A Slice of Reality...Sort of

It finally happened. It has taken me a long time, but I finally got there: I love "reality television." I know I am a little late to the party, and by now most people are looking way beyond the fad that is reality tv, but not me. For me reality tv is a half hour to an hour shot of a potent drug for which there is no relief.

A brief history (probably things you already know, so feel free to skip): Reality tv arguably started for this country in 1992 with MTV's The Real World which was a relatively groundbreaking concept of putting seven people into a house with no objective and filming it. To be honest, the first season of The Real World was pretty uninteresting to watch. This is probably because the first cast was relatively, well, real...Kind of, so there wasn't much to it. It was normal people with normal jobs living together in New York. Then MTV changed it up. They figured out that they should put 7 opposing and extreme personalities together in a house to see what happens. Then it started getting interesting. Then in 1994 the world was introduced to Puck. Puck was easily the rudest, most foul, most disgusting, and least socially inept individual that has ever appeared on the show. And the audience loved him. Now 16 years from it's original inception, The Real World is still running strong. But as many people know, that which is hot on MTV does not necessarily translate to the rest of the world, and reality tv didn't really take off. But the new millennium would bring about a new television show that would captivate this country. I am speaking of course of Survivor. It was a brilliantly simple concept. Take 16 people to a deserted island, taunt them with games for immunity and other rewards, and at the end of each episode all players cast a vote for whoever they feel should be booted for the island, highest number of votes gets kicked off, and the last player remaining wins a million dollars. This show absolutely took over the television. Since the inception of survivor, countless reality shows were born including Big Brother, The Bachelor, The Bachlorette, Joe Millionaire, The Surreal Life, Flavor of Love, Rock of Love, A Shot at Love, Project Runway, I Love New York, The Amazing Race, America's Next Top Model, and the list goes on and on and on. All of which being based around "real people" being put together in close proximity and competing for something through a series of eliminations while being filmed all the while.

So what was my problem with reality tv? It was the name. reality television implies only two rules 1) it has to reflect reality and 2) it has to follow the rules of the four-walled world of television. Reality television does neither. The premises and rules of engagement are far from those of reality, and the fourth wall of television is virtually non-existent due to the use of "confessionals" and direct narratives throughout the show. It took me almost a decade, but I got past it, and now I am a believer in reality tv.

So why the switch? How can I all of a sudden go from being in adamant opposition to reality television programming to being a loyal fan of almost any reality show I can find? It all goes back to a truly horrible 1992 film called Stay Tuned in which a set of parents are transported into a hellish television and have to survive in a series of twisted tv programs. It also had Ed Rooney from Ferris Beuller's Day Off... I think. This is the essence of reality television. Reality television is not real people existing in a real world situation with other real people, reality television is a set of individuals existing in a bizarre world where absolutely nothing is real.

Imagine this: you are you as you exist in the natural world. You are not a character, you are not in costume, you have no script to follow, you are simply you. Now imagine you wake up and find yourself on Gilligan's Island. Not on the show Gilligan's Island but the actual world of the island. On this deserted island, you are in the company of Gilligan, Skipper, the professor, Ginger, etc. Again, not Bob Denver, Alan Hale, Russell Johnson, or Tina Louise playing their respective parts, but instead the actual inhabitants of Gilligan's Island. They are real people as they exist in the world of the island absent of any set dialogue or story line. In this world, there is no such thing as an episode. For 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for several years, you exist on Gilligan's Island and must interact with all of these people in these situations that randomly occur unbeknownst to anyone. Now imagine that for some peculiar reason, there are video cameras and film crews that follow you around all day everyday. As an unspoken yet understood rule, you may pay absolutely no attention to either the cameras nor the film crew who live a completely separate life than you yet exist along side you. This world is the world of reality television; individuals existing in a fantasy world with characters in which there is some common goal who are all surrounded by a separate parallel world of observers. Whoever thrives in this world wins. Bam!

