WikiProject Television	(Rated B-Class, Top-importance)	TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Television portal v • d • e This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reality television article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 Future of reality TV 2 Edit of the American Family section of article 3 'enclosed environment'? 4 Does "Romper Room" count as Reality TV? 5 Rewrite required (copyright issue) 6 Doctor Who satire 7 Not Much Post-Production? 8 MARTHA STUART 9 REALITY TV STARS CATEGORY/ARTICLE 10 The Seven-Up series 11 Predictions in Popular Culture 12 Future of Reality TV 13 Hoaxes - Hoax shows 14 Speaking Out 15 QUERY RE: "recreated scenes" 16 Cops 17 Use of SAG Actors in "Reality Shows" 18 Is reality a misnomer 19 Merging of game opera page 20 Docusoap and Reality TV the same? That is highly debatable! 21 "Reality TV Business Model" section 22 POV-section tag 23 Addition to Pop Culture References 24 FCC Classication of Shows 25 Analysis and Criticism 26 Types of Reality TV - wrong categories 27 External Links 28 You Asked For It 29 Another reference in pop culture 30 Cinema Verite? 31 Image copyright problem with Image:MTV-FEAR PILOT.GIF 32 Doku-Soap 33 Expanded criticism section 34 Missing reference: "Who Wants to Marry a Multi-Millionaire?" 35 Referenced Data 36 "Corporate bias" section looks irrelevant 37 Hollywood Bias? Why are these two contributors very focused on surpressing this data? 37.1 Television Producers Possess Profit Motives 38 Remember, Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia 39 Add relevant sub-section to Criticism section 39.1 Influenced by corporate profit motive 40 Add relevant data to Product Placement section 40.1 Product placement 41 reality tv good or not 42 "Representative of worldwide views" 43 Unscientific data removed

[edit] Future of reality TV

Just in response to the last post about the future of this genre. I agree and I think it is here to stay. As long as reality tv his cheaper for production companies and will keep pulling in viewers, it is here to stay people. Although since i'm not a huge fan, i can only hope they keep coming up with better ideas in the realm of American Idol. Because right now i'm not impressed.

Are you chimeing?--86.29.250.53 (talk) 14:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Edit of the American Family section of article

The American Family segment was edited because it went way off topic in detailing the homosexuality and cross-dressing of son Lance Loud. Although interesting, this belongs in a seperate article on the show. The main point is that the show was a forerunner for today's reality TV. The intrictate day to day details of each episode is irrelevant to this article. i love 18 kids and counting —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.6.121.10 (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 'enclosed environment'?

Is this 'enclosed environment' really the distinguishing factor of a reality game show as opposed to a game show? I don't think so. Chuck Barris had conventional game shows that put people into real-life stress situations (dating, embarassment about not knowing your newlywed husband or wife, being 'gonged' off a stage) and these were certainly 'real' in that they had impacts beyond the questions on someone's life or career, and exploited real stresses. That's as much of a reality game show as "Fear Factor" is.

The idea that there is a game show and reality television that are two separate things is legitimate, but the idea that reality game show is part of reality television is weak. These are popular enough now that theyneed their own article, and explanations of the Barris and Japanese innovations...

This whole article is kind of a mess. It divides reality shows into three main types, the first of which is described in the introductory paragraph, and the second and third of which are buried in the second section. Also, the first section talks about shows from the 1970s, while the second section is headed "1950s to Present." Clearly, the organization needs to be fixed. SS451

[edit] Does "Romper Room" count as Reality TV?

What are the criteria of a reality tv show? Focus on non-actors? The lack of a script? If "Romper Room" qualifies, please note it first aired in 1954.

http://kidshow.dcmemories.com/romper.html

[edit] Rewrite required (copyright issue)

This whole article was copied from here : http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Reality_television

--Madchester 19:39, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

Actually, it's the other way around, I think. At the bottom of the page you reference, it says it copied material from Wikipedia! --Smooth Henry 03:35, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Though not characteristic of an encyclopedia proper, shouldn't this include -something- about the rather negative opinion a great deal of people have with modern reality shows?

[edit] Doctor Who satire

Add Bad Wolf to 'See Also' ?

