The rise of reality television and the fall of freedom Written by Jennifer Dumoulin, Department of Communication, University of Ottawa 30 April 2007 The genre of reality television is one that is not easily definable. In recent years, there has been a veritable explosion of sub-genres in the category – many of which are overlapping. Although it is difficult to identify reality television as one particular form of culture, the one trait that all reality television programming does have in common is the constant observation of its subjects. Whether the program itself is staged, in the sense that the scenario has been created, or real-life, where a subject is portrayed in his natural environment, they are being filmed from countless angles, at all hours of the day. The rise of reality television was paralleled in North America by a resurgence in antiprivacy and government surveillance legislation. The increase in such legislation was especially predominant after the terrorist attacks that took place on September 11, 2001 in New York City. This day, which has become a dark day in American history for many reasons not limited to the immediate death toll and the subsequent U.S.-led War on Terror, is known simply as 9/11. The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between the rise of reality television and the post-9/11 surge in American legislation, specifically that which pertains to the increased government surveillance of the American public. In order to fully grasp the impact of reality television on its American audiences, this study begins by examining the history and growth of the genre. The reality television phenomenon has gripped the nation in recent years, due in part to the introduction of sub-genres. This paper evaluates the similarities and differences between the sub-genres as well as their place in contemporary North American culture. The social and psychological effects of television are scrutinized, and these theories are then applied to reality television. A discussion of how reality television works as well as the reasons why mass audiences are drawn to the genre are used in an analysis about the power that reality television holds over both its audience and its participants. Upon completion of the study of reality television, this paper shifts its focus to provide an overview of American legislation pertaining to privacy and government surveillance. This essay specifically examines the USA-PATRIOT Act and the amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act since September 11, 2001 to provide concrete examples of the impact that 9/11 and the Bush Administration have had on the privacy of American citizens. Ultimately, this essay attempts to avoid being labeled as a conspiracy theory and strives instead to suggest the existence of a possible naturalizing relationship between the rise of reality television and the surge in government surveillance and “anti-privacy” legislation. Before Survivor The roots of contemporary reality television can be traced back to the early game show and talentshow programming of the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. Programs such as American Idol and Popstars, which focus on a competition between aspiring singers with the goal of landing a record deal from a major recording company, are modern interpretations of The Original Amateur Hour and Star Search. In January of 1948, the first episode of The Original Amateur Hour aired on the Dumont Network. It was hosted by Ted Mack, and has been referred to as “an early talent show [which] Ed McMahon, first aired spotlight[ed] regular folks”.1 Star Search, which was hosted by in 1983.2 Star Search featured a wide variety of entertainers, from musicians, to comedians, to dancers, and actresses. The program has been credited with discovering many of modern entertainment’s biggest stars, including comedian Rosie O’Donnell. Many early reality television programs began on radio and then transferred to television as the medium gained popularity. Ralph Edwards, considered by many to be one of the founding fathers of reality programming, hosted Truth or Consequences. The program aired on radio during the 1940s and on television in the 1950s.3 The series was focused around audience participation where the contestants were asked questions. If the questions were answered incorrectly, the contestant was forced to perform a silly stunt on-stage as a consequence.4 Ralph Edwards was also the creator of This Is Your Life, which began on radio in the 1940s and was eventually broadcast on NBC in 1952. Although each episode profiled the life of a different person, the purpose of the show was to portray “a [wide] variety of [subjects] ranging from average Americans to superstar celebrities”.5 Mark Burnett’s Brainchild The contemporary resurgence of reality television programming officially began in 1992 with MTV’s The Real World. The purpose of The Real World was to bring together “real” people from all over the United States of America and have them live in a house. The subjects were kept under constant observation, with the camera crew actually residing in the same building. Although the reach of the program was limited to the traditional audience of MTV, The Real World was nevertheless a success. Many networks attempted to duplicate the success of The Real World with their own programs. Fox, which has been notorious for producing highly criticized reality television, created numerous clip show programs. Clip shows are a collection of filmed clips which portray real events as they happened. Among Fox’s most popular of these programs is Cops, which portrays police officers in the pursuit of various criminals who commit varying offences. Clip shows are looked1 Richard M. Huff, Reality Television (United States of America: Praeger Publishing, 2006), 16. Internet Movie Database Inc, “Star Search (1983)”, Internet Movie Database (www.imdb.com: Internet Movie Database Inc, 1990-2007). 3 Huff, Reality Television, 15. 4 Huff, Reality Television, 15. 5 Huff, Reality Television, 15. 