Big Brother 2: Merging Reality and Fiction:

An Application of the Narrative Paradigm

Michael H. Eaves

Valdosta State University

Dept. of Communication Arts

Valdosta, GA 31698

Email: meaves@valdosta.edu

229-259-5116

Paper Presented at the Southern States Communication Association Convention

Held in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, April 3-7, 2002

Abstract

This paper examines the popular Reality TV show, Big Brother 2. Using Walter Fisher's Narrative Paradigm, the author argues that narrative coherence and narrative fidelity are created and sustained throughout the airing of the show. Finally, it is hoped that the application of Fisher's theory to this rhetorical artifact will shed new light on the theory and additional insight into the theory's scope and utility.

Big Brother 2: Merging Reality and Fiction:

An Application of the Narrative Paradigm

There has been an explosion of Reality TV programs including: Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, Temptation Island, Fear Factor, Survivor, and Big Brother. Many of these shows have gone into sequels. Temptation Island recently finished its sequel in the spring, 2002 and Survivor is currently airing its third series of shows. One such sequel occurred for Big Brother, the CBS Reality TV show entitled, Big Brother 2, which aired summer and fall, 2001.

In this essay, I will describe Reality TV in general and its impact in society; describe the Big Brother 2 show and its contestants; apply Fisher's narrative paradigm to Big Brother; and offer some final concluding remarks for the research.

Reality-TV Programming

Reality TV has been one of the most popular genre in prime time TV. All networks, CBS, ABC, NBC, and FOX, each have at least one reality TV show, and many have two or three. Big Brother 2, promised to be bigger and better. The selling of sex, violence, and in-housing evictions led to popular ratings for the CBS show (Mendoza, 2001). In fact, in one episode that did not air fully, clips were shown to the public depicting Krista and Justin kissing in the kitchen. In a later scene, Justin puts a knife to Krista's throat, and he is kindly escorted from the show within a few days. After the incident was shown to the next show's viewing public, the ratings were up significantly (Lowry, 2001). In light of the obvious danger and violence in the show, CBS executives still defended the show.

Another NBC show, with the largest current following of about 11-12 million viewers per show, depicts contestants in dangerous situations. Appropriately entitled, Fear Factor, contestants must face their own fears such as acrophobia, eating insects, or participating in dangerous stunts that might include jumping from an airborne helicopter or making a difficult maneuver on a speedboat . NBC execs defend their shows that clearly push the envelope. After being criticized for dangerous or downright degrading programming, NBC was still quoted to say, "…critics who have called the shows mean-spirited and degrading, may be out of touch with such viewers, Zucker (NBC Entertainment President) suggested. He also said the shows tend to attract the same of upscale, affluent audiences drawn to NBC's pre-eminent series (Associated Press, July 19, 2001)."

Have CBS and other networks sacrificed contestant safety for TV ratings? CBS's Survivor, which is the most popular Reality TV show portrayal of couples or singles who are isolated for a period of days to fend for themselves, has also not been immune from criticism. As Barney (2001) notes: "But how high is too high? Before Big Brother contestant Justin Sebik was ousted from the show for putting a knife to the throat of a female housemate, there was Survivor 2 player Michael Skupin, who took a face-first plunge into a fire. Could these incidents portend even spookier moments?" In fact, Barney (2001) goes on to portray the narrative probability of real-tv when he says that "…some of us find ourselves in an uncomfortable, wait-and-see mode as the medium tests the boundaries. When will it happen? When will 'reality TV' become 'fatality TV’.” This danger may have already happened when FOX recently decided to cancel it’s the Chamber, for fear that excess harm was being done to contestants.

In the Chamber, contestants were selected and placed inside a chamber. There, the contestant was to endure either intense heat conditions or intense cold conditions. In a few shows that I watched, one contestant's beard froze in the few short minutes he was in the Chamber, as temperatures dropped to five below zero for a few seconds. In another situation, a contestant endured heat of 120 degrees and appeared to almost lose her breath. ABC's The Chair is a similar show and may have also been cancelled. Hosted by John McEnroe, known for his unorthodox tennis play and on court demeanor, The Chair has people sit in a chair while answering quiz questions and challenging their fears as alligators pop out of the ceiling resting only inches from their face, or large blades of steel swing nervously above their head. These blades were large enough and sharp enough to slice a person. ABC has not shown the show in several weeks.

