Stunted TV
by Tate Strickland
Thanks to television, this December we will finally find out which of the world’s ethnicities is the best. Aren't you excited?
But then again, maybe not. After much buzz regarding racially segregated teams on the 13th season of Survivor (on CBS), there was hardly any fanfare when the castaways were abruptly reorganized into mixed-race teams on the third episode of the season.
Who, exactly, thought that it was a good idea to dredge up and reaffirm racial divisions on primetime television? Was it the executive who wanted more racial diversity in the show? It seems impossible that anyone could be fooled by such an obviously contrived explanation. No. What could it be other than a shameless publicity stunt designed to revive a flagging series?
Now that the ridiculous segregation tactic is over, I would say “good riddance.” But it’s obvious that this was all according to plan. CBS knew that it couldn't carry the ploy through to the end of the season and declare a winning race. That wasn’t the point. The point was to attract the media spotlight at the beginning. Once the trick expired, they threw it away. Back to your regularly scheduled Survivor.
But who cares, right? Publicity stunts happen all the time. Britney Spears kissed Madonna at the MTV movie awards, and her album premiered at number one. Ann Coulter is a master of publicity stunts, using outrageously controversial rhetoric to release books that consistently top the New York Times best sellers list. We've become so accustomed to publicity stunts that it’s astonishing we still fall for them—and yet we do.
And it’s not just harmless fun. With more and more outrageous content making its way onto the airwaves, quality plays second fiddle to loudness. The bigger the splash, the higher the ratings, it seems; just look at the current parade of quality-free reality television shows that make a big buck with little or no real merit attached.
Despite the shameless gimmick, Survivor: Cook Islands premiered with the lowest ratings yet for any season of Survivor. I know it’s foolish to think so, but maybe we’re getting smarter as an audience. Maybe if we’re lucky, we won’t have to put up with this kind of insulting nonsense in the future.
Good riddance.
(So far this season, Survivor is rated as the 16th most popular program in the U.S. Nielsen Media Research said the last episode had a 5.6 rating and reached more than 15.8 million viewers.)
(The Survivor publicity photo is courtesy of CBS.)
Television
Entertainment
Survivor
Marketing
Racism
Add to Technorati Favorites
6 comments:
Good blog. Nice content. Should be back in the future...
By no means is truth restricted to the realm of objective diction; the mouth of Ann Coulter is a font of truth and, if for no other reason, the savage response of the liberal establishment to her books ought to confirm this. However, because the writer of this Survivor critique only knows A. Coulter via sound bites, I will not press the issue.
As to the show itself: Is it not a sign of the times that the liberal media (in this case, see BS...er...CBS) can openly promote segregation and only receive a slap on the wrist? Indeed, R. Limbaugh received more condemnation for his satire of the show than did CBS for actually promoting it.
The true colors of the liberal establishment are unveiled - they condemn even a hint of racism if spoken by their political opponents but will laugh off CBS's Survivor.
(And, if you need proof, I can furnish a montage of talking heads' commentary from the various major networks.)
The point to be made is that liberals are intolerant of any political views except their own.
As for my personal opinion, I think that there was nothing particularly wrong about the show Survivor. I think that the extreme sensitivity exhibited reveals more about the critics than CBS... As a hint as to what I mean, I leave you with the cliche: "It takes one to know one."
Dear 10/14/2006 10:31 PM,
I find it interesting that someone who would enjoy a book entitled "How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)" thinks they have the right to claim that a blogger "only knows A. Coulter via sound bites." An isolated hypocrite like yourself should either embrace open-minded interaction or stay out of public debate altogether.
Beware of groupthink.
Your claims about Ms. Coulter expose the fallacy of supporters such as yourself. If the so-called "liberal" media responds positively to her extremist rhetoric, she is heralded as a beacon of truth amidst a sea of lies and corruption. If the members of the media denounce her, she is heralded as a beacon of truth amidst a sea of lies and corruption. How can she be discredited? In your eyes, she can't be. Hardcore Coulter-fans view any reaction as a sign that she is (excuse the pun) "in the right."
Truth be told, your insistence on bringing politics into the discussion is a little bit confusing to me. If you'll reread my post, I only mention the country's political atmosphere briefly, if at all. Let's debate the real issue here: our obsession with publicity stunts and why they work so well.
The extreme sensitivity speaks only of our country's bitter struggle with racial inequality, a scab that CBS needlessly picks at for a bigger slice of the ratings pie. It would be as if someone made a truly terrible movie about the events of September 11th (some might argue that it has already been done); it would just dredge up old, painful memories for no good reason. The sooner we can stop responding to publicity stunts, the better.
Calm yourself, anonymous #1. I'll back Tate up on his assertion that he only talked about the political atmosphere once. I would caution you against broadcasting such an argument as you have. The "true colors of the liberal establishment" sound an awful lot like your own. Tate mentioned a "hint of politics" and you condemn both him, his knowledge of Ann Coulter and her beliefs, and all of his evil, leftist cronies. Before you grandiosely conclude with a cliche, take a look at yourself.
Survivor's ratings are low because the show is old, not because people are angry with the content. Yes, it was a publicity stunt, by why as Americans are we so scared of race? The show has segregated people by gender and age in the past, but no one is out there forming a picket line. Why is it ok for people to get excited about women crushing hte men? It's not a competition for which race is better. It's simply a look at how race could influence the game. I think Americans continue to hypersensitive to the race issue, and I think politicans have kept race at the forefront because racial tension excites people and keeps them involved. Why shouldn't we bring the issue to the forefront? Maybe if we had a serious conversation about race in America we could move past it with solutions that actually bring people closer together, rather than pushing them further apart.
Post a Comment