TV game show fans create emotional campaigns for TV game show contestants
such as Amy Crews on Big Brother 3 or Nikki McKibbin from American Idol.
Judging from message boards, most realize it's over when their favorite is
eliminated from the game-no matter what the circumstance--and continue to
watch further episodes to see who wins.
What if the shows are not fair? Would the audience care if they knew
their favorite really didn't lose, the producers just manipulated the vote
count or the outcome?
The American audience believes game shows producers are honest, there is no
manipulation of contestants or votes, and that the sun will shine each
morning. This is fueled by so-called legitimate, on-line
journalists-like Entertainment Weekly's Jessica Shaw or Zap2It's
columnists--who can print the networks' party line without question, and
teens who have formed a naïve peer group through postings on program message
boards.
Why is this important? Some online TV reviewers actually influence
people. Shaw's writing fills the EW site with the worst type of gossip
instead of objective journalism, more often painting the Internet with
emotional gossip, sounding like a college girl berating others for wearing
white after Labor Day, often missing the actual news inherent in these
reality shows. Calling people rude names is easier than investigating
public deception.
Could ABC Cast A Gay Man as The Bachelor?
Here's an example. Remember the Bachelor? If you read everything
in print about that show, you know: 1) Several people did not go through the
normal casting process namely The Bachelor Alex Michel and the winner, Amanda
Marsh (though the NY Times quotes producers as saying "producers
subjected him to an intensive background check that included a personality
inventory, blood tests and interviews with former girlfriends), 2) Alex was a
finalist for Survivor Marquesas and did not make the final cut there, 3) on
5/2/02 contestant Shannon Oliver said fellow cast members Trista Rehn and
Marsh had sex with Michel (while the show taped, Marsh in New York and Rehn
in Hawaii) and that was openly discussed on TV and, 4) Michel was sighted in
gay restaurants while the show aired fueling existing "Alex is gay"
rumors (Michel publicly denied he is a homosexual).
"The Mole" Kathryn Price proudly told the press that she, not
"The Bachelor" casting director Marki Costello, found and
immediately cast Marsh while she vacationed in L.A. with her family.
Similarly, Michel did not apply through the Warner Bros. and ABC application
process-people on the show said he is a friend of someone who knew the
producers. Many have said Michel planned to use a reality TV
show-whether it was Survivor or The Bachelor-as a first step to an acting
career. He said he suffered from depression after the taping ended.
Since then, ABC Family hired Michel to host the reruns of "The
Bachelor" on his network, and NBC signed Michel to appear on NBC's
"The Rerun Show." Did he agree to do the Bachelor for
exposure or to find a mate, and is that an important question to ask?
Electronic Media, a well-respected television trade magazine, published one
of those gay bar sightings. Though Michel's sexual preference
hasn't been openly disputed in the press, what if ABC cast a gay man as The
Bachelor? The Los Angeles Times printed Marsh's words describing why
she moved back home to Kansas after she moved to L.A. After all,
Michel's almost proposal did ask her to move there to get to know him better.
Marsh said Michel had little time for her, except when those events related
to "The Bachelor." Marsh said he would not pick her up at the
airport, drive her to events, and made her a low priority. Marsh, now a
DJ in the Midwest, told newspapers that the relationship was over. ABC
might have helped find the DJ job and the move. Simultaneously, Michel
reported a healthy on-going relationship with Marsh, even though she was
thousands of miles away and had no plan to see him again.
Many Questions
What if a dating show casts someone who is gay or bisexual, pretending to be
heterosexual just to get on TV? What if women on a relationship show
expect to find a mate on television (a repulsive concept) and that man had no
intention of commitment, just wanted to further his acting career?
Should producers lead female contestants to believe that man is someone
legitimately seeking romance and worthy of sexual affections? Have
audience members and contestants finally realized that anyone on a so-called
reality show wants public exposure first and anything else is a secondary
motive? And will the online press be serious, not gossipy, long enough
to realize there are important issues here?
The Case of American Idol and Voting Irregularities
American Idol is currently in the news. While the online TV press takes
delight in making rude comments about bright red-haired songstress McKibbin,
the fairness of the voting has come into question. Rumors of cheating,
demon dialing (or having a machine or programmed computer redial repeatedly),
and speed dialing fraud abounded.
An Associated Press article about voting questions seemed to imply that these
unfair dialing schemes benefited only McKibbin-the quotes at the end of the
stories directly pointed a finger at McKibbin though those stories had no
similar remarks attributable to the reporter or the producers. One
board poster said FOX TV itself, on the Fox news' Shepard Smith show,
announced on air that the network was investigating her family. What if
the demon dialing was for Kelly, not Nikki?
To test the system on Tuesday night the 27th, I spent two hours from 10 until
midnight dialing into the lines for all three contestants, sampling the
number of times I successfully connected for each contestant at certain timed
intervals. At least for the West Coast, Kelly Clarkson's lines were
jammed throughout the two hours. McKibbin's lines were tough but
manageable-except for the first half hour when the lines were impossible.
Justin Guarini's lines were easy except for the first half hour. This
meant two things-the vote for those two hours was Clarkson had the most
votes, McKibbin second, and Guarini was third. It meant another
thing-apparently, the Demon Dialers weren't voting for McKibbin, they were
voting for Clarkson.
Quickly, I checked the messages on MSN's American Idol board for
confirmation. Yes, many posters reported their voting successes and
yes, the connect patterns were exactly what I encountered. Whether or
not it was fair, I was sure I would hear that Guarini was eliminated on
Wednesday. Had it bee reported that Simon Fuller had written a musical
movie to be shot this fall and out next summer, starring the top two
contestants? Wouldn't it be necessary for those two to be a man and a
woman? And with a single out in the stores for September 17 (that's not
the shipping date-the available date), wouldn't it be nice to know who would
win ahead of time?
