Reality Television Benefits Society More than Scripted Television Does

My Article this week was titled “Reality Television Benefits Society More than Scripted Television Does” and I don’t really know what to think of it. I mean it is true, reality TV is taking over many networks and our society is slowly transitioning their preferences to watching shows that show some sort of truth (hypothetically speaking of course). I mean many people use reality television as an outlet to things they are missing in their own lives. Whether they like to see people making fools of themselves on national television, or whether they like to see the way a certain individual or group of people lives their lives. How many times have you caught yourself watching a television show like Catfish the television show or Teen Mom and found yourself questioning why these people choose to put their personal lives out there in-front of the whole world only to be made fun of or criticized for certain actions that you have made in your life. It’s amazing how much of ourselves we, as a society, are willing to show the world. Personally I would not want to show my life events for everyone to see merely for pure entertainment. However, I can pretty much safely assume that there have been at least one or more television shows that you can relate yourself to. You may not be able to relate to the whole situation of the person or the television show but I guarantee there was a personal story that related in some way to you. Whether you understand how the person is feeling because you might have felt similarly to them or maybe a person story touched home and made you reminisce on your past and inspired you to do something. Who knows? All I’m trying to say is that reality TV has made a huge impact on our society in a sense that its more relatable to our personal lives than scripted television shows like The Walking Dead (one of my favorite TV shows) where we have no way of relating to zombies (well maybe when waking up for 7:30 classes ha-ha). But all jokes aside we watch TV because we are typically bored and need something interesting to pass the time by and what better way to do this than watching a couple of episodes of Ridiculousness or Guy Code? TV in all honesty is mindless entertainment in the end. Whether we spend that time watching things that in one way or another relate personally to us, or we spend that time watching shows that have no chance of ever being real. We all have our personal favorites and after talking to some of my friends, reality TV does provide more entertainment that scripted shows. Maybe it’s because sometimes scripted TV shows seem too predictable. Real quick after reading this next sentence I really want you to try this. I want you to try and think about a television show that YOU personally would enjoy watching all the time no matter what; think about a plot, how the characters act, maybe the type of genre, just think about the perfect TV show. You got it? Alright now I can almost guarantee there is a show out or there has been a show that encompasses everything you wanted. I can also pretty much guarantee there have been multiple different TV shows that follow your criteria. My point is that there is not one show that is something entirely new, it has to have some characteristic of a show that has already been made and aired sometime in the past. I feel like with reality TV follows this same idea to an extent. Though the show may be a knock-off of a past television show, the story and actions of those who are on it are more than likely something way different than past people who have been on the show. It gives something new for people to watch and relate to and that’s the reason why I feel like reality TV is more popular than scripted TV shows. I know this has been a lot of rambling on about some things that may seem pointless but all in all I hope you understand what I was trying to get at.

Reality TV: It"s us at our worst

In this article written by Mike Marin, he talks about the level of "entertainment" Reality TV really is. he goes on and talks about saying why do we need to see these peoples lives, why do we care? Why is it entertaining to watch people get humiliated or embarrassed? He also points out that even in competition shows, contestants are encouraged to lie, cheat and do anything necessary to win.  I agree with the author is this article because reality TV nowadays is no longer entertainment, its more of an excuse for people to have 15 minutes of fame, so they do anything that will catch peoples attentions even if its ridiculous or stupid. I do like some reality TV shows though, their not all bad, such as Deadliest Catch on the Discovery Channel or the Ultimate Fighter on Fox Sports 1.
The majority of reality TV shows today are just lame excuses for people to be on TV, one big one comes to mind, Here Come Honey Boo Boo. Do people really care what this hillbilly family does in day? They may say they do but in hindsight they really don't because it wouldn't ruin their day if they hadn't watched the show. But most shows now take the reality out of reality TV, most of them are scripted and have directors tell them what to do. The term reality TV show has been corrupted with fake shows and pointless ones about the most ridiculous people. Most of these shows today make a pretty good case for Mark Marin's argument about how Reality Tv is us at our worse.
It may seem like I 100% agree with what was written in this article but thats not true. Their are still good reality shows out their that capture America's attention in a good way. Such as American Idol, The Voice or America's Got Talent. These shows bring the unknown people out of the darkness and into the limelight and give them a chance at something they would probably never get. Or one of my favorites, Extreme Makeover Weight Loss Edition, this one not only brings awareness to Obesity but tries to help individuals out that could not do it all alone.
Reality TV is a complicated and ruthless category of television, it could either crash and burn or be a huge success. Not every show will the greatness ever and most won't even be liked by all, but they are a very important part of television today. No matter how bad or insane the shows maybe that come out, people will always watch because reality TV has a interest that no other category can have because it has the feeling of being real. people like to see real people to real stupid things and like to laugh at them or cheer for them like in a competition show. Yes I agree that Mark Marin was right in this article in that Reality TV is nothing more but us at our worst but that still doesn't mean people won't continue to watch them.

