tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/game-shows-11461/articlesGame shows – The Conversation2024-01-09T13:42:16Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2206302024-01-09T13:42:16Z2024-01-09T13:42:16ZThe Traitors: why context is key when it comes to uncovering liars<p><em>Warning: includes spoilers for episode one of The Traitors.</em></p>
<p>The Traitors has returned to BBC One with a second season after the runaway success of the reality show’s debut series. </p>
<p>In the game show, 22 strangers stay at a remote castle and compete in a number of challenges to win a prize fund of £120,000. A small number of players are secretly selected as the “traitors”. </p>
<p>The remaining players, known as the “faithfuls”, have to root out the traitors if they are to take home the cash prize. They must do this before the traitors “murder” them – sending them out of the competition overnight. </p>
<p>Fellow faithfuls do not know who has been “murdered” until the unlucky player does not arrive for breakfast in the castle the next morning. The traitors must lie about their identity and appear as a faithful if they want to win. </p>
<p>The faithfuls seem to find it difficult to uncover the traitors’ true identities, whether that is at the round table, where the players discuss who they think are traitors, or as the traitors enter the breakfast room the morning after a “murder”. The faithful seem unable to tell lies from truth. </p>
<p><a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2008-08177-001">Research has found</a> that people are only marginally more accurate than chance at judging whether someone is lying or telling the truth. </p>
<p>One reason we are such poor lie detectors may be because we tend to believe others are telling the truth more often than we think that others may be lying to us. This is called the “<a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2008-08177-001">truth bias</a>”: that is, a bias towards believing what others say.</p>
<p>People are not always truth biased, though. For example, police officers making judgments of strangers <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1406">show a bias</a> to think that suspects are lying. But when they are making judgments of strangers in contexts unrelated to their job, they <a href="https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2016.357">become truth biased</a>. </p>
<p>And while those of us who are not police officers are ordinarily truth biased, when we believe we are in a situation where more people have lied than told the truth, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1904">we become lie biased too</a>. So, whether we tend towards guessing others are lying or telling the truth depends on the situation.</p>
<h2>The Traitors and the problem of context</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2015.06.002">Adaptive Lie Detector account</a> (Alied), a theory of how people decide who is lying, offers an explanation for these findings. It claims that when people make judgments about a particular statement (such as “I was in Wales last week”), they try to use reliable information about that statement to decide if it’s true or not. </p>
<p>For example, CCTV footage confirming the claim would be reliable information that the person is telling the truth. A witness contradicting the claim would be reliable information that they are lying. </p>
<p>Alied says that when reliable information is not available, people instead use their understanding of the situation to make a judgment. If most people in this situation usually tell the truth, Alied claims that people will usually believe others. If most people in this situation lie, Alied claims people will usually disbelieve others. Research in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1904">my own lab</a> and in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000169">other labs</a> has supported Alied’s claims.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pk9lnf6H2d8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The trailer for season two of The Traitors.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In The Traitors, there is very little reliable information available to the faithful. There is no CCTV footage of the traitors meeting. The traitors do not personally deliver the murder note. There are no reliable pieces of information that the faithful could discover. They have little to work from other than their observations of people’s behaviour. </p>
<p>And while some of the players in the new series have mentioned plans to look out for eye contact and watch people’s faces, <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.74">research shows</a> that nonverbal behaviour is not a reliable indicator of deception. </p>
<p>According to Alied, when there is no reliable information, people rely on their understanding of the situation. The situation in The Traitors, known to all the players, is that there are many more faithful players than traitors. And so, while suspicions may run wild, most people are being honest in this situation.</p>
<p>Alied would predict that contestants on The Traitors will believe most others around the round table. And while we are seeing lots of the faithful accusing others, each individual faithful player tends to accuse only a small number of people, often only one person. If Alied is correct, the faithful are continuing to believe most of the others around them.</p>
<p>Spotting liars is a difficult task. But the traitors still run the risk of presenting behaviours that the faithful may interpret as deceptive. To quote Harry, one of the traitors of the new season: “If you can’t be good, be careful”.</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/536131/original/file-20230706-17-460x2d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/536131/original/file-20230706-17-460x2d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/536131/original/file-20230706-17-460x2d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/536131/original/file-20230706-17-460x2d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/536131/original/file-20230706-17-460x2d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/536131/original/file-20230706-17-460x2d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/536131/original/file-20230706-17-460x2d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/newsletters/something-good-156">Sign up here</a>.</em></p>
