3 ms·
Right, the show needs some winners. Management and producers might go a step further and realise that a charismatic underdog winning dramatically from hopeless
by dmurray 2y ago
Right, the show needs some winners. Management and producers might go a step further and realise that a charismatic underdog winning dramatically from hopeless circumstances would bring in even more viewers - perhaps something could be done to help that happen?
- TMWNN 2y agoOh, good grief. In two comments you've gone from "game show producers don't want to pay out the money contestants win" to, after bluGill points out that game shows want contestants to win big, say "Of course! If anything, game show producers might even skew things to help charismatic underdogs win!". I mean, really.
- dmurray 2y agoI haven't changed anything! It's right there in the Wikipedia article - the 1950s frauds were in fact mainly about rigging the shows for entertainment value, ensuring the right contestants won. The FCC doesn't (didn't?) like the shows being rigged that way, which is why The $64,000 Question went off the air. It also doesn't like the shows being rigged in the network's favour, which is why this episode of Press Your Luck continued to the end despite the producers' misgivings.
- TMWNN 2y agoI am well aware of the 1950s game show scandals. That the scandals happened 70 years ago is not very relevant to your claim that game show producers today are * all super-crooked, with only fear of the FCC preventing them from repeating the scandals * determined to not pay rightful winners, and * willing to put the thumb on the scales to help others to win undeservingly At some point, going through life with such cynicism is counterproductive.