Jennifer Pozner Transcript

8/8/2019 Jennifer Pozner Transcript

1/14

1

Jennifer Pozner is ajournalist andmedia critic. She is the author of Reality Bites Back: The

Troubling Truth About Guilty Pleasure TV (www.realitybitesbackbook.com) and Founder and

Executive Director ofWomen In Media & News. I spoke with Jennifer, by phone, on December

15, 2010. A transcript of our conversation follows

-------------

Brian: If you look at unscripted television as its evolved over the last decade, since its

inception in a lot of ways, the trend seems to have been anti-women, to objectify women in the

context of a competition show or to artificially create a catfight situation on something likeReal

Housewives, for example. Are there good examples of either shows in their entirety or are there

characters that represent good, strong role models of women in unscripted TV?

Jennifer: Well, I think you hit the nail on the head when you talk about the last decade of reality

television and gender. The representation of women in unscripted television has been, overall,

extremely problematic. Whether its relationship shows, competition shows, lifestyle shows ormodeling/makeover shows, you have extremely regressive ideas of what it means to be a woman

in America at the turn of the century. And you have, going even further, a false vision of what

America actually believes where gender is concerned.

Reality TV has promoted the idea that to be valuable the only thing that women need to have is

extreme beauty and, if they dont have that, they cant accomplish anything important in life.

They cant be loved, they cant be successful, so they need to do everything in their power, even

regardless of health risks, to get to that perfect 10 status. Thats why we have plastic surgery

shows like The Swan,Extreme MakeoverandBridalplasty. You have the idea that women are, in

general, shallow, greedy gold diggers who can only be successful as arm candy to rich husbands.You have the idea that women are, generally, dumber than a pile of rocks, from the beginning of

the genre where you had theAnna Nicole Show, Paris Hiltons and Nicole Ritchies Simple Life

and all the way toBeauty and the Geek. Shows that portray women as so incredibly stupid that

they dont know the difference between tuna and chicken. They dont know, basically, how to tie

their own shoes. Then you have shows like Wife Swap that bring the mommy wars (that have

been trumped up and are actually inaccurate, but consistent in news media for over a decade)

into the entertainment format. And thats just the beginning. You have the idea that, like you said,

women are catty and always manipulative and are ready to fight with one another and they cant

be trusted. It goes on and on.

Brian: How much of this would you say is a construct of reality television as opposed to an

almost brilliant understanding of whats wrong with society thats being exploited by people who

are creating entertainment?

Jennifer: I think those two things are one and the same. I think its all a construct. Its all an

extreme construct based on the reality genre being produced in such a way as to tweak deep-

seated notions, deep-seated biases, around race and class and gender in America. But the genre
http://www.wimnonline.org/http://www.realitybitesbackbook.com/http://www.wimnonline.org/http://www.wimnonline.org/http://www.realitybitesbackbook.com/http://www.realitybitesbackbook.com/


2/14

2

started with gender bias. When I say its a construct, I mean that this is a genre that is extremely

crafted. The tern unscripted is accurate in that theres no 40 page script with specific lines of

dialogue that every specific actor has to memorize and repeat on cue, but it is to some degree a

misnomer in that there is a lot of scripting that goes on. It just goes on in ways that people dont

understand in the general public. It goes on through very canny casting choices, it goes on

through major editing. It goes on through production tricks behind the scenes. It also goes onthrough editing withpractices such as Frankenbiting, which is the industry term for cobbling

together bits and pieces f a persons quotes, sometimes from various conversations on different

days, often to alter the context, impact and meaning of a persons words.

So all of those practices are taking place within the context of producers who say things like

Its really fun to watch girls cry; never underestimate the value of that. Thats Mike Fleiss who

produces ABCs TheBachelor. It goes on through producers who say things like All of the most

successful reality shows ever done have been built around social ideas. Thats Mike Darnell

who is the muckety-muck at Fox who brought us Who Wants To Marry a Millionaire andJoe

Millionaire and The Littlest Groom, etc.

What does Darnell mean when he says built around social ideas? He means what you just said,0

its a tweak on what you just said about reinforcing regressive ideas, tweaking our most0

problematic, old-school ideas about gender and then race and class that most people have moved

beyond at this point in 2010. Things that we have seen in our culture as challenges that have been0

treated in this genre as everything from nostalgic to contemporary truth: the idea that women0

belong in the home, that people of color exist to be buffoons and laughed at. These are things

that many people assume we have moved past and, in a great many ways, we have moved past

since the 60s and 70s. But in realty TV theres this active attempt to portray America as if we

have not moved beyond that, as if we have never rebelled against these biases or evenproblematized them at all, but that they are still part of our day-to-day life. And we rarely see

anything in reality television to give the impression that there are other, more enlightened,

more egalitarian ways to live, or that we have made social progress in our society, and in our

day-to-day life.