Big Brother 2 and its Contestants

In the CBS show, Big Brother 2, which aired last year, there were twelve houseguests who each stayed in a CBS studio house in Los Angeles, especially built by CBS for the sole purpose of housing Big Brother contestants. Hosted by Julie Chen, the show's use of part-time journalist and part-time reality-tv host might serve to establish credibility and "believability" with the audience. This finding is made in a report about the credibility and believability of the narrative as reported in journalistic reporting, even tabloid reporting (Bird, 1990). Chen was largely criticized in the first installment of Big Brother 1 when she took a passive role and was relatively uninvolved in the lives of the house guests (Petrozello, 2001). In Big Brother 2, which has been called the "indoor Survivor,"(Mendoza, 2001 featured the following twelve contestants:

· Autumn, 28, an aspiring singer from Irving, Texas

· Bunky, 36, a technical writer from Harrisburg, North Carolina

· Hardy, 31, an account executive from York, Pennsylvania

· Justin, 26, a bartender from Bayonne, New Jersey

· Kent, 46, a mortgage broker from Powell, Tennessee

· Krista, 28, a waitress from Opelousas, Louisianna

· Mike, 30, a bar owner from Los Angeles

· Monica, 40, a candy store manager and adult literacy teacher from Brooklyn, New York

· Nicole, 31, a personal chef from Atlanta, Georgia

· Shannon, 29, a realtor and boat captain from San Antonio, Texas

· Sheryl, 43, an interior designer from Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida

· Will, 28, a physician from Miami, Florida

*Source from Associated Press, July 5, 2001, Frazier Moore, AP TV writer.

The contestants all lived on one house with three bedrooms, but many contestants were in the same room with one another. After some time, many contestants were forming relationships with one another. And yes, some beds were shared. Alliances were formed between two or more contestants. Since the show incorporated a new twist this year of going to House Eviction, it was important every time the vote took place to evict. Challenges were made between groups, much like the tribal battle on CBS's Survivor. Winners of challenges either received special food allowances or other luxuries. The loser of house challenges often had to eat peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for one week. This was especially painful for Nicole, the chef from Atlanta. In one occasion of victory, Bunky and Will were awarded a free helicopter ride to leave the compound and get up and out into the world to see what they had missed for weeks.

Other challenges were unique from the first show. A new element called Head of Household, gave immunity to that contestant for that week. In addition, he or she had the often painful and deliberative task of selecting whom he or she wanted to nominate for eviction from the house. However, the Head of Household only selected the two people he or she wanted evicted. This was done by a process of giving a key to those who were allowed to stay for the next week. When it was revealed who the two candidates were for eviction, the final vote for eviction was decided by the contestants who remained on the show. In other words, as week went by, the pool of contestants to vote for final eviction became smaller and smaller. In the end, the final two contestants were Will, the doctor from Miami, and Nicole from Atlanta. The contestants who had been evicted were invited back to the show for the final episode to voice their opinion and cast their vote for the winner. In a lopsided vote, Will took away the honors. It should be mentioned here that Will was nominated for eviction more than any other contestant but eluded eviction each time. Most feel this happened because it was just assumed that Will would never "win" in the end, thus it became strategically important for the contestants to vote off the contestant that they thought had a better chance of winning. In the end, this reasoning proved to be fatal, and Will double-crossed his way and lied his way to victory.

Narrativity and Big Brother 2

Fisher's narrative paradigm posits that humans are story tellers, and audiences love to be told stories in all communication processes. For Fisher, there are two key ingredients to his narrative paradigm: coherence (does the story make sense) and fidelity (does the story adapt to the audience's beliefs and values). For Fisher, most if not all communication, is told from a story (Fisher, 1987).

Fisher has been criticized for his theory suggesting conservative bias and totalizing theory, but Fisher is quick to remark that his theory does have limits. Fisher has argued in several places where his theory is a paradigm, not a criticism; a theory which has been stolen by others and called their own. He also points out that these scholars are the same ones who found faults in his original paradigm (Fisher, 1989).

