Argument: The public can always just turn reality programmes off, or watch something else

Television provides a wide mixture of programmes, including reality television. For those who want it, there is high quality drama such as "The Sopranos" or "Pride and Prejudice" whilst the BBC, CNN, Al-Jazeera and other international broadcasters also cover news and current affairs in great depth. Wildlife programmes on the National Geographic or Discovery bring the wonders of the natural world into our living rooms. More sports are covered in more detail than ever before. So, ultimately, reality shows have not ruined television as a whole, they have merely added another option for viewers. Indeed, because they make a lot of money for broadcasters to spend on other types of programmes, they are actually good for all viewers, regardless of personal taste for genres.

Candidate 1: "Reality shows are driving out other sorts of programmes, so that often there is nothing else to watch. Reality TV is cheap and series can go on for months on end, providing hundreds of hours of viewing to fill schedules. TV bosses like this and are cutting back on comedy, music, drama and current affairs in favour of wall to wall reality rubbish. This is even worse when reality shows crowd the schedules of public service broadcasters. Stations such as the BBC in the UK, France Télévisions, or Rai in Italy have a duty to inform and educate the public. They should be made to meet that responsibility – as Rai has by saying it won’t have any more reality shows."
Candidate 2: "Reality television is not what audiences want, it is watched simply because it is ‘there’. It is what John Humphrys calls ‘carbohydrate television’, it ‘probably hasn’t done you much harm and if it leaves you feeling a bit bloated…well you can search out of a bit of quality stuff’. [1] With tens of television channels and twenty-four hours of programming to fill, reality is simply a cheap means to ensure there is always something on TV to watch. In Italy, the evidence supports such claims, with the state broadcaster Rai deciding to scrap reality programmes in 2008 due to low demand. [2] As Rai’s President stated, ‘I don’t believe they are the type of shows the majority of our viewers expect or want from a public service broadcaster’. [3]

[1] Humphrys, John. “Take this oath: First, do no harm.” 28 August 2004. The Guardian. 4 July 2011.

[2] Fraser, Christian. “Italian TV bins reality shows.” 3 April 2007. BBC News. 4 July 2011.

[3] Fraser, Christian. “Italian TV bins reality shows.” 3 April 2007. BBC News. 4 July 2011."
Candidate 3: "The few reality TV programmes that are educational and beneficial do not balance the bad majority. The majority are not educational, either to the public or the participants, and the insight they purport to offer into the human psyche are misguided. As Vanessa Feltz, a contestant on the British Big Brother series, describes, contestants and viewers alike 'subscribe to this utterly specious notion that fame is entirely desirable' (BBC News, 2001), whilst Narinda Kaur, another contestant on the show, admitted "I came away from this experience thinking 'oh my God, did I really say that?" (BBC News, 2001). As Claudio Petruccioli, head of the Italian state broadcaster Rai, notes, 'reality TV shows put people into environments that are both unrealistic and coercive'1 Any lessons learned are therefore inapplicable to real-world situations. 1 Fraser, C. (2007, April 3). Italian TV bins reality shows. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from BBC News:"
Candidate 4: "Reality TV is less about exposing society and allowing us to evaluate our own behaviour than it is about 're-inforcing particular social norms'1. As such, it is deliberately misleading. If it is portrayed as being real, it implies authenticity and honesty, two things that most reality TV programmes are not. They serve not to challenge our views of society, but reinforce the often false notions we already collectively hold. For example, the US reality show "Are You Hot?" asks competitors to submit to appearance-rating by judges, only re-inforcing the false premise that one is defined solely by the way they look2. Furthermore, even if accepted that reality shows do present a 'real' image of society, programmes like Big Brother and Survivor erode the distinction between public and private, turning 'people with real lives and real problems and real children (into) entertainment'3. Society's entertainment cannot be allowed to come at the expense of the privacy that protects families and children. 1 Sanneh, K. (2011, May 9). The Reality Principle. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from The New Yorker 2 Becker, A. (2003, March 1). Hot or Not: Reality TV can be harmful to women. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from Pyschology Today 3 Humphrys, J. (2004, August 28). Take this oath: First, do no harm. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from The Guardian:"

Reality shows are driving out other sorts of programmes, so that often there is nothing else to watch. Reality TV is cheap and series can go on for months on end, providing hundreds of hours of viewing to fill schedules. TV bosses like this and are cutting back on comedy, music, drama and current affairs in favour of wall to wall reality rubbish. This is even worse when reality shows crowd the schedules of public service broadcasters. Stations such as the BBC in the UK, France Télévisions, or Rai in Italy have a duty to inform and educate the public. They should be made to meet that responsibility – as Rai has by saying it won’t have any more reality shows.
