Ethics involved in Reality TV Shows

Introduction:

“A man is standing on a swing, holding both metal lines that support it. Tied in chains around his waist and on each leg, he holds the 3 keys that are strapped to his wrist.  He is to free himself after being submerged to the water outdoor with biting cold temperature as fast as he can to win the $50,000 prize beating the other contestants.”

This is one of the scenes I saw a couple of weeks ago in the Reality TV show, "Fear Factor".

 Technology has greatly progressed specially in the area of multimedia communications of which television is one of them.  From the very first black and white television drama, “The Queen’s Messenger” up to current full-colored “reality TV” show  “Joe Millionaire”, a lot has happened.  Below is the table of the different eras of TV Programming and their corresponding brief descriptions: ⁵

One can notice how technology has affected what programs are shown on television; from the studio-bound situational comedy where all are scripted and everybody involved are prepared, to the current reality TV shows where "anything" goes and cameras are all over the place.  Presence of a technician to operate the cameras are not required with the advances in video camera surveillance as displayed by the popular "Big Brother" -- a reality TV show.  Anybody can even afford to buy a good lightweight portable video camera for less than $300.  This camera can record both video and sound, even zoom in to objects 200 times or more.  Could you just imagine that!  Just tune in to "America's Funniest Home Videos" to know what amateurs are doing with these video cameras.

Now, it is possible that proliferations of the Reality TV shows is used to tempt back the weary viewers who are shifting more of their time on the Internet as cited by Jan. 31, 2003 issue of San Jose Mercury News.  The news said that people using the Internet watches TV less as published by studies done by UCLA.  More information can be found at their website http://ccp.ucla.edu. 

Now, quoting from http://www.icfaipress.org/1202/cf-reality-23.htm, “Reality TV programs are those which are non-fictional in nature and essentially present real pictures of current or historical events or situations”. They are programs that are unscripted and participants are non-professional actors. ²

It was surveyed why people watch "Big Brother".  A third of the respondents replied that it was introduced by their wives, mothers, friends or flat mates.  Talking about influencing other people.  The second most common response was because of publicity by the media.  It could also be true for other reality TV programs.  Some other reasons why people watch this shows are:  people finds enjoyment, people relates to actors/actresses in the show, and people experiences thrill of watching others (sometimes in their private moments).⁸

The main ingredients of most Reality TV programs are sex, violence and crime.  Now, we will delve into the ethical issue of this technology.  For my case, I would like to tackle the case of "Joe Millionaire"  which was concluded last week, February 17, 2003. The show is about a regular construction worker earning $19,000 annually disguising as a new millionaire looking for a special someone.  Quoting from their official website: 

"..Joe who has recently inherited 50 million dollars and is looking for a special someone to share his newfound wealth."

I would also mention about "Fear Factor" and "Survivor" as other reality TV show often.

ISSUES:

Legal/Policy Issues:  

How do you rate a show as fit for youngsters or for public viewing? 

When TV programs started, there were no "censorship" or any kind of regulation.  As time progresses together with technology, sex and violent shows started being shown.  Self-regulation of TV programs does not work since cable networks and TV stations primary goal is profit. ¹  If there is no censorship, quality programs will be overshadowed by the vast amount of non-quality programs.  There are hundreds if not thousands of them.  The problem of which programs are objectionable to youngsters specially and which are not is a non-trivial issue.  In the case of US, there are all kinds of people coming from different cultures and it is hard to tell which shows are objectionable for them. 

Who will classify a TV program?

There are a lot of active non-profit organizations who are active in classifying TV shows: one is Action for Children's Television (ACT).  Even if there are plenty who categorizes these programs but when it comes to legal cases, in US, the Supreme Court is the last and final decision maker.¹ As for other countries where freedom of speech and censorship are not yet established, it would be hard to settle the issue.

Control versus freedom issue

Libertarians always argue against censorship of these reality TV programs.  They would mention about the First Amendment Rights in the US Constitution.  It should be clear that private wants must be balanced with serving the public interests.⁷     But again, drawing the line is sometimes legally difficult.

Professional Issues:

Personal Gain versus Cost of Privacy 

There is no doubt that people who join some reality TV shows like "Survivor" and "Joe Millionaire"  gained instant fame.  Was it more beneficial for a participant in "Survivor" to experience the thrill of being in the show or participate in the game of survival than the safety of not being mauled  by strangers days after the show was over?  As for "Joe Millionaire",  was it reasonable for him to be video taped most if not all of the time so that he can meet the woman who really cared for him and not his so called inheritance?

 

Profitability versus Cost of Ethics/Morality

TV program producers have been very creative in creating and re-inventing new ideas.  There had been a very competitive market for getting those viewers to watch their programs with the number of TV networks, stations and specially the threatening existence of Internet.  Some if not many of them would get caught in the professional issue of showing a program with questionable content and function.  Have you ever seen "Fear Factor" and ever wondered what this program's purpose aside from confronting one's fear?

Ethical Issues:

Entertain and Inform versus Entice and Promote

Are showing of these kind of program specially on a primetime slot justifiable? We know that primetime TV shows are programs that has the most number of potential viewers from all ages including children.   Will these type of entertainment good or just promote lying?  Young people may get the impression that it is always alright to lie if your intentions are good.  Could these programs be enticing people to "easy" fame and money (for some contest shows like Fear Factor and Survivor) and not just informing them?

