Frank (in the article mentioned by Henry Shepard, see below) declares, “Reality shows are not reality driven.” This statement begs the question (for all us MCM types) what is reality and does it drive? Frank claims that the filmmakers of the 30 days Immigration episode fabricate a conclusion where he favors immigration leniency. Frank’s letter aims to clarify that his opinions did not change- that in fact he continues to fight for harsher immigration policy. The fabrication, however does not seem to revolve around his actual opinions on the matter, but instead on the clarity of his emotional journey. Both the Jail and Immigration episodes of 30 days crunch month long experiences into narrative arcs that bring viewers to a satisfying and stable end. In Death 24X a Second, Laura Mulvey, claims that the “linearity of narrative movement” controls and propels all aspects of film (84). These shows follow her paradigm and driven by narrative, seem to create a new concept of reality grounded in the emotional and characterological journey. But the question becomes then, is this “fabrication” deceptive, or actually helpful and generative?

Many of our discussions in Media Labs lead us to search for a personal narrative and identifiable character to carry the viewers’ attention and heartstrings. We often speak of these stories as the treat to lure the viewers into complicated, academic and “real” issues and arguments (as opposed to the emotional drama of fiction). These B-line stories serve to bring something more “popular” to these facts of history and politics. Spurlock, however, takes this concept to the extreme and places the emotional narrative at the forefront and the intellectual and the political in the background- and this is “reality T.V.” He, like Scranton and along the lines of YouTube seem to be offering a new sense of truth, based on the individual experience over the factual, educational and politicized opinion of experts, research and documents. Is this really just a question of helping the masses into complicated issues by simplifying the concepts? Or do dates, names, figures, and experts no longer serve as symbols of reality? In a Barthean sense, if filmmakers want to project the myth of truth does that automatically come in the form of an experiential exploration of the world?

Does this constitute a new focus or understanding of truth? The question is less about whether Jail helps or harms criminals and society, and more about what it feels like to be inside a jail cell. Does the night spent with a shivering Junkie, or the staple “tats” speak more to the reality of jail than the figures of how many men stay out of the prison system? The “accuracy” of Frank’s extremist and hypocritical arguments do not really matter if his psychological transformations elucidate the complexities of the immigration issue. The question becomes instead of weather the information and opinions presented are correct, but if they are gripping. They are. Drawing on Benjamin, Foucault and Arendt (have I hit all my milestones) Michael Jackson (the anthropologist not the singer) argues that storytelling exchanges direct and shared experiences and creates a new truth. Instead of privileging static, authoritative and monopolizable knowledge, the narrative democratizes truth. “The return to narrative is a political act” (Minima Ethnographica, 35).

So outside the extremely academic, it appears that if my T.V show claims to get at “the heart” of any issue, it better not look like Ken burns. No still photos, no experts, no maps, and no numbers (well if numbers they better be animated bubble-letters). This is not just a question of getting aired on FX instead of PBS or of the cheap seats vs. the expensive seats but a question of what truth looks like. Truth may look different to different socioeconomic classes, but I think Spurlock’s shows join a movement to bridge that divide and connect the “real world” of MTV and the elitist’s image of “ essayistic reality” by promoting the authority of emotional and lived experience.