Opinion: Reality TV offers little entertainment value

Someone please explain a few things to me that I don’t comprehend.

No matter how many brain cells I burn in search of an answer, I do not understand the national hysteria over TV reality program “American Idol.” Not until after the final show of the season, when people stopped talking about it, did I realize how much talk there had been.

I don’t understand the allure of any reality show. I really haven’t got a clue as to why everyone is so agog over a talent contest. It was the center of attention of everyone everywhere.

63 million

One explanation given is that the interest stems from that fact that winning contestants probably wouldn’t have otherwise been discovered because they lacked the sorts of talent to attract attention.

This may be a good thing, but what does it say about the talent of the contestants? Others are said to like the show because the home viewers get to vote for the winners. I understand this year’s winner got 63 million votes via telephone. That’s unheard of; it’s the sort of numbers associated with presidential elections. Since fans can vote as many times as they please, the massive total may not be as imposing as it seems.

If no one can help me with “American Idol,” I have another reality show quandary. Explain to me the popularity of Donald Trump’s show, “The Apprentice.” What in the world is entertaining about a real-life business tycoon, who appears to be wearing a live raccoon on his head, terrorizing a group of would-be employees?

Help me understand the entertainment quality of hearing him deliver his big line: “You’re fired.”

Dixie Chicks

Forget the Donald; someone please explain why country music vocal trio The Dixie Chicks are on the cover of the May 29 issue of Time magazine. With a multitude of important news events here and abroad, three musicians make the cover? Isn’t Time one of the so-called major news magazines?

Besides, isn’t the name Dixie Chicks a double-barreled political-correctness no-no? I thought the moniker Dixie was of the same ilk as the Confederate flag, both being symbols of the Old South. Also, I thought it was not politically correct to call females “chicks.”

But there they are, on the cover of a major news magazine. In the cover photo, the three are dressed all in black, with stern looks of resolve on their faces. The bold cover caption: “Radical Chicks.” On the inside page, the chicks (I love being politically incorrect!) are dressed in white, smiling sweetly. Go figure.

I need help: Why were the chicks on the cover?

The best I can come up with is that awhile back, one of the chicks told an audience in London that she was ashamed that President Bush was also from Texas. Country music fans and radio stations responded with anger. The Chicks’ record sales went through the basement.

At this point, an apology for the comment was forthcoming. Moving forward in time, the group has subsequently apologized for having made the earlier apology; they are again ashamed of the president.

This comes in the wake of a new album that apparently is more rock ‘n’ roll than country.

It is apparently selling well. So, trash the president, apologize, wait a while and apologize for the apology, put out a new album, and you, too, can be on the cover of Time magazine. Surely, that’s not how it’s done.

Then again, it may be.

The subsequent article about the Chicks features small photos of other highly esteemed political spokespersons who have made negative comments about the president, such as Bruce Springsteen, Green Day, Pink and Eminem. All trashed, but none apologized, recanted and trashed again. They made the Time story, but not the cover.

Time and People magazine are owned by the same organization. Help me out here: Has Time muscled in on People’s exclusive territory?

So many questions, so few answers. Alas.

Joe McAdoo is former chairman of the communication department at Drury University.