The Gimlet Eye

In my Serious Journalist real life (as compared to my Snarky Blogger online life), I occasionally talk to this guy named Richard Florida, a University of Toronto professor whose signature idea is that cities are on the rise and the reason for their success is that they are magnets for smart, creative young people. The concept of the creative class is one that intersects some of the stuff that Professional Me writes about, and I find the theory pretty compelling.

Still, I’m not sure what to make of Mr. Florida’s hypothesis about reality-television, that it’s a reflection of the suburbanisation of the American television-viewing public. Sequestered in McMansions, he posits, viewers are looking for connection. “These are people who want stories about people and who used to rely on gossip, or on the little mini-dramas in their community,” he tells New York. “And when you’re isolated in the suburbs, you don’t have that.”

I’m not here to be an apologist for the Kardashians or the Jersey Shore. But I do question the demographic and viewing assumptions underpinning his conclusion. I think the ubiquitousness of reality televison  suggests that, despite those who claim only to watch Masterpiece Theatre, it’s not so easy to separate viewers neatly into urban-suburban, red state-blue state boxes. That’s not to say we’re all watching the same thing — the medium is pervasive enough that there’s reality programming for everyone, from pawn-shop shows to ones that delight in making contestants go splat to Top Chef. Indeed, there’s an entire network, Bravo, pitched at squarely at urbanites, right at the creative class.

I’m going to go watch some Real Housewives on the treadmill now.