“I’m fake, I’m flirty and I’ve got double F’s.” Do structured
reality TV shows like Geordie Shore dumb down UK and television culture?
The phenomenon
of the hybrid between drama and reality TV recently known as ‘dramality’ has
vastly spread, becoming a huge ratings success throughout the UK. “The latest big trend in
television is the 'dramality' - reality programs with made-up scenarios to
heighten both the drama and the trashiness.”[1] Is the definition
of dramality TV described by a ‘today tonight’ article. The three dramality shows of MTV: The Hills, Geordie Shore and
Jersey Shore on their premier nights had combined views of 1.3 million (Geordie
Shore bringing in 329,000 of those viewers). The institution MTV’s target
audience is perfectly in sync with the target audience of Geordie Shore which
follows a group of ‘Geordies’ who continuously consume alcohol, argue and
party. However, many have argued that shows such as these ‘dumb down’ our UK
culture and television. Geordie Shore in particular was heavily criticised by
residents of Newcastle and more importantly MPs who would agree with the
hypothesis that these shows ‘dumb down’ our culture. Newcastle MP Chi
Onwurahstated: “By putting these young people in
this situation, it is encouraging them to lose all their dignity. It's totally
unrepresentative of Newcastle."[2]
This, however, is not the view of all the critics as some believe they are
noble and strive to be hated in order to succeed. People no longer simply
aspire to be famous. They aspire to be hated. As the Guardian recently joked,
"Authorised media hate figure" is now a valid career.[3]
Looking into whether this hypothesis can be justified has a case on both sides:
is it sheer ‘trash TV’ or is there a positive to these structured reality TV
shows?
The history of reality television has developed rapidly throughout
the years. From the early days Cinéma vérité, right
down to structured reality television. Once reality television came onto the screens in a
documentary style like cinema verite which showed the raw honest truth and “an
attempt to bring cinema the freer reporting methods of television”[4]It
often came with a strong political message where the camera never lied, however
now it can be argued with the new hybrid in place these shows lack substance
and any meaning. Geordie Shore is deemed what we call nowadays a structured
reality television show. Regarding a historical context that was linked Geordie
Shore was quite difficult to find in particular the northern England region. So
linking it to the Cinéma vérité era itself was a better idea. This era of
cinema was what the 60's/70's deemed as the honest truth. It was documentary
styled film usually fly on the wall and the slogan for Cinéma vérité was
"the camera doesn't lie"
The idea of a setup, structured situation for the camera to record
and rely on reactions is essentially what both are about. This idea of
'stylised set ups' here film makers have a conversation with audience about the
subject is almost identical to what happens in Geordie Shore.
These two are very similar however there are just as many
differences. Throughout the years political and hidden message within these
shows have changed. The idea of Cinéma vérité was to voice the underrepresented
and these ideologies have changed as time has passed. Especially in the north
of England it was usually honest, truthful representations of the hard working
class. Comparing to the today's adaptation of Cinéma vérité we have the
northerners being represented as 'slutty, alcoholic, air head c list celebrities.'
Geordie Shore is a show that taps into young audiences and in sync
with the institution MTV’s target audience “12- 34”[5]
of the demographic classification C2/D/E, (this is skilled manual workers,
manual workers and unemployed). With the target audience age consuming so much
television, this leaves them vulnerable to the hypodermic and disinhibition
theory. The hypodermic theory suggests that the mass media have a direct effect
on consumers and “The mass media in the 1940s and 1950s were perceived as a
powerful influence on behaviour change”[6]
Similar to the disinhibition theory which suggests that activities that
audiences generally disapprove of, once frequently seen in the media as
acceptable these activities seem more accessible to audiences. This can be
deemed a increasing problem as “Child-development experts agree that adolescent brains aren't
wired to understand much of the vast world explored on reality television
today.” [7]
Institutions take target audiences very seriously and spend a lot time
researching target audiences before airing a new show. A lot of money goes into
this research and one result of this are focus groups. “Participants might ask
whether they would prefer to watch a new programme at 7pm or 8pm.”[8] This is just an example of how big reality
television has become and essentially is. The funding and budgets pumped into
the background of these shows are more than anyone expected. “Television
programme makers devise new programmes not simply on the basis of ideas that
they are interested in, but in order to target and attract a particular
audiences.”[9] It could be argued that such a specific
targeting on target audiences could be harmful to consumers especially with
shows like Geordie Shore. Because of its vulnerable target audience young
people consume these negative representations and could possible imitate them. Geordie Shore has seen ratings increase series
by series and the most recent series trailer has helped with this.
