Some of Reality TV’s heavy weight competition shows like Big Brother, The Amazing Race and Survivor have reached their 5th to 9th seasons, respectfully, and have challenged producers to come up with fresh new ideas to maintain their popularity and ratings. Twists have been done to death, offering slight alterations in the rules to prevent complacency. The grandfather of popular reality show competitions, Survivor, has even caused controversy by discarding the most sacred rule of the game, re-entering contestants into the game after their torches have been snuffed. Hard core fans were outraged, thus unlikely to be repeated. How then do producers keep storylines fresh when conceptually the game has been altered to the breaking point?
The answer may be with the casting itself. Almost all reality shows follow a typecasting that suits its genre, whether it is athletic people for Fear Factor, corporate sharks for The Apprentice or beautiful gorgeous people for romance shows like The Bachelor or The Bachelorette. What casting agents and producers are introducing into the mix are underdog personalities who may have to overcome an obstacle that would have the viewing audience cheering them on. We are currently witnessing a growing trend in special interest contestants or unions on these programs in order to boost ratings and sponsorship thus longevity in the series. But do these people have an undetectable edge over the “usual” contestants? Thus far Survivor 6: Amazon had Christie, a hearing impaired woman, who finished 6th out of 16 contestants. The current Amazing Race 5 had Charla, a little person, compete alongside her average sized cousin Mirna and they placed a respectable 6th place out of 11. Chip and Reichen of The Amazing Race 4 made a major commotion of representing gays as a special interest group and finished 1st, collecting $1 million (or $500,00 each) for their efforts. America’s Next Top Model 2 had Mercedes, a woman with Lupus which is a serious debilitating disease, who finished in 2nd place. This season, Survivor 9: Vanuatu will have James 'Chad' Crittenden, a man with a prosthetic leg participate. Will he get far out of sympathy from the other contestants or his own merit? It may be argued that they may have an unfair advantage, at least during the first half of the competition because producers want them in the storyline in order to induce interest. Other contestants encourage the underdog participation in the beginning of the competition because they are confident the special interest contestant could easily be eliminated before the finals and focus on other target areas. The politically correct answer would be to support these people for changing social perceptions of their capabilities and applaud them for their heroic efforts.
As all points of view have counter viewpoints, we must also consider if these people are being exploited for the sake of the program. Big Brother 4 used “Jerry Springer” surprise tactics to hype the show by pinning unsuspecting ex-lovers together into a house for up to three months without prior notice during the highly promoted X Factor. This season, Big Brother 5 introduced two siblings who never knew of each other until they discovered it live on national TV at the start of the season then had to spend their first three months as brother and sister competing against one another in Project DNA. Recently, one of the siblings, Jennifer (aka Nakomis) suffered an intoxication induced nervous breakdown on live Internet feeds. She blamed Big Brother for placing her and her unsuspecting family back home through emotional anguish. Yet while these situations may seem difficult to bear, the contestants signed contracts stating they would be willing to endure confining hardships with other people they may or may not get along with. In addition, they are rewarded well for their endurance. Both finalists in BB4, Alison and June had former exes on the show, and June walked away $500,000 richer. Alison was undoubtedly compensated well as a runner up. It seems both siblings in BB5 will benefit similarly financially as both are in the final four. This seems unfair to those contestants who were not part of the X Factor or Project DNA format.
Are they being exploited? The definition of exploitation reads “to make unethical use of for one’s own profit.” Unethical is defined as “immoral or unprofessional standards of conduct.” Well by its very format all reality TV is exploitive because of the voyeuristic content into the intimate moments of ordinary people’s lives in situations created to place them at their worst in order to gain profit. From The Real World to the current season of re-hashed reality TV programming, the cast were placed in confining, competitive and often unnatural situations with the sole purpose of creating dramatic television viewers and consumers would tune in. Often alcohol is provided to encourage embarrassing performances. So by default, everyone who willingly subjects themselves to participate in this genre is exploited. But are special interest persons specifically exploited on another level, showcased like freak shows in order to entice the viewer’s interest for the physical or social underdog? The tragic, then miraculous sagas of larger-than-life personalities such as Christopher Reeve and Roy Horn overcoming their physical injuries have transformed them into American heroes. Have producers then tapped into the American sentimentality for physically challenged or social minorities to rise above perceived limitations as a means to make millions of dollars in revenue?
