#scandal commentary

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

This wine tastes like pigs blood!

[First] Prev <–-> Next

[btsbs]

.

[theskoomacat]

ah, it's Saturday, or how I like to call it, "Emotionally Torture The Doctor Day"

[joshthewalkingtrainwreck]

How to Rig a Game Show (Covering the 'How' and 'Why,' and a little 'How Come'), With Relevant Social Commentary

I'm trying to type up this big effort-assed essay on the American quiz show scandals and the part they played in why we are now where we are.

Nutshell is that, apart from Charles Revson, there was never really one single, abjectly malevolent actor in the whole thing, it was a series of people making small rationalizations and little moral compromises that ended up snowballing into something big enough, heavy enough, fast enough, and out of control enough that the whole thing plowed right tf into the court of public opinion and clobbered a hell of a lot of people.

And in a weird way, it serves as part of an explanation on why some of the shit that happened recently has happened. Let's examine the mechanisms in place that let it happen, how it took place, and who benefitted from it.

The punchline from all of that is that as a consequence of the whole fracas is those who produce game shows are legally mandated to hold a higher ethical standard than any producer for any segment of any news outlet operating within these borders. Neither a complaint nor a complement, just a description of the state of play as on the field.

But here is the complaint: 'Yellow Journalism' never really stopped being a thing with the American press, they just managed to shunt that image off to the tabloids and celebrity gossips, while rewording some of their more-blatant examples to appear more respectable. Even though 'if it bleeds, it leads' was the operative slogan of my day (at any rate), such sentiments were begrudgingly pooh-poohed by those trying to maintain a veneer of integrity. The information age has gone to demonstrate to everybody that engagement has always ranked higher than any proclaimed allegiance to objective fact.

Hell, look at how the US press was quick to call the recent clashes in Amsterdam as anti-Semitic attacks before everybody else found out it was a case of a bunch of out-of-towners literally trying to start shit with locals and the locals reminding the out-of-towners they were both unarmed and without air support. I don't think anybody who originally reported it as motivated by anti-semitism have bothered updating everybody on the newer developments, and if they did, they probably included it as a side note on an unrelated story, below the fold.

Yet some poor, dumb sumbitch of a college undergrad intern is looking at a nickel, minimum, in a federal penn if they bullshit the MSRP on a can of soup.

But despite the exaggeration of the stakes and the consequences involved, there are about three ways I can think of for cheating a game to happen (as in a deliberate and willful effort towards influencing what is presented as a genuine competition towards a pre-determined outcome), depending on who is involved with the deception, and the direction in which it is applied:

"Top-Down Bias:" This was the type of rigging that happened with The $64,000 Question and it's spinoff, The $64,000 Challenge. The shows' producers would meet with Revlon CEO Charles Revson, who would make thinly-veiled comments about the state of the contestants on the show, with producers adjusting material to be friendlier or more antagonistic in their questions for them based on those meetings.

The fault in this approach is that while any plan can be foolproof, there is no plan out there that is capable of being goddamned foolproof. As much as Charles Revson fuckin hated Dr Joyce Brothers' guts as a contestant, there really wasn't a way for the writers to get around her memorizing the literal encyclopedia of boxing they gave her, even to the point of asking her about people who were referees of notable fights.

"Bottom-Up Bias:" Contestants try to exert influence on the outcome of a game by means of outside assistance. Possibly the rarest instance of rigging a game that I've seen or studied-- it's only happened twice in all of history (that I know of). Charles Ingram's incredibly unsubtle coughing code on the UK's Who Wants to be a Millionaire? was the most-recent incident of this I can think of happening in real life.🎤