I know what you are thinking: "But isn't reality television really lots of regular people placed in this strange environment rather than one normal person and lots of strange people?" Well to answer that, watch a reality television program and tell me if anyone is "normal." Anyone cast in a reality television show is purposely abnormal, yet abnormal in different ways, it is like having Jedi knights, fraggles, senators, Gary Coleman, and fans of Journey all thrown together into a cosmic blender and poured into a house, RV, desert island, cruise ship, or any other setting of choice. This is in hopes to enhance 1) possible clashing of personalities and 2) the hopes that two or more of these nutbars will have sex all in the name of captivating the audience. This abnormality is no secret. Each person on the show recognizes everyone as being abnormal except for one person: him or her self. Hence, each reality show is a view of a set of individuals living in a bizarre environment with bizarre people rather than a group of "normal" people interacting in a bizarre environment.

Anyone who has ever read The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test should grasp this concept relatively easily. Early in the reading, i was struck by the concept of the "movie" that the merry pranksters were making. The long and the short of it is this: a group of people travelled across the country in a van with a lot of LSD. They documented the journey with a video camera. They then decided that that which exists through the lens of the camera is a microcosm of the universe at large i.e. mankind exists as a series of movies. Each individual is the star of their own movie and when two or more people interact, there exists conflict over who's movie takes precedence. In other words, if you and I interacted, would you be a part of my movie, or would I be a part of yours? Aparently if you eat acid you will understand. Of course the answer to the question lies in whoever dominates the story such that the focus is on them. The idea then was to constantly be in control of one's own movie as well as the greater movie. This is why one of my favorite self-motivating quotes is "it's my movie." Keep in mind, I am by no means a literature scholar, and I may have missed the boat on this concept completely, but that description is a bit of what I got out of the book, and I am happy with it. Afterall, this is my movie.

This then goes back to reality television as a more concrete example of Ken Kesey and company's conceptual idea because not only is it a bunch of wackos trying to dominate eachother, but there is actual film rolling all the while. Who dominates the world of a reality television program? It is in that struggle that reality television succeeds. Is season 1 and 2 of The Flavor of Love Flava Flav's movie, or does it become New York's? I would render a guess that it was intended to be that of Flav's but New York was so dominant that she partially took over and for brief moments, it became her movie. Therefore it is no surprise that MTV gave her her own reality show. But Flavor of Love wasn't really about the struggle between Flav and New York, it was between New York and several other women with Flav being the final prize. Several individual women compete to make their movie dominate, and as time goes on and women are eliminated from competition, their movie's end, and the woman who dominates the entirety of the movie, or prove to be fittest to survive in the twisted Darwinian sense, wins. All elimination based reality television works this way. It is a battle of the titans, Sharks versus jets, Montagues versus Capulets, Bears versus Packers, except there aren't teams (ok sometimes there are), so it is more like Marty McFly versus 1955, or Bob Dylan versus the Newport folk festival.

Non-elimination reality television, like The Real World, is a little different. It is suspenseful due to the lack of elimination, but often times it is more interesting to watch. It is amazing what happens when you take 7 attracting twenty-somethings, stick them in a house loaded with booze, and take away all jobs or ambitions. The lack of a common goal just seems to make them want to either engage in passionate violence or passionate sex, and how could that not be a recipe for good television? As long as you are able to exist in a fantasy world with bizarre strangers without doing something that would require you to be booted off the show by your fellow bizarros or the show's producers, you are golden, oh and apparently you and the rest of your housemates have to get naked and make out in the hottub at least once every season. The Real World scenerio is more closely resembling the Gilligan's Island scenerio where the only goal is to survive. Oh and one more thing, anyone who appears on a reality show of anykind has to become an amateur psychologist and have no problem talking about your own other people's feelings ad nauseum at the drop of a hat.