2 down upon by many for lowering the quality of the reality television genre, as can be demonstrated merely by the title of Fox’s The World’s Most Dangerous Animals III. While North American audiences were being introduced to lower forms of reality television, “the idea of using real people thrived in Europe”.6 Mark Burnett, the mastermind behind Survivor and The Apprentice, purchased the North American rights to Charlie Parsons’ Expedition Robinson in 1998.7 In June of 2000, CBS aired the first episode of Burnett’s Survivor. Expedition Robinson sent contestants to a deserted island, with very little food and only one personal item. The contestants were split into two teams. These contestants not only built their own shelters, but also competed against each other in challenges. The losing team was forced to go to an island council and send one team member home.8 Burnett transformed Expedition Robinson into the popular program Survivor. Directly paralleling Parsons’ show, the basis of Survivor involves sending players to an isolated location with few provisions. The players are then divided into teams where they compete for immunity and rewards. The team that fails to win immunity is sent to tribal council and forced to evict one person from the competition. Upon its introduction to North American audiences, Survivor was regarded as a new form of television. The individuals involved in the production of the program, whether they were behind the scenes or actually participating, were not permitted to discuss the series. As fewer and fewer details were released about the show, the greater the word-of-mouth increased. Many media outlets provided audiences with weekly updates and special features on the program. Viewership grew as the season progressed. The season finale of the program was watched by more than 51 million people from their homes9, which excludes the numerous venues that broadcast the event. The success of Survivor extended beyond the number of viewers that it achieved. Each subsequent season of the show maintained a high popularity level among audiences, the quantity of aspiring participants increased substantially, and the launch of the reality television genre had been achieved. The Reality Television Epidemic The imitation of another successful program is a common trend of contemporary reality television programming. As a genre or style becomes successful, it is immediately copied by other networks who strive to achieve their own niche audience within each category. In 1999, the year prior to the launch of Survivor, “reality television made up only 4 percent of the prime-time landscape.”10 By the 2003 fall season, the number of reality programs during prime-time had increased more than three-fold to 13 percent.11 The reality television genre had exploded, sub-divisions of the genre had emerged, and copycat programming had become the plague of prime-time television. 6 Huff, Reality Television, 18. Huff, Reality Television, 3. 8 Huff, Reality Television, 18. 9 Huff, Reality Television, 1. 10 Huff, Reality Television, 20. 11 Huff, Reality Television, 20. 7 Reality television as a genre is difficult to define. For the purpose of this study, the following characteristics must be met for a program to be defined as reality television: 1. The subjects of a reality television program must be filmed constantly and must be aware of said filming. 2. Confessional, or diary segments, should be an integral part of the program as it allows viewers insight into subjects of the show. 3. There should be little to no scripting involved. It is important to note that many reality televisions shows may be classified in more than one of the following categories. In fact, the genre as a whole has evolved to incorporate the varying genres to attract a wider audience range. The many sub-genres of reality television include competition, workplace, makeover, romance, real-life, twist, and celebrity. Competition Programs Competition programs may involve any number of the following components: the selection of candidates, the actual competition, a living situation, the use of celebrity judges, and audience voting. The topics that have been used in competition programming to date include singing, dancing, survival skills, business skills, cooking, and traveling. Survivor, adapted by Mark Burnett, is the earliest example of a successful competition program. American Idol involves aspiring singers who perform on-stage. These performers are judged by industry experts including Paula Abdul and Simon Cowell, but it is the audience who ultimately picks the next American Idol. America’s Next Top Model portrays aspiring supermodels as they are instructed by Tyra Banks and eliminated one by one. Big Brother mirrors MTV’s Real World in the sense that complete strangers are put into a residence that is observed twenty-four hours per day. However, like competition programs, the residents compete for immunity, and are voted off one-by-one by their housemates. One resident wins a monetary prize at the end of the season. Other competition programs include The Apprentice, Boot Camp, Hell’s Kitchen, The Biggest Loser, and Rock Star: Supernova. Workplace Programs Workplace programs involve the portrayal of subjects as they partake in their daily business activities. Workplace programs have roots in documentary film because they consist of real-life, not fabricated, situations. TLC’s Miami Ink depicts the events that take place in a tattoo parlour in Miami. The audience has the opportunity to see how a business in the art of tattoo is operated. The employees who work in the parlour are the main subjects as they remain constant throughout the series. Dog the Bounty Hunter follows a family of bail bondsmen as they perform their daily activities in the business. Although this series aired on A&E, HBO also produced a reality series about a bail bonds company called Family Bonds. Other workplace programs include The Deadliest Catch, which portrayed fishermen, and American Choppers, about a family of