Has Reality TV Gone Too Far?: An Analysis of Toxic TV
*This article contains discussion of domestic violence and substance abuse. Reader discretion advised.
Reality television has been a cultural staple since its beginning. Whether it is rich housewives, swinging Mormons or strange addictions, reality TV has had an undeniable impact on pop culture as we know it today. Iconic moments are captured on screen, which often leads to the “meme-ification” of cast members. Entire Reddit forums are dedicated to discussing every fight, word spoken and outfit - no moment goes unnoticed by fans. However, one can’t help but wonder whether reality TV has gone too far. At what point does it become exploitive? This article will explore the negative impact of reality TV from the perspective of three different series: “The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives,” “Jersey Shore,” and “Love Island.”
The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives (And the Bachelorette)
Joining the religious ranks alongside “Sister Wives” and “Preachers of LA”, “The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives” follows a group of Mormon women as they navigate religion, self-discovery and online fame. The show gained initial traction following a swinging scandal and has grown in popularity since, leading to cast members Jen Affleck and Whitney Leavitt joining the most recent season of “Dancing With the Stars.”
“The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives” illustrates how reality TV blurs the line between documentation and exploitation. As a show that centers on deeply personal aspects of identity like religion and family life, it often serves to amplify personal conflicts. This turns private experiences, like infidelity and domestic abuse, into a public spectacle. This is further complicated by real-world consequences faced by cast members.
Self-proclaimed leader of “Momtok” and “The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives” cast member, Taylor Frankie Paul, has been in hot water recently for a video that has surfaced involving a domestic violence incident between her and former partner (and “baby-daddy”) Dakota Mortensen. Paul was slated to be the next Bachelorette, but as of right now, it is unclear if ABC will air the show due to the controversy. Rather than existing solely within the confines of entertainment, the issues that are presented on the show intersect with audience consumption, affecting reputations, relationships and in the case of Paul, cast safety.
Jersey Shore
One thing that reality TV thrives on is chaos. When I think of chaos, “Jersey Shore” immediately comes to mind. The show follows a ragtag group of young adults hailing from the New York Tri-state area as they live together over the summer in Seaside Heights, New Jersey. Episodes feature the cast’s days working and partying at the shore, which includes heavy drinking, hookups and other shenanigans. For this article, we will take a look at two key moments: cast members Ronnie Ortiz-Magro and Sammi Giancola, along with season four, when the cast heads to Italy.
As two original cast members, Ronnie and Sammi met during the first season of the show. The pair ended up dating on and off for around five to seven years. As the show progresses, we see their relationship both fall apart and mend. They seemed to fight constantly at the shore house, which we later see impacting other members of the cast. Some of their most severe fights involved some sort of physical reaction, specifically from Ronnie. One of the worst fights in the entire series involved Ronnie destroying all of Sammi’s belongings, like her prescription glasses, for example.
The volatile relationship between Ronnie and Sammi is not presented within the show as a serious situation requiring intervention, but is rather treated as a recurring storyline to keep viewers watching. Moments of emotional and physical intensity, like the situation described above, become memorable scenes that are replayed and discussed as entertainment rather than seen for what it is - a potentially abusive situation.
This was not the only time that the show featured physical altercations. During season four of the show, Ronnie and another other male cast member, Mike (The Situation) Sorrentino, get into a fight stemming from tension after Mike reveals to Sammi that Ronnie was bringing other girls home. Ronnie ends up breaking Mike's bed, and Mike throws himself at a wall. Fans of the show speculate that the behavior exhibited by the cast was a result of substance withdrawal. While this has not been confirmed, Mike is candid about his road to sobriety in later seasons.
The altercations between the cast members in season four highlight how extreme behavior is not only captured but also put front and center. Whether the conflict is fueled by interpersonal tensions or substance abuse, these incidents are framed as dramatic peaks in the show's narrative. “Jersey Shore” presents a failure by production to protect its cast. The show relies heavily on the cast members' instability, profiting from exploiting their real-life, concerning problems. The more volatile the behavior, the more valuable it becomes to the show.
Love Island
The final series that I want to highlight is “Love Island.” The show places attractive, single people in a villa in Fiji. The show’s game aims for contestants to “find love,” which, in doing so, involves coupling up with other islanders, fun challenges and dramatic island dumpings. “Love Island” is different from other reality TV in that it places contestants in a curated environment that is designed to intensify emotion, heighten conflict and accelerate the dating process for the sake of entertainment. Contestants are provided with limited access to the outside world (no social media), and every interaction (including sexual) is filmed, leaving little room for privacy or genuine reflection.
Being on “Love Island” comes with emotional pressure and intense public scrutiny. Contestant Huda Mustafa faced such scrutiny after competing on the show's seventh season. Huda, who was originally coupled with fellow contestant Jeremiah Brown, faced backlash following her emotional reactions on the show, which were central to the narrative throughout the season. This illustrates how the show played into contestants' vulnerability. As the audience focused more on Huda’s behavior, many fans argued that the show was taking advantage of her mental health. Whether or not these concerns are fully substantiated, audience reactions to Huda’s experience highlight a broader issue within “Love Island.” Because the show relies so heavily on the emotional intensity of cast members for audience engagement, there is an environment created where vulnerability is incentivized, ultimately raising questions of authenticity and exploitation.
The Bigger Picture
So what makes these drastically different shows similar? The producer shaped narratives and audience involvement. A lot of the drama that we typically see on these shows is engineered by producers in order to create controversy. As humans, we are naturally inclined to pay attention to the dumpster fire. Watching these shows is like driving past a car accident. Viewers are drawn to moments of chaos, even when they are uncomfortable. Producers have taken notice of this and continue to push dramatic narratives. Thus, the cycle continues, blurring the line between authenticity and performance. Is reality TV actually still reality? Was it ever?
One could argue that because cast participation is voluntary, reality TV isn’t exploitative. Cast members choose to be on these series, with the hopes of chasing fame, opportunities and potentially financial gain. However, volunteering to be on TV does not guarantee that a show is ethical. The emotions and struggles of real people are used to push a narrative, which often gives cast members a “bad edit” that they cannot control. Audiences take this narrative and make judgments, which oftentimes lead to public bullying and harassment online. The consequences of these portrayals often extend beyond the screen, affecting cast members’ reputations, relationships and mental health long-term.
If reality TV continues to thrive on engineered conflict and emotional exposure, the question is no longer whether it is real, but whether or not audiences are willing to accept the cost of its entertainment.
Editor: Sydney Annis