Between “Too Much” and “Not Enough”. Analyzing Producer Management of Transgression on Reality Television

(1)

Between “Too Much” and “Not Enough”

Analyzing Producer Management of Transgression

on Reality Television

Master’s Thesis

Submitted by:

Maximilian Rogall (12436593)

Terletstraat 117, 1107 RM Amsterdam

+49 15756203962

max.rogall@student.uva.nl

Submitted on Tuesday, June 23, 2020

Supervisor: prof. dr. Misha Kavka

Second reader: dr. Jan Teurlings

Research MA Media Studies

University of Amsterdam

(2)

Abstract

Existing research about reality TV has been largely ratings-oriented or focused on the contestants as actors, leaving the production side somewhat at the sideline. This has been further intensified by the lack of accessibility of producer ethnography for research. And yet, reality TV is a more relevant research object than ever, serving as a constant platform and mirror for social discourse and shifting moral boundaries. As Biltereyst (2004) points out, reality TV has been marked by controversy since its inception, which is desired and encouraged by producers. This controversy was initially caused by the genre’s novelty (Bagley 2001) and later shifted to a framework of transgression, in which producers actively engineer, manage and deploy transgression in order to achieve or maintain their desired level of dramatic height.

Using long-running MTV show The Real World as a case study, this thesis identifies transgressions on the show through media coverage and establishes a set of scales for transgressive behavior according to which these incidents are then coded. The output of this research is not only the demarcation of the framework of transgression for The Real World itself, but also the theorization of this methodology, which can be applied in future reality TV studies as an approach to producer-centric research without a need for producer ethnography.

(4)

1. Introduction

Reality TV to me is the museum of social decay. Gary Oldman1

This scathing assessment of reality television repeats a criticism that has followed and marked the genre since its inception in the early 1990s. From early shows like MTV’s The Real World in 1992 to the Big Brother franchise in the 2000s and ultimately to present-day media empires like Keeping Up with the Kardashians, reality television has consistently been associated with one thing: trash. In fact, in the early 1990s, the terms “trash TV” and “reality TV” were used interchangeably (Keller 1993, p. 195). Critics saw this trashiness represented in the perceived focus of reality shows on people’s intimate lives, sexuality and violence, and in the sensationalist approach by which these topics were addressed; in short, reality TV was deemed a medium of exploitation and moral depravity (ibid.). All of these aspects can be traced back to a central element of the genre: transgression. From its inception, reality TV presented subject matter and behavior that had never been shown on television before, in a way that was unlike any other genre on the small screen.

While some early critics suggested that reality TV would be a passing fad and not catch on (Ligocki 2018, p. 3), others feared that the outrageous transgressions would lead the way towards a complete moral decay and destabilization of society (Biltereyst 2004, p. 123). Neither of these prognoses came true; in spite of ongoing criticism, reality TV established itself as a substantial genre. However, because this establishment was tied to the “explosion of Trash TV” (Keller 1993, p. 204), reality television never managed to shake its reputation of being fundamentally and intentionally transgressive. Rather than refuting this reputation, I argue that this notion of reality TV showcasing transgression for transgression’s sake is not only accurate, but is also necessary to the success of the genre itself, as are the public scandal, outrage and criticism in response to it. Reality TV not only serves as a platform for heated topical discussions and conflicts (within the microcosmos of a show), but also demonstrates the boundaries of socially acceptable behavior – by crossing and pushing them.

1 See

(5)

In the context of transgression in reality TV, the role of the production crew is often taken as evidence to the constructed an “unreal” nature of the genre. However, this thesis approaches producer activity differently, by showing its crucial importance to the transgressions necessary to the success and longevity of reality TV. Story producers, casting directors, editors and executive producers are managers of transgression. As such, they establish and alter the concept of the show; they engineer and encourage extreme behavior by contestants and occasionally manage it when it becomes too extreme; and they introduce new and controversial subject matter. In doing so, producers establish a framework for transgression they consider acceptable by their own or by society’s standards (or by standards they establish for the microcosm of the show), navigating this framework in a space between not enough and too much. An analysis of producer actions and reactions therefore promises to be a rich entry point into a differentiated understanding of transgression on reality TV. Thus, the main research question for this project is as follows:

RQ: “How do producers manage and deploy transgression on reality TV?”

By analyzing how producers engineer transgression through the format of the show, how they manage transgressive behavior by contestant and how they deploy transgression through subject matter and innovative technology, insights are expected about how producers manage their show’s dramatic height from both ends, in a constant balancing act between not enough and too much transgression.

A considerable hurdle in this approach, however, lies in the accessibility and availability of information about producers’ decisions. Production ethnography has become increasingly difficult as the genre evolved. Reality TV contestants and producers alike are subject to non-disclosure agreements that prohibit them from publicizing behind-the-scenes information at the risk of being fined or sued – a practice that has become industry standard (Arditi 2020, p. 2). Whereas in the early 1990s producer interviews were still common after a season or show had wrapped filming, these insights have become increasingly rare. With Netflix and other streaming services producing original reality TV content in recent years, information about ratings has become proprietary as well. This further complicates production studies, since ratings have long been one of the most widely used sources for reality TV analysis. In light of these difficulties, this project aims to develop a method of analyzing reality TV transgression with an awareness of producer actions that can be carried out on the basis of the text of the show itself in order to fill in the gaps in the obscured context. The method used combines both text and context, aiming for a multilateral and comprehensive analysis. As a result, this method not only circumvents the issue of attaining producer information, but also offers an alternative to the widely used ratings-driven empirical research on reality TV.

(6)

Methodology

The duality of text and context is already present in the first methodological step of this analysis: the compilation of the primary material for analysis. Given the research topic of transgression in a reality TV context, the focus had to be limited to a subsection of this broad and extensive genre. One show in particular presented itself as a promising example: The Real World. This show can be taken as representational of the genre to a certain extent, not simply because it was one of the first commercially successful reality shows (premiering in 1992), but also because its success led to a 32-season run until 2016. The longevity of The Real World not only promised a larger number of transgressions throughout the run of the show, but also eliminated many external variables due to all seasons having been produced by the same production company (Bunim-Murray Productions) for the same network (MTV). In addition, The Real World not only had a reputation within the genre for portraying controversial behavior and subject matter, but also pioneered many techniques in visual storytelling and editing that would later be adopted and copied by other shows. Both of these things speak towards a but representational high level of transgression on the show and therefore led to The Real World being selected as the object of analysis.