motorcycle builders. Makeover Programs Makeover programs exist for every possible subject, whether it be the human body, relationships, cars, homes, families, clothing, or attitudes. These programs attempt to transform a problematic issue, item, or person into something positive. The makeover genre represent a how-to for the audience by dealing with everyday issues and people. TLC’s What Not To Wear takes a poorly-dressed individual on a $5,000 shopping spree in New York City. The participant must be nominated by friends and family, and must throw out their entire wardrobe. They are then given fashion rules and aided by experts in picking a new wardrobe. Other programs, such as ABC’s Extreme Makeover offer participants life-altering, plastic surgery. MTV’s Pimp My Ride and TLC’s Overhaulin’ revitalize a participant’s vehicle. In MTV’s version of the series, the participant is usually a young male or female and the participant must apply themselves for the series. TLC’s participants are nominated and are not aware that their cars are being repaired. Other makeover programs include Super Nanny, Nanny 911, WifeSwap, 30 Days, and Trading Spaces. Romance Programs Romance programs vary in their format, suggesting further sub-divisions of the category. Competition-romance programs feature one person picking a partner from many people. Coupleromance programs strive to test the strength of relationships. Temptation Island placed four couples who claimed to be in a committed relationship on an island. The couples were then split up in order to be sent on dates with “singles” who were also on the island. The participants were only permitted to see their partners when the dates were picked. The relationship test lasted for six-weeks, after which the couples were reunited and forced to decide if they wanted to continue their relationship together or not. The Bachelorette consisted of a competition between men vying for the attention of one woman. Each week the bachelorette would eliminate candidates from the competition. Real-life Programs Real-life programs are similar to workplace programs in that they portray subjects in their normal environment. These programs are also closely related to the documentary genre. TLC’s Little People, Big World depicts a family of six that is a combination of little and average-sized people. The parents and one of their twin sons are achondroplastic dwarves. Twist Programs Twist programs involve at least one of the participants being misled about the nature of the show. The viewers may be aware of the misrepresentation. Joe Millionaire was presented as a romance reality program in which 20 women were selected to travel to France to compete for the love of one man. The women lived in lavish surroundings and believed the bachelor to be a multimillionaire. In truth, the bachelor was nothing more than a regular construction worker. At the end of the series, the remaining participant was forced to choose between love and money. The series was a success with “an average viewing audience of 23 million people, and an audience of 40 million for the finale.”12 Celebrity Programs Celebrity programs encompass all of the aforementioned categories, demonstrating that there is no place that a washed-out celebrity won’t go. The only criteria that must be met in this category is for the participants to be celebrities. That being said, the term celebrity is applied very loosely to reality programming in that it refers to a person that is or has been famous. Flavor of Love consisted of women competing to date a former rap artist of the group Public Enemy known as Flavor Flav. The Surreal Life is similar to The Real World as it places former celebrities in a house together. Dancing with the Stars and Celebrity Duets were competition shows where the participants danced and sang. Strinati and Forms of Culture The level of complexity that arises in categorizing reality television programs by genre parallels the difficulties that arise when classifying these genres as a specific form of culture. Culture refers to the dominant ideas and values of a specific group of people which are valid in a certain geographical area during a specific period of time. Based on the works of Dominic Strinati, five distinct forms of culture emerge from the study of mass communications: high culture, low culture, folk culture, mass culture, and popular culture. Historically, there have always been two forms of culture; the culture of the people known as folk culture and the culture of the elite known as art. These two forms of culture exist only because of the other. In other words, elite culture can only exist when it can be compared to and distinguished from folk culture. The opposite is valid for folk culture. The elite culture is very artistic and intellectually stimulating. It originates from members of the upper class, specifically the educated and artistic population. Until the introduction of capitalism, mass consumption, and mass production, high cultural products were considered to be rarities. Folk culture originates from the general public. It is created by the people for themselves, and directly reflects both the lives and experiences of those people. The authenticity of folk cultural products is dependent upon the contribution of the community. Mass culture refers to a culture that is mass produced by the commercial industry and that is marketed for a profit. Mass culture is a direct result of industrialization and urbanization. The 12 Huff, Reality Television, 81. earliest example of a mass cultural product is the Ford Model A, which was largely produced in its sole colour and design. The Ford Model A effectively demonstrates a key characteristic of mass culture for which it is highly criticized – its homogeneousness. Many contemporary mass culture theorists condemn mass culture for its standardized, procedural, and repetitive nature. The modern theorist MacDonald denounces mass culture as being “a trivial culture that voids both the deep realities […] and the simple, spontaneous