EW:

Russell Armstrong was more than $1.5 million in debt at the time of his suicide Monday, according to his attorney, and his mother told Headline News that he was dreading the way he would be portrayed in the upcoming season of The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. “Before the new season even started, before he took his life, he said, ‘Mom, they’re just going to crucify me this season,’” John Ann Hotchkiss told HLN’s Issues with Jane Velez-Mitchell. “He said, ‘I don’t know what to do. I’ll never survive it.’”

Armstrong’s attorney Ronald Richards told ABC News that the show’s celebration of outrageous excess plunged Armstrong into debt “as a result of trying to keep up with expectations for the lavish lifestyle portrayed on the show.

“These couples join these shows, and then they keep trying to outdo each other and they end up spending all their money trying to sustain a lifestyle that’s unrealistic and wasn’t there prior to the show,” continued Richards. “The weekly social events, the dinners and all the BS, trying to pretend you have unlimited resources in Beverly Hills is tough. When every night is a potential sound bite or posting on a website, you end up getting addicted to it, you go out all the time.”

Full story here.

There seems to be a cast type of the main characters for all of these “Housewives” shows: the not-so-bright but good hearted one, the bossy one, the one your a little jealous of, the lost one, and of course, the villain. On the New Jersey saga, the one who I thought was a little bit lost was Dina Manzo because it was hard to tell what she was searching for in life and was constantly seeking peace with teas, gems, and a spiritualist who became her BFF. Dina could not take the bad energy of the villain so she left mid-season, as did the villain Danielle Staub, who is now seeking treatment in stripper rehab after a three day gyration binge at Scores… I wish I was kidding.

As I awaited the new season of “RHONJ,” I was eager to see the prior Jerseyites who are Caroline–the bossy one, Jacqueline–the one I’m a little jealous of because no matter how many degrees are on my wall, my lifestyle is nowhere near what her’s is, and Teresa–the not so bright one, as evidenced by her malapropisms, but appears to be sweet and happy no matter what the circumstances are.

In between last season and the current season, it was made public that Teresa and her husband Joe Guidice were in bankruptcy and the opulent lifestyle that they flaunted on the show was really owned by Bank of America. The Guidice’s publicly stated that everything was great and they were victims of the economy. Unfortunately, I have seen this way too many times where the blame is put on everything from the dot.com bubble burst of 2000 to the recall of Skippy Peanut Butter and not people accepting what their actual net income is, also referred to as living in denial. We had also witnessed Teresa’s Italian temper–as she called it–in the famous table flipping episode in Season 1, which has been replayed more times than Lindsey Lohan walking into a court.

With all these intentional characters in place going about their business as if there were no cameras, even though anyone that has done any filming for TV knows there has to be crew to produce TV-quality work, I was very uneasy watching this season because the behavior now passed splurging on junk food and crossed over to sexism, violence, and ageism.

Lets start with violence. Two new characters brought in are related to Teresa: her bother Joe Gorga and his wife Melissa, and her cousin Kathy Wakile and her husband Rich, who looks like Robert DeNiro as Sam Rothstein in the last scene of the movie “Casino.” Melissa has now replaced Teresa as the not so bright one, Kathy is the lost one and Teresa has now become the villain. There is clearly jealousy and tension between brother and sister and at the Christening which they all kept exclaiming was so sacred, there was quite a bit of boozing. Having been to numerous Christenings, I do not recall people doing shots like it was a bachelor party. A few scenes later after gossiping about each other and spearing the stink eye across the room, Teresa went over to congratulate her brother and his wife, which only agitated her brother to the point of him slamming the table like a neanderthal and ordering his sister to get away from him. As more back and forth power struggles ensued, what happened next was really revolting: Joe Gorga became enraged like someone spilled drambuie on his  Adidas track suit as the venue was filled with children of all ages, playing or in strollers. Then a brawl broke out that you would expect from The Situation of the “Jersey Shore,” except it wasn’t in a dive bar but in front of all these kids dressed in their Church clothes. In addition, to watch a sister flinch because she is afraid her brother is going to take a swing is abusive and is not what I consider to be a little brain candy.

