Backpedaling

[parliboy]

To starcade:

The ultimate "winner" of American Idol is pretty much moot.  All of the top finishers get contracts in some form.  Hell, even William Hung got one.  Best example is the second contest.  Despite Ruben's early perception of better marketability, Clay Aiken's had far more success.

[uncamark]

[quote name=\'parliboy\' date=\'Oct 5 2004, 11:57 PM\']To starcade:

The ultimate "winner" of American Idol is pretty much moot.  All of the top finishers get contracts in some form.  Hell, even William Hung got one.  Best example is the second contest.  Despite Ruben's early perception of better marketability, Clay Aiken's had far more success.

[snapback]59695[/snapback]

[/quote]

And Kimberly Locke didn't even make it to the final two, but still had a hit single ("Eighth World Wonder") that even a Village Voice critic liked, which is unusual for someone who isn't punk or avant garde.

Of course, to figure out true success, we'll have to come back twenty years from now and see if these people became as successful as some of the people that competed on Ed's "Star Search."

[starcade]

Parliboy wrote:

"The ultimate "winner" of American Idol is pretty much moot.  All of the top finishers get contracts in some form.  Hell, even William Hung got one.  Best example is the second contest.  Despite Ruben's early perception of better marketability, Clay Aiken's had far more success."

Which is one of the reasons the whole mess is rigged to begin with -- clearly, not only does the best person not win, neither does the most popular.  It's clear, in the stated example, that Aiken was better than Studdard, but, already facing racism charges (which didn't go away in season 3), they went with Studdard, especially after Bush's "Mission Accomplished" baloney...

Uncamark responded:

"And Kimberly Locke didn't even make it to the final two, but still had a hit single ("Eighth World Wonder") that even a Village Voice critic liked, which is unusual for someone who isn't punk or avant garde."

Kim Locke was the best of season two, esp. after Frenchie was DQ'ed.  It was clear that they had someone else in mind who was far inferior.

"Of course, to figure out true success, we'll have to come back twenty years from now and see if these people became as successful as some of the people that competed on Ed's "Star Search.""

Linda Eder comes to mind.

Of course, there's always Deborah Gibson, who had "Star Search Reject" on a sign over her bed.  (She tried twice...)

[starcade]

Matt and I go another round in the rigging argument:

"To me anyway, your whole point boils down to this, which was the point of my...dagger.  You believe, in your heart of hearts, not only something that you can't prove is true, but something that somebody probably WOULD have been able to prove by now if it was true.  Don't you think there are rivals that would LOVE to be able to tear American Idol down?  And a hungry media that would jump all over the story if it even looked like it MIGHT be true?"

The reason that one can't prove it's true is a much better protection of the producers than anything that could've been thought of 50 years ago.  If they had the protections (lawsuit threats, following the "contestants" around, etc.) then that they have now, Herb Stempel would still be seen as a loony.

Today, they protect the producers and hope people don't catch on.

I don't see it as that difficult.  It's known fact that AI and other such shows have clauses in the contracts allowing the producers to choose their own winner in cases of "Act of God" and the like.  (USA Today did an article on this around the time of the Tamyra Gray debacle.)

Then we find out that people use computerized calling systems to spam the phone lines to the degree where the lines have to try to take an order of magnitude more calls than they are capable of taking.  This creates a situation where a tie is essentially forced, even if the one person is getting a VERY small percentage of the vote.

"If you go into your argument assuming that AI is rigged, it's a fairly easy step for you to say that any reality show is manipulating results in ways none of us mere viewers can see.  But since that main point remains unproven (by a long shot) your case to convince others of your belief is pretty weak."

I think it's more "plausible deniability".  I think people don't WANT to believe they're being duped _again_.

I mean, Matt, why do you think people are saying Ken Jennings is a product of a rigged enterprise?  Why do you think people think Jeopardy is fully rigged?

[ChuckNet]

The ultimate "winner" of American Idol is pretty much moot. All of the top finishers get contracts in some form. Hell, even William Hung got one. Best example is the second contest. Despite Ruben's early perception of better marketability, Clay Aiken's had far more success.

Although Ruben's having a hit single and a cameo in Scooby-Doo 2 made it hardly a "sorry 2004" for him. :-)

And what of Justin Guarini, runner-up on the 1st series? He got an album, but sales were rather dismal, and followed it up w/a starring role in one of the worst movies of 03...last know appearance? A wk of H2 this past April (and there's your ObGameShow, LOL).

Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby")

[parliboy]

I think, Matt and Starcade, that there's a big difference between rigged and riggable.

I remember back when Ready...Set...Cook was shooting new episodes during the ATGS era, there were people who pointed out how easy it would be to stack the audience with your friends and family to get an edge in voting.  Assuming that even was true, of course, who'd do it for cookware?

Changing camera angles, dramatic / stilited editing, doing reshoots, etc., isn't rigging a contest.  But once you rely on it to the degree that a Burnett does, you get to the point that you're not watching a contest, but a reenactment of a contest.  And that's one aspect that irks people.  Looking at tonight's episode of the Apprentice, for example: in the boardroom, there was so much of Trump's dialog added in post that you really didn't know what was said at the time.  It was really jarring.  So one begins to wonder how much of it was thought of after the fact.  It didn't affect the result, but it does affect how the result was perceived to have occured.  I do know that all manner of game shows and other contests to pick-ups and such, but not to the degree (or sloppiness) of a show like this.

That said, I'm still one of those conspiracy theorists who believe that things aren't always being played straight.

