Is Survivor Legally a Game Show?
Larry
rules of Survivor as they relate to a game show. Items such as
consistency, rule divulgence to the players, annual changes of the program
name etc have all been discussed in the many threads on the subject. All
these are subsets of the question: is survivor subject to the rules put in
place after the game show scandals of the late 1950s.
While there is not a definitive answer for Survivor until it is tested in
court, let me cite an example that may shed some light on the how a court
might rule.
A month or two ago Bravo TV aired a 5 part series about Reality TV shows
called "The Reality of Reality." According to the Bravo web site it is
set to air again in November. It is not a particularly well done series;
it rehashes a lot of common lore with only a sprinkling of insightful
stories.
The pertinent one was about a 2nd or 3rd class reality show set in Hawaii
called Manhunt that appeared to be basically an adult version of hide and
seek. I don't know if it was every broadcast, if so it was on a minor
network.
As I recall the information from Bravo there was an incident where the
production staff interfered with the progress of the game to get an
interview with one of the players.
A lawsuit resulted and the fundamental issue was if the FCC game show
rules applied to the program. Obviously the show argued they did not
apply. The court (not sure a jury was involved) decided a primary
definition of a game show is a contest of intelligence. This resulted in
the suit being dismissed because the show was not considered a contest of
intelligence and therefore was not subject to the FCC game show protocol.
On the Bravo show it was suggested that the production staff changed the
island map provided to the players to a more simplistic map. "Much like a
map a child would draw" I believe was the description of the replacement
map. The original was apparently a very detailed, useful map. The
implication was that the map was changed to remove any hint of
intelligence from the show.
Extrapolating this to Survivor is difficult because the variety of
elements in Survivor make it a much more complex show than Manhunt
appeared to be. However I suspect that the elements that would be
considered an intelligence contest are a small enough part of the overall
show that it could be successfully argued not to be a game show as defined
by the FCC.
And I'm sure that MB has a whole team of skilled lawyers very much
involved in the development of the concepts of each season. I'm equally
sure they have studied every aspect of the Manhunt decision.
Anyone interested in more details of the Manhunt case can Google "Manhunt
+tv show" and see a variety of links that deal with the suit. I have not
had time to explore them, so any additional information relevant to the
Survivor issue or correcting the items I cited are most welcome.
--Larry C.
GluedToTheScreen
After Stacey's law suit (the results of which I don't know... possibly still
in legal limbo), MB rapidly changed his tune and started calling it
"unscripted drama". I also recall some quotes that the rules of the "game"
itself as well as the players' contracts were reworded to avoid falling
under the scrutiny of the laws governing game shows.
--
G2 --> http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/sketch.html
**
To learn how to get Survivor episodes via IRC,
including all seasons of US, UK, and Oz, go to:
http://www.geocities.com/gluedtothescreen/index.html
john
one website (can't remember which, sorry) had some excellent links and
summaries to the entire lawsuit.
burnett et al are fiercely arguing that their show is not a gameshow,
regardless of what they said during the first season.
too late. they promoted it as a gameshow, so i'm reasonably confident once
it finally gets before a judge, it will be ruled as such. you can't call it
one thing when it starts, and later decide it's something else.
their lawyers have fiercely defended the position of burnett et al against
stacy, so far to no avail. the majority points of her lawsuit so far have
held up. this hasn't stopped his camp's lawyers from jacking up her legal
costs by throwing one thing after another at her lawyers, most of which they
eventually dropped or declined to pursue after it was decided they were
simply using harassment techniques, or when it was decided the issue was
moot.
if you google stacy with the right keywords, you should be able to come up
with the links.
very detailled, properly written. good summaries by the author.
at this point, i'd say stacy will win in court. but right often doesn't make
a lawsuit (look at O.J......); it's who has the best lawyers.
if burnett loses in court, it's gonna cause him all sorts of problems (not
to mention a huge windfall for stacy, which i hope is the final result).
"GluedToTheScreen" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:pDKhb.537216$cF.208184@rwcrnsc53...
Francois
> too late. they promoted it as a gameshow, so i'm reasonably confident once
> it finally gets before a judge, it will be ruled as such. you can't call
it
> one thing when it starts, and later decide it's something else.
> their lawyers have fiercely defended the position of burnett et al against
> stacy, so far to no avail. the majority points of her lawsuit so far have
> held up.
So, does this mean MB *admits* to coercing some voting? And now he's trying
to say that that, while done, was not illegal?
F
Larry C.
Of course not. No lawyer would let someone admit to anything while
litegation is still pending.
Chief Squawtendrawpet
> There has been much discussion over the past several seasons about the
> rules of Survivor as they relate to a game show.
Thanks for posting this, Larry.
I did a little web searching just now, and it seems to me that
Survivor's legal status (game show or not?) is anything but clear-cut.
The statements made by MB and CBS don't seem to be consistent over time,
and the lawsuit from S1 -- which will hinge in part on this issue --
hasn't been resolved definitively. Given this inconsistency, MB's
statements on an old Survivor DVD (noted in a recent thread) don't seem
conclusive at all, especially since CBS appears to be putting forth a
not-a-game-show argument in Stacey's lawsuit.