There is one last phenomenon as far as reality television goes, and it is that of the reality television star. Take the case of Coral Smith. Coral was a cast member on The Real World in 2001. She was such a strong and dominant character that she has since achieved minor fame as a reality tv star by appearing in MTV spinoffs like The Gaunlet for the next 7 years. Coral has litterally made a career out of appearing on television as herself because she dominates the movie and stirs up enough drama and controversy that it keeps the shows going and makes them interesting. A number of people have done this both from the Real World and Road Rules as well as elimination based reality television. Some names you might recognize (if not, consider yourself a better person for it): The afformentioned Coral (The Real World, The Gauntlet) New York (Flavor of Love, I Love New York), Mr. Boston (I Love New York, I Love Money), , CT (The Real World, The Gauntlet), Lacey (Rock of Love 1 and 2), Domenico (A Shot at Love, That's Amore), Johnny Fairplay (survivor, I Love the New Millenium), and the list goes on. These people have "played themselves," and have achieved some bizarre level of fame for it proving to us all that from time to time actual people are equally or more captivating than fictional characters. The downside? For the rest of your life you are branded as "that guy/girl from that show."

I quote Seth Cohen of The OC (that's right, I am quoting the OC, a blog for a later day) when I say "why watch the angsts of fictional characters when you can watch real people in contrived situations?" turns out who ever writes the fictional narrative of Seth Cohen managed to nail the concept of why I love reality tv on the head. Maybe my reasoning is flawed, maybe I am a total loser to love all of these shows, and maybe I am wasting my time and energy, but who cares, Like I said, it's my movie.

The Politics of Blogs

I gave up on this blog after a meager 7 postings out of shear loss of interest, but I am picking it up again out of shear boredom and, I suppose, a generation-x type need to express myself in this 21st century America. Thus, unless you have been living in seclusion for the past 5 years, blogging is the way to do it. I also play bass:

Let me be clear about one horrible and universal truth about young people with computers (myself included); we like to think we know a lot more about the world than we actually do, especially politics. I say again, I am one of these. I like politics, I follow politics, I like to discuss politics and learn about the political process, but I don't like politically driven blogs. It is far too easy to distort facts, inflate the truth, twist words, or perform any number of active verbs to abstracts (feel free to read that statement again, my high school English teacher would be pissed). This sort of propagandizing would be fine except that more and more each day, blogs are gaining credibility. Don't misunderstand me, there are many blogs with valuable information, but for every one "credible blog" there are probably thousands, if not millions of blogs that are total and complete rubbish (not unlike this one). Herein lies the rub; there is no discussion. Blogs have absolutely no give and take, back and forth, up and down, in and out, side to side relationship with their viewers. At best, if the viewer finds flaw in a blog, they could respond in a comment section, but let's be honest, as little credibility as any blogs have we all give them exponentially more credit than any viewer response. Do not take this as offensive, it is not unlike guests on political talk shows.



Imagine for me a hypothetical scenario. Let's say, for the sake of example, Rush Limbaugh, who has historically been critical of the theory of global warming (I say theory because it is a disputed topic) has a guest on his radio show who is an expert of global temperature and climate change. His guest, again for the sake of example, has a doctoral degree in physics, is currently a Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at an esteemed university, and has served as Chairman of the National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmospheres; long story short, he is by any account an expert on the environment and global temperatures. Continuing our example, let's say the expert argues that global warming is a reality as opposed to Mr. Limbaugh who disagrees. Without saying a word, the regular audience of Limbaugh's will naturally side with him unless the expert somehow manages to sway them during his 5 minute segment, which, let's be honest, is a bit far-fetched. Never mind the fact that Limbaugh has been making his voice heard about global warming for years and never mind that for the most part his audience already leans to the right of center. The fact of the matter is, Rush Limbaugh, with absolutely no background in climate study what-so-ever, will already have the upper hand over someone who has done nothing but study climate change for decades simply because Mr. Limbaugh has been given universal credibility by his audience for years. The expert (who has remained nameless on purpose for this example), on the other hand, has probably not been heard of prior to his segment on the show, and will, for the most part, be forgotten along with his argument 10 minutes after his segment by the vast majority of the audience. (I want to go on record by saying this: in no way am I passing judgment on Mr. Limbaugh, his audience, or the science of global climate change, I am simply stating a common trend to illustrate the level of credibility given to a commentator by a loyal audience, all photo links are simply for the sake of humor) (I also want to go on record by saying this: I can't imagine how stupid you can be to actually have the audacity to believe that global warming isn't real. This is not a partisan issue, this was not invented by Al Gore and the political left, this is not misdirection for other problems in the world. The earth is heating up, ice caps are melting, the ozone layer is depleting, ocean and weather currents are shifting, living things are dying at a higher rate than ever before all of which is throwing the natural world into utter chaos. Wake up!!!)



