Skip to main content

Whats real about Reality Shows?

These are heydays of reality shows. Every channel worth its salt has come up with innovative (uff…sorry most are copied from West) formats. All compete to grab eyeballs & in the name of increasing TRPs most resort to ridiculous stuff.

Lets see, why these have become so popular replacing the saas-bahu serials which were in vogue before. I see this as a satiation of common-man to become the centre of attraction. If idealism of saas-bahu type which was removed from reality appealed back then, now the “reality” of normal, ordinary people craving for popularity has become more appealing.

So far, only few elite had access to adulation of masses. It is time for the commoner to occupy the centre-stage & enjoy the newfound celebrity status. Hence, this is infact democratization of popularity and masses are subtly made to believe their potential-popularity which forms the lure of these shows.

However, I feel that this is not a step in right direction. A casual glance at these shows make me believe that most of these developments (crying, displaying anger, making crude remarks, making some narcissistic comments about their supposed talent is scripted.  

It is nice to be important, but it is more important to be nice.

It is most reasonable desire of anybody to be popular. However one must note that popularity at any cost is detrimental to them. I have personal experience of a guy who goes to a narcissistic peak, who used to relish his count of fans in Orkut, who used to carefully design his profile including his pics which made me wonder if he feels that world has nothing better to do than viewing it. Again, to show-off is perfectly reasonable desire, but one must be within limits and must curb it; else it rubs off others badly.

The power of Emotion?

I feel that emotions (especially soft & intense ones) are like treasures of heart and they retain their sanctity only when displayed to few and exhibited only once in a while. Crying in public is most abhorring act and I consider it most vulgar. It’s more vulgar than parading one’s luxury to a poor man. Usually I see it as hypocrisy of a schemer. Reality shows play with our emotions, and make us involved in the show by attracting our lower emotions. (such as sadistic pleasure in seeing them cry). That they wish to do that is amply clear from the fact that all ads concentrate of the supposed tussles than mainstream activity to make us more involved.

Sach ka Saamna

Of all the reality shows, this one is the most crude, vulgar & sadistic. Some truths are not for everybody and every-time. Moreover, “Thoughts are the shadows of our feelings - always darker, emptier and simpler.”  There are some feelings in most of us, which we simply can’t put in public. Much of our problems are avoided by tact & diplomacy and I see no harm in its usage within limits especially if it helps avoid problems/confrontation. Depending on compulsion of circumstance (fear of law), fear of consequences, sheer impracticalness we reject negative ideas.(and not because we don’t get negative ideas!) Most of time we reject some negative thoughts because we feel that in longer long its simply not worth it. Law would cease to be functional if not for the fear we possess of others’ reliability & virtue. Every person sincerely believes that he’ll never commit wrong & its for others law exists.
I see no value in this show, and it has potential to destroy families by turning on graves of past truth which bear no impact on future.

These are few reasons why I believe Reality shows are not worth the hype the generate.

Comments

  1. Very true,Bro! Shows on TV are far from what they are supposed to be- Inspirational & educational.There are so many stories of the human soul & its strength & ability-waiting to be told,that could fuel many more in turn.It's pathetic to see the mass disaster the daily soaps cause.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The concept of Dharma in Ramayana

The concept of Dharma is not adequately understood by Hindus themselves, not to mention others. Dharma is not a set of do’s and don’t’s or a simplistic evaluation of good and bad. It requires considerable intellectual exertion to even begin understanding Dharma, let alone mastering its use.

Is Dharma Translatable?
Few words of a language cannot be faithfully translated into another without injuring its meaning, context & spirit. English translations of Dharma are blurred and yield words like religion, sense of righteousness, discrimination between good and bad, morals and ethics or that which is lawful. All these fall short of fully grasping the essence of Dharma.
Every language has an ecosystem of words, categories and grammar which allow a user to stitch words together to maximum effect such that meaning permeates the text without necessarily being explicitly explained at each point. Sanskrit words such dharma, karma, sloka, mantra, guru etc., now incorporated in English, lose thei…

How Linguistic States strengthened Indian Unity

Be like a garland maker, O king; not like a charcoal burner.” --Mahabharata
[It asks the king to preserve and protect diversity, in a coherent way. The metaphor used is that of a garland, in which flowers of many colors and forms are strung together for a pleasing effect. The contrast is given against charcoal, which is the result of burning all kinds of wood and reducing diversity to homogeneous dead matter. The charcoal burner is reductionist and destroys diversity, whereas the garland maker celebrates diversity.]
Unification of Germany and Italy populated by similar people was achieved by huge armies spanning across decades. In sharp contrast, India under Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel managed to unite a much larger area divided by culture & languages within few years.
The European experience where new nations were carved over little differences in identity, made the Indian experiment appear poised for a breakup sooner than later. Yet, India managed to stay united though the journey wa…

Chetan Bhagat : His Literary Style and Criticism

Chetan Bhagat’s (CB) recent column created a furore, chiefly because of his audacity to speak for Muslim community and what many people conflate with his support for Narendra Modi’s Prime Ministerial ambitions.  
But what interested me most - and what this post would focus on - is questioning of his literary merit (or lack of it). Many journalists ridicule CB’s style of writing and his oversimplistic portrayals of characters sans nuance or sophistication. But I suspect this has more to do with the fact that his readers alone far outnumber the combined readers of many journalists - a point that many don’t appear capable of digesting.
No takers for layman’s language!
When Tulsidas rewrote Ramayana in Avadhi (a local contemporary dialect then), many conservative sections of society came down heavily upon him for defiling the sanctity of a much revered epic (originally written in Sanskrit). When Quran was first translated in Urdu (by Shah Abdul Qadir in 1798), it faced intense opposition by …