(please note: I do not consider Michael Larsen's exploitation of the big board on Press Your Luck to be an example of this; he wasn't the only one to notice the board had a set pattern, Bill Carruthers made mention of other people after Larsen thinking they had figured out the same system he had done. Larsen was just the quickest to spot and exploit it. Exploiting a bug in a game as it is designed is not cheating, that's on the production for not smoothing out that particular wrinkle at the start. Old Man Goodson liked to shit hisself over an episode of the pre-scandal chat-quizzer Two for the Money when a question came up that read something like "name a word that ends in the letters -TH;" The team figured out a lot of ordinal numbers could end that way, and ended up taking about five grand in early-1950s dollars in a game whose average payout was usually ≤ $750)

"Broadband Bias:" This was the most-common type of rigging that took place during the scandals. Frank Cooper's Dotto was the first show to be canceled on account of rigging but also involved just about every program in Jack Barry & Dan Enright's primetime catalog (Twenty One, Tic Tac Dough, High-Low, The Big Surprise, hell, let's throw Juvenile Jury in on that even though it wasn't a game show) and ultimately came to a head with Charles Van Doren's Senate testimony. Broadband Bias refers to the idea that you don't have to worry about an outcome that would lie beyond your control if you plan it all in advance and give contestants their instructions for each game.

To hear word from Barry and Enright themselves, they acted independently of Geritol's influence, What happened was that Twenty One had it's very first game end the show on a zero-zero tie. Reps with Geritol told B&E point-blank that they never wanted to see another episode like that ever again. The message Enright took from that was to prep the contestants.💰 Jack stated he had no idea what Dan was doing behind the scenes, but I think that was Jack and Dan's strategy to help soften the impact for each other's roles in it all. Not hatin', just statin'.

The plan was that losers would get a little extra in consolation prize money and/or spots on other quiz/panel shows B&E operated for their taking the dive, winners kick back some money to the production to help cover the losers' extra pay. Nobody the wiser would think anything truly wrong was taking place, they were entertainers, they were there to entertain, this was the check drawn from their performances.

The problem with this lies in the sheer number of participants you have to involve in order to keep the deception going: promises made to participants were not promises kept. Enright painted himself into a corner he couldn't get himself out of, and was exiled to Canadian TV for a decade as a result of it.

Does that mean that game shows are inherently more moral content than anything else out there?🍀 Absolutely not-- considering how much quid-pro-quo that Enright was running just for Twenty One (and this was a scheme Dan had apparently done across multiple shows), a cynical person could argue that the bulk of the reforms in the wake of the 1960 amendment to the Communications Act of '34 to address This Sort of Thing was not just to ensure honest competitions kept and maintained a paper trail (to show how they kept everything honest), but it also lead to one of the first instances of security theater in this country.

It's one thing to have a bank manager on stage talking about leaving questions sealed in a safe deposit box for a week (like on $64k), it's another to guide contestants through a bureaucratic process that could be presented in such a manner that contestants get the feeling that they would have no standing to launch proceedings if they had a grievance anyway.

Not that any of that excuses the predatory gaming that producers participated in during that rash of call-in-and-lose 'live game show' scams that were a thing for a handful of years during the first decade of the 22nd century. The three examples of game rigging I spoke of here were with the consideration of 'the contestant' vs 'the house' as parties ultimately neutral to one another; the house actually taking money from contestants📺 is something altogether different. I do hold the Call-In-and-Lose games as responsible for what would be every negative trope associated with mobile game ads (purposely terrible game demo, simplistic ruleset presented, little to no thought at all put into them, ad astra, ad infinitum).

And despite all of that, the public really wouldn't have cared if those accused had told everybody it was rigged to begin with. Case in point: Chuck Barris' The $1.98 Beauty Show had Johnny Jacobs announce it was fake at the beginning of every episode. Every episode straight up carried a disclaimer roughly saying "this is a satire. please do not think in any way that the participants are actually involved in any kind of competition because this is a satire. Please do not inquire about being a contestant on The $1.98 Beauty Show, even if you live in or plan to visit the Los Angeles area, because this is a satire. There are much better uses of your dignity that are worth considerably more than $1.98 because this is a satire." And that was on the screen for longer than the rest of the show's credits.

