<doc.id=4032.a3>
<title> Conflict as entertainment </title>
At almost any time of day if you turn on the TV you can be rather sure to, at least on one of the channels, encounter a "real- life-show". These are shows where people have been put together in a confined space such as a locked apartment or a small deserted island and then are followed 24 hours a day by the cameras. We have gotten used to watching people turning them selves inside out in front of the camera, letting the viewers in on the most intimate details of their lives. But first and foremost we have gotten used to watching people argue on these shows. For the curious thing is that these shows evolve entirely around conflict- that is the whole concept behind them. In the book "Amusing Ourselves to Death" Neil Postman analyses how television influences public discourse. He presents the idea that television is extremely influential when it comes to directing our way of thinking and the way we interact. If Postman's conclusion is correct then these seemingly innocent shows suddenly become more frightening.

It is easy to see that watching a group of people locked up in an apartment, who are all getting along just fine being supportive and respectful of one another would be dreadfully boring. In order to make these kinds of shows somewhat more "watch-worthy" you need to add some conflict. A "Real-life-show" without gossip, screaming and, if we're lucky, an occasional fist-fight is hardly worthy of the name. This is a fact well known by the producers of the shows. When casting for them they make sure to get people who don't seem to have much in common. Not because the participants then will complement each other and perhaps even learn something from one another but because they foresee conflict and that is what will sell the show.

If the participants despite their differences would get along fine another element has been added to guarantee conflict. In almost all of these shows the participants have to vote for someone to leave the show. There are always people who don't measure up and accordingly have to leave the group. If you don't contribute to the collecting of food on a deserted island or fail to run a bar in a satisfactory way, you are being of no help to the group and you will have to pack your bags and leave.

Yet another ingredient these shows simply cannot be without is gossip. Already a few hours after the participants have entered the house, bar, island or wherever it is they are being filmed, the gossip and the dividing up into different fractions have started. It is all about finding the right allies, who may change from day to day, and criticizing people behind their backs. The participants gossip wildly about each other and can, and most certainly will, say the most offensive things about one another because they will never be held responsible for anything they say. If any of the participants were to refuse to take part in this sort of un-constructive criticism of others or refuse to choose side, he or she would be sure to be the next one to leave the show.

If Neil Postman is right in his assumption that television is such a powerful medium that it has the power to influence the way we see the World, then the "Real-life-shows" go from being merely a rather harmless and trivial form of entertainment to being much more influential and dangerous for the way we perceive "reality". Just think about the name "Real-life-shows". If this is what is being presented as reality then this is what we are going to expect reality to be like. If Postman is right these shows teach us to see the World in black and white, conflicts will be about who screams the loudest and we will learn that people who don't measure up to certain standards should be left behind.

Let us just hope that Neil Postman is mistaken when it comes to the influence television has on our way of understanding the World. Because if he, God forbid, is right these shows point towards a rather gloomy future.
</doc>