Medialine

Role

My role throughout this semester’s class has changed most through my own thinking and behavior than through group dynamics. At the commencement of this course, I was very keen on the topic of reality television and thought that I would have a lot to contribute, and as such I was eager to take on a leadership role throughout the class. Unfortunately this quickly changed as I remembered that I do not know how to lead anyone, let alone three women capable of leading themselves. The group split off into more individualized research on sub-topics within the larger scope of the project and this meant that there was less of a centralized focus and more of independent work coming together at variously spaced intervals. Some of the issues we faced were communication problems, a lack of similar availability for everyone which led to further communication difficulties including misinformation and differing ideas of submission and presentation, and keeping the major focus in mind while still working towards our individual goals in our own time.  One of the more difficult problems that I encountered was a differing level of communication between group members. Simply due to the difficulty of having all group members together at any one time, it is naturally going to result in facilitating more easy communication of relevant ideas between some group members over others. This is most likely a feature of any group work environment, but due to my incompetency in the understanding of the overall thematic pursuit of my group’s project, this perhaps affected me more than my other group members.

C

Progress

My research progressed at a reasonably steady rate throughout the semester, but I had difficulty in understanding the overall concept of the whole project far later than it took most other students. This meant that while I was acquiring useable and relevant information, in not having a clear idea of the finished product in mind, I often was led off-course and had difficulty realigning myself with the group idea of the project. Throughout this degree I have had the opportunity of studying my learning processes and this meant that I was already quite well aware of my style of learning as well as my style of research. While unaccustomed to researching projects of this scale, I think that I adapted quite well by compartmentalizing the tasks and dealing with them separately. In my learning, I think that I process information best by discussing it with other people. Unfortunately I didn’t have much opportunity to do this within the direct confines of this project, however I did so in an academic capacity as much as I could. Furthermore, I think that in pursuing interviews with my subjects was one of my more successful avenues for not only researching the topic, but also for furthering my own understanding, in order to help me communicate the ideas better, but also so that I might understand my sub-topic as part of a broader theme. Unfortunately one of my major weaknesses as a student is working independently as part of a team, which was encapsulated by this entire project. When working alone, such as in the position of individual researcher, I believe that I am most productive and successful in pursuing the topic when I am utilizing my own methods for my own final product, which I can then work towards. However, this project was as such that I had embarrassing difficulty with understand the scope of my group’s project, and was felt frequently unequipped to fully commit to my subtopic of choice, as I was unsure how it would fit into a larger context. The reasonable course of action to counteract this would be to fully communicate my issues and seek assistance, which I think I did, but unfortunately there is a reasonable level to which I can expect assistance from other students and I’m afraid that my shortcomings exceeded this. The manner with which this was dealt was largely based around my following direction from the other members of my group, which while useful, were likely a insufficient substitute for my own capability to guide myself through this task, and something that I wish I had been able to work independently of.

P

Strategies

My primary research object was to find academic resources that related to my subtopic. Unfortunately there was not altogether much that could be found relating to it that could be classified as academic, so I was forced to branch out. This was in many ways successful, but I feel insufficiently, because as much as it aided my own understanding and reinforced my arguments, it felt inappropriate to include, as this research showed a lack of academic depth and I felt destabilized the argument from its purely factual basis. I also found the limited research that I found rather dry and hard to follow. This research also prompted me to pursue avenues of research that might fully resonate with me, reinforcing my idea to pursue more targeted interviews. In conducting these interviews, I gained a much more rounded idea of what I was researching, and was able to acquire evidence that was directly relevant to my concept, as I was able to control the direction of the interview. While I feel that this sort of research was truly on topic, it was also not as appropriate as academic sources may have been, as they are more easily referenced and are regarded as more factually accurate, as well as more studied and topically appropriate. It was also disappointing that I was limited in my ability to utilize these sources in presenting the final project due to the litigiousness of some of the topics that I was covering.

C

Problems

As mentioned earlier, it was difficult to get all members of the group on the same page with regards to the direction of this project. This was resolved by the overall direction from group members leading the others. Another was my difficulty in finding the distinction between working entirely independently and working collaboratively. This was not particularly due to any circumstances of the task, as was much more likely due to my working habits previous to this course. I think that I would have been able to much more successfully pursue my topic, and perhaps would not have done so in the same manner that I chose to, had I been able to work more closely with my group members. However, no one else had the level of difficulty that I did, and as such to actually work in such a way would most likely have been not only difficult to achieve but also perhaps an actual disadvantage to the other members of my group. I think that this is the sort of challenge that one experiences in any group project, and as such I think it likely that the only truly significant way of improving this difficulty would have been to structure the project and its requirements in an entirely different way, which is of course unfeasible.