Initially, in order for transgression to be analyzed, transgressive incidents had to be identified and isolated, allowing for related producer action or reaction to then be analyzed. Within the 602 episodes of The Real World, incidents were selected not based on ratings, but based on media coverage. For each episode, media responses at the time were analyzed (as opposed to retrospectives or best-of lists and articles published later), since they were thought to be representative of the social discourse relating to the episode and its historical moment. For purposes of consistency and comparability, the main media response analyzed was the coverage of The Real World on the entertainment website Entertainment Weekly (EW), since unlike many other media outlets it included reviews for a multitude of episodes going back to 1992’s season 1 (with older articles from pre-online times digitized and available in the archive). However, the EW archive did not yield a review for every episode of the show. For the remaining episodes, related websites such as People.com or Variety were consulted until a review was found2. In order to reduce bias and include a differentiated assessment of transgression, the selection took into consideration not only the media coverage of the episodes, but also the official episode summaries on the MTV website, adding an internal point of view to the external media response3. In spite of the same source being used for the majority of the reviews, what needs to be considered is the difference between a pre- and post-social media age in terms of public and media response. Social media users might identify

2 The complete list of the episode reviews used in this research can be found in the bibliography, under “Primary

Sources: Media Reviews”.

3 The complete list of the MTV episode summaries used in this research can be found in the bibliography, under

(7)

transgressions and voice criticism that the EW or People.com coverage failed to pick up on. However, because this was not possible in the early seasons of the show, it was disregarded in favor of consistency.

By analyzing a review of every episode of the show and isolating instances where the reviewer identified a transgression, this approach is very much qualitative. An alternative, quantitative approach would have been the analysis of other major news outlets who did not regularly cover TRW. Their coverage of an incident on the show could have therefore been understood as an extreme, notable occasion and identified said incident as transgressive. However, for the purpose of this project, the qualitative way promised to yield both a higher number of incidents and a more in-depth examination of a show.

For an incident to be identified as a transgression for the purposes of this research, it had to fulfil certain criteria. Transgression at its core means the crossing of a (moral) boundary, which was further differentiated into three distinct levels at which reality TV can be transgressive; firstly, in its very nature as a genre (represented by the fundamental concept of a show and changes made to format); secondly, in the behavior it portrays (especially extreme behavior, which can include violence, sexual behavior, substance abuse, self-harm, conflicts, injuries and departures); and thirdly, in its incorporation and pioneering of innovative subject matter and technology (that is, presenting topics of a nature and in a manner previously unseen on television). Any incident that represented a change to the format of the show, an exhibition of extreme behavior or controversial subject matter were therefore identified as transgression. While the assessments of “extreme” and “controversial” are very subjective, this analysis followed the stance of the media coverage author. If the Entertainment Weekly episode recap identified a behavior as extreme or a topic as controversial, they were accepted as such for the purpose of this analysis. As long as an incident that was singled out corresponded to either of the three levels of transgression, it was considered transgressive and added to a spreadsheet which can be accessed through the following link: https://tinyurl.com/TRWTransgression.

The resulting list of 133 incidents from the total of 602 episodes were classified according to the year and season in which they occurred, allowing for a chronological overview. In the main steps of the analysis, categories were then introduced corresponding with the three levels of transgression, further differentiating between different types of transgression and allowing for a closer analysis. It is through the patterns that emerge that deductions can be made not only about the kinds of transgressive incidents on the show, but also about producer action and reaction regarding transgression. These patterns represent the novel value of this research, since they can yield insights about producer strategy without having to access first-hand of producer information or rely on speculation. By analyzing producer

(8)

management and deployment of transgression through the patterns that emerge from particular transgressions, the threshold for active intervention and implementing changes can be denoted, thus leading to a demarcation of the framework of transgression that producers manage, not according to what they said, but what they did.

One initial limitation of this research was the scope of the analysis. While The Real World serves as a very apt case study for this method to be used on, the line of transgression in reality TV is both mobile and heavily context-dependent, not only in terms of different reality shows and franchises, but also in terms of sociocultural context and social norms which strongly influence what is considered transgressive and acceptable in society and on television. In order to increase its relevance, the method needed to be more broadly applicable. The solution to this was found in a subsequent step to the analysis: the theorization of the method. Based on the findings of the The Real World analysis, patterns of transgression management and deployment by producers can be abstracted to a more general level. This means that the research output of this thesis is not merely the findings regarding transgression management on The Real World, but also and especially the development of a methodology to enable this research to be replicated in a multitude of different reality TV contexts. This allows for further research to analyze the transgressive frameworks in other reality TV shows and franchises, and potentially to discover genre-wide trends that exceed the scope of this thesis. This could help produce not only a better understanding of the genre of reality TV, but also of its interrelation with social discourse. In a time when a reality TV star is serving as president of the United States, the relevance of understanding reality TV producer strategies and how they relate to and influence social norms and values is more important than ever.

2. Literature Review

The Real World: An overview

From its premiere in 1992 onward, MTV’s The Real World (henceforth: TRW) has been a prominent show within the genre of reality TV (Keveney, 2008). TRW’s original 32-season run until 2016 emphasizes the ongoing popularity of the format and the unprecedented wave of success of reality TV as a genre in the late 1990s and early 2000s (Holmes & Jermyn, 2004, p. 1). While TRW remains somewhat isolated within the reality TV landscape, in that it aired on the youth-oriented MTV rather than an established network like CBS and employed a different visual style (Bagley, 2001, p. 74), it was subject to the same large-scale shifts and evolutions as the overall genre. This makes TRW a suitable object of analysis, especially due to its long history from the beginnings of reality TV to the present day.

(9)

At its core, the concept of TRW consists in a group of seven strangers living together for several months while being recorded by cameras around the clock: some of them mounted on the walls; others operated by a camera crew following the contestants around (Winick, 2000, p. 62). In addition, cast members are interviewed to reflect on the happenings of the week. This combined footage is edited into weekly episodes between 20 and 44 minutes of length. Each season, the show’s setting moves to a new city, usually within the United States. The show’s inception in 1992 came in the wake of successful shows like Beverly Hills, 90210 and Melrose Place, with a young target audience. The popularity of these scripted shows, as well as the success of international reality TV formats with a similar concept (e.g. the Dutch show Nummer 28 in 1991), led to the creation of TRW, whose reality aspect was reportedly chosen because it was cheaper to produce than a scripted show (Blake, 2011). Producers chose the combination of seven “diverse” people as housemates since they believed the right casting combination would be a sufficient basis for storylines and drama (ibid.). Cast-based drama and controversy did indeed frequently ensue and became a central element of the show and its reception by critics and audiences. In particular, topics of race/racism, homosexuality/homophobia and conservative/liberal political views were at the center of numerous conflicts between housemates, while many cast members began romantic or sexual relationships with each other (Graham, 2004).

