Is Documentary Television Doomed by The Reality Show?

The documentary genre is currently experiencing a renaissance on television.  However, there is a rift that is occurring between legitimate documentaries and the travesty that is the reality show, a sub-genre that technically falls under the documentary umbrella but in fact bears little resemblance to it.

The network or cable channel that a television documentary is aired on will have a strong influence on both its content and narrative technique.  In the same way that an automaker like BMW creates signature design elements that run through their entire model line, channels aim to distinguish themselves from one another by having a distinctive programming style for most, if not all, of their shows.  

For example, an historical documentary produced for broadcast on the History Channel will be approached differently than one for the National Geographic Channel, even if they cover the same subject matter.  In this way, brand image is strengthened so that viewers can immediately recognize shows as being part of a specific channel’s lineup.

From the outset, makers of documentary television know what is expected of a final product based upon what channel is ordering the program.  The standards are laid out beforehand, providing a blueprint upon which to work, which can make production run more smoothly.  

With television documentaries, conformity is the key, as viewers rely on the fact that they can sit themselves down on the couch and know what’s coming on their favorite channel.  This approach stomps out much of the creative control of producers and directors, turning their jobs into positions in an assembly line.  

Of course, there are exceptions to the rule.  The brilliant nature documentary Planet Earth, produced by the BBC (U.K) through an international partnership with Discovery Channel (U.S.), NHK (Japan), and CBC (Canada), is one of the finest examples of the medium, serving as justification for high-definition television. 

But Planet Earth is an outlier, because the BBC is a non-commercial public service broadcaster.  Commercial television is a medium where at least a quarter of programming is devoted to advertisements.  Because of this, the makers of documentary television must oftentimes tread lightly on certain issues, for fear of losing valuable advertising dollars that keep the channel in business.  Advertisers market their products and services to certain demographics, and they want to ensure that the content of a particular show is in line with who they want to sell to.

Ultimately, television documentaries are harmed by these restrictions.  The familiarity with which a channel produces its shows does a great service to audience ratings, but largely saps the creators of making programming that is outside the box.  On the other hand, the makers of cinematic documentaries have a greater degree of flexibility to tell their stories the way that they see fit.  Directors and producers of documentary film have more freedom to think creatively.  

Now, of course, film is a business that is still beholden to turning a profit.  After all, we live in a capitalist society.  But since film doesn’t have to rely on funding from advertisements in the same way that television does, creativity isn’t as suffocated.  This is an issue of budget as well.  Whereas a television show has to spread out its resources across multiple episodes, a film can pour all of its money into producing one to two hours.  So the finished product of the big screen is usually superior to that of the small screen.

Most contemporary documentary television has descended into the realm of reality programming, wherein the everyday lives of “normal” people are followed.  These shows are little more than loosely scripted farces designed to exploit anyone and anything that lies on the fringes of society.

The undisputed giant of this arena is TLC.  Its current lineup is almost exclusively devoted to reality programming, including series such as My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding, Extreme Couponing, Hoarding: Buried Alive, and Toddlers and Tiaras.  The irony of their success lies in the fact that a network formerly marketed as “The Learning Channel” now features no educational programming whatsoever.

The issue with the reality television genre is whether or not it can be considered as part of the documentary genre.  On the surface, it can be argued that these are documentaries, because their basic style involves following subjects around with cameras for days at a time.  But this is where the comparison ends.

Let’s take a series such as MTV’s Jersey Shore (which, thankfully, is entering its final season but will all but certainly spawn a litany of spin-offs).  Like any other show on television, be it scripted or unscripted, it has its own conventions to follow.  Its viewers expect that the characters are going to get caught up in wildly dramatic situations at nightclubs and bars on a regular basis, so the producers either suggest certain activities, or stage events altogether.  Anyone who sincerely believes that they are simply watching the everyday lives of these people unfold is a dunce.

The fact that most people’s interaction with the documentary medium comes through reality television is alarming, mainly because these series are, at best, pseudo-documentaries.  Viewers’ tastes have changed for the worse, and while some are able to correctly identify reality television as the semi-scripted diversion that it is, there are too many people who actually consider such programs as authentic.

Reality shows don’t seem to be going anywhere, and it’s likely going to be a while before the trend changes.  But there are still legitimate documentaries, in both film and television, and that is a hopeful sign for the future of the genre.


(This article is adapted from a piece originally written for 'Documentary Film & Television,' a Master's course in Communication Arts at the New York Institute of Technology)