But you asked about whether there are any good shows or good role models. I dont want to

ignore that question. Its rare, unfortunately, in relationship, competition, lifestyle and beauty

shows to find positive role models for women or positive character types for women. There are

occasionally moments. There was a brilliant, really funny, reality show that the comedienne

Margaret Cho had on VH1. Do you remember that show at all?

Brian: I do and I think that Margaret Cho is one of those few people, as comedians even, who

actually keep the social commentary within their comedy as opposed to using the social

commentary as a set up for something that is going to be funny either way. She doesnt redact the

important part by trying to present it in a way that people might consume more broadly.


3/14

3

Jennifer: I absolutely agree. Im glad that you remember that she had that show and that she did

exactly what youre saying with social commentary. The show was really funny, it was engaging.

It was compelling and it used concepts around race, gender and class, and aging, beauty and

sexuality right on the surface, in ways that added to the storytelling but were not exploitative. It

was the first show of its kind that made race and gender and beauty and sex the story in a

positive way, rather than most reality shows that portray these identities and issues as, basically,Mad Men without the cool clothes.

Margaret Chos series showed that you could actually have a reality show, or unscripted show,

that deals effectively, authentically and in an engaging way with social issues without

exploitation. What that proves is that the problem is not the reality format. The problem is what

certain outlets and certain producers choose to do with that format. Most people dont remember

that Margaret Cho even hada show because VH1 gave it seven episodes, a half-hour each and

didnt promote it at all. Nobody even knew it was on the air when it was on the air - and then

VH1 never repeats it. Now, compare and contrast that withFlavor of Love, which they gave

numerous seasons to. Each season had its own spin-off, each spin-off had a spin-off, and theyhave repeated those series pretty much constantly for years afterwards. So, the one show that

they had that offered a really strong, funny, interesting, intelligent model for a woman, starring a

woman -- it was off the radar.

Brian: So, obviously, the argument that somebody who is in television would make is that the

audience rewards this type of behavior by tuning in to watch, by buzzing online, etc. So, if

people didnt want to watch it, they could tune out and we would get the message. If you put on

something that is both entertaining and, if you will, substantive or real without sensationalizing,

you dont have confidence that it will be watchable, that it will be marketable, that it will be0

sustainably interesting to the audience.

Is that fair? Do we have to accept either a produced, unscripted television show with a social

mission or a positive message and recognize that it may not perform the same way as something

more sensationalistic? Or, do you think or are there examples of unscripted television that was

actually both entertaining and offered a fair representation of women or characters in general but

women in particular?

Jennifer: There are a lot of questions in that. I want to talk first about what you said related to

the justification on the part of the network that were only getting the TV that we want; that if we

didnt tune in then they would get the message and give us something else. I devote a huge

section in the introduction to my book, Reality Bites Back, to that question. I call shenanigans

on that. Its one of the biggest myths promoted by networks: that the only reason reality TV has

become so prevalent is because this is what the public wants. Thats not true. The only reason

reality TV has become so prevalent is because it is extremely cheap to produce and comes with a

huge product placement revenue stream. It can cost between 50 and 75% less to make a reality

show than a scripted show. And then, in addition to the lower production cost, you have an

almost endless potential for embedded marketing money. It can generate hundreds of thousands


4/14

4

of dollars -- sometimes millions of dollars per season, sometimes millions of dollars per episode0 0

as in the case ofThe Apprentice-- from advertisers who want to integrate their brand into dialog,

scenery, plot arcs, character development, and everything about a show.

The Apprentice is a great example of the idea that no, in fact, reality TV exists NOT because of0

public demand but because of network and advertiser demand. When The Apprentice first cameon air on NBC it was a big hit. It was promoted to high heaven; most reality shows that are

promoted to high heaven become hits. When it first aired, 20 million people watched. Every

season of that show drew vastly reduced viewership. They kept it on the air despite the fact that it

lost viewers season after season after season. They finally cancelled it when it only had seven

million viewers. NBC finally just felt like they were putting all this emphasis on the show and it

was taking up so much of their prime time real estate and very few people were watching it

anymore, so they cancelled it. All the newspapers headlines said NBC says Youre Fired to

Donald Trump. The easiest headline to write, ever, using his catchphrase against him.

