#digitalpublics

You follow the news. You share petitions. You've subtweeted a politician. Congrats — you're participating in digital citizenship. But what does that actually mean, and why does it matter?

Week 6 broke down digital citizenship, basically how people use the internet responsibly and ethically to participate in society. It's not just about avoiding scams or not cyberbullying (though yes, those too). Suing et al. (2024) define digital citizenship as people's participation in managing their rights and civic engagements online but they also point out that definitions often clash with reality due to limited digital literacy skills and unequal access to technology. So being a digital citizen isn't as simple as just being online.

It covers six key elements: contributing positively online, political participation, activism outside elections, responsible social media use, ethical behaviour, and having the skills and access to use digital tools. In Malaysia, this is actively guided by MCMC's Klik Dengan Bijak campaign, which promotes safe and responsible internet use nationwide (Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission [MCMC], 2024).

Platforms aren't neutral — that's where platformisation comes in.

Platformisation describes how digital platforms have become so embedded in daily life that they now dominate public discourse, shape access to information, and influence political content (Fischer & Jarren, 2024). In other words, when TikTok or Instagram decides what you see, they're not just running an app, they're shaping what society thinks and talks about. Fischer and Jarren (2024) warn that journalistic values relevant to democracy are being replaced by platform-driven, attention-seeking business models. That's a serious problem.

And then there's hashtag activism.

Hashtags like #BlackLivesMatter, #MeToo, and #ClimateChange don't just organise content — they build communities. Theocharis et al. (2023) found that social media has reshaped political engagement entirely — sharing petitions, following political figures, commenting, forwarding news — these are now all legitimate forms of political participation. Political engagement is shifting from long-term party membership to flexible, issue-based action online.

Being online IS being a citizen now. The question is what kind.

References: Fischer, R., & Jarren, O. (2024). The platformization of the public sphere and its challenge to democracy. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 50(1), 200–215.https://doi.org/10.1177/01914537231203535

Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC). (2024). Klik dengan bijak. https://www.komunikasi.gov.my/en/program-semasa/23446-klik-dengan-bijak-main-peranan-penting-pastikan-keselamatan-rakyat-malaysia-terjamin-semasa-berada-di-dalam-talian

Suing, A., Alarcon-Llontop, L.-R., & Bizberge, A. (2024). Appreciations and practices of digital citizenship in the Andean community. Frontiers in Communication, 9, Article 1336528. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2024.1336528

Okay so we all know someone (maybe it's us) who says "I don't watch reality TV" but then somehow knows everything about every MAFS season. And according to Week 5's lecture, that guilty pleasure is actually doing something sociologically significant.

Here's the thing, reality TV is the most hated and most watched genre at the same time. Studies show that nearly half of viewers hold an unfavourable view of it, yet it consistently wins ratings. Lindemann (2022) argues this contradiction reveals something deeper. Reality TV taps into real social anxieties about fame, class, gender, and who gets to be visible in public life. That paradox alone tells you something interesting is happening.

So why does it matter academically?

Reality TV creates what we've been calling digital publics. When you're in a heated Twitter/X thread about whether someone on Survivor deserved to get voted out, you're not just gossiping, you're participating in public discourse. Ngcongo (2024) studied the #DateMyFamily hashtag community and found that these spaces reflect genuine cultural values, norms, and social attitudes, things like gender roles, race, and relationships all get debated through the lens of who behaved badly on a dating show.

Two things are happening simultaneously:

🎬 Multiplatform expansion — Reality TV no longer lives just on TV. Stars are incentivised to generate their own content across Instagram, TikTok, and podcasts, extending drama well beyond the episode. As Ngcongo (2024) notes, social media affordances allow audiences to form virtual communities that exist and thrive entirely outside the broadcast itself.

💬 Digital publics for political talk — Fan engagement with reality TV has become as much a part of the entertainment as the show itself, and that engagement often crosses into real social commentary about power, privilege, and everyday life (Lindemann, 2022).

