Reality Television

Extreme Makeover Home Edition & Oprah

Gareth Palmer and Janice Peck both wrote articles about popular television shows and how they reflect events that are occurring in the United States. Palmer's is called "Extreme Makeover Home Edition: An American Fairytale." Peck's is entitled "The Anxieties of the Enterprising Self and the Limits of Mind Cure in the Age of Oprah."

Because Ty Pennington has enough help and resources to build houses for people who can't afford to do so themselves, he has power over them. Then, as Palmer expresses on page 40, money is no object to Ty. He and his crew don't seem to be interested in how much their projects would cost (page 40). Money doesn't appear to be as important to him as it would to the families he is building new homes for. Oprah also has power because she possessed enough money to build a school in Africa. As Peck noted on page 501, money was no object for Oprah, either. She also had "power" in the sense that she controlled what happened in her life because she followed "The Secret." When she discussed this "secret," she said, "It's something that I have really believed in for years, that the energy you put out into the world is always gonna be coming back to you" (page 498).

Palmer claims that Extreme Makeover reflects how community members have to depend on each other for help because the states are failing to provide its people with assistance (page 37). He listed a few examples of this problem occurring. In one case that he mentioned, "... a family had to watch their son die because ambulances and police refused to go into their neighborhood for fear of their lives" (page 38). In addition, gaps exist across the three social classes and some people aren't able to have nice houses (page 38). Peck discussed what is known as "The Secret" and the school (Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls) Oprah opened in Africa. On page 498, Peck wrote, "Just as the Leadership Academy students cannot blame society for their situation, those who embrace the law of attraction must also accept responsibility for their fate." In this sense, believers of "The Secret" feel that you won't be able to get help from anyone in society; you need to help yourself. This relates back to why Oprah built her school in Africa: society won't better itself or rid of problems such as apartheid on its own.

Palmer argues that, "In a sense, the Extreme Makeover Home Edition team represent the fluid upwardly mobile petit bourgeoisie against the time-worn virtues of proletariat. This divide between the classes ensures that the working class are always receptive and thankful for the 'good taste' bestowed upon them by the middle class" (page 38). He also mentioned how because this show helps families (which are valued by many people), U.S. citizens are going to respond positively to Ty Pennington and his helpers (page 39). He then went on to claim that by airing episodes, ABC upholds its reputation as being "socially responsible" (page 42). Peck claims that "The Secret" is something the middle class believes in (page 501). In this sense, Oprah can relate to this social class. At one point, Oprah decided founded a school in Africa because she wanted to educate young women. She spent a lot of money on this school, which some people didn't think she should have done. She stated, "I became so frustrated with visiting inner-city schools that I just stopped going. The sense that you need to learn just isn't there. If you ask kids what they want or need they will say an iPod or some sneakers. In South Africa, they don't ask for money or toys. They ask for uniforms so they can go to school" (page 502).

In class, someone mentioned that the houses that are built on Extreme Makeover are extremely valuable and would cost a lot of money to keep and maintain, and the property values would increase. Also, as Palmer said on page 40, "One of the most unusual forces about the programme for British viewers is the complete absence of cost. In contrast to many UK makeover shows, costs are never mentioned in Extreme Makeover Home Edition." He later went on to say, "It is only at the end of the show that we have any sort of opportunity to calculate the cost of this transformation, but by then we are too emotionally involved to make such calculations" (page 41). If families couldn't afford a nice house before Ty Pennington and his crew built them new homes, how would it be possible for them to be able  to afford to pay the bills, property taxes, etc. after the new houses were built? Who pays for the house? What happens if the families are struggling to pay for it themselves? Is it up to the community to help them with that? Also, Ty and his helpers always build people large, extravagant houses. By doing so, they're insinuating that money and extravagant things are important and can keep you happy. It's all about materialism. Why can't Ty build average-size houses for people? That way, it will be easier for the families to afford them. Additionally, why do they need so many fancy things? Why is living in such a big house so important? I bet Oprah would argue that the families who are featured on Extreme Makeover don't know what "The Secret" is and that they didn't "will themselves" enough to be able to afford or maintain the houses they used to have before Ty Pennington came along.

Media Education Foundation Video

Rich Media, Poor Democracy

According to McChesney, there are three "tiers" of the media industry. The first is made up of all of the most powerful companies (or as he called them, the "huge giants"). This includes business organizations such as Viacom, Time Warner, Disney, and Sony. The next consists of smaller organizations like Comcast, General Electric, and newspapers such as The New York Times and Tribune. The last includes companies that exist in towns and communities. 

McChesney talked about "the logic of corporate enterprise that flows from the top" and how this determines what viewers see. An example of this work being done would be the synergy that he mentioned. He gave an example about how if the workers Paramount Pictures produced a movie, they would probably utilize the companies that they own to advertise their work. He also mentioned cross-production, which includes making franchise that goes along with a movie that was released. This "logic" can also be seen every day when businesses such as Viacom, Time Warner, and Disney decide what television shows and movies they want to premiere to the public and what topics they decide to not write about. It can be seen in the control they have over smaller corporations: they can buy them out. For example, Disney demonstrated their monetary power about a month ago when they bought Lucasfilm.

McChesney claims that media is supposed to expose consumers to "...a garden-place of ideas in which the truth will win out and we'll have a healthy vibrant political democracy" (page 3). Unfortunately, this isn't happening because conglomerates have so much control. He later goes on to say that "...our media system is the direct result of government policies that created it" (page 6). The Federal Communications Commission is supposed to look out for the public and stand for what's best for the people. However, this commission does not have enough influence to be able to do this. Next, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was was designed to promote competition between businesses through deregulation. McChesney states "What we really mean by deregulation is simply regulation on behalf of private interests with no pretense of regulating on behalf of the public" (page 7). So, the public is being ignored and thought of as unimportant. Also, in order to live under a democracy, it is necessary for journalism to function actively. This is done by making sure those who are in control are completing their jobs in the most beneficial way possible. Then, there are questions regarding freedom of press. In other words, a decision needs to be made about who should have more power: the journalists or the businesses. In this case, the businesses do. There is clearly a lot of conflict which is made visible in the media. For example, Disney bought Lucasfilm. By doing so, they lowered the number of industries they have to compete with. Because competition is limited, viewers aren't being exposed to multiple messages or viewpoints. There were problems in the past (most recently, over the summer) with cable companies. DirecTV and Viacom had a hard time deciding what to charge their consumers. So, those who subscribed to DirecTV were unable to view several channels for a period of time.     

Mark Crispin Miller stated how media conglomerates figured out that in order to keep their viewers faithful, they need to show things that interest them and capture their attention. Sensationalistic stories are popular among the masses, so that's what is being aired. By doing this, not only do companies keep their viewers, they get to save money as well. McChesney said that many years ago, there were rules that prevented conglomerates from being able to join forces and buy out other businesses. Now, companies are able to do that if they want. He also stated that in countries other than the United States, a large variety of stories are discussed in the news. Their journalists function differently than ours.