Welcome, Unregistered Log Out
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16
  1. #1
    Senior Member TheKid965's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio (Because all the good four-letter words were taken)
    Posts
    1,658

    Why Do We Hate the Word "Rigged?" This May Explain.

    And now, kids, it's time to gather around the ol' computer set and listen as your Uncle Dev tells you a little story. It's a story with a message, too, so make sure you listen good.

    Once upon a time in a distant land, when dinosaurs walked the Earth and cars were big enough to require their own ZIP Codes, there was a radio quiz called Take It or Leave It, which offered a top prize of $64. It was popular with listeners for some time, and then this newfangled invention called "television" came along and started sweeping the nation. The producers of Take It or Leave It decided they wanted to bring their show to the video screen, but felt that they needed a better "hook" for viewers than just a potential $64 jackpot. It was then that someone got the brainstorm to add a few zeroes -- three of them, in fact -- to that top prize, and that's how The $64,000 Question was born... and when the quiz show arms race of the 1950s began.

    According to legend, there was one person who wasn't thrilled with the notion of offering such astronomical amounts of money on a game show. Although he did not work for the production company or its sponsor, he was on friendly terms with the EP and expressed his concerns, which included the high difficulty level of the questioning putting the top prizes out of the reach of the so-called "Everyman." "The only way this show is going to work," he cautioned his friend, "is if it's rigged." The man who made that suggestion was none other than Mark Goodson, who even in those days was a highly-respected authority on game show production.

    Although Question did not directly take Mr. Goodson's advice to heart, they did acknowledge that the sponsor (Revlon) looked more favorably on some contestants than others. To that end, they decided to subtly manipulate the show to give players Revlon liked an easier time of it, and to try and force off players they didn't care for. The best-known example by far was Dr. Joyce Brothers, who would in later decades become a famous pop psychologist. In 1957 she was a contestant on Question with the unlikely subject of boxing as her area of expertise. Revlon did not like her in the least bit, and the producers tried everything they could to force her off the show, up to and including a curveball question about a boxing referee. But Dr. Brothers prevailed in spite of these hurdles the show was throwing up at her, and went on to claim the full $64,000.

    However, while Question did not actually "script" the series -- contestants were not actually fed answers to questions, nor were they told when to, in the vernacular, "take a dive" -- other shows were much less scrupulous about this. Twenty One, the archetypal one-on-one quiz show created by Jack Barry and Dan Enright (The Joker's Wild, Tic Tac Dough), dove into this arms race headfirst after a nearly-disastrous debut episode, which was not at all manipulated by the producers (who felt the show was of such high quality that rigging wouldn't be necessary, but a pair of know-nothing contestants in the very first game convinced them otherwise in a hurry). On Twenty One, contestants were given answers to just about every question they would be asked, were told how to dress and carry themselves on camera, when to ask for which point values, when to give a wrong answer, and how many tie games the producers wanted. It was very much like laying out a pro wrestling match, with the participants being told what to do and when to do it at just about every turn; they were even told when and how to mop their brows for the best dramatic effect!

    Twenty One was a smash hit for NBC at the time, and bred by far the most famous of the early quiz show champions, Charles Van Doren. In many respects the Ken Jennings of his day, Van Doren parlayed his long run on Twenty One to minor celebrity status, becoming one of the most popular personalities during the early days of television; he even ended up with a recurring segment on NBC's nascent Today show, discussing cultural topics. He would go on to win over $190,000 all told on Twenty One, an absolutely staggering sum of money in the '50s.

    However, even then, there were allegations of cheating, or at least that not everything was as it seemed. In particular, the accusations made by Herbert Stempel, the Twenty One champion Van Doren had defeated to begin his long reign, had a certain unsettling ring of plausibility to them. Stempel argued that he had been ordered by Dan Enright to deliberately lose to Van Doren, as he (Enright) felt Van Doren had more ratings potential. However, very few people paid Stempel much mind initially, writing him off as a "sore loser." That, however, would soon change.

    In 1958, roughly two years into the quiz show craze, a single notebook caused the whole thing to come crashing down. It happened behind the scenes of Dotto, a relatively minor but inventive series built around identifying famous faces from connect-the-dots puzzles. While waiting for his turn to go on, a reserve contestant noticed the show's champion seemed to be giving all the answers to her questions a bit too smoothly -- and then remembered he had seen her with a notebook in hand backstage. He somehow contrived to get his hands on that notebook, and sure enough, inside were notes on all the questions she was being asked on the show, along with the answers. Armed with this evidence, he went to the network, and after a careful review of a kinescope confirmed the worst, Dotto was immediately yanked off the air pending a full investigation.

