Today New Haven hosted auditions for “The Real World” Season 21 and I was among those who auditioned. Even though I am well aware that the show “type casts” and has a way of manipulating those on screen, I couldn’t help but be interested in the casting process.
An article in Thursday’s Yale Daily News explains casting director Damon Furberg’s reason for making New Haven among one of the cities visited:
http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/23515
Amid the students questioned about whether they would “seriously consider auditioning” was Janice White who said about the show, “It’s really invasive. People on that show don’t look good.” The show has often been characterized as one that promotes drinking and sex, but this year they are looking for more social/political/environmentally active people who have distinct career goals.
Only the airing of the show will tell whether the producers have slipped back into old habits and give in to the content that “sells most or gets highest ratings” outlines McQuail in Chapter 12. Most can agree that “sex sells” and that many MTV fans tune in for the partying and the drama. So what about the selection of what will be aired? McQuail states, “[M]edia organizations tend to reproduce selectively according to criteria that suit their own goals and interests” (329). Since many of the 20 seasons that have already been filmed have focused on partying, this particular agenda may be hard to break free from in the case of “The Real World.”
Media researchers believe, “[…] the media can ‘construct reality’ and impose their construction on defenseless minds” (McQuail Reader 387). In the case of “The Real World” it would mean choosing to air certain content over others to display a falseness of actual attitudes or beliefs.
Personally, I do not feel as though the content will change unless those who are cast are aware of the producer’s desire to change the agenda. Although it is supposed to represent real people, events, attitudes, etc., I believe there is no shame in knowing which direction to take the program.
Do you agree with McQuail’s statements regarding the media’s role in shaping our perceptions of “reality”? Do you think that “The Real World” will change its image, and if so, do you think it will it draw an audience? And finally, as a fun question for me to poll you on: Would you ever try out for a reality show (why or why not)?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
The media's role in shaping the perceptions of reality is a significant one, and I believe McQuail is right about "denfenseless minds"(McQuail Reader 387) buying into what they see on the television as being a true representation of reality. For people who don't venture out and see the "real" world (haha pun so intended), TV is their eyes and ears to what goes on in reality. I hope that people realize TV only displays a thin slice of what reality is since most of what is shown on TV is manipulated to be more enticing to draw audiences.
I'm convinced that "The Real World" is going to continue its pattern of showing hedonistic lifestyles featuring partying and drama. It's great that the producers are attempting to cast different people, but according to the news article:
Casters may be looking for ambitious people, Furberg said, but auditioners need not be activists.
“We’re still going to pick the seven best people we can find, regardless of whether they meet any criteria,” he said.
So with that statement made by Furberg, I am pretty sure that season 21 is going to be looking a lot like all the other 20 seasons of "The Real World". That's the type of show it is, and as Alison said, it is going to be very hard to break out of the pattern already established. And that's a shame since the power to change is available to the producers of "The Real World" since they are the gatekeepers and can pick and choose what gets on their show. McQuail states "...[gatekeeping] refers to the power to give or withhold access to different voices in society..." (McQuail 309). "The Real World" viewers have already been exposed to similar voices over and over, and they deserve to finaly have the chance hear some new ones.
If "The Real World" actually did cast college students who live up to the "driven, career-minded people who are active in social, political or environmental causes" as mentioned in the news article, then I think I would watch the show. However, I do not think I would try out for a reality TV show like "The Real World" but I might consider a show like "The Amazing Race" if they were also trying to clean-up their reputation like "The Real World" is trying to do.