pleasures.”13 It is a culture that lacks intellectual stimulation, encourages commercialism, and celebrates consumerism. Mass culture ultimately discourages differentiation and uniqueness, and requires conformity and passiveness. Mass culture is frequently viewed as an epidemic. As noted by Strinati in his text An Introduction to Theories of Popular Culture, mass culture tends to silence other opposing voices because it is a pacifying culture. Folk culture was overpowered by mass culture due to the evolution of mass society. The general population was assimilated into masses. Individuals were grouped by the mass media and the commercial industry based on demographics. The commercial industry worked in cooperation with mass media, transforming individuals into automatons in order to make a profit. Traditional cultural products that were previously enjoyed as a representation of community became an endangered species. Popular culture can be argued to be the contemporary form of folk culture. Folk culture existed prior to industrialization, mass society, and urbanization among lower classes. Popular culture emerged as a rebellion to mass culture. Williams, a modern culture theorist, describes popular as “being seen from the point of view of the people rather than from those seeking favour or power over them.”14 Both popular culture and folk culture are forms of low culture. They emerge from below the mass culture and elite culture respectively. This form is in opposition to the elite culture, which is a form of high culture because it originates from above the masses and filters downward. Reality Television and Culture Classification Mass culture attempts to conquer both popular culture and high culture in contemporary society, with the goal of stifling opposing voices and making a profit. This characteristic of mass culture is evident in the realm of reality television programming. To North American audiences, the concept of Survivor was unique. This audience had not yet been exposed to the ideas and events that took place on the show through the medium of television. Survivor, and all other “first-shows” of the sub-genres of reality television including Joe Millionaire, represent a contemporary form of elite culture. “The [first-shows] in each of the [reality television sub-genres] have claimed the highest ratings and been considered [as] the standard bearer.”15 These shows are perceived as new, artistic, and intellectually stimulating. Each successful reality television sub-genre quickly evolves into a state of mass culture. Successful programs are duplicated immediately, due in part to the fact that “a reality show can be cast, shot, and edited in a matter of weeks.”16 Homogeneous programming currently dominates the 13 Dominic Strinati, An Introduction to Theories of Popular Culture (New York: Routledge, 2004), 13. Strinati, An Introduction to Theories of Popular Culture, 2. 15 Huff, Reality Television, 98. 16 Huff, Reality Television, 99. 14 airwaves, thus reducing the availability of prime-time space for new and innovative shows. The copycat epidemic that is the very nature of reality television programming is rampant to such a degree that every series has either a duplicate or an extension; Dancing with the Stars or Skating with Celebrities, Miami Ink or Inked, Super Nanny or Nanny 911, Wife Swap or Trading Spouses. The choice of which reality series to choose from is virtually endless, although the choice of content is not. Reality television embodies a dominant characteristic of mass culture, which is the search for a profit. This is most evident in programs such as American Idol, Rock Star: INXS, and Rock Star: Supernova where the audience has the opportunity to vote by telephone for their favourite contestant. The audience is charged for each vote that they cast. Real-life forms of reality television serve an informational purpose. Little People, Big World strives to provide its audience with insight into the life of a little person. Although the networks that broadcast real-life forms of reality television earn a profit from advertising revenue, the program itself represents a form of popular culture. It is made by the people, specifically the subject that is being portrayed, for the people. By sharing their experiences with the viewing public, the Roloff family works to eliminate discrimination against little people and to create a higher level of understanding about dwarfism. Celebrity forms of real-life reality television are simultaneously a form of popular culture and mass culture. House of Carters reunited the five Carter siblings, including Backstreet Boy Nick Carter and pop singer Aaron Carter, who resided in a house together while they worked on their individual careers for a period of two months. House of Carters represents a form of popular culture because it was produced by both Aaron and Nick. The two brothers created the series in order to express life as a celebrity from their point of view. It was therefore created by the people for the people. Due to the celebrity status that had previously been achieved by the Carters, the television program may also be classified as mass culture. The show was produced and aired by the network in order to earn a profit. The program also mimics previously-aired celebrity real-life reality programs such as The Osbournes, Newlyweds: Nick and Jessica, and The Ashley Simpson Project. Television as a Social Force Television serves many purposes for both its audience and the corporate sector. Audiences use television as a medium for entertainment, for information, and for education. Contemporary corporations use the medium as a tool of persuasion in order to earn revenue from both advertisers and consumers by gaining market share for their products and services. Contemporary media theorist John Hartley argues that “television is used, both in its original ‘mass’ broadcast form and […] in its emergent subscriber-choice form, […] to create media citizens.”17 He argues that the television audience is a supernational community that is reached by both governments and corporations alike through broadcasting.18 In terms of reality television, Hartley’s term “democratainment” rings true. For example, the audiences of American Idol participate in the elimination of potential candidates through a voting process. 