Reality TV is a widely enjoyed and socially fascinating form of entertainment. Such shows can offer an outlet for authentic human emotion, life affirming trajectories and relatability. However, it may be time to take a step back and thoroughly interrogate the ethical implications of the TV that we seek easy entertainment from.
Key questions arise when we consider how the emotions of reality TV contestants are used to fuel entertainment – have contestants been offered sufficient psychological support? And are we watching from a place of genuine curiosity or easy consumption? The uncomfortable truth seems to be that although we may seek comfort in and be intrigued by complex human behaviour, reality TV primarily relies on unethical practices of exploitation and manipulation.
As a broad term, reality TV can be difficult to pin down. This is especially obvious when we consider the rise of constructed reality and partially scripted TV shows. In the context of ethics, it makes sense to focus on shows that rely on drama and conflict as their primary drivers of entertainment, such as Love Island and Big Brother.
Having watched reality TV and been captivated by it myself, I do not think it is as simple as taking the moral high ground and making a sweeping declaration that to watch reality TV makes you a flawed person. Rather, from reflecting, researching, and observing trends that are now decades long – we should begin to better understand how watching reality TV gives great power to producers who can manufacture and intensify drama at the expense of the wellbeing of contestants.
As I’ve already alluded to, it would be overly simplistic to judge and blame viewers, as motives for watching reality TV are not straightforward. In the same way, we cannot fall back on the argument that producers of these shows make when they claim that contestants are fully aware of what they sign up to.
Navigating sudden fame, a social media presence and millions of viewers having an opinion of you is not something one can fully process even if you’ve conceived of it prior to going on a show. The very real human cost of conflict and confrontation that draws in viewers has consequences, and where reality TV shows have bought in psychological support and welfare this remains fundamentally at odds with producers’ intentions to create dramatic and provocative plot lines, making support strained and insufficient.
Neatly put by Paula Apkan, “the welfare packages are like putting a plaster on a massive, gaping wound”. We must note that suicide and mental health are complex and sensitive issues – they cannot and should not be reduced to single factors. Nevertheless, the tragic deaths that have overshadowed Love Island shed a different light on the show.
The loss of Sophie Gradon, Mike Thalassitis, and Caroline Flack have left a dark legacy over Love Island. Such tragedies make us reconsider whether enough is done to care for members of reality shows beyond filming and airing. This concern is echoed by Nathanial Valentino, a contestant on ‘Married At First Sight’ who opens up about needing therapy after the show, maintaining that producers were extremely controlling and manipulative in their formulation of story lines.
Strengthening our worry that the success of reality TV is entangled with problematic practices is the observation that when Love Island has made efforts to be more ethical there has been a steep decline in viewership with a loss of 1.3 million from 2019-2023. This supports the notion that reality TV intrinsically relies on high levels of drama that can negatively affect contestants.
We could argue that this decline can be explained by a greater consciousness of the ethical implications of reality TV, but in line with research it is more likely explained by tamer plot lines and less drama. Troublingly, a sustained demand for conflict means producers continue to supply TV that has far-reaching consequences, not just for contestants.
Research has been done by the Mental Health Foundation that reveals 24% of those age 18-24 say reality TV makes them worry about their body image. The projected bodies on shows like Love Island are, as conceded by TV producer Richard Cowles, chosen to be ‘aspirational’ for audiences.
Reality TV can therefore also harm consumers, with worries about body image being closely linked to anxiety and depression. This lack of diversity extends not only to body types but becomes important when we consider the experience and treatment of non-white contestants on Love Island.
Rachel Finney, the shows first black ‘bombshell’ spoke of feeling rejected and out of place, expressing her discomfort in the villa upon arrival. Additionally, Apkan, when speaking on the treatment of black women with lived experience herself, asserts that social inequalities could be exacerbated by reality TV.
Ultimately, it appears there is a struggle to accommodate for ethics in dramatized forms of reality entertainment. Whilst there remains an obvious difference between shows such as Love Island compared with the Great British Bake-off, Sewing Bee, and the Voice, debates remain about more ethical avenues for reality entertainment. We must therefore look at reality TV through a critical lens and look to producers who commodify exploitation to put a stop to its creation at the source.