Are the physically challenged or those from social minority groups exploited, that being subjected to immoral or unprofessional conduct in order for producers to profit? It seems that by their portrayal on the show highlighting their accomplishments that they are not. However, exploitation is a subjective concept that depends upon the rationale of the observer. In this reason lies the fact that we may never come to a collective agreement on what constitutes exploitation of special interest casting. Christie, the hearing impaired woman of Survivor 6: Amazon was not discounted as a liability by her group, rather held in high regard by her castaway peers. In fact, the only hostility she faced from her opposition seemed to be from those who were either offended by her inconsiderate statements or by women who were motivated by superficial physical beauty. Her participation seemed to be nothing less than a celebration of a person who has overcome her disability and achieved the recognition she craved, equality in society. Mercedes of The Next Top Model 2 kept her illness a secret from her peers but producers showcased her plight to America during her confessionals. To me, the purpose of the exposure seemed more to educate America of a wide spread but little known or understood illness that affects mainly women. However, she was kept in the competition by the judges until the final two which the panel may have factored in her personal struggle in their decision process for increase ratings. The Amazing Race 5 repeatedly drummed into the viewing audience that Charla was using the program to show America what a little person can accomplish, plus the desire to be treated as an equal. The same can be said of Chip and Reichen in regards to gay men. I feel that the former was not exploited while the later was. Charla’s stature was an obvious liability in a race where speed is a factor but she adjusted her game to utilize her strength and determination to compensate, never allowing her height to be a detriment. The producers did not accentuate the obvious. With Chip and Reichen, their sexual preference was not obvious because their mannerisms and outward expression did not hint of their homosexuality. They were both able bodied athletic men who by the average perception did not have any cause to be an underdog. Yet the producers decided to place a caption which read “married couple” with their names whenever they appeared on screen. By doing so the producers were abdicating that they were a distinctly different coupling so as to attract a large demographic population of American viewers to watch the show to its conclusion.
Is this an edge in competition? Yes, it is, if the producers mandate that these specific groups remain on the program for at least a given amount of time over the other otherwise expendable contestants. If further proof is required then consider that most of these special interest castings never applied to be on the show but were in fact recruited. Reichen has reported in interviews that he was spotted in a restaurant by an Amazing Race casting agent who wanted him based on his physic and military background, and inquired if he had a father or brother who may partner up with him. He responded that he had a male life partner and the agent excitedly responded, “Perfect!” Reichen walked away with $500,000, his share of the million dollar prize. Jennifer (Nakomis) has informed her peers on the show that her dad was recruited to be on the show, presumably after Michael (cowboy) her half-brother was already cast and producers desired to implement the reunion aspect to the show. The father declined, fearing Vietnam flashbacks and so Nakomis was suggested. Knowing this, is it surprising then that both Nakomis and Cowboy were both final four contestants, into the final week of the show? How fair is this to those who were not part of Project DNA, even in terms of airtime and ad campaign? I have already mentioned the placement of other special interest cast mates from other programs above, although I am unaware of how their participation came about.
Tonight Survivor 9: Vanuatu will premiere and showcase Chad Crittenden and not one but two lesbian contestants, Chrissy and Scout. It will be interesting to observe how well they perform, how they are presented and how much airtime / attention they get. In order to determine if they have an edge against their competition it would be important to note where they place / how they rank in the order of elimination and why. Immoral or unprofessional conduct in order to profit from their participation will be harder to determine due to its subjective nature. As Chief Supreme Court Justice Warner once said, “I may not be able to define pornography, but I know it when I see it.” Perhaps we will recognize exploitation in the same manner.