17 18 John Hartley, “Democratainment,” The Television Studies Reader (London: Routledge, 2004), 524. Hartley, “Democratainment,” The Television Studies Reader, 527. The term media citizen may be perceived positively if one assumes that by viewing television, individuals are being responsible citizens; they are seeking information, they becoming informed about the issues and subjects that are being broadcast, and they are determining the success of programs and participants. However, responsible citizens should question the information that they are receiving; they should play Devil’s Advocate and attempt to find inconsistencies and inaccuracies in these messages. Television does not permit such questioning. The feedback that may be transmitted from the viewer to the broadcaster is limited. Hartley calls attention to the hidden agenda of broadcasters and corporations who exploit television as a medium to reach their audiences. Television teaches its audiences “to continue to watch television […] by providing narrative and dramatic genres that promote consumption […] and by using semiotic devices at every level from dialogue to plot, characterization to casting, [and] language to location.”19 By capturing the attention of an audience, a program creates a core fan-base. These fans become enthralled by the program that they are viewing; they participate in online discussions and groups about the show, they attend conferences and conventions with participants of the program, and they purchase merchandise related to the show. This cycle of watching and consuming becomes entrenched into their routines. This television phenomenon is not limited to the realm of reality programming, although that is the primary focus of this paper. A contemporary example of the audience observationconsumption cycle may be noted when considering the audiences of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The first season of Buffy originally aired in 1997 as a half season. The show had a small budget and was meant to fill a void in a prime-time spot. However, the series developed a loyal following due in part to the nature of the characters, the storyline, and a previous-established fan-base from the 1992 film of the same title. The series was picked up for a full second-season, and lasted a total of seven seasons. The series developed a devoted fan-base worldwide who communicated with each other via a corporate sponsored posting-board. Annual posting board parties (PBPs) were held in the United States that were attended by the stars, producers, and fans of the series. Merchandise was readily available that included action figures, comic books, trading cards, novels, and jewellery. Buffy the Vampire Slayer was a pivotal contributor to creating a virtual community that involved the fans and participants of the program. Relationships were formed that transgressed national borders, including that of a man in British Columbia who met his wife from England through the online forum. Why Reality Television Works Reality television as a genre has achieved an untouchable level of success. MTV’s The Real World has recently completed its seventeenth season,20 Survivor is currently airing its fourteenth,21 and American Idol is its sixth season.22 19 Hartley, “Democratainment,” The Television Studies Reader, 527. MTV Networks Inc., Real World: Key West (www.mtv.com: MTV Networks Inc., 2007). 21 CBS Broadcasting Inc., Survivor: Fiji (www.cbs.com: CBS Broadcasting Inc., 2007) 22 FOX, American Idol (www.americanidol.com: Fremantle Media North America Inc.). 20 “The idea that [the audience is] watching real people in all their unscripted vulnerability is central to the premise of reality [television].”23 Reality television appeals to both the voyeuristic and exhibitionistic nature of human beings24. The genre is exhibitionistic in terms of the participants, and voyeuristic in terms of the viewing audience. Reality television also embodies personification and projection. The audience not only empathizes with the subjects of reality television, but can also see themselves participating in many of the programs. The imagined authenticity of the programs attributes greatly to the popularity of reality television. “Fans of the genre are drawn by the fact that the emotions of the [subjects] are real.”25 In actuality, many situations that are broadcast have been filmed numerous times from many angles. As noted by Huff in his extensive study of reality television, “producers will frequently reshoot moments if they’ve missed dialog or want the subjects to say something more clearly, or more directly, or to get a better angle.”26 The democratic nature of audience participation, in terms of voting, creates the illusion that the individual has the power to contribute to and alter the outcome of a reality television program. September 11, 2001 On September 11, 2001 at 8:46am, American Flight 11 from Boston crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City. Less than 20 minutes later, a second plane crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center. The planes had both been hijacked and rerouted to New York City. By 10:30 am, both towers had collapsed.27 Two other planes were also hijacked; one striking the Pentagon and a second crashing into a field near Pittsburgh. The approximate death toll of the 9/11 attacks is nearly 3,000 people.28 Unquestionable Patriotism Before the dust had settled from the collapse of the World Trade Center, Americans were uniting to cope with their grief. Among the cries of sadness and despair that rose out from the survivors and witnesses of 9/11, came a demand for answers and for vengeance. “The Bush Administration did everything possible to portray the United States as a blindsided, innocent victim.”29 It wasn’t until May 2002 that news was leaked about pre-9/11 warnings30 that US Government had received. 