CBS Stops Helen Glover From Writing About Survivor Anymore
Steven Litvintchouk
08:22 AM EST on Wednesday, March 24, 2004
BY ANDY SMITH
Journal Television Writer
Helen Glover
A staff attorney for CBS has formally warned former Survivor contestant
Helen Glover that the network believes her March 11 column for The
Providence Journal on the current Survivor series violated the
confidentiality agreement she signed in 2002, before her participation
on Survivor: Thailand.
In an e-mail, Ray White, assistant general counsel for CBS, wrote that
Glover's description of what happened to her immediately after she was
voted off the Survivor: Thailand edition of the hit reality show
violated an agreement she made with CBS not to disclose "the methods of
production" of Survivor.
The agreement covers a period of three years after the last episode of
Survivor: Thailand aired.
As a result of the warning, Glover has begun submitting her freelance
Survivor column to CBS entertainment lawyers for review prior to
publication. After being informed of these developments, The Journal has
decided to no longer purchase Glover's weekly commentary.
"We do not submit our articles for approval prior to publication to
institutions outside the newspaper. What CBS wants is the right to edit
the work of a person writing for The Journal. We find that arrangement
unacceptable," said Joel Rawson, executive editor of The Journal.
A spokesman for CBS News, which is separate from the entertainment
division that's responsible for Survivor, said they don't allow outside
parties to see their stories prior to broadcast.
"No, no, no, no, no. It's absolutely against CBS standards to let anyone
do that," said CBS news spokesman Sandy Genelius.
CBS attorney White said that while the network appreciated getting a
preview of Glover's columns, it was "not a requirement." Glover,
interviewed by phone in Hawaii, said that certainly wasn't the
impression she received. "It was not a suggestion," Glover said. "It was
a choice -- either stop writing the column or submit it in advance."
Glover has been writing a weekly commentary on Survivor: All-Stars for
The Journal since Jan. 31, the day before the show's all-star version
went on the air.
Glover's March 11 column contained information, under the heading "What
You Don't Know" that described what happens to contestants immediately
after they are voted out of the game.
Glover described how ousted contestants are sent to a base camp behind
the scenes, where they receive a meal, a shower and a visit from a
psychiatrist.
"They come to check on you, making sure you are all right. Some people
leave the game angry or depressed. Others leave ill, while still others
leave with a sense of relief," Glover wrote. "The psychiatrist continues
to call on you even after you return home, as many people have trouble
adjusting to the normal routine of life again."
The next day, CBS attorney White sent Glover an e-mail reminding Glover
of the agreement she signed in March 2002.. White wrote that the
agreement precludes her from discussing, among other things, the show's
"methods of production."
"The information you describe in your article regarding how the
Producers handle participants once they are voted off clearly falls
under this category," White wrote.
Glover was on vacation in Hawaii when the e-mail was sent and did not
immediately read the message. The Journal ran another Glover column on
March 17.
After reading the e-mail and talking to CBS officials, Glover submitted
her next column, set to run today, to CBS before sending it to The
Journal. (Survivor: All-Stars airs tonight at 8 p.m.)
In a phone interview, White said CBS has no problem with former
contestants commenting on what's already been broadcast, or making
predictions. What's not allowed, he said, is for them to disclose
information they could only learn as a result of being on the show.
Glover said she was shocked and disappointed to get a warning from CBS.
"I love Survivor and the people who play the game. I would never, ever
want to do anything to ruin the show. . . . I tried to be so careful not
to divulge anything that would be a secret," she said.
Glover, a Navy swim instructor, placed fourth in Survivor: Thailand in 2002.
Glover said that more than 100 former Survivor participants have
provided commentary for newspapers, magazines, radio stations, TV
stations and Web sites after appearing on the reality show.
White said Glover is not the only former contestant to receive legal
warnings from CBS, although he did not give any other examples.
USA Today uses a rotating panel of three former contestants to comment
on the show. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer runs a column by Sandra
Diaz-Twine, winner of Survivor: Pearl Islands.
Stephanie Reid-Simons, lifestyle editor for the Post-Intelligencer, said
that as far as she knew, Diaz-Twine has not had any problems with CBS.
Reid-Simons said Diaz-Twine received permission from CBS to write a
column before it ever ran.
Glover said she did not seek prior permission from CBS.
In addition to writing for The Journal, Glover offers commentary on
radio station WSNE the morning after each Survivor show. Glover said
those segments do not disclose any insider information, and she plans to
continue them.
http://www.projo.com/tv/content/projo_20040324_glover.1c8ac9.html
-- Steven L.
