Harper/Johal
Argumentative Research Paper
For your final this semester, you will write an argumentative research paper, and then present your findings to the class.
Remember, you are working as a group, but being graded individually (see tan “Group Research Paper” handout).




As a group, you have an essential question, claim, and reasons to support the claim. Then, individually you divided
up the reasons for each person to research. Now it is time to take your research and turn it into a paper.
Together, you must come up with a title and write an introduction to the entire paper that gives background
information and introduces the group’s claim. This is the only part of the paper that receives a group grade.
Then, individually (in one shared Google Doc), you must introduce your individual reason, and write a portion of the
paper that explains your reason and evidence, ties that evidence back to the claim, and then addresses a
counterargument and the limitations of the counterargument. Use your blue individual outline to organize your
work. In the google doc, please label each reason with your name at the beginning of your section.
Your paper must finish with a Works Cited list of all of your group’s sources. This must be in proper MLA format.
You MUST work in a shared Google Doc, and then submit the final draft to turnitin.com by Friday June 6 at 11:59 p.m.
Reality TV: A Disastrous Epidemic
In February of 1992, seven strangers moved into a loft in New York City’s SOHO neighborhood. This was a
common enough occurrence given the high cost of living and premium real estate of Manhattan at the time. These
people would do what every set of roommates has to do: negotiate the difficult terrain of cohabiting with others. The
difference: a camera crew would follow them around and document their every move. MTV would produce this show
and call it “The Real World” and it would be met with both critical and popular acclaim (Moody). “The Real World” just
finished airing its 29th season, and while the premise remains the same, the quality does not. What was innovative in
1992 has turned sour over the last two decades. Well intentioned voyeurism has transformed into documented trash,
not just in “The Real World,” but throughout the now omnipresent genre of “reality” television. This is a social
experiment gone horribly wrong. What is worse, it shows no signs of dissipating. Reality television is an epidemic that is
taking over our television programming and harming society in the process.
Reason #1 (Mary)
Reality television exploits people, especially minorities, children, and people of low socio-economic status.
Child reality stars, for example, are not old enough to sign contracts and agree to be filmed, so their parents decide for
them. Because these children are not mature enough to see the danger in this situation, they often appear thrilled to be
on camera. However, the dangers to the children far outweigh the short-term perceived benefits of fame. Take, for
example, the young girls from the TLC show, “Toddlers and Tiaras.” Many of these young girls are ecstatic to be filmed.
However, while they are happy and excited now, the long-term effects can be disastrous. Sexualizing young girls by
caking make-up on their faces and dressing them like adults does nothing to improve their self-esteem. In fact, according
to the American Psychological Association, "girls who are sexualized early will tend to gather their self-worth as an adult
based on their appearance” (Asbury Park Press). These girls learn at a very young age that their greatest asset is how
they look, which can be detrimental to their self-worth as they grow up.
In addition to the exploitation of children, these shows take advantage of people of low socioeconomic status.
Producers and networks of the television shows follow the subjects around, and then edit the film to make them appear
a certain way. Most often, the people in the show come off as stupid or ignorant as a result of this selective editing. In
“Here Comes Honey Boo Boo,” for example, the editors pick scenes that paint the family as ridiculous country bumpkins.
Everything from their antics to their subtitled speech is cringe-worthy. In fact, people often watch this show primarily to
make fun of the characters. As Eric Deggans, TV critic for National Public Radio noted on his Morning Edition broadcast,
“‘Honey Boo Boo’ invites its audience to look down on its stars. It makes them the butt of an inside joke every viewer's
encouraged to laugh at.” While the stars of this show may be famous, they are certainly not admired. There are no
benefits to being famous for stupidity.
Despite this obvious exploitation, networks argue that these people are willing participants, that because they
are being paid for their appearances, there is nothing wrong with these shows. In fact, many reality stars have become
Harper/Johal
rich from their appearances. In 2013 it was reported that the stars of A&E’s “Duck Dynasty” were negotiating to make
$200,000 per episode (O’Connell). These men have clearly benefitted from their involvement, as their paychecks have
grown astronomically due to the success of their show. However, that paycheck comes with a price. These reality stars
are put under heavy scrutiny, with their every day actions often becoming headline news. While free will is important, it
does not justify the mistreatment of these people. No amount of money is worth being the butt of every American’s
joke.
Reason #2 (Courtney)
Reality television glorifies bad behavior by not only rewarding, but encouraging, fighting, drinking, swearing,
and general debauchery. Nowhere is this more obvious than in Bravo’s “The Real Housewives.” From Beverly Hills to
Atlanta, these women constantly bicker and argue over petty issues, often while intoxicated, and then spend days
ignoring each other and talking behind each other’s backs. Alessandra Stanley of the New York Times calls them “wellgroomed, ill-mannered women who volunteer to drink, squabble and spend in exchange for reality-show recognition”
(Stanley). These women have become famous for their bad behavior because viewers continue to tune in every week.