But then NBC they hired Ben Silverman a co-Chairman of their entertainment division.Silverman came from a product placement marketing and production background. He came from0

a company that helped to produce reality television specifically for advertising clients. (He was

one of the partners on that early reality show The Restaurant, which was produced and funded

100% by embedded marketers; NBC was given that show for free, they didnt have to pay a dime

to air it100% savings, in exchange for letting Coors and AmEx control the narrative and turn

every episode into a primetime infomercial.)Now, The Apprentice was a huge product placement

revenue generator, as I said. Every single episode ofThe Apprentice is built around sales

challenges or marketing challenges or some sort of form of business challenges, around a certain

company or a certain product, usually a Fortune 500. So, these Fortune 500 companies have paid

up to 2 million dollars per episode to turn The Apprentice into an infomercial for their brands.Like The Restaurant before it, every episode ofThe Apprentice, for years, has basically been an0

infomercial for a different advertiser. So when Silverman came in, he looked at the networks

line up and basically said this show is way too lucrative on the back end to cancel it. It doesnt

matter that it doesnt have a lot of viewers anymore. It matters that we get two million dollars

from advertisers every weekto integrate and then we get to sell TV ads between the content

even though people dont recognize that the content of the show is not traditional content, its an

infomercial.

So Silvermanbrought it back. It became the Celebrity Apprentice. The fact is the public was not0 0 0

demanding that show. The public was saying from the first season okay we tuned in, we think

its interestingthe second season were tuning in with much lower numbers and then they just

bailed.Network audiences abandoned that show, but its still on the air til this day because it0 0

was cheap to produce and it is a huge boon for embedded marketing, and the networks who

benefit from embedded marketing.

The idea that reality TV is created strictly to meet public demand is predicated on the notion that

TV exists to give viewers what they want and need unfortunately, that is just a lie today. TV


5/14

5

exists, just like any other media product today exists, to create shareholder value for the

conglomerates that own those outlets. Thats a real problem in terms of what viewers get to see,

and its just the reality of a media-merged climate. We have been sold the myth that our needs

govern program decisions when, in fact, our needs are about the last thing that are taken into

consideration.

So, some reality shows get huge viewership.American Idolis the most popular show of the

decade. But most reality shows dont get the high numbers that shows likeIdoldoes or shows

likeDancing with the Stars does. Some reality shows get terrible ratings, really very low, and

stay on the air season after season because theyre cheap, even when scripted shows with higher

ratings get canceled more quickly. It all goes back to the big myth, that we want reality TV no

matter what. Some people really want reality TV, and in particular, they want certain shows. Im

not saying nobody wants it. What Im saying is the genre itself is prevalent because of

economics, not because of viewer demand.

Brian: So now we have this show, Sarah Palins Alaska, which is a mixture of a number ofdifferent things. Mark Burnett, the godfather of reality television, is behind this and he knows a

tremendous amount about how to make a show watchable. We have Sarah Palin who, even

before she joined the show, was widely known and widely discussed. And thats not the case with

most unscripted stars. Donald Trump is analogous in a little ways but most of the people who

appeared on The Apprentice were never known prior to coming on the show and yet they became

sort of stars in their own right and an extension to that. Does Sarah Palins Alaska in the history

of unscripted television shows show an evolution of understanding of what it takes to present not

only watchable television, but a good female character?

Jennifer:I dont think it presents an evolution in that sense. I think that some people do find the

show very compelling, particularly around the nature aspect, and around the parenting aspect. I

think theres a similar draw forSarah Palins Alaska as for the early seasons ofJon and Kate

Plus 8 where the segment of reality fans who like to watch parenting shows, who they like to see

the dynamics that go on within families and between children and their moms and dads, those

viewers could easily be drawn to Sarah Palins Alaska. And I think that folks who really love

nature shows would also find the show very watchable. I think that Alaska is its own character in

the show and I think that that cant be underestimated.

But the main aspect of the show is the fascination that the country has with Sarah Palin and I

think that youre right to draw an analogy between Burnetts work with Palin and his work with

Trump. Because, unlike Survivor, which is Burnetts other, major reality program, Survivoris all

unknowns, right? All the cast members are anonymous people before they show up on the show.

With The Apprentice and with Sarah Palins Alaska, its a show that is built around a powerful,

public persona. In both cases, with both Donald Trump and Sarah Palin, these are people whove

done a lot in their careers to try and control the way the public understands their personas. I think0

the real evolution with Sarah Palins Alaska is that this is the first time a politician has been able


6/14

6

to use the reality TV genre in a way that furthers their own ability to control how the public

relates to their persona.