23 Justin Lewis, “The Meaning of Real Life,” Reality TV: remaking television culture (New York: New York University Press, 2004), 288. 24 Mark Andrejevic, Reality TV: The Work of Being Watched (United States of America: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc., 2004), 180. 25 Andrejevic, Reality TV: The Work of Being Watched, 189. 26 Huff, Reality Television, 174. 27 September11News.com, Attack Images and Graphics (www.september11news.com: September11News.com, 2001-2003). 28 CNN.com, September 11: A Memorial (www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/: Cable News Network, 2007). 29 James Bovard, Terrorism and Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice, and Peace to Rid the World of Evil, 1. 30 Bovard, Terrorism and Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice, and Peace to Rid the World of Evil, 59. In the days and months following 9/11, the Bush Administration vowed to bring justice to those that were responsible for the attacks against the United States of America, although all the pilots that had hijacked the airplanes had perished during the tragedy. The U.S. President nevertheless declared war against enemies of freedom, and all dissenting voices were either punished or silenced. The Dixie Chicks, a popular country music group, spoke out against President Bush and his policies pertaining to the War on Terror. The popularity of the group dropped instantly, radio stations refused to play their songs, and members of the band received death threats for voicing their opinion. Combating Terrorism On September 13, 2001, a mere two days after the attacks on the United States of America, the Bush Administration proposed the Combating Terrorism Act to Congress. The act [empowered] federal prosecutors to authorize short-term wiretaps without a judge’s approval and [permitted] the Federal Bureau of Investigation to vacuum up millions of people’s email with its Carnivore wiretap system.”31 The Combating Terrorism Act directly violated the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights which prohibited unreasonable searches of the persons, houses, papers, and effects of the American people.32 The Administration used fear and intimidation to pass the legislation as the USAPATRIOT Act. Dissenting voices to the proposed policy changes were criticized openly by the Bush Administration for protecting terrorists and for condoning terrorism. These voices were blamed for possible future attacks on U.S. soil. Legislation was either voted on before the documents were fully-drafted by the Government or on the same day they were received by members of Congress. Robert L. Barr, Jr., a House Representative for the State of Georgia, questioned the Assistant Attorney General on the post-9/11 proposed policy changes: “Why is it necessary to propose a laundry list of changes to criminal law generally and criminal procedures generally to cast such a wide net? And why is it necessary to rush this through? Does it have anything to do with the fact that the Department [of Justice] has sought many of these authorities on numerous other occasions, has been unsuccessful in obtaining them, and now seeks to take advantage of what is obviously an emergency situation?”33 On October 26, 2001, the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (the USA-PATRIOT Act) was signed into law. The USA-PATRIOT Act Prior to the enactment of the USA-PATRIOT Act, the Federal Bureau of Investigation used a digital collection system by the name of Carnivore to tap into the emails of the American public. “Carnivore is contained in a black box that the FBI compels Internet Service Providers to attach 31 Bovard, Terrorism and Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice, and Peace to Rid the World of Evil, 63. Bovard, Terrorism and Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice, and Peace to Rid the World of Evil, 64. 33 Bovard, Terrorism and Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice, and Peace to Rid the World of Evil, 67. 32 to their operating system. […] [The system] can automatically impound the emails of all the customers using that ISP.”34 The PATRIOT Act amended the federal wiretap statute to include the use of Carnivore and keystroke-recording software, which may be used without a wiretap order – meaning at the discretion of individual FBI agents.35 The PATRIOT Act “empowers FBI agents to [enter] any library or bookstore and demand a list of what people have borrowed, bought, […] or even what people have asked about.”36 The Act prohibits the disclosure of such search demands by employees of bookstores and libraries to clients. Section 213 of the PATRIOT Act states, “searches can be done in secret if federal agents assert that there is reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result.”37 In other words, there are effectively no restrictions on the search powers of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. These searches may be done in secret, without the individual under scrutiny ever being privileged to the occurrence or the results. The PATRIOT Act [requires] that the Department of Justice […] report to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees every six months on how often […] the new investigatory powers were being used.38 However, the Department of Justice has deemed information on the frequency of use of PATRIOT Act provisions classified. All in the Name of National Security The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was enacted in 1978. Under new provisions that have been enacted since 9/11, the government need only demonstrate that a person is a suspected agent of a foreign power or terrorist organization to impose a wiretap.39 Operation Terrorist Information and Prevention System (TIPS) was proposed in 2002. The operation consisted of “a nationwide program [that gave] millions of American truckers, letter carriers, train conductors, ship captains, [and among others], utility employees […] a formal way to report suspicious terrorist activity.”40 Operation TIPS was banned by Congress as unethical and unconstitional due to an elevated likelihood that the system could be abused by anyone with a personal vendetta. A tracking system was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency in December of 2002 by the name of Total Information Awareness (TIA). 