Author Topic: Paul Alter (Read 54067 times)

pentellit · « **Reply #165 on:** May 12, 2009, 09:42:16 PM »

[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'215577\' date=\'May 12 2009, 06:25 PM\']

Quote

Curling can still be working in capacity but if they're diminishing her work after she blew the whistle on something - if memory serves me right, that's a legal Bozo no-no.

As I understand it, as long as she is still receiving her full salary and benefits, they could literally have her stay home all day long and there would not be a problem. In fact, one of the networks actually used to do this. A number of their engineers who had become old fossils were kept on the payroll with full salary, benefits and even union protection, but they were not scheduled to work. They could play golf, go to the beach, visit the grandkids, whatever, and they didn't have to come in to work. It was basically a salaried early retirement.
[/quote]
As I understand it, in the agreement Curling was given to sign, one of the clauses stated that in the event a court found the document illegal, if Curling kept her job she was agreeing that she would still be bound by it, even if it was illegal!

No way I'd sign it either, I don't care how much they paid me to stay home and play golf!

chris319 · « **Reply #166 on:** May 12, 2009, 09:42:16 PM »

Quote

Now, what if the reason they did this was not to limit things to two black people per day (a notion that I'm pretty sure watching a few episodes would make look ridiculous, anyway) but instead was to make sure they called at least one?

That's an interesting theory, Steve, and frankly after reading the lawsuit and seeing the remarks about Paul Alter, it wouldn't be the only thing I suspect may be fictional.

The more I think about this, the more the following scenario seems plausible:

Deborah Curling brought suit and for the first time, CBS (her employer) was named as a defendant in a lawsuit involving TPIR. To the best of my knowledge, Barker, Roger and Bart did not have contractual or employment relations with CBS but did with Fremantle. Upon being named as a defendant (in my scenario) CBS could have gone to Fremantle and said, "Look, if you want us to pick up TPIR for another season, Barker's gotta be out of there". Fremantle might have come back with, "You know, we're not crazy about Barker either, so let's have him retire." Done deal and Barker's fate is sealed. This might explain why CBS was so heavily involved with the selection of the new emcee, why Fremantle had to go off the lot to hold their own auditions, why CBS would not pay for a camera audition for Mark L. Walberg (whom some at Fremantle really liked), why Nina Tassler picked Drew for the job without an audition for TPIR -- it might explain a lot of things. This scenario fills in a lot of missing puzzle pieces, if true.

Note to attorneys reading this: all of the above is hypothetical and based on my conjecture, opinon and personal belief.

TLEberle · « **Reply #167 on:** May 12, 2009, 10:31:14 PM »

[quote name=\'TeppanYaki\' post=\'215572\' date=\'May 12 2009, 06:15 PM\']I don't know if it's just me, but I usually don't watch the show for the cross-section/sociological reasons. Just sayin.'[/quote]I don't watch for that specifically, but I like the idea that they're trying to bring us something from every tray in the buffet that is America.

[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'215573\' date=\'May 12 2009, 06:17 PM\']Then the next question I would ask is, "Were there any other demographic groups designated with such markings?" If there were, then the "diversity" argument would seem more plausible to me. I still wouldn't like it, because I don't think that certain contestants should be given preference because of said characteristics, but at least it would seem less sinister. If not, then I'd have to ask why blacks were singled out.[/quote] But they are, because we see it all the time. Count the number of military guys, or college students, or pert young females. Or old people. Or whatever you look for. If I were to show up at TPIR dressed the way I go to work, I would expect not to get called. Since the show is a product, and the production company is trying to put out the best possible product. And if that means the show makes a conscious effort to have nine different archetypes of contestant, well, it's their dime, isn't it?

Jimmy Owen · « **Reply #168 on:** May 12, 2009, 11:17:55 PM »

I don't think he liked Samoans.

NickS · « **Reply #169 on:** May 13, 2009, 09:15:44 AM »

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'215585\' date=\'May 12 2009, 09:31 PM\'][quote name=\'TeppanYaki\' post=\'215572\' date=\'May 12 2009, 06:15 PM\']I don't know if it's just me, but I usually don't watch the show for the cross-section/sociological reasons. Just sayin.'[/quote]I don't watch for that specifically, but I like the idea that they're trying to bring us something from every tray in the buffet that is America.[/quote]

I agree; my point is that I don't think a lot of us are pinpointing what the headcount is and then, if we don't like what we see, say "WELL THEY DIDN'T HAVE AN <insert ethnic group here> TODAY - RACISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!1"

chris319 · « **Reply #170 on:** May 13, 2009, 11:40:41 AM »

The "cross-section of America" is a Mark Goodson thing. He really did want a panoply of types as contestants on his shows. I don't know where the alleged "two African American contestants per show" quota came from.