And, in that sense, it is an evolution. I actually think its problematic. I would have the same

concerns whether it was Sarah Palin or whether it was Bernie Sanders or whether it was any

Democrat, Republican, or Independent. I think that there is something to be concerned aboutwhen politicians get to control their image pretty much in every way and use the reality genre to

create what may be a truthful depiction of their family and their values and their daily lives, or

what may be a completely fabricated version. We just dont know because thats what the reality

genre is about: its about convincing the public that what were seeing, which is usually just one

percent of everything thats been filmed, is real, when in fact we know from ten years of other

shows that what we see is not very real at all. So, I think thats a concern.

Brian: So, regardless of how people come to the show and what they think of Sarah Palin

personally or politically, would you say its fair to suggest that the representation of Sarah Palin

as a woman, as a mom, as a professional -- in this case a political professional -- is a good one, isfair or constructive? Is it helpful to the cause of suggesting that you can make watchable

television and represent women well at the same time?

Shes not wearing ridiculous outfits, shes not over-sexualizing herself for the purpose of driving

ratings. In fact, even in the first episode, she put herself in a very vulnerable position and

seemed, at least, as most people would argue, to have done so in a way that was very honest and

showed that she was vulnerable -- scared but not helpless which is the opposite in a lot of ways

of what you see on other shows. Do you think that the presentation of Sarah Palin as a woman on

the show is a good one in that specific gender context?

Jennifer: I think its interesting, actually. I think that the reason that Sarah is not being hyper-

sexualized or mocked or set up for rejection or any of the particularly damaging shows weve

seen about women and femininity and gender in reality TV is because A) shes Sarah Palin, she

is the former vice presidential nominee and former governor of the state that the show is set in,

she wouldnt allow that to happen. Its almost impossible to compare the depiction of anonymous

women in reality TV -- and when I say anonymous I mean people who arent stars and then show

up on reality shows -- with the depiction of Sarah. And B) she has an executive producer credit

for the show. She isnt treated in a misogynistic way in the show because she is one of the

producers, or at least, she has the ability to veto anything she felt portrayed her in a negative

light.

So, of course shes not going to be exploited: she has control over her image in the show and0

thats one of the reasons why we see Sarah in a position of power in the show. We see her as

competent and confident in her day-to-day life. We see her as having give and take with her

husband, we see her as a dynamic mom. We wouldnt see any of those things if she didnt have

control over her image. The problem with most reality shows and gender is that most women

who show up in reality TV are deeply exploited because they sign all their rights away to


7/14

7

producers who have the idea that it is very fun to watch them crying, or that, you know, they can

only be successful in life if they have a multi-millionaire husband or etc. I think that the positives

about Sarahs portrayal are rooted in the fact that she is a partner in the production of the show

and that is extremely unique in the genre.

Most reality show participants, female or male, have zero control over how they are edited, howthey are manipulated behind the scenes. In contrast, Sarah is involved behind the scenes on this

show. Are there other unscripted shows that will happen in the future that could figure out a way

to depict women based on how Sarah is depicted in the show? Unfortunately, I dont think it will

carry over to future portrayals of other women in reality TV because shes such a unique figure

and, more importantly, because of her executive producer credit.

Brian: Theres also the relationship between Todd and Sarah which I think is unique in a

marriage in terms of the partnership in the context of media. Then again, we dont see a lot ofstrong female characters with partners as husbands in the contexts of shows so thats another

area. And then theres last weeks episode

Jennifer: We can do a compare and contrast around Wife Swap because thats one of the only

shows where you see a partnership like Sarahs and Todds. But then with shows like Wife Swap

if you see a partnership like Sarahs and Todds, usually the Todd character (ie, the man who isnt

the primary breadwinner) would be mocked endlessly and told that he is a bad role model

because hes not the one who is the main financial provider.

Brian:I think one of the interesting discussions around the show is, regardless what we say [at

SPAlaska.com], regardless what we reveal about how things were put together in production,

there is this built-in skepticism about what people see on the show. Now certainly part of that

comes from politics and the lack of trust that people have in political leaders today and a lot has

been heaped in that context around the show. Do you think, from an unscripted television

standpoint, have we reached the point where, regardless of where people see it on television, they

are going to assume it is essentially scripted in a way.that youre not seeing reality at all, but

weve grown so accustomed to quote/unquote reality television so that we know that its not

really an accurate reflection of reality?

Jennifer: I honestly wish that we were as fully skeptical as youre saying. I think that there is a

surface level cynicism about reality TV where people say Oh yeah, we know its manipulative,

but that rarely goes beyond the surface. The fundamental manipulation of the unscripted genre --0

the fact that most reality shows will only use one percent or less of what has been filmed -- is not

generally known.