The next scene after the dust up, which I am sure every catering hall owner looks forward to, Teresa and her husband Joe are outside and husband Joe tells her to “shut up,” which is separate from the condescending tone with which he normally speaks to her.  Really Joe?  “Shut up,” on TV?  Nice.  Do you speak to your Mother that way or just your wife? I am sure if someone spoke to any one of your four daughters like that, you would want to take care of business. While I am on my sexism tirade, we could use a little less of Joe Gorga constantly wanting to maul his wife and expressing the fact that part of her job is to take care of him.  We get it, Joe Pesci, noodles and nookie.

Next, ageism came from Teresa. One nemesis, Kim G., is a reality show star wanna-be who has it in for Teresa, now that Danielle is gone. Teresa has stated that Kim G. is elderly. At an event where Kim G. was a few tables from her and was no doubt talking about Teresa, Teresa again made another old lady reference about Kim G. until Caroline told her to pipe down; Kim G. is about four years older than Caroline, who is in her late 40’s. Everyone has a different definition of what is considered, old but I think elderly is pretty well defined as at least 80 and above.  Really, Teresa, its so derogatory when you demean another woman that way, whether you like her or not, and it will come back to bite you in the backside someday.

One would hope that a reality show depicting housewives and their families who are all parents to mostly underage children would be better behaved and more mature than their kids but its not, which only means that this particular show will be duplicated many times over as long as there is money to be made, lives to be humiliated, and audiences who will eat it up no matter what discriminatory behavior is aired.

Stacy Drake at Conservatives for Palin:

Jim Geraghty has penned an article criticizing Governor Palin for a law she signed in 2008 that offers tax breaks to film companies who do business in Alaska. Geraghty states that the production company for “Sarah Palin’s Alaska” took part in the program and that it might be “problematic” for the governor “on the campaign trail.”

He writes:

It isn’t too hard to imagine this becoming problematic for Sarah Palin on the campaign trail, as noted by the Tax Foundation:

In case you missed it, small government crusader and Tea Party favorite Sarah Palin’s TLC reality show “Sarah Palin’s Alaska” received a $1.2 million subsidy from the state of Alaska. The show spent $3.6 million on production in the state, meaning that Alaskan taxpayers covered a third of the cost of the show. The show will apparently not have a second season.

Everything Palin has done has been perfectly legal, but it looks problematic for a crusader for small government to end up collecting a seven-figure paycheck from an endeavor that received a seven-figure subsidy, all set up by a program she signed into law. Of course, Palin set up the subsidy in 2008, and the TLC series wasn’t filmed until the summer of 2010, after Palin resigned as governor.

Which begs the question…. What’s the problem?

If Governor Palin signed a law in 2008, and somebody she had a business agreement with took advantage of that law in 2010 (while she was no longer in office), where is the issue? Governor Palin was not in charge of the show’s production. Any decision by her was made well before she even considered doing her own show. The decision to take the tax break from the state, was not made by her, but by the production company.

Read the full piece here.

Governor Palin responds in the Daily Caller here.

So while the Oxygen Network is busy promoting “The World According to Paris” and hoping it is the type of “edgy” television that will make that horrible network relevant to the entertainment world, we are giving you a few celebrities who are more worthy of their own show than Paris Hilton. 

Lindsay Lohan is probably a pretty good candidate to have her own reality show.  There are few things that the American television audience likes more than stuff covered in chocolate.  One of the items on that short list would be watching a celebrity crash and burn.  Ironically, that same list would also include the redemption of the aforementioned celebrity, and their return from a booze and cocaine induced brink of disaster.  Lindsay still has pop culture value and considering the fact that the dress she recently wore to court is now sold out just about everywhere, apparently many still find her intriguing.  Let’s face it; it’s only a matter of time before Ms. Lohan shows up on Dr. Drew’s couch at “Celebrity Rehab.”  If she can stay out of jail long enough to make the pretentious claim of “being off the drugs and high on life,” a show that chronicles this burnt out star’s efforts to reignite may be a ratings draw.  Of course if you want to give the viewers what they really want, cover her in chocolate and let nature take its course. 