Tumblr communities, #MAFS threads, #RuPaul debates — these are not just fandoms. They are digital publics where everyday political and social conversations happen, often without people even realising it.

Reality TV is low-key one of the most interesting things to study in media right now.

References

Lindemann, D. (2022). True story: What reality TV says about us. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

✨ “Reality TV is trash”… but why is everyone still watching it?

This week’s lecture about digital communities and fandoms completely changed the way I think about reality television. Before this class, I honestly saw reality TV as nothing more than entertainment designed for drama and gossip. But after learning about digital publics, fandom culture and participatory audiences, I realised reality TV actually plays a much bigger role in online culture than I expected.

📺 From MAFS to The Bachelor and The Voice, reality television has become deeply connected to social media platforms like TikTok, Instagram, Twitter/X and Tumblr. People no longer just “watch” reality TV — they actively participate in it online.

One of the most interesting concepts from this week was the idea of the “digital public sphere”. Traditionally, the public sphere referred to spaces where people discuss important social and political issues. Today, these discussions happen online through hashtags, comment sections and fandom communities.

For example, hashtags like #MAFS often become spaces where audiences debate topics such as:

toxic relationships

sexism

gender expectations

cheating

marriage culture

emotional manipulation

What surprised me is that reality TV discussions often become discussions about real society.

🔥 Reality TV fandoms are also examples of participatory culture.

Instead of being passive viewers, fans now:

create memes

post reaction videos

write theories

defend contestants

“cancel” reality stars

build online communities

Social media allows audiences to feel emotionally connected to contestants, even though they are strangers. This creates what the lecture described as a sense of imagined intimacy.

Honestly… I see this all the time on TikTok.

People talk about reality TV contestants as if they personally know them. Fans become emotionally invested in relationships and conflicts, while contestants gain followers, sponsorships and influencer careers after the show ends.

But there is also a darker side.

⚠️ Because reality TV stars are seen as “ordinary people”, audiences often forget they are still real human beings. Online hate, cyberbullying and harassment have become extremely common in reality TV fandoms. Shows like Married at First Sight regularly trend online because viewers aggressively attack contestants they dislike.

This made me think about digital citizenship and online responsibility.

Just because social media allows us to comment on everything doesn’t mean we should.

Another thing I found really interesting was Tumblr’s role as a fandom platform. Unlike Instagram or Facebook, Tumblr allows niche communities to grow through shared interests rather than popularity alone. Fans use Tumblr to create edits, GIF sets, fan discussions and safe spaces for identity expression.

I think this explains why fandom culture feels so powerful online today. People are no longer limited by geography — communities now form through shared emotions, interests and media experiences.

💭 Overall, this week helped me realise that reality TV is not “just entertainment.” It creates digital publics, shapes online conversations and influences how people interact socially online. Social media has completely transformed audiences from viewers into participants.

And honestly… maybe reality TV survives because people don’t just watch the drama anymore.

They become part of it.

- okay but why are people so obsessed with reality TV if everyone says they hate it?

Reality TV has always existed in a strange position within media culture. People often criticise it for being “fake”, scripted, or overly dramatic, yet millions of people still watch it every year. This contradiction made me think about how reality TV is no longer just entertainment. Today, it acts as a starting point for wider online discussions, communities, and even debates about society.

One important concept from this week is the idea of digital publics. Traditionally, the public sphere referred to a space where people come together to discuss issues and form opinions. However, in the digital age, this has shifted into multiple online spaces such as Twitter/X, Reddit, Tumblr, and TikTok, where audiences actively participate in conversations. Reality TV contributes to this by creating “micro-publics” through hashtags, fan pages, memes, and discussion threads. Shows like Love Island and Married at First Sight regularly generate huge online conversations where viewers debate relationships, fairness, ethics, and contestant behaviour in real time.

