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.
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/situation-seeking-rehab-alcohol-problems-mass-amount-drug-castmate-article-1.1048827
ReplyDeleteI do agree with you that some of these realities T.V shows do need to match effort with the cash reward. However, when I think of issues like this, nothing more comes to mind better than the cast of the, “Jersey Shore.” Lets not lie…they get paid to look like idiots and to drink out of their mind. I feel like in situations like these, the network needs to be contracted to their health. Nobody watches them not to get drunk. The whole point is that these people have a particular personality, which happens to be fun to watch. This article I found talks about how Mike from that show did drugs off the show. The life style that MTV had him going through had him relapse. I feel like MTV should take responsibility for these types of situations.
I definitely agree with your point of view, but I do disagree to an extent about Mike’s particular case. Yes, it was a bad environment but that was up to him to say “Hey, this isn’t good for me. I’ll sit out this season”. However, MTV is a good example for reality TV. Every show on every network is different and has different rules, but they have quite a few similarities. Yes, they sign waivers and yes, they know what their getting into, but that doesn’t make them any less susceptible to danger when they’ve had too much to drink and are running in the middle of streets. Anything can happen at any given moment. That is part of what makes reality TV interesting, right? The anticipation of a wild fight breaking out or your favorite cast members finally getting drunk enough to hook up. The producers and the network are definitely responsible for the safety of their cast, whether they're working at a shore shop or trying to survive in the wild of Brazil. Just because its reality TV and they sign waivers does not mean that the cast doesn’t need to be protected, especially when they can’t protect themselves.
Deletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/24/snooki-law_n_1910850.html
ReplyDeleteI understand the author's concerns but I think there is a lot more control behind the scenes then what people see. Shows like Survivor have to medical teams and experts waiting just in case something is going to happen. I decided to use the same article about the "Snooki Law" because it shows that hiring more behind the scenes help will be a better way to keep the cast safe. People watch Jersey Show to see them get drunk and do stupid things. It is all a big game that the stars of these shows are playing because they want their fame. They know what they are getting into and are old enough to know what they are doing.
I completely agree with what you are saying. I am sure that so much goes on behind the scenes that make it safer that what we view on television. I am also sure that in a lot of cases, the producers make it look much more dangerous and risky to us viewers at home. They do this because they want us to stay interested, something in our human nature enjoys seeing these types of actions. I also know that in shows like The Real World, the cast has to sign a contract saying that if they hit anyone in the house then they are going to be sent home. This is obviously a very good precaution that was taken that we don't always know about by just viewing in from home.
DeleteHonestly, who cares? These people are dumb enough to sign a contract to do whatever the producers want so whatever happens is their responsibility. They need to know what they are getting themselves into, and if they don't care enough, or won't be smart enough to read the contracts and weigh their options then no one can really stop them.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/12/tom-sparks-wipeout-contes_n_356122.html
ReplyDeleteThe article I'm linking is about a contestant on the show Wipeout who died shortly after competing on the show. Now as the investigation went on, it showed that the contestant left the set of the show early after complaining about knee pain which ultimately led to the discovery that he had a rare brain condition that could not be treated even after multiple surgeries. So the death wasn't directly related to Wipeout and nobody is trying to pin it on the show. However, it does pose the question: Does a show like Wipeout, which is solely based on a high contact obstacle course, need to have stronger safety precautions taken before, during, and after filming to ensure the safety of its contestants? Or should the contestants take their own precautions going into the show because they already know what the risks are? Producers are in the position to save people from themselves and their drive for the prizes of competing, especially if they know their own health issues already, but should the producers have to? And should it be the contestants option to compete at their own risk?
I don't think the TV shows should have to baby their participants. Most of the time, the people on these shows are legal adults, and have to sign liability waivers before they even start the show. These people are freely choosing to be on the show, and ultimately they can do whatever they want and face the consequences, just like they would in the real world. The whole point of reality TV, is to have no limits and let the participants just go wild--that's why people continue to watch these stupid shows.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with what you're saying. If a show like Jersey Shore had more limitations on it they would most definitely not receive as many views as they do now. When participants on a reality show sign up for it, they have the responsibility of being aware of what'll happen on the show. If there were limitations on reality shows then it wouldn't even be much of a reality show because of all the control the cast would be under. You're totally right when you say people continue to watch these shows because everyone's acting like an idiot. No one would watch if they weren't so wild.
DeleteThis is a very interesting topic. It brings up the moral code of how much one is willing to risk for money, or simply publicity on a show. However it is very important to establish the fact that the individuals participating in said reality shows are perfectly willing to take risk for reward. They don’t seem to mind taking great leaps, even at great cost, and one can argue that this is rather foolish and stupid. Additionally, if one does not enter said shows for money or some other reward, then the only remaining factor is publicity. They want to go on these shows in order to put their own name out there for people to see, even if they are at a loss. However, this is only a theory that may only be true in certain cases. The producers probably also encourage this type of behavior. It highly influences the view count and monetary value of their show(s).
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you. The contests are making up their own decisions on what they think is worth risking in order to be on the show. If a contestant feels like they are being placed in too much danger, they have the ability to say no and leave. The producers aren’t forcing them to do anything. The whole point of these shows is to offer money to see who is willing to risk the most. While reality TV shows may be kind of dangerous, I don’t see them as a big enough proble to have to start putting limitations on them. If the producers start adding limitations to the show then it is taking the reality out of it.
Deletehttp://www.slideshare.net/AnaMariaLuna/essay-final
ReplyDeleteThe participants who were put in the shows were fully informed on the possible consequences of their actions. They are all adults and can make their own decisions. Producers do not need to be the ones to make decisions for them nor should they suffer the consequences of the participant's actions. They signed liability waivers and free to do what they want at their own risk. There are no need for limitations they would only take the value away from the reality show. The participants are responsible for their decisions and actions and that does not need to be changed. I mean it is supposedly reality t.v.
I agree with the fact that the limitations put on these shows seems a bit odd seeing as it is intended to be reality TV and there isn't much reality going on if you are being restricted. But I do think that they should be somewhat responsible to ensure that whatever circumstances they put them through their health is not at risk.
ReplyDelete