Back in 1992, MTV premiered a show called The Real World, the true story of seven strangers picked to live in a house to find out what happens when people stop being polite and start getting real. As an awkward adolescent obsessed with MTV, I was compelled to watch this show, and surprisingly, became completely hooked on this new phenomenon that I thought MTV had created. Every Thursday night, I was a part of a congregation of idiot box watchers that followed a new religion in the church of “reality TV.” It is a little known fact that the trend of reality TV did not start with MTV’s The Real World. Discounting news, documentaries and home videos, the first formal introduction of reality TV was with a 1973 PBS 12 part series titled, An American Family. It dealt with all the elements that are apparent in the genre today: homosexuality, divorce, and struggling emotions. Following the same controversial format, the show began a cult revolution with the United Kingdom’s The Family in 1974 and Australia’s Sylvania Waters in 1992. Although these shows did not gain extreme popularity, they were far ahead of their time.

Now, the whole concept of reality TV has spread like an entertainment plague with new shows sprouting everyday. The genre has even gone so far to be broken down into categories: dating, celebrity docusoaps, game shows, makeovers, fantasies fulfilled, law enforcement, talent searches, and a plethora of others.

As the list of these programs continues to grow, I wonder if this can be considered reality. These shows are all taped beforehand and then edited to create a marketable piece of dribble to exploit those who are partaking in it. With the very first Real World, the originality was fresh and the people seemed more genuine. I know that character-driven editing was still involved, but since they were the pioneers of this paradigm, they went into the experience not knowing what to expect. Now, future Real Worlders already have an idea of what to expect because they have seen the template and they know what sells and what doesn’t. If they do their research well enough, they can get on The Real World and exploit themselves, in exchange for C-list stardom and a possible undeserving trip to an exotic location somewhere in the world.

Along with The Real World, all reality shows of any kind face the backlash of being an oxymoron. These programs that merge TV with reality provide entertainment that distorts the people involved. In various talent shows like American Idol, we only see one side of the contestants. We see their talent, and that’s it. As for other shows like The Apprentice, we see the drama behind the scenes. In any case, accurate portrayal of these individual people is turned into a cast of characters. There’s always the emotional recluse, the extreme extrovert, the ethnic one, the bitch, the All-American girl/boy next door, the sorority ditz, the homosexual, and the naïve newcomer. The characterization of these people is unconvincing because it’s only natural for someone to act differently in front of a camera. Based on this ongoing template, these shows take advantage of these people based on their exaggerated personalities—and the participants have no shame. I mean, who wouldn’t want to be on TV? Even though these shows are of the realistic nature, it’s nothing but a performance.

The merged distortion of reality is even showcased through documentaries and the news. Although it’s not as slanted as reality entertainment, informative shows still have the potential to misconstrue information. For instance, Fahrenheit 9/11 was dubbed as a documentary. I did like the film, but I was confused because I thought a documentary was supposed to be unbiased. As for the news, it is second-hand information, and we never know the absolute truth. We only see what we are told and we put our trust into these talking head newscasters. As a journalist, I do respect them, but you know how that old saying goes—there are always three sides to the story: their side, your side and the truth. In a perfect world, reality TV would be unbiased. Unfortunately, that sort of environment does not exist. My idea of the most realistic reality show would consist of random hidden cameras in various people’s homes. I am not talking about shows like Candid Camera or Punk’d, but something with pure voyeuristic value. It’s the times when people know they aren’t being watched that we see their true colors. If you want to view something close to this, get a job as a security guard and you will have hours of fun with the surveillance camera footage.

Despite my cynicism, I, like everyone else, have a guilty pleasure of watching these so-called reality programs. If someone says they don’t, they’re lying. Once you watch one of these episodes, you’re hooked. It’s like some sort of entertainment narcotic. I am embarrassingly proud to say that I have more than my fair share of reality show indulgencies that include American Idol and America’s Next Top Model. More recently, I had an unexpected infatuation with the WB’s The Starlet featuring Hollywood legend Faye Dunaway (a.k.a. Mommie Dearest). To add even more to my morbid enjoyment, reality TV hit closer to home as the 16th season of Real World is currently filming in my lovely home base of Austin. And yes, I have spotted camera crews following these young hooligans around town, and have driven by the mediocre warehouse turned red house, which is in an awkward area of the city. Although my interest in MTV’s popular show has grown to be extremely irritable, I find it really exciting when I spot the cast in random places like Whole Foods.

All these shows are like a train wreck: repulsive, horrible, and unfortunate — yet, you can’t help but watch. Rather than referring to this genre as “reality TV” it should be called “reality-based TV” or “reality theatre.” This entertainment epidemic keeps on garnering a huge body count, and I can’t help but wonder when the madness is going to stop. Soon, there will be a reality show about reality shows — or has that already happened?

... SAYS THE VALLEY ARENA: