Reality shows is a controversial issue since they appeared on television in the 90’s. They have been defended as a scientific experiment, which results are worthy to observe. They have also been strongly criticised because of the artificial behaviour of the participants, and the values they promote. We will try to analyse both sides of the coin.
One of the positive sides of realities is the use and development of strategies while playing. In the words of a participant of Big Brother Africa, “Big Brother house is a positive prison”. The easy access to popularity and jobs in the TV and theatres are just some benefits of the reality. People who are studying to be actors, models, singers or people who just want to become famous of a sudden are the ones who enter into the house and allow the world to see them acting, cooking, sleeping, arguing, having sex and going to the bathroom. Scientists study behaviours when they are observed with a camera (or hundreds of cameras). It has been seen that when “brothers” enter into the house they are careful with what they say and do, but when days go through they forget about cameras and that is the starting point for an interesting TV programme.

In my opinion, I do not like those realities which manage large amounts of money and play with psychological and emotional conditions of isolated people living without privacy, willing to do whatever to win money and become famous. Although it is their decision to enter Big Brother, I think it is not appropriate content to show our kids or to sit and watch in family.
¿Que tema polémico si los hay!!!
ResponderEliminarLos detractores opinan y ven en este tipo de programas lo absurdo de estar al pendiente de lo que una serie de personas hacer (sin hacer nada) de forma totalmente antinatural,que fin en si mismo cumple este tipo de programa, (mostrar la naturaleza humana?)y están los que lo defienden.
En fin creo que ponerlo aquí, sobre el "tapete", es un buen tema para debatir.