635860

research-article2016

MCS0010.1177/0163443716635860Media, Culture & SocietyMast

Original Article

Negotiating the real in

reality shows: production
side discourses between
deconstruction and
reconstruction

Media, Culture & Society

117
The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0163443716635860
mcs.sagepub.com

Jelle Mast

Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Belgium

Abstract
In this study, we set out to elaborate configurations of the real and authentic in the
discourses of program makers and participants of reality shows. This production
side perspective has more often been the object, rather than the subject, in the
debate. We develop our argument through a theoretically informed discussion at the
intersection of cultural and documentary studies. Our analysis proceeds through a
thematic content analysis of 39 semi-structured, in-depth interviews with 14 television
professionals and 25 participants involved in the production of formats belonging to
various subgenres, all with a border-crossing circulation. The analysis demonstrates
that when gauging the real in reality shows, participants and program makers do not
subscribe to a nave realistic celebration, as the reality TV denominator may suggest,
yet, nonetheless still strongly invest in a sense of the real or authentic. As such,
they engage in a sophisticated, dynamic and, so it could be argued, strategic shifting
to-and-fro deconstructive and reconstructive positions. What ensues from this dialog
between deconstruction and reconstruction is a conception of the reality show as
a nodal point of the multiple and ever-evolving configurations of the real and the
authentic in a reflexive, media-savvy culture.
Keywords
authenticity, documentary studies, media production, popular culture, qualitative
interviews, realism, reality TV

Corresponding author:
Jelle Mast, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Pleinlaan 5, 1050 Brussels, Belgium.
Email: jelle.mast@vub.ac.be

Downloaded from mcs.sagepub.com at LAURENTIAN UNIV LIBRARY on June 5, 2016

Media, Culture & Society

Well, you always sell it as real, for sure. If you would tell viewers that its not real, then I
dont think theyll be watching. Theres nothing in the show thats not real, there are parts
that go through a filter. But it is real.
I30/producer

Introduction
While the debate on the nature and locus of reality is certainly neither new nor limited
to television (Friedman, 2002: 7), the global proliferation of so-called reality TV
throughout the past two decades, if nothing else, has surely invigorated reflections on
configurations of the real and authentic in contemporary, mediated culture. Indeed,
quite fundamental ontological and epistemological questions have emerged from the
idiosyncratic coexistence within reality TV of bold and so it could be argued, nave
discursive appeals to reality, and extensive measures of self-consciousness, performance, and playfulness, which defy conventional notions of the real and the authentic.
So, as Dovey (2000) points out, a meaningful strand of (postmodern) critique construes
reality TV as the hyper-real, where the insistence upon realism is in direct proportion
to the disappearance and irrelevance of any referential value (p. 83). Likewise, in an
early but still pertinent critical analysis of reality TV as a performative excess, the
influential documentary critic Bill Nichols (1994) argues, in a chapter tellingly entitled
At the limits of reality (TV), that
[r]eality TV [] plays a complex game. It keeps reality at bay. It succeeds in activating a sense
of the historical referent beyond its bounds but also works, constantly, to absorb this referent
within a tele-scape of its own devising. Reference to the real no longer has the ring of sobriety
that separates it from fiction. Such reference now is a fiction. (p. 54)

In this article, we set out to elaborate this complex game by looking into the discourses of program makers and participants of reality shows (Bondebjerg, 2002). While
being essentially constitutive of the mediation process, this production side perspective
has more often been the object, rather than the subject, in the debate. We develop our
argument through a theoretically informed discussion at the intersection of cultural and
documentary studies. Our analysis proceeds through a thematic content analysis of 39
semi-structured, in-depth interviews, including 14 professionals, mostly creative
((executive) producer, creative director, story editor, editor, directors assistant, reporter,
and presenter), and 25 participants. The set encompasses formats belonging to various
subgenres, all with a border-crossing circulation, both original Flemish formats like The
Mole (game) and Ticket to the Tribes (intercultural encounter) and local versions of
Temptation Island (love relationship), Expedition Robinson (survival/game), Supernanny
(parental advice), Thatll Teach Em (historical), Oberon (historical/game), and Murder
in Small Town X (docufiction/game). Clearly, professionals exceed these individual
cases. Seven participants hold the position of an expert or production associate (e.g.
tempters/temptresses (Temptation Island), traitor (The Mole), or members of the
teacher corps (Thatll Teach Em)). Findings pertain to themes and argumentations that
were consistently reiterated within (factions of) the interviewee sample and reached

Downloaded from mcs.sagepub.com at LAURENTIAN UNIV LIBRARY on June 5, 2016

Mast

(data) saturation, yet, the theoretical relevance of individual, idiosyncratic positions is

considered as well. Interview citations were primarily selected for their illustrative,
expressive qualities.

Reality TV, what is in a name?

As a starting point, it is fruitful to consider how the interpretive community of television practitioners approaches the reality TV label as a common denominator for their
creative work. Such meta-discussion sheds light on the discursive qualities of genre categorizations, effectively exposing them as rhetorical and pragmatic construction[s]
(Feuer, 1992: 141) which are, therefore, disputable and changeable. It also opens up,
quite naturally, the dialogic to-and-fro movement between deconstruction and reconstruction of reality values in reality TV, establishing the broad contours of the complex
deliberations interviewees engage in. The citations below, from a creative director (I1)
and a producer (I30), articulate these points expressively:
The term has become so ubiquitous. [] Im not particularly happy with it. As if there is, in
fact, the rest isnt Its actually the other way round, its not reality []. Its peculiar that it
hasnt been called reality until it became a commercial genre, and more specifically a game
format. Which is unfortunate, because it literally means true to life []. Which is not to argue,
though, that its not reality, but its a managed reality. Its not the same as lying, for sure. (I1)
I think its such an awkward term, reality TV. For actually you start from a prearranged
situation thats invented by program-makers []. So, whats reality? Theoretically, it means
you focus on peoples emotional experiences. But I can assure you that theres a lot of directing
going on in reality. A docu-soap, thats reality. [] While this is entertainment, and it
happens to be called reality TV. Its a name, really, a term. Everyone uses it. Actually its kind
of odd that so many programs are called reality TV while theyre far from reality. (I30)