Ed Stasiak
>
> BY ANDY SMITH
>
> Glover described how ousted contestants are sent to a base camp behind
> the scenes, where they receive a meal, a shower and a visit from a
> psychiatrist.
>
> of the agreement she signed in March 2002.. White wrote that the
> agreement precludes her from discussing, among other things, the show's
> "methods of production."
I guess I can see CBS getting upset about this as _it is_ behind-the-scenes
type information, but IMO this would only make Survivor more popular as
it shows that it isn't a cake walk for the players, as some have suggested.
Penelope Baker
the good guys for heaven's sake!
--
Peace,
Pen
--
Pawbreakers - The Candy for Cats!
http://www.pawbreakers.com
"Ed Stasiak" <esta...@att.net> wrote in message
news:R4ydnaSs8YU...@wideopenwest.com...
Warren
<penelop...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah...I really don't understand why they'd be upset as being portrayed as
> the good guys for heaven's sake!
Has anyone ever accused the mass media of showing good sense?
Obveeus
>Glover column doesn't survive after CBS warning
Helen hasn't changed a bit. She still is
an extremely disappointing person. Nothing
in the article actually suggests that Helen was
forced (or even asked) to submit articles for
approval to CBS. Helen just got scared that
she wouldn't be able to figure out how not to
violate her contract so she decided to do the
stupidest thing possible. Now she and her
paper are trying to gain publicity via her failure.
Helen is probably the most attractive, strongest,
and 'smartest' of the older female contestants.
It is such a shame that she seems to have no
ability to engage her brain for deductive reasoning.
IMO, she is one of the most disappointing Survivor
players ever.
doubter
<penelop...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Yeah...I really don't understand why they'd be upset as being portrayed as
>the good guys for heaven's sake!
>
The contestants voluntarily signed a nondisclosure agreement. There is
nothing wrong with asking that the contract be observed.
I am always amused by the all the outsiders telling the sucessful
producers how they should run their businesses. MB has a sucessful
business and has good reasons for wanting to protect his property. How
they are portrayed is not the issue. Protecting the integrity of the
nondisclosure agreement is.
aemilia
talked about this same thing right after Marquesas (maybe in her chat?
or an interview?) so I don't see what the big deal is. The section in
dispute is titled "What you don't know".
http://www.projo.com/tv/content/projo_20040311_helen11.4bb35.html
Helen Glover: Jerri Manthey annoys the Mogo Mogo women
01:00 AM EST on Thursday, March 11, 2004
Helen Glover, of Portsmouth, a contestant in Survivor: Thailand in the
2002 season, is now a freelance Survivor commentator. Here is her
report on tonight's episode of Survivor: All-Stars (airing at 8 on
Channels 12 and 4) in which two tribes of contestants are vying for a
million-dollar prize on an island off the Pacific coast of Panama.
Tonight's Tension:
Jerri Manthey is getting on the nerves of fellow tribe mates, Shii Ann
Huang and Kathy Vavrick-O'Brien, while Lex van den Berghe attempts to
align himself with Huang. Colby Donaldson is trying to wrestle control
of the Mogo Mogo tribe and establish himself as the leader.
Both Mogo Mogo and Chapera tribes will be looking to jump-start the
game tonight, eager to put the Sue Hawk and Richard Hatch balance beam
encounter behind them.
Recapping Last Week:
Hatch's ungentlemanly rub on the balance beam began to eat away at
Hawk's otherwise tough exterior. The more she dwelt on the matter, the
more it began to break her down. Her tribe mates made desperate
attempts to bolster her emotional strength, but to no avail. By the
time the tribes gathered at the reward challenge site, Hawk had lost
control. When host Jeff Probst asked how the Chapera tribe was doing,
Hawk exploded, screaming at Probst that she felt violated, humiliated,
and had lost all interest in the game. And, so, for the second time
this season, another "all-star" voluntarily left the game. Makes you
wonder just who picked these players and what criteria were used. Most
former Survivors would rather die than quit!