Brett Favre can’t decide whether he is retired, seems confused by the concept of “no means no,” and has inadvertently shared pics of his stubby little goal post with the entire world.  While all this has destroyed his legacy as a gridiron hero, it has raised his pop-culture profile.  A show based around his life and exploits as searches for a life beyond football would probably have a lot of viewers.  Well, at least for one season. Hey, if Hulk Hogan could sustain a show about his family for four, full seasons, then why not Brett?  If some network threw him in a house with Ben Roethlisberger, Michael Vick, and Marv Albert, it would be the reality show equivalent of mating “Lord of the Flies” and the “Tailhook” convention with the Manhattan Project.  It would be messy, but lots of fun to watch. 

Finally, a lot of shows have been successful in the past by pulling a Z list star from the nether regions of the entertainment world and giving them a reality show.  Most of these programs seem to wind up on VH-1.  “The Flavor of Love,” “My Fair Brady”, and “Breaking Bonaduce” are some prime examples.  The history of this genre has shown that these efforts work best when the “star” either falls into the “quirky” category or is a complete a**hole.  With this in mind, a show based around the concept of finding Dustin “Screech” Diamond from “Saved by the Bell” or Urkel a mate would probably be entertaining for a season or two.  While the idea sounds silly on its face, who would have ever thought that a washed up, occasionally incarcerated, crackhead like Flavor Flav would score respectable ratings by turning the efforts to find his next baby-mama into a reality show.  

I am sure there is a whole world of washed up celebrities out there who could sustain their own reality program.  Paris Hilton is a bad gamble for any network, and her 15 minutes were up a long time ago.  The only worse decision that Oxygen could have possibly made would be creating a show that featured Mel Gibson discussing Woman’s issues and racial tolerance.

This time it was penned by a “TV critic” for the Washington Post named Lisa de Moraes. De Moraes is well known for constantly injecting left-wing asides into her work and her Nov. 19 attack on the Palins is no exception.

She misled her readers (all 20 of them, I’m sure) right off the bat with her snotty headline, “Sarah Palin tries to lure Bristol’s huge ‘DWTS’ audience to her far less popular TLC reality series.”

What is with this “her far less popular” epithet? This claim is not based in logic.

De Moraes went on with her accusatory rhetoric.

Sarah Palin hopes to lure her daughter Bristol’s 20 million viewers to her own, far less popular, reality TV series this coming Sunday:

“Ah yes…Bristol-the-diva! Silly critics! See her diva-ish-ness Sunday, ‘Sarah Palin’s Alaska’ 2 learn truth, before assuming. Thanks & enjoy!” Sarah Palin tweeted Thursday afternoon.

Of course her every word is but hatemongering, left-wing spin not based on any real truthful analysis of TV. After all, anyone with a basic grasp of the statistics of TV would understand that her sniping was simply not based in reality.

First of all the 20 million viewers that “Dancing With the Stars” gets are not “daughter Bristol’s 20 million viewers.” They are the viewers of the show that Bristol happens to be appearing on for this one season. So, de Moraes’s first snark is not based in truth.

Secondly, Sarah’s Tweet was but a good-natured poke at her own daughter, the sort of ribbing every healthy family indulges with each other. Sure it was an advertisement for her own TLC show, but critic de Moraes is more interested in imputing a darker meaning to the good-natured Tweet: jealousy.

The simple fact of the matter is that TLC’s cable channel does not attract the sort of viewing numbers that any of the old three TV networks attract. So Palin’s TLC show could never achieve the numbers that “Dancing With the Stars” or practically any other network TV show garners.

According to Nielson, for instance, the number of TV households across the country stood at 114.5 million for the 2008-2009 season and the big three appears on all of them. As it stands now, ABC, CBS and NBC rarely get less than an average of twenty million viewers a night of all shows combined on their network in primetime and DWTS got nearly 20 million last week all by itself.

For its part TLC appears in fewer homes than the big three. According to TLC the cable channel appears in 99 million American homes. For those counting that’s a difference of some 15 million fewer homes than the big three.

Another way to compare: for the week of Nov. 8 the top rated non-sports show was “Dancing with the Stars” with nearly 20 million viewers. Yet the top rated non-sports cable show was Nick@Nite’s “Spongebob Squarepants” with just a bit over six million viewers. Cable simply doesn’t come close to the viewers the big three networks get.

