h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

If I were a snide and sarcastic person (moi?!?!) I would suggest:

1. dropping contestants in the middle of Iraq and seeing how they do
2. handing a person five children under the age of twelve, putting 'em on welfare, and see how they make ends meet
3. outsourcing a person's job and watching him try to feed the family and pay the mortgage while working at a minimum wage job
4. making a person live on Social Security while trying to pay for three or four prescription drugs

Three great situations: War, Welfare, Unemployment and Disease. We could call our show 'The Four Horsemen of Reality' - it's a winner, don't you think?

Fortunately I'm not a snide and sarcastic person, so I would never dream of suggesting anything like this.

So yes, I do think the reality shows have crossed a line. At the very least they've made a mockery of the word 'reality', so they're guilty of crimes against the English language. And I blame the contestants as much as the producers of the show; no one can force you to make an idiot of yourself without your full co-operation. I try my best to think well of my fellow man, but these guys sure make it difficult...

* Three great situations: *

Or perhaps four. (Never could proofread worth beans...)

Well done, old bean!
For that you recieve: your own reality show! JK!
Reality tv is not REAL.
TV has to make sense, have a plot, have a conclusion- even so called reality shows often have a "twist" to surprise people, and to end the show. Real Life hardly ever makes sense, the plot only God knows, and the ultimate conclusion we are all trying to avoid!!

Here's the thing: If we stopped watching, it would go away. Unfortunately, no one can convince the lowest common denominator that "reality tv" is bad for them.

If somebody made those shows it would ammount to either A) The subsequent end of reality television and a return to our sitcom roots, or B) A mockery of all situations, which would leave us in a worse position. A mockery of reality television, however, is a good way to try and stop the madness. However, most would not see the mockery or would choose to ignore it, and it would end up mostly ineffective, just like voter education.

You raised an interesting point: how would you mock reality TV, given that it's so outlandish to start with?

Most of the shows I can laugh at, but there was one that really got my goat. It was called 'Who Wants to Marry My Dad?' in which three kids essentially vetted dates for their dad. I haven't heard anyone else complain about it, but for me the whole premise was just, well, icky; it's like kids procuring for the old man. Stupid I can take; this was vaguely sleazy.

If I suggested such a thing to my father, he'd wonder where he'd gone wrong raising me.

That is seriously discusting. Not as bad as "Wife Swap" though. I think they just keep getting worse. I think reality shows are a perfect example of the decline of pop culture. If our entertainment is watching completely normal people do really dumb things, isn't that a good hint as to where we're going culturally? It really just upsets me.

Firstly, just out of interest, would someone please be able to explain to me what the lowest common denominator is?

I have a strange fascination with people's obsession with reality based television shows. There are people who stay up for as long as possible attempting to watch every minute of something like Big Brother. There are people who go out of their way to make it clear that programmes like Big Brother are seen as dumbing down society and lowering standards. There are also those who recognise that watching a group of people living in a contained environment, with their every move on video tape, provides lessons to us all.

Imagine a world where we were all under the watchful eye of some entity or other, much like 1984 by George Orwell, or the film the Truman Show starring Jim Carey. Wouldn't it be crazy if we couldn't get away with all the stuff we are able to get away with in this disgracefully unwatched planet. We couldn't get away with saying we didn't do something when the videotape evidently proves we did. We wouldn't be able to commit crimes. In fact, we wouldn't be able to get away with all the little social injustices we inflict on each other everyday that lead us to live in a society where manners no longer exist and people can't be arsed to get up for pregnant women on the Underground.

What am I saying? Watch Wife Swap. This demonstrates that people sometimes can change, only it takes all their horrible, nasty, stupid, small-minded and petty behaviour to be shoved right in their faces before they understand just how much they might need to change.

I like reality TV. I would like to suggest that for one day you all go around imagining you're on TV. If that doesn't make you think about your behaviour, pay a friend to follow you with a camcorder.

You bring up some interesting points, PropectTree.

* There are also those who recognise that watching a group of people living in a contained environment, with their every move on video tape, provides lessons to us all. *

I agree with this, although I'm not sure what lessons they provide. The running camera affects people's behaviour, although we can't know to what degree they modify their behaviour (or how they would have behaved had the camera not been present). I'd hesitate to draw any conclusions about what I'm watching, as the whole set-up is artificial by definition.

* We couldn't get away with saying we didn't do something when the videotape evidently proves we did. We wouldn't be able to commit crimes... *

That was true in the world of '1984', but nowadays video doesn't prove anything. A reasonably-skilled person armed with a computer can create a video to 'prove' that anybody did just about anything. Similarly a video can be doctored to remove evidence. A running camera would inhibit your average person to some degree, but it wouldn't stop the Professionally Dishonest.