What is worse, is that parents often watch this show—and others like it—with their children around, thus
subconsciously teaching kids that this behavior is acceptable. This can affect children of all ages, from toddlers who
might not know exactly what they are watching, to teenagers who can consciously recreate the scenes from these shows
in their own lives. The debauchery in many of these reality shows has become so extreme, that big companies have
begun to pull advertising from shows with questionable content (Bruinis). This is a huge change for big companies, who,
generally speaking, have the goal of reaching big audiences to increase sales. If big time conglomerates are not willing to
advertise with these shows, despite their high viewership, then certainly young children shouldn’t be exposed to these
shows either.
In addition to influencing children, these shows can also have negative consequences for adults. While some
argue that bad behavior on television does not necessarily result in bad behavior of the viewers, there is evidence to
suggest that it does. A 2013 study published by the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology found that people
“who watch reality television beauty shows are at least twice as likely as non-viewers to use tanning lamps or tan
outdoors for hours at a time” (Pittman). Tanning beds are “known carcinogens” (Bishop) and the correlation between
watching these shows and engaging in tanning is alarming. Co-author of the study Joshua Fogel, who researches health
policy at Brooklyn College, believes that “the programs may directly encourage viewers to tan because they imply
tanned people are cooler and more attractive” (Pittman). Adults would like to think that they are smart enough to make
decisions for themselves, but often times these shows influence people subconsciously. A person may not realize that
she wants to tan because all the “Real Housewives” of Beverly Hills have perfect, bronzed skin; however, because she
has watched the show, she has been subconsciously trained to see tan as beautiful, so she wants to follow suit. The fact
that this correlation exists for tanning suggests that it may exist for other forms of bad behavior as well. If we aren’t
careful, the cycle will perpetuate to encourage not just tanning, but lying, fighting, and other forms of unacceptable
debauchery.
Despite the despicable behavior of many of these so-called stars, some have pointed out that reality TV
encourages people to improve themselves and achieve their dreams. On “The Biggest Loser,” contestants compete to
lose weight. If not for the show, many of these people would still be obese. Additionally, singing shows like “American
Idol” have helped launched the careers of several successful recording artists. Everyone has heard of singing stars Kelly
Clarkson and Carrie Underwood. If it wasn’t for “American Idol,” they might have never been discovered. However,
these shows only help a select few, and can also be used to exploit the people involved. So while it may be true that a
few reality shows encourage people to go after their dreams, this is not enough to outweigh the negative effects. In fact,
even some of the people the shows are designed to benefit have succumbed to the negative consequences when after
the show has wrapped, they find themselves worse off than before it began. Rachel Frederickson, the most recent
winner of NBC's weight-loss show "The Biggest Loser," lost almost 60 percent of her body weight by going from 260 to
105 pounds. The change was so drastic, that “she is facing criticism from health experts for becoming carried away with
the ostensible goal of the show” (Small). Because the winners of these shows are often thrust into stardom without
acclimation, they go to extremes to win, and end up hurting themselves in the process. Though there may be isolated
benefits, the hard truth is that this genre of television is deceitful, vapid trash that portrays no “reality” with which any
sane person can identify. It is an epidemic that will only harm our society in the long run.
Harper/Johal
Works Cited
Bishop, Larry. “Doctor: Tanning Bed Literally Give Users a Killer Tan.” Florida Today. 25 Apr. 2013: n.p. SIRS Issues
Researcher. Web. 07 May 2014.
Bruinius, Harry. "And Now, a Word from Our Sponsor: 'Gasp!'." Christian Science Monitor. Feb. 5 2001: n.p. SIRS Issues
Researcher. Web. 23 May. 2014.
"Could Child Beauty Pageants Be Banned in the USA?." Asbury Park Press. 22 Sep. 2013: n.p. SIRS Issues Researcher.
Web. 14 May. 2014.
Moody, Rick. "The Real World." St. James Encyclopedia of Popular Culture. Ed. Sara Pendergast and Tom Pendergast. Vol.
4. Detroit: St. James Press, 2000. 181.Student Resources in Context. Web. 23 May 2014.
O'Connell, Michael. "Duck Dynasty quacks in salary standoff." Hollywood Reporter 5 Apr. 2013: 8. Student Resources in
Context. Web. 19 May 2014.
Pittman, Genevra. "Reality TV Beauty Show Viewers More Likely to Tan: Study." Reuters Media. 10 Jan. 2013: n.p. SIRS
Issues Researcher.Web. 28 May. 2014.
"Reality TV Has Become Honey Boo Boo-Ified." Morning Edition 5 Dec. 2012. Student Resources in Context. Web. 14 May
2014.
Small, Eddie. “‘The Biggest Loser’ or a Hollow Victory?” The Record. 15 Feb. 2014: BL.1. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 19
May 2014.
Stanley, Alessandra. "Primped and Pampered Princesses of La-La Land." The New York Times. The New York Times, 13
Oct. 2010. Web. 23 May 2014.