<hr><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/220630/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Chris N. H. Street does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Research has found that people are only marginally more accurate than chance at judging whether someone is lying or telling the truth.Chris N. H. Street, Senior lecturer in in Cognitive Psychology, Keele UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1457202020-09-08T11:32:33Z2020-09-08T11:32:33ZLady Gaga’s VMAs performance is part of a long international tradition of performing with masks<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/356962/original/file-20200908-22-k3bu9j.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=460%2C16%2C1724%2C1069&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoG04Nyea8w&ab_channel=LadyGagaVEVO">Screengrab/MTV via YouTube</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Before a bruise-coloured backdrop, Lady Gaga and Ariana Grande performed a medley of Chromatica II and Rain on Me at MTV’s recent <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5D4vjndnB0w">Video Music Awards (VMAs)</a>. Gyrating in purple and black, the singers’ costumes were distinctive for including face masks. </p>
<p>Gaga’s mouth covering, possibly inspired by the breathing apparatus of Darth Vader or Batman villain Bane, featured an animated wavelength. The mask’s pixelated oscillations seemed appropriately dystopian for a performance that included a piano housed in a puce-coloured, brain-like carapace. By contrast, Grande’s mask appeared to be more of an afterthought, consisting of a small rectangle of elasticated black cloth.</p>
<p>Face coverings on stage may seem obvious, even uninspired, amid a pandemic. Most of the world’s governments have now made <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/countries-wearing-face-masks-compulsory-200423094510867.html">mask wearing mandatory</a> in public. And yet, the reason for this costume decision probably wasn’t straightforward. </p>
<p>There is a long global tradition of mask-wearing in live performances, making COVID-19 more of a catalyst than a cause in Gaga and Grande’s clothing choice. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5D4vjndnB0w?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>Masked performances on the small screen</h2>
<p>Pre-pandemic, and across both sides of the Atlantic, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2020/jan/14/silly-naff-unmissable-the-masked-singer-is-a-truly-terrible-delight">The Masked Singer</a> has challenged television audiences to identify performers of famous songs. The concept, in which artists’ bodies are completely concealed within brightly-coloured and slightly unnerving costumes, was adapted from the South Korean television show, <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6289510/">King of Masked Singer</a>, which began in 2015. </p>
<p>This global, cross-cultural fascination with masks in contemporary singing performances, which is to say nothing of their ubiquity on <a href="https://www.crfashionbook.com/fashion/g26676248/mask-trend-fallwinter-2019-collections/">fashion catwalks</a>, offers a more convincing frame for Gaga and Grande’s VMA dress. There’s a paradox to these masked performances: even though an artist’s conventional identity is concealed, they are often more expressive and engaging than performances where artists can be clearly recognised.</p>
<p>It seems appropriate that today’s forms of masked musical performance draw inspiration from Asian models. Some of the oldest traditions of live performance that involve face and head coverings can be traced to China and Japan. </p>
<p>China’s <em><a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-art-china-facechaning/chinese-opera-face-changing-its-a-kind-of-magic-idUSTRE5BA0I720091211">Bian Lian</a></em>, “face changing”, is a highly skilled, secretive form of acting within Sichuan opera that uses face coverings to guide narrative. Characters’ masks are quickly changed with deft movements of the hand to signal fluctuations in mood. </p>
<p>Similarly, Japanese <em><a href="https://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2091.html">Noh</a></em> performances use of over 400 types of wooden face mask to indicate a character’s social position and shifting emotional state. <em>Noh</em> can be translated as “skill”. The term expresses the highly disciplined nature of this deeply expressive medium.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Pictures of the same mask with different expressions depending on the angle." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/356799/original/file-20200907-16-t5lbet.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/356799/original/file-20200907-16-t5lbet.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=306&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/356799/original/file-20200907-16-t5lbet.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=306&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/356799/original/file-20200907-16-t5lbet.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=306&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/356799/original/file-20200907-16-t5lbet.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=384&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/356799/original/file-20200907-16-t5lbet.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=384&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/356799/original/file-20200907-16-t5lbet.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=384&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Three pictures of the same Noh mask showing how the expression changes with a tilting of the head.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noh#/media/File:Three_pictures_of_the_same_noh_'hawk_mask'_showing_how_the_expression_changes_with_a_tilting_of_the_head.jpg">Wmpearl/Wikimedia</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Asian traditions of masked musical performance have gradually become known in the West through routines on <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOMxffXpsWE">America’s Got Talent</a> and Tian-Ming Wu’s film, <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115669/">The King of Masks</a>. </p>
<h2>European traditions of masked performance</h2>
<p>Continental Europe also has its own costumed customs. </p>
<p>Italy’s <em><a href="https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/comm/hd_comm.html">Commedia dell’ Arte</a></em> and its French derivation, the <em><a href="https://www.cfregisters.org/en/project-history/about-the-com%C3%A9die-fran%C3%A7aise">Comédie Française</a></em>, were essentially improvised skits that combined music, mask wearing and stock characters. </p>