    And then the dominoes began to fall. One after another, allegations of rigging and dishonest conduct were breaking all around the horn, from The $64,000 Challenge to Tic Tac Dough to Break the $250,000 Bank to Name That Tune, with their sponsors feigning innocence and producers and contestants alike doing everything up to and including perjury to protect the good thing they had going. But the damage had already been done; television's innocence had been shattered in the name of ratings and advertiser revenue, and viewers, no longer able to deny the mounting evidence that they'd all been royally had, began tuning out in droves. One by one, the once-mighty quiz shows began dropping off the proverbial cliff in the ratings books, and ultimately all of them were cancelled. As for Charles Van Doren, the first "celebrity contestant" of game show history, he finally confessed that he had indeed been given the answers to his Twenty One questions, then immediately retired in disgrace from public life. He was never seen or heard from again.

    The backlash against the quiz shows also nearly took down every game show, even the ones that weren't played for high stakes. Even the standard-bearer for urbanity and class in the genre, the seminal What's My Line?, found itself under the microscope lens of the FCC, despite the fact they never gave away more than $50 to each contestant. Gil Fates, years later in his book about the show, confessed that Goodson-Todman decided to short-circuit the investigations by quietly announcing to the Line staff that henceforth, every contestant that appeared on the show would get the full $50 regardless of what John Daly's cards said to the contrary. Thus, there would be no practical need for rigging the show and, therefore, nothing for the federal investigators to be concerned about. This apparently satisfied the FCC, and Line would go on to enjoy another decade as the crown jewel in the G-T family. (A similar ruling was made for Line's sister series, I've Got a Secret.) Not even an innocuous stunt show like Beat the Clock was spared; when the big-money shows were in their prime, Clock began offering a Bonus Stunt for an accruing jackpot worth up to $64,000. Once the scandals began breaking, the Bonus Stunt vanished, and when it finally returned, it was played for far less money.

    The Quiz Show Scandals, as they are now known, destroyed careers and ruined reputations. Many of the producers and their cronies found themselves blacklisted for years following, and perhaps none more so than Messrs. Barry and Enright. All of their shows, bar one, were cancelled in the wake of the Twenty One scandal, and neither of them could find work in television for nearly a full decade. (The one creation of theirs that did survive only did so because they had the foresight to sell the series and format directly to the network, NBC, and so their names weren't attached to it when the you-know-what hit the fan. That series, by the way, was the legendary Concentration.) Indeed, even when Jack Barry was "allowed" back into the television business, Dan Enright remained persona non grata as far as any network was concerned, even though he was indeed a "silent partner" for many of Barry's projects during the early- to mid-1970s. Very notably, this fact went unacknowledged until the CBS series finale of The Joker's Wild, in which the imminently-unemployed Barry explicitly mentioned Enright was still his partner. (It's generally believed that Rhyme and Reason, a 1975 Match Game clone for ABC that bears striking similarities to a typical B&E series, was produced by Enright directly under the alias "W.T. Naud Productions," a company that has never been heard from again.)

    As for the game show genre itself, the Scandals created a backlash against any series that offered huge amounts of money, or were Q&A-style formats. For virtually the entire decade of the 1960s, game shows found themselves reduced to simple parlor games played during daytime hours, with enforcedly low stakes and severe limitations being placed on winners. This was when the concept of limiting champions to x-number of appearances and "winnings caps" became de rigeur for the entire genre. Indeed, it wouldn't be until 1964 when a quiz-type series (the original Jeopardy! on NBC) became popular again, and even then it was played for relatively low sums of money that didn't even come close to what the primetime quizzers of 6-7 years prior were giving away. Indeed, "big money" would not return to the genre at all until 1973, when The $10,000 Pyramid broke the five-digit barrier for the first time since the Scandals (if one doesn't count 100 Grand, a blink-and-miss-it attempt by ABC in the '60s to revisit the quiz show era in prime time).

    And that, my friends, is why people like myself get so up in arms over suggestions that any modern game show is "rigged." We've been there, we've done that, and we've seen the far-reaching damage it did to the industry. It would take a clinically insane person to ever want to risk reliving that nightmare, no matter how much advertising revenue was at stake. And it is certainly not an accusation to be tossed around lightly whenever you feel like a show isn't producing enough winners, or is producing too many of them, for your taste.

    Thus ends the lesson for today. Learn from it and profit... and never again accuse a game show of being "rigged."

    Unless, of course, you have incontrovertible evidence. 8^)

  2. #2
    enjoyed the long lesson today, not to sure if i understand it all....

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Mind your own business :)
    Posts
    7,376
    Quote Originally Posted by sunny4545 View Post
    enjoyed the long lesson today, not to sure if i understand it all....
    Yea very interesting. Should have shortened it so it wouldn't be novel length.

