s actually ‘real’. Let’s take for example Toddlers & Tiaras. Sexualizing 3-year olds and making them compete against each other should not be proper entertainment content and yet it has proven to be. They give no hints to making sure that the characters in the shows must provide somewhat of a proper role model to be shown on TV. People seem to not care anymore about that, as long as its entertainment. We, as human beings, enjoy watching other people’s drama and seeing them self-destruct on television. Who exactly is to blame for such shows? One might say parents, but I believe that it is not only the parents that are responsible for this. Networks such as MTV and TMZ are so focussed on making profit that they forgot to take a step back and realize what shows such as these do to young adults. Sex, violence, alcohol and drugs are being glorified for fame and fortune. (Blog #1 – Reality Television Affecting Youth Behaviour, 2013) Of course, not everything about reality TV is bad. There are some positive influences we could consider watching these shows. Let’s not forget the fact that reality shows seem to damage the self-esteem of youngsters from our generation. ‘’A culture of celebrity and television shows such as Big Brother and The Apprentice have impaired the confidence of a generation of British youngsters, according to a survey of 16- to 24-year-olds.’’ according to an article by The Guardian. And I am not surprised at all given the circumstances. Survey has shown that 82% of the youngsters seem to have a damaged self-esteem thanks to the unachievable role models shown on television. These young people are caught between taking the risk of a celebrity culture and looking for a job in a more traditional way. The survey that has been conducted by Teesside University is alarming, because it also shows youth depression going up as they are more and more concerned about job security nowadays thanks to the ‘’risk-it-all-high-flying celebrity culture’’. (Malik, 2011) Reality shows such as: ‘’Keeping up with the Kardashians, The only way is Essex, Made in Chelsea how you write an argumentative essay, etc.’’ seem to have given this idea. And it doesn’t stop there. Another important element that reality shows such as ‘’the Valleys’’ and ‘’Geordie Shore’’ seem to interpret is this Barbie doll image of women, making sure women are afraid of showing of their natural beauty. Also, programmes such as these seem to encourage women to compete against each other, showing of their most unintellectual side. What I am trying to say is that these reality shows seem to dumb down women more than they do men. We need myths, not only of our ideal, and our average, but of our fallen extreme. Since the establishment of informed-consent rules in the 1970s, the golden age of social psychology is gone. No more Stanley Milgram’s proof that ordinary citizens will push the voltage to the red zone while the electrocuted actor screams—so long as a lab-coated tester is there to give the orders. No more Philip Zimbardo’s proof that fake guards will brutalize fake prisoners if you arbitrarily split Stanford students into two groups, lock them in a basement, and leave them to their own devices. No more Harold Garfinkel’s demonstrations that testers can drive strangers berserk if they stare at other riders on the elevator or if children refuse to recognize their parents. Today we are reliant on Elimidate. Punk’d. and Survivor. Watching reality television is like walking one long hallway of an unscrupulous and peculiarly indefatigable psychology department. The meaningful history of technology turns out to be a history of its fantasized uses as much as of the shapes it actually takes. Our cable-box dreams finally rested on one beautiful notion: the participatory broadcasting of real life. With such a ludicrous number of channels, companies would just have to give some of the dial over to the rest of us, the viewers—wouldn’t they? And we millions would flow into the vacuum of content. We’d manifest our nature on channels 401 to 499 as surely as do puppies, ocean, and sky. We’d do it marrying, arguing, staring at the wall, dining, studying our feet, holding contests college writing service, singing, sneezing. Hundreds of thousands of us had cameras. Well, we’d plug them in and leave the tape running for our real life. There is a persistent dream that television will be more than it is: that it will not only sit in every home, but make a conduit for those homes to reach back to a shared fund of life. The microcosms were large-scale endeavors, financed by FOX, MTV, NBC, ABC, CBS, and the WB. (The other shows had been cheaply made and served up to UHF and low-budget cable stations by syndication, or, like Cops. run in the early barebones years of FOX and retained.) MTV’s The Real World. which put teens in a group house with cameras, was the earliest and most incomplete example. The pun in its “real world” title meant both that you would see how non-actors interacted (initially fascinating) and that this was, for many of the children on the show, their first foray away from home (pretty boring, after the umpteenth homesick phone call). MTV’s goal was to make up a “generation,” not a society, as MTV is the most aggressive promoter of one version of youth as a wholesale replacement of adult life. “Let the spectators become an entertainment to themselves”: a part of TV has always done this. It has meant, at different times write a lab report online, local programming, Huntley and Brinkley, the national news at 6 and local news at 11, talk shows and talent shows, This is Your Life and the regional tours of Wheel of Fortune. Accept, though, that television’s most important function might always have been to let citizens see each other and be seen in