Is Manipulation Within the Construct of Reality Television Ethical? Cheryl-Anne Whitlock University of Wollongong
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Wollongong Research Online University of Wollongong Thesis Collection University of Wollongong Thesis Collections 2012 Is manipulation within the construct of reality television ethical? Cheryl-Anne Whitlock University of Wollongong Recommended Citation Whitlock, Cheryl-Anne, Is manipulation within the construct of reality television ethical?, Master of Arts - Research (Journalism) thesis, School of Creative Arts, University of Wollongong, 2012. http://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/3967 Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library: [email protected] Is Manipulation within the Construct of Reality Television Ethical? A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the award of the degree Master of Arts by Research (Journalism) from University of Wollongong by Cheryl-Anne Whitlock School of Creative Arts 2012 i Certification I, Cheryl-Anne Whitlock, declare that this thesis, submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of Master of Arts by Research (Journalism), in the Faculty of Law, Humanities and The Arts, University of Wollongong, is wholly my own work unless otherwise referenced or acknowledged. The document has not been submitted for qualifications at any other academic institution. Cheryl-Anne Whitlock 16 February 2012 ii Abstract The main purpose of the thesis is to determine to what extent duty of care is extended to reality television participants, to what extent elements of reality television programming are manipulated and whether those manipulations are ethical. Program participants are encouraged to be their ‘real’ and authentic selves, yet reality programming itself is often so extensively manipulated that the genre renders its own output inauthentic, thus compromising participants’ contributions and casting their performance in the same false light. Despite this, reality television continues to be promoted and marketed as representative of the real, despite evidence to the contrary and accusations that the generic term is a falsehood. This research employed a methodology combining textual analysis with a mixed method study. Input was sought from scholars and psychologists from the United States of America (US), Australia and the United Kingdom (UK). The research revealed that almost every stakeholder in the genre manipulated other stakeholders in a cannibalistic and parasitic business model. It was found that some manipulations were considered necessary, while others were even deemed ethical when situated in Kantian1 moral philosophy. Some manipulations were considered blatantly unethical when viewed through the same iii prism in the context of stakeholders using others to serve their own ends. It was also found that a range of important production processes were not standardised and this lack of standardisation allowed for the use of duplicitous production methods. The research process also uncovered that between 1994 and 2011, 20 former reality television participants reportedly committed suicide following their contribution to a reality program. The psychological effects of participation in this programming has not been measured in any meaningful way and there is a considerable push from consulting psychologists to monitor participants for a year following their filmed participation to study the psychological effects of taking part. 1 Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) remains one of the most influential philosophers in the history of Western philosophy for his extensive theories and publications in the fields of ethics, logic, epistemology and metaphysics. iv Acknowledgements Firstly, I wish to thank Dr David Blackall for his advice and guidance as my principal supervisor. Thanks also go to Dr Eric Loo, my co-supervisor, for his direction and input. To John Walsh of Australia’s Network Nine, without you there would have been no enquiry and no thesis. My gratitude is also extended to Professor Mary Ann Watson of Eastern Michigan University and Christopher Croft of the University of Western Australia for their inspiration and encouragement. Thanks also go to Dr Lisa Lines and the editorial staff at Elite Editing for their professional editing expertise. I would also like to show my respect in Acknowledging the Traditional Custodians of the Land of the elders past and present where this work was submitted. Finally, thank you to my friends and family for their support and love throughout this journey. This work is dedicated to you. v Table of Contents Certification................................................................................................................. i Abstract....................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgements ................................................................................................... iv Table of Contents ....................................................................................................... v List of Tables ............................................................................................................. ix List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................ xi Chapter 1: Prologue................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction........................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Genesis............................................................................................................... 3 1.3 Research Questions............................................................................................ 4 1.4 Key Goals........................................................................................................... 4 1.5 Summary of Chapters ........................................................................................ 6 1.6 Researcher’s Background .................................................................................. 9 1.7 Overall Limitations .......................................................................................... 11 Chapter 2: Literature Review................................................................................. 13 2.1 Overview.......................................................................................................... 13 2.2 Definition of Terms & History and Growth of Reality Television.................. 15 2.2.1 Blurred Boundaries ................................................................................... 22 2.2.2 Technical Advancements .......................................................................... 27 2.2.3 Why Watch?.............................................................................................. 28 2.3 Theory Underpinning Ethical Practice............................................................. 31 2.3.1 Philosophical Theory and Reality Television ........................................... 32 2.3.2 Reality Television Participants Interviewed for Research Studies ........... 37 2.4 Theory Underpinning Duty of Care v. Duty of Care in Practice..................... 40 2.5 Theory Underpinning Informed Consent......................................................... 43 2.6 Is A Code of Practice or Ethics in Place for Reality Television? .................... 49 2.7 Chapter Conclusions ........................................................................................ 56 Chapter 3: Television in Practice ........................................................................... 59 3.1 Vested Interests................................................................................................ 59 3.2 An Episodic Program’s Typical Production Cycle.......................................... 62 3.2.1 Pre-Production .......................................................................................... 62 3.2.2 Application Process................................................................................... 63 3.2.3 Consent Overview..................................................................................... 65 3.2.4 Application Consent.................................................................................. 65 3.2.5 Participation Consent ................................................................................ 68 3.2.6 Legal Frameworks and Lawsuits Citing Damage..................................... 70 3.2.7 Consent Forms .......................................................................................... 75 3.2.8 Manipulation in Production ...................................................................... 79 3.2.9 Post-Production Overview ........................................................................ 83 vi 3.2.10 Editing and Frankenbiting....................................................................... 83 3.3 Psychological Framework................................................................................ 85 3.3.1 What Psychologists Are Saying................................................................ 86 3.3.2 Minimising the Potential for Harm ........................................................... 91 3.4 Psychological Experiments and Reality Television......................................... 96 3.4.1 Milgram and the Obedience to Authority.................................................. 97 3.4.2 Zimbardo and the Stanford Prison Experiment