I'm no legal expert, but here's my sense of it:
Is Suvivor legally a "game show"? Unresolved, contrary to many bold
statements made in this newsgroup.
Regardless of Survivor's game show status, if CBS were to manipulate
events explicitly to help or hurt particular players, would they be
exposing themselves to legal risk? Probably so.
Regardless of game show staus, if CBS were to manipulate events in order
to "make the show more exciting" and help ratings, and if this
manipulation indirectly helped or hurt particular players, would they be
exposing themselves to legal risk? Maybe.
A more fundamental issue is whether the question itself -- game show or
not? -- is badly framed or too simplistic. Perhaps there are other legal
considerations that are more relevant to the issue of rigging. It may
turn out that FCC rules regarding games shows are only one aspect (maybe
not even the most important one) of the legal environment within which
the show operates with respect to manipulation, rigging, etc.
--
Chief S.
Phil Brown
Phil Brown
Larry C.
>Yes, by FCC defination it's a contest ("game show" ).
>Phil Brown
Did you fail third grade reading comprehension?
Phil Brown
>>Phil Brown
>
>Did you fail third grade reading comprehension?
Well I must have because I completely fail to understand your point.
Phil Brown
Larry C.
Phil, if you read the initial post of this thread you will see the FCC
definition used by a court is "a game show is a contest of intelligence"
This seems to be a little different than what you posted. Perhaps you
didn't read the whole sentence in the original post? Perhaps you didn't
even read the original post?
Brad Templeton
decide if it's subject to those rules or not. No matter what games
CBS plays, I would hope the court would look at the show and how it
is presented to the public. Which is to say, as a fair contest, based
on skill (the prominent motto, after all, has the #1 rule of "outwit.")
Yes it has drama, and interviews with players, and rules that are
learned only as you go along. But at the core it is being presented
as a fair contest, and so they have a duty to make it a fair contest.
Now even in the context of a fair contest, they can do a lot to
get the result they want. After all "Basketball 21" is a fair game,
but if you pitch Michael Jordan against Gary Coleman, nobody would
doubt the outcome.
So, if Burnett wants his winner to be a young swimsuit model, he can
design rules and challenges of the game to suit such a player, as long
as he writes the rules first, and then brings in the players. What he
can't do is decide he likes the nice swimsuit model and wants her to
win for best ratings, and modify the rules to help that to happen.
Nor, as Stacey is suing over, can he go into the game and tell players
how he wants them to vote, in order to keep the older players in the
game. Instead, he can design the game next time to not put older
players at a disadvantage.
--
An e-Book publisher on why Dmitry Skylarov shouldn't have been jailed
http://www.templetons.com/brad/free.html
Ed Stasiak
>
> I did a little web searching just now, and it seems to me that
> Survivor's legal status (game show or not?) is anything but clear-cut.
Just wondering, is there an requirement for game shows to be inspected
by FCC officials?
For example, does some FCC employee visit the set of "The Wheel
Of Fortune" and check out the wheel to make sure that the producers
can't make it stop on one section or the other to control the outcome
of the game?
Also, are game shows licensed by the FCC and is there a way for
citizens to check that license?
One more thing, is there a requirement to have an FCC official on
the set of a game show to keep an eye on things as they happen?
My personal opinion is that if/when push comes to shove and CBS
can't buy off Stacy Stillman, they will admit that Survivor _isn't_ a
game show and the players are temporary employees of CBS.
Just because Survivor isn't a fully scripted TV show like "Friends"
doesn't mean that it automatically qualifies as a game show.
Phil Brown
>Phil, if you read the initial post of this thread you will see the FCC
>definition used by a court is "a game show is a contest of intelligence"
>
>This seems to be a little different than what you posted. Perhaps you
>didn't read the whole sentence in the original post? Perhaps you didn't
>even read the original post?
I did not see the original post but it doesn't alter my point. Intelligence is
certainly involved in Survivor, therefore it's a "game show" and subject to FCC
regulations. I know it's fun to speculate about the evil intent of Mark Burnett
to manipulate the show but aside from being illegal it isn't necessary.
Compelling storylines can be created by editing without manipulation.
Phil Brown
Francois
> Phil, if you read the initial post of this thread you will see the FCC
> definition used by a court is "a game show is a contest of intelligence"
Is that what they call "Fear Factor" when it involves swimming around in a
vat or rotten fish? OK--may the most "intelligent" player win, then!
F
Chief Squawtendrawpet
> Just wondering, is there an requirement for game shows to be inspected
> by FCC officials?
All good questions, Ed. I don't have any real answers, but my guess is
no. Keeping a government employee on-site for game show enforcement
seems to be a rather low priority in the grand scheme of things. There
are many laws and regulatory systems that are not actively enforced by
the eyes of government employeees; instead, the enforcement relies on
tips, complaints, or sporadic inspection.