Steve Gavazzi · « **Reply #171 on:** May 13, 2009, 12:09:10 PM »

[quote name=\'TeppanYaki\' post=\'215604\' date=\'May 13 2009, 09:15 AM\']I agree; my point is that I don't think a lot of us are pinpointing what the headcount is and then, if we don't like what we see, say "WELL THEY DIDN'T HAVE AN <insert ethnic group here> TODAY - RACISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!1"[/quote]
Well, that's because most of us are smarter than that. Not everyone in this country is that bright. I've read before that the show has received complaints in the past along the lines of, "I'm not a racist, but if I ever see two black people in the Showcase again, I'm never watching the show again." If there are people that Goddamn stupid on the "too many black people" side of the spectrum (not that anyone on that side of the spectrum is all that bright, but bear with me), then odds are they exist on the "not enough black people" side as well, and it's not hard to figure out which one the show is going to be more concerned about not having angry at them.

pentellit · « **Reply #172 on:** May 13, 2009, 12:13:12 PM »

[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'215617\' date=\'May 13 2009, 08:40 AM\']I don't know where the alleged "two African American contestants per show" quota came from.[/quote]
It came from witness testimony about Roger Dobkowitz explaining to Stan Blitz after one of Blitz's first times selecting contestants, in which Blitz chose several African Americans to be contestants (show #3054k) that Barker was not pleased. It also comes from testimony in the Sylvia Clement-Henry lawsuit in which she testified that she was instructed to place a "B" next to African Americans names so that there would not be more than two per show, and they would fit negative stereotypes.

clemon79 · « **Reply #173 on:** May 13, 2009, 02:09:50 PM »

[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'215620\' date=\'May 13 2009, 09:09 AM\']If there are people that Goddamn stupid on the "too many black people" side of the spectrum (not that anyone on that side of the spectrum is all that bright, but bear with me), then odds are they exist on the "not enough black people" side as well[/quote]
Absolutely. Racism works in two directions. We just hear mostly about the direction that is more politically incorrect.

(Bill Cosby, for example, was pretty open about preferring to hire black people to work on The Cosby Show.)

chris319 · « **Reply #174 on:** May 13, 2009, 02:53:45 PM »

[quote name=\'pentellit\' post=\'215622\' date=\'May 13 2009, 09:13 AM\'][quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'215617\' date=\'May 13 2009, 08:40 AM\']I don't know where the alleged "two African American contestants per show" quota came from.[/quote]
It came from witness testimony about Roger Dobkowitz explaining to Stan Blitz after one of Blitz's first times selecting contestants, in which Blitz chose several African Americans to be contestants (show #3054k) that Barker was not pleased. It also comes from testimony in the Sylvia Clement-Henry lawsuit in which she testified that she was instructed to place a "B" next to African Americans names so that there would not be more than two per show, and they would fit negative stereotypes.
[/quote]
No, pentellit, you missed the point of my statement. Let's say for the sake of discussion that this quota exists. Who established it? Who made it policy? I'm sure you're going to say "Bob Barker" in his capacity as E.P.

Jay Temple · « **Reply #175 on:** May 13, 2009, 03:21:39 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'215635\' date=\'May 13 2009, 01:09 PM\'](Bill Cosby, for example, was pretty open about preferring to hire black people to work on The Cosby Show.)[/quote]
Brief hijack: I'm a white man married to a black woman. I used to see ads in my in-laws' copies of Ebony for a book Cosby wrote. Among other things, the ad said that Cosby expresses his opinion of mixed-race marriages. The wording, which I've forgotten, suggested that it wasn't favorable. I found that disturbing if true, and I wasn't about to put money in his pockets to find that out.

pentellit · « **Reply #176 on:** May 13, 2009, 03:30:23 PM »

[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'215636\' date=\'May 13 2009, 11:53 AM\']I'm sure you're going to say "Bob Barker" in his capacity as E.P.[/quote]
Who else?

Unrealtor · « **Reply #177 on:** May 13, 2009, 04:15:19 PM »

[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'215579\' date=\'May 12 2009, 08:42 PM\']Deborah Curling brought suit and for the first time, CBS (her employer) was named as a defendant in a lawsuit involving TPIR. To the best of my knowledge, Barker, Roger and Bart did not have contractual or employment relations with CBS but did with Fremantle. Upon being named as a defendant (in my scenario) CBS could have gone to Fremantle and said, "Look, if you want us to pick up TPIR for another season, Barker's gotta be out of there". Fremantle might have come back with, "You know, we're not crazy about Barker either, so let's have him retire." Done deal and Barker's fate is sealed.

Note to attorneys reading this: all of the above is hypothetical and based on my conjecture, opinon and personal belief.[/quote]

This pretty much matches the theory I've come up with reading this thread. CBS didn't have any reason to care about how badly-behaved Barker was as long as it didn't impact their bottom line. Fremantle probably figured there was more money to be made with Barker than without him. The moment he started costing CBS, they used their leverage with Fremantle to push him out.

chris319 · « **Reply #178 on:** May 13, 2009, 05:54:18 PM »

Quote

This pretty much matches the theory I've come up with reading this thread. CBS didn't have any reason to care about how badly-behaved Barker was as long as it didn't impact their bottom line. Fremantle probably figured there was more money to be made with Barker than without him. The moment he started costing CBS, they used their leverage with Fremantle to push him out.

The only mystery is how much, if any, pressure CBS had to put on Fremantle. They may both have decided they'd had it with Barker and no pressure was needed. An important factor in this equation is, to the best of my knowledge, CBS had no employment or contractual relationship with Barker, Roger, Bart, etc. They all dealt with Fremantle, the production company. CBS could not get rid of Barker because he was not a contractor to them and he was not their employee as far as I know. CBS could, however, influence Fremantle to get rid of Barker.

ClockGameJohn · « **Reply #179 on:** May 13, 2009, 07:55:54 PM »

Hopping in the Wayback Machine™: Don Howard first reported Bob's announced retirement the morning of October 31st, 2006 prior to any official press release.

Don...do tell where that info came from? CBS?

?