"Reality" and the plebiscite

‘Politicotainment’: The very form of Kristina Riegert’s neologism says something about how the realms of politics and entertainment have crash-merged. The term itself is not a pretty sight, perhaps because it describes an unlikely amalgam; two opposing worlds whose 'heterogeneous ideas are yoked by violence together,' as Dr Johnson would have put it. The resulting idea is counter-intuitive, since it seems to betray the essence of both of the originating terms. Surely entertainment is characterized by escapism; while politics ought not to be confused with private pleasure consumption? So says traditional political science, at any rate.

At the root of democratic politics is the vote. In the spirit of ‘politicotainment’ this chapter shows how the vote is faring in entertainment formats, especially ‘reality’ television, where it seems to be thriving, as if someone had pressed the refresh button on one of the oldest technologies of democracy. The chapter opens (Part I) by arguing that ‘politicotainment’ is as old as democracy itself. What is new, it is argued (Part II), is a shift from ‘modern’ democratic processes to a new paradigm based not on representation but on direct participation; a shift led from consumer rather than from political culture. It goes on (Part III) to identify a new form of intermediary that has grown up in the interface between consumers and popular media, which I call the ‘plebiscitary industries.’ These may be defined as those agencies, production companies and technical service-providers whose business it is to commercialise the popular vote by turning it into an entertainment format. They have evolved from existing ratings, polling, marketing and production agencies, which themselves grew out of an earlier ‘representative’ rather than ‘direct’ model of mediation. But the ‘plebiscitary industries’ are not the same as ‘pollsters’ in just the same way that the ‘creative industries’ differ from the ‘cultural industries’ – they belong to a new paradigm of business practice that values consumers for what they do rather than for how they can be made to behave.

During the modern era of ‘mass’ communication, the preferences of consumers and audiences were ‘represented’ in media only indirectly, notably via ratings. Now it is possible for individuals to express their views and votes directly, and the evidence suggests that they’re having a ball while doing so. The plebiscitary industries have caught the digital wave and are using new interactive technologies and software for what Stephen Coleman calls ‘conversational democracy’ (Coleman 2005). Part of its appeal is the straightforward fun to be had from making public, by voting, the personal act of choice.

The chapter goes on (Part IV) to sample some ‘reality’ TV formats that use the plebiscite to a lesser and a greater extent, drawn particularly from talent shows in fashion and music. These plebiscitary formats may be distinguished from plebiscitary industries in the same way that Big Brother can be distinguished from Endemol (which makes it), the aggregators who collect the votes, and the various TV networks that screen the show. Plebiscitary formats have proven very popular internationally in recent years. For the industry they are a live experiment in different ways to incorporate voting into existing light entertainment. The plebiscitary format is sometimes ‘about’ politics (American Candidate) but more often the formal world of politics is the last thing on its mind (Idol, Big Brother). However, the ‘politico-’ and the ‘-tainment’ ends of the ‘reality’ spectrum are both expressions of something new – a widespread popular desire for participation in a direct open network rather than control by closed expert systems. In fact, plebiscitary formats in ‘reality’ TV may be seen as transitional forms through which the plebiscitary industries are conducting R&D to see how far they can maintain the scale of modern ‘behavioural’ or ‘mass’ communication while accommodating new demand for personal choice and direct participation in large-scale communicative interaction. In some of these formats ‘democratic’ progress is minimal – viewers do little more than vote (and the votes are rigged). But even among these early and hesitant experiments, the ‘medium is the message’ – the ‘plebiscitary format’ is an experience of democracy; the demos is doing something together, not just being told what to do or how it has behaved. Thus the chapter concludes (Part V) with comments on the pressure that is now being exerted on ‘representative’ models of both media and politics to reform, in order to make space for the desire for direct active participation by consumers in the very human process of choosing their own representations. This process has not yet reached maturity by any means, but in the meantime the plebiscitary industries (not formal politics) are the place to look for both technical and imaginative progress.

John Hartley, 2007, '"Reality" and the plebiscite' published in Politicotainment: Television’s take on the real, edited by Kristina Riegert, Peter Lang Publishing