Of course, with the latter the government usually informs the company in
advance, so that all of the rotten meat, severed body parts, fecal
matter, and the secret gizmo in Vanna White's hand can be cleared out
before the inspectors show up. ;->
--
Chief S.
Chief Squawtendrawpet
> I think the issue is that, if it's challenged, it's a court that will
> decide if it's subject to those rules or not. No matter what games
> CBS plays, I would hope the court would look at the show and how it
> is presented to the public. Which is to say, as a fair contest, based
> on skill (the prominent motto, after all, has the #1 rule of "outwit.")
>
> Yes it has drama, and interviews with players, and rules that are
> learned only as you go along. But at the core it is being presented
> as a fair contest, and so they have a duty to make it a fair contest.
I agree and hope that the show would be held to that legal standard. I'm
not entirely confident that they would be, however. I've seen too many
cases where the well-lawyered have prevailed over this sort of
honesty-based common sense.
--
Chief S.
GluedToTheScreen
> honesty-based common sense.
I understood what you were saying, but chuckled at this phrase.
GluedToTheScreen
> the secret gizmo in Vanna White's hand can be cleared out
> before the inspectors show up. ;->
Chief, I guess I've been out of the loop... what gizmo?
Chief Squawtendrawpet
> > the secret gizmo in Vanna White's hand can be cleared out
> > before the inspectors show up. ;->
GluedToTheScreen wrote:
> Chief, I guess I've been out of the loop... what gizmo?
Well, this is based solely on my own personal experience as a
contestant, so maybe it's not a general thing.
Anyway, Vanna has this electronic do-hickey (or gizmo), which controls
magnets underneath the BANKRUPTCY spots on the wheel. Everything's done
with magnetism, by the way. She palms it with the skill of a magician,
so unless you've received black-belt training in this sort of thing
you'll never spot it. If Vanna's feeling a little randy and eyes
gentleman on contestant row who tickles her fancy, she'll deploy the
gizmo, relentlessly zapping the sorry fellow with bankruptcy after
bankruptcy.
That's the set-up. After the show when everyone's milling about, Vanna
approaches the poor chap to offer condolences. She says she feels "Soooo
bad about you're dreadful luck" and, as a way to cheer things up, offers
to accompany the gentleman for a drink. We know already where this is
heading. Quicker than you can say "I'd like to buy a vowel", the two are
in a hotel room and Vanna's getting some badly needed service work
performed on her own gizmo, if you catch my meaning.
But, as I say, this is just based on one experience. I have no idea
whether Wheel of Fortune is constantly rigged, and I'd hate to start any
unfounded rumors.
--
Chief S.
GluedToTheScreen
> But, as I say, this is just based on one experience.
[Sitting here with jaw dropped... absolutely speechless.]
badwilson
"Chief Squawtendrawpet" <c...@edu.edu> wrote in message
news:3F89CACA...@edu.edu...
>
> Well, this is based solely on my own personal experience as a
> contestant, so maybe it's not a general thing.
>
> Anyway, Vanna has this electronic do-hickey (or gizmo), which controls
> magnets underneath the BANKRUPTCY spots on the wheel. Everything's done
> with magnetism, by the way. She palms it with the skill of a magician,
> so unless you've received black-belt training in this sort of thing
> you'll never spot it. If Vanna's feeling a little randy and eyes
> gentleman on contestant row who tickles her fancy, she'll deploy the
> gizmo, relentlessly zapping the sorry fellow with bankruptcy after
> bankruptcy.
>
> That's the set-up. After the show when everyone's milling about, Vanna
> approaches the poor chap to offer condolences. She says she feels "Soooo
> bad about you're dreadful luck" and, as a way to cheer things up, offers
> to accompany the gentleman for a drink. We know already where this is
> heading. Quicker than you can say "I'd like to buy a vowel", the two are
> in a hotel room and Vanna's getting some badly needed service work
> performed on her own gizmo, if you catch my meaning.
>
> But, as I say, this is just based on one experience. I have no idea
> whether Wheel of Fortune is constantly rigged, and I'd hate to start any
> unfounded rumors.
What?!?! You're kidding me, right? Is Vanna some kind of nymphomaniac?
Was it *you* who was the contestant who kept getting the bankruptcy spot on
the wheel ?
--
Britta
Chief Squawtendrawpet
> What?!?! You're kidding me, right? Is Vanna some kind of nymphomaniac?
> Was it *you* who was the contestant who kept getting the bankruptcy spot on
> the wheel ?
Now, now. As I tried to emphasize, this is based on nothing more than my
pesonal experience with Vanna. Just *one* experience, people! Let's not
go jumping to conclusions, calling the poor woman a nymphomaniac or
anything of the sort.
--
Chief S.
badwilson
Well, if what you said is true and she really has a gizmo that can control
the wheel to bankrupt contestants, I'm sure she didn't rig that up for a one
time use. And I'm sure the show must be aware of it...or do you think that
Vanna and a hired hand electronics dude snuck into the studio one night and
installed the whole rig? This whole scenario is highly bizarre, that's for
sure.
--
Britta (who is still wondering if the bankrupt contestant was you ;-)