As seen in the series 4 trailer a lot of the series action is
condensed into the minute trailer. Regarding new and digital media, this was
shown on the Geordie Shore website before MTV. This is a direct this a direct
attempt to tap into the target audience. At the end of the trailer we see
‘Geordie Shore’ hash tagged encouraging audiences to join in the conversation
and often this has the ‘word of mouth’ effect. The internet then provides a
pivotal promotional campaign for structured reality TV shows, and institutions
are aware of this as the internet “it is an integral part of the process of
becoming independent”[10]Still
asking the question of does it dumb down our television and culture, the
language used is not the most academic and challenging. “Jaeger bombs and
knickers and everything flying everywhere.” Following the codes and conventions
of interesting audiences of 12-34 simple texts along the screen moves the
trailer along allowing younger audiences to understand without any
difficulties. So how does Geordie Shore actually dumb down
UK culture? Well the representation of Newcastle is challenged and this can
link to the cultivation theory. “Television viewers are cultivated to view reality similarly to
what they watch on television.”[11]
This is the idea that consumers of television shows that represent a certain
group of people, subconsciously our behaviour changes due to what we see on
television. Audiences could then have a preconception that all people from
Newcastle can “talk the back legs off a donkey”. The group of Tyneside youngsters
give off the impression that they are idiotic and this lifestyle is something
to be proud of. In an interview two cast female members are asked to compare
their show to rival structured reality TV show ‘The Valleys.’ Sarcastically
mocking the rival welsh show they glorify their outrageous antics stating “They
got naked? We did that in series one. They have sex? Did that in series one.”
Audiences seeing this assume these antics are acceptable which carries a
representation of residents of Newcastle and overall the UK.
Alternative structured reality TV shows also carry the same values
and ideologies reinforcing the original hypothesis. The Only Way Is Essex which
has been running since October 2010 despite many critics. The idea of ‘dumbing
down’ UK culture can be seen in the first seconds of the trailer for the latest
series as one of the Essex gentlemen struggles to countdown from five and
laughs it off. It could be argued that this in fact ‘dumb down’ UK culture and
the outrageous comments like “a cheeky snog maybe a new bum” all reinforces the
idea. The rejuvenation of reality TV has been deemed to be the show Big
Brother, and the adaptation of it being sold to the public as a social
experiment can be compared to what it has been labelled today as ‘trash TV’.
The show has developed into a social farce where “68% of respondents expressed
enjoyment at witnessing a group conflict”[12]
The general excitement for the show reverberated round the world and as the
years went on audiences began to question social experiment vs entertainment
values. Speaking under literal terms of ‘dumbing down’ “Japanese researchers conducted some of the earliest
research on the relationship between television and impaired academic
achievement.”[13] This is the idea that structured reality TV
shows actually make audiences ‘thicker’ and damages their direct
intelligent. According to BBC news
reality TV shows not only damage UK culture, but also hindering young people’s
success in life. For example getting a job and becoming academically
successful. “You become famous you become a success without trying. That’s the
sort of values they are implying”.[14]
Structured reality TV shows overall can also
be an example of hegemony. Behind all the scenes it can be said that these
shows are commissioned by white middle class people. By portraying the working
class in such repulsive ways (getting drunk, having sex, arguing, uneducated)
is a way of essentially keeping them ‘in their place.’So not only can it be
argued that structured reality TV shows dumb down television and culture,
maintains the metaphorical gap between working class and middle class by
representing them negatively and praised for it. Producers make audiences feel
a sense of power within structured reality TV shows and this sense of becoming
omniscient. So, is this acceptable to watch how people live? Watch their every
move? Who they talk, argue and have sexual intercourse with? On reality TV
terms this is acceptable. A political message that is left unanswered due to
hegemonic view that the middle class who possibly don’t want to answer. Maybe
these working class ‘air heads’ making a fools of themselves is in their
interest. Judging by the ratings, audiences are unaware of this because Geordie
Shore is so simplistic and seems to be nothing more than young people having
fun.