Reality TV Producers Should Be Responsible for Participant Well-Being

The author that wrote the article “Reality TV Producers Should Be Responsible for Participant Well-Being” believes that there should be more regulation while filming in order to ensure safety to the participants of their shows. Within these regulations she includes a variety of solutions such as: all contracts must be public, limitations on alcohol, sleep requirements and many others.

          I do not think that these limitations should take place. People watch reality TV for the rawness of the acting and to see all of the idiotic things the participants do. This is what makes it successful. No matter how seemingly stupid the shows look or how much drama is included people will always be sitting behind their TV watching religiously.

          The people who take part in these shows know what they are in for so they should be able to handle what is going to happen or just not sign up. High risk has a counter for high reward and that is what the actors are in for. They want to make as much as they can and be famous off these shows. They always have the opportunity to say no to a contract or producer before they start filming. If they sign the contract it is their fault and they should be ready to endure the harsh reality of television.

          Shows like survivor have a clear goal of bringing people to their breaking points and pushing them to do things that they would never dream of doing in real life. This what makes the show so watchable and addictive for viewers because it is way different from everyday life. If there were set limitations put in place for reality TV they would become drab and boring. There would be no wow factor and people would lose interest all together. Nobody wants to watch a show filled with people doing the same stuff that they do, there has to be something new, exciting or adventurous.

          Most people on reality TV just want their 15 minutes of fame and that is why they act the way they do. Whether it be the drama queen self centered people on Jersey shore or the redneck risk takers on Buckwild they are all in it for the same reason. To prove to the world they deserve to be famous. For this to happen they have to go through the hard work it takes to get the spotlight. Reality TV is a very cut throat business so who ever wants to act the most extreme will. Nobody has gotten famous off of reality TV from following the rules and not getting into trouble of some sort. That’s what the people want and what the “actors” want so I don’t believe any limitations on the shows would lead to any great reality TV revolution.

          These shows are here to stay and as long as viewers do not start an uprising on treating reality TV stars nicer I don’t believe there will be any change anytime soon. 

Producers Sometimes Distort Reality and Undermine the Value of Reality TV

There has been a lot of controversy over the past year saying that reality television has been manipulated in order to get more people to watch their show. Andy Dehnart is a television critic and journalist who has followed most of this distortion over the past year. HGTV features a show called House Hunters where families and people go out and search for new homes because they are tired of their old ones. One individual posted on a blog saying that the show is heavily staged because she already had a house she bought last minute before the show. Then HGTV had to scramble and pretend like the family was touring a house for sale when in reality it was actually her friends and families houses that were being staged! To me, this is pretty funny about how they staged her own families’ houses to pretend like she was buying them. Others might argue that this is corrupt for reality TV and that they don’t want to watch some family tour a house that was not ever for sale.

         The name “Reality TV” can bring a lot of different views and perspectives to the viewers and to the cast members. For example, cast members who are competing for money can actually become wealthy and famous by building off their success and popularity. Others can get a lot of hate mail, bringing them down, reducing their popularity, and ultimately losing their jobs. We the viewers can also be affected. “The Deadliest Catch” was and still is a popular Reality TV show that depicts the harsh and gruesome life fisherman faced in the Alaskan Ocean. Recently one of the captains of the ships passed away and the producers had to watch how carefully they broadcasted because it can shape peoples views about society. I think we should all think twice when watching television because anything that happens on it can be altered to fit peoples specific views on the world.