I mean, they didn't really say that in roughly that way, but I think you get the point.

I do believe that the that extra scrutiny that was incorporated into American game shows as a result of the scandals was a factor in why Mike Richards was cut loose from Jeopardy! as quickly as he was after Alex Trebek's passing. Going by accounts from those who had complaint against him while he was the executive producer at The Price is Right, one could not help but come away with the idea that Richards was trying to be the same type of business-as-usual Hollywood producer that empowered Harvey Weinstein to go hogg wild for as long as he did. Not a big deal in any other sector of the entertainment industry, apparently, but in a subsector of entertainment where you literally cannot do Business-as-Usual (including the regular charge of acting like a Goodson/Todman Producer towards Goodson/Todman Models that Bob Barker liked to pull), that is an absolute non-starter. If Sony Pictures Entertainment had their Standards & Practice rep go over the allegations, they likely saw an established pattern that did not carry good omens for Sony's fiscal futures if they allowed him to carry on. And remember, this was the company that released Mobius to theaters twice.

Unless you've sworn a life debt to them (and why the fuck would you ever go and do a fool thing like that in fuckin Hollywood of all places?), there are no bosses or coworkers that are really worth going to prison over, particularly when it comes to anything that would be highlighted by hand within the pages of "Legally Established and Enforceable Precedents About Which On Game Shows You Do Not Fuck Around (Even as a Joke Between Good Good Good Friends), Rev 5th Ed, Now With New Ingram's Rule"🏛️

It is possible to rig a game show, but if you wanna stay out of prison you gotta tell everybody it's rigged. There are three ways I have found to put a thumb on the scale if you wanted to but there really isn't a need to, because the money straight up ain't in it like it used to be. Pat Weaver at NBC (Sigourney's pa) had pushed for the 'magazine' style of sponsorship for programs for years before this happened in order to reduce sponsors' control of programming, and that was before the march of technology increased the number of competitors through the internet.

You can control the outcome of a closed system; nobody gives a shit that pro-wrestling is scripted because no promoter will suddenly decide to allow random members of the audience to participate in a royal rumble; but if your pitch is that anybody can play, then anybody should be able to win, and you should be able to show the receipts backing that up.

If you want to make a game show, make one that requires leaving the things that need to be left up to chance left up to chance. Trust your audience and your contestants, give them a game that builds tension organically.

Footnotes and bonus content:

🏛️ [it's an actual book, ask your Standards and Practices representative to show it to you the next time you're a contestant on a game show; some of them will even take the time to read it to you, and slowly because you're supposed to read that in your contestant agreement when you signed at the bottom saying that you understood it and their paychecks really depend on your having understood it.]

🎤[about the only other time I can think of something like that happening in the English-speaking world was, funnily enough, a plotline on The Phil Silvers Show— Fred Gwynne was a guest star as somebody previously attached to an Antarctic weather expedition and only had a guide to North American birds to read, and so he remembered all eight thousand-plus birds and went crazy because of it. Sgt. Bilko gets him on as a contestant on The $64,000 Question despite his protests and the bulk of the episode involves their trying to sneak Bilko and a walkie-talkie into the isolation booth to get Gwynne over that last hurdle (given a "now what?!" amnesia plot on Gwynne's part).

Beyond the anglosphere, there was an incident in the 1990s on Italy's 'Telemike' (named for the host, Mike Bongiorno. He hosted the Italian version of Jeopardy! back in the seventies for RAI; when a competing network managed to get him signed, they brought it back under a different name). A contestant tried to sneak in notes to help her out during the double-or-nothing final round and Mike caught her trying to look down her own blouse.

The point is that it hardly ever happens in fiction, and happens with the same apparent frequency as it does in real life.]

💰[Martin Scorsese's character in Quiz Show even mentioned as much to Rob Morrow's character, and more or less explained everything that would happen as a result of the scandals. When Jack Barry talked a little about it on the Dick Cavett Show, he still spoke about the stakeholders involved in the manner someone would assume somebody still intending to draw a paycheck in 'this town' would speak of them would say, which I don't fault one bit. And to his credit, Jack could have just as easily left Dan twisting in the wind when The Joker's Wild took off, but he didn't. I have to give the man props for that.