A lot of people don't like Rush Limbaugh, but then again, a lot of people don't like Al Franken, Keith Olbermann, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Alan Colmes, Dan Abrams, or Chris Matthews. But like them or not, they are in reality much more balanced then blogs because no matter how much conviction they may have about any particular subject, they frequently invite people on their shows who disagree with them. Their beliefs may be asinine at times, but they are always forced to support them in real time with real people who disagree in front of hundreds of thousands of viewers, and although they frequently speak to a like-minded audience, this is still a very daunting task; to be told you are wrong about something, and have to support your beliefs live and in color (unless they are on the radio).



Blogs don't have to do that. Blogs make a point and disappear. If a viewer posts a critical comment about the blog's content, the blog's often nameless, faceless author responds on their own schedule if at all, and I would suspect most comments that are in disagreement are immediately deleted thus keeping the credibility in tact because after all "if no one disagrees, then it must be true."

Most of the time, a one sided blog is inconsequential in that everyone in the planet should be entitled to an opinion, and in the magical world of the www, everyone (at least in this country) has an outlet to voice their opinion. Bloggers can write about anything: Kanye West versus 50 Cent, The Chicago cubs rule, the Chicago cubs suck, gardening, technology, gardening technology, my dog, and the list goes on and on and on. This is all fine because most people can recognize opinions, and any and all outcomes of people agreeing or disagreeing are incidental. This is true for just about every topic on the planet, but not for politics (and very possibly others I am not thinking of).

Here is the difference: politics is a sport in which the fans decide the outcome. The problem, of course, is fans have to get information from somewhere, but where to turn in the world of the "biased mainstream media?" The amazing thing is that the same people who will tell you that all news programs on television and radio have an inherent bias will turn to blogs which have no chain of command about content in terms of news director or editors, no necessity to cite sources, and absolutely no obligation to be truthful. I am of course selling everyone short on this statement. There are certainly any number of political blogs with excellent journalistic integrity, but there are far more that have authors who passionately believe in one side or the other and have absolutely no qualms about smearing the opposition through any number of shameful tactics including lying, sins of omission, and inflation as a way to sway others to move to their side or stay at home on election day. These kinds of blogs are not unlike an entire universe of political attack ads without the pesky hassle of party approval.

We live in a very strange world. We live in a very strange time. We live a country, a country I love, a country with rights and freedoms that other nations could barely dream of. One of those rights is the freedom of speech, expression, and the press. This is my favorite portion of the bill of rights. No one will ever see or hear me opposing any sort of activity that constitutes free expression provided it does not physically harm others. Blogs certainly fall into this category, and I will always support anyone who has an opinion on this country's political system be it liberal, conservative, communist, socialist, green, independent, or any other affiliation, but opinion is different than fact, and it is extraordinarily disheartening to see credibility lent to blogs claiming factual content but are truly small scale smear campaigns based solely on opinions. So if you are a political blogger, I ask you for one thing: express your love or hatred with whomever of the country's leaders you choose, let everyone know how certain members of the government can, will, and are destroying our lives, let the world know what policies you feel will contribute to all of our ultimate demise, but be honest. Be truthful. Be relentless, but buck up your opinions with facts.

This blog is 100% opinion
By the by, I do indeed recognize the irony of blogging about how much I don't like certain blogs.