What I found especially interesting is that viewers today are not just watching reality TV passively anymore. Jenkins (2006) explains this through the idea of participatory culture, where audiences become active participants rather than passive consumers. Fans create memes, post theories, analyse contestant behaviour, and sometimes even challenge producers online. Platforms like Twitter, Reddit, and Tumblr have become extensions of reality TV itself.

A strong example of this is Love Island. L’Hoiry (2019) explains how fans did not simply accept what producers showed on screen. Instead, viewers used social media to analyse editing choices, compare scenes, and question whether contestants were being represented fairly. During one season, audiences even raised concerns about racial bias in how contestant Samira Mighty was portrayed, leading to thousands of complaints being made. What stood out to me here is that fandom became more than entertainment. Fans were actively questioning producers and holding producers accountable online. L’Hoiry describes this as sousveillance, where ordinary people use digital tools to “watch back” at powerful institutions rather than simply accepting what is presented to them.

Another important idea from this topic is how reality TV has expanded beyond television into a multi-platform experience. The drama no longer ends when the episode finishes. Contestants continue sharing content on Instagram, podcasts, TikTok, and interviews, while audiences continue discussing storylines online. This creates stronger emotional connections between contestants and audiences because viewers feel personally involved in their lives even after the show ends.

Fandom also plays a major role in these online spaces. Communities today are built around shared interests rather than physical location. Being part of a fandom can become part of someone’s identity. Drawing on Erving Goffman’s idea of performative identity, people present different versions of themselves depending on context. In fandom spaces, audiences often share inside jokes, references, and common language, helping them feel connected to a larger community.

At the same time, these digital communities are not always positive. While they encourage discussion and belonging, they can also lead to online harassment, bullying, and toxic behaviour. Reality TV contestants are often ordinary people who suddenly become targets of public criticism because of how they are edited or portrayed. Wood (2022) argues that reality TV today requires greater responsibility and care due to the mental health pressures contestants experience once social media attention becomes overwhelming.

Overall, this week made me realise that reality TV is much more complex than I originally thought. It is not just a television genre, but a digital phenomenon that encourages participation, identity formation, and public discussion. Even though reality TV is often dismissed as “mindless entertainment,” the conversations happening around it reveal a lot about how digital communities function today.

References

Jenkins, H. 2006, Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide, NYU Press, New York.

L'Hoiry, X. 2019, 'Love Island, social media, and sousveillance: new pathways of challenging realism in reality TV', Frontiers in Sociology, vol. 4, art. 59.

Wood, H. 2022, 'Big Brother is coming back – the reality TV landscape today will demand a more caring show', The Conversation, 10 August.

#mda20009 #RealityTV #DigitalPublics #Fandom #LoveIsland #DigitalCommunity #ParticipatoryCulture #SocialMedia

Introduction

Reality TV is one of the most paradoxical genres in entertainment. It dominates TV ratings worldwide, yet surveys show that many viewers claim to dislike it. Despite this contradiction, reality TV remains a significant cultural force, shaping conversations about fame, social status, gender, and even politics.

More importantly, reality TV has evolved beyond traditional television—social media platforms like Twitter, TikTok, and Instagram have transformed the way audiences interact with reality stars, producers, and each other. This shift raises an important question: Can reality TV create digital publics that function as a modern-day public sphere?

Reality TV and the Public Sphere

The public sphere, as defined by Jürgen Habermas, is a space where private individuals come together to exchange ideas, discuss public issues, and influence political change. Traditionally, media scholars viewed television as a one-way communication tool, where audiences were passive consumers. However, the rise of social media has blurred the lines between media producers and consumers, allowing audiences to participate in discussions and even shape the narratives of reality TV.

Micro-Publics and Digital Communities

Scholars argue that instead of one unified public sphere, we now have multiple digital publics, or micro-publics, formed around specific issues or platforms (Bruns & Highfield). Reality TV, especially through hashtags like #MAFS (Married At First Sight) or #BachelorNation, creates online spaces where fans not only discuss the show but also engage in deeper conversations about gender roles, relationships, ethics, and social norms.

