Reality TV

Since I was a child, I always saw television as my favorite source of entertainment. Although my mother always encouraged me to enjoy the outdoors, read a book, or play with my dolls, I much preferred watching television during my “playtime.” As a child, and even an as an adolescent, I wished my life to be the lives of the stars on my favorite shows. I wanted to date a cute blonde boy like how Kelly dated Zach on Saved by the Bell. I hoped to have as much fun as Boy Meets World’s Cory and Sean did in junior high. I wished to have two cool older sisters and three father figures like Michelle on Full House.

It wasn’t until high school that I realized television wasn’t a complete escape from reality and portrayed some truth about society. Similar to Kelly, I had boy problems. I enjoyed my junior high experience and caused much mischief, just like Cory and Sean. And although I did not have three fathers and two sisters, my family still instilled many of the same values as Michelle’s family. I began to realize that television, in fact, does explain much about our society’s traditions, values, and customs. As a television critic, I hope to introduce my readers to the idea that television presents many interpretations about real-life social situations. Furthermore, not one of these interpretations is the “correct” one. Instead, multiple interpretations can be correct; it is TV critics’ job to determine how all interpretations can reflect different segments within society.

As television critic Victoria O’Donnell explains, television’s goals are to be subjective and persuasive (6). It is subjective because criticism is often based on personal experiences. However, it is also open to multiple interpretations. For example, one viewer can watch Full House and find it to be a refreshing break from the usual family unit (father, mother, boy and girl children), while others may believe the show does not represent “traditional” family. It is my goal, and should be the goal of all critics, to understand the value in all interpretations of television. Furthermore, television criticism’s goal is to be persuasive (O’Donnell 7). It is persuasive in that it enriches audiences by encouraging certain viewpoints. More importantly, television helps persuade audiences that television can easily relate to our actual society. Full House, for example, could persuade audiences to realize that a happy, four-person, traditional family is not the only accepted family unit in society. Additionally, O’ Donnell and I hope to encourage viewers to realize that television relates to actual reality. Although not all families function like the Tanner family, there are many similarities to the Tanner family and other American families. For example, many American families strive for unity, love, compassion, and support, just like the Tanners.

In their book, Communication Criticism: Rhetoric, Social Codes, Cultural Studies, Sillars and Gronbeck communicate that the goal of television criticism should be to describe and tell us what’s in the program, interpret the situations in the show, and evaluate or assign value to the argument. I agree that these three steps can develop a critical argument. For example, let’s take a Full House episode. In one episode, DJ, Stephanie, and Michelle’s grandfather from Greece comes to visit the family. Unfortunately, before Michelle’s show-and-tell, in which she was going to have her grandfather teach the class Greek dance, he died in his sleep. Sillars and Gronbeck’s three-step process can help with critically analyzing the show. The description could be the plot of the program. The interpretation can be that everyone has close family members who teach us to be better people (in Michelle’s case, her grandfather taught her customs and Greek traditions.) We can evaluate this and compare it to the real world and our real life situations that although we all have loved ones, they eventually must pass on. We are all forced to understand and deal with difficult times. Although this is only one interpretation of this episode, Sillars and Gronbeck’s process can be repeated with many other interpretations of the same episode of Full House.

Butler, another TV critic and author supports the idea of multiple interpretations. In his article entitled, “Television’s Ebb and Flow in the Postnetwork Era,” Butler explains this concept is called polysemy (7). Critics should strive to understand polysemy and be open-minded to multiple interpretations on television.

As an object of study, I believe television to be a somewhat accurate representation of our society. Although many programs do stretch exact truth, (for example, it seems unlikely that the grandfather on Full House would die on the same day he comes to visit from Greece) television tries to relate to audiences. I believe we watch television to not only escape from the everyday problems of our lives, but also to confirm that our lives are also “normal.”

For example, in Butler’s article he explains three “axioms” about television. He communicates that television is composed of texts that offer multiple interpretations, television emphasizes some meanings over others, and television uses discourses, or meanings that audience members have already concluded from society and experiences, to form opinions (10). These three axioms work together to portray real-life situations. In one example, Butler uses specific television shows to depict different types of “families.” In Gilmore Girls, the parent-child relationship is reversed between the daughter Rory and her mother Lorelai. In the Cosby Show, the traditional, inspiring, supportive family unit is portrayed. In Viva la Bam, the family seems almost dysfunctional because of a misbehaving child. All these television shows have different texts, meanings, and discourses, but all represent the family unit. Audiences choose their programs based on how they want to feel “normal.” A person with a happy, four-person family may feel he or she relates to the Cosby family, while a single-mother may better understand Lorelai. However, not one of these family units is the “correct” representation of a family. Television teaches us that there are multiple social situations. To truly be unbiased and democratic, critics must be open-minded and support many interpretations.

Because more than 80% of our population own televisions, it is important to encourage my readers to be more attentive towards television programs and what the program is trying to portray and teach. It is clear that television dominates American culture, and even more importantly, includes information about our society. As Corner explains, television has “impacted virtually all areas of leisure, particularly sport and popular music” (6). Furthermore, those who study popular culture, such as Gramsci and Althusser, have found television to be “the representational hub of a new pattern of knowledge and feeling and of new kinds of political organization, self-consciousness, and identity” (8). This is how I will relate to my readers. Because television provides much impact on our society, I will use to encourage them that television criticism is extremely important. I encourage my readers to post questions or concerns about my posts. Additionally, it is important that they post what they enjoy watching to help me understand their perspectives. As I have already explained, one goal of criticism is to be open-minded towards other viewpoints. I strive to relate to my readers by recognizing their interpretations and carefully considering their ideas, as well as others’.

Television significantly impacts our society and dominates much of their leisure time. It is most important to realize, however, that there is some truth in television. Throughout the semester, I hope to point out to my viewers that we must recognize that television derives its plots and messages from actual society. Indeed, there is gang violence and intricate serial murders in America, just like on CSI. Some teenagers do get pregnant at age 16, like on Secret Life of an American Teenager. And luckily, there are funny husbands just like Doug on King of Queens. I look forward to my readers’ new perceptions on television’s truthful interpretations, as well as my own.


References

Butler, J. (2002). Television: Critical Methods and Applications (2nd ed). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Corner, J. (1999). Critical Ideas in Television Studies. New York: Oxford University Press.

O’Donnell, V. (2007). Television Criticism. New York: Sage.

Sillars, M. O. and Gronbeck, B. E. (2001). Communication Criticism: Rhetoric, Social Codes, Cultural Studies. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.