"JERSEY Shore" is what is right with the United States. About 7.6 million viewers tuned in for the season three finale of MTV's big hit, double the number that watched an NCAA Tournament basketball game during the same time slot.
Though people may think of "Jersey Shore" as their guilty pleasure, there should be no guilt involved. The show is brilliant, the cast members are geniuses and the directors are masterminds. Those who watch the show are not mindless consumers being force fed a product, nor are they overly tan bodybuilders watching copies of themselves on television. On the contrary, these viewers and others like them are what makes capitalism work.
Viewers tune in not for the "unscripted" drama but for the suspense of capitalistic ideals. This type of suspense already is employed by less well-known shows. There are a variety of cable programs, for example, that follow collectors who rummage through garbage for treasures. These collectors may buy storage units looking for a good flip or they may go on road trips in the hopes of finding valuable antiques. These shows have a basic premise that does not vary much from episode to episode, yet the sheer number of these shows indicates that people are watching. "American Pickers" and "Pawn Stars" are just two examples of success in this category. They prove the idiom that one man's trash is another man's treasure.
The intrigue of these rummage-type shows is embedded in their capitalistic values. Viewers want to see an epic crash and burn or a huge payoff for junk. "Jersey Shore" also follows these general guidelines. Instead of physical trash, the show promotes the image of a wild and unpredictable lifestyle. The corporate suits at MTV are the collectors and the cast members, catchphrases and lifestyle are the hidden gems. The difference between an antique porcelain sign and "gym, tan, laundry" is that the latter appeals to more people.
Not only are MTV managers, producers and directors invested in the show, but cast members also take an enormous risk when accepting their roles on the show. Many of these risks are apparent, but some are not. Not only is there a time commitment, but there are reputations at stake. Whether The Situation is playing to the consumers' desires or is just a great self-promoter of his true personality is irrelevant. He has made the most of his situation and turned it into a profitable career, as his $5 million salary for 2010 indicates. Yet the outcome could have swung in the other direction. If the show was a colossal failure, the members might have been labeled as their characters for the rest of their lives, a risk that many people may not realize. The cast members just as easily could have had a questionable persona follow them through public outings, personal lives and job interviews instead of cashing in on said personas.
Should we, as responsible and mature adults who have much to contribute to society, be sucked into this beached mess? As rising leaders from a prestigious institution such as the University, should we succumb to the superficial allure of this "reality" show?
Capitalism is not perfect, but in this case we the consumers can make anyone and anything rich simply by not changing the channel. Is it fair to New Jerseyites that they are stereotyped as guidos and guidettes by a cast of mostly New Yorkers? Is it fair that a day laborer breaking his back or a single mom struggling with two jobs is earning about one percent of what The Situation makes? Is it fair that professors barely can sell their books to students outside their classrooms yet Snooki is a best-selling author?
None of this is fair, yet no one is at fault either. It is taboo to hate capitalism. Paris Hilton and the Kardashians, the predecessors of Snooki and The Situation, had taught me not to hate the personas. If they are what the market wants, then they should receive its spoils. Still, I used to look down on people watching "Jersey Shore" or "The Real Housewives" series. I resented these viewers for bankrupting American culture and for adding to the cast's tanning budget. I still do not find an appeal to these shows, but realize that many people do not follow one of my passions: sports.
Maybe it is time to revise the clich
Read More
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | YesterdayThe implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 2 days agoThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