For example, discussions about The Bachelor often spark debates about gender expectations in dating, while shows like RuPaul’s Drag Race have contributed to mainstream discussions about LGBTQ+ rights and visibility.

How Social Media is Changing Reality TV

Reality TV is no longer just about what happens on screen—it’s about what happens across multiple platforms.

📱 1. Transmedia Engagement & Audience Participation Reality TV stars are now social media influencers, using platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and Twitter to build personal brands and engage with fans. Networks actively encourage reality stars to create digital content, extending the life of the show beyond television.

As Jacquelyn Arcy (2018) points out, reality TV producers manipulate contestants by placing them in competitive situations where they must share intimate details of their lives to remain relevant. The “drama” continues on social media, with reality stars feuding over Twitter, monetizing their fame through Cameo videos, or launching influencer careers.

📢 2. Reality TV as a Digital Public Sphere Reality TV triggers everyday political discussions, creating digital spaces where fans engage in debates about power, privilege, and ethics.

Studies show that reality TV forums—such as those for Big Brother and Wife Swap—often become spaces for discussing immigration, racism, gender roles, and discrimination (Graham & Hajru). While these conversations might start as reactions to a TV show, they frequently expand into broader sociopolitical debates, illustrating the power of reality TV to create meaningful online discourse.

Deller (2019) argues that reality TV is designed to elicit conversation, as audiences debate not just the contestants’ behavior but also the authenticity of the show itself. This discourse spreads beyond homes and workplaces into forums, blogs, and social media, forming digital publics that extend beyond the entertainment industry.

The Reality TV Paradox: Popular but Hated?

A fascinating paradox exists in audience engagement with reality TV:

📊 Surveys show that reality TV is consistently ranked as one of the most disliked genres. 📺 Yet, it dominates TV ratings and generates millions of online discussions.

In a US study, 48% of respondents had an unfavorable opinion of reality TV, and 61% said there was too much of it (Statista). Yet, reality TV continues to expand, precisely because of its ability to provoke reactions and encourage fan engagement.

This raises important questions:

Do audiences really dislike reality TV, or do they just dislike admitting that they watch it?

Is reality TV consumption more about participation in online discourse than the shows themselves?

Should reality TV be taken more seriously as a form of digital culture and social commentary?

Conclusion

Reality TV is no longer just about entertainment—it plays a crucial role in shaping online discourse and digital publics. Through hashtag activism, social media debates, and transmedia storytelling, reality TV has transformed from a passive viewing experience into an interactive, multi-platform conversation.

Whether we love it or hate it, reality TV is an undeniable part of digital culture, challenging us to reconsider its influence on social and political discussions.

References

Arcy, J. (2018). The digital money shot: Twitter wars, the real housewives, and transmedia storytelling. Celebrity Studies, 9(4), 487–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/19392397.2018.1508951

Deller, R. A. (2019). Reality television: The television phenomenon that changed the world. Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/9781839090219

Dempster, S. (2017, November 28). Channel flopping: A tour of tv’s worst genres. The Guardian; The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2017/nov/28/channel-flopping-tour-tv-worst-genres

Bruns, A & Highfield, T, Micro-publics and social media engagement

Week 4! Reality TV! I can't say that personally I'm the biggest reality TV enthusiast but I do enjoy watching the clips of Love Island or MAFs that get uploaded to Tik Tok.  

Clearly, this week's topic was Reality TV and despite how  common reality TV shows and series are, people surveyed about their viewing behaviour consistently state that the genre of Reality TV is their least favourite. Even with consistently winning ratings. Where 61% of respondents in this same study say they wish that there was less Reality TV, as there is too much in our media.  

I'd say that I have to agree with those who are being surveyed, if I had to pick something to watch on TV, a reality show or series would not be my first choice.  