41 The mission statement of TIA was to “detect, classify, and identify foreign terrorists, decipher their plans, and thereby enable the U.S. to take timely action to successfully preempt and defeat terrorist acts.”42 In order to achieve their mission statement, TIA proposed monitoring all phone calls made or received by 34 Bovard, Terrorism and Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice, and Peace to Rid the World of Evil, 134. Bovard, Terrorism and Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice, and Peace to Rid the World of Evil, 136. 36 Bovard, Terrorism and Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice, and Peace to Rid the World of Evil, 141. 37 Bovard, Terrorism and Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice, and Peace to Rid the World of Evil, 143. 38 Bovard, Terrorism and Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice, and Peace to Rid the World of Evil, 161. 39 Bovard, Terrorism and Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice, and Peace to Rid the World of Evil, 137. 40 Bovard, Terrorism and Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice, and Peace to Rid the World of Evil, 154. 41 Electronic Privacy Information Center, “Total Information Awareness,” EPIC Terrorism (Total) Information Awareness Page (EPIC, March 21, 2005). 42 Bovard, Terrorism and Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice, and Peace to Rid the World of Evil, 157. 35 American citizens, classifying these calls in a national database, creating a national registry of all gun owners, and achieving Human Identification at a Distance through face, iris, and gait recognition. Congress eliminated funding for TIA in September of 2003.43 The Department of Homeland Security was created in 2002. Legislation pertaining to this new department included the Cyber Security Enhancement Act, “which empowered almost any government agency to demand copies of citizens’ emails without a court warrant.”44 Lack of Resistance There exists countless reasons to explain the lack of public opposition that should have followed the surge in the Bush Administration’s post-9/11 legislation pertaining to the increased government surveillance of the American public. The American public may have been living in fear; fear of another terrorist attack, fear of losing more lives, or fear of being the next target. The American public may also have had a desire for vengeance; to inflict suffering on others out of hope that their own would cease. These reasons, along with other emotional responses (numbness, denial, etc), do not explain why the American public has remained passive until recently, and only after horrors such as the events at Abu Ghraib were exposed by the media. Perhaps then, it is not merely a coincidence that the Fox television network has tried so desperately to position itself successfully in the realm of reality television. The Fox News Network has been highly criticized for being bias towards to the Republican Party, as well as the Bush Administration and its’ policies. Robert Greenwald’s Outfoxed argues that by using slogans such as “Fair and Balanced” the Fox News Network is misleading the American public to believe that they are being presented with both sides of the political spectrum – which is simply not the case. Fox News Network frequently runs editorial pieces immediately preceding or succeeding the news pieces, many of which are presented by the same person. Rupert Murdoch, the CEO of The News Channel and its subsidiaries which include the Fox News Channel, has worked to ensure a Republican attitude in all broadcasts. It is prohibited for news anchors to question the policies of the Bush Administration or to run a piece that casts doubt on those policies. Mark Andrejevic, a contemporary mass communications theorist, argues that the constant observation which is the essential component of reality television programming has resulted in audiences and participants “becoming not only accustomed to constant surveillance, but almost reliant on it.”45 There is an assumption by the audiences of reality programming that the content of the series is authentic because the cast members are drawn from the general public. In actuality, cast members are selected through intense screening processes in order to ensure a desired level of drama and diversity. Andrejevic expresses concern that not only are the participants being watched by the audiences, but the audiences are simultaneously being watched by the advertisers. Therefore, as audiences become less critical of the fact that they are being scrutinized by advertisers, they must also become less critical of that the fact that they are being observed by their government. The advertisers and the government become indistinguishable from one other. 43 Electronic Privacy Information Center, “Total Information Awareness,” EPIC Terrorism (Total) Information Awareness Page 44 Bovard, Terrorism and Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice, and Peace to Rid the World of Evil, 161. 