What clearly emerges from the program makers discourse is that within the contemporary television industry as in other discursive communities, including academia, the
term reality TV serves as a shorthand for an identifiable but diversified area of creative
practice. The gradual institutionalization and ubiquity of the category comes, however,
with a general sentiment that reality TV is also just that, the name by which this kind of
programming goes ([I]t happens to be called reality TV (I30)). Indexing (Carroll,
1996: 232) a particular show as reality TV in the polyauthorial (Thompson and Burns,
1990: ix) and multi-staged process of television production, distribution, and marketing
is, therefore, not automatically subscribed to by those responsible for its creative development. Stressing the conventional and pragmatic usage of the signifier [I]ts such an
awkward term, or Everyone uses it (I30) works, then, to distance oneself from the
label and to resist its nave realistic overtones. Both the widespread deployment of the
reality TV label the core unifying feature of reality TV as a genre Mittell (2004)
argues and the resistance toward its rhetoric corroborate conceptions of reality-speak
as a promotional discursive practice (p. 197). Quite closely resembling Friedmans
(2002: 7) argument on the tendency of contemporary, factual-based television to proclaim a form of televisual neorealism, the program makers critical views lament the

Downloaded from mcs.sagepub.com at LAURENTIAN UNIV LIBRARY on June 5, 2016

Media, Culture & Society

ahistorical and bold claims implicated in the reality terminology As if there is, in
fact, the rest isnt (I1).
There exists an intriguing parallel here with the Direct Cinema tradition, which
developed in concert with the advent of lightweight cameras and sound equipment in
the 1960s. By declaring, as the name suggests, a fundamental shift in screen documentary representation, strongly indebted to the ethic of detached empirical observation
onlooking and overhearing (Corner, 1996: 2829) Direct Cinema proponents
opened up a can of worms, then got eaten by it (Carroll, 1996: 225). For the idealistic
beliefs that accompanied the project of Direct Cinema quickly prompted a tu quoque
criticism that exposed the fallacies of this nave realism and urged a more sophisticated rhetoric (Carroll, 1996). Likewise, the overstated claims radiated by the reality
(TV) terminology almost instantly lead program makers to adopt a defensive discourse,
which tends more or less toward a radical deconstruction, as in Its actually the other
way round, its not reality (I1). Such discursive move this is entertainment (I30)
may work strategically as a get-out-clause to legitimize or condone large measures of
dramatic license, shifting the whole terrain of debate [] from the legalistic to the
ludic (Dovey, 2004: 242; see also Mittell, 2004). By the same token, though, instead of
holding up the grail of perfect authenticity (Bruzzi, 2000: 5), it may provide a productive basis for a profound reassessment of reality values versus (acceptable) measures
of creative license in reality TV: [I]ts a managed reality. Its not the same as lying,
for sure (I1).
Meaningful here is the currently predominant conception of reality TV as formatted
television, premised on a contrived pro-filmic situation, the so-called reality show
(Bondebjerg, 2002). For whereas the Direct Cinema practitioner had to negotiate room for
manipulations and subjectivity within the contours of a supposedly non-interventionist
observational mode of representation, the reality program maker faces the opposite task
of arguing what of the real could be recuperated from the overtly self-conscious and
performative spaces of the reality show (Corner, 2002). Intriguingly, in doing so, alternative notions of the real and authentic coexist with Direct Cinemas ethic of nonintervention, which persists as a crucial yardstick for truthfulness, evident in references
to the prolonged observation of pre-existent milieus as a more pure form of reality TV: A
docu-soap, thats reality (I30). In the following sections, we will further elaborate and
illustrate these general ideas, starting with a discussion of the ontology of the pro-filmic.

Formatting, simulation, and the emotional journey

Demonstrating its salience, the criterion of non-intervention figures centrally in assessments of the reality values of the reality show (Bondebjerg, 2002), which is above all
defined by the ontology of its referent. Differences of kind and degree apply, yet, overall,
these programs incorporate (prolonged) observational segments that do not reactively
capture a slice of the socio-historical world (Nichols, 1991: 150), as much as they proactively (Corner, 1996: 28) portray human conduct induced within the liminal space of
a televisual event. In an illuminating article on Big Brother, Dovey (2004) conceptualizes the current spate of reality TV in terms of simulation, which he conceives as a
representational mode that models the complex structures plus behaviors of social

Downloaded from mcs.sagepub.com at LAURENTIAN UNIV LIBRARY on June 5, 2016

Mast

reality (which as such may not be directly observable (anymore)) (p. 233). Interestingly,
the author further points out the essentially dynamic and material nature of simulation,
which entails a model that is set running and produces real knowledge about real
things in the real world and has real effects upon real lives (Dovey, 2004). This insightful image advances our understanding of the complex ontological status of formatted
reality shows and raises a number of ideas that help locate the reconstructive discourse
of the interviewees.
A key notion in this regard is that of the format which has become central to the
contemporary global television market and has an aesthetic as well as a legal dimension
(Moran, 2004). Most importantly for the present argument, a format could be described
as being generative or organizational (Moran, 2004: 258), providing the concept or
structure for a (serial) program. Formats thus typically provide a blueprint that outlines
an overall scheme which, to cite Chalaby (2011), creates and organizes a story in a fashion that is not dissimilar to scripted entertainment, with all the highs and lows, tensions
and conflicts, twists and conventions of drama (p. 294). Managing the story development are built-in format rituals and rules which are variously referred to as trigger or
jeopardy moments (Chalaby, 2011), or in the words of a creative director (I1): dynamizers. Discussing the (un)scripted qualities of reality shows, a story editor (I34) articulates this interrelation between format, simulation, and narrative:
It starts with the idea of storytelling. In Oberon the premise was: Whos a worthy king? []
In Temptation Island this becomes: Wholl pass the relationship test? [] Along this thread,
actual stories will develop. Its about how people interact, how they deal with themselves in a
particular situation. So, we just provide the dcor, offer the narrative arch, and then there a few
things that need to be there. [] These are format elements you build in, which you know will
generate story. And with story I mean internal or external conflict []. Thats how far
scripting goes.

