From experimental dating shows like “Love is Blind” to the high-stakes competition of “Survivor,” reality TV is a dominant force in American television. This cultural obsession is not just confined to the screen, in recent years it has extended into politics. A former reality TV personality is currently serving his second term as president, and on Jan. 28, he appointed fellow reality star, Sean Duffy, as his Secretary of Transportation.
Reality TV provides fascinating insights into human nature, relationships and social dynamics but it ultimately distorts reality for entertainment, leading to exploitative practices and parasocial relationships. When the culture of reality TV starts influencing politics, it normalizes cruelty and spectacle, elevating performance and sensationalism over substance.
“Candid Microphone” (1948) a hidden-recording radio show that captured unsuspecting people’s reactions to staged pranks, is credited as America’s first reality show. Since then, reality TV has expanded beyond these setups to become more personal, often promising unfiltered, “raw” glimpses into people’s lives. While some shows still focus on pranks and competition, others like “Keeping Up with the Kardashians” and “The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives” simply invite viewers to observe the daily lives and experiences of their subjects. With this development, reality TV’s popularity has increased, with a 2024 report by PBS finding that nearly 80% of adult TV viewers watch reality shows.
Psychologist María Cartagena believes that reality TV resonates with audiences because viewers strongly identify with or feel invested in certain contestants. That personal connection, however, is often based on an illusion. This phenomenon is known as a “parasocial relationship” which allows viewers to feel deeply connected to public figures who have no idea that they exist. While parasocial relationships can develop with any celebrity, reality TV stars are especially easy to form those one sided connections with because of their perceived authenticity and vulnerability.
Parasocial relationships give viewers the illusion of “knowing” reality TV stars, even though they only see a carefully curated, producer-manufactured part of the stars’ lives shown on screen. A 2024 study conducted by Shira Gabriel, a professor of psychology at the University of Buffalo, found that during the 2016 election, public perceptions of Donald Trump were heavily influenced by his 14 seasons on the business competition reality show “The Apprentice.”
Trump was not only one of the stars of “The Apprentice” but he also served as an executive producer, which gave him significant control over his image, allowing him to be portrayed as a strong, competent leader. While reality shows like “The Apprentice” are marketed as unscripted, they still rely heavily on producer intervention to craft narratives, shaping how the cast is perceived by audiences.
Gabriel found that voters who were exposed to “The Apprentice” prior to the 2016 election were likely to view Trump as a successful business man and wise decision maker, in turn influencing their voting behavior. Reflecting on the results of the study, Gabriel told University of Buffalo News Center that she believes without “The Apprentice” Trump would not have won the 2016 presidential election.
Gabriel explained, “It’s not the only factor, but this was a close election and knowing what I know about the strength of parasocial relationships and based on what we found through this research, I believe that he wouldn’t be in office if it weren’t for these television shows.”
In addition to feeling connected to reality TV stars, The NYC Journal reports that viewers are naturally drawn to the drama present in reality TV, as the conflict fuels adrenaline and delivers a sense of satisfaction. However, manufacturing that drama sometimes comes at the cost of exploitative working conditions.
Contestants on “Love is Blind” for example, have accused producers of underfeeding them, overserving alcohol and intentionally depriving them of sleep to foster more emotionally charged interactions. When entertainment that is marketed as being grounded in reality thrives on exploiting people for spectacle, it sets a disturbing precedent for how we engage with real-life events.
Trump’s second term has increasingly blurred the lines between government and entertainment. One of the more disturbing examples of this was on Jan. 27, when talk show host Dr. Phil McGraw joined federal agents on televised deportation raids in Chicago, where the arrests were livestreamed on his platform, Merit TV, turning immigration enforcement into a reality TV style event.
Thomas Homan, the Trump administration’s border czar, defended the decision in a Merit TV interview, saying he hopes the show will help people “forget the false narrative” of racial profiling in immigration enforcement and instead give viewers “look at what we actually do.”
His statement highlights a deeper issue, which is that people often accept what they’re shown at face value, especially when it is packaged in a familiar, entertaining format. A 2022 survey by Cable Connect found that 67% of viewers believe reality TV is “real or at least somewhat real,” despite the heavy editing and producer-driven narratives that shape these shows. When the same storytelling techniques are applied to politics, it becomes easier for audiences to accept curated versions of events as reality, without questioning what has been left out or manipulated.
Just as problematic reality shows manipulate contestants for drama, these staged political spectacles desensitize audiences. The parasocial relationship between a politician who prioritizes building a narrative and the electorate is dangerous because this dynamic not only distorts public perception, but makes it harder for citizens to engage with issues in a meaningful way.
Editor-in-Chief: Jordan Premmer, Chief Copy Editor: Sophia McCrackin, Managing Editor: Jordan DelFiugo, Opinion Editor: Dakota Duran, Scene Editor: Elina Graham
