I Need More UN-Reality TV

When I was in second grade, that was when I first realized what the "Year 2000" (way prior to "Y2K") represented.  We would hear that, and automatically we would think that when we went to sleep on December 31, 1999, we'd wake up on January 1, 2000, to a world not dissimilar to the Jetsons, with sky condos, flying cars, and automated lifestyles.  Many things were automated by then, but we were far and away from living in a world where George and Jane would have video conferences (which would happen later on, especially with the advent of smart phones).
Even when I was a kid, MTV (MUSIC Television) and VH-1 (VIDEO Hits 1) were new and had actual videos, which if you think about it, are nothing more than short stories told by a band in song form.

When I was in high school, a show called The Real World probably launched the dreams of small-town kids everywhere, when a bunch of people who were trying to launch some kind of artistic career (music, acting, dancing) auditioned for a conceptual new show: the "reality" show, where things weren't 100% scripted, and edited to show that real life was also as intriguing as the old form television show. 

I can't say that I watch much television these days.  Except for sporting events, I am not a person who is all OMG-I-NEED-TO-BE-HOME-TO-WATCH-MY-SHOW-ASAP.  Even with sporting events, I can follow the action on my phone and never feel as though I'm missing anything.  My husband and I are big fans of the show Dexter, and he loves the new AMC show The Walking Dead.  I can't say I am one for zombie culture, but hey, to each their own.  Another series I am a big fan of is Desperate Housewives, and I am really sad to see this will be the final year it's on television.  One of my all-time favorites is the Sex and the City franchise, and quote it like it's Shakespeare (just don't ask this former English lit major what she thinks about Billy). 

I guess my point is that I like creativity, and always appreciate good writing, and that's what keeps me returning: the compelling art of the written word, whether it's reading a good story, website or watching one unfold on television or on the big screen.

Something that has changed somewhat in television in the "aughts" is what the public wants.  Reality shows kind of take over precedence from unreality.   Shows like Survivor, X-Factor and Biggest Loser are touted as these feel good types of rewards shows, yet the public has shown that they value the voyeur factor here.  I have to admit, the reality show contests I prefer add absolutely nothing to culture (i.e. stuff people aren't talking about Monday morning at the water cooler), like RuPaul's Drag Race and Flavor of Love.  I mean, if you think about it...those shows lean towards the more unrealistic (especially Drag Race, since it's men dressing up as beautiful and glamorous women, adhering to the whole "illusion" thing). 

Look at MTV and VH-1 now.  They promote not videos (except for VH-1 Classics or MTV in the morning or late evenings) but their own scripted reality shows, like The Hills or Jersey Shore, even Basketball Wives.  I have this here bridge I'd like to sell you if you think these shows aren't the least bit scripted, but something about voyeurism comes into play that makes these franchises successful. 

A misconception people have about reality shows is that these "actors" are somewhat not as credited as those on totally scripted fictional shows, but the reality is there they do have to file with the Screen Actors Guild.  In theory, they are making the acting playing field a little bit of a thinner margin, typical to how we fool ourselves that outsourcing jobs is somewhat good for the economy. Meanwhile no one ever applauds the people who make the shows what they are: no, not Snooki or The Situation, but the editors who make the calls about what goes on for the public to see. 


Many things have changed since I was in second grade, talking about the Year 2000 and beyond.  I suppose one of the things that had to evolve was the television, which itself evolved out of radio shows and soap operas.  Now, soap operas are going the way of the dodo, and reality shows based on daytime dramas are taking over.

Call me crazy, but the idea of television and entertainment is escapism.  Haven't these reality-type shows jumped the shark yet?  Gimme more fictional shows, or don't give me anything at all. The only thing that should be reality, in my opinion, are sporting events.

Life: Unplugged

I recently joined a micro-blogging/shared interest network called Tumblr. One of the items to interact with the users on this platform is to open yourself up for questions; i.e., what is your favorite food, etc? The question I was asked was "What is your favorite inanimate object?"

To which I replied, "Does my iPhone count?"

I need my iPhone at the ready at all times. For everything! I have my email, my address book, my GPS for when I drive, different apps including Fandango and oh yeah, my phone...Now apparently, when I refill my Starbucks card, I can use the damn phone to not only refill the card, but use as a debit card to purchase my lattes as well. What a world!

The convenience of it is great as I can transfer money from my checking account to my credit card app in one fell swoop, just so I don't get hit with a late fee. Too lazy to hit the ATM the night before? No problem! I can simply link my Starbucks account to refill, and swing my phone over the register to pay for breakfast. Does this take away from the personal experience though of customer service and most importantly, human-to-human interaction?