While TRW was a success with audiences from the beginning, critics did not immediately agree with that estimation. When the first season premiered, the show was criticized as a “new low in television”, especially in terms of the cast members’ perceived lack of career ambition and the show’s positioning itself between the genres of documentary and entertainment, but failing to meet the standards for either (Blake, 2011). This was especially evident due to TRW airing on MTV, a young channel which had previously been known almost exclusively for music videos and for pioneering a fast-edit style with rapid, frequent cuts and tilted camera angles. This further highlighted the network’s and the show’s difference from what TV audiences were used to in terms of not only genre and content, but also visual elements and post-production (Bagley, 2001, p. 74).

In spite of this criticism, high audience numbers led to TRW being renewed, and its storylines soon impressed critics from both the media and social elite classes (Fretts, 1995). In particular, conflict between bike messenger “Puck” Rainey and AIDS educator Pedro Zamora on the third season TRW: San Francisco received national attention and widespread media coverage. Not only was Zamora one of the first openly HIV-positive people to appear on television, but his battle with the disease and subsequent death even led then US president Clinton to comment positively on his legacy (Winick, 2000, p. 105). This notion of the show representing marginalized minorities and social issues further helped its success with young audiences and made it grow in popularity, quickly becoming the top-rated program on MTV

(10)

and a “hit show” (Webley, 2011). However, as the show went on, new criticism appeared, claiming that the show was engineering superficial drama and conflict rather than actually focusing on portraying social issues, exploiting conflict lines rather than exploring them (Biltereyst, 2014, p. 117). This was especially attributed to an increased focus on alcohol-fueled excesses and sexuality, while the diversity appeared to be sidelined; TRW was accused of casting participants solely for potential conflict (Kavka, 2012, p. 81). As an LA Weekly writer put it in 2006, “the show that once seriously delved into hot-button issues like homosexuality, AIDS, racism, religion and abortion was now purposely pushing someone’s buttons to have that person implode on air” (Finke, 2006).

The apparent shift of the show towards engineered conflict was reflected in structural changes made to its format. Beginning with the fifth season, TRW: Miami, contestants had to get a job while on the show, and the tenth season introduced the rule that losing the job would mean the contestant’s removal from the cast, adding an element of competition to the show. In addition, in case of physical violence or drug abuse, contestants were penalized, assigned to anger management classes or removed from the show entirely. Notably, in earlier seasons, the decision to remove an aggressor from the show was left to the victim, and only later shifted directly to the producers. Examples of the former includes Stephen Williams slapping Irene McGee in TRW: Seattle and Brynn Smith throwing a fork at Steven Hill in TRW: Las Vegas; in both cases, the other contestants decided on the aggressors’ fate. In an example of direct conflict engineering by producers, the 32nd season TRW: Bad Blood saw the seven housemates joined by seven additional cast members, all of whom they knew and had had previous conflict with. After this season, the show was on hiatus in 2017 and eventually revived on Facebook Watch in 2019, leaving MTV after 25 years.

Transgression vs. Scandal in Reality TV

Controversy appears to have been a prime constituent of the longevity and enduring popularity of early reality shows like TRW, both in terms of the nature of the shows and individual storylines. Many of the issues addressed by TRW, including “race, sex, gays in the military, eating disorders, cutting and alcohol abuse” (Keveney, 2008), had previously barely appeared on television, if at all. The representation of these issues alone therefore represents a transgression: a pushing of the moral boundaries for what was deemed acceptable to be aired on television and in societal discourse. This was singled out as a central element of early reality TV by academic voices. As early as 1994, sociologist Dominique Mehl attributed a “perfume of scandal” to the then young genre, noting the cloud of controversy and scandal associated with reality TV from its inception and in its very nature (Mehl 1994: 104).

(11)

In existing research on reality TV, the term transgression has mostly been neglected in favor of the closely related “scandal”. However, a scandal is more properly defined by the response to an incident, often manifested by collective public outrage voiced through the media (Biltereyst, 2004, p. 91). Jacobsson and Löfmarck (2008, p. 213) accordingly define a scandal as “a collective outburst of outrage caused by a norm transgression that is made public and [...] experienced as an offense by a norm audience,” with the reaction representing a public sanction against this transgression. The initial transgression therefore entails a clash between existing systems of norms, which during the subsequent scandal contributes to a polarization and dramatization of the opposing sides and their moral roles (Jacobsson, 2008, p. 213). In order to identify a transgression as such, a clash or conflict of norms must first be identified as a necessary prerequisite. As Jacobsson (ibid., p. 204) further points out, “[s]ocietal norms become more evident when they are violated”; a transgression therefore represents a violation of norms and thereby reveals their boundaries. Through the ensuing scandal, the norms can either be validated or modified, with the latter representing a lasting pushing of the boundary (ibid.). However, transgression in the context of reality TV is a complex topic, in particular in relation to an ever-evolving social discourse that defines which behavior is acceptable and which isn’t. This complexity requires a differentiated approach to the topic, in order to allow for a more comprehensive understanding of norms, their boundaries and their transgressions.

Transgression as a clash of moral systems can be found on three structural levels in the history of reality TV. Firstly, reality TV is transgressive in its very nature as a genre. Upon its introduction, it couldn’t be placed within the definitions of scripted television or documentary because it seemed to employ techniques and elements from both sides. In doing so, reality TV transgressed the boundaries of genre that audiences and critics knew and expected from television content. At the same time, this unique oscillation of reality TV content between observational footage, participant manipulation and constructed environments represents another transgression: through its name and content, “reality” TV challenged the boundaries of what viewers considered “real”. This transgressive genre was often met with public backlash upon its introduction in different countries, where voices of the social elite condemned the shows, fearing that they would bring a complete erosion of societal values. While in the US the moral outrage wasn’t as strong, early criticism of TRW nonetheless focused on the nature of the program and its perceived failure to fit the mold of any pre-existing genre (Murray & Ouellette, 2009, p. 40).

Secondly, reality TV is transgressive in its portrayal of bad behavior. The people and topics at the center of much reality TV storytelling are selected according to existing social conflict lines and presented as such for the purpose of drama, which is expected to engage audiences and attract attention to the program. The notion of people behaving badly on reality shows is transgressive in that it challenges and

(12)

crosses the limits of what was previously deemed acceptable behavior in society as a whole or on television specifically. Prominent examples of this within the reality TV genre include franchises like The Real Housewives, which are built around the premise of exaggerated characters and their conflicts (Dominguez, 2015, p. 156), and extreme behavior by individuals on the shows, such as the physical altercation between Stephen Williams and Irene McGee on TRW: Seattle or the long-time conflict between “Puck” Rainey and Pedro Zamora on TRW: San Francisco (Webley, 2011).

While these two levels speak primarily to reality TV’s formal aspects and subject matter, the third level combines aspects of both: Reality TV is transgressive in its incorporation of innovative technology and subject matter. A prime example of innovative techniques is the so-called “transmedial” storytelling, for which reality TV has been described as a “trailblazer” (e.g. the option to watch a an 24-hour livestream from the Big Brother house online) (Edwards, 2013, p. 2), whereas innovative subject matter refers to topics and issues these programs tackled which, like Pedro Zamora’s battle with HIV, had never been portrayed in this way on television before (Winick, 2000, p. 5). Short production schedules allow for the inclusion of “hot button” issues and thereby place reality TV at the forefront of societal discourse in many cases. The transgressiveness of these aspects lies in the fact that reality TV is often the first to address these changes in media and technology (by actively implementing and incorporating them) and in society (by explicitly addressing them), thereby placing pressure on the status quo. These three levels of transgression, in different combinations, have contributed to an ongoing level of controversy surrounding reality TV from its inception and throughout its decades-long evolution.

Reality TV: Transgressive genre

The aforementioned “perfume of scandal” around reality TV has accompanied the genre from its very beginnings. The controversy often began when a country’s first reality program was announced and promoted, and these early impressions of a program were met with public outrage. Biltereyst (2004, p. 107) calls this a media panic: the negative public reaction to a new medium being introduced. The medium is perceived as frightening particularly by the upper and middle class, who fear that its “vulgarity and a new barbarism” run the risk of corrupting the younger generation and threaten the existing social norms (Biltereyst, 2014, p. 118). This panic would then be the starting point of a broader societal debate about a particular social issue, where the media are “the object [and] source [...] of public consternation” (ibid., p. 126) but are also, through news outlets and mediated discussions, the platform of this debate. Reality TV, notably, was not introduced as a new medium per se, but as a new genre within the existing landscape of television genres, although the reactions and fears it encountered corresponded with those of a media panic. However, the similarities go beyond this analogy. Particularly in the time of early reality

(13)

TV, the medium of television itself seemed to be changing, with a shift towards tabloids and away from scripted programming (Edwards, 2013, p. 1) Reality TV, which as a genre incorporated many elements of this shift, therefore appeared to be at the forefront of this change, which makes the concept of media panic all the more applicable.

In the case of Loft Story, a French version of the Big Brother franchise launched in 2001, the large public and media backlash led to modifications to the show (Biltereyst, 2014, p. 123). The object at the center of this outrage seemed to be the concept of a show based on around-the-clock surveillance, which many critics saw as a violation of the contestants’ privacy and human dignity, and the show was subsequently forced to include at least one hour without filming (Biltereyst, 2004, p. 124). However, another frequent point of criticism, especially from the country’s moral and intellectual elites, was the casting of lower-class contestants. Mehl (1994, p. 104) sees this reaction as a symptom of a power shift within society, with many intellectuals as part of the existing societal elite rejecting the presentation of lower-class citizens and their struggles to a nationwide audience. Wyatt and Bunton (2012, p. 1) go as far as naming the systematic outrage on the part of elites a central identifying pattern of early reality TV. Early defenders of reality TV praised the genre’s eagerness to include formerly under-represented minorities, and to include people with opposing political, religious or ethical views in the same cast, as a way to explore “how people (can) live with each other in society” (Biltereyst, 2014, p. 121). Rather than supposedly promoting deviance (Biltereyst, 2014, p. 118), reality TV was therefore seen as an empowering platform for social issues and a forum for public debate that included participants from opposing ends of the political or moral spectrum living together as “intimate strangers”, as a means to explore social scripts through individual narratives (Kavka, 2012, p. 83). The notion of “intimate strangers” therefore contained not only potential for social learning by proxy, but also allowed for insights into broader social issues and discourses (Holmes & Jermyn, 2004, p. 16). Reality TV’s presentation of minorities and their issues was thereby advocated for as a tool of democratization and education through media content (Biltereyst, 2004, p. 91), while the ensuing conflicts resulted in high viewership numbers. These strong reactions to the introduction of reality TV can be traced back to the first structural level of transgression: the transgressive nature of the genre itself, due to its unique position at the intersection between documentary and scripted drama. Making a claim to “realness” in its very name, reality TV incorporates elements from both genres, but fails to fit in either mold (Murray & Ouellette, 2009, p. 40). This follows the distinction made by Kracauer between what he calls observational and un-staged “narrative depiction“ on the one hand, and “conscious manipulation” in order to construct a narrative on the other (Bagley, 2001, p. 67). While shows like TRW do contain both “authentic” images (the

(14)

surveillance footage) and staged ones (the confessional interviews with the contestants), the shows are ultimately positioned beyond this binary (Biltereyst, 2014, p. 117) and remain blurred and hybrid in terms of genre (Holmes & Jermyn, 2004, p. 11). TRW, with its around-the-clock recorded footage of contestants and their behavior, plays out along these lines, representing “real people, undirected” in a constructed and controlled scenario of physically and socially artificial surroundings (Bagley, 2001, p. 64). However, TRW maintains an aura of authenticity and “realness” in the way it presents its content by using production techniques originating in the realm of television news (e.g. natural lighting and sound), a genre traditionally associated with reliability and factual presentation of events (Bagley, 2001, p. 69, 74; Jermyn, 2004, p. 73).

This is the true story, of seven strangers, picked to live in a house, work together, and have their lives taped. Find out what happens, when people stop being polite, and start getting real… The Real World!

The Real World opening credits narration (Bunim & Murray, 1992-2016)

And yet, the post-production editing strongly influences the presentation and framing of contestant behavior and the viewer perception thereof. This represents a central element of the novelty of reality TV: it carved its own niche that incorporated elements from both sides of Kracauer’s distinction. In fact, his binary concept is part of the media panic, in that it constitutes a framework that reality TV exceeded and transgressed. For instance, the footage on TRW filmed by the camera people following the contestants fails to fit in either of Kracauer’s categories: they on the one hand record what they observe, but their very presence represents a manipulation that influences the contestants’ behavior.

Reality TV: Engineered Transgression

The controversy around reality TV as a new “medium” gained the shows broad media attention and large audience numbers; this was something producers were eager to maintain and build on. Early reality TV scholars like Bill Nichols (1994, p. 55) pointed out that reality TV producers were not only aware of their genre’s transgressive nature, but actively sought out and encouraged controversy as a central factor for its success (Biltereyst, 2004, p. 96). In Belgium, Big Brother advertised its original launch using quotes from prominent politicians and intellectuals condemning the show, calling it an infringement of the contestants’ basic human rights and a threat to the moral values in society (Biltereyst, 2014, p. 124). Not only was controversy thereby used to raise public attention to the show, but the possibility of a media panic (similar to what happened to Loft Story) was intentionally made part of a promotion strategy.

(15)

This initial media panic was owed to the genre working in uncharted territory: nothing like it had been done on television before. Once the novelty had worn off, however, audiences grew accustomed to reality TV; what had previously been seen as transgressive had become accepted and established in its own right (Edwards, 2013, p. 8). Accordingly, the media panic died down fairly quickly; indeed, the final episode of Loft Story was barely covered by newspapers at all (Biltereyst, 2004, p. 105). This was partly due to the fact that the fundamental fears voiced by moral guardians in society (such as the complete erosion of values) had simply not come to pass: reality TV was instead often recognized for exploring social issues and including previously under-represented minorities, causing the controversy to die (Wyatt & Bunton, 2012, p. 2). The confusion and media panic about the hybridity of the genre therefore proved to be a successful initial selling point for reality TV but could not serve as a long-time strategy for success (ibid., p. 3): new interest had to be sparked.

As soon as this new genre became normalized, format changes had to be introduced within this established framework. Once the initial controversy around a show had passed, the format was altered. With long-running reality shows, this meant the introduction of changes for new seasons, such as the Bad Blood element in TRW: Bad Blood. While these changes didn’t change the fundamental structure of the show (seven strangers are placed in a house and filmed around the clock), it made the show less predictable and included an element of novelty. This also allowed producers to react to audience response and continue or abandon elements going into future seasons (Edwards, 2013, p. 12).

Another way for producers to maintain interest in the show was through the heightening of its level of conflict, which could be achieved through casting and editing (Kavka, 2012, p. 106). These alterations of the dramatic height of the show could occur at both ends of the spectrum, when the behavior on the show was too extreme or not extreme enough (Holmes & Jermyn, 2004, p. 1). An increasingly competitive reality TV market resulted in pressures to stand out in order to maintain strong ratings (and in extension, revenue) and led to a shift towards more drama, as part of an overall evolution of media towards scandals and controversy for commercial gain (Holmes & Jermyn, 2004, p. 9). This meant the inclusion of intentionally morally transgressive behavior, while at the same time refraining from infringing on extreme boundaries, such as legal frameworks or the physical health of contestants, or from seriously alienating sponsors, which would jeopardize the future of the show and the producers’ livelihood (Wyatt & Bunton, 2012, p. 3).

(16)

The response to engineered incidental transgressions, e.g. fights between the castmates, doesn’t fit the definition of a media panic (since it doesn’t concern the nature of the genre), but rather that of a moral panic. A moral panic is generally defined as a “public anxiety about key social and moral issues, characterized by spiraling debate produced by the interaction of the media” (Biltereyst, 2004, p. 91). The media, along with politicians, intellectuals and other figures of public moral authority, serve as “moral guardians” within society, protecting the status quo from threatening media content that could jeopardize the existing value system (Biltereyst, 2004, p. 96). Moral panics are therefore often used as an emotional strategy by conservative forces in order to win over the public (Thompson, 1998, p. 12). Similar to media panics, moral panics also consist of “waves of indignation” (Biltereyst, 2004, p. 93) and also involves the media as a central player. However, the role of the media here is more that of “stirring up a wider debate” on the issue in question, rather than the media form being at the center of the issue (Biltereyst, 2014, p. 126).

Producer attempts to engineer transgression for moral panics can be obvious or invisible. Examples of the former include the placement of sexually themed books in several seasons of TRW, with the hopes to inspire sexually charged conversations between cast members. This would constitute an “overt manipulation” (Bagley, 2001, p. 65): changes made to the “natural” environment of the show to serve an intended narrative purpose and artificially enhance contestant interactions. However, invisible producer manipulations begin far earlier, in the process of casting candidates based on their personalities and their compatibility as a group (Bagley, 2001, p. 65), thereby manipulating the content of the show through its very design. Individual producers working on reality TV shows have admitted to having developed a script “based on several possible storylines and conflicts” before filming has even begun (Bondebjerg, 2002, p. 179). In addition, editing can put a strong focus on particular characters and their behavior in order to further a desired narrative (Holmes & Jermyn, 2004, p. 4).

Edwards (2013, p. 2) argues that the initial success of the genre can largely be attributed to the way it capitalized on controversial social issues, such as changing demographics and media innovations. And yet, critics maintained that the stance of reality TV was not so much about exploring as rather exploiting these social issues (Biltereyst, 2014, p. 121), exemplified by similar storylines of conflict along the lines of race, sexual orientation and social class, which seemed to recur across shows and seasons (Pullen, 2004, p. 215). Pullen (ibid.) has compared this to the narratives of soap operas, where diversity is expected to incite drama and audience growth. Critics further singled out the dramatic and extreme behavior on the shows, arguing that by artificially heightening drama, reality TV provided a platform for eccentric people and deviant positions under the guise of representing minorities. This was helped by the fact that after the highly publicized initial seasons of the respective shows, new cast members were

(17)

very much aware of their role as contestants on an edited TV program and therefore adjusted their behavior to play into perceived expectations. In hindsight, critics reassessed early seasons of TRW, which had been controversial at the time, in a more positive light, praising the relative authenticity of the early casts in comparison to the very self-aware and irresponsible later contestants (Blake, 2011). And yet, despite criticism of “culturally suspect” content, the transgressive behavior on TRW and the moral panics it caused contributed to its longevity in a highly competitive market (Biltereyst 2014, p. 118).

Reality TV: Undesired Transgression

The success of these engineered conflicts and moral panics in reality TV eventually led to a differentiation within the genre. New formats and sub-genres were introduced and characterized by their overt focus on engineered drama, or lack thereof. Shows such as The Great British Bake-Off (TGBBO) placed the focus on the story of the contestants engaging with the challenges of the competition rather than with each other, using the absence of interpersonal conflict and dramatic action as something of a wholesome Unique Selling Proposition within the genre. And yet, while TGBBO has found success across different demographic groups, its viewer base does differ strongly from that of TRW in terms of age and nationality (Lagerwey, 2018, p. 442). The majority of successful franchises within reality TV are based on pre-engineered drama: shows like Big Brother and Survivor contain an element of in-group elimination, thereby constantly pitting the contestants against each other, while franchises like The Bachelor and Real Housewives map out and stage dramatic arcs, positioning conflict front and center across episodes and seasons and explicitly addressing them in reunion shows (Dominguez, 2015, p. 156). These franchises, often pertaining to sub-genres within reality TV (e.g. dating show or scripted reality), combine two of the aforementioned structural levels of transgressions: they are transgressive in their concept, and transgressive in the behavior they portray. Openly promoted as such, contestants and audiences alike on these subgenres are aware of the exaggerated drama and the roles cast members fulfil (Blake, 2011).

By incorporating transgression as a central element in the highly controlled framework of their shows from the very start, producers were able to take control of transgression. Scandal and controversy were contained within the contexts of the show, and restrained to individualized, one-on-one conflicts between contestants, thus giving producers power over transgressive portrayal through editing and post-production. This makes transgression that occurs outside of producer control all the more undesired, since its potential damage to the show’s image can’t be immediately contained. This marks a decisive difference between the aforementioned “perfume of scandal” that reality TV producers actively seek out, and actual scandals, especially in terms of intentionality.

(18)

While reality shows like Big Brother and TRW have highlighted the controversial aspects of their concepts from their inception, they have done so openly, with the voluntary and open participation of the contestants (Biltereyst, 2004, p. 134). Scandals arising from this type of controversy would therefore be desired and encouraged by producers. An undesired kind of scandal would occur if producers were attempting to hide an incident, only for it to be exposed nonetheless. Once a secret transgression is revealed, the producers appear as hypocritical, which can threaten the future of the show. For instance, the two disqualifications in RuPaul’s Drag Race exemplify controllable and uncontrollable transgressions: season 4 contestant Willam was disqualified mid-season, allowing producers to build dramatic tension and use the event for publicity leading up to the reunion (Fine & Shreve, 2014, p. 177). Meanwhile, season 12 contestant Sherry Pie was disqualified after allegations of misconduct before the season began airing but after filming and editing were already completed. This led to producers struggling to re-edit footage while maintaining their planned narrative for the season (Moylan, 2020).

Transgressive individual behavior on reality TV can therefore be either beneficial or detrimental for producers and lead them to intervene for either positive effects (to create conflict and engineer drama for commercial gains), or negative effects (to stop unexpected or unwanted things from happening). In simpler terms, producers encourage bad behavior for the sake of enough drama but discourage behavior so bad it would create too much drama. Just like producer manipulation to engineer drama, as mentioned earlier, intervention against unwanted transgression can also be divided into two modes of reaction: firstly, overt and immediate interventions that directly affect the ongoing actions on the set of the show; and secondly, initially invisible, structural interventions that implement changes to the overall concept of the show and which might only come into effect in future seasons, possibly to prevent a specific transgression from occurring again. Producers therefore navigate between portraying heightened drama for public controversy and having to manage an incident that went too far and crossed the proverbial line, jeopardizing the future of the show and its producers and forcing them to react in order to save face and livelihood. Where exactly this line lies in terms of moral values and extreme behavior has never been explicitly defined, which adds to the relevance of this research. By analysing producer reactions to transgression, the threshold for active intervention and implementing changes can be deduced, thus leading to a demarcation of this line not according to what producers said, but what they did.

To summarize, the genre of reality TV began as transgressive in itself, which proved popular with audiences but unpopular with critics. However, reality TV was soon accepted by audiences and critics when the fears raised in the media panic did not become reality. Producers then went on to manipulate the individual shows to engineer drama within the now more established genre, in order to maintain a certain level of controversy, but this brought along its own challenges: Transgression was now defined

(19)

as unpredictable and risky by producers, since it had the potential to jeopardize their professional and economic futures. This led to producer manipulation in order to control it and thereby turn it into desired transgression. Producer management of dramatic height on the show therefore takes place at both ends of the spectrum. In navigating a framework of transgression between the necessary controversy and avoiding the unacceptable extremes, producers perform a careful balancing act that constantly changes in response to its social context.

The role of the media

As touched upon in the concepts of media panic and moral panic, the media play a central role in the reception and criticism of reality TV, initially acting as moral guardians in society and as the mouthpieces and platforms for public outrage. In early reality TV, the genre was described as a “media phenomenon” (Edwards, 2013, p. 10); media coverage and media/moral panics were a big factor for its success (ibid., p. 1). This was due to the media highlighting and sometimes even creating social panics around transgression or deviance, focusing attention on an issue and exaggerating its importance (Goode, 2017, p. 2). This not only awarded reality TV with publicity and notoriety, but also increased the sales of the media outlets (Biltereyst, 2004, p. 104). Reality TV, in turn, used its fast production schedules to address current controversies, making itself newsworthy and stepping into current discussions (Edwards, 2013, p. 3). The media therefore contributed to making reality TV shows the “lightning rods” (ibid.) for public debate, which were in turn often held in media contexts; from op-eds in newspapers and magazines to talk shows on TV and radio.

The media’s continued focus on moral panics led to their persistence within the news cycle, with moral panics almost becoming the new “norm of journalistic practice” in a never-ending contest for attention that turned into a search and need for transgression. This trend towards scandal and controversy, both in media reporting and in reality TV, resulted in a form of symbiosis (Holmes & Jermyn, 2004, p. 21). While moral panics as they occurred in the early 2000s somewhat decreased over time (Biltereyst 2014, p. 125), they were to some extent replaced by an ever-renewing feed of outrageous events, which all share elements of moral panics: e.g. sensational headlines, emotional storytelling and a focus on scandals and extreme behavior (Biltereyst, 2004, p. 99). In spite of a changing media landscape, the binary of desired and undesired controversy therefore still exists within reality TV storytelling: incidents that receive media attention need to be either enhanced or defused, depending on which side of the moral boundaries they lie on.

Apart from this trend within the media landscape, reality TV has continued to push the boundaries of storytelling and incorporate new media innovations, impacting the role of media outlets as

(20)

intermediaries of feedback and reception between producers and audiences (Edwards, 2013, p.3). Reality TV has been at the forefront of multiplatform and transmedia storytelling, allowing audiences to access content and interact with contestants of the show directly through websites and online around-the-clock livestreams. This lowered the dependence of the public on traditional news media to get information or updates, and instead left the shows themselves in charge of their online presence to some extent (ibid.). As Graham and Hajru (2011, p. 29) argue, reality TV has occupied a prominent spot within the public debate due to its ability to address audiences “simultaneously as participants of debate, as users of social media, as audiences of television programmes and as citizens with our everyd ay experiences”. This is again helped by the hybrid nature of the genre and its transmedial approach. And yet, fan-made recap shows on social media and ongoing extensive tabloid coverage of reality TV content prove that transmedia reality TV and media outlets continue to coexist in a symbiosis that emphasizes the important role of the media for reality TV. This strong relationship is represented in the research design, with media sources serving as the main identifier for transgressive incidents on The Real World.

3. Methodology in Action

Due to the complexity of the topic, the methodology of this research is equally as intricate and represents a novel approach to reality TV research, independent from producer ethnography or ratings. As explained earlier, this results in the methodology itself being part of the research output. For the goal of a better understanding as well as a first operationalization, the following analysis can be understood as a “methodology in action”. The details of the method will therefore become evident as it plays out in the analysis itself.

Having compiled a list of transgressions from the 32 seasons of The Real World as a structural preliminary step to setting up the body of analysis, the analysis itself primarily consists in creating scales of transgression, along which each individual incident on the list is then coded. A first scale was already established earlier: the three levels of transgression in reality TV. In step 1, the transgressions are therefore coded according to which level of transgression the media coverage focused on: the transgressive format and structure of the show, the transgressive behavior showcased, or the transgressive innovative subject matter and technology. This initial step of distributing the transgressions provides an overview of the levels of transgression and the relationship between them. The subsequent steps of analysis correspond with the coding of each transgression individually according to its engineering, management, deployment and dramatic height. Since the central importance of producers has been established earlier, the focus here lies on the role of producers in relation to the transgression.

(21)

(22)

Step 2 of the analysis concerns the transgressive format of the show and therefore looks for indications of how producers have engineered transgression in the framework of their show. For differentiated insights, the incidents are coded along four scales in this step. The first scale questions whether an incident is engineered by producers and therefore intentional or not, followed by the distinction between producers actively manipulating the framework or reacting to an incident. While the next scale concerns contestant behavior, specifically the motivation of a transgression (personal or structural) it also pertains to this analytical step, since this element can be strongly set up and influenced by producers through the tool of casting.

Step 3 then moves from the engineered and controlled transgression to the unpredictable and risky, as in contestant behavior which producers need to deal with. The first scale differentiates between physical and verbal transgressions as well as cast departures from the show, whereas the next two scales examine whether producers intervened in direct response to the transgression, and if they did so immediately and on-screen. This helps to draw conclusions about the sense of urgency that individual incidents caused in producers.

(23)

In Step 4, the most common types of subject matter for transgressions are deduced from the spreadsheet and then introduced as options for the first scale. For reasons of scope, the eight most common options were selected, with the rest being coded as “other”. A second scale was added to differentiate between the exploration and “exploitation” of social issues on the show, due to the latter being a frequent criticism of reality TV. The fifth and final step takes the analysis to a broader level and looks into how producers alter and manipulate the dramatic height of the show. The corresponding scale “alternation of dramatic height” is understood to be cumulative and incorporates all aforementioned producer engineering, management of deployment of transgression, in order to gain a broader insight about the framework of transgression.

Analytical Step 1: The Three Levels of Transgression

As explained earlier, media coverage from Entertainment Weekly was used to identify the transgressions on TRW that make up the body of analysis. Regarding this first scale “Media response to…”, a transgression could be coded as either “concept of the show”, “behavior on the show”, or “subject matter/technology”, reflecting the three structural levels of transgression that media outlets could potentially focus on in their coverage of this incident. These results were expected to reveal patterns ove r the course of the show that speak to the interrelation of the three levels. Based on the literature review, the media response to early seasons of TRW was expected to be dominated by comments about the nature of the show, since the format in itself represented a transgressive new presence within the television landscape4. Other transgressions that were coded on this end of the scale included the introduction of new twists or format changes by producers, such as the introduction of the season-long job assignment for the cast in TRW: Miami5, which introduced a competitive element to the show and

therefore represented a substantial change from its original “fly-on-the-wall” concept.

A central motivation for producers to introduce format changes is to maintain and raise audience interest, which is amplified by media coverage of the format changes. This once again speaks to the importance of media coverage to producer strategy and consequently the relevance of this scale. The second option, “extreme behavior on the show”, represents transgressions by contestants, either in conflicts with each other or in terms of struggles with health, identity, substance abuse or the law. Lastly, the third category represents the subject matter present on the show. This could either concern the use of innovative technology (such as the tilted camera angles or rapid cuts) or the introduction of a topic which had previously not been present on the show or on reality TV in general and whose inclusion therefore

4 See spreadsheet, row 4 5 See spreadsheet, row 26

(24)

represents a transgression in itself (like the portrayal of Pedro Zamora’s struggle with AIDS on TRW: San Francisco in 19946).

These three categories were conceived as not being mutually exclusive, since the three structural levels of transgression they represent can overlap. For example, innovative subject matter could have been presented through contestant behavior, such as the heated argument between Kevin Powell and Becky Blasband in season 1 which started out as a verbal conflict but quickly came close to a physical altercation. Since this conflict was rooted in a discussion about race it would qualify as extreme contestant behavior as well as topical and innovative subject matter being presented on the show for the first time7. In addition, media criticism of extreme behavior could have its roots in structural changes made to the concept of the show, as exemplified in the media coverage of TRW: Las Vegas. Here, media scrutiny focused largely on the drunken and sexual antics of the cast, which according to critics was actively encouraged by the residence being set in a hotel with a casino8. Media coverage of the show was therefore analyzed for all three of the levels and coded in all categories it encompassed. This initial analysis of the media response to transgression on the show was intended to provide a general overview of the dynamic between the three structural levels over the course of the 32 seasons, with a more in -depth analysis of all three levels separately to follow.

Fig. 1: Media Response to the three structural levels of transgression on TRW

6 See spreadsheet, row 19 7 See spreadsheet, row 6 8 See spreadsheet, row 48

(25)

The overview of the findings (see Fig. 1) show that a vast majority of media coverage focused on transgressive contestant behavior, which is represented by the orange graph. This was not entirely unexpected, since the theoretical framework suggested that once the novelty of the genre and format had died down, the concept was altered to structurally engineer transgressive and extreme behavior. This tactic appears to have successfully engaged audiences and critics and created controversy throughout the show’s run. Up to season 10, the format was changed several times (represented by the peaks in the blue graph), e.g. with the introduction of the business activity in season 5, or a setting like the hotel suite in TRW: Las Vegas (season 10) that invited excessive drinking and sexual behavior. However, this then stopped with the blue graph stagnating at zero until season 20: producers seemed to have found a balance that worked, and a satisfying framework for desired transgressive behavior to occur. This changed in season 28, when structural changes were made with every new season (with the blue graph remaining elevated), up until the end of the show’s original run with season 32. For most of the show’s run, innovative subject matter was included at regular intervals, leading to recurring peaks in the grey graph, before a stagnation after season 25. Combined with the continuously high blue graph (representing format changes), this suggests that producers changed their strategy for engineering transgression from new subject matter towards concept changes. This hints at a central notion: namely that the management of transgression occurs between the poles of anticipation and novelty, as well as between repetition and unpredictability.