On the other hand of this hypothesis
understanding the few positive aspects of reality TV is something that should
be recognised. It is not a complete hatred and negative attitude to reality TV
progressing as “8% of respondents said reality TV has changed for the better
and 7% think it has not affected anything”.[15]The
fact that consumers believe that it has changed for the better suggests that
there are some positives to take out of reality TV. It can also be argued that
times are moving on and people no longer want to accept what broadcasters’ idea
of what is good for consumers. Giving the public what they want is not harmful
and entertaining the UK is what TV is for. Freedom of speech and a liberal
representative democracy is essentially what reality TV is, a democracy. If a
character is not liked they are voted out and the power resides with the
people. The fact that these individuals that are rightly or wrongly deemed as
‘celebrities’ they are said to contribute to the economy.[16] Cast members such as ‘Gaz’ now promote and
sell T-shirts with his catchphrase on it and the specific target audiences buy
into it. With these counter arguments
very valid, no denying the negatives outweigh the positive.
Another issue is the debate of how close to
reality is reality TV? Discussions the specific techniques used in structured
reality television shows are used to create this façade that these shows are in
fact real events and the exact time the viewers are watching it. “for instance,
the screen graphic ‘2:45am’ separates the on screen moment from at home moment
of viewing occurring at 8pm.”[17] On the other hand, not doubting reality
television can get realistic and sometimes violent as tempers flare and camera
men have to step in to calm the situation like for example in Geordie Shore
Series 2[18], however the fact that it is still aired and
shown to the public is creating this idea that we have an emotional insight to
this ‘reality’ that we are witnessing right before our very eyes as it was
recorded six months prior. Even when Big Brother previously used to air the 24
live hour shows the use of censorship and editing is a huge amount as things
and conversations were held on mute, incidents were not shown and so on. “Ruth
Wrigley, executive producer of Big Brother series one commented on the sheer
amount of television produced by her team in an effort to keep up with ‘the
present.”[19] These aspects throw in the debate of how
real is reality TV and what television can we as a public trust?
Reality TV has come a long way and has
adapted very intelligently tapping into audiences and coming up with this
concept ‘dramality TV’. Geordie Shore is no doubt an entertaining show, however
dumbing down the UK culture can questioned. The effect of structured reality TV
leads to the target audiences striving to be uneducated, vulgar and
consequently be praised and loved for it. The idea that teens now strive to be
like these individuals in these shows and become something they are not in
order to tap into the industry. “In the language of advertising, participates
try on ‘new and improved’ selves”[20] Do we want the younger generation aspiring
to be drunkard, irresponsible and incapable? The domino effect of this is the
more dramality shows the UK produces the more negative representations, the
more youngsters strive to be celebrities for nothing and the more taboo
subjects become acceptable. From all types of reality TV shows convey a strong
political message behind it. Talent shows, who is an individual to tell them if
they have talent if not? All the way to the hegemonic ideology within
structured reality TV shows. The media is such a huge influencing in shaping
opinions as “teens spend 7 hours and 39 minutes consuming media every day”.[21]
With so much time spent consuming the media we begin to question what are
audiences actually being fed? Geordie Shore is just one of many structured reality
TV shows that have this negative effect on audiences, and with the ratings of
shows like this increasing we can ask the question can it get worse in years to
come? Clearly judging by the evidence, it has a negative effect on the public
and in fact it could suggest that shows like Geordie Shore do ‘dumb down’
television and UK culture.
Word
Count: 2463
[6]http://www.utwente.nl/cw/theorieenoverzicht/Levels%20of%20theories/macro/Hypodermic%20Needle%20Theory.doc/
[8]
J BIGNELL, 3rd Edition (2013) P.262
[9] iBid
P.261
[10]
Panzarine S, (2001) P. 35
[12]Andrejevic.
M (2004) P. 11
[15]
Kopp M. (2013) P. 27
[16] Evans, J. Hesmondhalgh, D. (2005)
[17] B
Casey, N Casey, B Calvert, L French and J Lewis: (2002) P.142
[18]
Geordie Shore S2 E2
[19] B
Casey, N Casey, B Calvert, L French and J Lewis: (2002) P. 144
[20] Morreale J (2005) P.97