[CaseyAbell]

I mean, Matt, why do you think people are saying Ken Jennings is a product of a rigged enterprise? Why do you think people think Jeopardy is fully rigged?

I'm not Matt and I don't play him on an Internet board. But where is the evidence that Jeopardy is rigged? The only allegation that had any evidence behind it was the contention a few years ago that Jeopardy was slanting some boards to favor female contestants. And those charges were eventually retracted.

If somebody's going to allege a violation of federal law, it would be nice to see something to substantiate this serious charge.

[SamJ93]

[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Oct 15 2004, 07:30 AM\']

I mean, Matt, why do you think people are saying Ken Jennings is a product of a rigged enterprise? Why do you think people think Jeopardy is fully rigged?

I'm not Matt and I don't play him on an Internet board. But where is the evidence that Jeopardy is rigged? The only allegation that had any evidence behind it was the contention a few years ago that Jeopardy was slanting some boards to favor female contestants. And those charges were eventually retracted.

If somebody's going to allege a violation of federal law, it would be nice to see something to substantiate this serious charge.

[snapback]60878[/snapback]

[/quote]

If you don't mind me jumping in here...

I think that's largely the point, Casey--the accusations of J! rigging are just that that--completely baseless.  It's just the sort of thing that people may talk about in bars, on chatrooms, on the "Jump the Shark" website, etc.  As an example, I was watching Ken on J! a few weeks ago with my roommate, who has seen J! before but not with Ken on it, and as soon as it was over he said, "They have to be feeding this guy the answers...he couldn't do this all by himself."  

I guess it all goes back to what was discussed earlier, the cynicism that has pervaded our society (which we all thought would disappear after 9/11, but it came back, albeit with a slightly different focus this time) has caused us to doubt everything and everyone we see and hear.  Nothing is as pure as it seems...there has to be some ulterior motive to everything.  Come to think of it, this is probably why conspiracy theories, no matter how irrelevant and implausible they may be, gain any credence in today's world...because of this mindset.

Maybe this is why game shows have fallen out of the public favor--in their traditional form, they're just too much "fun," too innocent and clean, to be believed by a cynical, jaded public?

--Sam

[dzinkin]

[quote name=\'starcade\' date=\'Oct 14 2004, 08:42 PM\']It's clear, in the stated example, that Aiken was better than Studdard, but, already facing racism charges (which didn't go away in season 3), they went with Studdard, especially after Bush's "Mission Accomplished" baloney...

[snapback]60851[/snapback]

[/quote]
I don't know why it continues to amaze me that some people will seize on anything, no matter how utterly ridiculous, to make a political point.

That said, not only are you accusing a show of rigging when you have absolutely no hard evidence to back it up, you've decided that the President of the United States was somehow involved.  Do you also believe that the judges are members of the CIA who fly over the studio in black helicopters?

[dzinkin]

[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Oct 15 2004, 08:30 AM\']The only allegation that had any evidence behind it was the contention a few years ago that Jeopardy was slanting some boards to favor female contestants. And those charges were eventually retracted.

[snapback]60878[/snapback]

[/quote]
Were the charges actually retracted, or just not included in the new edition of the book?

[CaseyAbell]

The charges disappeared from the new edition of the book. I don't know if there was a formal retraction, but the removal of the charges is pretty telling. A certain guy who frequently posts on this board discusses the controversy here.

[uncamark]

[quote name=\'ChuckNet\' date=\'Oct 14 2004, 08:41 PM\']

The ultimate "winner" of American Idol is pretty much moot. All of the top finishers get contracts in some form. Hell, even William Hung got one. Best example is the second contest. Despite Ruben's early perception of better marketability, Clay Aiken's had far more success.

Although Ruben's having a hit single and a cameo in Scooby-Doo 2 made it hardly a "sorry 2004" for him. :-)

And what of Justin Guarini, runner-up on the 1st series? He got an album, but sales were rather dismal, and followed it up w/a starring role in one of the worst movies of 03...last know appearance? A wk of H2 this past April (and there's your ObGameShow, LOL).

[snapback]60858[/snapback]

[/quote]

And not even his parents being friends of Steve Beverly could help him.  

[ChuckNet]

And not even his parents being friends of Steve Beverly could help him.

He was too busy complaining about Justin's aforementioned film fiasco not having his last name in the title, LOL.

Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby")

[starcade]

Casey, let's be clear on one thing:

All I was asking Matt about is why people have been saying that J!'s mega-run has been rigged -- not that there's any evidence to the effect.

(Basically, short of giving Ken the material or souping up his buzzer, there's really not much that could be done...)

====

And my contention on AI season two is that Marine Josh Gracin was going to be the winner (remember, my belief and contention is that the voting process is so FUBAR that the producers can pick the winner cleanly -- and script entirely how we get there...), and the President declaring the war "over" had a lot to do with them changing horses midstream.

[dzinkin]

[quote name=\'starcade\' date=\'Oct 16 2004, 02:05 PM\']And my contention on AI season two is that Marine Josh Gracin was going to be the winner (remember, my belief and contention is that the voting process is so FUBAR that the producers can pick the winner cleanly -- and script entirely how we get there...), and the President declaring the war "over" had a lot to do with them changing horses midstream.

[snapback]61027[/snapback]

[/quote]
Again, what evidence do you have of any of this?  Oh, that's right -- none.

I said this when Bill Clinton was in office, and it's no less true now: it amazes me that some people hate the President of the United States so much that they're willing to assign blame for anything and everything to him, even when there is nothing other than utter paranoia to back up such claims.