Reality TV

The only reality you can believe is true is the one you experience first-hand, and even at that there are many ways in which our perception of reality can be warped to make us experience things that aren't there.  We rely on 5 senses to tell us everything about the world - sight, sound, touch, taste, and smell.  With such limited percepts if you can overload or overwhelm one or more of them you can lead a person to experience something quite different from what is actually happening.

When it comes to television, there still exists an unsettling eagerness to believe that everything we see is real.  Even when it comes to movies and TV shows that we know with full disclosure are entirely fictional, they can still solicit an emotional response similar to that as if it was real.  Happiness, sadness, excitement, and fear, amongst many others are all emotions that content can evoke whenever it is created with skill.

This doesn't cause many problems except in cases where it becomes extreme and leaves a lasting impact on the viewer.  There are times however when reality and fiction become so entwined that it can be hard to distinguish between the two.  Reality TV is the best example of this.  There is first of all the misnomer that comes with the name in itself, the fact it was produced in an environment conducive to TV production should in itself be the first flag.  You would think people would hold a degree of scepticism when it comes to anything they see on TV however that willingness to suspend their disbelief is hard to prevent even when they profess to be hard to fool and adamant that they can judge what is real and what is not, often arrogance leads us to cross the line and form false conclusions.

I believe part of the reason why people are willing to believe what they see on TV is real is because of the misconception that those who produce it have a vested interest in producing something as true to life as possible - the reality however is that their vested interest is in creating something as entertaining as they can, which inevitably means turning reality into something closer to the traditional content they produce, in other words they want a traditional TV show with a traditional story line but with real people in place of the actors coupled with organic dialogue to make it believable.  It's important here to note tradition means what they are used to producing not in the cultural sense of conservatism and traditional values - although some broadcasters do try to achieve both of these too.

There is a belief held by the viewer too that places far too much onus on regulators and mediators to ensure what they see is based in truth, or to put it another way, they think that regulators and legislation would prevent a broadcaster promoting something as "reality" when it isn't actually real - again this is misplaced trust.  Most regulators are not tasked with ensuring accuracy, and even in the few instances such as advertising where they are, their actions are often reactive not proactive, in other words they only respond to complaints made, they don't police content and review it before it is released.  Nowhere is this more problematic than in printed media with publications such as newspapers able to print bold headlines that are complete lies, then post forgotten revisions and apologies hidden away in the corner of some page buried within the paper in future.  The damage is done by the initial headline and a fraction of a fraction of the readers who read it in the first place will see the revision, retraction, or apology.

This leads to a complacency whereby broadcasters and arguably to a greater extent, publishers, are allowed to push out whatever content they want with no regard for the viewer or the reader and the damage it will create, simply apologising or offering retractions etc after the fact when someone forces them to - which in most cases will not negate the damage and are usually insincere lacking any genuine remorse.  Perhaps it would be better then if publishers and broadcasters were fined instead at a rate equal to whatever money they made from the productions they pushed out - that way the more lucrative the lie the greater the penalty paid.  In reality when most people break the law or cause damage they have to pay for it, corporations are treated very differently to people which begs the question why shouldn't these publishers and broadcasters have to pay for the damage they cause?  Which in itself raises the question, how do you measure the extent of the damage caused?