Reality TV shows are an interesting fad of modern society.

It's not like a regular TV show, where all the characters are fictional, or very obviouscaricatures of high-profile celebrities. All the characters in the "show" are real people, drafted in because of their potential to draw higher ratings. These reality shows never show the average man as a contestant - they only show people at one extreme or the other of society. There have been some very strange, eccentric people of reality shows, of which you're sure they are a plant to get better ratings. It's hard to believe, but these people with their personas actually exist outside of the show.

Reality television is popular and TV producers should give audiences what they want POINT 1 Reality television programmes are very popular with audiences of all ages and types. They may not be high culture but most people do not want that from television. Most viewers want to be entertained and to escape for a while from the worries and boredom of their everyday life. American Idol rejectees who stubbornly insist that they have talent provide such escapism.[1] Furthermore, and importantly, such contestants are good natured in doing so, they are not exploited but offer themselves to reality shows.[2]Therefore, there is no harm in giving the people what they want that is what the free market is all about. Reality shows are also popular because they exploit new technology so that millions of people can participate in the programme typically by voting. Britain is believed to have had as many as 176 reality TV shows in a single year.[3] Such supply can only be driven by excessive demand.

COUNTERPOINT 1 Reality television is not what audiences want, it is watched simply because it is there. It is what John Humphrys calls carbohydrate television, it probably hasnt done you much harm and if it leaves you feeling a bit bloatedwell you can search out of a bit of quality stuff. [1] With tens of television channels and twenty-four hours of programming to fill, reality is simply a cheap means to ensure there is always something on TV to watch. In Italy, the evidence supports such claims, with the state broadcaster Rai deciding to scrap reality programmes in 2008 due to low demand.[2] As Rais President stated, I dont believe they are the type of shows the majority of our viewers expect or want from a public service broadcaster.[3]

Reality TV can be educational and have real effects in society in a way other television programmes do not POINT 2 Reality TV can be very educational. They educate people by displaying disastrous consequences of someone's behaviour, thus deterring others from doing unplanned and silly actions. Programmes such as "The Apprentice" have made people think about business. Jamie Oliver has raised issues of youth unemployment and poor diet, and "Fit Club" has got people thinking about health and fitness. Jamie Oliver's inaugural reality show, 'Jamie's Kitchen', offered jobless youngsters the 'chance to train and lead a nationwide campaign to improve the quality of school meals'1. Without the TV show's popularity funding the initiative, the youngsters involved would not have had such an opportunity and school meals would still reflect what kids want to eat, not what they should be eating. Such effects on society are beneficial and should be encouraged, not restricted. COUNTERPOINT 2 The few reality TV programmes that are educational and beneficial do not balance the bad majority. The majority are not educational, either to the public or the participants, and the insight they purport to offer into the human psyche are misguided. As Vanessa Feltz, a contestant on the British Big Brother series, describes, contestants and viewers alike 'subscribe to this utterly specious notion that fame is entirely desirable' (BBC News, 2001), whilst Narinda Kaur, another contestant on the show, admitted "I came away from this experience thinking 'oh my God, did I really say that?" (BBC News, 2001). As Claudio Petruccioli, head of the Italian state broadcaster Rai, notes, 'reality TV shows put people into environments that are both unrealistic and coercive'1 Any lessons learned are therefore inapplicable to real-world situations. The public can always just turn reality programmes off, or watch something else POINT 3 Television provides a wide mixture of programmes, including reality television. For those who want it, there is high quality drama such as "The Sopranos" or "Pride and Prejudice" whilst the BBC, CNN, Al-Jazeera and other international broadcasters also cover news and current affairs in great depth. Wildlife programmes on the National Geographic or Discovery bring the wonders of the natural world into our living rooms. More sports are covered in more detail than ever before. So, ultimately, reality shows have not ruined television as a whole, they have merely added another option for viewers. Indeed, because they make a lot of money for broadcasters to spend on other types of programmes, they are actually good for all viewers, regardless of personal taste for genres.

COUNTERPOINT3 Reality shows are driving out other sorts of programmes, so that often there is nothing else to watch. Reality TV is cheap and series can go on for months on end, providing hundreds of hours of viewing to fill schedules. TV bosses like this and are cutting back on comedy, music, drama and current affairs in favour of wall to wall reality rubbish. This is even worse when reality shows crowd the schedules of public service broadcasters. Stations such as the BBC in the UK, France Tlvisions, or Rai in Italy have a duty to inform and educate the public. They should be made to meet that responsibility as Rai has by saying it wont have any more reality shows.

Reality television forces us to analyse our own behaviour as a society POINT 4 Reality TV actually has a lot of value to our society; they are effectively anthropological experiments, allowing the public to study people and societies from the comfort of their living rooms1. Humans are endlessly different and endlessly interesting to other humans. In these programmes we see people like us faced with unusual situations. Shows like Survivor, which place a group of strangers in remote environments, make us think about what we would do in their place, and about what principles govern human behaviour in general. It also shows us people who look and act very different from us, and helps us see that actually we have a lot in common with them. MTV's reality show 'Making the Band 2', a 'hip-hop American Idol', gives centre stage to inner-city kids who would be portrayed as criminals or victims on a cop drama. There is nothing immoral about reality shows, merely the society which demands them; these shows are just a product of our values and desires. We should face up to these issues rather than censor television in order to hide them. COUNTERPOINT4 Reality TV is less about exposing society and allowing us to evaluate our own behaviour than it is about 're-inforcing particular social norms'1. As such, it is deliberately misleading. If it is portrayed as being real, it implies authenticity and honesty, two things that most reality TV programmes are not. They serve not to challenge our views of society, but reinforce the often false notions we already collectively hold. For example, the US reality show "Are You Hot?" asks competitors to submit to appearance-rating by judges, only re-inforcing the false premise that one is defined solely by the way they look2. Furthermore, even if accepted that reality shows do present a 'real' image of society, programmes like Big Brother and Survivor erode the distinction between public and private, turning 'people with real lives and real problems and real children (into) entertainment'3. Society's entertainment cannot be allowed to come at the expense of the privacy that protects families and children

ARGUMENTS FOR: We live in an age of mass culture. More people read tabloids than the broadsheets, and reality TV is a fair reflection of this.

Elitism is out of date. People are no longer willing to accept only what broadcasters think is good for them. There is nothing wrong in giving people what they want.

It is intrinsically fascinating to see how people speak and behave in unusual situations. This is why many intelligent people find themselves gripped by Big Brother and other reality shows. They teach us something about human nature and so broaden our experience.

If we believe in freedom and free speech, then we have to accept reality TV as an expression of popular and democratic taste. Nobody is compelled to appear in reality TV programmes, or indeed to watch them.

Reality TV is harmless fun. Only pompous people and snobs condemn it.

Few points on reality shows are:

Reality shows give chance to everyone. Thus, they are public fore in benefit of the mass; They are a major boost for self confidence. These shows are something new, reducing monotony in life. They help in increasing the TRP which in turn brings in profit to the producers. Common people get to know better about other common people from different walks of life. The system of voting exemplifies the practice of public participation in recognising talents. Reality shows are open to everybody irrespective of one's academic achievements, family background, economic background, etc.

Cross-regional bondings improve with people coming together at such shows. This in turn helps in cultural and social integration.

It breaks the barriers created in the society due to conservatism.