And while I'm on it, Goodwin's role in the scandals is given a little more impact in the portrayal because he's good friends with Robert Redford. Not hatin', just statin'; I'm sure you'd do the same if you directed a movie about a day in the life at your friend's job]

📺 [Not that I think setting up a game to be impossible to win is "rigging" like how I have attempted to discuss it; there have been several game shows that made a giant performance about the top prize being offered, and then you watch the show and realize there's no likely possibility that anybody would be lucky enough to collect on the amount as advertised. Just because you could win $50k at Plinko does not mean anyone has actually won it.

As a personal bit of advice to any quiz producers out there: don't do that shit. The game is the thing, make a good game and the prizes will take care of themselves]

🍀[lmao a Turkish crossword quizzer some time back got cancelled immediately after they had a whole round of questions making fun of President Erdoan on a live broadcast. News channels here wouldn't dare try to jeopardize their access like that]

[newssupdates]

The Hidden Hypocrisy: Criticizing the Luxurious Lifestyle We Secretly Desire

To the ones that want Dr Toye, it just made a second confirmation ( first time was the craze with a font trapping those who wanted Adegbite's number some years back, this was after dragging Toke for her alleged romance with him ) to me again that quite a number of the people here, are here not to actually point out the wrong doings of some of these females fµck!ng for a luxury lifestyle but more like you complain because you aren't the one in that position. I mean darky this, darky that, toke this toke that, kika this kika that, darky should be ashamed of flaunting a married man. At the given info that they are having issues, the same people here who condemned her are looking for how to get Toye. I really am confused …. why do we talk about them then if some of us want their lifestyle and the Dick behind it? Na wa ooooooo. Scary.

It seems like the content you're asking for addresses the issue of double standards when it comes to how people view and criticize the luxurious lifestyles of certain individuals, especially women involved with wealthy men. After pointing out the criticism aimed at women for flaunting their relationships with rich men, the text highlights the hypocrisy of those who also want to live the same lifestyle, despite their public criticisms.

To build on this, you could explore how societal pressures and internalized desires lead people to project their frustrations. The idea that people condemn others for living a lifestyle they secretly envy could reflect deeper societal issues about wealth, status, and the roles individuals play in perpetuating these dynamics. Social media often amplifies this phenomenon, with people quick to judge publicly while privately desiring the same success or relationship benefits.

This content could further address questions of authenticity, envy, and the social media-driven culture of wanting what others have while outwardly condemning it.

[muninnhuginn]

kinda neat how media can be used as a jumping off point to learn about new things. there are the obvious things like documentaries, but then there are all sorts of other things. when 'hamilton' first got big, you ended up with people learning about aaron burr and the new york water system and various trivia from usa history around that era which wasn't even featured in the musical itself.

when 'mr bates vs the post office' came out recently over here (UK), a whole lot of people were able to appreciate the impact the whole horizon/post office affair had on its victims. sure, the story has been in the news for a few years now, but it's the first time it's been a story actively discussed in daily life. and people learning more about it has actively pushed the government to consider speeding up compensation or mass exonerations.

and even aside from these obvious instances, there are a lot that don't tell you up front and you realise as you're watching. when shows and films and books reference real life events through the veneer of fiction. suzume, referencing the tohoku earthquake of 2011 (something I imagine pretty much every japanese citizen is aware of - suzume's own age is very deliberate in how she lost her mother to the quake. she was very young at the time it happened, but it still had a huge impact on her and many others). link click, referencing the 2008 sichuan earthquake (and deliberately having the arc revolve around school-age children in a run-down old building when irl one of the reasons the casualties were so high was because of poor construction of school buildings). various kdramas referencing generational SK disasters: imf financial crisis (explored in 'reborn rich', but I imagine many other shows), sampoong department store collapse (referenced in 'move to heaven', but again, once I knew the history, it made a lot of sense why so many corrupt villains in kdramas were specifically involved in construction).

it's a mix of how, if you know the events being referenced, they'll impact you more. but if you don't know the events, then it gives you a reason to learn. I personally had very very vague memories of the 2008 earthquake, just in terms of some clips on the news at the time. I had no idea about the various factors that made the disaster so much worse until I realised what was being referenced when watching the show and decided to read up on it.

