Why I Think Reality Shows That Claim to Help People Are Disgusting, Reprehensible, & Just Plain Wrong

Reality programming is here to stay, folks...at least for the time being. It's now an established genre, joining the ranks of the sit-com, the drama, the news magazine, and the talk show.
I hear a lot of people moan about reality programming, how much they hate it, how it's the lowest of the low, etc. But somebody's watching. Check that--a whole ton of somebodies. American Idol regularly pulled in 30 million-plus viewers in its most recent season. That's astonishing. It was bigger than ever this year. During the current summer season, such programs as Dancing With The Stars, Beauty and the Geek, and Hit Me Baby One More Time are some of the highest rated shows on the air.

Ugh.

Not that I hate reality TV. I have actually enjoyed some of it. Beauty and the Geek, for instance, is not at all like I expected. It's sweet, touching, and encourages the players toward personal improvement and supporting each other. And I so want to hate Ashton Kutcher (executive producer).

I've seen several seasons of Survivor that I enjoyed.

The Amazing Race gets a lot of viewers and critical praise...and I like it.

The genre itself isn't the problem. It's the weak rip-offs, poor ideas, and bad or misleading marketing.

But there's a growing trend that I find extremely troubling, that I consider far worse than things like The Real World or Fear Factor.

The trend is reality shows that pretend or claim to help people. Here an now, I go on the record stating that these shows and the people involved in them are the most dispicable thing I've seen in years. I hate them. And now I'll tell you why.

First, let me define what I mean by "reality shows that pretend or claim to help people": Extreme Makeover Home Edition, The Biggest Loser, The Scholar, The Swan, the Nanny shows, and the upcoming Three Wishes. Each of these shows has, at the center of its premise and marketing strategy, the idea that the show is helping people who cannot do by themselves what the show can do for them. The problem is that there is either no good deed at all in actuality, or there are nefarious motives behind it.

Extreme Makeover Home Edition is the one I hate the most, but they're all bad. When I, in this post, refer to Extreme Makeover Home Edition, you can assume I am also talking about the others above I listed (and any other similar show I forgot to list). EMHE (as I will try and refer to it from here on out in an effort to avoid extra typing) rebuilds or builds from scratch homes for the poor and disadvantaged. Sounds reasonable enough, right?

Wrong.

Allow me to state my thesis (that these shows are evil) in three main points (hey, I'm the son of a preacher man...and three point sermons are in my blood, so sue me.):

1. Exploitation.

Watch one episode, one single episode of EMHE and you will see the exploitation. You'll see the heartbreak of the family in need. You'll see their grief over recent lost loved ones. You'll get close ups of the actual tears they cry. And that is exploitation. ABC chooses to set up their good-deed-doing by first giving you an exhaustive explanation of just how needy these poor people are, in an attempt to make the good deed seem even better than it is.

And it works. That show is pretty popular. I know a lot of people who watch it and say they cry every time.

But think about the families portrayed for a second. Their vulnerability is captured on film...on record for eternity. Their weakest moments, they're tears, their embarrassment at being poor is there for the world to see. "Look how pitiful they are, everyone!"

I saw one episode of EMHE where the needy family was seven brothers and sisters who recently lost both parents in two separate tragedies.

I saw them bawl about it. I heard them tell the camera about how hard it was to live in that house and not have their folks around anymore. It was completely shameless. "Say, this family has suffered two recent tragedies...let's put cameras in their faces when they cry!" You don't have to literally film the person's sorrow for us to know they're deserving of help...to know that they're needy. But Schmultz sells, right?

On Biggest Loser, it's about watching the fat people get over-exercised. Some challenges put the contestants' favorite foods in front of them as "motivation." Right...and the cheese we put at the end of the rat's maze is "inspiration."

Exploitation is wrong. As Chris would say, I defy you to tell me otherwise. And don't tell me the needy people know full well they're going to be exploited. Don't tell me that for a second! They have no freaking house!! Or they have one and it's got a giant hole in the roof or a family of aligators threatening to move in. They're desperate. And desperate people might not care about exploitation when they agree to be on a show that results in THEM GETTING A HOUSE!!

2. It's not a good deed if you publicize it.

Machiavelli said this in his book, The Prince. (What? KW is quoting Machiavelli? Has the world gone bizzaro?) Now, granted, Machiavelli was basically screwy as a light bulb, and most of The Prince deals with how one can effectively overthrow the government to obtain and keep power by keeping the lowly people low. It's all about manipulation and deception. But there's a great section about good deeds, and it's the reason I bought the book (and likely subsequently appeared on FBI watch lists for suspicious book reading...I did also just get The Catcher in the Rye as well). Machiavelli states that the only truly good deed is an anonymous one.

His theory is that if you take credit for a good deed, especially if you want credit for that good deed, then there are selfish motives. You want praise or good publicity or a tax write-off. Your motives are actually for your own gain as much or more than they are for the gain of the less fortunate.