So, scripting for reality shows does not (typically) entail a detailed outline of preconceived dialogs. Yet, formatting definitely implies the skillful anticipation and careful
managing of a reasonably expectable, and thus preferable, scenario of events (cf.
Ytreberg, 2006). Below a creative director (I1) further clarifies this point:
The fact that its scripted doesnt make it fiction. What does scripted mean? Well, you
anticipate human emotions and how people function. So we envision a particular journey, an
emotional journey. Evidently, you dont fully control this, which is fortunate, because its
certainly better if an interesting story develops by itself, without any intervention. Yet this is
clearly non-fiction. [] You can anticipate fairly accurately how things will unfold. Almost to
the point you can write down whats going to happen.

Both citations indicate the near formulaic nature of formats, which variegate seemingly interchangeable premises and embody the global theme of an emotional journey.
The journey template, as Chalaby (2011) also notes in identical terms, yields a convenient narrative arch because it necessarily involves a beginning and an ending, while it
imbues subjects (or characters) and their actions with a sense of purpose (see also Bruzzi,
2000). So understood, reality formats may be primarily devised with the intent of

Downloaded from mcs.sagepub.com at LAURENTIAN UNIV LIBRARY on June 5, 2016

Media, Culture & Society

creating story and delivering dramatic pleasures, yet, in the process its structure is also
capable of initiating, or modeling, self-reflexive trajectories (Dovey, 2004; infra). In a
similar vein, Bonner (2003) defines ordinary television a broad denominator for various sorts of factual television as essentially concerned with the mundane (pp. 4446).
Referring specifically to reality game shows (like Expedition Robinson/Survivor), the
author argues (Bonner, 2003: 46) that while seemingly far removed from daily life, such
shows are nonetheless premised on or rapidly come down to mundane matters, as the
basic set-up involves taking an ordinary situation and twisting it in some way. The salience of this modeling quality of formatted reality TV in contemplating reality values
is evident in both program makers and participants accounts, like that of the female
contestant of Expedition Robinson (I7) below:
Because even if orchestrated, in the end these are all very human situations we encounter daily,
sort of. And so they just bring it to the small screen. Its more extreme, clearly, otherwise it
would be quite boring. But thats what reality TV is actually about.

It is meaningful to link this particular recuperation of the real from the contrived to
Angs (2003) concept of emotional realism, which was elaborated in an influential
reception study of viewer appreciations of Dallas (p. 45). The author observes how the
perceived realism of the same things, people, relations, and situations shifted, puzzlingly, between unrealistic and recognizable depending on whether the text was
approached at the literal, denotative versus associative, connotative level. Clearly, so it
is argued, in the connotative reading process, the denotative level of the text is put in
brackets (Ang, 2003: 42). That is, viewers who find Dallas recognizable true to life
apparently abstract from the particularities of the pro-filmic and the narrative and
appeal to symbolic, and more specifically, emotional meanings instead. According to
Ang, this finding helps to explain why other types of realism hinging on a cognitiverationalistic premise prove inadequate in grasping viewer appreciations of Dallas, for
what is recognized as real is not knowledge of the world, but a subjective experience of
the world (Ang, 2003: 45). Moreover, in an article on authentic talk, Montgomery
(2001) similarly argues for multiple (though overlapping) forms of authenticity, beyond
notions of the natural, fresh, or spontaneous, pointing out the significance in contemporary broadcasting of the language of experience (pp. 403404). That is, talk, and we
could extend this to non-verbal behavior as well, may be deemed authentic or truthful,
in so far that it seems to captur[e] or presen[t] the experience of the speaker (Montgomery,
2001). Like Angs conceptualization of emotional realism, this is insightful because it
allows to relocate the real or authentic within the contrived space of the reality show
(cf. supra, I30s quote; see also Aslama and Pantti, 2006):
You need to get emotionally involved, thats usually most important. It could be anything,
either its a good story from A to Z with plot points, as in fiction, or you empathize with
someones emotions. If situations are very recognizable, people are triggered emotionally. (I35/
executive producer)

Additionally, while providing the basis for the initial deconstruction of the reality
show, the rationale of the ethic of non-intervention persists as well in the subsequent

Downloaded from mcs.sagepub.com at LAURENTIAN UNIV LIBRARY on June 5, 2016

Mast

reconstructive discourse. For Doveys (2004) image of the format simulation as a model
that is set running allow[s] considerable scope for improvisation, performance, and the
emergence of unexpected behaviors (p. 233). Indeed, by accentuating the formats role
as a (mere) catalyst, a space is being carved out for the unpremeditated and unanticipated, for a social dynamic to develop more or less spontaneously within the contours of
the format and its built-in dynamizer components (cf. [W]e just provide the dcor,
offer the narrative arch (I34), or, [Y]ou dont fully control this (I1)). Accordingly,
unduly interferences with the pro-filmic, beyond those that are structurally embedded in
the format rituals and rules, are strongly condemned on both aesthetic and ethical grounds
by program makers and participants alike (and therefore typically denied or ascribed to
others). A notable theme in this regard is the adamant condemnation of manipulations of
the game, which typically appeals through the suspense of an unpredictable outcome
determined by merit or luck (Caillois, 2001 [1958]). This observation is of little surprise since dramatic performance and narrative development in formatted reality shows
often strongly derives from the codes of the game show, a genre haunted by the whiff of
rigging (Holmes, 2008: 54) ever since the infamous US quiz show scandals of the 1950s
(Mittell, 2004).
However, such proclaimed measures of agency and contingency always need to
be balanced against the structural constraints imposed by the production apparatus,
including (subtle) strategies of content (Teurlings, 2001: 255) deployed to create preferred narrative discourses and performances (Shufeldt and Gale, 2007) (cf. internal
and external conflict (I34), or, [Y]ou can [almost] write down whats going to happen
(I1)). The following interrelated excerpts from an interview with a reporter (I33) are
illustrative:
So, you shoot reality, the human interaction. But if somethings going on, they might not tell.
Yet they may do so in an interview, because theyve built a relationship of trust with the
reporters. [] In the beginning, you film a lot. Because you dont know the relationships yet,
nor what stories will develop. [] The story editor makes a provisional synthesis of episodes
based on what we provide: this is how relationships will play out, or, this one is about to
explode. [] So, keep an eye on him. [] Actually, thats just a matter of anticipation. This
has nothing to do with manipulation, but is about building relationships, and gaining insights
from it so you can focus your aims.