         Many TV shows craft people’s reality. Chef Ramsay is a man that goes into hurting food business’s and yells at them to make them better cooks. Ramsay features in the U.K version of “Ramsay’s Kitchen Nightmares” and the Fox version of “Kitchen Nightmares.” The difference between the two is that producers and Ramsay put a lot more effort into creating conflict in order to construct excitement in the viewers. To me personally, I have no opinion on the manipulation of Reality TV shows because I don’t really have time to watch them. I am more of an ESPN kind of guy. But viewers who watch these kinds of shows are often furious because they are lied to about what actually happened behind the scenes.

         Another point people argue today is the unnecessary manipulation in Reality TV. Some networks actually do show people’s real reactions and emotions in real situations while others have artificial contexts to make people believe this is actually happening. Whale Wars, CBS’ Survivor, and Bravos’ Top Chef are a few shows that change reality to make their reality into TV shows. I mean think about it if you were being followed by a bunch of camera men on a island for a TV show you would totally express your emotions in a different way for the sake of television viewers. That is just what get when you watch reality TV. Producers are very tricky people. Like I said I am not a fan of it but others are. I say if you want to watch reality shows, enjoy it, but also think about what else is going on behind the scenes.

        

                          

Reality TV Producers Should Be Responsible For Participants Well-Being

My article was about reality television and the people involved in these shows. The author believes that the reality TV industry should establish some sort of ethics code for these shows to follow so the participants are not in as dangerous situations as they are today. The author wants some of these ethics to include limitations on alcohol, sleep requirements for the participants, limits on isolation, and medical care among others.

I can see where this author is coming from but I do not agree with this idea. I understand that these participants in reality TV can be put into some difficult and dangerous spots but it is by choice. The show or its producers cannot force any person to do something let alone force them to be on the show in the first place. It was the participant's choice to be on the show and sign any kind of contract to be put in these situations. Also, it is not like these people have never seen a reality show and are unaware of the types of things that go on in them.

The author of the article brings up the fact that in shows like Survivor or The Amazing Race, the participants are put through some mentally and physically brutal tasks and I agree that they are but the prize for those types of shows are hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars. If the show had less dangerous stunts the prize money wouldn't match the amount of effort. Another reason I disagree with this is because since these types of shows have started I have not heard of one death occurring on any of them. I think the show has control of those safety issues even if the audience at home cannot view what precautions that are being taken. A death or serious injury would not be something a show or network wants to endure so they will most likely take all the precautionary measures to prevent such a thing. I am not a big fan of these Survivor type shows but I'm sure if there was a death or serious injury that everyone would hear about it at some point.

Other arguments that I have against a code for these shows are money and ratings. These reality shows obviously have high viewer ratings or else they would not be on TV this long. Networks are not going to make such a drastic change when they are bringing in good ratings and the money that goes along with those ratings. Also, coming up with this code of ethics would cost money and using it in shows would cost even more. I don't understand why a network would do this when all a code of ethics is, is a risk at losing millions of dollars. The fans love these types of shows and if they don't there are other things on television they can watch. I don't believe these types of shows are going anywhere, at least not anytime soon.

The Untested Drug Cocktail

This article is about a man named Dennis McGuire who was killed by lethal injection at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility in Lucasville for raping and murdering a 22-year-old pregnant woman. The lethal injection he was given, a combination of midazolam and hydromorphone (a sedative and a very strong anesthetic derived from morphine), was something nobody had ever used before for lethal injection and Dennis McGuire was the first one to test it. During McGuire’s injection, witnesses said that he struggled and some added that he was gasping loudly, snorting, and making choking noises. The lethal injection took around ten minutes before McGuire was declared completely dead a few minutes later, which is nearly twice as long as what a regular injection would take if done properly. The author of this article did a decent job of not taking a clear stance on the situation, making it a little tougher to take a stance. The real question being asked is, was testing this new cocktail of drugs an acceptable thing to do?