Though this might be the stuff of urban legend, a poster on the MSN American
Idol board said he would lose his job for posting, but here is what went
down. On Wednesday morning, producers decided to throw out all the
demon-dialed calls-they warned the public the week before.
"BEFORE the voting, FOX instructed Freemantle to discount ALL
computer-generated votes, thinking this would eliminate Nikki. As it
turns out, Nikki received the MOST legitimate votes. Even worse, from the FOX
point of view, Kelly Clarkson was eliminated based upon THEIR OWN
INSTRUCTIONS to Freemantle. Kelly had a full 25% of her votes
discounted." (Note: at this writing, FreemantleMedia's website is down).
It that story is correct, perhaps producers chose that week's ousted
contestant by themselves-ignoring the call-in vote. That poster rang
true because it fit with the busy signal patterns I encountered on American
Idol's call in lines Tuesday night, but this message could have been nothing
more than an anonymous writer joshing us.
Here's what is odd-for the first time in weeks, the Wednesday show did not
include the hosts bragging about the number of calls placed to the show's
call in lines. The poster gave that number-before the program aired-as 17.6
million to legitimize the claim of the tallying shenanigans.
Remember-there are no FCC rules of fairness governing game shows-those were
eliminated in the days where "game show" meant The Price is Right,
Wheel of Fortune or Jeopardy. The "Twenty-One" scandal has
long ago been forgotten. Contestants sign contracts and must abide by
producers' choices.
Does it matter if McKibbin had the most, or even the second most, votes this
week? Not really. Though audience dial-in creates a bond between
the viewer and the show, bringing a physical act of dedication (dialing a
phone number) into the mix, the outcome is unimportant. The calls can't
be a fair way of judging.
The phone lines have limited capacity and any viewer can vote several hundred
times if they are persistent, even without a demon dialer. The FAQ page
from the program's message board directly addresses this: "FOX and the
producers reserve the right to not count votes which FOX and the producers
identify as being submitted via power dialing mechanisms." All
votes? Some votes? It isn't clear.
For McKibbin, who had been a semi-finalist on PopStars a year ago, this was
her second try at TV fame through her singing abilities. With American
Idol, McKibbin will have continuously been featured on the show, from the
first program to the last. Her future includes a concert tour with
other finalists, a song on a compilation album, a fan base, and months of
constant media exposure. McKibbin's American Idol experience is
nothing but a success story.
FOX should have hired a phone company with adequate phone lines so no busy
lines were possible, but they didn't. FOX could have created a system
that limited each phone number to only one vote in the competition, but they
didn't do that either, probably so they could brag about the call volume as a
reflection of viewer interest. FOX could release the vote totals to the
public, but they won't. If voting were fair, FOX would publish the
numbers. My guess is the votes are manipulated.
Another problem with the voting is the number of busy signals-at some points
Tuesday night, only one call in 50 would get through. Michael Eaton, an
executive with FremantleMedia that produces the show, said, "95 percent
of all calls are getting through to the toll-free numbers representing each
competitor. The calls then are tabulated to determine each week's survivors
and loser." This was certainly not the case Tuesday night.
And how did he calculate the 95 percent if the busy calls didn't connect and
couldn't be counted?
Here is a fact: most show fans think Clarkson and eliminated contestant
Tamyra Gray were the best singers in the competition. Guarini is the
most charismatic. McKibbin has a strong rock and roll voice and
obviously, huge following. It became a choice of styles and which
personality most passionately affected voting audience members. Vocal
quality became secondary.
Other Examples from So-Called Reality TV
There are many more stories like these to tell. A book was written
about Survivor's actual experience versus the television program. Big
Brother is another can of worms, and if only someone would interview Big
Brother 1's "Seth the Story Editor" about the Rockford, Illinois
voting party for George Boswell against Brittany Petros. Pick a
show. Find a contestant who was cast based on connections rather than
enduring the usual application/audition process and you will have yet another
story of game show irregularities.
Lessons We Can Learn from These Shows
The online entertainment press is caught up in the hysteria and wants to sell
magazine or get website hits just as Fox wants higher ratings. Readers
want to see Entertainment Weekly's vitriolic passages instead of real
journalism, and seem unconcerned if producers do fix voting talleys.
They want to know that Simons Fuller and Cowell might replace Paula Abdul for
American Idol 2 and don't care to question whether or not those same
producers considered ignoring voting results to make their favorite
contestants advance. Truth isn't important to reality show
watchers-dish is.
Also, the audience doesn't seem to care if shows are not fair. If a show is
fixed by a professional television writer adding a scripted element, that
intrigue makes so-called reality shows more like the written dramas these
shows replaced-making reality TV more palatable. Producer's
manipulation is expected as part of the genre.
TV networks should be more honest with the audience. To appear on a
reality show, cast members sometimes sign 100-plus page contracts giving away
all rights to control the experience while on the program. Sometimes,
contestants have no public appearance or creative activity rights, outside of
that one program, until a year has passed or unless it is approved by the
show's producers. The documents often state clearly: fairness exists
only as it is visualized in the minds of producers or network executives.
There is little "reality" in reality television.
What would you prefer: watching unedited cuts of 12 people sitting around a
house all summer, or seeing producers manipulate them so your favorite can
win? What makes better television?
Journalists, audience members, and contestants don't seem to care if networks
cheat. Cheating seems to have more benefits than honesty. In an
environment where broadcast TV is losing market share to DVD and cable-and
networks need ratings, ratings, and more ratings--you do the math.
