A Review on "Surveillance on Reality Television and Facebook form Authenticity to Flowing Data"

Abstract

The world of digital information engendered to significant innovations, two of which are Reality Television (RTV) and Social Networking Sites (SNSs). Both technologies are of great impact to the contemporary time. Hence, from that aforementioned premise, one could not deny the fact that both of them exhibit positive and negative effects. However, in this paper, I focus and limit my discussion on the positive implications of these technologies.  Here, I explain RTV and SNSs as authentic surveillance tools. I incorporate some examples and situations based on the Philippine and foreign context.

Main Theoretical Inquiries

This paper attempts to answer the following questions:

1. How does surveillance occur in RTV and Facebook?
2. What makes the subject under surveillance to be “authentic” on these electronic spaces?
3. How does the flow of data confirm authenticity of the subject under surveillance?
4. How come that the lack of response to a message can be treated as “normative” (no feedback on circulating messages)?

Main Arguments

RQ1. How does surveillance occur in RTV and Facebook?

On Facebook, users bring the technology into his/her existing life. Facebook effectively situates users as the master of their own surveillance and as the producers of their self under surveillance. While surveillance technology such as cameras and microphones, is used to record subjects and capture the image that mediates the RTV subject (Dubrofsky, 2011). Moreover, on Facebook, in order to be surveiled, the subject must put information first and must do it consistently. RTV, on the other hand, needs recording technologies for observation.

RQ2. What makes the subject under surveillance to be “authentic” on these electronic spaces?

For RTV subjects, surveillance works in the service of verifying authenticity. Here authenticity is often attached to capturing visual and auditory representations of participants shown verifying themselves as consistent under surveillance (Andrejevic, 2004 &Couldry, 2002 as cited in Dubrofsky, 2011). RTV shows put their contestants under surveillance and contestants are acting based on who they are and their feelings and emotions.

We witness the privileging of desire to be on the television, to share one's life, thoughts, and feelings with a public audience, and to use surveillance as a means of verifying one's authenticity...We see the continuation of a love affair with surveillance technologies. (Dubrofsky, 2011).

RQ3. How does the flow of data confirm authenticity of the subject under surveillance?

With both SNSs and RTV, presentations of the self-occur with the aid of technology that records activities and provides proof of these activities, creating surveilled and traceable subjects, and enabling the mobility of subjects (Andrejevic, 2007 as cited in Dubrofsky, 2011).

RTV affirms surveillance as a means of confirming authenticity showing that one can be consistent across disparate spaces on camera and across imagined spaces outside the purview of the camera (Dubrofsky, 2011).

RQ4. How come that the lack of response to a message can be treated as “normative” (no feedback on circulating messages)?

On Facebook, the significance of putting out data is highlighted, with little attention to the content of the data or to reception beyond the fact that someone, somewhere acknowledged a piece of data was circulating (Dubrofsky, 2011).

Nowadays, people know exactly that they do not need to respond to every message that they see or receive. They do not feel obligated to give answers. As long as they receive the information, it is fine. It is considered “normative.” Furthermore, not everything that one receives needs a reply. The constant flow of data is what is important. Let me further one can input data quickly and as many as possible as one can. The emphasis is on circulation and little or not on the response. That is, the movement of data is what is uppermost significant.

On Facebook

Mark Zuckerberg, founder, chairman and CEO of Facebook, asserts that of all the content on Facebook, more than 99% of what people see is authentic. Only a very small amount is fake news and hoaxes. The hoaxes that do exist are not limited to one partisan view, or even to politics (Kolodny, 2016). Indeed, I see that Facebook is making several ways on how to make their site more authentic.

For instance, they are implementing badges. If one sees a blue or gray badge on a page or profile, it means that Facebook confirmed that this is the authentic page or profile for public figure or media company. Plus, with the aid of superb computer engineers and experts, they are making applications for Facebook to improve its authenticity such as screening hoaxes. Probably, the reason why Facebook is still a big hit to many people is their promotion of authenticity.

Moreover, a British study affirms that personality traits are correlated with patterns of social network use, as reflected by features of Facebook profile, using a sample which is greater in size than that used in previous work by a several orders of magnitude (Bachrach et al., 2012). Hence, I could say that an individual can make reasonably authentic and correct predictions of someone’s personality through the scrutiny of Facebook account. They further elaborate that by analyzing information from social networks it would be possible to “profile” individuals, automatically dividing users into different segments, and tailor advertisements to each segment based on personality. Similarly, one can imagine building recommender systems based on personality profiles.

Furthermore, Facebook profiles and Google IDs are tied to a person's real name and real connections, and increasingly to their activities across cyberspace. Users are familiar with logging into other services using Facebook or Google IDs, forming a single public identity that's an aggregated version of their offline past, the online present and their combined future (Krotoski, 2012).

Equally, this implies that people do not intentionally fake themselves on their profiles. I think Facebook also believes authenticity is connected to a person's photo stream. Perhaps, this aforementioned premise is the reason why it bought the photo-sharing SNS, Instagram.

