Do you sometimes wish that you were cast in a reality show? You’re not alone. Consider the following scenario and attempt to recall how many times you’ve witnessed it.

The professor is fully concentrated on explaining the structure of molecules. He is oblivious to the student who sits in the back and stares at her laptop. Let’s call her Amy. At a first glance, she seems to be carefully examining her notes. A closer look reveals a less than studious truth. The hood of Amy’s University of Massachusetts sweatshirt conceals ear buds; her computer screen is gleaming with the opening credits of “Jersey Shore.”

Should Amy be considered an airhead, or is she simply a victim of a trend? The answer is tricky. To Amy, the structure of the water molecule will prove to be of little benefit  On the other hand, the content of the latest episode of “Jersey Shore” will provide the source for numerous posts on Twitter, Myspace and Facebook – all of which will certainly increase Amy’s social reputation. At this rate, the only way in which she will be interested in any scholastic affairs is if they’re filmed, edited, and presented to her in a broadcast-ready format. Before that happens, the adventures of Snooki take precedence over other subjects.

Modern television is full of “reality programs.” These shows claim to expose the “real” (or slightly modified) lives of “average” individuals to a similar group of equally average individuals, eliminating the highly-predictable and costly scripted drama. With this setup, Amy gets to view a likeness of herself living the glamorous lifestyle: partying, sitting in a hot tub and spending money frivolously. In real life Amy’s schedule is filled with chemistry and calculus. This is not what they teach on “America’s Next Top Model.”

Reality TV is a relatively new trend. This genre developed not as an attempt of the studios to accommodate the desires of their audience, but as a desperate effort to find cheaper programming. It costs only $200,000 to produce an episode of a reality show; the bill for scripted shows could run over $1,000,000. It is in the studio’s financial interest to produce reality shows than extensively spend precious dollars on traditional programming in the hope of finding loyalty among the target demographic.

Then comes the question of the viewers’ response: Are unfamiliar individuals grappling for a prize interesting to watch? Apparently.  A survey of “Survivor” audiences in 2003 revealed that the unpredictable nature of the show and the absence of hired actors were among the highest points of interest for them.

Reality programming is different partly because it is being advertised on a false premise. The audience never sees raw footage but only selected events that have been prearranged. Many viewers realize this, but few know the extent to which the shows are altered.

What is included in this engineered reality? Product placement, a staged environment (a set on which the show is taped), a carefully chosen cast, selected challenges (in the case of competition shows) and edited footage. The latter is most important, as the editor has the power to shape the personalities and control the outcome of the show.

Story editors of reality programs have gone to court demanding higher salaries; they claim that the labor of selecting and editing raw footage is so extensive that they should be paid as screenwriters. They are denied the benefits of Writer’s Guild of America based on the assumption that their programs are not scripted. For comparison, the stars of reality programming are highly compensated; characters on “The Hills” were collecting six-figure paychecks at the end of their last season.

It is more surprising that, given all of the above, reality television gained such popularity. The “Atlantic Monthly” published an article entitled “The case for reality TV,” in which VH1 executive vice president Michael Hirschorn states that reality programming “engaged hot-button cultural issues – class, sex, race – that respectable television… rarely touches.” Note the presence and placement of the word “respectable” in the quote. Let’s examine exactly how these issues are engaged.

The actions of the “real” characters are often less than glamorous. In interviews subsequent to their fame, cast members admit to inflating or altering their behavior for the cameras. If it was not celebrity, it was the reward that obliged the contestants to “act.” Apparently, modern society approves of any behavior as long as it is justified by fiscal means. Any action, no matter how ridiculous, is excused if the individual gains fame as a result.

The conduct popularized by reality programming has become socially accepted. Few people understand that watching television is not a passive activity. The content of certain shows impacts one’s perception of reality and the norm. Craig A. Anderson from Iowa State University notes that, “one of the negative things about television is that it gives a distorted image of what the rest of the world is like. TV changes the perception of what is normal.”

Should Amy turn off her computer, leaving the episode of “Jersey Shore” unwatched? Perhaps. It will be a little step toward making her world more real and less staged.

Yevgeniya Lomakina is a Collegian columnist. She can be reached at [email protected].