<p>The most popular characters are <a href="https://www.musee-orangerie.fr/en/artwork/harlequin-and-pierrot">Harlequin and Pierrot</a>. This masked duo, who were in a never-ending duel for the love of the beautiful Columbine, became widely popular across Europe in the 20th century. Contemporary artists, including <a href="https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.66405.html">Paul Cèzanne</a> and <a href="https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/489124">Pablo Picasso</a>, became these characters in self-portraits or used their dress and props to create portraits of family members. </p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="Harlequin in a red and black diamond pattern jumpsuit holding a sword." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/356796/original/file-20200907-14-1qsjg8h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/356796/original/file-20200907-14-1qsjg8h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=932&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/356796/original/file-20200907-14-1qsjg8h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=932&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/356796/original/file-20200907-14-1qsjg8h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=932&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/356796/original/file-20200907-14-1qsjg8h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1172&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/356796/original/file-20200907-14-1qsjg8h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1172&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/356796/original/file-20200907-14-1qsjg8h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1172&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Paul Cézanne’s son dressed as Harlequin.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.66405.html">Collection of Mr and Mrs Paul Mellon</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Earlier still, during the 17th century, the <a href="https://www.rmg.co.uk/discover/explore/masque-and-music-stuart-court">royal court masque</a> became popular. An allegorical drama that involved music and choreographed masked dancing, it reached its peak in England under the tense partnership of poet Ben Jonson and architect Inigo Jones. Jonson and Jones used masking and music to support the institution of Stuart monarchy by crafting plots that emphasised the necessity for divinely-sanctioned kingship. </p>
<p>As Europe’s political and cultural authority spread globally, particularly during the 19th century, so too did its traditions of masked musical performance. </p>
<p>Since 1957, to mark its independence of British rule, Ghana has staged the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/WbaFancyDress/">Winneba Fancy Dress Festival</a>, staged each year on January 1 and involving masked dance contests. Amalgamating Ghanaian forms of live performance and the costume traditions of the Dutch and British, artist <a href="https://www.okayafrica.com/photos-winneba-fancy-dress-festival-living-museum/">Hakeem Adam</a> suggests the festival “is a living museum – it reminds us of the past as well as catalysing conversation on the conditions of the present.”</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/425R5E0S9V0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>If these examples show that masked singing performances entertain – chiefly because of their skill and surprise – they also explain their ubiquity and deep cultural resonance. Anonymised performers make use of multiple senses – sight, sound, touch – to create a “total artwork” (<em><a href="https://www.theartstory.org/definition/gesamtkunstwerk/">gesamtkunstwerk</a></em>) that blurs the divide between reality and recreation. This unique, ambiguous form of performance enables an audience to project their thoughts – individual and collective – onto the artists, who essentially become avatars and act as a psychological salve. They can facilitate the simultaneous exploration of spectators’ hopes and fears – about a global pandemic in the case of Lady Gaga and Arianna Grande – national identity and social roles. </p>
<p>Reflecting on her VMA collaboration with Ariana Grande, Lady Gaga <a href="https://www.elle.com/culture/celebrities/a33839619/ariana-grande-mugler-outfit-mtv-vmas-2020/">explained</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We create things that make us feel comfortable. We put them all around. I do it all the time. We all do things to make ourselves feel safe. And I always challenge artists when I work with them. I go, ‘Make it unsafe, make it super fucking unsafe and then do it again’.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In identifying the provocation caused by face coverings, Gaga connects – however inadvertently – with a long and global performance tradition that recognises the potential of masks to excite and to explore contemporary social issues.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/145720/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Benjamin Wild does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The tradition of performing in a mask, from china to France, shows how it can be just as evocative and entertaining.Benjamin Wild, Lecturer in Contextual Studies (Fashion), Manchester Metropolitan UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1287642019-12-17T13:55:08Z2019-12-17T13:55:08ZThink presidential debates are dull? Thank 1950s TV game shows<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/306683/original/file-20191212-85428-1a33e5n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C3716%2C2862&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Host Jack Barry, middle, is flanked by contestants on '21,' a 1950s TV game show.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vivienne_Nearing,_Jack_Barry,_Charles_Van_Doren_NYWTS.jpg">Orlando Fernandez/New York World-Telegram and Sun/Library of Congress/Wikimedia Commons</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Televised political debates <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/09/2020-democratic-debates-arent-pleasing-anyone/598306/">continue to disappoint viewers and critics</a>. Sometimes they even <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2012/10/how-obamas-debate-strategy-bombed-082037">frustrate the participants</a> themselves. </p>
<p>That’s because, since their inception, nobody has been able to come up with a model that rival candidates would accept, and that would be useful and informative for the viewing public. The only debate arrangement everyone agreed to nearly 60 years ago largely remains in place today – the game show format.</p>