As for walking around pretending that someone is filming me, no thanks; I'd be paranoid in half a day. I value my privacy too much, which is probably why I just don't understand this mania for appearing on reality TV programmes. I also have this sneaking suspicion that nothing I do would interest enough people to be worth filming. And for the same reason, reality shows feel like an invasion of privacy to me, even though the people on the shows appear to have no such qualms.

And I have no idea what the least common denominator is, other than we don't seem to have reached it.

When you're adding or subtracting fractions, you rewrite them so they all have the same 'lowest common denominator'.

e.g. 1/2 + 1/3 = 3/6 + 2/6 = 5/6
6 is the lowest common denominator in this case.

So, given the infinite variety of human beings, the lowest common denominator must also be infity. I feel that the phrase "lowest common denominator" has lost its meaning somewhat.

RF

I challenge your assumption that human beings have infinite variety. There are only 6 billion of us after all and there's certain things we cannot be.

I would suggest that the lowest common denominator is water .

I agree that a running camera can affect people's behaviour. The extent of anyone's behaviour, however, despite the environment they are in, can lead to an assessment of the individual's paradigm. The trap is to assume that people can't change or behave in an unpredictable way.

I also agree that video can be manipulated and misused, but I think the idea of privacy we have in some societies is a privilege that sometimes is out of balance with societal responsibility. When I suggested having a friend follow you with a camcorder, the idea was to draw a parallel with accountability.

People who sign up to take part in Reality TV shows should have read the small print. If they behave in a way that they later regret or find embarrassing - tough. Live with it. Otherwise, why go on the programme? Or, while on the programme, behave responsibly. That's what having a choice is all about, isn't it?

The programmes aren't an invasion of privacy unless they are filmed without knowledge or consent.

On the other hand, could you say that the people who appear in these programmes have all been taken advantage of?

By the way, quizzical said "I also have this sneaking suspicion that nothing I do would interest enough people to be worth filming." Well, further to the commentary by Reddyfreddy - newly an uncle (Unique, SK, A-PG & PoN)and BouncyHistorianInTheMiddle, while there may not be an infinite amount of variety in human beings, there is still rather a lot, which means, judging by the amount of things human beings are capable of or get occupied with, it may just be that someone somewhere really does have more than a passing interest in what quizzical does and would like to watch. The problem with paranoia is that you never know...

Now, where did I put those binoculars?!

Uhh, infinite over time, or at any given moment.

I could see with the first reality TV shows that there was some interest. But, watcing people live with each other despite the fact the producers pick the people most likely to get to each other, can be done just as well in the real world.

This morning I heard a news story about a French reality TV programme in which followed students in a 1950s-style boarding school (emphasis on reading, writing and arithmetic, lots of memorisation, failure punished with either wearing a dunce cap or writing out endless passages of Flaubert). The show really touched a nerve in France and sparked a lot of discussion of the current educational system.

So I guess I'll agree that some reality programmes can be interesting. The concept, perhaps, is not flawed but the execution of it frequently is...

We had something similar in Britain (don't know the nationality of original poster) called "That'll Teach 'Em". The first series as about a grammar school in the '50s (how realistic it was I don't know, given especially that they were mixed-one of the gripes from older members of my family who taught in the '50s) and another about a '60s secondary modern.
I found it quite interesting, actually. wouldn't watch survivor, Big Brother, I'm a celebrity... type shows as they don't seem to have any real value apart from a very base form of entertainment. At least shows like that give you something to think about.

Was a bit sensationalist about comparing 8 weeks of study on O-levels to a lifetime of study on GCSEs.

Does anyone remember Paddington Green? From what I recall I thought that was pretty good. I thought Life of Grime was good as well, but some of those Airport programmes can be tedious.

The lowest common denominator, like the math problem presented to show the literal meaning of the phrase, refers to that which will appeal to most of the people, most of the time.
It could also be called the "Rubberneck" factor. When an accident happens, or a crime, and people gather to just look, to watch. I think that is where the idea for reality tv came from. People don't want to look, but can't help looking at the tragic and grotesque.
Quality shows, that are entertaining and even informational are becoming increasingly rarer. Situation comedies, "sit-com", are so much formulaic drivel most of the time that some have been called "s#*!!-coms".
The true horror of reality tv is that it is reducing humanity to its basest(lowest, common) aspects. It is turning us all into observers of life, rather than partakers. We watch, and comment, and do nothing.
How much longer until we watch Life, and comment, and do nothing?

Ah well... give me Countdown any day. (Countdown, for the benifit of non-British readers is a words-and-numbers game show-bit sad eh?-but quite popular) Or the news. THAT would be *real* reality TV...