Some television more base than reality

Our growing fascination with so-called “reality-based” television finds its base in anything but reality.

Following the success of MTV’s “The Real World,” the mainstream networks are scrambling to give audiences a dose of “real” life. CBS is leading the pack with two popular shows, “Survivor” and “Big Brother.” The premise is simple. Set up cameras and microphones and watch those on display live their lives.

We’re a voyeuristic society. We like dirt, gossip and getting the skinny on our neighbors.

But how “real” is this television? I like to think I live in the “real world,” but unlike those featured on MTV, in my real world I pay rent, I find my own job and work full-time.

Although more entertaining than “The Real World,” I was immediately disappointed by “Survivor.” Silly me. I thought this would be a show about survival. What’s presented is nothing more than a Seattle grunge version of “Gilligan’s Island.” Two groups of model-attractive people (and how real is that?) show how they can “survive” through their sheer laziness and whining. The only thing missing from this picture is the smart one of the bunch figuring out how to recharge batteries with coconuts and vines (maybe next week).

“Big Brother” was first hyped as the most “real” of the “reality-based” shows, where “regular” people were selected to live in seclusion with each other.

I wonder how much thought was actually spent on choosing “regular” people as opposed to targeting conflicting personalities? In the first season, there was a 40-something housewife who revealed on national television she’s going to leave her husband, a one-legged GQ pretty-boy who admitted he wants to parlay his experience into a career in broadcasting and a reigning beauty queen.

How normal was that? The only “regular” person in the bunch was the middle-aged, pot-bellied roofing contractor, who, next to the rest of the cast, looked sorely out of place.

This is all just smoke and mirrors anyway, because nobody wants to watch real life on television. Replace “Big Brother” with “Big Greg’s House” and see what happens to the ratings. Set up a camera and microphone in my house, and here’s what you’ll see:

• Greg gets up in the morning, checks on his clothes for the day and retires to the bathroom for the regular morning rituals. If you’re lucky, maybe Greg will sing in the shower (if you’re luckier, there won’t be a camera in the shower).

• Greg gets dressed and goes to work.

• What follows is anywhere from eight to 14 hours of nothing (not even a nanny to spy on) until Greg comes home.

• Greg leaves to run a few errands. Sometimes he makes a couple of stops on the way to take photographs for the newspaper (but you can’t see that in “Big Greg’s House”).

• Greg comes home, and here’s the action. Will Greg fix his own dinner or call out for pizza?

• Sorting his laundry while listening to a CD, Greg’s doorbell rings. No, I don’t want to be saved. Maybe tomorrow.

• Greg folds his laundry and goes to bed, where you can watch him read for a hour or so before drifting off to sleep.

• Greg snores up a storm for about four to six hours.

OK, I’m not quite this boring, but real life is made up more of these moments than screaming arguments with roommates and throwing spears on a beach.

Why do we care who’s the next person voted off the island? Why do we care that miss 40-something is going to leave her husband? Why is watching seven models strut around in a house they don’t pay rent for so interesting? Maybe it’s the same reason some people peep through windows, buy the National Inquirer and think O.J. will eventually find the real killer.

Truth is, “reality-based” TV is light on reality and more base than its fans are willing to admit.