<p>The first TV debates were shaped by federal regulations, an enterprising network executive named Frank Stanton, and a series of negotiations that were hampered by a tight schedule and dueling campaigns. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/09/19/the-state-of-the-presidential-debate">As far back as 1936</a>, radio broadcasters wanted to air live debates between presidential candidates. But Section 315 of the 1934 Communications Act <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/315">required equal airtime be devoted to every announced candidate</a>, preventing broadcasters from limiting the debate pool. Stanton, president of CBS from 1946 to 1971, regularly proposed debates and often went to Washington to <a href="https://www.jfklibrary.org/sites/default/files/archives/JFKOH/Stanton,%20Frank/JFKOH-FNS-01/JFKOH-FNS-01-TR.pdf">lobby Congress</a> to change the law. In the late 1950s, he found his moment.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZRfPgFMYkmE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">An episode of ‘The $64,000 Question’ from 1956.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The rise and fall of quiz shows</h2>
<p>Between 1955 and 1959, America’s prime-time television schedule became dominated by quiz shows. </p>
<p>Programs like “The $64,000 Question,” “Twenty-One” and “Tic-Tac-Dough” delighted audiences and turned contestants and the shows’ hosts into national celebrities. The shows were all pretty similar, designed to showcase intellect while letting viewers at home test their knowledge.</p>
<p>In 1958, though, <a href="https://interviews.televisionacademy.com/interviews/herbert-stempel">some players began to complain</a> that the shows were rigged, saying they were given the correct answers, or instructed to answer incorrectly, to boost suspense and attract viewers.</p>
<p>The revelations shocked the nation, leading to calls for political action and more regulation of television programming. Within the industry, <a href="https://www.rtdna.org/content/edward_r_murrow_s_1958_wires_lights_in_a_box_speech">critics and journalists called on TV networks</a> to renew investment in public affairs broadcasting.</p>
<p>Stanton seized the moment. He suggested televised political debates could be a way to redeem TV; NBC president Robert Sarnoff and other industry leaders joined him. Their lobbying was enough to get Section 315 suspended, and 1960 proved the perfect moment. </p>
<p>President Eisenhower was finishing his second term, and both Democrats and Republicans would be nominating new candidates. These two new nominees would need to appeal to the <a href="https://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/kennedy-nixon-debates">broad, TV-watching American public</a> in new ways.</p>
<p>Stanton got both Vice President Richard Nixon – who had been a champion debater at Whittier College – and Senator John F. Kennedy to accept invitations to debate live on television. That’s when the really difficult negotiations began. </p>
<h2>Setting the debate structure</h2>
<p>Stanton’s earliest concept had the <a href="https://www.discoverlbj.org/item/oh-stantonf-19870722-2-01-10">two candidates facing a panel of journalists</a> who would ask questions, but representatives of both candidates were wary of the new idea. The whole format had to be agreed on by the TV networks, the political parties and the candidates themselves. </p>
<p>As communications scholar John W. Self explains, <a href="https://www.worldcat.org/title/presidential-debate-negotiation-from-1960-to-1988-setting-the-stage-for-prime-time-clashes/oclc/965143793">nobody really called the events “debates”</a> while the arrangements were being hammered out. Instead, they were always officially referred to as a “joint appearance series.” Every detail took a long time to agree on, as the election drew ever closer in the late summer of 1960.</p>
<p>Democratic Sen. Mike Mansfield publicly worried that this opportunity for fruitful exchange might end up as little more than “<a href="https://www.worldcat.org/title/presidential-debate-negotiation-from-1960-to-1988-setting-the-stage-for-prime-time-clashes/oclc/965143793">a beauty contest, press conference, or quiz program</a>.” </p>
<p>Sure enough, the <a href="https://www.discoverlbj.org/item/oh-stantonf-19870722-2-01-10">time pressures</a> pushed everyone to agree on an established TV format Americans were familiar with: the quiz show. The required studios were easily available, the production staff already knew what to do, and journalists could easily moderate discussions in which candidates agreed not to directly question or answer each other.</p>
<p>To everyone involved, it seemed the safest way to ensure that each candidate might enhance their own reputation without risking damage to their campaign. </p>
<p>To the audiences, though, the similarity was obvious – and disappointing.</p>
<p>Historian Daniel Boorstin said they reduced “<a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/16085/the-image-by-daniel-j-boorstin/">great national issues to trivial dimensions</a>.” Scholar Richard Tedlow drew the parallel more sharply, concluding that “<a href="http://doi.org/10.2307/2712542">[t]he debates bore as little relationship to the real work of the presidency</a> as the quiz shows did to intellectuality.”</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gbrcRKqLSRw?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The first Kennedy-Nixon presidential debate in 1960.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Designer’s regret</h2>
<p>Even Stanton eventually realized how his creation stymied real understanding. The best interrogators, he thought, would be the candidates themselves, who would have to understand and counter the weaknesses in each other’s ideas. </p>
<p>“<a href="http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/digital/collections/nny/stantonf/transcripts/stantonf_1_8_361.html">I would have the two candidates for president sit down</a> face to face in front of the camera, and take a single issue and discuss it,” he once explained. “I would have no questions from the press at all.”</p>
<p>He even considered the most obvious objection: What would happen if one of the candidates refused to engage properly, or wouldn’t let the other get a word in edgewise? </p>
<p>“<a href="http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/digital/collections/nny/stantonf/transcripts/stantonf_1_8_362.html">When you become candidates for president of the United States</a>, you don’t misbehave in front of, you know, forty million people,” he explained – perhaps a bit too optimistically. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vJ6MrDO0kgY?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The June 26, 2019, Democratic primary presidential debate.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Carried through the years</h2>
<p>Stanton and those early critics saw what TV audiences see decades later: These events are <a href="http://theconversation.com/presidential-debates-arent-debates-at-all-theyre-joint-press-conferences-125202">not debates</a> at all. There’s no informative interchange between the participants, no considered reasoning and very little clarity about what candidates think or propose. </p>