Many death penalty opponents believe that this has caused an increase in problems concerning lethal injection, but death penalty supporters disagree with that statement. Mr. Schiedegger stated that McGuire’s discomfort due to the new cocktail of drugs should be of no concern to us, given that he did get a sedative as the very first thing. But in my personal opinion, the testing of new combinations of drugs seems like a barbaric thing to do to a human being. I’m not saying that McGuire’s punishment should have been something other than the death penalty; he committed an absolutely shameful crime and deserved rightful punishment. But he was treated like an animal being tested on with the new drug cocktail. While I believe that the death penalty still should have been carried out on McGuire for his actions, I also believe that it should have been in a different way.

It’s pretty easy to argue that on one hand, McGuire deserved the pain of this new drug combination 100 percent, because he committed the crime of rape and murder, two extremely repulsive actions. But you have to think, is it really acceptable to pump chemicals into a human and observe their body’s reaction until they’re dead? The fact that makes it a little harder to swallow is that no one knew exactly how these chemicals combined would react, hence why the death penalty opponents watched the case so closely. Deborah Denno, a professor at Fordham Law School and an expert in lethal injection cases stated that it was clear that the execution did not go the way it was supposed to. But with this one act of new drug usage for lethal injection, the spotlight has been put on lethal injection in general. I personally believe that lethal injection should be outlawed and end altogether. But I think that at least for the time being there should be no more “surprise” drug cocktails tested, where no one knows exactly what the functions of the combined drugs and how the human body reacts to them.

FAITH-HEALING PARENTS CHARGED WITH MURDER FOR REFUSING KIDS’ MEDICAL CARE — SHOULD THEY GO TO PRISON?

This article was published in May of 2013. It talks about a couple whose kid died of pneumonia because they did not take him to the doctor. The couple believes that they should pray in order to heal people rather than seeking medical attention. The 8-month old child was suffering from diarrhea and breathing problems; the child was also reportedly not breathing. His condition worsened, but the parents still refused to seek medical care. They simply prayed for him as his condition got worse and worse.

This is not the first incident with this couple though. In 2009 the couple was charged with involuntary manslaughter and child endangerment after their 2-year-old son died of pneumonia. As a part of their probation, they were ordered to start seeking medical care for their other children. They did not follow orders and are now facing 14 years in prison. Following the death of their second son, their other seven kids were placed in foster care.

The parents are members of the First Century Gospel Church in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The church teaches its members that it is wrong to trust medicine over faith. It also forbids them from going to the doctor or taking medicines.

This article faces a big controversy. It brings about the issue of the limits of religious freedom. Some people would argue that the couple was simply following their religion, and that they have a right to practice their own beliefs. On the other hand, some people would argue that human life is more important than an individual’s religious beliefs.

I have mixed feelings when it comes to this issue. I feel like the family truly believed that praying for their son would save him, but I think at a certain point medical help should have been received. It is very sad that the lives of two kids were lost to a fairly treatable disease.

I find praying for a sick love one to be a good thing, but I also think that kids should always receive medical attention. There is a reason why we have doctors who were trained for many years in order to get their degree. The medical field has made so many advancements and every child should have a right to receive help. These kids were at such a young age, and were completely dependent on their parents’ decision. I feel like kids should be required to receive medical care until they are old enough to form their own beliefs on what they want.

I do believe the parents should be punished for what they did. 14 years of prison might be a little harsh though. If they don’t want to believe in medicine that is fine, but their children have the right to receive help when they are sick. If the judge lets this issue go then he is just putting their other seven kids right back in harm’s way. Overall, I believe people should have the right to religious freedom, but when a person’s life is being put in danger the government should be allowed to step in. 

