Annotated+Bibliography

Haggerty, Maryann. "Reality TV." CQ Researcher. 20th ed. 2010. 677-700. CQ Researcher Online. Web. 28 Sept. 2010. .

Maryann Haggerty worked as a business and real estate reporter editor for The Washington Post, and she currently works as a freelance journalist and ghost writer for the National Geographic Society. She earned a bachelor's degree in journalism from George Washington University. As a fan of reality television, she has watched every episode of the long-running show “Survivor.” The source is an overview intended for the average person. Since the article is an informational overview, the author does not state a thesis and provides an unbiased look at the topic. The article provides viewpoints both accepting reality tv as enjoyable, harmless entertainment and criticizing it for being a negative cultural influence. Haggerty touches on an in-depth range of topics including its role in perpetuating stereotypes and affect on younger audiences. She also provides several reputable charts and statistics to aid each point. There are a couple statistics that support my stance that reality television is a negative influence. The research is very well organized and extensive in depth and scope. This source is extremely helpful to my research as it provides a wealth of information on my topic and varied stances on a few issues within that.

Barovick, Harriet. “Reality TV.” Time. Time inc, 19 Sept. 2008. Web. 17 Oct. 2010. .

Though I searched the article’s website and looked her up on Google and Google Scholar, the only credentials I could determine for Harriet Barovick was that she works as a journalist for Time Magazine. The article seems to be mostly an overview of reality television, from its origins in the 70’s to its widespread popularity in the recent decades. The audience she writes for is probably the common reader. The author provides several points of view on the value of reality television but ultimately seems to note its positive implications and legitimate form of entertainment. The author mentions the original intent of reality TV as more documentary-styled and truth revealing. She also cites the socially poignancy of the first few seasons of The Real World and the interesting perspective of Discovery Channel’s reality TV. She covers the topics of its cultural affects and negative connotations. Barovick references these events as her evidence which also supports my argument that reality TV can be redeeming. This piece seems well-researched since she tracks the beginnings and evolution of the genre. She could have gone a bit more in-depth but the source is overall adequately addressing the topic. The source will certainly help my research as her arguments help my arguments directly. I learned the origins of the genre being documentary based, and I may use a direct quote from the article arguing my point.

Gardner, Eriq. “Reality TV.” Hollywood Reporter. N.p., 10 Feb. 2008. Web. 17 Oct. 2010. .

I attempted to search for Eriq Gardner’s credentials (through Google search, Google Scholar, and the website) but nothing came up in addition to restrictions by the host site. This serves as a highly informational report that may appeal to and is written for the average person. Gardner takes a more monetary and statistic-focused approach to analyzing reality TV. He basically argues that reality TV talents have a lot of pull in the networks they work under. Gardner describes instances in which talents either held out for more money or convinced a network to increase pay, or where networks through money at shows to make sure the people return. The author uses specific dollar amounts of what the different people earned during a previous season and the following season. The entire article follows a simple format of describing each situation and reporting on the facts, obviously reflecting thorough research. He maintains a focus on the topic at hand for the entire article as well. Gardner attempts to be objective and let the statistics speak for themselves, but his overall message is clear. I learned just how valuable the stars of reality TV shows are to the networks now, which is actually close to scripted TV stars. The specific instances mentioned and the payment of the stars will aid part of my argument of reality TV’s cultural effects.

Poniewozik, James. “Reality TV’s Working Class Heroes.” Time. Time inc, 22 May 2008. Web. 17 Oct. 2010. .

 James Poniewozik started at TIME as a media and television critic in 1999. Since then he has written in-depth stories on subjects from the reality TV craze to the Sopranos and has written essays, features and reviews on subjects ranging from international media coverage of the war in Iraq. He also has written widely on books, movies, comic books, the news media and pop culture in general. Additionally Poniewozik has worked as a media critic for Salon.com for several years and has contributed to such publications as Fortune, Rolling Stone, New York, and The New York Times Book Review. This article speaks to the common person and focuses on the shows ha deal with blue collar Americans. Poniewozik argues that while scripted television has fallen out of touch with blue collar workers, reality television highlights them quite well. He points out that sitcoms have stopped using working-class people as the main characters. Characters like Roseanne and Ralph Kramden have been replaced by characters like Liz Lemon and Michael Scott. The work is organized, but not as researched as my other sources. This aspect of the reality TV topic has been adequately addressed. Poniewozik very clearly has a stance on the subject and enjoys the portrayals of blue-collar people. This source shows reality TV in a positive light and explains its benefits in ways I hadn't thought about. It helps my point by giving specific examples of shows that depict a sect of Americans widely ignored in television such as Deadliest Catch and Dirty Jobs on the Discover Channel.

