It’s a Hard Mob Wire for Us: Evolution of TV Entertainment Over the Years

It’s A Hard Mob Wive For Us
Since the 1940s when the first black and white television was invented and only the wealthy, affluent families could afford it – the act of watching a pre-programmed show such as Father Knows Best or even a live showing of the Channel Four News became a phenomenon. Society has evolved around the television. Imagine having a family room where the couches do not face the TV, or having to read the newspaper every morning instead of flicking on the nice flat screen and watching Diane Sawyer on ABC World News. Television was the new sliced bread; bringing the excitement of the outside world into the comfort of home. People began following trends they saw on TV, the character’s actions, morals, and even the clothes and hairstyles the actors wore. When television transitioned from actors to “real people” and scripted scenes became “real life occurrences,” the viewer was introduced into an entirely different realm of television: what the networks were calling “reality TV.” On shows such as the Jersey Shore, Project Runway, and Mob Wives, the table – flipping, overexposed breakups, deception and gossip are the morals and actions showcased on these shows. The harmful effects of reality TV are downplayed by this façade of “real life,” and presented as acceptable in everyday life. Reality TV thrives on other people’s humiliation and failure, drawing people in with dirty, nasty, and shameful twists. According to James Poniewozik, “wallowing in the weaknesses and failings of humanity is a trademark of satire…” that writers such as Mark Twain and Jonathan Swift used satire to peak the audience’s interest (Poniewozik). Reality TV morphs people’s image of reality and negatively affects how they view society, no matter if they watch TV or not, either emulating unhealthy competition, poor morals, or humiliation.
There exists a common misconception that people primarily enjoy reality TV for its quality, its ability to evoke “real” and “moving” emotions. Rather it is just the opposite. According to my survey titled, “Is Reality TV a Benefit or Detriment to Society?” I asked a total of ten questions to over 100 people on their opinions of reality TV and its impact on society. Over 50% of the participants responded with variations of, “It’s really entertaining” or “they’re trash, who doesn’t love them?” and “it’s stupid but entertaining” (Corn). The reality is that the key source of origin for such a large viewing audience and interest in reality TV is the entertainment aspect, the chance to kick back and laugh at other people’s execution of bad morals, unhealthy competition, and humiliation. More drama equates to more ratings (Poniewozik). Every reality TV show has a producer, who has a manager, who has a CEO, who has a director, and the list goes on. Each person on that reality TV production team is competing with other TV producers, managers, and CEO’s to have higher ratings than each other, to steal the viewers of another show, and to hopefully make it to a second, third, or even fourth season. This competition for limited resources such as time slots for the airing of the show, millions of viewers, and funding from the TV networks leads these producers to do whatever it takes to achieve those goals (Rankin). According to conflict theory, there is always an imbalance of power and those who have the power want to sustain it (Henslin). This is the same thing with reality TV shows, if one is the most viewed, another must be the second most viewed – there can never be two “most watched reality TV series,” it just is not possible.
This unhealthy competition between producers dissolves right into the drama on screen. For instance, the reality show Mob Wives on Vh1 exemplifies this ‘competition’ not only for air time, but for dominance of the room. The main women Renee, Drita, Carla, and Karen are constantly ready for confrontation – pointing and waving their hands, which often results to physical brawls as a way to settle their disputes. When Karen returned to Staten Island ten years after her father cooperated and helped take down a large part of the mafia, the first thing out of Renee’s mouth was, “There is a code of ethics in the underworld made up of respect, loyalty, and honor. You NEVER rat no matter what... she’s f***** when she comes back” (Silverman). She immediately resorted to bad moral behavior of cursing and threats as the only logical way to fix her problem. Renee’s reputation as “Anthony Graziano’s daughter” is a title she is ready to defend wholeheartedly, and will do whatever it takes violence, cursing, and threats to remain top dog on television. Due to the high level of conflict, bad morals, humiliation, and unhealthy competition are the result. Threats were made, fingers were pointed, and hair was pulled, bringing an entirely new meaning to defending our “family name.” In contrast, on the culinary reality TV show Hell’s Kitchen the competing groups defined by social conflict theorists are self-evident as each of the 20 hand- picked chefs fight for the chance to become executive chef of one of Gordon Ramsey’s restaurants and the cash prize of $100,000. Immediately there is the competition factor when a tangible prize is placed at the finish line, creating a limited resource. There is only ONE $100,000 for ONE person, not 20. Each chef is trying to “win over” Chef Ramsey through a conflict theorist perspective and will do whatever it takes even if that means humiliating themselves on national TV due to a “cat-fight” behind the scenes. In a specific example, a verbal fight between Chef Nedra and Chef Gina causes a scene in the girl’s quarters. Each attempts to out – do each other with verbal assaults, dominance of space, and blaming one another for a poor service (Hollinger).