TV Ratings versus Safety of the Participants and viewers

High TV ratings spell profit since more viewers mean more people seeing the commercials.  Ever wondered why some kids get all those crazy ideas like shooting somebody or hurting themselves trying to imitate some of the stunts they have seen on TV.  Accidents can and do happen.

Is the $50,000 or $1,000,000 reward for a participant of these reality TV game shows, made him or her a better person?  Was it fair for both the participants of the "Joe Millionaire" and the producers on how the show went?

Stakeholders

Possible Actions

There are three possible actions for these kind of TV programs:

• Ban or implement a stricter regulation by Censorship Board or Government
  
• Allow viewing only on a subscription channel also known as Pay-per-view (PPV) or 
              show on a non-primetime slot (e.g. 11PM)
  
• Home control – its up to parents or guardians to guide the youngster

Consequences

Now, banning reality TV shows clearly violates our freedom of speech or for viewers, the right to watch them.  This option gives us a false hope of protecting our children from the bad aspects of "sex and violence". 

Subscription Channel will cost viewers. Although, this solution will give people access to these reality TV programs but at the expense of lesser monthly budget for other more important things. And, showing these programs on a non-primetime slot does not guarantee that youngsters will already be asleep at 11PM for example.  

Home control has a problem of parents or guardians not being present all of the time. We know that usual families has more than 2 televisions and one of them is at the room of their children.  Though, everybody can watch what they want, children can see some of the objectionable TV scenes.  Producers and TV networks will have more potential of income since they can air these kind of programs without regulation from government institution or censorship board.

 

Discussion: 

The "Joe Millionaire" show is clearly a case of deceit, the opposite of trust (one of the foundations of good relationships) but in search of a "higher" goal.  Was it right for a person to lie to find a person who is sincere and who is really caring? 

I will discuss the issue in terms of cultural subjectivism.

Some might easily conclude that reality TV program such as "Joe Millionaire" does not have any value.  But when we talk with other culture, this program might have a value.  One might focus more on the act of lewdness on some of the final scenes of the show specially the walk at the park of "Joe" and "Sarah".  Others might focus more on the final outcome, of finding "true love" and accepting somebody who has revealed about his lies.  It is important to note that one's rational preference of what is ethical is not always absolute.  Cultural subjectivism teaches us to always to be impartial and have an open mind in looking at things.⁶

Conclusion:

Ethics in reality TV shows is everyone's business.  Everybody must be involved in deciding which programs raises the common good of society and not just satisfaction of individual needs and wants.  That is why, I strongly believe in solving the problem first, at home, together with some government regulations on programs shown on regular channels.  Parents should teach their children about the ethics of virtue early in life.  Of course, banning one's children not to watch non-quality TV programs is the worst action as most parents would attest to it.  (When they told their teenagers not to do this or go to a party.  Guess what? They did).  It is not fair and everybody is deprived of his or her individual rights or freedom.  I think it was in the Gremlin movie, when one of the characters said,  “…with great freedom comes great responsibility.”  It solves the wider problem when problems are solved immediately at home.  

Communities have also a role to do because if a TV station or network shows objectionable programs could create a chaotic society.  A solution presented was to boycott the products or services of the advertisers on the objectionable program.  This forces the TV network to air quality programs.  Non-profit organizations must be active in educating not only parents about good and quality TV programs but also producers, advertisers and executives officers of the different TV networks .   

I end with a quote from one of the Saints.  

 “Wheresover one may turn, one finds extreme tension, anxiety and suspense prevailing everywhere.  The root cause of this universal chaos is restlessness in individual minds.  Man has made tremendous progress in various spheres of life, but unfortunately has not cared to know anything about the spirit within and is altogether ignorant about it.  He has unraveled the mysteries of the starry welkin, sounded the depths of the seas, delved deep into the bowels of the earth, braved the blinding blizzards of snowy Mount Everest, and is now out exploring spaces so as to establish interplanetary relations, but sad to say, has not found out the mystery of the human soul within him."

  ---  Sant Kirpal Singh (Backcover of the book “Spirituality: What it is”)

1. Banned in Media: A Reference Guide to Censorship in Press, Motion Pictures, Broadcasting and the Internet; 
        ©1998; Foerstel, Herbert N. ; (Greenwood Press; ISBN: 0-313-30245-6)

2. Big Brother; ©2002; Johnson-woods, Toni; (University of Queensland Press; ISBN: 0702233153)

3. Cyberethics : Morality & Law in Cyperspace; ©2000; Spinello, Richard; 
        (Jones & Bartlett Publishers, Incorporated, Sudbury MA 01776; ISBN: 0-76371-2698) p17

4. Media-Mediated Relationships: Straight and Gay, Mainstream and Alternative Perspectives; 
        ©1996; Fuller, Linda K.; (The Haworth Press, Inc.; ISBN: 1-56024-8769)

5. The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows, 1946-Present; 6th edition, ©1995; 
        Brooks, Tim and Marsh, Earle;(Ballantine Books, New York; ISBN: 0-34539-7363). pp. xv-xxi

6. The Elements of Moral Philosophy; 3rd edition ©1999; Rachels, James; (McGraw-Hill Companies; ISBN: 0-07052-5609). pp. 20-36, pp.175-193.

7. Voyeur Nation Media, Privacy and Peering in Modern Culture; ©2000; Calvert, Clay; (Westview Press; ISBN: 0-8133-6627-5)

8. Why we watch: The Attractions of Violent Entertainment; ©1998; Goldstein, Jeffrey H.; (Oxford University Press; ISBN: 0-19511-8219)