Jahi McMath

     This article was about a 13-year-old girl, by the name of Jahi McMath, who has been declared legally brain dead, three days after undergoing a tonsillectomy on December 9th. The parents of Jahi have hope that their daughter will recover, despite what the medical professionals have determined. The hospital wanted to take Jahi off of the ventilator once they were confident in their findings. A judge ruled that the girl be kept on life support for another week in order to give the family time to file a petition.
     The question is, when is it the appropriate time to take a brain-damaged human off of the machine that keeps their body physically alive? I believe that after medical professionals have informed the family of their loved one's condition, time should be given for them to come to terms with the tragic news. In the McMath's family's situation, hope can be good to a certain extent. They believe that their daughter will recover even after multiple neurological professionals have determined the opposite. I think that the family needs to accept the hard facts and let their daughter rest peacefully, instead of being hooked up to machines in the ghost of her old body.
     I respect that Jahi's family is willing to do anything to fight for their daughter's life. I can't help but think that they aren't fully educated on what it means for Jahi to be "brain dead". They see her beating heart and her involuntary muscle spasms as a sign of life rather than a result of the machine that is keeping her alive. They don't seem to understand that she is no longer mentally in this body that they see as their daughter. Once they accept that although she is physically with them, she is not mentally there, then I think that they will finally let Jahi rest in peace.
     It is obviously easier to come to these conclusions when it is not personally, one of our own loved ones. Having a strong hope in these types on situations is commonly seen. I'd like to believe that families come to the right conclusion on their own, rather than a judge having to declare what is to be done. This situation is tough because it is hard to determine who should have the final say, a judge or the legal guardians of, in this case, a 13-year-old girl. It is especially hard coming from an outside perspective and not having all of the details of the case.
     In the end, I believe that the family of Jahi McMath should determine the duration of their daughters life. However, I also believe that they should be more educated on the medical termination of Jahi's condition. I would just have to hope that they are not selfish in making the final decision for their daughter.

To Be or Not To Be

            My article was about a man in Ohio by the name of Ronald Phillips, who raped and killed his girlfriend’s three year old daughter and now has asked to be able to donate his organs to ill family members. This article was conflicting, to say the least. On one hand, you’re thinking that guy did something really bad and he was literally a day away from dying so maybe he’s just trying to get more time. And if that’s the case, he gets another 230 days to live. And on the other hand, you’re thinking maybe this is a good thing. He knows his fate, and he’s not trying to change it. But he is trying to alter it. Maybe this is his way of helping some people out if he can.

            I think it’s easy for us, as third party people, to judge. I think it’s easy for us to say, “Hey, he committed a crime and now he’s paying for it”. But it’s also easy for us to be sympathetic. I’m pretty sure that it’s in our human nature. We may not feel bad for his punishment because he did a very bad thing, but the fact that he wants to save a life or two is a nice thing to do. Whether or not it’s for his personal gain, we’ll probably never know.

            However, not only is this request something that causes a lot of thought, it also causes a lot of investigation. It’s important to look at the facts behind the situation. While reading the article, Arthur Caplan, a professor at NYU Langone Medical Center said that “the only options for executing someone to obtain vital organs is to either shoot them in the head or chop their head off…” (Silva and Connor). Talk about graphic. There is, however, another option. Organs can be removed from his body while he is under anesthesia. This option is a lot less graphic. And it sounds a lot less complicated. Right? Wrong.

The issue with this seemingly-simple third option is that it is completely unethical. You’d basically be killing someone while they’re still alive. It’s not like harvesting organs from a drunk driver or saving lives because someone accidentally hit a tree. His brain would still be functioning, and he would still be alive. When someone has suffered a traumatic brain injury and they become nonresponsive, do you know the way that doctors determine the outcome? Brain activity. They do something called an EEG, which stands for electroencephalogram. Basically, this measures the voltage in a person’s brain and determines whether or not someone is brain dead. So, if someone is put under an anesthetic, they’re just asleep. They’re still breathing, they’re still functioning on their own, they’re still living.

The largest problem with this third option is that for a doctor to perform this type of surgery, harvesting organs out of a live human being, would be unethical. It was said in the article, and I will restate the fact, there is no doctor that would do this. While organ donation is a good thing, the way that this would be done would be against everything a doctor stands for. This doctor would not be harvesting organs out of someone who is brain dead. They would be taking them from someone who is still alive. In the end, they may be a part in saving a life, but they would also be taking one.

This man could not donate his organs if he was electrocuted or lethally injected because it would damage his organs. This man could not be put under anesthesia and donate his organs because it would be unethical. This man could not be shot in the head or have his head chopped off because that’s just inhumane. But who knows if he would even be a good candidate for organ donation? Caplan also said that “because of diet, lack of exercise and the high-rate of drug-related diseases such as HIV and hepatitis” the organs that were donated could be low-quality. So there’s people sitting around going over this man’s final plea and thinking of all these possibilities to get his organs out of his body in an ethical and humane way when they might not even be viable.