I was surprised to not see "talk shows" mentioned in this article. While many would contest the "reality" quality of a lot of talks shows, they're as "real" as some of these reality shows. 68.237.98.55 22:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Not Much Post-Production?

"Due to the typically low production values associated with reality television (such as having only a handful of people on the set, relatively inexpensive sets, and not much post-production"

There is in fact a great deal of post production on most reality television shows. Most of the focus is on the editorial side. Shows such as The Amazing Race, Survivor, Queer Eye, etc generally spend much more time in post production than a typical hour long drama or half hour comedy because the shooting ratio for reality shows is so much higher. The result is that far more editors and assisant editors are employed on reailty shows and thus more post production.

[edit] MARTHA STUART

Are Martha's Lifestyle s hows, and shows like Trading Spaces considered REALITY TV? -Lil_Flip246

[edit] REALITY TV STARS CATEGORY/ARTICLE

Can someone please make an article and category for realitytv stars? There are so many nowadays, and they are important notes of the years 2000 and up. Thanks martha stuart is reeely koool.(and shes hot ) Lil Flip246 00:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Seven-Up series

I haven't seen any of the Seven-Up series, but it's my understanding that they're basically just a series of interviews and don't present any drama directly; I wouldn't say they qualify as true reality TV. It might be worthwhile to mention it in the "origins" section, since I guess it pioneered the concept of making celebrities out of ordinary people, but not as "the first reality show" (as it's currently described). Any thoughts? Korny O'Near 15:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, here's a thought. The Seven-Up series is simply a straight-forward director-driven documentary series that happens to take as it's subject the lives of ordinary people and how they are shaped.

If you're going to call that Reality TV, then you'd also have to put all of the documentary footage from the Mass Observation project into the same genre, and yet there's obviously a huge difference between these serious attempts to use film and television to understand social phenomena, and the sort of cheap, trivial crap that is The Osbornes or The Simple Life.

I just came here to make the same point, namely that the Seven-Up series is documentary and not reality television. The fact that it made some of its participants moderately well know (much less well known than, say, the participants in Big Brother) is not relevant as that could be said of anyone who is in a documentary. FerdinandFrog (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Predictions in Popular Culture

The Running Man, a novel by Stephen King under the psuedonym Richard Bachman was published in 1982 (within the timeline of this section) and matches the dystopian future theme mentioned in this section. The story was made into a film starring Arnold Schwarzenegger. I think this ought to be incorporated into the text, but that will mess with the comments about British influences. Here is an IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093894/?fr=c2l0ZT1kZnx0dD0xfGZiPXV8cG49MHxrdz0xfHE9cnVubmluZyBtYW58ZnQ9MXxteD0yMHxsbT01MDB8Y289MXxodG1sPTF8bm09MQ__;fc=1;ft=22;fm=1

I've thought about this book/movie; I didn't include it because I don't see the "competition" portrayed in the movie as reality TV; there are no interviews with the participants, there's no voting, there's no effort to show the "human side" of the competitors. To me it's more like a sports show like boxing or pro wrestling (granted, a gruesome version thereof). But, as the article itself notes, reality TV has a lot of gray areas, and I might be fighting a losing battle on this definition. If anyone wants to include the book/movie, feel free to stick it in. Korny O'Near 17:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I relented, after seeing a synopsis of the book; it's clearly a different entity than the movie that was based on it. Korny O'Near 21:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Future of Reality TV

I added something stating that Reality TV could really no longer be considered a fad, but it was removed.

Seems like after all these years (Candid Camera was 1953! And the "recent" trend of Reality TV begins more or less with Cops, which began in 1989 and The Real World, which has been on the air for 15 years!), and after yet another week of the top shows in the Nielsen Ratings being reality shows (American Idol, Survivor -- hell, even Unanimous did as well as Lost) -- can't we just accept that Reality is as much an entrenched genre as the Sitcom or the Drama? Can we lose the paragraph about how it's possible that because two lousy reality shows failed, the whole genre is over? Seven out of 10 new sitcoms fail every season, but the listing for Sitcom doesn't claim that the genre is dead. Thoughts?