their representatives—in our only truly national universal medium—and you’re left to ask what will accomplish it best today. Reality television may furnish its dark apotheosis—a form for an era in which local TV has been consolidated out of existence, regional differences are said to be diminishing (or anyway are less frequently represented), and news, increasingly at the service of sales departments, has forfeited its authority to represent the polity. Rousseau expected that a republic’s civic entertainments would be displays of what people already do. Singing, building thesis sentences for research papers, decorating, beauty thesis writing exercises high school, athletics, and dancing gave pleasure and “entertainment” because the participants not only accomplished the acts but became spectacles to themselves—and to others, their equals and fellow-citizens, who had done just the same activities. Republican entertainments might often take the form of the contest or the demonstration. But they might also be the special celebration of ordinary living itself—the “festival”: The utopia of television nearly came within reach in 1992, on the day cable providers announced that cable boxes would expand to 500 channels. Back then, our utopian idea rested on assumptions both right and wrong. We assumed network-sized broadcasters could never afford new programming for so many active channels. That was right. We also assumed TV subscribers wouldn’t stand for 500 channels of identical fluff, network reruns, syndicated programs, second-run movies, infomercials, and home shopping. That was wrong. One can sometimes fight corruption with corruption: Blind Date to counter Friends. So what in our television experience, against Extreme Makeover. will show the ways in which homes and faces cannot be remade? Who will make the reality to counter “reality”? In this underlying dream, we were neither exactly wrong nor right. The promise of the 500 channels went to waste. The techno-utopians’ fantasies shifted to the internet. Nothing like the paradise we hoped for came to fruition on TV, that’s for sure. Instead we got reality TV. The major new successes of the past few years have taught (or pretended to teach) the norms of other industries. The Apprentice. a show in which one tries to learn skill in business, teaches the arbitrariness of contemporary success in relation to skill. The winners are conditioned to meet a certain kind of norm, not really familiar from anywhere else in life, which corresponds to “the values of business” as interpreted by Trump. America’s Next Top Model shows how a beauty contest ceases to be about beauty. The real fascination of the show is learning, first, how the norms of the fashion industry don’t correspond to ordinary ideas of beauty (you knew it abstractly, here’s proof!), but to requirements of the display of clothes and shilling for cosmetics; second, how the show will, in the name of these norms, seek something quite different in its contestants—a psychological adhesiveness write my lab report, a willingness to be remade and obey. The Starlet suggests the distance between the norms of TV acting and the craft of acting—and yet again, in the name of “how it’s done in the industry,” which provides one kind of interest, the contestants are recast psychologically, which provides the other. And on it goes, with “how to become a chef” (Hell’s Kitchen ) and “how to be a clothing designer’s minion” (The Cut ), et cetera. 1 Whatever can be done in the name of charity or medicine or health will allow the reinsertion of the norm into further spheres of privacy. Fox is said to be planning Who Wants to Live Forever?. a “program that predicts when participants will die and then helps them extend their lifespan through dieting how to write the best college essays, exercise, [and] breaking bad habits.” The circle is closed, and “reality” here no longer lets us observe our real life, but its modifications in the name of a statistical life to come. The private matters we can’t, or shouldn’t, see flow in to replace our public witnessing of each other. And the festival is no longer of ourselves, but of phantasms projected by industries of health scholarship essay for social work, beauty, home, all industries requiring our obedience; worse than the monsters of drama, because they don’t admit their degree of fiction. If we try to figure out what is so entertaining about reality shows, we can reach this conclusion: it is the humiliation and mocking of the contestants that makes people amused. Indeed, if we analyze such a popular show as American Idol, we will easily notice many episodes of this program are dedicated to making fun of the contestants, whose performing abilities were lower compared to other participants (which does not necessarily mean they are deprived of talent, or are worse in any other way). This can create an audience (which mostly consists of teenagers) that rate and assess people based on their qualities, such as appearance or skills; this model forms a solid basis for discriminating behavior and a lack of tolerance (eHow). Yet another negative effect of reality shows is a distorted depiction of relationships between genders. Many reality shows address sexual themes, or depict relationships based on scandals and fights. Relationships on TV contrast real life ones: they tend to be less stable and harmonious, they are sexualized, and usually aimed at bringing more popularity to those engaged in them. Since it is difficult to control the access of underaged audiences to TV programs, children and teenagers are exposed to the risks of developing a wrong perception of relationships based on what they see on TV, which is unacceptable (RFA.edu).
0 Comentarios
Deja una respuesta. |
ArchivosCategorías |