De Moraes tried to pretend she was a real critic by adding this:

While Sarah Palin’s new TLC reality series attracted TLC’s biggest series-debut audience ever, that amounted to only 5 million viewers — a tiny crowd compared to the 20-million-ish who have been watching this season of ABC’s “Dancing With the Stars” on which her daughter has made it all the way to the finals. Because, no matter what people might say about cable TV taking over the universe, there’ s still nothing like a broadcast network for reaching a gigantic number of people.

Notice how de Moraess is trying to have it both ways? In one breath she is saying that Palin’s show is “far less popular” yet on the other saying that a cable show can’t possibly get the same numbers as a network TV show. So, even as she admits that trying to compare a cable audience to a broadcast TV audience is absurd, she still rests her entire snarky point on imagining that Sarah’s show is “far less popular” than “Dancing With the Stars.”

Still, “Sarah Palin’s Alaska” brought 5 million viewers for its debut episode, a smashing success for TLC. Even wth that success, for de Moraes to try to compare DWTS with Palin’s TLC show is idiotic. It’s apples to oranges… or apples to grizzlies at least. The fact is Sarah Palin’s show could be the most popular show on cable and still not get the numbers that the big three get. “Popularity” isn’t the proper measuring stick and de Moraes knows it.

So, what do we have here? We have a supposed TV critic misleading readers into thinking that Palin’s TLC show is “far less popular” than the show her daughter appears on, we get a TV critic discounting the massive numbers of 5 million viewers Palin did get by presenting that stat as somehow incidental when it is nothing short of amazing, and we get a TV critic trying to paint the momma grizzly as somehow jealous of her cub’s success on DWTS.

This “TV column” is not a reporting on TV. It is a ham-handed, cynical attempt to mislead readers into thinking ill of Sarah Palin, painting her in a bad light, and misconstruing the facts in the attempt.

In a recent televised interview, NJ Governor, Chris Christie, took issue over MTV’s latest boozy sleaze fest, Jersey Shore. To his credit, Christie immediately distanced New Jersey from the unprincipled series, explaining that most of the characters in the show were “imported from New York,” and that in no way do they reflect the good people of the Jersey shore. Good and decent people from any state or any political party would distance themselves from this kind of outrageous “entertainment” targeted toward their youth, including most of the fine people of New York. However, this is oddly not the case with many major advertisers. To the contrary, this poster-child series for all things disgusting about pop culture seems to have a magnetic allure to some of the biggest advertisers in America. 

Broadcasting and Cable reported last week that earnings on Viacom’s (MTV) cable networks “jumped” this year. An MTV exec said, “While some of the programming giving MTV a boost might be seen as controversial (an artful understatement) …content issues are not scaring off sponsors. Actually there were some issues when Jersey Shore first launched. Now we have advertisers scrambling to get on it …we’re turning them away.” Viacom’s chairman, Sumner Redstone, said of the sudden stampede of major ad sponsors, “…the light is brighter than it’s been for some time.”   

Of course, Mr. Redstone’s definition of “light” is likely worlds apart from yours, especially if you’re a parent. However, you can’t blame Sumner Redstone or MTV alone for “grabbing children below the belt and reaching for their wallets” (a perfectly descriptive phrase from an older PBS special on the subject entitled, “The Merchants of Cool”). The unfortunate reality for parents is that MTV has an enabling partner in American manufacturers to the tune of roughly $1 billion per year.  

An increasing number of major manufacturers hope that responsible moms and dads somehow won’t take note of their “controversial” sponsorships. The truth is that they are not simply “passive ad buys”. While they may not appear in any show credits, what American manufacturers don’t want you to understand is that they’re essentially the “Executive Producers” (defined often as the one providing the resources for an entertainment project) of these increasingly disturbing and titillating series targeting your children. 

A friend who founded two refreshingly responsible cable and broadcast networks informed me, “There are really only about 20 major advertisers that underwrite almost everything on television these days.” My question to those of you in the top 20 who decidedly fund unprincipled youth programming remains, “Do you have children or grandchildren?” If so, know that life absolutely imitates art. While I would not wish it on you, don’t be at all surprised if your own children or grandchildren grow up to live out the uncivil and perverse lifestyle you’ve so actively promoted to their generation. 

As someone who’s helped steer a brand into the top tier, you’re also smart enough to know that MTV has not simply reflected pop culture for the last 25 years, they’ve (you’ve) helped shape it. (Paradoxically, they’ve also helped shape the angry, entitlement-thinking mentality that’s suddenly spreading like a virus and threatening your very right to exist as a free-market company into the next generation, but I digress.)  

Advertisers, ask yourself an honest question before “Executive Producing” your next television series: “When I tuck my grandchildren into bed at night, is this series one I would be proud to tell them I helped finance?” Would you feel comfortable looking into their young eyes and telling them that grand dad/mom “really needed to brand to 12 to 24 year olds” so you reluctantly parted with your values and financed the profane (many say an ugly and racist stereotype of Italians) Jersey Shore; or perhaps the bi-sexual rapid-fire hookup series, A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila; or Next, the mean-spirited, rapid-fire dating series that rejects busloads of kids while publicly eroding their self worth?

Would you be willing to tell your grandchildren that you helped executive produce The Real World, where ethically bankrupt producers enlist young men and women to move in together and ply them with alcohol to see how many sexual hookups, how much foul language, loss of civility or fist fights they can catch on cameras placed in bedrooms and throughout the house — all to pull better ratings for your ads and provide more “light” for Viacom? 

I met with the heads of consumer advertising and product development for two of largest brands in America a few years ago and asked them each to look at a short five minute clip of what many young people spend five hours a day watching on MTV. In either case, they couldn’t make it through the first two minutes of the vulgar programming they’d helped finance for youth. You would have thought I was sticking needles in their eyes as one executive literally put his hands over his face and insisted, “OK, that’s enough!”

As I closed my laptop, their painfully awkward body language seemed to shout, “It’s brand or lose market share to 12 to 24 year olds, so we have to finance obscene programming for kids!” One of them actually did admit that they get push back from the religious community (that’s 75% of Americans that they must surely hope never awaken en-masse; add to that parent teacher groups, concerned educators, conscientious consumer clubs, etc.) and that their ad placements have even resulted in certain boycotts. “Boycotts?” I thought to myself, “can’t you bring yourselves to do the honorable thing for the sake of your own families without being forced to do so by product boycotts?”   

However, they did raise an interesting point that day. With all the momentum growing in America to restore integrity and decency for the next generation, it’s only fair to remind advertisers that there’s a burgeoning movement toward values coalescing in America — one that’s powerful enough to humble any brand that elects to stand with toxic pop culture and against their children. Unlike years past, the top 20 brands can change with surprising speed in a well-networked society and a massive, market-altering consumer block.   

As a side note to compromising advertisers, the more edgy and profane musicians that you likely fear your grandchildren may start emulating are also the result of your financial partnership with a music television network that’s consistently proven just how eager they are to reward bad behavior. To America’s international brands, let me say that at last count MTV has 138 international language feeds around the globe, again, largely propped up by your ad dollars.

Where perception is indeed reality a half a world away, and where America is already perceived as the “depraved culture of the Great Satan”, you may want to reconsider the entertainment you’re financing abroad — if not for the sake of children around the world at least as a matter of national security. Read Boston University’s post 9/11 poll entitled, “The Next Generation’s Image of Americans”, and then take stock of the direct role you’re playing in America’s deadly and spreading global image crisis. Finally, for God’s sake, please give our sons and daughters fighting for your freedoms better international “air support” than low-life, indecent American youth programming. 

Talk show host, Bill O’Reilly, once dubbed MTV “the cesspool of television.” Well said. However, it’s their advertising partners who are steam shoveling the ever-widening cesspool for our children to fall into — advertisers who seem to have forgotten that, “with great power comes great responsibility.”

Chicago’s gadfly Father Pfleger, close friend of Minister Louis Farrakhan, outspoken anti-gun crusader, sanctuary city supporter, and liberation theologist is the Southside religious leader who once openly wished for the death of a local businessman and also once said, “America is the greatest sin against God.” Pfleger has been the subject of many “reviews” by the Catholic Church and was once suspended after attacking Hillary Clinton as a “white person” who felt privileged because of her race.

New show producer, Bud Billikin of Chicago’s South Side Productions, Inc., has announced that the new show will follow the Father Pfleger as he embarks on the adventure of a lifetime, a run for Mayor of Chicago.

On Friday Pfleger is expected to announce his run against long-time Democrat strongman Richard Daley whose father, a Mayor before him, was famed for having “helped” JFK win the White House in 1960.

“We expect quite a show,” Billikin told reporters. “The good Father has all sorts of great catch phrases to make his run interesting and what a speaker! Once these two get head-to-head in a debate the Father is sure to make Mayor Daley look like the bumbling, inarticulate fool he is.”

Upon news of this new reality show, major networks all across the dial have become intrigued by this epic battle between the Activist Catholic Father and his African American community and the long-time Mayor of Chicago with his Democrat machine dominated by white, Irish Democrats…

Oh, but wait… that would never happen, would it? No one in TV would ever want to embarrass a Democrat like this, would they?

Too bad the same can’t be said for a Republican. At least we can say that when considering the probable motives behind this idiotic new “reality” TV show that is supposed to feature the dim-witted Levi Johnston, famed for being a media-propped thorn in Governor Sarah Palin’s side, running for Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, Palin’s home town.

Imagine if an idea like one I started this story with were true? Wouldn’t the left rise up in unison to destroy whomever suggested such an idiotic TV show starring the likes of a Father Pfleger? Wouldn’t the embarrassment for the left be too much for them to bear? Or what if a “reality” TV show following Paula Jones, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, or Monica Lewinski were planned? Heck, what if there was proposed a 60 Minutes documentary on “the birth certificate” all meant to lead readers to wonder what the real truth was? In fact, not a soul in Hollywood would ever even dream of offering such shows as these. They’d never even be considered for a second.

Yet the producer for this vapid Levi Johnston whose 15 minutes has been up for years already is claiming that there’s “a ton of interest” in this insipid show following the empty-headed Levi Johnston.

So why might that be? Might it be that Hollywood and the Old Media establishment will do anything to stick a pin in Sarah’s possible run for the White House? Or if not trying to kill her possible campaign, at least trying at every turn possible to discredit it ahead of time?

It’s just some food for thought, isn’t it?

Back in the good old days of television, there were really only three networks that provided most of the news and entertainment.  This meant that “Magnum P.I.” Tom Selleck only had to drive his Ferrari over James Naughton of “Trauma Center” and “Gimme a Break’s” Nell Carter to win his time slot.  Granted even the powerful car may have had problems getting over the, well, um…ample form of Ms. Carter, but Mr. Selleck managed to do it and charm his way to a ratings number of 22.4.  The success of the show, which had a lot to do with Tom’s massive appeal to the television audience, justified his $50,000 per episode price tag.  In today’s money that translates into over $100,000 per episode.  It is no longer 1983 though, and the times have dramatically changed. 

If Magnum P.I. were being produced today, it would not be competing against two other networks, but rather there would be over a dozen legitimate contenders for just about any time slot.  A diversified audience means that each show gets less than they did a couple of decades ago.  This is important when you consider that a ratings number is not just an ego booster that tells a producer they are winning a time slot.  A ratings number is a legitimate commodity that is converted to cash when advertising time is sold.  The bigger the number, the more money it is worth.  Ratings numbers are smaller today, but this connection between ratings and money seem lost on high profile stars.  Many still insist on premium salaries.  

Hugh Laurie makes about  $400,000 per episode for the show “House.”  That show usually pulls in a rating of about 8.5.  Charlie Sheen makes nearly $2 million per episode.  This is probably enough to support his ex-wife, his ex-wife to be, any future ex-wives, a sizable legal team to sort the whole thing out, and a new liver somewhere down the road.  Despite this huge salary, the best ratings number that Mr. Sheen delivered this year was a 10.5.  That is a lot of money for a comparatively small number and there is still the rest of the cast to pay. 

Dancing with the Stars, on average, scores a Nielson rating of 13.2 or higher.  This thumps the best rating that Two and a Half Men can deliver, but it is a much cheaper show to produce.  It was revealed that Kate Gosselin was receiving $100,000 per episode of DWTS that she appeared on.  If this was true of the rest of the cast and hosts, the entire show combined is paid less per episode than Charlie Sheen.  Seeing as every week a star, and their salary is eliminated from DWTS, the costs per episode go down.  Also, as the number of contestants goes down and the drama goes up, and the ratings get higher.  By the time the finale rolls around the show is costing less to produce, but raking in more money. 

The appeal of talent contest shows, reality television, and the like is the fact that you can be successful for less investment.  It also means that the director and producer don’t become servants to a high paid feature star.  Tom Wopat and John Schneider held the ratings of the classic show, the “Dukes of Hazzard,” hostage during some very ugly contract negotiations.  Replacing Tom and John with low-budget copies didn’t work, and in the end the producers gave in and paid the stars what they wanted.  This doesn’t happen with many of the reality shows. MTV offered the cast of “Jersey Shore” $10,000 per episode for the second season.  Had they not taken it, the producers would have just shrugged and found a group that looked just like them.  They could do this content in the knowledge that “The Situation’s” own mother probably doesn’t want him, and that a change in the cast would have almost no effect on the long term ratings.  

Finally, there are those producers who have an eye toward quality.  A big salary for an established television star just doesn’t work with an ambitious concept.  Estimates for what it cost to produce Battlestar Galactica range from $1.2 million to $1.5 million per episode.  While information on the budget for this program is hard to come by, it is pretty clear that the actors and actresses were not receiving the bulk of that money.  The guy sitting behind a Mac and creating CGI Cylons was probably on the same salary plateau with Edward James Olmos.  The producers assembled an ensemble cast of near unknowns (and in many cases absolute unknowns) and created something special.  Time Magazine, The National Review, Rolling Stone and New York Newsday agreed that this was the best show on television.  They did this for the cost of 1.5 “Friends” or approximately ¾ of Charlie Sheen.  Other shows like lost have also adopted this concept, and have not only been rewarded with ratings, but with lasting prestige as well. 

Money is the driving force behind television.  When a producer can get ratings without having to redirect the bulk of their budget to one or two feature stars, they are going to do it.  There will always be television stars, but as reality shows, talent contests, and high concept shows with ensemble casts take up more and more time slots, there will be fewer Jennifer Anistons taking up screen time.

The Real Housewives of New Jersey

Their verbal barbs are mean and drawing blood and I can’t change the channel. Not since the meow days of Falcon Crest and Dynasty have I so wanted to see to see manicured claws maul Maybelline. But this feeling seems different somehow, and research on the way reality shows affect viewers appears to confirm that it is.

Are viewers more likely to emulate behavior when the characters on the screen are real people? The answer appears to be ‘yes.’

“Reality programs are the most likely to be imitated” says Sarah Coyne, a Brigham Young University professor of family life and lead author of a study that will appear in the June issue of The Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media. She is just one of a number of academics studying the barely examined effects of Reality TV: “I knew the level of aggression was going to be high, but I had no idea it was going to be this high,” says Coyne. “All audiences think it won’t affect them, but we aren’t as immune as we think we are.”

I’m certainly not.

On the tube, Noo Joisey divorced housewife Danielle Staub…

Danielle Staub

….whom the FBI once arrested for drug running and kidnapping, has crashed a child’s cancer fundraiser with an entourage of wise guy ex cons that includes the president of Hells Angels.

Daniele Staub aka Beverly Merrill

They’re staring the fundraiser people down. Staub threatens to “turn them loose.” Will someone get their face punched? Will someone get whacked? That aside, I’m starting to feel the emotions I felt when looking for trouble long ago even though I’m now too old to act on them.

That may not be true of others.

“Reality television is overtaking the networks and polluting the viewers’ minds with distorted pictures of reality, leaving behind an even bigger effect than that of regular television,” writes Erica Pontius of Missouri Western State University’s Department of Psychology. “These shows appeal to a baser component of human nature, the part that gets pleasure from seeing other people fail,” adds Amber Watts in her book Melancholy, Merit, and Merchandise: The Postwar Audience Participation Show. “What are the repercussions of this,” she asks?

It’s worth noting that one of the shows Watts is referring to is Queen for a Day, the 1950s forerunner, she says, of modern reality TV.

Basically, it was tales of misery for merchandise where the woman who told the most heart-wrenching, weepy story of woe won prize wampum.

Even so, that show contained all the elements that make modern reality TV work and the typical reality fan different from those of fictional shows, according to a study by Psychology Today.