To take a much less formal stance than on previous topics of debate, I'd like to start by saying Furberg is full of crap. We know it. He knows it. Most importantly however, all of the people who showed up in New Haven this weekend playing the "role" that best suited them to try and get a spot on the upcoming season most definitely knew it - or at the very least hoped they did. Then again, whose to say this years "whore" can't drive to the club/bar each night in a hybrid? I suppose that's besides the point. Regardless, I'm glad that Allison opted to cover a topic aside from the commonly cited news and politics in concert to the idea of media agenda setting and framing. While I myself didn't manage to make it out to the auditions (guess that answers your question) I know for a fact my loud-mouthed out-of-control twin brother was most certainly one "typecast" waiting for his big break. I haven't had the opportunity to talk to about his experience yet, but I'm sure it would add a lot to this particular discussion. Getting on with business however, I once again agree whole heartedly with Bridgette's opening words. Given the discussions we've had in class I don't think anyone of us would willingly deny that the media's role in shaping our perceptions and ideas of reality is one of great significance. While the effect of course depends on among many other things, the level of education and the past experiences of a particular individual in question, the world we see around us is becoming more and more in line with what the media shows/tells us. With the increasing pervasiveness of media in our lives it has become exceedingly difficult to seek out and successfully find alternative voices - and its scary. I think with the case of "The Real World" we are dealing with a demographic that starts out at a much earlier age than one would think - as is the case, the common stereotypes and the world presented in general in these "reality" shows becomes quite problematic. As students of media, we know far better than to trust in the "reality" label, but do all of the children out there watching the Ten Spot (do they even call it that anymore?) know that this stuff is a set up? So why can we plan on seeing another "standard" season of "Real World?" McQuail states that "there is a matter of the high degree of planning and predictability that goes with any large-scale continuous media production operation. The media have to have an assured supply for their own needs and thus have to 'order' content in advance (324). And here, while McQuail is more focused on the production of news, we can assume a 21st season of this particular form of entertainment warrants the label of "large-scale continuous media production operation." The idea is that these people are continually cast not so much as individuals, but as ready-made content that is "assuredly available" to MTV and "Real World" producers at the start of a new season. Standardization makes things easier. In terms of branching out and looking for some new blood, McQuail speaks quite well of a similar situation: "There is a spiralling and self-fulfilling effect that tends to work against experimentation and innovation, despite the necessity for innovation at some point" (330). Again, the process of doing something different is easier said than done. And well, there ya have it.
"Viewing television is a more total experience, appealing, as it does, to eyes and ears, providing information, entertainment, and companionship- in short, a symbolic environment in place of the real world outside" (McQuail Reader 386). TV has become reality to a lot of people, because people depend on it so much. People enjoy the trashy reality shows because of the entertainment aspect...it sells. Especially with shows like the Real World, or Laguna Beach. The partying, the drama, and the sex...it sells. People want to see that because it's entertaining.
I think Furberg in the article is absolutely crazy. He can try to get different cast members who will stand for something, but I don't think it will work. It may have worked when the show first started but that was 1990...it's 2008. People want the trash and drama now more than ever. It's what we're interested in. If Furberg does get a new type of cast, people would probably watch it and lose interest. Like I said, audiences want to see the drama and parties and sex.
I think the media is definitely messing around with our perceptions of reality. People are beginning to read way too much into what happens on TV and it's sad. Some people depend on TV in their life way too much. As for whether I would try out for the Real World, the answer is definitely no. I'm not really into having 15 minutes of fame, and that's all these people have anyways, if even that.
First off, congrats Alison, for having the guts to go audition. I certainly wouldn’t be able to try out for a show like this—one that is so very open about typecasting whatever will create drama in order to entice viewers. Like Pam said, I’m also not really into the “15 minutes of fame” idea, and if I was, I probably wouldn’t try to go about getting my 15 minutes on the “Real World.”
In regards to McQuail’s statements about the media’s role in shaping perceptions of reality, I agree to a certain point. Like we have been saying in class, I think it is less so for us because we have been educated, but for people lacking the education I think it is a definite possibility, and more of a probability in that case. People read far too much into what the media has to say, and very rarely stop to question it, which I think is a major downfall, especially in terms of reality television. It is a shame that reality is presented in the way that it is (in most cases) because it is so far from the realm of truth.
As for the “Real World” changing its image, I’m not sure it is feasible or a smart idea. According to McQuail, “… media are constrained by their ‘definitions’ and associated expectations as to what they are ‘good for’ in general and what sort of content they can best offer and in what form” (331). The MTV reality television show is known for its portrayals of arguments that often turn physical, kids drinking their faces off, and the insane hookups (which, it seems, more often than not, are the reason for the kids drinking their faces off and then fist-fighting). People tune in to the show to watch people make messes of themselves, and while it is very “socially responsible” to try and have people on it that care about something, I’m not sure that changing the show that dramatically will be good for ratings.
I do agree with McQuail’s statements regarding the media and their role in shaping audiences perceptions. Over the years media has become more and more significant in the social construction process of peoples minds. As media scholars (using that term loosely…for me at least) we have become aware of the un-truths and falsehoods media portrays. We realize not to believe everything we see on TV. Companies are going to produce what is in their best interest and or what they believe in. This is the concept of gate keeping, “the process by which selections are made in a media work, especially decisions regarding whether or not to allow a particular news report to pass through the ‘gates’ of the news medium into the news channels (308).” For instance in shows like “The Daily Show” and “The O’Rielly Factor,” the audience can witness political “gate keeping” at its finest. The producers of the two shows illustrate the content of their programs using their specific political views.
