This chapter investigates those reality television programmes where an environmental theme is foregrounded. It initially discusses the main features of reality television: its representational claims and its production of affect and social integration through the public presentation of what are often more private practices and modes of being. The chapter discusses the roles of the programme hosts and the ordinary participants of reality television shows. An analysis of the eco-build episodes of the popular Grand Designs programme demonstrates that such episodes work to normalise and pluralise sustainable building and lifestyles. A case study of the Aotearoa New Zealand reality television programme, WA$TED! reveals how the show highlights and traces the environmental networks that inform and animate everyday practices and objects.
- Anderson, Benedict. 1991. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Revised edition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Bonner, Frances. 2003. Ordinary Television: Analyzing Popular TV. London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Bratich, Jack. Z. 2007. “Programming Reality: Control Societies, New Subjects and the Powers of Transformation.” In Makeover Television: Realities Remodelled, edited by D. Heller, 6–22. London: I.B. Tauris.Google Scholar
- Couldry, Nick. 2003. Media Rituals: A Critical Approach. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Cruikshank, Barbara. 1999. The Will to Empower: Democratic Citizens and Other Subjects. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
- Escoffery, David S., ed. 2006. How Real Is Reality TV? Essays on Representation and Truth. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.Google Scholar
- Hartley, John. 1992. The Politics of Pictures: The Creation of the Public in the Age of Popular Media. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Heller, Dana, ed. 2007. Makeover Television: Realities Remodelled. London: I.B. Tauris.Google Scholar
- Hill, Annette. 2005. Reality TV: Audiences and Popular Factual Television. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Houston, Melinda. 2012. “House Proud.” The Sydney Morning Herald, September 3. https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/house-proud-20120831-253yg.html.
- Kavka, Misha. 2008. Reality Television, Affect and Intimacy: Reality Matters. Houndsmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
- Ministry for the Environment. 2007. “Talk Sustainability.” Issue 4. http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/sus-dev/talk-sustainability.
- Morley, David. 2000. Home Territories: Media, Mobility and Identity. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Morse, Margaret. 1998. Virtualities: Television, Media Art and Cyberculture. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
- Murdoch, Jonathan. 2006. Post-structuralist Geography. London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Parkins, Wendy, and Geoffrey Craig. 2011. “Slow Living and the Temporalities of Sustainable Consumption.” In Ethical Consumption: A Critical Introduction, edited by Tania Lewis and Emily Potter, 189–201. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Scannell, Paddy. 1996. Radio, Television and Modern Public Life. London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Wood, Helen, and Beverley Skeggs. 2011. “Reacting to Reality TV: The Affective Economy of an ‘Extended Social/Public Realm’.” In The Politics of Reality Television: Global Perspectives, edited by Marwan M. Kraidy and Katherine Sender, 93–106. London: Routledge.Google Scholar