Questions of intent

One idea from my last post is starting to bug me: what distinguishes documentaries from reality TV?

The old fashioned answer would be that one is highbrow and aspires to something more noble than the other but, ultimately, both manipulate participants to meet the expected outcomes of the producer(s). They're both forms of entertainment and, if you take a cynical view of something like the sexploitative approach of Big Brother last year, both genres aspire to make an impact beyond entertaining. In fact, Big Brother had an impact in parliaments that any honest documentary maker would love to achieve - issues of professional credibility aside.

I reckon the key issue is intent. Producers of reality TV have an obligation to engage their audiences financially, whether it's SMSing the show or purchasing the CD or responding to the sponsors and advertisers. Documentary makers aspire to engage their audiences in thinking and, potentially, responding. This is where it gets shady when you think about documentaries that attempt to influence. Perhaps reality TV is more honest by virtue of being obvious about it's intentions? It'd be like finding out that Supersize Me was developed after an informal proposal to KFC!