What emerges, then, is a tenuous dialog between the idea(l)s of detached, reactive
observation (Corner, 1996: 28) within the parameters of the formats general framework
(reserving the term reality for observational segments: shoot[ing] human interaction)
and (il)legitimate measures of proactive management. This tension is encapsulated in the
aforementioned notion of the anticipation of the reasonably expectable. Particularly
noteworthy here is the characteristic feature of the experiential interview (Corner,
1999: 43), which is a common technique of adding, through a (semi-)direct address, the
grain of subjective voices to non-fiction discourse (Nichols, 1991; cf. emotional realism). Yet, as our study indicates, this technique also serves strategic purposes either to
probe for underlying, unobservable frictions or to provoke conflict (see also Teurlings,
2001). The duality of the interview, exhibiting evidentiary qualities and manipulative
potential, as such epitomizes the delicate lines reality program makers walk.

Downloaded from mcs.sagepub.com at LAURENTIAN UNIV LIBRARY on June 5, 2016

Media, Culture & Society

(Social) actors and (virtual) performances

Oberon and Temptation Island dont actually exist. But the people walking around over there,
their feelings and interactions [] need to be real and appear real. (I34/story editor)

This citation not only reiterates the relevance of the experiential as a signifier for realness or authenticity but also points out its vital link to the presence and (speech) acts of
ordinary people. For indeed, as Nichols (1991) has argued, the use of social actors,
acting as themselves, is a main way of introducing elements of subjectivity into documentaries (p. 121). Not unlike the documentarian, producers of reality shows strongly value
candidates who demonstrate a capacity to (re-)present themselves for the camera in a
riveting fashion, and to do so (seemingly) naturally, with no or few signs of premeditation or self-consciousness. This amounts to what Nichols describes as a virtual performance (Nichols, 1991: 122), which exhibits the logic and effects of an actual performance
and derives from a culturally specific system of meanings surrounding facial expressions, change of vocal tone or pitch, shifts in body postures, gestures, and so on those
very elements that actors train themselves to control at will. So, in reality shows, the
search for and selection of ordinary people is meaningfully informed, also, by the quite
idiosyncratic ability of amateurs to emulate the dramatic expressiveness and psychological depth of professional actors or narrative characters, when presenting themselves. Or,
as Bonner (2003) contends, ordinariness is not enough to appear on television since
some are more usefully ordinary than others (p. 53). What is required, the author continues, is the capacity to project a personality (Bonner, 2003). As such, the discursive nature
of the ostensibly neutral category of the ordinary television participant stands revealed:
They must strike a chord. Youve got to love them, or hate them, or laugh with them, or be
moved, or feel attracted. You have to feel something, at best a combination of things. (I1/
creative director)

The selection of reality participants from a typically large number of candidates,

therefore, takes the form of a creative (balancing) act. So, to some extent, program makers
seek a socio-demographic cross-section of the target audience, with whom prospective
viewers could variously identify. As two female participants, from Oberon and Expedition
Robinson respectively, argue: Ive all those in retirement and all mother hens behind me
(I14), or, Im very sportive and of course Im an immigrant, so, theres always [] a
colored someone in it (I25). Accordingly, participants are typically defined and presented
as social actors emanating from the everyday world to which viewers similarly belong
and for whom television production is outside day-to-day experience (which becomes
ever more urgent in formats like historical reality where self-performances coexist
with enactments of imaginary personae). Our interviews indicate the importance here for
candidates to exhibit a certain roughness around the edges (cf. Holmes, 2008: 125).
Somewhat comparable to the notion of the virtual performance, this peculiar quality
seems to reconcile the rawness as a marker of the ordinary with the demand for telegenic character types, yielding candidates that appear neither too polished, nor too
grey. In this regard, visual presence, or having a unique, colorful look, interacts with
speech, or talking dialect instead of standard variants, as illustrated below:

Downloaded from mcs.sagepub.com at LAURENTIAN UNIV LIBRARY on June 5, 2016

Mast

The faade drops, and they act as they normally would [] You notice it when they no longer
talk standard Dutch, something theyll do at first. But in the actual reality-images [i.e.
observational segments], they talk like they usually do. (I29/producer)
I was raised to watch my tongue in the presence of others. So, if someone asks me something,
I go like Yes sir, no sir, thank you. So, they said Okay [name participant], no problem, but
you need to be yourself, and I said But I am true to myself, I dont act this way with friends.
So they responded You have to see us as friends. (I21/temptress Temptation Island)

The qualities described above cut across the category of reality TV, and ordinary
television generally. Yet, the regulating function of the format is effective in casting
as well, dictating what kind of participant performances are legitimate, or formatconsonant (Ytreberg, 2004: 683), and socializing candidates into preferred participant roles.
Additionally, a participants motivation(s) to sign up for a reality show is a meaningful aspect since it is often assumed that so-called reality performers (Hill, 2007: 200)
are media hot and hungry for fame (Hill, 2007; Gatfield and Hargrave, 2003).
Consistent with existing production studies into the motivations for television participation (Aslama, 2009; Priest, 1995; Syvertsen, 2001), our interviews demonstrate that there
are several different categories of motivations, intrinsic and extrinsic, which relate to the
television medium generally or to the format specifically, including a particularly relevant experiential strand (infra). So, the allure of stepping into the spotlight (Priest,
1995: 48), driving the so-called moth, is certainly pertinent but also just one possible
consideration among many. Surely, this observation may be a matter of retrospection or
a third-person bias, yet, the bottom line is that we need to allow for black swans,
categories of participants who do not actively seek public exposure but rather think of it
as something (at times even a necessary evil) that comes with the territory. Likewise,
individual degrees of genre savvy vary meaningfully, as participants are not per definition avid consumers of reality TV.