<p>Instead, the quiz master, usually a well-known broadcast journalist, gently interrogates each contestant. The questions can be pointed and specific, but the answers are always soundbites tested on focus groups. The candidates’ <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/19/politics/donald-trump-hug-philippe-reines-hillary-clinton/index.html">body language is rehearsed</a>, as is quickly changing the subject, ignoring questions or misdirecting the audience’s attention.</p>
<p>Just like on game shows, candidates are not supposed to question or interrupt each other, and specific moments are intended to humanize and personalize the candidates. Even <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-secret-history-of-the-presidential-debate-buzzer/2016/01/26/b2971dda-c2d7-11e5-8965-0607e0e265ce_story.html">buzzers are sometimes employed</a> to stay on time. The candidates get thanked for playing when the game is over, while the audience considers how and why the game was won – and by whom.</p>
<p>The whole production is tidy, predictable, nonthreatening and occasionally entertaining. That’s precisely why the two dominant political parties, and their candidates, still insist on the format.</p>
<p>[ <em>Deep knowledge, daily.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=deepknowledge">Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter</a>. ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/128764/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael J. Socolow does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The only satisfactory debate arrangement everyone agreed to nearly 60 years ago largely remains in place today – the game show format.Michael J. Socolow, Associate Professor, Communication and Journalism, University of MaineLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1162242019-04-30T10:45:25Z2019-04-30T10:45:25ZCan James Holzhauer be stopped? A former ‘Jeopardy!’ champion weighs in<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/271556/original/file-20190429-194606-gzfj5i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=64%2C39%2C1056%2C628&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The sports gambler from Las Vegas has dominated the game like no one else in its 35-year history.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.jeopardy.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_image_960_/public/2019-04/james_1600x900.jpg?itok=KDThUg8Z">Jeopardy Productions</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In 1997, fresh out of graduate school, underemployed and watching a lot of television, I realized I was pretty good at “Jeopardy!” </p>
<p>I decided to try out. After a couple tests, interviews, and months of waiting, I was called in, pushed onto a soundstage in Culver City – and won more money in two tape days than I had made in the previous two years, plus two Chevy Camaros. Before 2003, five-time champions were retired with such automotive parting gifts and invited back to play in the annual Tournament of Champions. </p>
<p>During that first run and a later “Ultimate Tournament,” I played the seven-time champion who held the record for the longest winning streak before Ken Jennings, along with three eventual or past winners of the Tournament of Champions. I won all but one of those games. In total, <a href="https://www.j-archive.com/showplayerstats.php?player_id=417">my Jeopardy resume spans 10 games, with eight wins and two tournament losses</a>. </p>
<p>But James Holzhauer is in another league. </p>
<p>The sports gambler from Las Vegas has dominated the game like no one else in its 35-year history. His wins are so lopsided that he’s rendered all but two of his 36 competitors incapable of threatening him in Final Jeopardy. <a href="http://www.j-archive.com/showplayerstats.php?player_id=12600">His average winnings</a> are only a bit smaller than <a href="https://www.jeopardy.com/jbuzz/streaker-updates/james-holzhauer-beats-roger-craigs-1-day-record">the one-day record he demolished</a>. Aside from the number of wins, he is <a href="https://thejeopardyfan.com/2019/04/james-holzhauer-ken-jennings-comparison.html">statistically on par</a> with <a href="https://thejeopardyfan.com/statistics/ken-jennings-final-statistics">74-game winner Ken Jennings</a> – except that Holzhauer wins about twice as much money per game, thanks to his aggressive bets. It’s akin to an NBA player averaging 95 points per game. </p>
<p>How is he doing it? </p>
<p>You might think “Jeopardy!” is a contest of pure cogitation, in which the ability to recall trivia is all that matters. It isn’t. Elite success on “Jeopardy!” requires laser-like focus on winning, via strategy and discipline.</p>
<p>Of course, he couldn’t have made it this far without a mastery of U.S. history, world capitals, the periodic table and all the other standards of cultural literacy that are the show’s stock-in-trade.</p>
<p>But his success also depends on his mastery of the Jeopardy signaling device, a pocket-flashlight-sized plastic tube with a button on one end. You might notice many of Holzhauer’s opponents holding their buzzers aloft in frustration. Since the buzzer rewards timing rather than speed – a technician activates them after Trebek finishes reading a question – buzzing while waving it around is as effective as a wild baseball swing. </p>
<p>Holzhauer keeps his buzzer steady on the lectern, with no wasted motion: You can barely notice him ringing in. The more experience he’s gained with the buzzer, the more of an advantage he accrues. Each new opponent needs to get accustomed to the buzzer; by the time they do, the game is already out of hand. </p>
<p>Then there’s the way he plays. Rather than following convention – going vertically from easy answers to harder ones – Holzhauer marches horizontally across the bottom of the board, selecting the $1,000 squares in order to build a bank, and then almost always doubling his money on the first Daily Double he finds. Even with a commanding lead, he keeps playing aggressively, making Daily Double bets that are nearly quadruple the average wager, while making similarly megalithic Final Jeopardy bets.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/271558/original/file-20190429-194637-3221bg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/271558/original/file-20190429-194637-3221bg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271558/original/file-20190429-194637-3221bg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271558/original/file-20190429-194637-3221bg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271558/original/file-20190429-194637-3221bg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=567&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271558/original/file-20190429-194637-3221bg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=567&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271558/original/file-20190429-194637-3221bg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=567&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Holzhauer wastes no time in going straight for the $1,000 answers.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://img.apmcdn.org/3d99c71126409e8d40c8e7190f5fac466606dda6/normal/7d3015-20160918-prince-jeopardy-jpg.jpg">NBC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There have been Jeopardy greats who have had comparable ease recalling answers and who are as good as Holzhauer on the buzzer. Hunting for and betting big on Daily Doubles isn’t a new tactic either – <a href="https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-man-who-solved-jeopardy/">the era of big data has nudged Jeopardy play in these directions over the last 15 years</a>. </p>