I was the one who took out that bit. Not because I disagree with it, but because it was editorializing, which doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article. I kept the specific factual info you cited, which was good, and which should be enough for people to draw their own conclusions. Korny O'Near 14:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Well then, I think we should remove everything from "In late 2004-early 2005, the genre's popularity seemed to be waning in America" to the end of that paragraph (including my addition), because "seemed to be" is language that is clearly editorializing. "Seemed" to whom? And based on what? Condemn the whole genre based on a few stinkers? And ignore the all the long-running, highly rated Reality shows? Again, we wouldn't say in an entry for DVRs something like "The popularity of the DVR seemed to be waning as TiVo had lost another several million dollars last quarter." One bad apple, right?

Feel free to remove it; though I think the specific ratings info is interesting. And it probably doesn't belong in the "criticism" section anyway. There should be probably be a new "popularity" section for it, if any of it's staying in the article. Korny O'Near 20:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

For what's it worth, Hell's Kitchen doesn't recruit all paid actors as customers in the restaurant. I was a guest of someone who had a table at the restaurant on a night they were filming (Others might have been actors, I don't know). I had to sign a fairly generic waiver, but that was it. To the extent of my knowledge the lady who invited me also wasn't an actor in any way. I know I can't include any of this in the article, but someone citable must have blogged it or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.3.144.17 (talk) 12:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hoaxes - Hoax shows

The shows: Boy Meets Boy, Playing It Straight, and Joe Millionaire are listed in Hoaxes yet they are not hoax shows as defined by that section of the article (where the entire show is a hoax perpretrated on one or more participants who believe they are in a conventional reality show, when in fact the other participants are actors who are faking). These shows are in fact standard reality shows but with a twist revealed only at the end. Many reality shows have similar twists and surprises, but that does not mean the entire show is a hoax show. Asa01 07:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, shouldn't Punk'd be considered a hoax show as well as a hidden camera show?153.18.17.22 19:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hoax shows are where the participants are being told they are appearing in one sort of reality TV show (eg. a show about space travel), yet that entire premise is false, that show they think they are appearing in is something completely different, and other supposed particpants are really actors pretending to be other participants/contestants. Punk'd is simply a show that showcases hoaxes being played, the entire show is not a hoax show. Melbn 10:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speaking Out

FROM ARTICLE: "Generally very specific contractual agreements signed by reality show participants/actors prevent them from commenting on the process in detail, which would publicly shed light on just how real the programs are."

I am not so sure about this. In Australia, every single year after Big Brother, at least one participant insists, "oh no I'm not really like that, they made me look that way through the editing". Many participants have commented-on the audition process, the actual show, the rules and requirements, and what came after, ad nauseam: the contract lasts only a limited time after the program is finished. I also have seen US shows where former participants in US programs say much the same sort of thing. As for the point about "how real the programs are", well serious film and television documentaries and news programs all have selection processes, guided editing, editorialising, selective editing, out of chron. footage, etc, so it really is a moot point. Asa01 23:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] QUERY RE: "recreated scenes"

FROM ARTICLE: " In 2004, VH1 aired a program called "Reality TV Secrets Revealed" [1] that detailed various misleading tricks of reality TV producers. Among them, that the shows The Restaurant and Survivor recreated scenes that hadn't originally shown up on camera,"

I didn't see this show. Does the above mean that a real incident occured, but was missed by the cameras, and so the entire incident was restaged so it could be shot properly? Just want to clarify it. Asa01 22:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's it. Either the cameras missed it, or the video/audio quality wasn't good enough, so they redid it. Feel free to rewrite the sentence if it doesn't make sense. Korny O'Near 23:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cops

In the article, it says "There has also been concern...that such programming is limited in its appeal for DVD reissue and syndication, although it remains lucrative for short-term profits" later on: "One series in particular defies this analysis: COPS has had huge success in syndication and direct response sales, as well as DVD in retail. Moreover, it has been a FOX staple since 1989, and is currently (2006) in its 19th season"

I think the distinction here is that Cops was on TV long before the Reality TV craze, and thus did not have all the cliches and trappings of current reality TV shows. It defies this analysis because it's a show that has been on TV for over a decade. The Reality TV craze really started with Survivor (although the Real World preceded this, and several documentary series existed before Survivor, it was Surviror that became the mainstream sensation that caused EVERY other network to deluge their schedule with Reality programming).