Selfhood, reflexivity, and transparency

An element that warrants further elaboration at this point is authenticitys relationship to
notions of selfhood. For contrary to the position, as articulated by Montgomery (2001),
that an existential notion of authenticity in the sense of being true to the self/person
has significantly lost its currency [] in a world of mass-mediated experiences, judgments referring to a pristine and unified self-conception actually saturate discourses of
reality show participants (p. 404). In fact, following its pervasiveness, the being true
to the self mantra has become somewhat of a platitude: Make sure you stay true
to yourself! This may sound very typical, very clich, but its really very important
(I19/Ticket to the Tribes). As Goffman (1959) argues in The presentation of self in everyday life, entering upon social interaction, thus the presence of others, entails the performance of a particular (idealized) front or character. Goffman (1959) continues that it
is natural for [members of an audience] to feel that the impression the performer seeks to
give may be true or false, genuine or spurious, valid or phony, which makes us attentive to clues which disrupt the fostered appearance (p. 61). Likewise, a social actor may

Downloaded from mcs.sagepub.com at LAURENTIAN UNIV LIBRARY on June 5, 2016

10

Media, Culture & Society

be more or less sincere or cynical and gradually alternate between both positions,
regarding the character she/he is projecting for an audience (Goffman, 1959).
Audience research on reality TV has indeed demonstrated how viewers actively invest
in the assessment of filmed others along a truth/performance rating, even if, or precisely because, they expect role-playing to be an inherent part of the reality show setting (Hill, 2007: 112). Audiences thus engage in judgments of what Corner (2002) has
described as the process of selving or the unwitting disclosure of personal core []
whereby true selves are seen to emerge (and develop) from underneath and, indeed,
through, the performed selves projected for us (pp. 261262). In doing so, viewers
look for possible discrepancies which would discredit the performances of the characters
as portrayed. Yet, as Goffman (1959) notes, there is often no reason for claiming that the
facts discrepant with the fostered impression are any more the real reality than is the
fostered reality they embarrass (p. 62). Still, the position materializing most coherently
in the participants discourse holds up the idea of a preexistent true(er) self, often seen
to reside in the intimacy of the private domain, which shows for instance when the inner
circle of relatives and friends is invoked as a touchstone for the real self (see I5s quote
below, and supra, I21s quote). This true core is seen to (gradually) reveal itself when
the initial self-restraint induced by the (awareness of the) production apparatus and the
public setting dissolves, to which the prolonged duration of the situation further contributes, or because participants are preoccupied with needs other than impression management. The following quotes, from two female participants, exemplify different facets of
the discourse of selving:
I think celebrities are more aware of the impact of public exposure [] But they too go backto-basics. They too are hungry, feel dirty, or are tired. And I think youre no longer concerned
with how youre coming across. You let go of that. And thats what happened with us too.
(I24/Ticket to the Tribes)
[P]eople who know me told me We dont recognize you, youre so quiet [] Being somewhat
introverted in combination with not knowing the group very well, and just not being able to be
myself. [] But toward the end, as you begin to feel comfortable, you get used to the cameras,
and you get to know people, you loosen up. (I5/Expedition Robinson)

Conversely, cynical dispositions are attributed to others rather than self-ascribed. As

in a third-person effect, this underlines the normative value attached to being oneself
in contemporary culture. The quotes below are exceptions to the rule, though, and illustrate how a general distrust of others in combination with self-interest may legitimize a
carefully managed masquerade:
Dont trust anyone. Just pretend to be someone else [], thats easy to pull off. And make sure
you win. (I3/A perfect murder [Murder in Small Town X])
I think a lot of it was fake, really. But maybe Im mistaken, we live in a society that is very
fake. [] So I simply think its just as fake as everyday life. And its just as real as everyday
life. [] I stayed true to myself, and it worked against me. So I adjusted myself. (I7/Expedition
Robinson)

Downloaded from mcs.sagepub.com at LAURENTIAN UNIV LIBRARY on June 5, 2016

11

Mast

What these different positions share is the premise of a duality of self and performance, construed as an opposition between the authentic and the contrived, the true
and the false. However, as we referred to earlier, quoting Goffman, discrediting a performance, essentially, does not mean falsifying it. The attempt at distinguishing and
demarcating true from performed selves is, therefore, an intricate, and so it could be
argued, futile project. Moving beyond the elusive search for a pristine true self, a more
self-reflexive discourse materializes that denies a conclusive resolution to this quest.
This starts from the idea of a multifaceted not singular, pre-packaged, supposedly
authentic self (Macdonald, 2003) and from the coexistence not mutual exclusiveness of performance and self (p. 82). As a participant argues,
But its up to you to decide who you will be, because there are different sides to any of us. []
But you always stay true to yourself. (I21/Temptation Island)

