The Top of the $20,000 Pyramid's Pyramid

[Bill Neuweiler]

This may have come up in another thread, but I can't find it.   What's the story behind this pyramid prop?   

Quote from the article on Barbara Lowe:  In his role, Nedeff—who has also been a producer and researcher on a number of game shows and has written books about the industry’s history—has led the charge to secure key artifacts, like the top of the $20,000 Pyramid’s pyramid that a 1970s winner thought to ask the staff for and held on to all this time.

 https://www.theringer.com/tv/2023/5/2/23705821/jeopardy-lost-tapes-barbara-lowe-mystery-champion

 

[Matt Ottinger]

The winner here somehow managed to keep the card that says "The Original Colonies."  I have a photo of him holding it.

[TLEberle]

The winner here somehow managed to keep the card that says "The Original Colonies."  I have a photo of him holding it.

I’m friendly with Wayne from the TCONA days—the big hurdle right now is finding a sturdy enough box to send it. I think it a cool keepsake and love that he had the wherewithal to ask for it. Doubly so thst he is donating it to the college film.

[steveleb]

Wow, Claire McNear is one obsessive Jeopardy fan.  Completely missed this one.

So is the REAL reason she’s not getting a victory lap the fact she apparently ticked off Davies nearly two decades later on a completely unrelated show, and is his ego the actual reason she’s still persona non grata?  Or is it a Dobkowitzian obsession with holding her to an ancient and now irrelevant standard of ethics that even the shows staff somehow couldn’t police?

Simple solution: stage a special challenge game of seniors featuring Lowe and two other elder statespeople for charity (hey, donate to the Strong museum!!) , release it online and give McNear an exclusive so she can get out of Georgetown once in a while.  Let the chips fall where they may.  And then this fades into history at last.

Go ahead, attack away. I’ve heard much worse

[Jeremy Nelson]

Wow, Claire McNear is one obsessive Jeopardy fan.  Completely missed this one.

She's actually the person who did a lot of the reporting that eventually led to Mike's ousting. I never got the vibe that she was an obsessive fan- more a journalist who got really familiar with her source material and made it pay off via her book.

So is the REAL reason she’s not getting a victory lap the fact she apparently ticked off Davies nearly two decades later on a completely unrelated show, and is his ego the actual reason she’s still persona non grata?  Or is it a Dobkowitzian obsession with holding her to an ancient and now irrelevant standard of ethics that even the shows staff somehow couldn’t police?

Personally, I think she's lucky that her name has come up this much so recently, espeically considering her ToC was the Chuck Forrest Invitational. Maybe she pops up in a Jeopardy Masters qualifier, but my guess is that's her best shot at stepping behind that lectern again.

And then this fades into history at last.

Outside of our small circle, this already faded into history. Maybe a handful of new people now know her story, but to the general public, this is already done.

[steveleb]

Claire’s “reporting” was biased and personally motivated.  Much of what she wrote about Richards was exaggerated or unfounded.  Until she made his obscure podcasts an issue, largely based on what SHE thought was offensive (read the New York Times write up of her work) no one cared.  Absolutely no one deserves to have their career taken away for something that literally a hundred people heard a decade earlier that only became known because Claire McNear has nothing better to do with her life in Georgetown than to go down rabbit holes looking for dirt.  I truly hope none of you have what some intrepid clickbaiter considers “offensive”.  Wouldn’t want your ability to earn a living to be compromised by someone like her

[BrandonFG]

Source?

[steveleb]

The New York Times for Claire’s version, actually working with and knowing the reactions of every single person she called out in her writings who saw her “work” as a crusade and a persecution.  I am in no way saying the person in question was without fault.  But to go on the rampage she did with the explicit motivation of cancelling someone because she felt what he said a decade earlier was personally offensive (read the New York Times piece on her work) is offensive and equally as irresponsible as anything anyone may or may not have did.  Absolutely no one deserves to pay a price for something so immaterial as high as your career being effectively ended.  Would you want her to do that to you?

[MSTieScott]

But to go on the rampage she did with the explicit motivation of cancelling someone because she felt what he said a decade earlier was personally offensive (read the New York Times piece on her work)

Because you did not provide a link, I will assume you are referring to this interview. It's behind a paywall, so for the benefit of others, I'll excerpt what I believe are the two relevant questions and answers.