I have somewhat conflicted feelings on how fictional (or dramatised in the case of mr bates) media approaches specifically *disasters*, as opposed to other historical events, but I think the shows I've mentioned here at least take a victim-first approach.

[korixae]

nonononononono bcs that was SO GOOD like sooooo good bro you don’t understand i adore 14. i adoreeee him like i literally like him more than 10. he’s like if 10 wasn’t so sad and depressed yk?? like he said donna’s his best friend in the whole wide universe and her loves her (and even he acknowledges this is new for him to be saying) and he says he loves wilf and he’s so- he’s so sillyyy like yes 10 was silly but 14 is like if 10 was allowed to be happy. at the end when he runs around his new tardis (which i love sooosososo much btw like i’m obsessed with it i’m so glad it’s staying around for ncuti’s era i’m already dreading seeing it leave again) and him and donna do that cute little scream together like those stereotype teenage girls 🥹 oh i loved it i loved it i loved it AND! that’s not even talking about how “woke” (ugh hate that word) it was!! like it’s gonna piss sooo many people off omg i love it. him asking the meep’s pronouns? the whole binary-nonbinary-binary? the you wouldn’t understand bcs you’re a male-presenting we can just.. let it go? LOVE the representation had me frothing at the mouth i adoreeee. rtd <3 thank you <3 it was perfect <3 couldn’t have asked for more <3

[saving-people-haunting-things]

It's really interesting to contrast how tumblr fandom feels about Sam and Dean versus how Jared and Jensen do. I'm not talking about their opinions as the actors, really, but their perspectives as men who are Sam and Dean's age who would've grown up in a culture similar to them. Like, so many people on tumblr are frustrated by how Sam and Dean never talk about their feelings or how they aren't open about how much they love each other, while Jared and Jensen have both said that they think that Sam and Dean talk about their feelings and show affection for each other and it's a highlight of the show. A part of me wonders how much of that is just PR talk or them projecting, and how much of it is just that their perspective is probably very different from that of the younger tumblr crowd that tends to complain about the boys being "emotionally constipated."

It kind of makes me want to show my dad a couple episodes and ask him about it, but he's already told me he won't watch it because he's still butthurt that Jensen left Smallville to be on Supernatural which apparently ruined an arc that had been set up??? Idk, yeah.

[xaallo]

“ How come everyone just compliments him but they actually try to pet me? Huh? Is it because I don’t have big fangs or big claws? Should I stop trimming my talons?”

[amandaanddonnie]

Mama June taking steps to Improve her Health & more

[britneyshakespeare]

hey quick question... why am i (someone who never engages w true crime) being recommended content on youtube about christina grimmie’s murder? and also wtf? i guess 7 years is a long time for the internet but if you knew about christina grimmie before that happened, no it’s not. that news was fucking chilling and it’s never going to be normal and it feels so weird to make it like some retrospective true crime folklore. that feels really unnecessary to her legacy to just present her as a “murdered youtuber.” stop!!!!!!!

[valentinaonthemoon]

I was on tiktok for a few months in 2020 and I genuinely didn't care for it at all; uninstalled the app and my account. Literally every scandal / bad take now comes from it. I do not care about the dances, and the stupid memes from it are probably on Instagram at the same time. It wasted my phone's battery way too quickly. All I miss are the silly filters. Should I make an account again?