Fisher's theory seems to be an appropriate theoretical backdrop for analyzing the reality-tv show, Big Brother 2. In this section of the paper, Fisher's elements of coherence and fidelity will be applied to the show. The argument made here is not that the paradigm fits perfectly with the narrative elements of the show, but that there is a narrative tension that surfaces in Big Brother 2. Moreover, in the end of the show, directors and producers seem to resolve what I term narrative conflict, an inconsistency in a story that the viewer must reconcile in his or her mind.

Big Brother 2 and Narrative Coherence

Narrative coherence asks the reader and viewer, "Does the story make sense?" In the following section, the case will be made that the Big Brother 2 story in a convoluted fashion establishes Fisher's criterion for narrative coherence.

The rhetor asks several questions about narrative coherence. Does the story make sense? Does the story seem believable given the plot and its characters? Do all the parts of the story seem to fit together? The writers of Big Brother 2 accomplished narrative coherence in several ways.

First, the show contains believability. The viewers of reality-tv programming in general are more likely to find believable ingredients than in other more fictional TV formats. The act of CBS disclosing the knife to the throat incident by Justin toward Krista is a case in point. Since Justin had to be removed from the show for his inappropriate and perhaps "criminal" behavior," the show departed from its typical eviction process, a narrative component of the show. This decision by CBS to remove Justin created what it called narrative conflict. In an attempt to create narrative coherence, CBS let the TV audience in on a narrative element of the show that was not originally aired, therefore creating sensibility and believability for why Justin was removed from the show.

In another scene, the show also perpetuates the "believable" nature of the show. Since the show was simultaneously broadcast on the web, the viewers were able to see the contestants, the house, and the communication between house guests that were not aired on network TV. Much of the web material was unedited and uncensored for true "believable" effect. This was another successful way that Big Brother 2 promoted narrative coherence in its show.

A second form of narrative coherence is does the account of the story conform to previous accounts or other accounts of the story in other contexts? Viewers of the show saw relationships unfold, how conflicts were created by house guests, and how they sought resolution for those conflicts. By seeing first hand accounts of relationships in action, intimacy portrayals, and intense conflicts among the house guests, the viewer or consumer of this narrative were able to compare such narrative elements with his or her own lives. Indeed, reality-tv perpetuates Fisher's narrative elements throughout. Miller (2000) suggests this connection when he writes that, "…reality is inescapably put into a narrative form--or as the psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan suggested, 'the truth is structured like a fiction.' Viewers know the contrivances of the show and relate to it as drama, sensing that each character is also acting as if he or she is on `The Real World.’ The viewer is urged to participate in the show's premise while knowing that the reality conveyed by the show is also a simulation.” Such is the case with Big Brother 2; Reality TV asks the audience to participate in narrative coherence, thereby establishing a bond with the audience.

This narrative "bond" is often established in network soap opera dramas. Regular viewers are quick to critique or write-in to editors and writers if they see the characters are not developed in a way they see fit (Reiss & Wiltz, 2001). Big Brother 2 also incorporated similar elements. Web subscribers of Big Brother 2 were able to compare the web narrative with the network narrative. Oswald (2001) reports how some viewers complained that the TV version of Big Brother 2 had staged events and misrepresented characters that were seen in the 24/7 version on the internet.

The TV audience is definitely getting a different narrative than their web counterparts. Oswald (2001) writes that, "…what's really unfortunate is that the small prime-time television audience sees only sanitized, cartoonish villains, whose uncensored actions have horrified internet viewers…" One of the contributing variables to this wreckless and horifying behavior was the intentional incorporation of alcohol provided for the house guests. CBS had earlier debated on the use and limit of alcohol for the contestants in the house (Zap2It.com, 2001).