If you ask people: Do you think reality TV is real? Kids actually do believe a lot of the time

that what theyre seeing is real, but you ask the average adult viewer of television if reality TV is


8/14

8

real and theyll say Oh noof course I know its all fake. But then if you ask them specific

questions about a character on a show, What do you think ofSnooki onJersey Shore? What do0

you think of Jake, The Bachelor? Theyll generally say in their next breath, right after saying

Oh, its manipulative; oh its fake theyll say Oh, that bitch is crazy/skanky/stupid! orthat0 0

guy is such a tool! or so and so is. [fill in the blank judgment about a reality star] and it

sort of trails off.

People regularly express deep, profound opinions about the individuals that they see on the0

shows, and about what should happen in all of the shows. They write about it in fan sites, gossip

sites, their own blogs; they talk about it with their friends, at school, at work. But ifyou believe0

that you know anything about somebody youve seen on a reality show, then you dont know the

genre isnt real. You dont know about Frankenbite editing that can splice together different

pieces of conversation from a Monday and a Wednesday and a Sunday, change the context and

the content and the meaning and the impact of what somebody said or did. They dont know that

crushes, that love, anger and fright, all of those things can be manipulated and fabricated almost

out of whole cloth, within the reality genre. (I created a satirical webisode series, Reality Rehabwith Dr. Jenn, using humor to expose these behind-the-scenes manipulations. Its a media

literacy series that looks like a real reality show. If folks are interested, they can watch it on

YouTube.) So, the surface-level skepticism Oh, you know, I know its not real usually doesnt

go deep into the actual viewership process. When people view reality shows, they often end up

buying into the premises of the shows. So I think that we need more skepticism.

I think that where Sarah Palins Alaska is concerned, the challenge for Burnett and for you guys

[at SPAlaska.com] is that youve got the two genres that are the most manipulative and have the

least amount of forthright truth in the country: politics and unscripted television.

Youve got politics in the sense of the person in the center of the show is a politician. I dont

mean that every episode of the show is framed around a particular political issue, a lthough some

are, the N.R.A. episode was certainly, the hunting episode. But even if you hadnt had the

hunting episode, even if the show was just built around a politician in general, it would be

inherently political, especially when the politician has a production credit. You know that

politicians, their main goal is to get their message out even if their message isnt necessarily

accurate, thats just the nature of what politics has become in the country at this point.

And then you have the unscripted genre that we know is very carefully crafted. So its almost

inevitable for Sarah Palin to end up in reality TV or for some other politician to do so. But I think

that the challenge is people are going to be a bit skeptical of a genre that we know always gives

us a heightened surreality version of whatever is actually going on, and only ever shows us one

percent of what has taken place. And in this case stars someone whos been on the national

political stage. I think that you would have that skepticism; at least I hope you would have that

skepticism even if the star of the showif it wasnt Sarah Palins Alaska, if it wereBernie

Sanders Vermont, I would hope you would have the same skepticism.
http://www.youtube.com/user/RealityBitesBackBook#p/c/5F5FA449CE270CD7http://www.realitybitesbackbook.com/about-reality-bites-back/reality-rehab-with-dr-jenn/http://www.realitybitesbackbook.com/about-reality-bites-back/reality-rehab-with-dr-jenn/http://www.youtube.com/user/RealityBitesBackBook#p/c/5F5FA449CE270CD7http://www.youtube.com/user/RealityBitesBackBook#p/c/5F5FA449CE270CD7http://www.youtube.com/user/RealityBitesBackBook#p/c/5F5FA449CE270CD7http://www.youtube.com/user/RealityBitesBackBook#p/c/5F5FA449CE270CD7http://www.realitybitesbackbook.com/about-reality-bites-back/reality-rehab-with-dr-jenn/http://www.realitybitesbackbook.com/about-reality-bites-back/reality-rehab-with-dr-jenn/http://www.realitybitesbackbook.com/about-reality-bites-back/reality-rehab-with-dr-jenn/http://www.realitybitesbackbook.com/about-reality-bites-back/reality-rehab-with-dr-jenn/


9/14

9

Brian: So if you can suspend the political bias as a viewer, as a reviewer, as an expert, critic,

whatever is there interesting stuff on the show Alaska as a character, Sarah Palin as the

representation of a matriarch and how she runs her family, how she interacts with Todd, that we

could or should be focusing on, that might, outside of the context of politics in the way that

politics operates these days actually be useful in terms of a discussion of whether or not there is

good television that represents women, families or that represents places in a non-exploitative orsimilar way? Are there things that you have seen on the show that are actually substantive or

constructive.that we might not get in any other show than this family living in Alaska with this

woman and stuff like that?