To provide some context, Reality TV has many varying definitions but here are three in which I thought were the most comprehendible. Reality TV can be defined by Oxford Dictionary as “A type of television programming which aims to show how ordinary people behave in everyday life, or in situations, often created by the program makers, which are intended to represent everyday life” (Collins English Dictionary). 

Furthermore, reality TV has dominated television programming for the last two decades and can be found as far back in history as the 1950s.  

Being such a broad genre it covers many subgenres such as gamedocs, dating programs, makeover/lifestyle, docusoaps, talent contests, court programs, reality sitcoms, and celebrity based programs (Murray and Ouellette).  

Firstly, reality is a genre that privileges ‘liveness’, especially in shows that are broadcast live and implement some form of voting. ‘Liveness’ helps the media emphasise its role as some- thing that can unite society. (Deller, 2019, pg. 155).  

From this week's lecture I learnt quite a lot and found these key points very interesting;  

Reality TV is a genre that is designed to elicit talk and shared opinions 

The idea of 'Tweeting with the Telly': this refers to the idea that viewers are often encouraged to use the app 'Twitter' to form interactions over TV.  

Through emphasising their liveness it presents the shows as a communal experience. Whereby Twitter plays a huge role in this, hyping up its liveness through hashtags on screen throughout the programming and on occasion verbally through a host to encourage the viewer to take part within the discussion.   

Social Media multi platform engagement; allowing for diversification within the audiences and markets. Increasing the opportunities for reality stars across social media platforms (cameos, brand sponsorships, podcasts etc).  

Reality TV creates digital publics for everyday political talk; performs valuable (yet often dismissed) social function .  

For this week's required reading, I felt as if there was a lot to comprehend and take on board and felt a little bit overwhelmed but I found this one point quite eye opening as I could definitely apply it to my own experiences.  

Whereby the genre of Reality TV lends itself extremely well to humour, through the form of gifs, puns, quips, memes and sarcastic commentary in the hopes to feel relatable to the audience. Creating a 'brand' for these tv shows and series. Playing a key role in their social media as it boosts engagement for their accounts and the communities created. 

References for this week:

Deller, Ruth A, (2019) Extract:  'Chapter Six: Reality Television in an Age of Social Media' Download 'Chapter Six: Reality Television in an Age of Social Media'in Reality Television: The TV Phenomenon That Changed the World (Emerald Publishing).  

Jenkins, C. (2023) Who leaves Tonight's MAFS Australia commitment ceremony?, Back to the Bay. Available at: https://www.backtothebay.net/news/2023/03/27/josh-and-caitlin-leave-married-at-first-sight-australia-in-2nd-commitment-ceremony/ (Accessed: March 20, 2023).  

Love Island (2015 TV series) (2023) Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Island_%282015_TV_series%29 (Accessed: March 20, 2023).  

Milne, E 2023, ‘MDA 20009 Week Four Reality TV Case Study 2023 Slides.pptx’, MDA20009 Digital Communities, Learning materials via Canvas, Swinburne University of Technology, 20 March, viewed 20th March 2023. 

Tik Tok star Charli D'Amelio is getting a REALITY SHOW!- Awesomeness TV (2020) Google search. Google. Available at: https://www.google.com/search?q=REALITY%2BTV%2BON%2BTIK%2BTOK&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwjhx8-szoX-AhWaHbcAHX42C-MQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=REALITY%2BTV%2BON%2BTIK%2BTOK&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQAzoECCMQJzoFCAAQgAQ6CAgAEIAEELEDOgcIABCKBRBDOgQIABADOgYIABAIEB46BwgAEIAEEBhQkwdYhB9g6SFoAHAAeACAAZACiAGIJJIBBjAuNi4xNpgBAKABAaoBC2d3cy13aXotaW1nwAEB&sclient=img&ei=RYcmZKGRHZq73LUP_uysmA4&bih=660&biw=1440&rlz=1C5CHFA_enAU990AU990#imgrc=--WAfjeD9Zi4gM  (Accessed: March 20, 2023).