A screenshot of Instagram's page (Source: Instagram.com)

On Reality Television

Below are some real scenarios happened that prove the authenticity of RTV:

First, I will tell you a certain incident in Big Brother 2005: Uncut Edition, an Australian RTV show. It created a storm when Michael Farnsworth dropped his pants in the reality program. He was evicted because he was seen massaging fellow housemate Gianna's shoulders, his penis exposed all the while. The incident sparked protests of sexual harassment. (The Sydney Morning Herald Editor, 2005 June 6).

Imagine the fact that it broadcasted in the entire Australia, and saw this incident by a lot of people there. Of course, naturally, conservative and family groups bombarded him and the RTV show with several criticisms. This is a manifestation that they present real situations because no show would deliberately do that. I believe Big Brother is a show that presents real life scenarios.

Michael Farnsworth (Source: Big Brother 2005: Uncut Edition)

MelaiCantiveros and Jason Francisco first met each other when they joined PBB Double Up in 2010. During the show, they developed feelings for one another and remained a couple even after they got out of the house. Their love affair was termed Melason. On December 9, 2013, the two tied the knot at the Holy Cross Parish in General Santos City. Amelia Lucille, and Stela Rosalind are the fruits of their marriage.

Their love affair is a testament of the authenticity of RTV shows. That is, what they were presenting in the RTV show and their continued relationship to each other even outside was real. Actually, if they were feigning that for the fame and for them to win the show, they would not end up marrying each other. The Marriage of Melason is one of the proofs of the veracity of RTV. Similar circumstances both in the Philippine and international settings happened.

Marriage of Melason (Source: Erick Salud)

Concluding Thoughts

A significant distinction between RTV and SNSs is that RTV is largely considered as a low form of entertainment, whereas SNSs are gaining traction in every facet of the public and private arena (Dubrofsky, 2011). Despite the differences, the two grows in an unprecedented manner. Actually, I am seeing that both these technologies are becoming natural. People are habituated to consuming products or data coming from these technologies.

Here in this paper, I limited my discourse by discussing the positive light. This paper accentuates that the data tracks we get from RTV and SNSs can be authentic. And when talking about authentic, it means the veracity of the subject and the happenings. Data flow is also tackled here where aggregation of data is emphasized and attention is drawn to the latest bits of information.

However, one should bear in mind that the paper has several limitations, one of which is the person's subjectivity. On Facebook, posting bits of information related to oneself is subjective to a certain individual. For example, one might misinterpret a certain situation differently to what actually happened and put substantially different information on the SNS. On RTV, fame and awards may be some reasons for subjects to feign their behavior, and it might be fashioned to suit public’s consumption. Hence, the authenticity will, of course, be altered.

Both technologies show displays of self under surveillance. Aside from providing entertainment and information, these technologies influence our thinking regarding social issues, the ways on how we interpret life, other people and even our self.

References

Atici, B. & Ozmen, B. (2014 September). Learners’ views regarding the use of social networking sites in distance learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(4), 21-42.

Bachrach, Y., et al. (2012). Personality and patterns of Facebook usage.Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge.

Blazer, C. &Romanik, D. (2009 October). Are social networking websites. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6):1289–1295.

Dubrofsky, R. (2011). Surveillance on reality television and Facebook: From authenticity to flowing data. International Communication Association, 21, 111-129.

Facebook, Inc. (2007 January 1). Company timeline. Retrieved March 5, 2008, from http://www.facebook.com/company_timeline

Goldie, K. (2012). Privacy in the age of Facebook: Discourse, architecture, consequences (doctoral dissertation). Melbourne: Curtin University.

Hamburger, Y. & Vinitzky, G. (2010). Social network use and personality. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6):1289–1295.

Hill, A. (2005). Reality TV: Audiences and popular factual television. New York: Routledge.

Kolodny, L. (November 13, 2016). Zuckerberg claims 99% of Facebook posts “authentic,” denies fake news there influenced election. Retrieved May 18,    2017, from https://techcrunch.com/2016/11/13/zuckerberg-claims-99-of-facebook-posts-authentic-denies-fake-news-there-influenced-election

Krotoski, A. (April 19, 2012). Online identity: Is authenticity or anonymity more important? Retrieved May 18, 2017, from https://www.theguardian.com/ technology/2012/apr/19/online-identity-authenticity-anonymity

Phillips, Sarah (2007). A brief history of Facebook. London: Guardian Media Group.

Rankin, A. (2001). Reality TV: Race to the bottom. Retrieved May 18, 2017, from http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/publications/reports/realitytv2/main.asp

Rowan, B. (July 21, 2000).Reality TV takes hold. Retrieved May 12, 2017, fromhttp://www.infoplease.com/spot/realitytv1.html.

Smithson, N. (February 7, 2017). Facebook Inc.’s vision statement & mission statement. Retrieved May 10, 2017, from http://www.panmore.com/facebookincvisionstatementmissionstatement

The Sydney Morning Herald Editors. (2005 June 6). Big bad brother. Retrieved May 18, 2017, from http://www.smh.com.au/news/tv-radio/big-bad-brother/2005/06/06/1117910244522.html