Jennifer: I think its a real mistake to say we should suspend our political awareness when we

view a show about a politician; the last question was all about how we need more healthy

skepticism. Critical thinking, and in this case political awareness is part of critical thinking, is

important in a healthy democracy. That said, I think that Alaska as a place, and nature as a focus

of the show, is unique and compelling. That is something that I havent seen a lot of in other

shows. Usually the shows that makeplace and nature a character are like The Deadliest Catchwhere nature is scary and going to kill you. So in the context ofSarah Palins Alaska I like the

idea of a reality show that really looks at the environment in a healthy way. I think that it would

be very difficult to look at nature and the way that nature is portrayed on the show and not want

to preserve it. I think thats a good element.

Id want to see more episodes of the show before I really fully decide what I think about gender

and how its portrayed on the show. So far, the way that Sarah has portrayed herself in certain

contexts on the show has been surprising to me, in that we know that this is an incredibly savvy,

competent woman whos run a state and then ran for vice-president, shes also billed herself

before the show as a great hunter. One of the things that everybody thought they knew about her,was how she was this really proficient hunter, a proud member of the NRA, etc. But weve seen

her have to ask a series of men to tutor her in hunting-related activities. So, certain times she

portrays herself as very competent and in charge on the show -- usually when shes in a scene

alone she is portrayed as knowing what shes doing and in charge, whether its about a parenting

situation or organizing an outing for the family or doing Fox News interviews. But when shes in

a scene with a bunch of other people, usually a bunch of other men, Ive been surprised at how

many scenes weve seen of Sarah needing to be instructed by male authority figures. Especially

in the two episodes in a row related to hunting.

I wonder if that has to do again with Sarah trying to -- forgive me, I know you dont want to talk

politics -- but trying to negotiate her image in a way that plays well to her fan base. She goes

hunting and she has to have her father help her line up shots and tell her what gun to use and how

to do various things that need to be done in order to keep guns safe. The next episode, the one

where she and Kate are about to go with all the kids to the Great Wild; theres the whole scene

where she is going to the gun shop and she has to find out from all the guys in the gun shop what

rifle to use and what supplies you need and what kind of way you would have to hold it. Then

theres the scene where the gun experts are teaching her what she needs to know how to keep


10/14

10

people safe and then how to use guns against charging bears; the way it was filmed reminded me

of all old cheesy 80s movies where the golf pro instructs the girl in how to hit the golf ball

because the girl is cute and giggly and might not know how to actually put.

I wonder those scenes where one man after another instructs Sarah on guns and hunting, whether

that isnt all just a put on, because I cant imagine that Sarah Palin doesnt know which gun touse for protection on a camping trip, or how to shoot a deer. I cant imagine Sarah Palin, the big,

life-long N.R.A. supporter whos made hunting a main selling point of her competence; I cant

imagine she wouldnt know how to use a gun. I wonder if theres not actually a dumbing-down

of that set of skills in order for her to placate the idea that, yeah shes competent, but not too

much in charge, because we know that a lot of the base of people who support Sarah, that

conservative base is sometimes uncomfortable with women in power. So I think that its a really

interesting set of dynamics that we have around portrayals of Sarah and around her competence

in general. In trying to negotiate the way that her power is portrayed, is she attempting to make

sure she doesnt come of as too powerful, but ratherjust powerful enough that we dont question

her competence? Its an interesting balance.

Brian: I would suggest a different analysis; not to say that that one may not be valid.

Jennifer: Okay. Im interested.

Brian: The origin of the show, the idea that has been presented, the showing and introducing the

part of Sarah that few people has direct access to, to the rest of the nation and theres obvious

limitations of what you can do in an hours worth of television.

Jennifer:Right, of course.

Brian: Even if someone had spent their entire life hunting and spent, you know, their career in,

whatever these things are, explaining and demonstrating those experiences to other people is

very, very challenging and I can speak to this personally because one of things that we have been

trying to do is to take the activities that go on in this show and try to demonstrate what they

really are like. And not only are those activities that they are going on, many of them not at all

available outside of Alaska, or easily in most places I live in New York City, granted, but it

should be frankly more easy to find a halibut as an example than it has proven to be. When we

were trying to find a halibut

Jennifer: We dont have a whole lot of halibut on the F train.

Brian: I think there is also, one of the things that I see is misrepresented is that there is an

awkwardness in trying to take something that you know about very well but want to explain it,

have other people find it interesting and want to experience it on their own and communicate it

in a way that comes across on television as both genuinely showing your knowledge and

experience.