Basicallly, I think that the line ""One series in particular defies this analysis: COPS" should be removed, because I think the analysis in question refers to the newer crop of post-Survivor reality shows.

You're probably right; feel free to take out that section, or edit it. Korny O'Near 17:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of SAG Actors in "Reality Shows"

Should mention be made of the use of actual, well ... actors in recent reality shows? Evidently the Screen Actors Guild has rules that allow SAG members to participate in reality shows at non-SAG pay scales as long as they play "themselves". This has been taken to an extreme in the recent series Who Wants to be a Superhero?. The majority of the "contestants" are actually actors and SAG members with significant prior work experience. I know we mention that Reality Shows are often highly controlled, "scripted", directed, re-shot, etc. But I wonder if we should mention that now they are using actors outright to play the roles. I'm not sure how to encylopedize that, though. Thoughts?Derek Balsam 20:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The WP article on Who Wants to be a Superhero? (a show I'd never heard of before) suggests that a large of component of the competition is the creation - through acting - of a fictional character. It does not seem too different from a working singer appearing on Pop Idol; acting skills are what will win the competition. And clearly the viewer knows that the constestant is acting. So I don't really see why it should be used to buffer the idea that reality television shows are scripted or use actors, as this is an entirely different, and unhidden, use of acting. Also I wouldn't say "that now they are using actors outright to play the roles" because this is just one show, it is not like there is now suddenly a trend by which Reality shows "now" use actors. Asa01 23:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The kernel of my comment was "participate in reality shows at non-SAG pay scales ". It's not just that they are actors by profession. In an increasing number of cases, they are being paid by the show itself, without disclosing that to the audience. To give an example, the show Hell's Kitchen (US TV series) has come into controversy recently when it was revealed that all the diners (although not the contestants) are actually paid actors.Derek Balsam 01:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Well all the crew members, presenters and voice-over artists on all Reality shows are paid technicians or performers. I think if specific reality shows pay contestants, then sure mention it in relation to that show. If other people involved in the situation are paid on certain shows, that can be mentioned too, but only for that show. To conflate issues of some people in some shows being paid to apply to the entire genre is getting a bit tricky. Asa01 04:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is reality a misnomer

I must admit I dislike this idea that "Reality TV is a misnomer". There are several faults with the general claim. I've not watched many different shows but one I have watched, Big Brother Australia, is neither advertised as, nor described by its makers as, a "reality" show. They merely say that the show is "Big Brother". And people do not necesarily watch it because it is described (by some people, but not the show itself) as "Reality", or because there's anything "real" about it, they just like the show. So how can it be criticised for not being real if it isn't even established that that is the reason why people watch it.

And furthermore, Big Brother is only a show. It is not a show about a real thing external to the show, and it never claims to be about any real thing external to the show: a situation is created for the show, and the show is about that situation. How is that not real? A real compound is specially built for the show, the show is made, and it is a real show. It is like saying that the evening news show "is not real" because it is shot on sets using paid presenters, etc.

This quote is also hightly faulty Most obviously, in all but the most documentary-like reality shows, producers design the format of the show and control the day-to-day activities and the environment, creating a fabricated world in which the competition plays out. Producers specifically select the participants, and use carefully designed scenarios, challenges, events, and settings to encourage particular behaviors and conflicts. The line "in all but the most documentary-like reality shows" is faulty for a start. What does "documentary-like" mean?!? There are lots of different types and styles of documentary. Furthermore, many documentaries are indeed made by producers who design the format of the show and control the day-to-day activities and the environment, creating a fabricated world in which the documentary plays out. This can and certainly does occur frequently (The Thin Blue Line comes to mind; there are many more). Participants in all documentaries are indeed chosen by the maker of the documentary, and the story and the angle is planned before shooting commences. What is shot is based on a decision (they decide what footage to shoot to make a good documentary and that tells the story they had in mind), and this is then further retooled in editing.

OK. I haven't time now but I plan to make some changes here unless someone beats me to it. Asa01 03:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I confess my addition wasn't that well-worded. I like the idea of a sub-section, though; let me try it again. Korny O'Near 20:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I restored what was there previously. It wasn't horrible, but I felt it almost suggested that "Reality TV" can be criticised because it isn't real. To me, when people complain "oh Reality TV isn't real", it is like complaining that red wine isn't really red (which it isn't) and then criticising that beverage on that basis. Like "Reality TV", "Red wine" is merely a very looose and very general description that gets thrown around very broadly. Though my comments were a bit rambly I think they make it clear how complex the issues are: many shows don't actually themselves claim to be reality or Reality TV, and any mediation of "Reality" that they construct is much the same as what happens in many documentaries, lifestyle, and news shows. Though they certainly may be mentioned, editing strategies used by "Reality" programs are not unique to that genre; much the same thing happens in documentaries and always has, so in some ways the discussions are moot. Asa01 20:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging of game opera page

Since no one can back me up on the use of "game opera" as a Wikipedia page, I will put consideration of a merger on the table. - Desmond Hobson 18:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of the term "game opera" and it doesn't sound like its in popular use. In addition, the types of shows that are "game operas" are already included in this section. I would just delete it altogether.153.18.17.22 19:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd delete "game opera" too, or just make it a redirect here, for the same reasons. Korny O'Near 02:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Docusoap and Reality TV the same? That is highly debatable!

Docusoap and Reality TV, although it can be argued are the same, are not the same sub genre of documentary. Docusoap is its own sub genre as is Reality TV.

Reality TV has been around since the early 2000s, with the addition of Big Brother (which started out as a documentary). Docusoap has been around since the early 1990s.

Although I can understand why Docusoap and Reality TV have been conjoined I am of the belief that they should in actual fact have different pages on Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tarquin88 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] "Reality TV Business Model" section

I removed this entire section because I thought none of it is worth including. A lot of the statements were so obvious as to be pointless (shows are paid for by advertisers, shows appear on cable and broadcast networks), others appear elsewhere (reality TV is cheaper to produce than other kinds), and others are just too business-y for this article. Korny O'Near 15:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Haven't seen the section but Reality TV Business model is starting to include a lot of sponsored advertisers and their products. Would have thought that was worth mentioning. In New Zealand Pop's Ultimate Star had makeover segments with Cover Girl cosmetics as part of a singing contestTangoette 20:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV-section tag

DavidShankbone's revert violates NPOV. Several reputable sources call reality television films such as Jackass and Jackass Number Two "documentaries", but the article takes the (unsourced) POV that these movies are different from documentaries. The section thus fails to accurately represent all notable points of view, and, as it currently stands without an adequate source, is inaccurate. THF 15:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Your argument is logically flawed. All Maples are Trees, but not all Trees are Maples, Ted. It's College Logic 101. Just because you find an article calling Jackass a documentary doesn't mean all Reality films are documentaries. If this is the reason you put the NPOV tag up, then it needs to come off. --David Shankbone 15:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:KETTLE again. Right now, the article says "All R are not D", even though I have a cite that falsifies that by stating "There exists an R that is a D." While my version might be falsified (where's the counterexample of a reality film that is not a documentary?), your version is false by stating as fact a particular unsourced POV that contradicts reliably-sourced POVs. THF 15:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I would classify America's Funniest Home Videos: Nincompoops and Boneheads to not be a documentary, but a reality film. --David Shankbone 15:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with THF that reality films are a subcategory of documentaries. However, as the author of the controversial phrase in question ("these films differ from conventional documentaries in that.."), I find this an odd argument to have, because that phrase was meant to indicate that reality films are documentaries. The key is the word "conventional" - if they really were just something other than documentaries, the word wouldn't be in there. So maybe it could just be phrased better.