P

Connections and intersections

I see the value of this course as us as students being encouraged to see the media as something that we are already a part of and to investigate it critically as something that we can understand, take part in and work towards improving. As with our numerous other group projects, this one also helped to develop our communication skills, collaborative and problem solving. Ive learnt from this project that in order for your knowledge about your learning capacity to be of any use, you must attempt to implement the lessons that you’ve learnt about yourself in altering your habitual behavior in ways that you know would benefit you. I didn’t achieve what I thought I would achieve from this project, in that I don’t have a concrete level of critical and academic research that I was sure I could acquire, but I think that on a personal and workable level, I have a very comprehensive knowledge of the topic that would stand to scrutiny, particularly in terms of the depth of my understanding and the applicability of my wider knowledge of this topic, even just in terms of popular cultural applicability. I learnt much about myself and my favoured learning environment, and while this is in a way useful, I think that knowing how I tend to absorb information is more useful, as that is an element of my education that I think I would be more able to control in comparison to being able to actually have an effect on the circumstances under which I am putting this knowledge into practice.

P

Overall Grade: P

Ah, group projects! The bane of any young lass’ education experience, amirite? So much working with people you don’t know on subjects you don’t understand spending money you don’t have to buy things you don’t need to impress people you don’t like. No, hang on, I got lot in the middle there somewhere. Well, that’s not my experience of group projects, oh no. Group projects are where I come into my own and transform into a disgustingly megalomanic version of myself and boss everyone around and have fingers in many pies and eyes on many clocks. Well at least I do until I realize that that’s not helping anyone.

So basically so far I’ve wanted to be the boss and tell everyone off and make a big scene and act like I know everything about reality television when that is the exact opposite point of this task and, shockingly, it’s not helping anyone

Learning: doing group work together is not always feasible. Indeed, it’s usually not, seeing as people usually have lives, and not just blank schedules (note to self: get one of these, they sound useful). I’m finding this pretty hard, because I like constant reassurance and discussion is my preferred medium of understanding a new topic. This has led to a lot of “yeah, this sounds great, oh hang on, is this too similar to someone else’s topic? Let’s stop everything that I’m doing and go check” which really is not that big of a deal, but unfortunately is just not the way I’m used to working. Probably the number one thing coming out of this is: be more (or at all) adaptable to new scenarios, otherwise someone will ask you if you have a learning disability like that guy at Nandos that one time.

In an ideal world: we would all work together harmoniously like a barbershop quartet. Or perhaps: I would choose my topic at the start of semester and it would remain constant and unchanging and I would be able to focus heavily on it with positive results and nothing else would present itself as a better option of research. Yay for dreams!

Deery, J 2012. Consuming Reality: the commercialization of factual entertainment, Palgrave Macmillan: New York

In this text, Deery investigates the role of constructing realities in order to make a fuller viewing experience for the audience and the ways in which they react to this. Through references to earlier incarnations of reality television and analysis of the spread of reality television across multiple platforms for multiple purposes, Deery explores many different incarnations of the reality television genre. This article is useful to my research topic, as Deery suggests that the construction of false worlds within the format of a television show can assist in the dissemination of the message the show sells. The article is limited in that it does not address as many specific forms of image manipulation as my research contains. This article will not form the basis of my research; however it will be useful supplementary information for my research on image manipulation.

Kavka, M 2012, Reality TV, Edinburgh : Edinburgh University Press

In this book Kavka investigates the origins and subgenres of what is now broadly referred to as ‘reality television’, as well as what defines them and how they fit into the far-reaching landscape. Researching the incipient stages of each subgenre, from birth to popularity boom and iconic programs, the study focuses largely on ratings and audience versus network responses to these styles of programming. This research focuses on the generational waves of reality television interpretation and the idiosyncrasies of production and reception through which they can be identified. The text is useful to my research topic, as I will be focusing on the subsets of reality television in the opening of my research and how these subgenres impact audiences in different manners. The text is somewhat limited in that it identifies chiefly American series, but these have had a lasting impact throughout the Western world in such a way that the terms and tropes that they have spawned would have relevance in my research as well. The text does also explore the concept of reality television as a means of launching and perpetuating contemporary society’s obsession with celebrity, a subject that is interlocked with our research of reality television as well. In addition, the text looks to the future in discussing the ramifications of generations of reality television, which is a discourse that is connected to our dismantling of the long-term influences of reality television upon popular consciousness.