In the case of “The Real World” changing their content from sex and alcohol to more social/political/environmentally, that’s got to be an attempt at a PR ploy. “Real World” has been a very successful show considering its moving onto its 21st season. I’m sure everyone has watched the show at one time or another and witnessed its concentrated content of sex, alcohol and fighting (the cornerstones of our generation’s entertainment) and in entertainment you don’t mess with a recipe for success. I feel the producers at MTV know this and wont change a thing, hence the “We’re still going to pick the seven best people we can find, regardless of whether they meet any criteria,” quote by Furberg. I really doubt “Real World” will change; it already has a huge fan base and has several spin offs like the competition shows so there’s no reason for the change. If a change does occur I doubt the audience will be as enthralled by discussion of politics or green house gases. I mean considering that QU is one of the most apathetic schools, and if we represent any portion of our generation, then the new politically intellectual “Real World” missed ship. I mean hey I don’t enjoy watching WWE cage matches but if put up against a debate over global warming; I’d most likely watch the two drunken girls pull each others hair (honestly I’m hungry and tired and apologize for my rambling).
As for trying out for “The Real World,” as much as I know it would result in me becoming famous and most likely obtaining a job later on after the show, I have some self respect (no offense Allison).
First I want to say that I would try out for "The Real World" just to see if I would be picked. If I was, however, I'm not sure if I would follow through. Reality shows like "The Real World" create the 15-minutes of fame scenario and if I was ever to be famous I would want to do so due to some type of talent, not because I got wasted and tried to fight some of my roommates on television.
So with that being said, I am wondering if this new approach that MTV is taking will really pan out the way producers are hoping. I know there have been people on the show before who stood for some serious issues, but those were never focused on anyway. I don't think that having a highly intelligent and carreer driven cast will do much because I feel that the show is not as exciting as it used to be. We have seen the concept of "The Real World" over and over again (as it is the 21st season) on MTV and also on other networks that produce similar reality TV shows. On one hand, I don't think the new twist will do anything for audiences or ratings because the reality TV audience is saturated and I think they are about ready to move on to another genre. But on the other hand, I think there is still hope that the show will at least try to instill this new structure and continue to pull in ratings because young people today are really taking an interest in worldly issues such as the war in Iraq, global warming, etc.
I think that if MTV is successful in doing this they may open the doors for young people to care about issues which they never felt affected them. But one of the main problems with MTV actually carrying out this task is because reality shows, especially "The Real World", are scripted and manipulated. If you ever watch the credits at the end of a reality show the lists of writers seems to be endless. Also if you look at the cast members, you can see why they were picked because all of them seem to fulfill certain roles. This plays into the idea represented by figure 12.2 In McQuail, chapter 12 (pgs. 320-321). In the category of "Realistic Social Drama" McQuail states that "In this territory the line between reality and fiction is very blurred and meanings are much more filtered and negotiated." So who is to say that we will even get the true meaning of the issues that the cast stands for? And even if we don't get the true messages that cast members are trying to project, we will probably still believe what we are seeing because as stated in McQuail's Reader, we believe that media is an actual representation of reality. So I guess any way we choose to view the scenario, we will still believe what we see on TV. And if that is the case, then who really cares if the cast members are trying to make a difference in society?
-Carissa
I agree with what McQuail states as far as the media’s role in shaping our perceptions of “reality” and all of its gatekeeping ways. I agree when McQuail says that, “Editorial freedom is also balanced with the scope for the audience to achieve a view of reality. Such “actuality” material generally promises the audience a valid reflection of reality, but also retains the right of the media to set criteria of selection and presentation” (319-320). Particularly focusing on “The Real World” as an example, all of its seasons (or at least the ones that I have seen) are portrayed in this way—it is manipulated in a way to emphasize the sexual promiscuity, the excessive drinking, and the fights that the cast members partake in. Although these events actually did happen, they may have been completely taken out of context and the audience may not have seen the entire story but just a small piece of it. Again, McQuail says it best when he says that “…the line between reality and fiction is very blurred and meanings are much more filtered and negotiated” (321).