What You Don't Know:
When you are voted off, you go to a base camp, of sorts, behind the
scenes and far away from the game. There is no TV, or telephones. No
Internet. There is a VCR and a DVD player, but not much else. On a
regular season of Survivor, with 16 contestants, the first seven are
taken away for a very nice, all expenses paid vacation. Not a bad
deal, but most would rather still be "in the game." The next seven
voted off become the jury, leaving two finalists. As each person is
voted off, they receive a meal, shower, room and a visit from the
staff psychiatrist. They come to check on you, making sure you are all
right. Some people leave the game angry, or depressed. Others leave
ill, while still others leave with a sense of relief. The psychiatrist
continues to call on you even after you return home, as many people
have trouble adjusting to the normal routine of life again. I remember
the doctor calling me several times just to "check up" and see how I
was. After the third call, I told them to check on someone else: I'm
just fine!
What's Up With Richard Hatch:
After being voted off the week before, Hatch made the rounds of the
talk shows and late-night TV, and then showed up again on The Early
Show last Friday morning with Hawk to discuss "the incident." For all
of his other embarrassing behavior, I must say, he handled himself
with dignity and respect when dealing with Hawk feeling violated. He
didn't apologize, but listened intently to Hawk's feelings and said he
felt it was a "matter of perspective" and that he was sorry she felt
the way she did. It was the first time I felt Hatch was telling the
truth. He seemed to have no clue that Hawk felt the way she did and it
was clear that Hatch was surprised by her reaction.
My Prediction:
Jerri Manthey is on a slippery, downhill slope with the women in her
Mogo Mogo tribe. However, she's lucky that Ethan Zohn is still with
them, and giving it his all to stay in the game. What he is unable to
do, despite all of his schoolboy charms, is make them forget that he
is a previous winner, the last one remaining in the game. If they lose
tonight, I believe the five members of Mogo Mogo will vote to send
Zohn home.
Steven Litvintchouk
aemilia wrote:
> Here's the article in question...As far as what she revealed, Kathy
> talked about this same thing right after Marquesas (maybe in her chat?
> or an interview?) so I don't see what the big deal is. The section in
> dispute is titled "What you don't know".
"What you don't know" was a regular feature of Helen's columns--each
time she revealed a little bit of new insider info.
Which, frankly, was the only part of Helen's columns that I found worth
reading.
-- Steven L.
Uniblab
news:ObK8c.682$NL4...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Glover column doesn't survive after CBS warning
>
that big a deal, and don't understand why CBS and Burnett are objecting.
It doesn't matter what Helen is disclosing -- the fact is that she is
violating her non-disclosure. What she disclosed may seem harmless, but if
CBS and Burnett don't shut her down, then they will have a difficult time,
legally, stopping the next former contestant who may reveal information
that's more sensitive. Once that door is open, it's very difficult to shut
it again. It's similar to protecting a copyright -- once a judge discovers
that you have not been diligently protecting it, then it becomes very
difficult to go after anyone for infringement on that copyright.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
aemilia
Yes, but the article I posted was the March 11th article, which CBS
was upset for, according to the original article *about* CBS being mad
at Helen. Not just any old article. That was why I said Kathy had
talked about those exact things before, so I didn't see the big deal.
aemilia
Moontan13
"Steven Litvintchouk" <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
> "What you don't know" was a regular feature of Helen's columns--each
> time she revealed a little bit of new insider info.
>
> Which, frankly, was the only part of Helen's columns that I found worth
> reading.
>
sign him on.
dm
Steven Litvintchouk
Uniblab wrote:
> "Steven Litvintchouk" <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
> news:ObK8c.682$NL4...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>>Glover column doesn't survive after CBS warning
>>
>
> A lot of people have pointed out that Glover's disclosures don't seem like
> that big a deal, and don't understand why CBS and Burnett are objecting.
>
> It doesn't matter what Helen is disclosing -- the fact is that she is
> violating her non-disclosure. What she disclosed may seem harmless, but if
> CBS and Burnett don't shut her down, then they will have a difficult time,
> legally, stopping the next former contestant who may reveal information
> that's more sensitive.
I understand that and I would do the same thing if I were in Mark
Burnett's position.
But MB should also understand that with a show as popular as Survivor,
that's been on the air for nearly 4 years, fans are salivating to hear
about some of these "methods of production" about how the contestants
are treated after they get voted off, etc. Books with titles like "The
Making of <Star Trek (or whatever movie or TV series)>", often sell well.
We're only going to hear "MB tell all" if and when the show is
cancelled--and maybe not even then.
MB should have put out a public statement to be a little more
considerate of the fans' desire to know more about how the show is
produced--and promise that he will write a book "The Making Of Survivor"
someday.
-- Steven L.
Steven Litvintchouk
Maybe Mojo should offer to do a regular column on Survivor for The Onion.
www.theonion.com
-- Steven L.