Beauty and the Geek Australia 2012, television program, Network 7 Television, Shine Australia, Sydney, October-November

This text will be used as a means of analyzing the artificial narrative that is employed in order to fabricate characters from the personalities of the actual reality television participants. Through the study of the progression of character traits thematically linked to the plot progression of each episode, there is the opportunity of more thoroughly deconstructing the production-led characteristics of the participants of the program. In conjunction with further readings of behind-the-scenes articles and interviews with cast members, the deconstruction of this text would serve to illustrate not only several subsets of the reality television genre, but also the false narrative progression and construction of reality television archetypes through false characterization of participants that can occur throughout production of these programs. The major limitation of this text is that it needs to be read with the assumed knowledge of one familiar with the established tropes of reality television, in order to be able to view it as an artifact of conformism to the established parametres of reality television. It is also limited in that it explores only a few of the subsets of reality television, and neglects some of the more major subgenres that have an established popularity on Australian cinema. This text also excludes some of the archetypes that will be included in our study, in that it contains a very narrow spectrum of participants – principally Caucasian young Australians – which does not allow us to study this text against all the elements we are analyzing. Thus this text must be studied concurrently with the further reading and as part of a wider exploration if one is to gather information on the entire spectrum of reality television.

Hogan, FN 2013, interview series with potential contestant and reality television program participant, 13 April

This text will be used chiefly in conjunction with the television series Beauty and the Geek Australia in order to thoroughly analyze its production, particularly the ways in which the portrayal of participants is manipulated in order to alter the audience’s perception of the characters within the show. The interview of a former participant and an auditioned but unselected participant includes dissection of the inaccuracies between the on-screen portrayals and the actuality of behind-the-scenes activity. These interviews centre on the role of the production crew in writing a false narrative for the story, focusing particularly on the creation of caricatures and false emotions and events within the story world. This text is particularly useful to my research as it is focused entirely on subjects that I am pursuing. However this text does not delve into the production differences of the subgenres of reality television and thus does not cover every aspect of my research. In addition, this piece does not contain any substantiating evidence of the anecdotes throughout, just the experiences of the interviewees, thus can be used less as a primary source and would be utilized as a supporting document for other, broader claims, particularly those in the complementary text of the broadcast television show.

Meizel, KL 2011, Idolized: Music, Media and Identity in American Idol, Indiana University Press, Indiana

In this book Meizel investigates the falsely constructed identities found in competitive reality television and the reconciliation of the true and false identities for the real people involved in the show. Meizel reviews case studies found in past competitive reality television programs and the ripple effect they had upon performers and audience members through the media. The research focuses primarily on the deification and celebrity worship of reality television stars and the falsely constructed façade created for the new identity through the manipulation of the production of the program. This research is useful to my topic as Meizel’s investigation on the perpetuation of cultural stereotypes links to my research area through the discussion of the construction of a show narrative. Meizel’s work is limited in that it refers to only one subset of reality television and does not extend to other subgenres in which this practice is perhaps even more prevalent, and more closely tied to our subject matter. This article will not form the basis of my research; however it will be useful supplementary information for my research on narrative construction and caricatures.

Sender, K 2012, The makeover : reality television and reflexive audiences, New York : New York University Press

In this text Sender review the influences of the conventions of the competitive reality television genre, in particular the makeover show, on audience views, values and self perception. The author used data gained largely through the initial survey and then further interview of viewers and active participants in this genre of reality television to try to identify the viewing habits in relation to influence and perceived influence of these types of programs. The research focuses on assessing audiences’ views of generally extreme makeover television programs, already focused on the participants rather than the methods. This text is useful to my research topic, as Sender reflects on the constructed realities in which the shows take place and many respondents address this is their comments upon their perceptions of the shows. The main limitation of the article is that the television shows identified in the study are American and do not conform to the main group of reality television which our study will be usually studying. Thus our study needs to indicate and address the differences between the two subgenres and recognize the influence that audiences carry from one of these shows to another.  This text will not form the basis of my research; however it will be useful supplementary information for my research on audience influence and audience awareness.

Taddeo, J & Dvorak, K 2012, The Tube Has Spoken : Reality TV and History, The University Press of Kentucky, Kentucky

In this book Taddeo and Dvorak dissect the level of ‘reality’ in reality television by addressing the construction of false caricatures and realities within the world of reality programming. By studying the histories of similar successful shows, the authors are able to thoroughly analyse to what extent the viewing audience processes reality and to what extent they are able to, through honest depiction of real people in real situations. Their research is limited in that it focuses more on docu-drama television viewing and less on television shows sub-classified as ‘dramality’, which is the area on which I am focusing most. This article will not form the basis of my research; however it will provide useful insight into the construction of reality television archetypes.

Thumin, N 2012, Self-Representation and Digital Culture, University of Leeds, UK

In this text Thumin explores self-representations in contemporary digital culture in diverse settings, including reality television. Thumin heavily reflects upon the history of self-expression and representations of humanity and how that has changed with the introduction of digital culture and the influence the broader media now holds. This study is largely American-focused, but does include world-wide impacts of perceptions of publics. This article is useful to my research, more so for my exploration of artificial construction of characters, thus I will need to include more extensive studies of contemporary examples of artificial character creation in reality television.

Seriously, does no one want to do an academic piece on the differences between US reality television series and those found in Australia?

