Reality TV is irritating but irresistible | | |
|
Like it or loathe it, reality TV is a huge part of popular culture. Almost half of Americans watch reality shows regularly. They influence the foods people buy, the clothes they put on their backs and even the words they use. (If you’ve ever been told to “sashay away” or heard someone described as a “melt”, you have “RuPaul’s Drag Race” and “Love Island” to thank.) It was a game show, “The Apprentice”, that provided the platform that enabled an American real-estate mogul to launch his bid for the highest office in the land.
Emily Nussbaum, a writer for the New Yorker, takes a long look at the evolution of reality TV in her new book, “Cue the Sun!”. The book, and
our review
(by my colleague, Tom Wainwright), is full of insights about the history of the genre. But one name is noticeably glossed over: the Kardashians. Once dubbed “America’s First Family”, the Kardashians are famous mostly for being famous.
After their docuseries, which debuted in 2007, they became omnipresent. (Seventeen years later, their show is still in the top 1% of all reality programmes, according to Parrot Analytics.) Kendall is currently the face of Tommy Hilfiger and Calvin Klein. Kylie runs a beauty empire and is the fourth-most-followed person on Instagram; she is on the cover of British Vogue next month. Kim has a net worth of $1.7bn, according to Forbes. That makes her richer than Rihanna and Tiger Woods.
It is the Kardashians who perhaps best embody Ms Nussbaum’s theme of the mixed effects of reality TV. On the one hand, the Kardashians demonstrate a zeal for entrepreneurship. They are pioneers of the influencer economy: Kim reportedly earns more than $2m per sponsored social-media post. At least one university now offers a course on the Kardashians’ media strategy.
However their impact can be pernicious, too, particularly on female body image. Many girls are willing to go under the knife to mimic their distorted silhouettes. Kylie’s plumped lips led to a surge in inquiries for lip filler. Kim’s backside did the same thing for Brazilian butt lifts. The Kardashians extol the virtues of exercise; they also talk about crash dieting, edit their photos and dissemble on the subject of surgery.
Like many of my peers, I remain strangely fascinated by the Kardashians in spite of my ambivalence. I think they are worthy of serious study; at the same time, I find their show completely asinine. The family has perfected what Ms Nussbaum defines as reality TV’s essence: “a titillating flash of the authentic, framed by the dark glitter of the fake, like a dash of salt in dark chocolate”. It can be delicious, but too much of it can make you feel nauseous.
Thank you for reading Plot Twist. What do you make of reality TV: is it a force for good, for evil, both or neither? Share your thoughts at
plottwist@economist.com.
Elsewhere in The Economist this week: | | |
Editor’s picks
Must-reads this week | | |
The Economist recommends
What to read, see and listen to | | |
|
-
What to listen to: “Kampire Presents: A Dancefloor in Ndola”. In the past decade Kampire Bahana has gone from a local favourite on Kampala’s DJ circuit to a globe-trotting star. Her new compilation was inspired by the pan-African music she heard while growing up in Zambia’s copper belt. “A Dancefloor In Ndola” spans decades of African music, from Congolese soukous to South African house music and Zambian kalindula, paying special attention to underappreciated women artists. For listeners uninitiated in such sounds, this joyous collection also offers a musical education.
-
What to see: “Antony & Cleopatra” at the Globe theatre in London. Shakespeare’s great Roman tragedy has been transformed for this bilingual production. Mark Antony (John Hollingworth) speaks in English, while Cleopatra (Nadia Nadarajah) communicates using British Sign Language. This choice demonstrates the Globe’s commitment to “anti-literalism” in casting, yet it also deepens a story about the clash of two great cultures. Antony and Cleopatra are madly in love but prone to misunderstanding one another, with fatal consequences.
-
What to read: “Going Home”, a novel by Tom Lamont, out now in Britain and published in America in January. Téo Erskine’s weekend trip to his father’s home in the suburbs of London turns into a much longer stay after his schoolfriend kills herself unexpectedly and he becomes the guardian of her toddler. What follows is a tender and gorgeously written book about men and how they care for each other—as fathers, sons and friends.
| | |
|
Was this email forwarded to you? Sign up here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This email has been sent to:
account@kait.dev. If you'd like to update your details please
click here. Replies to this email will not reach us. If you don't want to receive these updates anymore, please unsubscribe
here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copyright © The Economist Newspaper Limited 2024. All rights reserved.
|
|
Registered in England and Wales.
No.236383
Registered office: The Adelphi, 1–11 John Adam Street, London,
WC2N 6HT
|
|
|