Hirschorn, Michael. "The Case for Reality TV." Atlantic May 2007: n. pag. Web.19 Oct. 2010. .

Michael Hirschorn is the executive vice president for the VH1 channel and contributing editor for The Atlantic magazine. Having a high status in a channel that features a variety of reality TV shows gives him insight on the inner workings of the genre and an insider’s perspective as someone who helps develop reality TV. This article aims to persuade people to recognize reality television as a legitimate form of entertainment. Hirschorn seems to argue that Reality TV is a great evolution of television and entertainment in general. His main arguments include reality television’s popularity and the fact that its it contains the best elements of documentary and scripted TV. He also points out the more venerable programs like Extreme Makeover: Home Edition and Deadliest Catch that infuse good documentary style with the kind of drama you couldn’t find in scripted TV. The work seems very knowledgeable since he works one reality programming so the research is pretty sound and logical. He could go more into detail of why certain reality programs deserve to be recognized, but the topic is addressed pretty well. Again, since he helps develop reality TV, he would of course be biased to defend it. I will probably use his quote comparing reality TV to scripted and documentaries to support my point and this will probably be very helpful.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Paikin, Steve, et al. “Debate: Reality at 10.” <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">//The Agenda// <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. Prod. Meredith Martin. TVOntario. 14 June 2010. <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">//The Agenda with Steve Paikin: Inside Agenda// <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. Web. Transcript. 26 2010. <http://www.tvo.org/​cfmx/​tvoorg/​theagenda/​index.cfm?page_id=3&action=blog&subaction=viewpost&post_id=12823&blog_id=323>.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">This debate includes several people with interesting perspectives on the topic. Aaron Barnhart is a television critic with The Kansas City Star and TV Barn. Alison Hearn is an associate professor in the Faculty of Information and Media Studies at the University of Western Ontario who has made a career analyzing media. Hal Niedzviecki is author of “The Peep Diaries: How We're Learning to Love Watching Ourselves and Our Neighbors” as well as a blog called The Peep Diaries which explores the current cultural obsession with voyerism. Jordan Peterson is a clinical psychologist, a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto, and author of “Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief”. Martin Markle is a production executive at Fusion Television with a solid background in creating and managing content for traditional broadcast and online exhibition. Martin has also served as Executive in Charge of Production for Canwest Broadcasting and also for CBC Television. This is a debate where both sides seem to be represented equally, one that criticizes reality TV and one that defends it.The discussion seems to appeal to the average person, especially one who is relevant with current television trends. There since the forum of the debate tries to be impartial, no real thesis comes out from it. Several people argue that reality TV does have some merit, but also recognize some of its less valuable points. They manage to cover topics including why people watch reality TV, the economic value of such programs, and the morality (or lack thereof) of reality TV shows. They use several instances as evidence referencing statistics about current shows, personal experiences and other observations. Their mention of the more emotional programs and argument that reality TV is more relatable to people helps my opinion that reality TV has potential to be good. This forty-minute discussion extensively covers the subject and has a very clear and logical structure. This source provides several arguments for my topic that I really like, so this is pretty helpful. It also has a few good quotes.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 23px;">Poniewozik, James. “Why Reality TV Is Good For Us.” Time. Time inc, 12 Fed 2003. Web. 25 Oct. 2010. <http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030217-421047,00.html>.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">James Poniewozik started at TIME as a media and television critic in 1999. Since then he has written in-depth stories on subjects from the reality TV craze to the Sopranos and has written essays, features and reviews on subjects ranging from international media coverage of the war in Iraq. He also has written widely on books, movies, comic books, the news media and pop culture in general. Additionally Poniewozik has worked as a media critic for Salon.com for several years and has contributed to such publications as Fortune, Rolling Stone, New York, and The New York Times Book Review. This article speaks to the common person and attempts to persuade people that reality TV is a good thing. Poniewozik thesis is that reality TV is not only a good thing, but is probably one of the best things to happen to television. He argues that reality has brought new interest to networks, giving them some edge on cable. He also argues that reality TV is it's own genre and comparing it to fiction is like comparing "onions to washing machines," and that it has more emotional resonance than scripted TV. He uses quotes from people involved with reality TV as well as accounts and examples from different reality shows to support his points. The article seems very well researched and knowledgeable; Poniewozik presents it in a very logical and effective format. He manages to address the topic very well and completely. I learned some very interesting evidence to support my argument including, surprisingly, one woman's story on American Idol. This should be very useful to my research and helps solidify my argument.