Big Brother 2 and Narrative Fidelity

Now that we have seen the narrative elements of coherence in Big Brother 2, let's turn our attention to Fisher's narrative fidelity within the show. Perhaps a more oblique and rhetorically strategic link to the show is the use of narrative fidelity by the writers and directors of the show. For Fisher, then, narrative fidelity refers to the ability to which a story adapts or relates to the audience's beliefs, values, or experiences (Fisher, 1987). It is through Big Brother, that a narrative fidelity is created for both its web audience and network audience. However, this narrative is told in two separate stories to two separate and distinct audiences. While there may appear to be narrative conflict, the show is able to create fidelity for its viewers by "adapting" its content, censoring some material where appropriate, or avoiding live-feed and editing parts of the show that are inconsistent with more conservative values or beliefs. This editing and directorship then serves as the rhetorical agent of TV, that perpetuates Fisher's narrative fidelity within Reality TV programming and the consumption of Big Brother 2 as a reality-tv show. In fact, when CBS decided to alter its narrative format in the online community, the viewers protested since they had already "adapted" and "related" to its current content (Soichet, 2001). This narrative fidelity, it is argued, occurs on three distinct levels.

First, Big Brother 2 creates a narrative framing, adaptable to viewers and the lives they lead. Much like a day time soap opera, Big Brother 2 is a prime time soap, intended to produce a following and have viewers talking about its content at work or at home. These narratives appeal to young audiences and seem to have no regard whatsoever for the viewer’s intelligence level. Reiss and Wiltz (2001) argue that Reality TV programs such as Big Brother, Temptation Island, and Survivor each have two main truths that are reported by their viewers. These truths include: 1) (re)telling the narrative form to co-workers, employers, family members, or friends; and 2) that they the viewers are not as smart as other viewers.

The mediated experiences for the viewer are compared with their "real" experiences and are part of his or her construction of social reality. Shapiro and Lang (1991) suggest that people use television events as a foundation for reality monitoring. This monitoring is part of the narrative process. Since storytelling involves cognitive processes that recall both fictional and real events, monitoring of observed contestant behavior becomes a rhetorical component to the viewer's narrative and the construction of the story to be retold to others.

Shapiro, the show's director, defends his implementation of new techniques and cutting edge approaches that the first show did not contain. Shapiro tells Susan King, staff writer for the Los Angeles Times, "I think there is the possibility of more uninhibited behavior among some of these people than last year…we are not controlling these people in any way. They are going to do what they want. The intriguing thing to me is if some of that behavior occurs, I don't think the viewers are going to know whether they are doing it out of genuine lust or desire, or whether they are doing it as part of a grand manipulation to win the game” (July 5, 2001).

Such behavior was most noted in the relationship between Will and Shannon, where they developed an in-house intimate relationship between one another, despite the fact that Shannon had a serious relationship with someone off the show. Will won the game through lies and deceit with all the players, Shannon included. He created a narrative, a story that "fit" or adapted to the audience and the house guests, while in "reality," it was an orchestrated narrative with little foundation of truth.

What’s important for Fisher's theory and narrative fidelity is the perception of value congruence and attitude similarity, not "real" similarity of attitudes, values, or beliefs. In this way, narrative fidelity is an excellent strategy for a game show contestant who is competing for 500,000 dollars and must win the "hearts" and "minds" of their house and its occupants. Since Will creates several images of himself in many different contexts, he adapts to the house guest, while simultaneously adapting to the viewers who are attracted to Will's character, behavior or both.

Second, the Big Brother 2 directors and writers created a different show this time, one that taps into the voyeuristic tendencies of their audience. People want not to see the act of sex, but the hinting that sex or promiscuous behavior is about to take place or has just taken place (Shister, 2001). When the camera zooms in through night vision and allows the TV viewer to see Will with Shannon under the bed sheets, the TV audience is mesmerized by their every move. In another scene, the viewer sees a shower scene and somebody in it, and immediately one is looking to see who is nude, who is joining who in the shower, or who just got out of the shower nude.

These voyeuristic characteristics run throughout the Big Brother 2. This tendency is what makes the show a sleazy night time soap. But while the show certainly incorporates "voyeur-like" cameras throughout the house, we as a viewer are only reminded of how much in society we are on camera. In places such as the ATM, bank, grocery store, or at work, our society has gotten accustomed to being watched by the camera (Miller, 2000).

The new generation of viewers is young, with an appetite for voyerism. No longer is one interested in watching passive TV like "ER" or "Bonanza," but today's youth is growing up with MTV, ESPN, and cable which is pushing the envelope in all types of tv programming (Barney, 2001). NBC's Fear Factor is perhaps the boldest of them all incorporating life-threatening stunts, edible insects, and stunts that some professionals would choose not to do.