Rather than working toward a cohesive conclusion with healthy discussion regarding both the two girls from Hell’s Kitchen, the only moral decision making reflected was that of screaming, yelling, and spatulas flying. Reality TV captures the bad morals, humiliation, and unhealthy competition, which maintain what conflict theorists would call a “constant state of competition,” and presents this behavior as acceptable for their audience.
Functionalists break everything in society into three main functions: manifest functions, latent functions, and latent dysfunctions. The manifest functions are the results intended to be beneficial to society, whereas the latent functions are unintended. According to the functionalist perspective, if one aspect is not working properly all of society crumbles (Henslin). Although reality TV offers its audience an escape from their own lives and into a warped reality of the rich and/ or famous. Unfortunately, the latent dysfunctions (unintended disadvantages) of bad morals, humiliation, and unhealthy competition outweigh the manifest functions, where one will digest the immoral behavior before the initial normalcy of the “real people.” For instance, in my survey I asked two questions concerning American Idol, “Who is Simon Cowell? Please describe him” and “Who was the 2012 winner of American Idol?” Every single person responded with at least a sentence on Simon Cowell, commenting on his rude tendencies; white V-necks, and harsh commentaries, whereas only 45% knew the correct answer to the second question (Corn). Although Simon Cowell left American Idol three years ago in 2010, people still remembered his negative, demeaning persona whereas recalling last season’s heartthrob American Idol winner Phillip Phillips was extremely difficult. This just goes to show that the humiliation, unhealthy competition, and bad moral ground emulated by Simon Cowell were more effective than Phillip Phillips’s talent on the show. Overall, the deviant behavior of bad morals, humiliation, and unhealthy competition that reality TV fosters overpowers the potential positive effects of the manifest functions. The imbalance of working parts in reality TV disrupts the potential benefit one could receive from reality TV and gateways into negative opinions and views of society as a whole.
The potential to show the rest of the world what someone is capable of through a television show is an incredible idea; however, unrealistic as the manifest functions of reality TV are overshadowed by the numerous latent dysfunctions. The culinary skills needed to excel in Hell’s Kitchen as well as the good intentions of the “Mob Mothers” are quickly overlooked by their terrible moral behavior and constant humiliation. For example, in Mob Wives, Carla’s effort to separate her children from their father’s lifestyle as a mobster is a responsible choice that heeds several life lessons about becoming your own person. However, when the scene switches to Drita’s comment about, “I just want to drink all of my problems away, go out, have fun, and get f***** up,” all of Carla’s life lesson is lost to the viewer and this warped version of reality is introduced (Silverman). Just as Carla’s actions are overlooked, the chef’s impeccable culinary skills are not what distinguish Hell’s Kitchen, rather Gordon Ramsey and his short-tempered, aggressive freak-outs at the contestants are what bring in the ratings (Hess). The circus –like atmosphere of Hell’s Kitchen is a latent dysfunction that emphasizes the humiliation Gordon Ramsey places the chefs through, publicly yelling at them and calling them, “F****** idiots who can’t cook for their lives!” (Hollinger). This humiliation and inappropriate moral standings are sadly what sticks with the viewer.
As aforementioned, these breakouts and humiliation showcased in reality TV shows are what draw the viewers in. It is self-evident that if every aspect of reality TV is not working smoothly, then immediately one niche overpowers the other (dysfunctions over functions), leaving those who watch reality TV a skewed version of reality infused with bad morals, humiliation, and unhealthy competition.
