Written by Zoe Davies

John Hartley (2004) compares the construction of reality television to Shakespeare’s methodology. He characterises Elizabethan theatre as a communal experience where ‘universality’ was felt in a common space. Television is perhaps the only location where anything similar can be reproduced. Television is the only really ‘national’ theatre our society is ever likely to have and therefore houses the values of an engaged and participatory audience.  Much of Shakespeare’s drama was focused around the public sphere and referred to archetypal ‘stock characters’ and their place within the public sphere. Hartley suggests that reality television actually “gathers international populations while recognising national differences, and encourages cross-demogrpahic and multiplatform talk about human character, interaction and plot”

(2004, p305)



Here it seems Hartley is discussing the model of reception relating to Australian Reality TV which the Australian Media and Communications Authority conducted a close analysis of in 2007.



“Reality television programming in all its forms is one of the most popular types of programming on Australian commercial free-to-air television. This popularity is clearest from ratings data, which indicates the extent to which reality television programming is valued by he Australian community….Focus group participants noted that they liked reality television for a range of reasons, including because it was unpredictable, reflects everyday experiences, shows unusual or novel situations, engages the viewer (including through voting for competitors), has an element of suspense, is educational/can teach a lesson and because viewers like to think that the program participant ‘could be me’



The notion of television becoming an active site of the public sphere may call for an increase in political discussion, as many citizens of the public sphere embody different levels of political awareness and engagement, We ask; does reality television therefore encompass the ability to draw disparate populations together and address universal issues from a range of viewpoints?

“Citizens behave as a public body when they confer in an unrestricted fashion about matters of general interest. Today, newspapers and magazines, radio and television are the media of the public sphere” Habermas, 2009, p73)

Scott Olsen (1999) describes transparency as ‘any textual apparatus that allows audiences to project indigenous values, beliefs, rites and rituals into imported media”.



We argue that reality TV has the capacity to have transparency rather than superficiality and that reality TV can in fact be used as a platform upon which to voice otherwise untold stories and unfurl complex narratives that are not addressed by the mainstream media.

We will take the ground-breaking Australian reality TV series Go Back To Where You Came from as an example of transparency as it aims to stimulate discussion in new audiences on the issue of asylum seekers which is an issue without transparency in mainstream media.



“The performance of the self is now done by citizens for themselves and for each other, not by representative actors…the source of meaning is now located in the consumer not the producer”. (Olsen, 1991, p303)



Olsen, Scott Robert (1999), Hollywood Planet: Global Media and the Compedative Advantage of Narrative Transparency, (Mawah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1999) 5-6

Habermas, (2009) “The Public Sphere: An Encylopedia Article” Media and Cultural Studies: Keyworks Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009, Chapter 5, 73-78

 

Reality Television Review, 2007, Australian Media and Communications Authority, Canberra [http://www.acma.gov.au/webwr/_assets/main/lib101055/acma_reality-review_discussion-paper_dec2006.pdf] Accessed 3rd April 2013.