Further detaching the notion of the self from the overtones of a unified and static
entity are conceptual frameworks that place fluidity at the heart of selfhood. So understood, the proliferation of reality TV has been explained in relation to the development
of a reflexive modernity (Giddens, 1991; Bondebjerg, 2002; Dovey, 2004) where
social practices are constantly examined and reformed (Giddens, 1991: 3839). In this
context of heightened doubt and openness (Giddens, 1990), self-identity becomes a site
of reflection as well, with the nomadic flex-subject (Bratich, 2007: 12) engaging in a
perpetual project of self-discovery and self-realization. The crucial role of mediated
experiences in this process has only become more pronounced in contemporary, globalized, and media-saturated societies (Giddens, 1990). So understood, reality shows
emerge as a meaningful resource in representing as much as in advancing the politics of
everyday life. For as a performative phenomenon that captures, modifies, reorganizes,
and distributes [] powers of transformation, Bratich (2007: 6) argues, reality TV
ultimately makes making happen (Bratich, 2007: 20). The idea of a malleable self
underlies a salient strand of experiential motives:
I feel like I quite have it all together in life. [] So, I wanted to get out of the rut, and to be
dropped in a situation where I could find out what Im really worth. [] Maybe Im entirely
different, maybe Im surprised by myself. I wanted to test my self-image. (I8/Expedition
Robinson)
I do believe [] that people can change, that people are makeable. [] So, you take something
out of it, and in this regard to know yourself is the basis of wisdom. Most people think of it as
an enrichment to take a look at themselves. And also the fact that they can show themselves to
others. (I35/executive producer)

Conceptions of authenticity that imply a notion of self are thus particularly relevant
for the present discussion. For one, the idea of faithfulness to a self-perceived, core
character that pre-exists ones appearance in the public setting of television production,
seems to operate for some as a secure signpost amidst the atmosphere of contrivance
surrounding the reality show. Such claims of being oneself are effectively deployed,
possibly in a defensive way, as an ultimate warrant, which can be hardly falsified. For we

Downloaded from mcs.sagepub.com at LAURENTIAN UNIV LIBRARY on June 5, 2016

12

Media, Culture & Society

typically know participants from their public appearance only and, to quote Goffman
(1959) once more, no one is in quite as good an observational position to see through the
act as the person who puts it on (p. 53). In addition and contrary to this discourse,
though, a position is evident that does not intend to recuperate a pre-packaged self
(Macdonald, 2003) from the fabricated space of the reality show but sees the self as
essentially performative, malleable, and transformative. Here, authenticity is located in
the transparency not of the observational record of selving but of a self-reflexive stance
(cf. Bruzzi, 2000). As Ytreberg (2007) argues in a review article on mediated authenticity, precisely against a backdrop of artifice can authenticity stand out in a new way []
Disguising one real self is clearly bad for reality TV participants, but discussing that self
can be quite consistent with authenticity (pp. 2425).
In the next section, we turn to a final key thematic: the (re-)shaping of reality as
portrayed through editing. While having stand-alone value, this stage clearly also relates
meaningfully to the pro-filmic plane discussed above.

Editing reality
You cant do without editing. So, its always a bit manipulated. Youre not manipulating the
situation but, for example, by adding music. [] Its only when editing is finished that you
really know whether it works or not. (I29/producer)

Editing is an essential facet of the mediation process, and audience studies indeed find
that viewers effectively expect reality shows to be edited in a way that makes a story
(Gatfield and Hargrave, 2003: 15; see also Hill, 2007). Nonetheless, issues typically
emerge from the inherent tension between the selections, (re-)arrangements, and emphases which the editing of a preferred reality entails, versus the integrity, or authenticity,
of the original (record of the) event or persona (cf. Van Leeuwen, 2001). For reality
TVs reliance on social actors, acting as themselves, for story and character development, and factual claims, circumscribe the room for authorial freedom. Hard deconstructions that move reality shows, as popular entertainment, to the realm of fiction and
accordingly assert unbridled creative license, are, therefore, troublesome. The following
quote from an editor (I27) is illustrative:
This is entertainment, nothing more, nothing less. We dont pretend anything, everything is
manipulated. Even the most realistic parts are edited, you never get the full picture. It doesnt
bother me at all, its just TV.

While such position is certainly more transparent than nave realist claims of nonintervention, it may be rather self-serving in relieving program makers (moral) responsibility toward subjects when it slips into an anything goes mentality. This consideration
informs recurrent critiques from participants, in our interviews as well as in the public
debate, of manipulations such as omitting relevant context, composing a scene or
sequence out of originally unrelated occurrences, suggesting (causal) relations where
none exist, constructing one-dimensional character types, or fitting material into a predetermined narrative mold:

Downloaded from mcs.sagepub.com at LAURENTIAN UNIV LIBRARY on June 5, 2016

13

Mast

Temptation Island is nonfiction to me in the sense that its real people having real feelings for
each other. Theres little enactment at the moment of shooting, [] the conversations are all
real. What I would consider fictional is postproduction, the way the program is edited. []
Then fiction steps in, the story is told like in a movie, building up towards a romantic ending,
where things eventually work out, or the anticlimax, when a couple separates. (I20/tempter)
Things arent always as they seem []. Because they only show bits and pieces, they can make
you come across totally different from who you really are. (I24/Ticket to the Tribes)

As the second quote indicates, the issue of selective editing may also connect to the
self. For while participants (may) obtain (some) measures of agency within the structural constraints of the production setting by holding on to the secure signpost of the
inner self, this self-determination is possibly undermined by the control postproduction
grants program makers to post facto shape preferred narratives and identities (cf. Shufeldt
and Gale, 2007; Teurlings, 2001).
Typical counterarguments, developed mainly by program makers but also by individual participants who feel no or less regrets about their appearance, invoke notions
of the self and of the vital distinction between the levels of origination and organization of images and sounds (Corner, 2008). As for the self, a common response to the
issue of misrepresentation relies on the aforementioned idea that a self-presentation is
precisely that, a projection of a particular (idealized) self-conception that may be discredited by others (in this instance co-contestants and program makers). According to
this view, what is at stake is not so much the misrepresentation of others true selves,
but rather the truth value of the self-image held up by subjects as a definite yardstick
in the first place:
What it comes down to is to know yourself, and a lot of people dont. Theyre surprised, like,
Oh, is that me?. And then it must have been the production company or television. No, its
you. They dont paste your head, or put someone elses voice over it, its you. (I19/productions
assistant)