Years ago, a common complaint would be if you called a customer service hotline (operative word being "service"), it would take forever to reach a human. It was fodder for stand-up comedians the world over. And nowadays, we seem to take the human interaction, or lack thereof, to another level, by adding more apps to our phones to make a simple transaction even simpler by making it not only "express" but "super-duper express."

I can't say that I have a problem with it per se, but I do have a problem with the lack of person-to-person interaction. I guess I was one of those old school "people persons" who would take pride in helping a person find what they needed or talk to them. Back in the day, you could go into your local hardware store, talk to the owner, get what you needed "on credit" and pay when you felt like it. Fuggedaboutit nowadays. You go to Home Depot, you pick up your supplies, go to the "self-service checkout counter," use your Home Depot credit card and then leave with nary a word spoken to personnel (unless, of course, you need to get items that require assistance from their experts).

Don't get me wrong. I am not wistful for days of yore, in fact, I embrace these new technologies. I think when the year 2000 rolled around, we expected to live like the Jetsons, with flying cars and ready-to-eat meals in a pill form so that our time wouldn't be wasted with cooking. Well, we haven't gotten that far...but we have gotten to a point where the most mundane of tasks such as paying bills have been automated to a point that we don't even need to think about it.

But that's not to say that being totally plugged or addicted to our apps or smartphones or even our social networks aren't being a cautionary tale. Sherry Turkle, a professor of social studies at MIT, has written a book called Alone Together that had a review at Fast Company recently. The title in and of itself fascinated me as well as provides a paradoxical situation. The world is brought closer together, but in some areas we still are so far apart.

I have often said that social media has opened doors for many different things for me, personally. I feel like my relationships have gotten better as a result. However, it's not that I don't take those things in stride. I have "connections" and I have "friends." There is a big difference. Turkle takes this to the next level and warns that she doesn't disparage social networking, but she puts "these technologies in their place." She goes on to warn, however, about being too explicitly connected to these social networks:

"...even though you're alone, you get into this situation where you're continually looking for your next message, and to have a sense of approval and validation. You're alone but looking for approval as though you were together--the little red light going off on the BlackBerry to see if you have somebody's validation. I make a statement in the book, that if you don't learn how to be alone, you'll always be lonely, that loneliness is failed solitude. We're raising a generation that has grown up with constant connection, and only knows how to be lonely when not connected. This capacity for generative solitude is very important for the creative process, but if you grow up thinking it's your right and due to be tweeted and retweeted, to have thumbs up on Facebook...we're losing a capacity for autonomy both intellectual and emotional."

It's more than the next generation of millennials or the generation after that is to be warned of this notion but even my generation and the generation prior, because we are getting sucked into this almost antithetical lifestyle of being truly connected, but having a disconnect at the same time of needing that validation. If it doesn't happen in our face, then perhaps we shake it off. We may take it personally if someone doesn't take our friend request or "recommendation." This stuff never bothered in face-to-face contact, as I could handle rejection. Being so connected, it's hard not to take stuff personally. It's just another level in the interaction of human quality.

It seems like Turkle and CoopDeeVille are not the only people pondering these questions. Another book that was published by a woman who disconnected her family from their devices, including smart phones, computers, television, video games, the whole nine called The Winter of our Disconnect serves as a primitive form of the blog in chronicling this. It wasn't just her children, she conducted this "Experiment" as she called it herself (even admitting to sleeping with her iPhone, which I have not done yet, but I have brought it into the bathroom with me on occasion).

I have to say that it would be hard for me to totally disconnect. It's one thing that I have to use a computer to work. I guess that could be a dispensation since everyone is "wired" in the office setting. On the other hand, Susan Maushart (the author) said one of her children for homework and research purposes went to (*shock!* *gasp!*) the LIBRARY. Wait a minute...you mean, people still use those? Guess they do serve a purpose somehow. But the topic fascinated me. Could I do that?

Maushart went on to say that "The Experiment" was "relinquishing the ostrichlike delusion that burying my head in information and entertainment from home was just as good as actually being there." I thought that was interesting. It called into question strengthening the relationships in reality and not be as plugged as we are. What a concept.

So as I reach for my phone to check into Foursquare and to pay for my Starbucks skinny vanilla latte while listening to U2 on my iPod, perhaps I should at least say hello to the cashier who is nice enough to ring me up. After all, I wouldn't want to seem disengaged or anything.