<p>But Holzhauer is among the best at all three skills, and is by far the most daring when it comes to his betting strategy.</p>
<p>After reflecting on my conventional, cautious gameplay in my first five wins, I bet far more aggressively in my last five tournament games, wagering the maximum on four out of five Daily Doubles. However, in tournament play, I faced veteran champions, who had comparable experience with the buzzer. Controlling all the Daily Doubles as Holzhauer has done against novices wasn’t feasible. He will keep playing until someone beats him. </p>
<p>So how can he be beaten? </p>
<p>What one can do, another can do. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/93e6zf/jeopardys_daily_double_heatmap_oc/">The placement of Daily Doubles is public knowledge</a>, with some squares more likely to contain the bonus than others. Anyone who wants to beat Holzhauer must try to find them first. To do that, they need to challenge his dominance on the buzzer. Contestants should use as much buzzer practice time in rehearsal and during commercial breaks as the producers are willing to give them, and ought to read <a href="https://www.overdrive.com/media/2338104/secrets-of-the-buzzer">the same advice of former champions that Holzhauer used to prepare</a>.</p>
<p>Humor or trash talk during a game may be useless, but it’s worth trying to disrupt his flow. Too often, his opponents seem psychologically broken within minutes. Holzhauer is relentless, and his competitors must keep taking shots, even if they trail.</p>
<p>Players should habituate themselves out of everyday risk aversion, at least for the show: If you’re too cautious, you assure yourself of losing. In his first two games, Holzhauer’s opponents made timid bets, even after seeing him bet it all. Had they been as aggressive, they would have stayed within striking distance. </p>
<p>Clearly, Holzhauer’s confidence has swelled. He isn’t afraid of losing. His opponents need to give him a reason to be.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hfe5xQ1M7Jw?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The wins – and cash – keep piling up.</span></figcaption>
</figure><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/116224/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Rooney does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>There have been ‘Jeopardy!’ greats who can easily answer all the questions, who have mastered the buzzer and who bet big on the Daily Doubles. But Holzhauer possesses an unprecedented level of daring.Michael Rooney, Professor of Philosophy, Pasadena City CollegeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/608272016-06-16T13:08:14Z2016-06-16T13:08:14ZNo need to talk trash: alternatives to the Jerry Springer talk show model<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126723/original/image-20160615-14016-d6j4du.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Talk show host Jerry Springer enters the stage on a motorbike as co-host of the 2008 Miss Universe contest.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Reuters/Adrees Latif </span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In today’s world we learn about many issues through Facebook, Twitter or the media more generally, rather than by direct or personal experience. As such, social and mass media significantly shape and influence our perceptions. One of the more subtle ways in which this happens is through the depiction of the world as “a war” of words and images. </p>
<p>From Facebook posts to news programmes or reality shows, one side frequently battles it out with another. This is epitomised in a great number of (especially American) daytime or “tabloid” talk shows, where human relations are often portrayed as being inherently conflictual. Extreme examples include the “Jerry Springer Show”, with its lurid trysts, while a subtler one would be the “Tyra Banks Show”. Such programmes often focus on drawing out <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08838159709364388#">interpersonal conflict</a>.</p>
<p>Talk shows can be a space to explore all kinds of topics that are of interest. They’ve been key in offering a platform for controversial or marginalised issues and members of society. Parallels can be drawn to print tabloids and “trash journalism”, where Media Studies Professor Herman Wasserman suggests that the tabloid format is in fact more <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02500167.2013.772217?journalCode=rcsa20">democratic</a>. In a similar vein, talk shows can be seen to represent “the people” more accurately than news analysis or political programmes, though often earning them the less charming title of “<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/14/us/killing-poses-hard-questions-about-talk-tv.html">trash TV</a>” for overemphasising conflict.</p>
<h2>Denouncing the ‘other’</h2>
<p>Talk shows exemplify one prevalent way that communication pans out, particularly in the West. Often, two or more camps are formed. Each side presents and defends its position while challenging or even denouncing the “other”. </p>
<p>For example, “stay-at-home moms” are pitted against “working moms”, implying an inherent conflict of interest between “equality” versus “child care”, as an episode of the “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnlCNsxtT_c">Tyra Banks</a>” show once did. This adversarial model of communication is often replicated in other parts of the world, including the <a href="http://www.degruyter.com/dg/viewarticle.fullcontentlink:pdfeventlink/$002fj$002flpp.2013.9.issue-1$002flpp-2013-0006$002flpp-2013-0006.pdf?t:ac=j$002flpp.2013.9.issue-1$002flpp-2013-0006$002flpp-2013-0006.xml">Middle East</a>.</p>
<p>This type of what journalist and scholar Deborah Tannen calls “<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/argumentculture.htm">argument culture</a>” became influential with the ascendancy of Western liberal thought. According to her, it has successfully challenged and confronted oppressive, authoritarian systems but may not be entirely unproblematic.</p>