[blueheartbookclub]

"Masterful Deductions: Navigating the Intricacies of 'The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes'"

Arthur Conan Doyle's "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes" is an enduring collection of detective stories that has captivated readers for over a century. Published in 1892, the book introduces the iconic detective Sherlock Holmes and his loyal companion Dr. John Watson, taking readers on a riveting journey through the foggy streets of Victorian London.

At the heart of the collection is Holmes's unparalleled deductive prowess, showcased in twelve brilliantly crafted tales. The narrative brilliance lies not only in the mysteries themselves but in the meticulous unraveling of each case by the astute detective. The book opens with "A Scandal in Bohemia," where Holmes is faced with the enigmatic Irene Adler, setting the stage for a series of intricate puzzles that defy conventional solutions.

Doyle's writing is marked by its precision and attention to detail, allowing readers to immerse themselves in the gaslit alleys and smoky interiors of 221B Baker Street. Holmes's methods, including his keen observations and logical reasoning, become a literary archetype, laying the foundation for countless detectives in literature and popular culture.

Each story is a standalone masterpiece, showcasing the versatility of Holmes's intellect as he navigates crimes ranging from theft and blackmail to kidnapping and murder. The narrative structure is both engaging and intellectually stimulating, making it a delightful read for mystery enthusiasts and casual readers alike. Doyle seamlessly weaves together elements of suspense, humor, and astute observation, creating a tapestry of tales that stand the test of time.

Holmes's character is a study in contrasts – a brilliant detective with a penchant for solitude, yet one who possesses a genuine affection for his friend Watson. The camaraderie between Holmes and Watson adds a layer of warmth to the stories, providing readers with a relatable entry point into the world of deductive reasoning and crime-solving.

"The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes" is more than a collection of detective stories; it is a glimpse into the social fabric of Victorian England. Doyle skillfully addresses issues of class, justice, and morality, creating a nuanced backdrop against which Holmes's investigations unfold. The stories often challenge societal norms, presenting Holmes as a non-conformist figure who relies on logic rather than blind adherence to conventions.

One of the collection's strengths is its ability to keep readers on the edge of their seats, constantly guessing and second-guessing the outcomes. Each story is a puzzle, and the satisfaction of witnessing Holmes untangle the complexities is both intellectually gratifying and emotionally rewarding.

Doyle's legacy is imprinted in the enduring popularity of Sherlock Holmes, who has transcended literature to become a cultural icon. The detective's methods, quirks, and iconic pipe have left an indelible mark on detective fiction, inspiring generations of writers, filmmakers, and enthusiasts.

In conclusion, "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes" is a literary gem that continues to shine brightly in the realm of detective fiction. Arthur Conan Doyle's meticulous storytelling and the enduring appeal of Holmes and Watson make this collection a must-read for those seeking a blend of intellectual stimulation, suspense, and timeless storytelling. As the fog lifts over Victorian London, the brilliance of Holmes's deductive powers continues to illuminate the pages, inviting readers into a world where mysteries are solved with unparalleled precision and flair.

Arthur Conan Doyle's "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes" is available in Amazon in paperback 18.99$ and hardcover 26.99$ editions.

Number of pages: 533

Language: English

Rating: 10/10                                           

Link of the book!

Review By: King's Cat

[iamthescalesofjustice]

its so funny how jorah thinks he can just get a pardon from someone sitting the iron throne and go home again, like they wouldnt beat his ass black and blue and drag him before whoever the current stark in winterfell is for execution if they saw him again.

and thats if they felt like going to the effort and wanted to avoid kinslaying. is it kinslaying to row a boat out to the frozen shore and leave a man there unarmed? given the school of thought that produces 'well drowning a man doesnt draw his blood so its fine', im gonna go with probably not.

[spxnglr]

Seriously though Egon would be the worst lawyer, especially if he was ever court-appointed to try and defend someone who had clearly been a POS to someone/people, he'd just be like "ur honour with respect to the prosecution I too think they're a disgrace to society".

[ryeonah]

tag dump