Ask any average person on the street how they feel about reality television and, assuming he hasn’t been living under a rock for the last few years, nine out of ten times you’ll get an answer somewhere in the vicinity of a disgusted sigh.
But press your subject a little further and he’ll most likely reveal, with a shameful grin, that he is secretly hooked on “Survivor” or “Fear Factor” or “The Bachelor” or any one of the hundreds of reality programs now available.
Just to be perfectly clear, I have not actually conducted this survey of television viewers. This is not meant to be used as scientific data. It’s simply a trend I’ve noticed among my peers.
Most people think reality television is shallow, voyeuristic and low quality. Most people think reality television has gone too far and fear where it will go next. But in spite of widespread concerns, millions of people continue to faithfully watch.
According to Nielsen Media Research, “Survivor: Pearl Islands” is consistently among the top five highest-rated television programs, reaching an average of 20 million viewers every week. NBC’s “Fear Factor” is the second-highest rated reality series of the fall season, reaching more than 13 million viewers with every episode. While television viewers are growing tired of the reality phenomenon, it seems they continue to feed the dragon they are supposedly fighting.
Personally, I have no problem harassing reality TV. As an aspiring television writer, I resent the explosion of programming that makes my craft virtually obsolete. Not to mention I think most of it really is shallow, voyeuristic and low quality. I have absolutely no qualms about joining the pissing-and-moaning-about-reality-TV crowd.
On the other hand, I think reality television can have a positive influence on the quality of television programs. In fact, I think having a warehouse full of cheap, profitable programs has become almost necessary in order for networks to afford higher-quality series.
Being CEO of a broadcast network like NBC, CBS or FOX is still a nice job if you can get it, but drawing in millions of viewers every hour of the day is growing more difficult each year. Forty years ago there were three networks to choose from: CBS, NBC and ABC. Divide the television viewing population of the United States by three and you’ve got yourself one heck of an audience.
But the game has changed since cable arrived. More competitors mean fewer viewers, which means fewer ad dollars. It’s a simple equation that adds up to very bad news for the big dogs in the network offices.
Not to mention the cost of creating a television show is skyrocketing. The cast of “Friends,” for example, makes one million dollars per episode. That’s six million dollars every week for the lead actors alone. NBC has to sell a lot of ad time just to cover Jennifer Aniston’s salary.
My point is this: dramatic/comedic series television is very, very expensive. Reality television, comparatively, is very, very cheap. Sure, you’ve got your host and producers and camera crew, plus a small team of writers to tell the host which moronic things to say this week (and no one is claiming that they don’t get paid well), but compared to shows like “Law and Order,” “CSI” and “Everybody Loves Raymond,” the budget for a reality show is pocket change. In order for networks to afford shows that require big budgets for set construction, talent salaries and production costs, they need a pile of big-money makers that cost virtually nothing to create.
So while I don’t believe that the majority of reality television could ever be considered high quality, I do believe that it makes high quality programs possible. Television has become increasingly artistic over the years. Anyone who disagrees needs to check out “West Wing,” “Curb Your Enthusiasm” or “Six Feet Under.”
Television has reached a new level of brilliance in its writing, acting, producing and directing. It has risen above its expected role as cheap entertainment for the masses to reach heights of poignant, witty and thought-provoking storytelling previously found only on silver screens and theater stages.
But this golden age of television artistry comes with a high price tag, a burden of cost the networks simply could not shoulder if they didn’t have the crutch of reality television. The high ratings/low cost equation of reality programming makes high budget/high art television possible.
So next time you’re sitting in front of the television feeling guilty for succumbing yet again to the temptation of “Big Brother,” “Joe Millionaire” or “American Idol,” tell yourself you are watching this schlock for a good cause. Without the viewership of millions of reality TV addicts, there may really be nothing good to watch on television. And then what would we do?