  4. #4
    Senior Member TheKid965's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio (Because all the good four-letter words were taken)
    Posts
    1,658
    Quote Originally Posted by Lingofan97 View Post
    Should have shortened it so it wouldn't be novel length.
    Sorry for the length, but I wanted to be thorough in my explanation as to why so many people get so upset over this. That way there'd be no further confusion.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by TheKid965 View Post
    Sorry for the length, but I wanted to be thorough in my explanation as to why so many people get so upset over this. That way there'd be no further confusion.
    Thanks for explaining it. Even though this was well before my time, I knew well about it.

    To get a good idea of what the story was about, look for the movie "Quiz Show" which tells the story of what happened on Twenty-One.


    I'll take "Can't we all just get along?" for $2000, Alex...

  6. #6
    Senior Member TheKid965's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio (Because all the good four-letter words were taken)
    Posts
    1,658
    Quote Originally Posted by kaos42 View Post
    To get a good idea of what the story was about, look for the movie "Quiz Show" which tells the story of what happened on Twenty-One.
    Quiz Show is a very good movie, but it's a gilded retelling of the events that seems to be more concerned with salvaging the "good guy" image of Charles Van Doren than anything else. In real life, it's hard to paint Van Doren as anything but complicit in the deception Dan Enright was foisting on the American public at the time, but if you watch Quiz Show and knew nothing else about Van Doren, you'd get the impression he was only an unwitting accomplice in it. (The movie's worst sin: Suggesting that Van Doren intentionally threw his last Twenty One game in defiance of Enright's orchestration, due to a sudden attack of conscience. There is virtually no real-world evidence to support this leap of logic on the filmmakers' part.) That's not to say it's a bad movie, quite the opposite in fact; it's just not what I would call "historically accurate" by any stretch.

    In addition to Quiz Show, I would also recommend hunting up a copy of the 1991 PBS documentary The American Experience: The Quiz Show Scandals. (Your library might have a copy; there's also eBay and Amazon to turn to.) While Quiz Show focuses almost exclusively on Twenty One and the Van Doren-Stempel story, The American Experience expands its focus to include The $64,000 Question (and its spinoff, The $64,000 Challenge), as well as Dotto and some of the other shows on the air at the time. It also features interviews with the likes of Mark Goodson, Dan Enright, Jack Narz, the real Herb Stempel, and various other surviving personalities and contestants from the era.

  7. #7
    I once set off a storm when I said that Family Feud was rigged because they would reduce the value of the double point question when one family has won the first two rounds.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesFF View Post
    I once set off a storm when I said that Family Feud was rigged because they would reduce the value of the double point question when one family has won the first two rounds.
    That absolutely is the case, and has been since at least mid-way into Karn's run, but as I said before in another thread, I wouldn't call that "rigging," because they aren't making it so one family is more likely to win than another. They're just making it impossible for any family to win in three rounds, so they don't have to stretch time later on.

  9. #9
    Senior Member phimat37's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Citrus Heights, CA
    Posts
    16,906
    Quote Originally Posted by kaos42 View Post
    To get a good idea of what the story was about, look for the movie "Quiz Show" which tells the story of what happened on Twenty-One.
    I watched Quiz Show a few months ago. Great movie, I enjoyed it and it is interesting. I like those type of movies.

  10. #10
    Senior Member TheKid965's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio (Because all the good four-letter words were taken)
    Posts
    1,658
    Quote Originally Posted by CarShark View Post
    That absolutely is the case, and has been since at least mid-way into Karn's run, but as I said before in another thread, I wouldn't call that "rigging," because they aren't making it so one family is more likely to win than another. They're just making it impossible for any family to win in three rounds, so they don't have to stretch time later on.
    I would agree that this falls under another heading. "Rigging" implies what I discussed at length in the original post: Either giving contestants access to game material before the show, or consciously trying to manipulate the game so that one contestant has an advantage over another. If anything, what Feud is doing is trying to even the playing field, not stack the deck in one or another family's favor. While it would certainly be preferable if this sort of thing didn't have to happen, it's sort of necessitated because modern game shows cannot be allowed to straddle thanks to the realities of the current syndication model. Call it an unavoidable grey area, but as long as the producers aren't feeding teams answers it's still OK under S&P guidelines.

  11. #11
    But you shouldn't say never, TheKid. Three words: Our Little Genius. That was shaping up to be a disaster. But Mark Burnett, to his credit, got out in front of it. He stopped production and told Fox. Fox pulled the plug. 2 years later, it's like it never happened.