This overview provides an early insight into the dynamics of producer management of transgression. As the theoretical framework suggested, producers alter the dramatic height of the show in order to best engineer transgressive behavior in a framework that they can control to a certain extent. This leads to the conclusion that the time between any structural changes made to the show would represent a period of desired transgression and a good balance of transgression between “not enough” and “too much”. Based on the findings in Fig. 1, then, a number of different “eras” of TRW can be deduced, leading to a division of the show’s run into the following eras:

(26)

These phases represent frameworks of “desired” transgression for producers, which makes the instances of producer reaction and intervention within the phases particularly relevant. Ideally, producers would not need to intervene within this engineered framework, as it was producing desired transgressions; a producer intervention therefore marks an occasion of a transgression crossing the line of acceptable behavior and becoming undesired for producers, forcing them to react.

Analytical Step 2: Producer Engineering of Transgression

It is precisely this engineered framework of desired transgression that is more closely analyzed in the second step. In the first scale, transgressions can be classified as either engineered and therefore “intentional”, or incidental and therefore “unintentional”. A central element in this is the notion of control. Intentional controversy can be achieved by producers e.g. through casting along social conflict lines, or by repeating similar storylines and cast combinations that are prone to conflict and tension between housemates. Examples of this would be the casting of a white “southern belle” archetype from rural America who interacts with minorities on the show for the first time, as in the example of Julie Gentry in season 1 and many others after her. In addition, overt manipulations of the living space or changes made to the rules of the show will have an effect on the level of drama. By introducing these variables themselves, the producers are able to plan conflicts ahead of time to a certain extent, leading to them retaining control within their established framework of “desired” transgression. This strategy was evident in season 2, when castmate Irene Barrera moved out after getting married. Her replacement, Beth

(27)

Anthony, was an out-and-proud lesbian and allegedly specifically introduced to create conflict with cast member Tami Roman9, who in her application had stated that the one thing she was not comfortable with were gay women10.

Unintentional transgressions on the other hand are incidents that are accidental and unpredictable (such as castmates departing from the show, as well as the occasion of Neil Forrester’s tongue being bitten off in TRW: London11), or that exceed the expected and desired level of drama, like conflicts

escalating into physical violence or health-related issues. These unpredictable transgressions are not necessarily undesired by production, with some presenting themselves as unexpected but exciting elements that raise the dramatic height of the show. The number of intentional incidents speak to the lower end of the framework of desired transgression, since they represent the minimum level of dramatic height that producers desire on the show. Since an incident can only be either actively engineered by producers or not, the options for this scale are mutually exclusive.

Complementing the first scale, the second scale is expected to provide insights about the upper limit of the framework of transgression, namely the incidents that cause producers to intervene and react. In broader terms, the first scale concerns producers engineering their framework for the dramatic height to be “enough”, while the second scale focuses on producers preventing it to become “too much”. This can be best analyzed through the way producers react to incidents, in particular the aforementioned unexpected and unpredictable ones.

Unpredictable incidents for producers are inherently risky but can potentially be transformed into desired storylines through editing and post-production. An example of an unpredictable transgression being turned into a desired one is the storyline of Iraq veteran Ryan Conklin in TRW: Brooklyn. While his army past was an intentional element in his casting profile (in terms of ideology), producers could not have foreseen him being recalled into active duty while the season was being filmed12. However, this ended up raising the dramatic and emotional height of the season significantly and MTV ended up filming his return to Iraq as a documentary feature, further capitalizing on this incident and therefore benefitting from this unexpected incident. On the other hand, a transformation into desired transgression might not always be possible and some incidents require a producer reaction by actively intervening in order to lower the dramatic height and de-escalate. Prime examples for this are the evictions of castmates after

9 See spreadsheet, row 16

10 This was stated by Roman in an episode of “E! True Hollywood Stories”, available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHvR_S5ZDkc around the 24:00 mark

11 See spreadsheet, row 25 12 See spreadsheet, row 92

(28)

physical violence (like when CeeJai Jenkins and Jenna Thomason had two physical fights on TRW: Go Big or Go Home and were removed from the house13), or the airing of a PSA in episodes where sensitive subject matter is addressed (e.g. the episode when Tami Roman has an abortion in TRW: Los Angeles14).

These types of incidents represent a loss of the control producers have maintained, and they are forced to react in order to regain it.

By coding incidents as either “producer action” or “producer reaction”, several insights are expected. On the one hand, the ratio between action and reaction speaks to the degree of control producers have on the dramatic height of their show. A high degree of producer actions compared to reactions would therefore speak to a closely engineered framework with limited unpredictability. A further differentiation between types of producer reaction will follow in the third analytical step. Since this scale follows a similar distinction to the first scale, its options are mutually exclusive. However, there is a possibility of an incident neither directly arising from producer engineering nor requiring producer reaction. This incident would be coded as “N/A”.

In the context of transforming an unpredictable transgression into a desired one, the tool of editing was mentioned as a way for producers to enact control. Another one of these tools lies in the production step of casting. Casting strongly influences the level of transgression on a season, since the biography of individual cast members and the combination of different people are the source of most transgressive storylines. This is reflected in the third scale of this step, which codes a transgression as either “personally motivated” or “structurally motivated”. A structurally motivated transgression would be representative of broader dynamics in society, such as racist or homophobic prejudice and inequality, in which case different ideologies lie at the root of a conflict. A personally motivated transgression, on the other hand, would be based on either an internal struggle with addiction or health, or on a personal dislike of the other person. More concretely speaking, a personally motivated transgression towards another contestant would be because of who they are (as an individual), whereas a structurally motivated transgression occurs because of what they represent (which identity categories or minorities they belong to). These motivations are not mutually exclusive, since a personal dislike can be based on structural discrimination. However, a transgression is only coded as “structurally motivated” if the structural reason is explicitly addressed in the media coverage. This scale is expected to further speak to producer engineering of transgression, since casting can be used to control the level of transgression by closely engineering storylines. Once again, producers operate between anticipation and novelty, since engineering a structurally motivated transgression means increased unpredictability. Structural conflicts are nuanced,

13 See spreadsheet, rows 127-129 14 See spreadsheet, row 12

Between “Too Much” and “Not Enough”. Analyzing Producer Management of Transgression on Reality Television