Why Don't We Hear More Mainstream Criticism of Reality TV?

The question that is the title of this post may strike some as odd. After all, does the reality TV genre not get subject to a lot of criticism? Do people not perceive it as not merely fake in a way belying the term "reality," but trashy--and exploitative of participants and audience alike? Do they not pour abuse on "stars" of the form such as the members of the Kardashian family?

There is no denying all this, but also no denying that the criticism has been marginalized within the conversation--brushed aside, and even the object of counterblasts, by a press that on the whole treats the phenomenon with respect. Thus even as Dr. Jacob Johanssen testifies to British parliament that "[i]n academic research, the content of reality television is almost exclusively discussed critically," the media dig up "academics" who criticize the critics for the sake of garbage such as Vice's story claiming that "Scholars Say if You Hate the Kardashians You Probably Hate Yourself," such that the deeper and more trenchant criticisms of the genre generally going unheard--and of course, without any effect on contemporary culture whatsoever, the sordid enterprise continuing to lumber on untouched by the criticisms.

That seems to me to warrant some remark. And in this three factors seem relevant. The first and most obvious is the extreme tameness of the press, especially the entertainment press, which is overwhelmingly dutiful to its role of courtier and claqueur to the media business to which it is so close, and indeed apt to be a related party if not a subsidiary. Exactly as might be expected in this Pohl-Kornbluth dystopia in which we live the entertainment media is deeply invested in reality TV (representing as it does a colossal share of their output now, not least because low costs and easy product placement contribute to higher profit margins than it has on scripted fare), and said courtiers and claqueurs are thus obliged to be supportive. In that role they may be allowed to criticize a particular show, or even say something critical of the whole genre, but never in such a way as to seriously and meaningfully attack the bosses' enterprise, not least because the less serious and meaningful attacks at least allowing the illusion of a genuine dialogue, and a safety valve for the resentments some feel, who seeing such statements can feel validated and therefore, if only in a small way, relieved that someone agrees with them and move on with their lives as nothing changes. Indeed, on close inspection one may find that those critical sneers at reality television may in fact be just so much "permission," or even encouragement, to watch "ironically," which still conduces to the viewership sustaining the wretched machine.

There is, too, the matter of just whose values reality TV tends to affirm, and whose values it tends to offend against. Consider the competition shows, for example. Presenting the pursuit of "success" as a tough but fair contest in which merit gets one ahead and those who lack it have only themselves to blame as it exalts those who have "made it" as smarter-than-everyone-else and thus earned the right to sit at a very high table from which they get to not only judge but abuse the inferiors aspiring to even a very little bit of what they have, the Message with which it beats its audience over the head, with its elitism and its moralizing, its cruelty and obscurantism, its often on-its-sleeve exaltation of capitalism and economic individualism, is enough to make a leftist retch, but aligns perfectly with how the conservative pictures capitalism to the world, and perfect propaganda for their vision of economic life. So does it also go with the shows that are this era's equivalent of the Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, one psychological study showing that brief exposure to reality TV shows of the Kardashian type makes the viewer identify with the rich, and feel less sympathetic to the poor, and less supportive of programs that help them. For those of progressive sympathies this is proof positive that reality TV is making the world a worse place. But for the right as it presently exists in America--the blatantly, crassly, elitist business right that, without the respect of the classical conservative's recognition of the necessity of some consideration for the least fortunate for social stability's sake, let alone any sense of paternalism or noblesse oblige toward them--this is an excellent reason to support reality TV. The conservative may not be delighted with the medium. (How would the traditionalist preacher of "family values," especially one of certain ethnic and social backgrounds, feel about his daughter living her life in the manner that Kim Kardashian lived hers? Becoming famous in the way that Kim Kardashian did? Need I remind you of a certain video without which few of us would know the name "Kardashian?") But they LOVE the message. And their opinion is as weighty within the mainstream as the opinion of the socially-minded progressive is not, with all that means for this side of the dialogue.

And of course there is the matter of identity politics. Again, in spite of the illiterate and quite stupid insistence that identity politics is left it is in fact anything but, what is today called "wokeness" very much of the right in its philosophical essentials and its practical positions on the issues (hence there being no dissonance in "woke capitalism"). Indeed, it is fair to say that identity politics offends the cultural traditionalism of the avowed, traditionalist, conservative not by confronting them with an alternative set of values the way the left does (rationalistic, universalistic, egalitarian, as against their dismissal of reason, stress on difference, insistence on hierarchy, and demand for respect for the associated institutions and traditions), but by confronting the traditionalist conservative with an Other acting on their own conservatism. It being the case that reality TV's themes (the daily lives of rich girls, dating shows, etc.) and fan base tend to skew female (perhaps by a margin of two-to-one, maybe three-to-one with the soapy "lifestyle"-type shows), and its biggest star being a woman whose course through life has been highly charged from a gender politics perspective (the aforementioned Ms. Kardashian), it is unsurprising that the identity politics crowd rushes to the defense of the form. Thus is it the case that if woke gender theory-espousing feminists cannot be thrilled with much about Ms. Kardashian (many in fact despise her undeniable sex symbol status), a great many of them are ever ready to attack her detractors, to the point of accusing anyone who hates the Kardashians of being a "misogynist" (displaying a looseness in language akin to that of right-wingers tossing about "Communist"--again, not a stretch given identity politics' essential conservatism).

This combination of interest, power and ideology--this iron triangle of business, right-wing politics and identity-mindedness--is why the criticism of reality TV is slight next to what it might be (and in the view of its detractors, what it ought to be), with the alignment remarkable not for its uniqueness but for its pervasiveness across contemporary cultural life.