After all, you don't have to knock on the door of the old lady's house and say, "Hi, I brought you these groceries, just to be nice." You could, in theory, just set the groceries on the porch and leave. If no one ever knows it was you, there's a better chance your motives are pure. That's what Machiavelli is getting at.

And I agree with this...mostly. I think there are plenty of good deeds people do where they get credit...where they aren't anonymous, but the motives are still good. I just think the anonymous good deeds are the purest form.

Take ABC and their helpful home building show. With the money they spend on the cast and crew and host, combined with the money they spend on film and travel and cameras, combined with the money they spend on marketing and promos...just for one episode...they could build ten homes for needy people.

And I know what you're going to say: "Hey, KW, give them a break. Television is a business and they're trying to get ratings." Well, thanks for making my point for me. See, television is about money. And money comes from ratings (advertisers pay for spots during the highly watched shows).

Make no mistake, if Extreme Makeover Home Edition was not making money for ABC, it would be pulled from the air immediately. They're making a profit on this, plain and simple.
And yet they play it off like it's all about the good deeds. "It's a feel good show, man. We wanna help people." But ABC doesn't care about the needy families any more than I care about Paris Hilton's social life. They want the needy families for their ratings, which is why they exploit them by focusing on their pain and sorrow. Once the show ceases to be profitable, ABC will cease to build homes for needy people, I can guarantee it.

And that's the hipocracy that drives me insane. At least Fear Factor doesn't pretend to be anything it's not. It's a show where people eat bug milkshakes and animal testicles. Sure, that's disgusting, and I don't want to see that, but they're not pretending to be edifying people. They're not pretending they change the world.

EMHE, on the other hand, preys on needy people, harnesses their ratings-inducing pain, and targets an audience of big-hearted people too dumb to know the difference between commerce and a good deed. They play up the charity angle, and there's little or no true charity in their motives.

So ABC's "good deed" is not only not anonymous, they're shouting their own praises from the rooftops. And that makes it slimey.

It reminds me of a friend of a friend. He bought a thousand of those Lance Armstrong bracelets, then turned around and sold them for a buck-a-piece more than he spent. He made a profit off charity. He told people, "the money goes to fight cancer," but he should have tacked on the phrase, "except for the portion I pocket." It's not particularly evil, and certainly not illegal, but it's morally questionable. It's shady.

3. Not to get all Biblical on you or anything (again, product of my upbringing, but I won't apologize for being a man of faith), but my third point is about the Bible.

Remember that verse about being luke warm? It's in Revelation (not plural, by the way...stupid miniseries idiots), chapter 3, verse 16. It reads "So, because you are lukewarm�neither hot nor cold�I am about to spit you out of my mouth."

Now I'm not a theologian. I took a few classes in college related to exigesis and hermenuitics (finding the meanings in Scripture), but other than that I have no formal training in it. And Revelation is extra tricky to decipher, because it's a vision someone had, full of prophetic statements. A lot of it is strange.

But this one verse makes sense to me. I would posit that God would prefer us humans to choose. Him or no Him. Morality or immorality. Coke or Pepsi. Wait, that last one doesn't belong. But I believe the person who stradles the fence...the guy who tries to feign moral behavior while privately practicing immoral behavior...that guy's not going to get such a great welcome at the pearly gates. It's the old, "you're either for me or against me" argument. If you believe in God, as I do, then you really ought to understand that going half and half on spirituality isn't going to cut it.

And ABC is doing just that. "Look at us, we're charitable....as long as we're making millions."
It's the same argument I have against people who donate to charity with the primary reason for doing so being the tax deduction. Sure, it's a nice bit of icing to the cake. But if your heart's not really in the giving...for giving's sake...then what's the real level of charity inside you? Would you still donate if there were no tax deduction?

Okay, winding up. I know this has been long. I'm sorry about that. I'm very passionate about this issue...and I've been trying to write this post for a few weeks now. I guess it all just came rushing out.

The one argument I hear most when I tell people these feelings I have on these types of reality shows is this: "Would you rather those needy people not get a house?" And obviously, clearly, the answer is "No." I'm glad the needy few are getting a house. I'm not angry that disadvantaged people are being helped. I'm angry that ABC makes a humongous profit off of it. I'm angry they try and pass it off as all about the good deed. I'm angry about their exploitation of these people. I feel badly that we trample on the rest of the faceless, nameless poor. And ABC, with their huge bankroll, if they really wanted to help people, they could. But they don't. They just want to win the ratings war, and they frankly don't care who they step on to do it.

Man, can you believe that all came out of the brain of a mostly-conservative guy? Some fairly liberal thinking there for a guy who voted Bush.

Anyway, to me, Fear Factor is a far better show, morally speaking. At least they know what they are, and they're not hiding under some false pretense about being for the betterment of society. I think I'm going to start watching Fear Factor as a form of protest. Eh, maybe not. I have a weak stomach. Are there any reality shows out there claiming to help quesy people? If so, sign me up.