Sunday, September 17, 2006
Survivor playing the race card
Did you watch TV last Thursday evening? If so, you might have noticed that Survivor, a perennial ratings champ, returned for another season on CBS. But with the ratings sliding in recent years, producer Mark Burnett reached into his bag of tricks for something to stir up public attention and controversy. In case you missed the season opener, the buzz around the water cooler, or the title of this post, the new season of Survivor started by pitting one tribe against the others based on the race of the participants. That's right, blacks versus whites, and Hispanics versus Asians. Some see it as a desperate attempt to appeal to the most base instincts of an audience that still loves, (even in this PC culture), to root for the "tribe" that most closely reflects its own skin tones. Others see the "social experiment" as a gimmick that will soon give way to the standard reconfigurations that will result in fully-integrated tribes. What do you think? Is race off-limits when drawing lines in the sand? Is it any different than separating contestants by gender? And, does it send the wrong message to viewers who may already harbor racist attitudes?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
I think Survivor might see higher ratings in the beginning of this season, but I'll bet that those viewers who initially thought this was a good idea, might grow uncomfortable over time as they listen to the contestants.
It's difficult to see such blatant racial grouping on TV in a society that, whether successfully or unsuccessfully, tries not to see individuals by their race.
If they blend the tribes soon, it won't matter anyway. But the longer the tribes stay together based on race, I think it will turn out to be a negative creative choice for Survivor.
Are will still asking the race question in this country?
Apparently we are, and as if it hasn't already been efficiently answered by the study of anthropology and early human migration.
There is no such thing as race! Ethnicity yes, but race, no.
And even ethnicity amounts to nothing more than geography and diet.
That inane sitcoms and "reality" tv shows are so impactful on our modern conceptions of big questions long ago asked and answered only lends credibility to the notion that mass media is more often stifling for the human experience than it is enlightening.
Further, considering that the majority of the garbage found on commercial televison is used only to purport myths, then it is succinctly natural that such narrow minded scenarios be continuously reintroduced to a gullible, and lucrative public.
So, f#$%@ it, if televison networks and advertisers can make a little doe off of selling thin air to the sheep, then so be it.
Just kiddin.
But it does make sense that such titilating and tantallizing television keeps finding its way into the American living room, it creates controversy, and something to talk about "at the water cooler" or on an academic blog site...
Wow!
I think that Survivor is using race as a way to increase ratings. They are just trying to liven up a show that has become stale over the seasons and have decided that it was time to use ideas saved as a last resort to combat a decrease in viewers.
-Sarah Wolgram
Seperating groups based on race on a TV show is an absolute terrible idea just like seperating people based on their gender. Many people will find this offensive and when one tribe is getting flat out smashed, there's gonna be people questioning on whether the show is scripted or something and then think that the producers will favor one race over another. Even though it may increase ratings for a while, many people will find this offensive and in the end won't buy into this idea.
Honestly, Survivor is the same thing as Jerry Springer, they both use what the people want to see. People like it when other races fight and they love drama. If Survivor just had a show with one race male and female, then chances are they will get low ratings. The race card would almost be the same as the generation card, If they had 50 or 60 year olds go against the young, chances are they might get the same ratings. If people as a whole, would stop watching television, then the show would get no ratings and wouldn't matter what they aired on TV.
Seperating teams by race is crossing the line as far as gimicks go. Not only does it send the wrong message to viewers who already harbor racist attitudes but it sends the wrong message to viewers in general because there are already so many stereotypes for each race that seperating teams will only encourage stereotypes and potentially create racist attitudes that didn’t exist before. Seperating contestants by gender is somewhat different because there is no violent history towards any one gender from the other. Although the same argument against encouraging stereotypes could be used I don’t feel it is as harmful to place gender against gender.
Post a Comment