<h2>Addressing full complexity</h2>
<p>Its agonistic emphasis excludes many less aggressive or argumentative voices. It reduces issues into binaries, failing to address their full complexity. It also obscures facets of discussion where common ground often does exist. For example, in many cases talk show guests do agree and game show contestants suddenly cooperate. This became particularly apparent in the first season of <a href="http://www.endemol.co.za/">Endemol</a>’s “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlNE9s9oGNI&index=1&list=PLn6Y2J9gHGZrOTPhgqNEZKAVvpFdrJOJr">Survivor South Africa</a>”, where contestants took a significantly more collaborative posture towards their tasks than their American counterparts.</p>
<p>It would then be compelling to explore what would happen if we engage in a form of public discourse that deliberately draws out collaboration. What if there were common ground between “stay-at-home moms” and “working moms”? As a mother who spends a lot of quality time with her child and still manages to carve out a meaningful career, I am compelled to investigate the efficacy of such framing.</p>
<p>In many such societies like South Africa, globalisation has involved bringing in Western liberal democratic values and systems. They include discourses on human rights or justice that are at odds with local realities.</p>
<h2>Diverse societies</h2>
<p>So the question becomes what would communication look like if it were to meet the needs of highly diverse and fully interdependent societies?</p>
<p>In the case of South Africa, a collaborative approach already lies at the core of its reconciliatory stance and its transition to democracy – one that could also inform mass-mediated public discourse. The cultural value associated with it is <a href="http://africanhistory.about.com/od/African-History-and-Politics/fl/The-Meaning-of-Ubuntu.htm"><em>ubuntu</em></a>.</p>
<p>Commonly understood as “I am because we are,” <em>ubuntu</em> is collaborative in nature. It has been articulated as one of the <a href="http://www.academia.edu/19802614/An_Assessment_of_the_Public_Interest_and_Ideas_of_the_Public_in_South_Africa_and_the_Adoption_of_Ubuntu_Journalism">key philosophies</a> underpinning South African governance and service delivery. While this does not always successfully translate into practice, probably because it has been forged within and <a href="http://bahai-library.com/pokorny_karlberg_culture_contest">subordinated</a> to an adversarial (Western) cultural context, where a conflictual view of the world is naturalised, it has still prevailed in shaping a <a href="https://muse.jhu.edu/article/37984/pdf">reconciliatory South Africa</a>.</p>
<p>As such, <em>ubuntu</em> is relevant for exploring a collaborative model of public discourse. What would a talk show model based on a harmonious, cohesive understanding of power look like? </p>
<h2>Sexy enough?</h2>
<p>Would it be sexy enough to capture the imagination of an audience that has developed a taste for adversarial spectacle through an advertising-financed media that deliberately cultivates a taste for <a href="http://projectcensored.org/media-democracy-in-action-the-importance-of-including-truth-emergency-inside-the-progressive-media-reform-movement/">“junk food” media</a>? Can we (also) cultivate what may be termed “deliberation culture”?</p>
<p>While these questions remain to be explored more fully, elements of such an alternative approach can already be found throughout the media landscape. It characterised a large portion of the South African Broadcasting Corporation’s “<a href="http://www.channel24.co.za/TV/News/Noeleen-speaks-to-us-about-the-end-of-3Talk-20150217">3 Talk with Noeleen</a>”. Noeleen Maholwana-Sangqu’s guests consisted of a participatory panel that explored a rather open-ended approach to framing (for example, “when is the right time to get married?”). It was telling of significantly alternative cultural sensitivities in South Africa.</p>
<p>Such an alternative model engenders a deeply relational process. It would be inspired by the cohesive attitude of <em>ubuntu</em> and the way traditional African democracy operates in the form of a “deliberation”, where every person gets an equal chance to speak up until some kind of cohesion is reached. Geared for an increasingly distracted television audience, this would entail careful planning. Facilitation by an intelligent host would draw out and develop the presented ideas for arriving at a collective conclusion. As Maholwana-Sangqu showed us, at least in part, this is possible in a 40-minute time frame. </p>
<p>In this age of extreme inter-connectivity, a harmonious, cohesive and relational approach may be better suited to facilitate a successful way to communicate. “3 Talk with Noeleen” played a significant part in opening this conversation. In many of its episodes people from vastly different cultural, religious and socioeconomic backgrounds came together. They explored and contributed – and in the process they empowered audience members to make up their own minds about life’s big questions rather than persuade them of what is right and what is wrong.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/60827/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Leyla Tavernaro-Haidarian does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Daytime television talk shows are known for their confrontational style. But there is a different model: a harmonious, cohesive and relational approach may offer a better way to communicate.Leyla Tavernaro-Haidarian, PhD Candidate of Journalism, Film & Television, University of JohannesburgLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/290832014-07-13T19:51:58Z2014-07-13T19:51:58ZFamily Feud’s return confirms the state of game shows in Australia<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/53596/original/trdb22bc-1405048205.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Grant Denyer gets ready for action on set.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Channel 10</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Family Feud returns to our television screens tonight as part of Ten’s desperate scramble to remain a viable entity, and is scheduled to compete with Seven and Nine’s main news bulletins at 6pm. </p>
<p>For those unfamiliar, Feud’s format is based upon identifying the most popular responses to survey questions, essentially rewarding “inside-the-box” thinking. Prizes accrue by “knowing” what everyone else knows. Forget general knowledge – just be general. </p>
<p>Does Feud’s reincarnation speak to a broader cultural malaise of celebrating mediocrity? Case in point from Ten’s contestant call for Feud:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Name something you pull up. If you said ‘pants’ you guessed the top answer! 58 out of 100 guessed ‘pants’ too!</p>