Although the face-to-face interaction between reality TV stars appears more authentic than a scripted sitcom, the relationships between the people on the shows are distorted representations of what society would deem a “respectful encounter.” Symbolic interactionists' define society by the contact people have with one another and the symbols that signify social norms that allow society to function properly (Henslin). However, reality TV uses bad morals, humiliation, and unhealthy competition as the basis for their version of ‘social norms,’ how to view the world and communicate with one another. Eye rolling, dirty looks, head-wagging, and jaw dropping are symbolic of reality TV, the emotionally expected reactions to which all of the characters must adhere to – has many people questioning the reality of reality TV (Wolcott). Symbols define society and the different roles certain relationships play, and throughout reality TV every friendship, alliance, relationship, or even acquaintance is used to further one’s position in society or on the show. Relationships symbolize information sharing or “gossip,” and are used to get ears on the inside instead of representing trust and loyalty. For example, when Renee blew up at Drita for not telling her that Karen was coming to Carla’s party and a full out argument occurred in front of everybody at the bar. Renee’s friendship with Drita meant nothing after the fight because information was not shared with her. This behavior is not usually deemed appropriate in any other circumstances but because it was on Vh1’s “Mob Wives” those social norms do not apply any longer (Silverman).
In addition, the roles and standards these relationships entail are amplified as soon as the cameras turn on to increase ratings. “Good” reality TV is blown out fights and bad behavior where the participants life is no longer defined as private and exclusive, but public and vulnerable (Hess). Through the symbolic interactions viewpoint, networks that produce reality TV must redefine previous societal symbols of the meaning behind friendship, respect, loyalty, etc. as well as the everyday relationships between parent and child and employer and employee. In Mob Wives, Renee Graziano’s relationship with her son would not be defined as your average mother-son interaction. Renee interacts with her son, AJ, as if he were her husband or another parent – coming to him for advice about the cat-fight she got into at the bar, her relationship problems with his father, and her gossip about her “friends” (Silverman). These are topics not usually discussed with a child, especially your own.
The interaction between people on reality TV formulates a skewed version of reality, displaying conversations that lack conversational skills, constructional criticism that lacks respect and impressive lies that lack repercussions. For example, the lack of moral code to which Gordon Ramsey addresses the contestants would be viewed as disrespectful, outrageous, and intolerable in a “regular” situation of employer and employee, but on Hell’s Kitchen he is allowed to speak freely. After the scallops were overcooked by Christian he screamed, “Is your head still stuck up your a*** Christian? I don’t have time to f*** around, get the hell out of my kitchen…” (Hollinger). This sets the precedent that this type of verbal harassment and attack is acceptable in the workforce and glamorizes treating others with disrespect. The aforementioned examples exhibit reality TV’s reshaping of symbols in everyday life, presenting cursing obscenely, attacking someone physically, and holding your child accountable for adult responsibilities as acceptable, when they are most certainly not. Good manners and decorum are anathema to Reality TV, replaced by vulgar, selfish, and antisocial behavior (Wolcott).
The bad morals, humiliation, and unhealthy competition enhanced by Reality TV are present in every single perspective analysis and are inevitable when individuals are placed in front of a camera, and either offered $100,000 and a the job of a lifetime, or $400,000 per season to throw a hissy fit every other episode. The inherent conflict of these Reality TV shows yields unhealthy competition justified as “standing their ground” or “earning what is rightfully theirs.” The sense of entitlement that develops with those who participate in reality TV is the catalyst that paves the way for bad morals and humiliation to become commonplace, not just on the shows but in real life. It has become a, “…perpetual race to the bottom” states Aubree Rankin on GALE Opposing Viewpoints, “…more skin, more twists, and more shocking behavior” (Rankin). Viewers, fans, and supporters are extremely impressionable and have been since the day the first TV arrived. People used to believe that if it was on TV, it was true- and here lies the problem with Reality TV. The fact that twisted aspects of reality are portrayed as acceptable is detrimental to the productivity of the members of society who often shadow what they see on TV. The repercussions of Reality TV not only impact the dedicated fans, but also annoy those uninitiated to watch the shows. Its phenomenal outreach cultivates comments like these, “I hate him and I’ve never even seen The Hills,” unfortunately spreading its unrealistic view of life to the masses (Wolcott). Anything beneficial that could come from Reality TV is gilded by the shows impulsive characters who believe the rules of society do not pertain to them. If everyone begins to shrug off folkways and mores, the only thing society can look forward to is ultimate chaos. Reality TV’s warped vision of reality negatively has and will continue have a negative impact on today and future generations.