11/14

11

I think the reason I say this is both Sarah Palins father and her brother, Chuck Sr. and Chuck Jr.,

are teachers and when you look at Chuck Sr. on the show in particular since he has had more of a

role than any one else, He actually, and there are limits and there is some awkwardness in the

father-daughter thing and there is always going to be in any relationship, he talks like a teacher.

He doesnt talk down to you, he doesnt talk over you, he doesnt throw in examples orreferences or stories just for the sake of throwing them in, which I think would be, and I could

speak to this personally, the natural reaction that someone would have, when you explain

something like this.

I think it is hard to look at this show obviously, without the bias that people bring in for or

against Sarah Palin and her political views. I also think its hard for people to look at the show

with their bias for or against unscripted television and not resist the need to over analyze some of

those things. I think this raises a very important question, but I also think its possible to come to

different conclusions.

Jennifer: Oh sure. It always is.

Brian: Which is to say, I think it is one of the great opportunities that this show presents, both

from a political stand point but also from an entertainment standpoint is that there is so much to

discuss about the show and to figure out that kind of reductive perspective that a lot of media and

bloggers and a lot of other people will have tried to apply to the show to satisfy their

preconceived notions for or against is not fair potentially to the show or to those who want more

than what they have seen in previous shows. Its not like other unscripted television in a lot of

ways. Its not like the access to positioning that we typically see political figures in. Alaska is not

like any other place.

There are all of these things that we are essentially coming to this show assuming and then

having to spend all this time trying to find ways to align what we see with what is actually

happening there and try to make sense of it. I think it takes an extended conversation and

potentially other conversations to start to unpack and make sense of that, and thats what I think

is so interesting.

Jennifer: Im interested in what you just said about how the show has both benefits and

challenges on the production side. There are benefits and challenges to working with a known

political figure and to working in an environment like Alaska which has both really unique

stories to tell, but also its difficult to find ways to tell those stories if such stories are not the

easy, reductive ones weve seen them a hundred times. Those stories are going to be a little bit

more difficult to tell. We havent seen a hundred shows about Alaska so its not like you can do a

procedural crime drama about Alaska the way you would do one about New York. Weve seen a

hundred and fifty of those, right? There are going to be challenges and benefits.


12/14

12

But what I was saying is that I think that Sarah has been doing a really odd little dance around0

trying to portray herself as powerful, but not too powerful, a strong woman, but not too strong,

so as to not rock the apple cart. I dont think its a problem of Alaska. I think that the fact that her

dad and her brother are teachers doesnt change the fact that she has dumbed herself down in

some instances, or maybe shes just not as good of a hunter as I expected. I really though that of

everything I knew about Sarah Palin, she wouldnt need those endless sets of instructions about0

guns. I think that she probably is actually a good hunter and probably didnt need all of that.

Just because you have people who are teachers and shes not a teacher by trade, that hardly

matters anyone who is knowledgeable about something can be filmed passing that knowledge

on to another person or people. She was the one to teach Kate about some aspects of the tundra,

and the woods, and some aspects of the guns, even, right? So when she was alone in a scene with

another woman, she was the one portrayed as more competent. But in scenes with men, it was all

a series of men doing the teaching.

I think that that has to do with a bit of gender balance stuff because we know who Palins generalfan base is and of course you would tailor any show, like Tool Academy on VH1, you are going

to tailor your context to your audience. I think we know who Sarahs favorite fans are, and we

know that generally they tend to have some clear ideas about what is appropriate for women and

what isnt. I think its a little reductionist to say that its difficult to tell the story of Alaska and

thats why some of that dumbing-down might have happened. I think Sarah could have been the

one to tell the story of Alaska in a teaching mode. She certainly tells the story of nature quite a

bit. She talks a lot about the environment, she talks a lot about how beautiful the animals are and

the scenery. She also talks a lot about family and the ways families live in Alaska, so there are

places where she takes the role of the giver of information. Shes the giver of information related

to the family and discussions about nature.

But when it comes to actual skills being distributed, shes not the giver of the skills, and I just

wonder about that. I wonder if thats an intentional choice. I think thats the underlying,

unconscious message that comes across, and I think its an interesting dynamic. I dont know the

answer to it. Im not used to not having the answer. Usually with reality television, after ten years

of intensive monitoring and research, I'm pretty solid in the answers about these sorts of

questions. In this case, I have just as many questions as answers, because we havent seen

enough episodes yet to see how gender is portrayed through the entirety of the series, and we

also dont know enough about Palins role as a producer, either. [Note: This conversation took

place just after the Palin/Gosselin episode.]