</blockquote>
<p>To be fair, there is humour to be found in this format, but one that is necessarily of the broadest kind. </p>
<p>Consider that when Feud returns it will take back the mantle of Australia’s longest running primetime game show still on the air from Seven’s <a href="https://au.tv.yahoo.com/deal-or-no-deal/">Deal or No Deal</a>. Last year Deal sailed past a staggering 2,000 episodes, of which Andrew O’Keefe hosted every single damn one. I thought we had labour laws against such dehumanising monotony.</p>
<p>Anyway, though Deal is now airing in repeats and no new episodes are currently being produced its curious longevity nevertheless paints a sorry picture of game shows in Australia. </p>
<p>There is something painfully telling in recognising that a format based entirely on dumb luck, basic probability and gross avarice only began to show its age after 11 years. </p>
<p>“Champions” on Deal are ultimately made through vice, for the format entails that the only way to win the grand A$200,000 prize requires a final gamble, risking in a single decision vast, potentially life-changing sums of money, say, around A$100,000 in one particular case:</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DG82hF2z4wY?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>It is difficult to think of any other venue where an individual could behave as such and not be met with universal derision and scorn. It’s hard to argue with 2,000-plus episodes in the can though.</p>
<p>Prior to its (re-)cancellation in 2012 The Price is Right held the honour of longest-running game show still airing. Indeed the format’s clever incorporation of brand names into quirky games succeeded for a long time, but now seems embarrassingly dated. </p>
<p>Guessing, for instance, whether hair clips are more expensive than shaving cream suggests an idea conceived by Don Draper and targeted at Betty. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/BUdN_ApTLKs?wmode=transparent&start=224" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Hair clips or shaving cream? Pick a gold briefcase and cross your fingers. Our survey said “pants”. These formats have dominated the Australian game show landscape for decades. </p>
<p>Yes, I am being an insufferable grump. Andrew O’Keefe is certainly likeable, Family Feud does have the promise of laughs for all ages, and The Price is Right found a way to inject fun and suspense into our everyday consumption habits. </p>
<p>Still, does there have to be such a discord between meaningful talent and reward? Can the right set-up measure some quality worth having, worth celebrating? </p>
<p>Can we take comfort in knowing that a contestant’s victory is – at least in some limited way – earned by way of virtuous talent? </p>
<p>Sure. Indeed the most intellectually challenging game shows often feel no compulsion to provide lavish prizes. Rather, the public confirmation of one’s capabilities is deemed to be sufficient compensation. </p>
<p>Contestants on the grey-matter stimulating Letters and Numbers (sadly “rested” in 2012) received a Macquarie dictionary, a token gesture symbolic of their erudition.</p>
<p>Would there be any value in similarly playing Price, Deal, or Feud solely for pride? The suggestion is absurd as these constructs do not provide anything meaningful upon which to hang a sense of achievement. </p>
<p>A million monkeys with a million gold briefcases would amount to an awful lot of Deal champions, the most decidedly “average” punter you know would likely make for an ideal Feud contestant, and the skilled Price player probably reads too much junk mail. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/53609/original/cmtjvdss-1405055745.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/53609/original/cmtjvdss-1405055745.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/53609/original/cmtjvdss-1405055745.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/53609/original/cmtjvdss-1405055745.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/53609/original/cmtjvdss-1405055745.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/53609/original/cmtjvdss-1405055745.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/53609/original/cmtjvdss-1405055745.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/53609/original/cmtjvdss-1405055745.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Roo Reynolds</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Yet as viewers we admire the successful contestants of knowledge-based game shows not because the trivia questions matter in and of themselves, but rather because the ability to consistently answer them suggests a concerted engagement with the world, an accessible display of rigour and discipline in search of wisdom. </p>
<p>Winners of these testing contests do not chance upon victory, rather their success constitutes – albeit within a small prism – the work of a lifetime.</p>
<p>Many of our popular game show formats past and present only slake the affective and emotional aspects of game show appeal, disguising the banality of their setups behind garish set designs, host shtick, and oversized cheques. </p>
<p>Even Eddie McGuire’s <a href="http://www.jump-in.com.au/show/hotseat/audience/">Millionaire</a> has only survived through a heavy injection of luck and musical chairs into its format. </p>
<p>Million Dollar Minute is a rare exception to this trend of celebrating mediocrity and vice, here’s hoping Feud doesn’t cut into its audience share.</p>
<p>This is a long shot, but if Ten insists on dredging up tired vessels then why not bring back University Challenge? Sadly, an Australian version ran for just a few years in the 80s on the ABC. </p>
<p>Challenge’s return could be especially enlivening to our pop culture landscape given that the long-running British version is where so many future public intellectuals first appeared on our screens – Clive James, Stephen Fry, Christopher Hitchens, Sebastian Faulks, and The Wizard of New Zealand, to name a few – and recent champions are widely feted for their astounding capabilities. </p>
<p>Pants chance of that happening though.</p>
<p><br></p>
<p><em><a href="http://tenplay.com.au/channel-ten/family-feud">Family Feud</a> premieres at 6pm tonight on Channel 10.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/29083/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matthew Wade does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Family Feud returns to our television screens tonight as part of Ten’s desperate scramble to remain a viable entity, and is scheduled to compete with Seven and Nine’s main news bulletins at 6pm. For those…Matthew Wade, PhD Student in Sociology, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.