Week 12: Reality TV

Hill Defines, or rather, doesn't.

If there’s one thing to take away from Hill’s chapter on the reality genre, it’s that there is no clear cut definition; rather a whole plethora of contrasting views on what defines reality TV. The problem, it seems, is that “reality TV” is very much a blanket term. It consists of several subgenres which sometimes crossover into sub subgenres. To quote Hill (2005) “For some scholars, even the subgenres within reality TV are the result of a complex borrowing from other television genres.” And again; “Scholars of popular factual television can be in danger of genre overload when defining the reality genre. It’s all too easy to stray into the outter limits.”

Hill makes reference to Corner (2000) who looks at the different phases the genre has gone through, and I feel as though this is the closest we can get to a breakdown and subsequent definition. Corner’s Phase One includes shows about the emergency services such as police, medical workers. This would include shows like Cops or Children’s Hospital.The second phase deals more with “docu-soap” type shows, which combines elements of documentary with the drama of the soap opera. This includes shows like The Hills or Jersey Shore. The last phase Corner calls “docushow” and takes the documentary format and mixes it with lifestyle type programmes. This is where we end up with things like Jaime’s Kitchen or Grand Designs. The only thing we’re missing here is the talent/game show format of Survivor, Idol  or Big Brother, which marries the gameshow format with the reality genre. At a glance, these are the four essential subgenres of reality TV. Of course, as mentioned earlier, they crossover frequently and aren’t bound to remain inside their category. For example, Big Brother is a gameshow that also incorporates elements of the docu-soap. More frequently, docushows involve a competition, borrowed from the gameshow format (The Block, Masterchef). It’s no wonder then that a thorough definition of reality TV is much more difficult to concieve than it seems.

Hill goes on to say that there is, in fact, one defining characteristic of this genre. This is “the capacity to let viewers see for themselves.” This alludes to the fact that despite presenting it’s content as reality, the shows are still comissioned by a studio, many have writers, and they are in fact, still in the realm of the “fictional text.” Viewers see for themselves in the sense that they will be the ultimate judge of whether or not what they are seeing is truly real. Hill makes reference to Roscoe & Hight’s work Faking It (2001) where the authors state that all reality TV shows exist somewhere on a fact-fiction continuum, consisting of different amounts of each. Viewers then decide for themselves where their individual niche along this continuum will be. 



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