reality television

1.      George F. Will describes as a “race to the bottom” the TV shows in which people “degrade themselves for money.” What TV shows might fit his definition? Where in his critique is a “they say” that defends such programming?

Students will likely come up with a variety of examples of “reality” shows in which people “degrade themselves for money.” You might ask that they think about such programming in terms of genre: for example, those such as Fear Factor, in which contestants subject themselves to disgusting acts; those such as Survivor that require scheming and manipulation; those such as Temptation Island and I Love New York that are based on sex; and so forth. Which kinds seem most degrading? Will’s “they say” comes in paragraph 10, where he includes the counterargument that works once considered scandalous are now seen as great pieces of art, and in paragraph 12, where he includes the counterargument that television producers are simply providing what viewers want.

2.      Will uses strong language to convey his negative view not just of television programming but of many other aspects of society. He discusses “today’s endemic exhibitionism,” for instance, and talks of life “in an increasingly infantilized society.” How does he see TV fitting into this larger picture?

Will feels that television is exacerbating the coarseness, exhibitionism, and infantilization of contemporary culture by pandering to the lowest common denominator, airing more and more shocking programming to an audience that is more and more desensitized to shock.

3.      This piece was syndicated to more than 400 papers, and yet it’s written in language that is quite formal, even academic. How does Will’s formal style relate to his argument about the “downward spiral” of popular culture today—and to the kind of people he wants his readers to become?

Will’s stylistic formality, his sophisticated diction, and his obvious erudition set him strongly apart from the coarseness and stupidity he decries in contemporary culture. In a sense, his writing provides an example of the level of intellectual discourse to which he believes the culture should aspire.

4.      Compare Will’s views of television viewers today with the views of Steven Johnson (pp. 213–30) or Dana Stevens (pp. 231–34).

Johnson actually has good things to say about reality television. As suggested in the discussion of his essay earlier, he thinks shows such as Survivor and The Apprentice keep viewers on their toes by constantly introducing new challenges and changing what seem to be the rules; they also test social networking skills by requiring that viewers pay close attention to participants’ personality traits. This is exactly the opposite of what Will argues. Stevens, in arguing against Johnson’s position, is perhaps closer to Will, but she still refuses to characterize television as “brain-liquefying poison,” which would clearly be Will’s view of reality television.