On 3 March 2025, the Edinburgh Union debated the motion “this house would go on reality TV.”
As one audience member pointed out, this debate got very philosophical, with Beatrix, a second-year history of art student, opposing the motion by referencing Kant’s “Theory of the Sublime.”
Beatrix argued that reality TV, by showing extremes such as emotional breakdowns and humiliation, captures the intensity of the sublime but reduces it to simple entertainment rather than to something thoughtful or uplifting.
Reality TV is “like a freak show” in which the views are captured by oddities — in order not to have your image exploited, Beatrix implores that you don’t “sell your soul to the devil.”
Nikita Matthews, a fourth-year history and history of art student, supported Beatrix’s condemnation of reality TV as shallow. Powerfully leading his speech with Shakespeare, “all the world’s a stage,” Nikita focused on one thing: “the drama.”
Previously having processed reality TV submissions for Channel 5, Nikita showed that there was no love lost for his former occupation. According to his argument, producers control contestants’ images, not the contestants themselves — through thorough editing and restructuring, reality TV is reconstructed to pursue an unnatural narrative.
The opposition to the motion had quickly transformed this debate into a dark and somewhat dystopian commentary, however, Theovolt, a history and politics student, soon lightened it up.
In response to the event’s videographers’ comment that no debater yet had addressed whether reality TV is just for fun, Theovolt agreed: “Let’s have more fun.” He began by shooting his shot at the audience, before claiming that Hinge didn’t help so he resorted to desperate measures: flirting at public debates and considering going on reality TV.
He went on to say that the audience should consider that there is more to the reality TV genre than just Love Island and Big Brother. Shows like the beloved Great British Bake Off and Race Around the World do not set out to demonise and damage contestants’ image — there are wholesome shows out there that the audience would not be opposed to and even enjoy being cast in.
More than this, parasocial relationships can be beneficial in moderation. “I see these people as friends,” Theovolt argued, and so should the audience. By viewing participants as friends, the show is personalised, allowing us to feel empathy and show kindness.
Tara, a second-year history and politics student, went further to argue that contestants can be more than just friends; they can be role models in bringing light to a variety of social issues. For example, Tyra Banks’ controversial comments about and towards young women’s appearances have sparked discussions surrounding body positivity in the model industry.
Tara also made the point that we should view reality TV as “an industry, not as a joke.” The rise of figures such as Molly-Mae Hague demonstrates how reality TV democratises access to industries formerly dominated by “nepo-babies” and those with connections.
No one was better equipped to counter this than Tony Lankester, the Edinburgh Fringe’s CEO, who sees reality TV not an opportunity, but rather a form of humiliation where contestants are “put on the screen to be laughed at.” Reality TV is not real, and contestants are rather a “cast,” for which the industry takes no responsibility, stars die by suicide, and are socially shamed for entertainment.
Overall, the debate ended in a tie, with 29 votes each.
Image by Hubbub & Common Works is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