Come on, no one?!

“Lolwot?” as my grandmother would say (lolwot being Dutch for Can you please be clearer in your instructions?)

Unfortunately for the foolish (as most things tend to be) this annotated bibliography is a pickle and a half. Writing up and analyzing the sources for a project we have not finished yet? What is this witchcraft?

But I hear you yelling at me, “Madeline you cotton-headed ninnymuggins!” it’s to help you understand the efficacy of the sources you have found to substantiate your arguments! Duh!” but this is not at all how my mind works. Indeed, increasingly I am finding some kind of impenetrable force field between me and how I work and what I know, and the system everyone else is working from and finding totally useful and normal and why the hell aren’t you getting this Madeline? It turns out I’ve been learning wrong this whole time (too late, you can’t retroactively fail me for secretly being a dunce this whole time! Yessss!) and have been analyzing the usefulness of my sources after I’ve finished writing, by looking at all the stuff I learnt and saying, “Yeah, that bit was good, I put that in the report. Nah, that one didn’t make the cut, wasn’t relevant” etc etc while I talk to my own homework. However, what I can only assume because I’m too scared to ask and my high school experiences taught me to avoid any confrontation lest they turn physical and you are forced to explain to your teacher that the slap-mark on your face was accidentally self-inflicted during a very vigorous dancing session, is that this pre-analysing helps to cut out the chaff from your list of resources. Annoyingly, it makes perfect sense and the only flaw in this is that I am too much the fool to never have though of it before. I thiiink that this assignment is supposed to target your research on the most useful texts by flagging their relevance early on. If I get good at this I think I should be able to implement this process in other stuff as well, as long as it’s something that I plan to keep targeted the whole time. And that really seems to be the thing with this assignment: I am actually not sure how it’s going to end up, because the way I usually conduct myself is just kind of write what is interesting and fun and then see where it takes you later on. That said, I’ve lost my way on a few projects now, and I can only assume that keeping on track, rather than discovering fun and interesting other stuff that is less relevant to the topic you picked at the start of the semester, is more highly prized in assessment criteria. Unsurprisingly, this is the thing that I have been having the most difficulty with so far- keeping on track. I think I would be handling it better if this enormous research project was something that I was doing by myself, because it turns out I am hopeless of keeping track of what other people are doing with their stuff, and I keep echoing what is already being said. However, this is probably more shoddy work from me, because if I keep to the plan and don’t veer into more stimulating territory, I should be able to keep on the straight and narrow and avoid yawing off into someone else’s sub-topic. Ah me, to live the free and unencumbered life of someone who is good at research/life.

Short answer: “who knows?”

So while I’m struggling along in this class trying to understand what’s what, I have my beautimous topic to think of: what is reality television? Just kidding, tackling that topic would take a mighty wodge of paper big enough to block out the sky and imagine what a strain that would put on the ecosystem. Right now we’re still finalizing group stuff like figuring out what exactly we plan to focus on for our presentation. Rachel recommends focusing on Australian reality television because that’s what we’re going to be able to accurately analyse as influencing Australian culture. In this way, we’ll probably have to go the old fashioned “How does television affect us?” route but we should probably add a little extra. I keep trying to communicate this idea I have but when I try to articulate it I tend to sound like I’m trying to gargle with shampoo so who knows. I think something along the line of the concept of heroes and villains in reality television, and how their portrayal affects Australian culture could be successful. I think that it could be a solid basis for analyzing the very basics of what we think of as good and bad people and ideas. For example, the Aussie battler is obviously this iconic idealized version of what we’d like to think Australians are, so that caricature is always going to be praised on television. And snooty, arrogant people are pretty common archetypes for villains, because we love cutting someone down to size, and we are gluttons for tall poppy syndrome. However, now that I write about it, this whole angle could be kind of hard to distinguish between things that are culturally appropriated as larger metaphors for aspects of Australian society and things that are just good and bad. It might be hard to separate the villains on US tv with Aussie ones, simply because you’re always going to paint the characters in a certain light to create some drama and conflict between opposing sides.

I think perhaps I may have been too inspired by that season of Survivor when they did heroes vs villains. I think that half of those people would be portrayed differently on Australian television- one guy called Johnny Fairplay who relentlessly lied to pretty much everyone on his team would, in my opinion, be played as more of a lovable prankster, rather than the ruthless sneak that he got labeled with in America. The heroes/villains actually can be analysed quite a few different ways, though, particularly through different lenses of study. A feminist critique could absolutely carve it up, because half of the villainous women are ‘sexually aggressive’ whereas the men who are the aggressors are split pretty evenly, if not more so on the heroes team. And don’t get me started on race issues, because every person of Asian heritage is either intelligent or a quiet follower. No leadership allowed by non-whites, clearly.

After this rant I feel like I should definitely either avoid this topic or engulf myself in it.