The citation also hints at an additional, especially, meaningful strand in reconstructive

discourses surrounding the editing of reality shows. For a common argument against
the potential of editing to distort is that program makers depend on a faithful record of
images and sounds capturing actual actions and expressions. From this, it follows, then,
that there always resides some truth in the narrative arrangement of these images and
sounds. In a discussion of composite events in wildlife films, Bous (2000) aptly
describes the idea with a strong metaphor: If one uses only logs and earth as building
materials, then a house in the middle of the forest, however imaginative its architecture
and complex its construction, must be natural too, mustnt it? (p. 11). It is a common
fallacy, however, Corner (1996, 2008) points out, to confuse the indexical fidelity of
camera images and sounds at the primary moment of origination, with the veracity of
the discursive organization of this material. Below a producer (I30) invokes observational realisms non-interventionist ethic of showing as opposed to telling and the
implied detached gaze and durational values as a more truthful mode of representation

Downloaded from mcs.sagepub.com at LAURENTIAN UNIV LIBRARY on June 5, 2016

14

Media, Culture & Society

that better preserves the integrity of the original events and allows less room for manipulation through editing compared to shows that intercut interview segments (see experiential interview as a manipulative technique, supra):
We never tell something that isnt there, we just show it and shut up. Thats why those other
shows may be far more suggestive, because you can take things out of context. [] Not with
us, because everything happens within the scene.

On a final note, just like participants take recourse to the unverifiable concept of the
core self to deal with uncertainties, so program makers may ultimately invoke a rather
elusive notion of greater truth or essence, unanchored by validity tests, definitions,
or norms (Aufderheide etal., 2009: 16), as a coping strategy.

Conclusion: configurations of trans-reality

When gauging the real in reality shows, participants and program makers do not subscribe to a nave realistic celebration, as the reality TV denominator may suggest, but
rather engage a sophisticated, dynamic and, so it could be argued, strategic shifting toand-fro deconstructive and reconstructive positions. Intriguingly, this applies at the individual as much as at the aggregate level. That is, subjects adhere to and deny reality, in
the process activating different inflections of the real and the authentic, which exposes
the volatile and pragmatic qualities of these concepts.
So, a common discursive thread is the media and genre savvy deconstruction of the
reality show and the discursive claims surrounding it. In doing so, subjects tend to subscribe to an understanding of the real and authentic as natural, spontaneous, unpremeditated, or unmediated, encapsulated in the non-interventionist ethic associated with
the observation of a pre-existent and pristine social milieu. Likewise, the critique extends
beyond the pro-filmic setting and performances to the reality show as an edited, dramatic narrative discourse which more or less strays from an original and truthful state
of affairs. Such critical positions respond to the nave insistence upon the real and
authentic which reality speak inevitably implies, at times overcompensating by taking
quite radical proportions, either in a cynical vein or strategically informed so as to relocate the debate and evade ambiguities (and possibly also moral responsibilities).
It is more typical, however, for a nuanced reconstructive discourse to gradually
ensue from this initial detachment. Such critical appreciation of the reality values of
reality shows relies to some extent on notions of the real and authentic similar to
those deployed in the initial deconstruction, by allowing some latitude within the
parameters of formatted television (production) for the natural and unanticipated (cf.
agency) to take shape. This element, as well as the persistent belief in the referential
value of the reality show, is evident in the modeling, dynamic, and material qualities
assigned to the category through the concept of simulation as outlined above. So
understood, the reality show as a simulated micro-social or emotional journey and a
site for self-reflection and identity work also induces renewed notions of authenticity
that appeal to the experiential or, the credibility of emotions, confessions, articulations of the intimate and to the transparent or the sincerity of (self-)reflexivity.

Downloaded from mcs.sagepub.com at LAURENTIAN UNIV LIBRARY on June 5, 2016

15

Mast

Yet, amidst this fluid and relativist context, references to, variously, a core self, faithful record of an original state of affairs, or greater truth, which connote an essentialist
interpretation of the authentic, remain particularly salient as a (convenient) way of coping with uncertainties (which, ironically, parallels possible strategic motives behind the
radical deconstructions mentioned above).
It is important to note that these configurations coexist within the assessments of
individual participants and program makers as they differentiate between the (in)authenticity of the pro-filmic setting, situations and (actor) performances, and the editing of
images and sounds into a particular narrative. In this regard, participants and program
makers tend to be on a par when they share an interest in asserting reality values against
external critique, which is most notable concerning the pro-filmic, and especially the
(virtual) performances, over which they both exert control (to a greater or lesser extent).
By the same token, participants are more likely to assume a skeptical, deconstructive
position when it comes to program makers creative license or authorial freedom,
particularly in postproduction, or editing.
What ensues from this dialog between deconstruction and reconstruction is a conception of the reality show, not as a postmodern category par excellence, but rather as
the epitome of a post postmodernism (Jerslev, 2002: 8). That is, (debating the reality
values of) reality television induces a (self-)reflexive discourse that is clearly informed
by the skepticism of postmodernism (cf. Giddens reflexive modernity, supra), yet, at
the same time interrogates and moves beyond its nihilist inflections. As noted in the
Introduction, radical positions have proclaimed and criticized the lack of referential
value, substance, or depth of postmodern texts and selves (Kellner, 2005: 41) in a massmediated and image-saturated culture, encapsulated in hyperbolic notions such as the
disappearance of reality (Baudrillard, 1994; Dovey, 2000) or the death of documentary (Nichols, 1994). While the constructed nature of the real and the authentic, and
(reality) televisions active role in its production, is readily acknowledged, it appears that
this media savvy does not foreclose the need or desire for a sense of reality or deeper
truth, nor the persistent investment in (the quest for) these idea(l)s. In a related analysis
of the contemporary Zeitgeist, defined as metamodernism, Vermeulen and van den
Akker (2010, n.p.) illustrate this both/neither dynamic by projecting the image of a
pendulum swinging back and forth between adherence to a modern navet, commitment, or purity, and to a postmodern skepticism, detachment, or ambiguity. It is precisely this oscillation of continuity and discontinuity, of what was and what has been
transgressed, that brings Carpentier and Van Bauwel (2010: 302303), in a profound
discussion of the politics of (re-)conceptualizations, to problematize the post-prefix and
to propose the notion of trans-reality(television), which highlights that different constitutive fragments of the real are fluid and contingent and have become co-determining
and co-existent (p. 305). So understood, trans-reality television emerges not so much
as an end point but rather as a nodal point of the multiple and ever-evolving configurations of the real and the authentic in a reflexive, media-savvy culture.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