I think it goes back to one of the things you said at the very beginning, which is if we can

suspend our ideas about politics either way and just look at the show as apolitical. I just dont

think we can. I think that we cant suspend that because you have a show that is produced by a

politician and any time you have a campaign ad, or a stop in Iowa, or a reality show that is co-0

produced by a politician and stars that politician, it doesnt do viewers a benefit to say suspend

your political critique. Let me be clear: I dont mean critique in the sense of left wing/right-


13/14

13

wing critique, or Republican/Democrat critique. Im talking about structurally, you cannot not

look at how the show is functioning within the larger media and politics landscape because its

just inherently part of that political process.0

Brian: That brings me to the last thing that I want to talk about. On the last episode we had Kate

Gosselin and Sarah Palin. On the last episode we had Kate Gosselin and Sarah Palin, two verywell known, highly discussed and oft criticized television personalities together, being compared,

etc. Im wondering what you thought of that as a moment in television and what you thought of

that specifically in context of women being represented on TV. and whether or not it was a good

thing or a bad thing or a non-thing?

Jennifer: I didnt really think it was all that big of thing either way. I suppose everybody

expected me to think it was a really big thing because I am the one who looks at women in

reality TV but thats all just not really interesting to me. Whats more instructive to me was how

the show reinforced a little bit of that classic women dont get along, women are catty, there is a

good girl and there is a bad girl theme that we have seen about women in reality TV in generalwhere Sarah is the one who is smart and knows what she is doing and is down home and

somebody who we are suppose to identify with, while Kate is the crazy, whining shrew.

Basically, by coming into Sarah Palin s Alaska, where Alaska is the other main character, in

addition to the family, and basically badmouthing that main character, Kate was pretty much

giving a lot of material to the producers to allow them to put her in the role of the shrew. Because

from the very beginning of that camping excursion she was saying things like I dont

understand why you would pretend to be homeless, and whining and crying and acting more

like a kid than any of the kids there. And look, I dont want to judge. Maybe there was a lot of

stuff that we didnt see off camera because of course, when you only see one percent, who knowswhat else is going on.

Lets hypothesize: if we give her a lot of benefit of the doubt, maybe she was sick and we didnt

know. Who knows? But it was certainly edited to conform to traditionally sexist media tropes

about female characters: where theres a woman you root for and a woman you hate. Mike Fleiss,

the producer ofThe Bachelor, was recently asked about why his shows are so successful. H said

early on they realized on The Bachelorthat the audience has to hate the girls. He said We

have to create villains because the audience has to hate the girls. Then he follows up by saying,

well, they dont have to hate allthe girls, they do have to hate some of the girls. I think that its

interesting that even on Sarah Palins Alaska that, again as you say, is a show where were

supposed to really identify with the strengths of the main female character still, when we bring

on another matriarch figure in reality TV, we have to sort of cut her down in order to maintain

that first characters dominance.

Brian: And then theres the unique part from the last episode of Kate Gosselin and Sarah Palin

on the same episode and what that suggests beyond just a crossing of the reality television


14/14

14

streams of two TLC shows at the same time because I believe, and have been told, that it wasnt

something that was manufactured for that purpose.

Jennifer: I dont believe that for a second! Come on: Sarah said twice on the show that Kate and

her kids were already in Alaska filming their reality show. Well, the Gosselin family has never

been to Alaska before, they couldnt have afforded to pay for that sort of vacation on their own,and there was no reason for TLC to send them to Alaska other than to do this kind of cross-

promotion. Im not sure why they felt the need to pretend that the Palin/Gosselin episode existed

as a strategic cross-pollination between the two shows. That kind of media synergy is common:

the booted babes from ABCs The Bachelorend up being interviewed on ABCs Good Morning

America and on special segments on 20/20. Same thing happens with CBSs Survivorand The

Early Show. And you cant watch any reality show on VH1 nowadays without seeing contestants

who have been on other VH1 reality shows.

So, to me, this is an example of how unreal reality television is: its so common for producers to

misrepresent basic facts, quotes and actions, that in this case they fibbed about something thatseems so completely obvious. And, for what reason? To make it seem like Sara and Kate are

friends who wanted to hang out together? Well, theyd never met one another before, which we

saw as they introduced themselves and their families to one another on the show and by the

middle of the episode there didnt seem to be any love lost between the two of them, considering

how much Kate whined about camping, and how snidely Sarah talked about Kates whining.

Brian: I could keep this conversation going for hours, but well have to wrap it up there. Thank

you very much!

Documents

Jennifer Pozner Transcript