Unrealistic Expectations

Reality TV, as opposed to fictional stories, represents itself as real life, causing many to believe their own lives should be as dramatic as a meeting with Harvey Weinstein.

Desire for Status

“Fans of the shows are much more likely to agree with statements like, ‘Prestige is important to me’ and ‘I am impressed with designer clothes,’  says Psychology Today. Those viewers liked to fantasize about gaining status and fame by just showing up.

Escapism

Always an element in fictional drama, but it’s even more pronounced when viewers see ordinary people leaving their everyday routine to try being  America’s Next Top Model or to test their manhood on an Alaskan fishing boat. Deadliest Catch captain Sig Hanson said he’s amazed how many men come North looking for crew work they are clearly unable to handle.

Lack of Privacy

Because of reality TV conditioning, “expectations of privacy have been eroded … Public disclosure, even of formerly private behavior and feelings, is the expectation” says Brad Waite of Central Connecticut State University.

Humiliation

Waite also found a definite desire to view the humiliation of others and says the coding of character behaviors showed reality programs were much higher in humiliation than scripted dramas.

Thatsa’ lotta human frailties, and they’re all about to be served up on one reality show plate as consequences.

Real Housewives of New Jersey star Teresa Giudice and her husband Joe are a false reality.

They cannot afford their gaudy 10,000 square foot mansion, expensive furniture, jewelry and rolls of $100 bills many viewers are probably envious of, according to the New York Post.

The real reality is that they owe 11 million dollars for all that appearance and they can’t pay.

How’s that for a reality bite?

Although I don’t want to compare the challenges of having a child to the disappointment of being rejected from a singing competition, the feeling I had as a viewer watching the rejected singer on “American Idol” and the entirety of  “16 and Pregnant” was the same. These are personal moments and stories that should be kept that way and not aired for an audience to enjoy. 

I’ve watched a few of the new episodes of “16 and Pregnant,” which is now in its second season on MTV. Each one focused on a unique girl dealing with teen pregnancy.  The “16” website noted that every “episode follows a 5-7 month period in the life of a teenager as she navigates the bumpy terrain of adolescence, growing pains, rebellion, and coming of age; all while dealing with being pregnant.”

The first episode focused on Jenelle, a pregnant teenager from North Carolina. After getting pregnant, Jennelle still loved to hang out at the beach and go to parties. At the beginning she was trying to deal with the tension between her boyfriend and mother. The mother disliked her daughter’s jobless boyfriend, who, after the baby was born, got arrested for drunk driving. After that and an argument between Jenelle and her irresponsible boyfriend, Jenelle continued her partying ways noting in voice-over that the baby “doesn’t need me. He’s got my mom.” The show followed Janelle’s life until she eventually realized how hard being a parent is and reached an understanding with her mother about them working together to raise the child.

One of the main problems is the subject matter. The decisions involving having a new baby are often extremely personal. On the show, some of the mothers have to decide whether or not to choose adoption – and if they keep the child, they have to decide how to raise the child. Firstly, one wonders why these people would invite cameras into their homes to chronicle some of the toughest decisions of their lives. Secondly, who would want to watch teenagers struggling with potential parenthood and the hard decisions involved in that? I watched it to review it but I did not see anything entertaining or interesting enough to motivate me to watch the show in the future.

Additionally, one could argue that the show often incentivizes teenage mothers. Some of the friends of these pregnant girls seem excited about the possibility of their friends having a baby. However, the show does showcase some of the difficulties related to motherhood. The teen mothers and their boyfriends have to confront reality and some could argue that the show provides a public service in showing how difficult being a teenage mother is.

However, the show also provides a forum for often irresponsible and disrespectful young parents to get publicity for getting pregnant. So I think that overrules any educational value that the show might have for teens who are having unprotected sex.

Throughout the show, I did feel bad for some of the new grandparents. They’re trying to help their own children understand the responsibilities that come with being a parent. However, I do not understand why they would allow cameras into their personal lives to publicize their children’s pregnancies. Teenage pregnancies are a very personal thing and future grandparents should teach their pregnant children lessons about the responsibilities that come with being pregnant but without the glaring lights of a camera crew.

If only MTV had stepped out of the way and not offered an incentive for such a thing.