Downloaded from mcs.sagepub.com at LAURENTIAN UNIV LIBRARY on June 5, 2016

16

Media, Culture & Society

References
Ang I (2003) Watching Dallas. London: Routledge.
Aslama M (2009) Playing house: participants experiences of Big Brother Finland. International
Journal of Cultural Studies 12(1): 8196.
Aslama M and Pantti M (2006) Talking alone: reality, emotions and authenticity. European
Journal of Cultural Studies 9(2): 167184.
Aufderheide P, Jaszi P and Chandra M (2009) Honest Truths: Documentary Filmmakers on Ethical
Challenges in Their Work. Washington DC: AU Center for Social Media.
Baudrillard J (1994) Simulacra and Simulacrum. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Bondebjerg I (2002) The mediation of everyday life: genre, discourse and spectacle in reality
TV. In: Jerslev A (ed.) Realism and Reality in Film and Media. Copenhagen: Museum
Tusculanum Press, pp. 159192.
Bonner F (2003) Ordinary Television. London: Sage.
Bous D (2000) Wildlife Films. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Bratich JZ (2007) Programming reality: control societies, new subjects and the powers of transformation. In: Heller D (ed.) Makeover Television. London: I.B. Tauris, pp. 622.
Bruzzi S (2000) New Documentary. London: Routledge.
Caillois R (2001 [1958]) Man, Play, and Games. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Carpentier N and Van Bauwel S (2010) The politics of the prefix: From post to trans (and
back)? In: Van Bauwel S and Carpentier N (eds) Trans-Reality Television. Lanham, MD:
Lexington Books, pp. 297315.
Carroll N (1996) Theorizing the Moving Image. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chalaby JK (2011) The making of an entertainment revolution: how the TV format trade became
a global industry. European Journal of Communication 26(4): 293309.
Corner J (1996) The Art of Record. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Corner J (1999) Critical Ideas in Television Studies. New York: Oxford University Press.
Corner J (2002) Performing the real: documentary diversions. Television and New Media 3(3):
255269.
Corner J (2008) Documentary studies: dimensions of transition and continuity. In: Austin T and
de Jong W (eds) Rethinking Documentary. Maidenhead: Open University Press, pp. 1328.
Dovey J (2000) Freak Show. London: Pluto Press.
Dovey J (2004) Its only a game-show: Big Brother and the theatre of spontaneity. In: Mathijs E
and Jones J (eds) Big Brother International. London: Wallflower Press, pp. 323249.
Feuer J (1992) Genre study and television. In: Allen RC (ed.) Channels of Discourse, Reassembled.
London: Routledge, pp. 138161.
Friedman J (2002) Introduction. In: Friedman J (ed.) Reality Squared: Televisual Discourse on the
Real. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, pp. 122.
Gatfield L and Hargrave AM (2003) Dramatic Licence: Fact or Fiction? London: Broadcasting
Standards Commission.
Giddens A (1990) Modernity and Self-identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press.
Giddens A (1991) The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Goffman E (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: The Overlook Press.
Hill A (2007) Restyling Factual TV: Audiences and News, Documentary and Reality Genres.
London: Routledge.
Holmes S (2008) The Quiz Show. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Jerslev A (2002) Introduction. In: Jerslev A (ed.) Realism and Reality in Film and Media.
Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, pp. 714.

Downloaded from mcs.sagepub.com at LAURENTIAN UNIV LIBRARY on June 5, 2016

17

Mast

Kellner D (2005) Critical perspectives on television from the Frankfurt School to postmodernism.
In: Wasko J (ed.) A Companion to Television. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 2947.
Macdonald M (2003) Exploring Media Discourse. London: Arnold Publishers.
Mittell J (2004) Genre and Television. New York: Routledge.
Montgomery M (2001) Defining authentic talk. Discourse Studies 3(4): 397405.
Moran A (2004) The pie and the crust: television program formats. In: Allen RC and Hill A (eds)
The Television Studies Reader. London: Routledge, pp. 258266.
Nichols B (1991) Representing Reality. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Nichols B (1994) Blurred Boundaries. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Priest PJ (1995) Public Intimacies. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Shufeldt M and Gale K (2007) Under the (glue) gun: containing and constructing reality in home
makeover TV. Popular Communication 5(4): 263282.
Syvertsen T (2001) Ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances: a study of participants in
television dating games. Media. Culture & Society 5(4): 319337.
Teurlings J (2001) Producing the ordinary: institutions, discourses and practices in love game
shows. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies 15(2): 249263.
Thompson RJ and Burns G (1990) Introduction. In: Thompson RJ and Burns G (eds) Making
Television. New York: Praeger, pp. 161174.
Van Leeuwen T (2001) What is authenticity? Discourse Studies 3(4): 392397.
Vermeulen T and van den Akker R (2010) Notes on metamodernism. Journal of Aesthetics and
Culture 2. DOI: 10.3402/jac.v1i0.5677
Ytreberg E (2004) Formatting participation within broadcast media production. Media, Culture &
Society 26(5): 677692.
Ytreberg E (2006) Premeditations of performance in recent live television: a scripting approach to
media production studies. European Journal of Cultural Studies 9(4): 421440.
Ytreberg E (2007) Scandinavian takes on mediated authenticity. International Journal of
Communication 1(1): 2126.

Downloaded from mcs.sagepub.com at LAURENTIAN UNIV LIBRARY on June 5, 2016