Two weeks ago, the big hosting announcement dropped: Richards had been chosen. Knowing what you knew about him at the time, what was your reaction to the decision?

As I had started to write about “Jeopardy!” more and watch it more seriously, I learned more about the world. I met the fans; I met the people who make the show. And I kept hearing things from people close to the show: that the host-search process might not have been as aboveboard as the way that it was being described publicly, and a number of staff members had fairly grave concerns about him. I wanted to know more about his past and his genesis as a television personality because he had been really open about the fact that, in addition to producing, he wanted to host.

She explains how she found his podcast, then:

So you’re sitting there listening to these episodes. At what point do you start to become unsettled by his comments?

It became extremely clear to me very quickly that those things were kind of dotted throughout the episode: He uses sexist language; he uses ableist language; he uses ugly slurs and stereotypes. There’s a lot of stuff that we did not transcribe in the story that is in there and paints this broader picture of what “The Price Is Right” was like as a workplace. And he was the co-executive producer at the time — he was the boss, and he was mostly just talking to his employees.

[steveleb]

That’s exactly what I would have referenced; many thanks.

For one, Claire relied almost exclusively on the “fans”, the same “insiders” who lobbied blindly for Levar Burton, who actually tested weakest among the auditioners (and please spare me the whining about his week airing against the Olympics; delayed viewing is factored in and if he really had appeal his fan base would have figured out how to tune in).

For another, she used HER filter for what she considered “sexist”.  I’m sorry, but I personally knew many of the WOMEN who participated in the production and were still on his team years later. They never had any problem with anything said or done, because at the end of the day they weee treated quite well both professionally and personally. What angers me about McNear is her entitlement and her complete justification in destroying other people’s lives in her pursuit.  You think these women who worked with him haven’t been affected?  What would she say to the women who have lost income and have had their families disrupted because of her pursuit on the behalf of what she personally thinks is acceptable?  I’m told the Ringer pays her well.  Georgetown ain’t cheap.  Maybe Ms. McNear could donate some of her book proceeds to the women she’s actually hurt—and their families—rather than stand on some elitist ceremony?

[Steve Gavazzi]

I don't really think "Maybe this entitled b-word should shut up for the sake of women who are less b-word-y" is a smart way to conduct this argument...but hey, you're the one who decided to conduct it, so go right ahead.

I’m told the Ringer pays her well.

By whom?  Fans?  Insiders?

[BrandonFG]

For another, she used HER filter for what she considered “sexist”.  I’m sorry, but I personally knew many of the WOMEN who participated in the production and were still on his team years later. They never had any problem with anything said or done, because at the end of the day they weee treated quite well both professionally and personally.

I mean, would you smear your (former) boss in an article about alleged shady behavior? He could’ve been a great boss to them, or they could’ve feared retaliation. I have coworkers who loved my former boss; I thought he was a jackass. Both my boss and Mike oversaw a lotta people so of course feelings may run the gamut.

And last time I checked, Mike is still working in development on other projects.

[steveleb]

Mike is working in development without most of his staff.  It’s them I am most concerned about. Some of them were my actual friends.

I never insinuated that word beginning with b.  But I think very very little of Claire McNear for exactly the reasons I pointed out.  I would not use the b word with her.  But I do think she injected far too much personal bias.  Never bothered to even reach out to the women privately—that was confirmed.  That’s poor reporting.  Period. 

I’m honestly not sure why so many people feel what she did was remotely justifiable.  But hey…guess I’m too old to be woke

[Steve Gavazzi]

But I think very very little of Claire McNear for exactly the reasons I pointed out.  I would not use the b word with her.

You didn't need to.

I never insinuated that word beginning with b.

I'm sorry you think that.

[BrandonFG]

I read the NYT article (against my better judgment, it’s only a few notches above the Post in terms of tabloid reporting but I digress). Nothing about that article appears damning towards Claire, but let me point out that - like what 90% of what people think is “woke” - thinking someone exposing a toxic work environment is not woke either. If this was the witch hunt you’re making it out to be, Mike Richards would still be the host of the show.