And David - I don't think the "America's Funniest Home Videos" movie is a documentary. But then again, I don't consider it a reality film either, or consider "America's Funniest Home Videos" a reality television show; as a collection of plotless clips, it's not that different from a sports highlight show. Korny O'Near 19:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Funny! Thanks for the input. Can we change the text to make the sentence less ambiguous? Your participation in the ongoing discussion on the subject at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films#convenience_break_for_discussion would be appreciated as well, and there is a new article reality film. THF 19:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Addition to Pop Culture References

How about Edtv? It seems to fit the criteria perfectly.--84.69.46.219 19:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It's there already. Korny O'Near 21:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FCC Classication of Shows

I think the American FCC has made it clear that shows like Big Brother are not classified by them as "game shows" since the outcome is pre-determined, so shows like Big Brother are thereby classified by the FCC as "entertainment shows" just like pro-wrestling. This should be clarified in the article. Wanzhen 06:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Analysis and Criticism

I'm a little surprised by the shortness of the analysis and criticism section. Surely there must be a lot more interesting analysis and/or critique of Reality Television out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anawkwardstroll (talk • contribs) 00:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I am also surprised at the way this article shows a slight bias towards listing mainly American shows. Many of the popular syndicated shows are American, yes, but often they take elements from other countries' successful shows.--137.132.250.9 (talk) 08:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Types of Reality TV - wrong categories

Documentary type reality tv is the wrong description - the term that TV production companies use is "Observational" Reality TV shows. I'd like to see the category heading changed Tangoette 20:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

Would like to also see Reality TV links for other countries

re: DMOZ aren't they months behind on indexing sites? How can you have an up-to-date directory if you rely on DMOZ...

New Zealand http://www.nzrealitytv.com/ has episode recaps as well as news about NZ based reality TV shows and the "stars" Tangoette 20:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You Asked For It

The wording might be a little awkward as I've added it, but I think it's important to acknowledge You Asked For It which was an early reality TV series and one of the first (if not the first) to encourage audience participation similar to today's "voting off the island". 68.146.41.232 (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the note above about untimely and inefficient updating by DMOZ. To follow your guidelines, I'm posting a very useful link here for fans of reality TV games.

Last 2 Left Reality TV Games and Office Pools is a unique game format and website that offers free games. The object of this game is for players to correctly predict the final (top) two participants of a specific reality TV contest show. This one game format is applied to many different types of shows, sports and major events.

AngietheAngel (talk) 14:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)--AngietheAngel (talk) 14:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another reference in pop culture

Or rather, perhaps even a prediction, but uh... Mojo from X-men.. who kills people and broadcasts it.. kinda reality TV there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.63.142 (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cinema Verite?

The article equates "Fly on the wall" filmmaking with Cinema Verite, when in reality, the styles are exactly the opposite. While it is true that journalists commonly invoke the term Cinema Verite to sound smart, in my experience, 99% of the time it's misused. Cinema Verite stresses the presence and intervention of the filmmaker. I have made an edit accordingly. theMutantChair —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.209.2 (talk) 05:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a page on Cinéma vérité. Format (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:MTV-FEAR PILOT.GIF

The image Image:MTV-FEAR PILOT.GIF is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --11:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm martin kunert, the creator and producer of FEAR. All wikipedia use of the FEAR image is fair use as in all cases, wikipedia is using the image to illustrate a topic relating to Fear.

[edit] Doku-Soap

If you search for Docusoap, you are directed to this article. If you search for Docu-soap, you get to an extra (mini) article. "Docusoap" should should lead to "Docu-soap", and that article should be worked on.--Gru.bu (talk) 08:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I just changed "Docu-soap" to redirect here - I don't see any need for a separate article. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Expanded criticism section

I think more should be added relating to body image problems resulting from shows like extreme makeover and Amercias next top model --Mdavies 965 (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Missing reference: "Who Wants to Marry a Multi-Millionaire?"

Something missing from this article is mention of "Who Wants to Marry a Multi-Millionaire?" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Wants_to_Marry_a_Millionaire). The show's narrative, that a woman would jump into a marriage with someone she just recently met on TV and hardly knew simply because he was wealthy, was very uncomfortable to many viewers. The show thereby played a very important role in the development of reality TV by helping get viewers used to the idea of unusual or not previously seen real situations playing out in front of TV viewers. Perhaps similar to people feeling shock in seeing cage fighting the first time but then getting used to it, and it then becoming near mainstream. "Who Wants to Marry a Multi-Millionaire?" provided that initial shock that inoculated the public against further shock from other reality TV shows.67.49.82.145 (talk) 04:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Referenced Data

