It's easy to forget TV is a for profit business. Businesses leave little to chance. This requires producing the content carefully. It makes sense to use professional production techniques to have a successful program. When it comes to talk shows, reality shows and any other show leaving the outcome to chance isn't something the business wants to do. Therefore, if the format of the program implies it is scripted, it's not. This includes reality shows.
To support my assertion, I'll recount what happened when I was on an unscripted TV show. In 2011 my wife submitted a suggestion to Oprah's Allstars with Dr. Phil, Suze Orman and Dr. Oz. It was basically an attempt to get advice on how to recover from the 2008 financial disaster. We didn't expect to be invited to be on the show.
The producers contacted us and we agreed to participate. Of course all the legal agreements needed to be signed and they asked for information and media to use for the show. We happily agreed. At the time we assumed the panel would provide useful advice. Of course we had to wait until they taped the show for the advice.
Seems normal thus far. We were instructed about what to wear on camera (apparently red is a bad color for TV), we had a little make up done. I even got a more TV friendly shirt to use. We sit in the audience and participate in the pre-show activities. Someone shows up and tries to get the audience excited, basically coaching everyone to make as much noise as possible when prompted by the applause sign. Ok, not too weird, but a little unexpected for a talk show.
They start with one of the other guests. They tell their story using some media the couple supplied. The couple stands up in the audience and a discussion ensues. The panel gives some advice, which seemed reasonable. This happened again.
Then it was our turn, just after a commercial break. Before the commerical they showed some video we supplied. We'd purchased a luxury car for half price with high miles. We showed the car in an "action" video. The media we sent had some other stuff in it, but I don't recall. When it came to the advice part, they posited the question we supplied. It was supposed to be advice about how to recover from losing most of your retirement savings due to unemployment with 20 years left to save. That's not what happened.
Instead, they showed our luxury car in an action video, it looked cool. The next thing we know, Suze Orman says: "What were you thinking!" That unhinged my wife. Here we were arguing with Suze Orman on her show. Of course, that didn't go over well. The advice consisted of how to cut expenses and increase income to fix a cash flow problem. Nothing was said about how to actually get back on track to retirement. Dr. Oz didn't say much and Dr. Phil offered some good advice. Basically he said finances are rational, it has nothing to do with emotion. He said to approach the problem analytically and divorce emotions, such as anger, fear and embarrasment from attacking the problem.
After the show, Dr. Phil came to me and shook my hand. He said offered words of kindness and encouragement and left the stage. Decent man. Suze Orman, not so much.
We had little time to clear out of the hotel and get on a flight back home. It was a nice little free vacation. But, it was also deeply disturbing. Not only did we get a useless scolding, we didn't get any useful advice. We don't air our dirty laundry to our friends much less a TV audience. But we sincerely thought the advice from experts would help other people in out predicament.
So, we made some phone calls and wrote some emails to the producers. Basically making the point that we'd been wronged. We were depicted as irresponsible, our question was misinterpreted for seemingly theatrical purposes and we didn't get any advice we could use. We made a compelling case and the producer agreed to edit the footage to minimize showing us as irresponsible. Of course the argument between my wife and Suze was edited out. So, at least the producers did the right thing.
I tell this story as an example to illustrate the reality of TV. Even when it's unscripted, it is edited and produced. The guests are carefully chosen and coached to behave responsibly. There is a story being told even in unscripted shows and it's not 100% on the up and up.
In addition to this experience, just watching TV delivering "news" I can't tell you how many times I talk to the TV. It's clear that what is shown is designed with an agenda. CNN management changed a while ago and they are required to show left and right points of view. But the right is underrepresented. Fact checking and other activites to fight lies dominate the discussions for an audience that agrees. It does little to convince the people who do not watch the show that lies are being told.
I'm going to shortciruit the discussion about this situation and take it up a level of abstraction. Why would a news program be interested in scaring your all the time and making the same argument that reinforces your beliefs but does nothing to convince unsympathetic people? Money. Fear sells air time. It seems nobody is interested in the positive things that happen daily. These subjects are covered when air time is cheaper, say on the weekends.
Listen to the discussions for more than a few minutes and you'll hear the same sound bites repeated over and over, albiet a little differently and by different people. But, the producers obviously decided how a subject should be depicted. Not much different than the experience we had on the All Stars show.
There are alternatives to TV news to obtain information about current events. But they are hard to find and somewhat boring in comparison. It seems everybody loves a trainwreck, even if they are looking for information instead of entertainment. Which is fine, but the source of misinformation is like a deluge flooding a desert of the information void. At some point the plug needs to be pulled and fill the pool up with information again.
In summary, I was reminded the other day that the price of free speech requires everyone to fact-check data they receive. The problem is, it's hard. It's also hard to turn data into information. It requires analysis, synthesis skills and access to the source supplying data. Few people can do this in their jobs, even fewer lay people can do it. Fact-checking information in real time is impossible. Until the system of disseminating data and information changes, we all need to be diligent, even when a major source of information appears to be reliable and unbiased.