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Alderman, Tom. “Shame TV: Why Humiliation Sells.” <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">//The Huffington Post// <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. HuffingtonPost.com Inc, 13 Feb. 2008. Web. 25 Oct. 2010. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/​tom-alderman/​shame-tv-why-humiliation-_b_86500.html>.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Tom Alderman has an extensive background in media and communications. He has worked as speech trainer and speech writer as well as founder of MediaPrep, a national media training and presentation skills coaching firm. His history in the field include media and crisis communications, news conferences, speech preparation, presentation skills and on-camera talent training. Alderman has worked both as a broadcaster and print journalist, as well as TV executive with CBS-TV and with Norman Lear's Embassy TV. He has also been the Communications Director for the Governor of Illinois.This article, aimed at common people, attempts to persuade people to thinking that reality TV is bad and inherently humiliating to participants. His thesis is that people watch reality television for its degrading factors and elements of humiliation which contributes to his idea of "Shame TV". He argues that the most popular shows at the time (American Idol, The Apprentice, Celebrity Rehab) are successful for entertainment value, laughing at other people's expenses, rather than its "redeeming value". To support his claims, he references humiliating events and people of different reality shows, namely Celebrity Rehab. He also quotes a psychologist involved with reality TV, Dr. Geoffrey White who supports humiliating people on reality TV to support his point. The work is logical for proving his point. However, it is extremely one-sided and doesn't properly represent the redeeming value of reality TV. I would use this to help craft my representation of the anti-reality side of my topic so it will probably be of some good use.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 23px;">Susan Murray has earned various degrees including B.A., M.A. and Ph.D. in journalism and media studies. She has had several of her articles and essays featured in journals such as Journal of Visual Culture, Cinema Journal, Television and New Media as well as numerous anthologies. She currently works as a visiting professor of Television Studies in the Cinema Studies Program at the University of Pennsylvania. Laura Ouellette's work has also appeared in scholarly journals including Cultural Studies; Media, Culture & Society; Television and New Media; Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies; Communication Review; Velvet Light Trap; Journal of Popular Film and Television; and Afterimage. She has contributed to number of anthologies dealing with television and film including Feminist Television Criticism; Gender, Class and Race in Media; Television Studies Reader; Beyond Primetime: Television Programming in the Post-Network Era; and Critical Visions in Film Theory. She holds a B.A. in Communications and a M.A. in Media Studies and currently works as a professor of a variety of Media Studies courses at the University of Minnesota. Their book is an analysis of reality TV and its influence intended for the average reader. The book is really a collection of essays by several different <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;"> authors with possibly several different theses, however, I can only view portions of the book on Google Books as I wait for a copy to come in through the library. Still, some topics I could tell are covered includes the nature of the television industry, the impact on culture and its power, and what it is exactly as a genre. A very extensive review of the book called it <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 23px;">"A well-rounded collection of texts, Reality TV manages to cover a range of ideas and concepts about the genre. Although academically written, the majority of the chapters are readable even for those without a background in television studies. All watchers of reality TV—even those ashamed to admit it—would benefit from reading this text." ([|Liz Ellison]) <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 23px;">This should be able to provide me with plenty of information and perspectives on the topic that will influence my argument somewhat.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">I scoured the internet looking for credentials for James Cummings, but I could find none. All I could discern was that he has written several articles for the Dayton Daily Newspaper. He worte his article as an editorial commenting on the potential racial factors of reality television. He writes to express his opinions to the normal, everyday reader. His thesis is that reality television negatively reinforces stereotypes of races, namely black people. Cummings argues that certain things around a show are constructed, set up, and edited to look certain ways. He backs up that point with select quotes from analysts and facts about the production of shows like MTV's Real World where they choose specific personalities to portray types of people. He only narrowly covers this topic and does not seem to address everything he could have. He may have bias in his perception of people on these shows since he is black, but that most likely is not a factor. This gave me another topic of issues in reality television that i didn't quite think about, race. This will aid my first research product in providing more material.