45 Andrejevic, Reality TV: The Work of Being Watched, 107. Big Brother: Past and Present Beginning in 1949, with the publication of George Orwell’s 1984, the term “Big Brother” became synonymous with any form of government surveillance. Orwell’s “Big Brother” referred to the figurehead of the dominant, or sole, political party of the State. The members of Oceania, which includes present-day Europe, were under constant surveillance by their government whether they were at work, outdoors, or at home. The State controlled all publications that were available, both past and present. If any document contradicted the values of the Party or the information put forth by the Party, then that document was altered or destroyed. “The invention of print […] made it easier to manipulate public opinion, and the film and the radio carried the process further. With the development of television, and the technical advances which made it possible to receive and transmit simultaneously on the same instrument, private life came to an end. Every citizen, or at least every citizen important enough to be worth watching, could be kept for twenty-four hours a day under the eyes of the police and in the sound of official propaganda, with all other channels of communication closed. The possibility of enforcing not only complete obedience to the will of the State, but complete uniformity of opinion on all subjects, now existed for the first time.”46 CBS televised the first episode of Big Brother to North American audiences in the summer of 2000. Ten contestants were placed in a house together, where they were under twenty-four hour surveillance. [Big Brother] “emerged minute by minute on the streaming Web feeds, but was controlled, produced, and structured through selective editing [by] the producers for the nightly television [recap].”47 The houseguests competed for a monetary prize, but the viewers cast the deciding vote about which contestants remained in the house. Although the first season of Big Brother received little media attention, viewership increased during the second season and in 2006, Big Brother aired its’ seventh season. Andrejevic has observed that through reality television programming, including CBS’s Big Brother, the very notion of “Big Brother” has been transformed from [an] authoritarian monster to [a] harmless figure of ridicule.48 It is this very transformation that has naturalized Big Brother and State surveillance. The Self-fulfilling Prophecy It is reasonable to assume that the works of George Orwell have not fallen on deaf ears. It is also certain that in 1984, citizens of the world were relieved to find that they still had immense freedom. Forgive Orwell. His predictions were a couple decades too early. In 2004, the situation in North America, especially in the United States of America, is quickly approaching the circumstances that Orwell foretold. The laws that are currently being passed and the programs that are being experimented with are merely a stepping-stone to the 46 George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four (England: Penguin Books, 1990), 214. Pamela Wilson, “Jamming Big Brother: Webcasting, Audience Intervention, and Narrative Activism,” Reality Television: Remaking Television Culture (New York: New York University Press, 2004), 324. 48 Andrejevic, Reality TV: The Work of Being Watched, 96. 47 predicted totalitarian society. After 9/11, all media and public opinion consented to (or rather failed to dissent against) the policies of the Bush Administration. We as individuals must ask ourselves: Have we finally reached Nineteen eighty-four? Jean Baudrillard’s conclusion in his study of reality television demonstrates the shift in attitudes that has taken place regarding surveillance. He states: “We are exposed to the instantaneous retransmission of all our facts and gestures on whatever channel. We would have experienced this before as police control. Today it is just like an advertising promotion.”49 Perhaps it is the very nature of contemporary reality television that has naturalized government surveillance. During the early stages of the genre, there was innocence. The game show and talent show programs of the 1950s and the 1960s were entertaining and did not have a hidden agenda. Contemporary reality television programming is demeaning and devious. It plays on the fears of the audience and the participants alike. Audience involvement extends far beyond voting into a state of projection where the audience is able to empathize with the participants while simultaneously imagining themselves in their place. In times of distress, we need only look to reality television in order to put life into perspective. Sure, the American public may be knee-deep and sinking faster into the realm of continual observation and complete compliancy – but, at least they don’t have to eat bugs. 49 Andrejevic, Reality TV: The Work of Being Watched, 113. Works Cited Andrejevic, Mark. Reality TV: The Work of Being Watched. United States of America: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc., 2004. Bovard, James. Terrorism and Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice, and Peace to Rid the World of Evil. New York: Plagrave Macmillan, 2003. CBS Broadcasting Inc. Survivor: Fiji. CBS Broadcasting Inc., 2007, www.cbs.com. CNN.com. September 11: A Memorial. Cable News Network, 2007, www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/. Electronic Privacy Information Center. “Total Information Awareness,” EPIC Terrorism (Total) Information Awareness Page. EPIC, March 21, 2005. FOX. American Idol. Fremantle Media North America Inc., www.americanidol.com. Hartley, John. “Democratainment,” The Television Studies Reader. London: Routledge, 2004. Huff, Richard M. Reality Television. United States of America: Praeger Publishers, 2006. Internet Movie Database Inc. “Star Search (1983),” Internet Movie Database. Internet Movie Database Inc, 1990-2007, www.imdb.com. Lewis, Justin. “The Meaning of Real Life,” Reality TV: remaking television culture. New York: New York University Press, 2004. MTV Networks Inc., Real World: Key West. MTV Networks Inc, 2007, www.mtv.com. Orwell, George. Nineteen Eighty-Four. England: Penguin Books, 1990. September11News.com. Attack Images and Graphics. September11News.com: 2001-2003, www.september11news.com. Strinati, Dominic. An Introduction to Theories of Popular Culture, 2nd Edition. New York: Routledge, 2004. Wilson, Pamela. “Jamming Big Brother: Webcasting, Audience Intervention, and Narrative Activism,” Reality Television: Remaking Television Culture. New York: New York University Press, 2004.