Ultimately, the governor of Ohio is going to have to make a decision. Whether it’s in 200 days or 20 days, he’s going to have to make a choice. He’s going to have to look at all the information and study all the facts, and whether or not he takes any of that into consideration, he’s going to have to make a choice. Lucky Phillips. He gets 230 more days than he did before while the governor and all other people involved get to sit around and decide whether to let him be or not to be. An organ donor, that is.

Groups!

Group One: Mikaelah , Atiana , Madison , , Brooks

Group 2: Annemarie , Nicholas A , Matthew , Luke , Matthew S

Group 3: Ryan , Warsame , Kara , Andrew , Destiny

Group 4: Bradley , Brianna , Nicholas , Jordin , Chloe

Welcome to Class!

How does this blog work?

Each Tuesday, you'll be contributing to the blog. The goal here is to work toward expanding our understanding of the writing projects we are working on by continually engaging in discourse about the work we are doing in class. The blog will serve as a place for our community to gather and share the process and progress of completing these projects. Some weeks you might be in charge of posting a full blog entry. The next week you might be a lead commenter. The week after that you could be in charge of linking (in context) to something else as a response to the full entry. And the week after that you'll be responding to commenters with insightful rebuttals or furthering their arguments with additional claims. We are going to create a schedule and it will be your responsibility to know what you need to accomplish during our online class time. All work will be due Tuesday night before the clock strikes midnight. Any late, missing, or incomplete work will be grounds for being marked ABSENT. This is not homework--it is class time. 

Full Blog Entries: 500-750 words due by "class time."
Lead Comments (4): 150+ words each due by midnight
Context with Explanation (4): 150+ words each due by midnight

Secondary Comments (4): 150+ words each due by midnight

 Schedule (subject to change)

Week 2   
ENTRIES: Group 1; LEAD COMMENTS: Group 2; CONTEXT: Group 3; SECONDARY COMMENTS: Group 4

Week 3   
ENTRIES: Group 2; LEAD COMMENTS: Group 3; CONTEXT: Group 4; SECONDARY COMMENTS: Group 1

Week 4  
ENTRIES: Group 3; LEAD COMMENTS: Group 4; CONTEXT: Group 1; SECONDARY COMMENTS: Group 2

Week 5
ENTRIES: Group 4; LEAD COMMENTS: Group 1; CONTEXT: Group 2; SECONDARY COMMENTS: Group 3

Week 6
ENTRIES: Group 1; LEAD COMMENTS: Group 2; CONTEXT: Group 3; SECONDARY COMMENTS: Group 4

Week 7
ENTRIES: Group 2; LEAD COMMENTS: Group 3; CONTEXT: Group 4; SECONDARY COMMENTS: Group 1

Week 8
ENTRIES: Group 3; LEAD COMMENTS: Group 4; CONTEXT: Group 1; SECONDARY COMMENTS: Group 2

Week 9 -- SPRING BREAK

Week 10
ENTRIES: Group 4; LEAD COMMENTS: Group 1; CONTEXT: Group 2; SECONDARY COMMENTS: Group 3

Week 11
ENTRIES: Group 1; LEAD COMMENTS: Group 2; CONTEXT: Group 3; SECONDARY COMMENTS: Group 4

Week 12
ENTRIES: Group 2; LEAD COMMENTS: Group 3; CONTEXT: Group 4; SECONDARY COMMENTS: Group 1

Week 13
ENTRIES: Group 3; LEAD COMMENTS: Group 4; CONTEXT: Group 1; SECONDARY COMMENTS: Group 2

Week 14
ENTRIES: Group 4; LEAD COMMENTS: Group 1; CONTEXT: Group 2; SECONDARY COMMENTS: Group 3

Week 15
ENTRIES: Group 1; LEAD COMMENTS: Group 2; CONTEXT: Group 3; SECONDARY COMMENTS: Group 4

In class Thursday, we'll discuss our first topic and do a little practice.