Through the viewer as voyeur, the show incorporates narrative fidelity. Since the TV viewer of Big Brother 2 has "opted" to see this show, they are willing participants in the show, in the voyeurism, and in the lifestyle(s) of those they watch or fantasize about. Reiss and Wiltz (2001) suggest that in addition to the viewer's voyeuristic attraction to the show, it perhaps may be that the viewer simply wants to become part of the "in crowd."

By sharing in the contestant's narrative, then (re)telling that narrative to friends or co-workers, this allows the viewer to be part of a broader narrative or story than simply the plot on the show. By actively engaging the audience's fidelity through voyeur channels, the network has created a mega-narrative for the TV public, a shared vision or fantasy that unites the TV viewers under coherence and fidelity. The bonds of the story and consistency therein is much stronger if the story only gets stronger when it is not only seen by the viewer, but when it is (re)told in narrative to another person.

SUMMARY

Big Brother 2 is an excellent example of Fisher's narrative paradigm. Through the specific narrative elements of coherence and fidelity, the Reality TV show unites viewers under Fisher's broad conceptually based paradigm. It is hoped that this paper has shed new light on the application of Fisher's rhetorical theory to TV viewing behavior and the scope and utility of his theory.

Literature Reviewed and Cited

Barney, C. (2001, July 18). "Reality TV may one day become 'fatality' TV," Contra Costa Times, pg. 1+.

Bird, S. (1990). Storytelling on the far side: Journalism and the weekly tabloid, Critical Studies in Mass Communication, December, vol. 7, no. 4, 377-389.

Chisholm, B. (1991). Difficult viewing: The pleasures of complex screen narratives, Critical Studies in Mass Communication, December, vol. 8, no. 4, 389-403.

Fisher, W. (1989). Clarifying the narrative paradigm, Communication Monographs, vol. 56., no. 1, 55-58.

Fisher, W. (1987). Human communcation as narration: Toward a philosophy of reason, value, and action. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.

King, S. (2001, July 5). "'Big Brother' is emulating its Big Brother," Los Angeles Times, pg. 1+.

Kirkwood, W. (1992). Narrative and the rhetoric of possibility, Communication Monographs, vol. 59, no. 1, 30-47.

Kloer, P. (2001, July 17). "Big Brother 2 twice the feast for voyeurs," Atlanta Journal and Constitution, pg. 1D+.

Lowry, B. (2001, July 14). "CBS defends Brother': Ratings up after incident," Los Angeles Times, pg. 1+.

Mendoza, M. (2001, July 13). "Frisky 'Big Brother" roomies taking sides," Dallas Morning News, pg. 1+.

Miller, E. D. (2000). Fantasies of reality: Surviving reality-based programming. Social Policy, fall, vol. 31, issue 1, 6-15.

"NBC executives defend reality shows," Associated Press, July 19, 2001, Pasadena, comtex.

Oswald, J. (2001, July 13). "Big Brother 2 could set a new low or its producer could be bold,"

Los Angeles Times, pg. 21+.

Petrozello, D. (2001, July 2). "'Big Brother' host Julie Chen eyes tactical changes for year 2," Daily News, pg. 1+.

Reiss, S. & Wiltz, J. (2001). Why America loves reality tv. Psychology Today, Sept/Oct, vol. 34, issue 5, 52-54.

Salamon, J. (2001, July 7). "Evolving Reality TV tests the audience's endurance," New York Times, pg. 7+.

Shapiro, M. A., Lang, A. (1991). Making television reality. Communication Research, October, vol. 18, issue 5, 685-706.

Shister, G. (2001, June 26). "CBS thinks sexy 'Big Brother 2' will be big improvement on the first one," The Philadelphia Inquirer, pg. 1+.

Soichet, E. (2001, July 13). "'Big Brother 2' gets tangled in a web of viewer protest," Los Angeles Times, pg. 1+.

Walker, D. (2002, January 1). "2001 rerun," Times-Picayune(New Orleans), pg. 1+.

Weintraub, J. (2001, July 20). "TV wary of extreme reality: Networks under pressure to ensure 'real-life' programs aren't harmful," Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, pg. 01A+.

Zap2It.com (2001, July 13). "CBS considering sobriety for 'Big Brother'." Los Angeles, CA.