WK 11: How does Hill define reality TV?

In this piece, the author gives a detailed analysis of the reality TV genre and refers to various authors on how its continuous evolvement in a market where TV scholars and audiences are still in the process of trying to figure it out. There still seems to be conflicting ideas of how to differentiate the sub-genre a TV program may fall under, depending on the viewers’ perception.

Hill first mentions how in the past, reality TV industry, was considered to and “commonly used to describe a range of popular factual programming.” But more recently, reality TV has taken a completely different set of ideals; which have lead to the formation of many subgenres within the reality TV genre.

While on the one hand, Hill mentions how “Perhaps the most traditional industry term for reality TV is factual entertainment." But goes on further to say,"The term usefully merges factual programming with entertainment-based television, and highlights hybridization, a common generic feature of most reality programs.” She points to the categorization of the reality TV genre in the UK, and explains that the audience in the UK lean more towards factual programming that are similar to documentaries, current affairs, and investigative journalism.

On the other hand, Hill goes on to describe the evolution of reality TV in the US, and how it has taken another course by lumping anything and everything into one category. It was not until the 1980’s when the formation of “infotainment,” which blurred the boundaries of fact and fiction. Hill refers to the man that ‘changed the terms of factual television,’ Peter Bazalgette, and describes the reality TV category in the US as ‘reality entertainment.’

TV Scholars perspective

It was in the 1990’s when the TV scholars have realized and pointed out the variety in reality TV types. Hill refers to Steve Neale (2003: 3):

“Points out that ‘there is a generic aspect to all instances of cultural production, and that these instances are usually multiple, not single, in kind’. In terms of reality TV, there are ‘numerous aspects’, ‘numerous meanings’, and ‘numerous analytical uses’ of the genre within the academic community.”

For instance, one of these various meanings and aspects that was explained in Neales' reference is another reference to Richard Kilborn’s definition of reality television as a mixture of characteristics all in one package. Hill further exemplifies Kilborns' idea:

“‘real-life situations’, and also infotainment, or what Kilborn calls reality programming: ‘the recording on the wing … of events in the lives of individuals or groups, the attempt to stimulate such real-life events through various forms of dramatized reconstruction and the incorporation of this material … into an attractively packaged television programme.’”

One major point that Hill mentions is the “continuum” that ‘fact’ and ‘fiction’ is an ideal way of categorizing the relationship between current “factual programming,” and the different forms of “popular factual” television that the reality genre is composed of. The credibility of how 'real' the reality TV is authenticated only on the individual viewer to decide.

Television audience perspective

In 2000, Hill conducted a study and examined three different types of reality programs: observational, informational, and creative. In the findings, what were most importantly focused on were the fact/fiction criteria. In reference to Corner (1995), she exemplifies this main point by signifying and implying the different aspect of this type of genre is the unique perception of each individualized member of the audience to choose themselves by their own observation. Hills definition from a television audience perspective is concluded by pointing out that, “in many ways, the classification of reality TV in relation to ‘reality’ is connected with audience understanding of the performance of non-professional actors in the programs, and the ways ‘real people’ play up to the cameras.”

In conclusion, Hill defines reality TV as a genre that has dramatically transformed into this multi-industry corporation that has given birth to sub forms of television programs, that are in constant evolve/devolvement with no end in sight; but in the end, the common unifying element is up to the viewer to decide on what is factual/reality TV, based on this reoccurring idea of ‘fact/fiction continuum’ that the audience bases their beliefs on.

Reference:

Hill, A. (2005) The reality genre. In A. Hill, Reality TV: Audiences and Popular Factual Television. (pp. 14 – 40). Oxon: Routledge.