Do I think that “The Real World” will change its image? Honestly, I don’t. It is obviously doing well since this is its 21st season and according to the Yale Daily News’s article “City hosts ‘Real World’ auditions”, it is MTV’s longest-running show. And as the saying goes, “If it’s not broken, don’t fix it.” With its long-running on MTV, I’m sure the people at MTV certainly do not think it’s broken by any means. It is has a huge fan base. I’m not gunna lie, I’m a fan of “The Real World.” But I know before I watch it what I am going to be seeing—I’m not expecting politics and such to be the main topic of conversation on the show. Even though I would particularly enjoy politics and other important issues to be discussed during its airing, the show already has its blueprint. However, although MTV may think that their reality show isn’t broken, many people may disagree and argue that it is very broken, as it gives an inaccurate portrayal of what “The Real World” actually is.
As far as whether or not I would try out for a reality show… oh man, I don’t know haha. I’m really not too sure. I think that I would consider auditioning for “The Real World,” but I think I would only do it just to see if I would actually make it onto the show or not. Good luck Ali! I hope it all goes well! :)
The media most definitely puts a spin on issues presented to the public. When using the term "defenseless minds" I do believe that the media can construct a reality for some people. However, most of us probably know better that the way events are presented on television and in the media are not entirely accurate. On one channel a story may be presented one way, while on another is another way.
Same goes for "The Real World." The show is known for its intense drama filled content. It is edited in such a way to make things look even worse than they really are. Conflicts definitely happen. It is seven strangers living together. Seven strangers picked based on their traits, some of which who will get along and some of which will definitely not. It’s all done on purpose...so will they try and avoid this recipe for ratings? I doubt it. They may try and chose more driven people but conflict is still going to happen and they are going to edit it and probably keep the same image. The more I think about it the more I doubt that they will change. As McQuail says, "Appearance, artifice and surprise (The fundamentals of 'media logic') often count for more than substance, reality, truth or relevance." This is what will prevail in their decisions when casting.
I think regardless the real world is going to draw an audience. Its on its 21st season, they have an audience. They are still going to be choosing people who will provide entertainment for the viewers. It’s still going to be "The Real World."
I have never considered trying out for a reality show. Some aspects of certain shows are pretty cool based on activities they do or where they are in the world. The concepts on the shows seem awesome sometimes, but I would not want to be on there. Like the article said, its extremely invasive and who knows in which way they could portray you. It could be awesome, could be terrible...not worth it.
I don’t remember the earlier seasons of the Real World, but from what I’ve seen I don’t think that the Real World is going to change anytime soon. As the seasons have gone on it’s been more and more about sex and partying. I think that if anything it’s going to continue down that path. Sex sells and so does reality television these days, so putting these two together is almost guaranteeing success. People would much rather watch other people live out their lives and deal with their problems on national television, than deal with their own problems.
There are many different forms of reality television like the ones mentioned in Box 12.4 (321). If people wanted to watch people talk about serious issues they’re going to watch something like Oprah or one of the public discussion and debates programs McQuail talks about. But if someone wants to watch people living together and watch how they interact they’re going to watch something like the Real World or Big Brother. People are going to stop watching if they’re not watching something that they’re interested in and they’re going to find something else to watch.
A big part of reality television is how they edit everything together. Like McQuail said “…the line between reality and fiction is very blurred and meanings are much more filtered and negotiated” (321). The article mentions that the producers of the Real World tried to have a religious theme for the Sydney season but it ultimately ended up going in a different direction because of the dynamic of the group. I watched most of this past season and I think that if it was edited differently it could have focused more on religion. They had a devout Christian, someone that was Muslim and someone who was Jewish all living together under the same roof. But I think that they realized that sex sells more than religion does.
I definitely agree with McQuail's claims that media distorts our perceptions of reality. While I also am a huge advocate for the media being a reflection of society, in some cases agenda setting does occur.
For people who don't experience and interact with the real world often enough to be able to distinguish TV dramatization, McQuail suggests that viewers have "defenseless minds." This means that people truly believe the things they see on TV is a pure and correct representation of reality. If you think about it, there aren't that many people in the world...but for some (like we discussed in class, the senior population thinking that the world is a more dangerous place than it really is because of all the news they watch) it could pose to be a problem.
I belive that the "Real World"'s image will be tweaked but not completely changed. I'm glad they're making an effort to change the type of castmate they're looking for, even though they're still going to set up a controversial personality dynamic.
I definitely think the show will draw an audience even if the image is changed a little bit because if we have more environmentally and politically aware people on the show, they're bout to have strong opinions that are going to be argued so the same amount of drama is going to be there.
Never say never, but I highly doubt that I would ever try out for a reality show. I wouldn't want to embarass my family or create a reputation for myself for the future.
Post a Comment