North Star Writers Group

Television’s most popular offspring, reality TV, has lately been providing talking points that go a bit deeper than Sanjaya’s latest hairstyle (yes, I know that this season of “American Idol” – let alone Sanjaya’s departure – is now a faded memory, but I’m sure Sanjaya’s hair is still being discussed somewhere). Since reality TV has become a pop culture phenomenon and ratings-hog, ethical issues have always accompanied it. The success of these shows, after all, is understood to be at least in part a result of humanity’s insatiable desire to revel in the comic misfortunes and eventual downfall of others, as far away from “reality” as those scenarios may actually be.

Now, reality TV disapproval has resurged, with viewers and critics claiming that reality TV has finally crossed the line. Surprisingly, of these accusations, American television is innocent. In the Netherlands, a reality TV show called “The Big Donor Show” aired this past Friday, pitting three people in need of kidneys against each other in a competition for a kidney belonging to a terminally ill woman. In another part of the globe, “Big Brother Australia” – for which a group of people living together under constant surveillance try to avoid being evicted by fellow housemates, with the goal of being the last one standing for a $1 million prize – is sticking to its rule about not giving housemates news and information dealing with the world outside of the Big Brother house. One young woman, Emma Cornell, is not to be informed of her father’s death as a result of cancer.

Both shows have sparked public outrage on a global level. The ethical ramifications of making a game out of life and death are huge, some criticized. In the case of “The Big Donor Show”, it was argued that such an exchange of organs would be impossible without a careful screening of donor and recipient tissues to guarantee a match. There was also the question of what was to become of the “losers.” As viewers were encouraged to weigh in on their favorites through text messages to be read by the donor, regular citizens would decide who was worthy of health and, essentially, life.

In the case of Big Brother’s Emma Cornell, psychologists advise that she should be given the information of her father’s death and thus be allowed to privately grieve in her own way, as being informed months after the loss of a loved one can lead to feelings of guilt and hopelessness.

Hard as it is to believe, however, in both cases producers and television networks have been granted some absolution. As it turns out, “The Big Donor Show” was all a hoax to call attention to the donor shortage in the Netherlands. The donor was really a healthy actress named Lisa. The three contestants in need of kidneys, however, were real and because of the show were given a venue for sharing their true stories with the viewing audience.

Emma Cornell’s situation is a bit different, but the producers aren’t quite as heartless as the media is painting them. Emma and her father had been estranged for years before only recently reconnecting, and he had wished for her to not be informed of his passing, if it were to happen while she was filming, so she could enjoy her time on Big Brother. In fact, it was a situation that the family had discussed before she ever entered the house. The show’s website posted a letter from Emma’s brother confirming that fact. His letter also expressed shock that the viewing public has taken offense to the situation. He asserted that viewers don’t understand the family’s inner workings and thus were in no place to judge.

Reality TV, perhaps, has become an easy scapegoat. Intellectuals criticize it for its lack of depth and viewers can’t help but feel a twinge of guilt when they tune in because of its shallow and voyeuristic nature. In both cases mentioned here, the events actually got people thinking by simply mirroring things that, unlike a lot of reality TV, do happen in real life, more often than people would prefer to think. A donor shortage is a real crisis for citizens of the Netherlands and around the globe, and those in need of organs do essentially compete every day for the right to live. Likewise, families deal with issues of terminal cancer and often come to their own conclusions about what is right for them.

This is not to say that reality television is innocent and is out to enlighten rather than make a profit, but sometimes it’s just too easy to blame the medium without exploring the motivations of those who create and those who watch. For all of its staged situations and heavy-handed editing, there are still undercurrents of truth beneath shallow reality television that make people a little uncomfortable.

Click here to talk to our writers and editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.

To e-mail feedback about this column, click here. If you enjoy this writer's work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry it.

This is Column # JV007. Request permission to publish here.