It is increasingly noticeable, and hence very apparently existential, that producers for Reality television shows are very likely registered Wikipedia users and are selectively removing data that is not profitable for them, in favor of bias and subjective data that furthers their profits. This appears to be biased censorship. Please discontinue removing valid encyclopedic data because of subjective opinion, or disagreement with objective data. Thank you. 66.190.243.162 (talk) 00:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "Corporate bias" section looks irrelevant

The new section "Propagandized by corporate bias toward profit motive", containing Noam Chomsky's thoughts on corporate bias and propaganda, looks irrelevant to this article. Aside from the fact that the section seems to argue nothing more than that television shows exist in order to make money, it doesn't appear that Chomsky or the other writers cited ever talked specifically about reality television. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, it's even worse than I thought - the main reference for the section is the book Manufacturing Consent, which was published in 1988, before reality television began. So we have Chomsky et al. saying that profit on TV leads to propaganda, and then evidence that reality television is intended for profit, and from that the conclusion that reality television is biased toward propaganda. That seems like classic synthesis to me, and it's not allowed; I added a "synthesis" tag to the section. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Thanks for doing the research. Plastikspork (talk) 03:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hollywood Bias? Why are these two contributors very focused on surpressing this data?

It is increasingly noticeable, and hence very apparently existential, that producers for Reality television shows are very likely registered Wikipedia users and are selectively removing data that is not profitable for them, in favor of bias and subjective data that furthers their profits. See also: conflict of interest. Notice how the two users above:

Korny O'Near (talk) Plastikspork (talk)

are immediately in strong agreement with their opinions, corroborating one-another immediately. Meanwhile, common sense and simple logic remains absolutely objective. Wikipedia is about intelligence. Wikipedia is NOT about surpressing intelligence. Why are these two contributors very focused on surpressing this data? Corporate profit motive continues into present-tense. Empirical, objective, researched data is more valuable than subjectivity. The data in the section is absolutely relevant, and important to include for the article to be objective, valid and encyclopedic.66.190.243.162 (talk) 10:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, two users agree on something, it must be a conspiracy. Or maybe we're both recognizing a very obvious violation of Wikipedia guidelines. Oh, and Wikipedia's not "about intelligence" per se; I don't know where you got that idea. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Television Producers Possess Profit Motives

A true fact. It is increasingly noticeable, and hence very apparently existential, that producers for Reality television shows are very likely registered Wikipedia users and are selectively removing data that is not profitable for them, in favor of bias and subjective data that furthers their profits. 66.190.243.162 (talk) 08:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Remember, Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia

Why not work to add referenced data and references to the existing article, rather than attempt to censor valid data? Censorship ultimately equates to forms, or derivatives of fascism. 66.190.243.162 (talk) 10:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

- The hostile media effect, sometimes called the hostile media phenomenon, refers to the finding that people with strong biases toward an issue (partisans) perceive media coverage as biased against their opinions. 66.190.243.162 (talk) 11:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I'm not going to respond to all your rants (here's a hint, though - lots of linking and bolding doesn't do anything to strengthen your point). I will say, again, that you should read the synthesis article, to understand why that section violates Wikipedia policy. And omission of factual data is not against Wikipedia policy - on the contrary, there are strong limits as to what kinds of factual data are allowed in each article. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, please stop editing other people's talk page comments - that's vandalism. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This is about the fifth time you've changed mine and other people's comments on this page - I just reverted your changes. Stop at once. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Add relevant sub-section to Criticism section

[edit] Influenced by corporate profit motive

Daniel Petrie Jr., former president of the Writers Guild of America, west, an organization that represents 9,000 Hollywood film and television writers, stated: "We look at reality TV, which is billed as unscripted, and we know it is scripted. We understand that shows don't want to call the writers writers because they want to maintain the illusion that it is reality, that stuff just happens."^[1] Corporations have inherent profit motives to attract viewership, and reality television programming is often financed by American corporations,^[2] whom historically possess profit motives to increase profitability and advertising revenues.^{[3] [4]} Many of the actors in reality television are compensated for their appearances,^{[5] [6] [7] [8]} and some of the content is staged in advance to generate higher viewership numbers, which correlates with increased financial profit.