    So you and I are in agreement that Feud massaging the surveys (as someone once put it) isn't rigging. But what about when they let contestants retry stunts at no expense, as was reported by Buzzerblog? Is it really no harm, no foul if it's against the house?

  12. #12
    Senior Member TheKid965's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio (Because all the good four-letter words were taken)
    Posts
    1,658
    Quote Originally Posted by CarShark View Post
    But you shouldn't say never, TheKid. Three words: Our Little Genius. That was shaping up to be a disaster. But Mark Burnett, to his credit, got out in front of it. He stopped production and told Fox. Fox pulled the plug. 2 years later, it's like it never happened.
    Our Little Genius is the exception that proves the rule. They got caught red-handed, but does anyone remember that incident today? No, they don't; that's the point. If a show gets caught feeding answers to contestants or deliberately trying to manipulate the game to produce a desired result, they're shut down and the perpetrators dealt with in such a way that their names are never spoken again, except perhaps in hushed whispers as a cautionary tale to young game/reality-show producers who get it into their heads they want to try playing Dan Enright circa 1957. (In fact, Our Little Genius was so successfully purged from all of our collective subconscious that I myself had totally forgotten that show until you just now name-checked it!) Since no one in this business wants to be stricken from the official record like that, no one will take the chance of getting caught, so the simplest thing to do is to not even try "cheating" in the first place...

    But what about when they let contestants retry stunts at no expense, as was reported by Buzzerblog? Is it really no harm, no foul if it's against the house?
    ...except when they do. This is actually much harder to justify than the Feud situation. However, there were a few instances on the original Beat the Clock, a show that's perhaps more directly analogous to Minute to Win It than the show it was obviously trying to piggyback off (ITV's The Cube), where Bud Collyer actually did give his contestants one "free" shot at whatever the stunt was they were trying to do before actually starting the clock, just to get the feel for how it worked. However, those were exceptional situations, and pretty much exclusively reserved for very elaborate and/or difficult stunts (and never when big money was on the line, such as the Bonus Stunt during the jackpot era). In effect, it came off more like the "practice balls" contestants used to get in the old Super Ball!! game than anything untoward. That doesn't seem to be entirely what was happening with Minute to Win It, however.

    Actually, now that I think of it, Pricing Games are excellent examples of "playing against the house" on a modern game show -- and perhaps not entirely coincidentally, also the most fertile ground for "rigging" accusations today, mostly because some people just won't let go of this image of Mike Richards as this diabolical villain who revels in making poor contestants suffer through his evil game setups, and who twirls his moustache and cackles with glee every time Price posts an 0-fer. Very interesting how this sort of thing breeds a certain mindset...

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by TheKid965 View Post
    I would agree that this falls under another heading. "Rigging" implies what I discussed at length in the original post: Either giving contestants access to game material before the show, or consciously trying to manipulate the game so that one contestant has an advantage over another. If anything, what Feud is doing is trying to even the playing field, not stack the deck in one or another family's favor. While it would certainly be preferable if this sort of thing didn't have to happen, it's sort of necessitated because modern game shows cannot be allowed to straddle thanks to the realities of the current syndication model. Call it an unavoidable grey area, but as long as the producers aren't feeding teams answers it's still OK under S&P guidelines.
    But they never straddle on Family Feud. I think Dawson's episodes where probably the most difficult to edit, especially on his final season when they had the $400 rule. On Dawson's Feud you where able to see the questions that got tossed out.

  14. #14
    Senior Member TheKid965's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio (Because all the good four-letter words were taken)
    Posts
    1,658
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesFF View Post
    But they never straddle on Family Feud.
    The very earliest ABC shows actually did straddle, after a fashion, though it was rare. I've seen episodes where, following Fast Money, Richard would introduce the champion family's next opponents, suggesting the next game was about to start, but then time would expire before the first question would be played.

    Of course, that was during the period when all it took to win a game was $200. It's entirely possible the jump to $300 as the winning score was done partially to prevent this awkwardness from happening.

  15. #15
    Thanks for this terrific thread, Kid. It reminds me of all those great essays you wrote for your "Overlook Point" series. Collectively, those works rival any game show book that has actually been published in the mainstream. I printed and kept them all.

    Don't let anybody tell you that you should shorten your essays. This type of thorough exploration of a topic is sorely lacking on message boards recently. The world has apparently succumbed to one-sentence twitters and texts as it's principle means of communicating. What a loss.

    I'm so glad you mentioned the PBS American Experience documentary. I have that on VHS (recorded it off air) and it's fantastic. The interviews with Dan Enright are compelling. He basically admits total guilt and explains exactly how he rigged the shows. Anybody interested in this topic MUST hunt that one down for their collection.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts