How To Tell Your Kids They're Smarter...

[JMFabiano]

Just found a couple of old TV Guides, one of which was from August 13-19, 1983.  The Letters section refers to a column with the title in the subject, written by a Vince Canzoneri.  The gist, apparently, was that FF taught children that it's correct to (or they'd be "winners" if they'd) follow what the majority of people think and say.  

Does anyone have any memories of this article?

[Jimmy Owen]

Yes, I have that issue.

[Matt Ottinger]

I'm not sure that Family Feud "teaches" values, but yes, the whole premise of the show is to figure out what's the "most popular", even if it's not accurate.  I know there have been a couple of responses that have turned up on the board (or on Fast Money) that were factually wrong, but players were still required to figure out what the surveyed respondents answered.

[JMFabiano]

[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Oct 22 2004, 09:23 PM\']Yes, I have that issue.

[snapback]61720[/snapback]

[/quote]

What's the article as a whole like?

[SamJ93]

There was actually an article in the Village Voice that dealt with this topic last week.  It's written in typical Voice hipper-than-thou psychobabble, but it is somewhat interesting:  http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0441/essay.php

And with regard to the charge against FF: I would say that the actual gameplay of the show was (or at least, was intended as) secondary to the contestants and the host's antics.  Certainly not as secondary as, say, "Match Game," but definitely not the focal point.  That may be part of the reason why I don't really find the new version palatable...Richard Karn just doesn't seem to have the same sort of wit required for the show that Dawson, Combs, and (to a lesser extent) Anderson had.

--Sam

[JMFabiano]

[quote name=\'SamJ93\' date=\'Oct 23 2004, 09:25 PM\']There was actually an article in the Village Voice that dealt with this topic last week.  It's written in typical Voice hipper-than-thou psychobabble, but it is somewhat interesting:  http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0441/essay.php

And with regard to the charge against FF: I would say that the actual gameplay of the show was (or at least, was intended as) secondary to the contestants and the host's antics.  Certainly not as secondary as, say, "Match Game," but definitely not the focal point.  That may be part of the reason why I don't really find the new version palatable...Richard Karn just doesn't seem to have the same sort of wit required for the show that Dawson, Combs, and (to a lesser extent) Anderson had.

--Sam

[snapback]61809[/snapback]

[/quote]

Well you KNEW I was going to tell you not to forget "Regil" in that list of the FF hosts with that kind of wit :-)  (On a similar note, who do those of you in the know think were the best over in the UK on Family Fortunes?)

Anyway, I should mention the rebuttal the letter made to this article...that FF didn't promote following the majority, but, as Jim Perry would say about the questions on Card Sharks, "They test your ability to judge human nature."

Unnecessary ObGameShow: The issue with the rebuttal to the article this thread is about also included an article about the "dark side" of Fantasy...

[Jimmy Owen]

The TVG article suggested using FF as a springboard to for parents to discuss with their children the pros and cons of yielding to peer pressure.  CHiPs, T.J. Hooker and Matt Houston were also mentioned in the article as shows that families should watch together, for discussion either during or afterwards. By discussing how television can distort reality, it will be easier for a child to accept being told he's not ready to watch Dynasty, even though his classmates may be allowed to.  It's OK to be an individual.

[chris319]

I would say that the actual gameplay of the show was (or at least, was intended as) secondary to the contestants and the host's antics. Certainly not as secondary as, say, "Match Game," but definitely not the focal point. That may be part of the reason why I don't really find the new version palatable...Richard Karn just doesn't seem to have the same sort of wit required for the show that Dawson, Combs, and (to a lesser extent) Anderson had.

This line of reasoning doesn't hold up. If game play were secondary to the emcee's performance, FF with Richard Karn would be long gone. Game play is the only thing keeping FF going right now.

We had an opposite problem on Mindreaders. The game wasn't strong enough to overcome Dick Martin's shortcomings and it sank (stank?) like a rock.