Another way to approach this distinction between reality genres is to think about what each show produces, in a way. So-called high reality tv creates recognizable products -- the more specific or the more artistic, the better -- while low reality tv produces itself (though this distinction doesn't adhere strictly to the competition/non-competition divide). I'm using "product" loosely in the sense that shows like SYTYCD, Runway, Top Chef, and American Idol produce art objects (dance, fashion, food, pop music), which critics evaluate and appreciate on familiar artistic grounds. (From the perspective of the contestants, these shows amount to protracted, televised job auditions, since the prize at the end is almost always employment.) (Personally, I prefer what SYTYCD produces because compared to other shows, it's more purely artistic; Runway, for all of its talk about aesthetics and vision and such, is caught up inextricably in commerce.)
Meanwhile, the other type of show merely produces celebrity for their participants (The Hills, Jersey Shore), the self-awareness or cynicism of which only appeals to observers with a debased taste for postmodernity, which is still a niche demographic no matter what doomsayers say about the fall of culture. (Like, if that were the case, when is certain hit show America's Next Post-Modern Provocateurcoming in the Fall?) (Actually, such a characterization is overly glib; The Hills, Jersey Shore, and The Real Housewives are explicitly postmodern, since they construct a world of pure surface and decadence which exists in between reality (i.e. the real, actual world) and Reality (the television genre); in this liminal space, real and Real become so enmeshed that they essentially become a simulacrum, in which the entirety of the lives of these reality celebrities is lived in the public spotlight and barely exist outside of cameras recording their movements. To be sure, it's an extension of classical celebrity (i.e. of music stars, movie stars, etc.), but with the qualifying difference that the reality stars are promoting their own Reality as opposed to an art object.)
I have to admit that I would totally watch America's Next Post-Modern Provocateur. This, in particular, I think is dead-on:
Whatever the style of reality program, however, I think that moral judgment is implicitly involved, which makes some viewers uncomfortable since we're often judging people in situations that either promote their worst qualities to come out or have creepy voyeuristic undercurrents, or both. But build the show around a contest that measures, say, dancing ability, or fashion sense, and viewer unease is then pacified and we feel we have moral license to judge. "So-and-so deserves to win, because their skills are worthy"; however, there's more than a small element of contestants appealing to us on a variety of moral grounds -- not just the pure skill being measured -- in such advocacy. In other words, these reality programs are dressed up as competitions of skill, yet they subtly invite us to pronounce upon the moral rectitude of their contestants.I really do owe Leee a public apology about all of this. I've been somewhat snarky to him about the value of reality television in the past, but I think I'm wrong. Whatever I may think of it, and as I get more sucked into The Real Housewives of New York City, what I think is changing, reality television is one of the most significant trends in our culture today. It's about how we see our lives. And it demands serious, not flippant, analysis. People like Leee should get more credit for providing it.