References

[edit] Add relevant data to Product Placement section

[edit] Product placement

Product placement, whereby companies and corporations pay to have their products included in television programming for [[marketing]] purposes has been increasing in reality television, and is another example of premeditation existent in some reality television programming.<ref name=nctimes>1/5/2008. [http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008/01/06/news/californian/18_02_161_5_08.txt Profit motive: Ads become more prominent amid squeeze in industry] from [http://www.nctimes.com/news/californian/ The Californian (News).] Retrieved May 2009.</ref> <ref name=promotion>[http://promomagazine.com/news/prod-placement_soars_033005/ Product Placement Market Soars to $3.46 billion in 2004: Report]. Promo Magazine. March 30, 2005.</ref> <ref name=usatoday>[http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2004-10-14-tv-product-placement_x.htm TV product placement moves out of background]. USA Today. October 14, 2004.</ref> <ref>[http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2005/12/69775 TV Writers Must Sell, Sell, Sell]. Wired Magazine. December 12, 2005.</ref>

[edit] reality tv good or not

reality tv show give a good impact or harm to society ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.206.142.185 (talk) 06:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "Representative of worldwide views"

I just read through most of this piece, and as I often find in Wikipedia articles, it's a mixture of good research and bad organization. However, I am completely baffled by the huge disclaimer plastered at the top of the page: "The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page. (June 2009)"

Okay, I'm discussing the issue on the talk page. As far as I can tell (and I don't know a lot about reality TV) this article does a great job of surveying the field of English-language reality TV, since it includes the US, Canada, the UK, Australia, and I think New Zealand. Not only that, but it mentions the importance of Dutch reality shows, and it refers to reality TV in Japan, China, and other non-Western countries.

Therefore -- since the article is written in English for the English-language Wikipedia -- it seems to be doing a GREAT job of presenting a supra-national view of the subject.

No article is ever going to capture the perspective of every culture on the planet -- that would be an absurd standard to set. Indeed, I should think that most Wikipedia articles are vulnerable to the critique that they "may not represent a worldwide view of the subject." An excellent example of the "less than worldwide view" would be today's featured article on Emily Dickinson, which says *not a single word* about how Dickinson is regarded in Great Britain and Australia, or for that matter in France and Italy -- let alone Iran, India, or China.

So can we remove this disclaimer from the Reality TV article? What do others think? Thuvan Dihn (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Plastikspork (talk) 02:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Unscientific data removed

This passage was removed:

Screenwriter Sheryl Longin, who describes herself as "a reality show addict", has written that based on her experiences, "we may be approaching the death of drama," because seeing real people act naturally matches viewers' expectations of human body language in a way that actors cannot achieve: "Not even Sir Alec Guinness could give us the richness of body language and facial cues emanating from eliminated contestant 'Organic Josh' on this season's Design Star. The difference to the brain between watching reality television and scripted drama is like the difference to our vision between High Definition television and 1970's quality video."

A screenwriter's personal opinion is not correlated with the human psychology of over 310 million Americans, as well as the rest of the world's population. This person is not a professional psychologist, is not qualified to make sweeping generalizations regarding human psychological perception, judgment, neuroscience and the human brain in general. The data is not qualified with references regarding this one person's opinion regarding millions of humans. The data presents sweeping generalizations regarding human psychology, falsely stating that all humans perceive and judge content in reality television shows identically in stating "the difference to the brain between watching reality television and scripted drama..." (et al.). Furthermore, comparing human judgment to "our vision" (as stated), or human vision is invalid, and is not correlateable with the judgments of many people. Humans are very diverse in opinion, perception and judgment, not identical in such. The data is speculative prediction and is not valid. 68.116.53.146 (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

As you note, it's one person's opinion, so it doesn't need references. I don't think anyone will confuse it for a scientific analysis. User:Korny O'Near (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Why would you include one person's opinion about psychology if he is not a psychologist? Besides, isn't this an encyclopedia? Provable facts not screenwriting hacks. Including opinion seems to be a sly way to support a position without needing to give references. No bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.31.245 (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)