NYC Officials Want New 'Survivor' Pulled

**Admin Steve** · 08-25-2006, 07:58 AM

My wife's a big Survivor fan so I usually end up watching it.

What do you all think of the latest stunt to initially split the 20 contestants up into 4 groups by race:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060825/D8JN5GH01.html

NEW YORK (AP) - As CBS prepares to launch a new season of the hit reality show "Survivor," this time featuring teams divided by race, enraged city officials are saying it promotes divisiveness and are calling for the network to reconsider.

"The idea of having a battle of the races is preposterous," City Councilman John Liu said Thursday. "How could anybody be so desperate for ratings?"

For the first portion of the 13th season of "Survivor," which premieres Sept. 14, the contestants competing for the $1 million prize while stranded on the Cook Islands in the South Pacific will be divided into four teams - blacks, Asians, Latinos and whites....

**Mista T** · 08-25-2006, 08:41 AM

I think that competing by race is a dumbshit idea, and reality shows suck anyway. But .... what's next: NYC require CNN over Fox News in order to get Lefty slant out?

**Greg** · 08-25-2006, 12:19 PM

I agree, who cares, I have never watched Survivor and probably never will. But this pitting race against race is even dumber. Who the fuck is running these networks? The dumb shit they do and dumb shit they put on TV is amazing.

**Losac** · 08-25-2006, 12:24 PM

Why is this that big of a deal? They pitted men vs. women and younger people vs. older people before too but no one cried about "divisiveness" there.

The fact is, people usually tend to socialize and spend time more with people of their own race and ethnicity. That's a fact that people don't want to admit to in this era of "diversity".

**BirdFan** · 08-25-2006, 12:41 PM

Actually, this might not be all bad, assuming no one ethnic group comes across as totally useless.

**Dusty728** · 08-25-2006, 05:57 PM

What the media is telling is a half truth. You people should know better.
I do watch survivor and it's the same way every year. At the start there are "tribes" that compete to win rewards and immunity from having a member kicked off the show. They have done shows with tribes of mixed races, age , and sex tribes. This time they will do same race tribes. BUT these tribes don't last, just when everyone is getting comfortable they all merge into one big tribe. And usually before they all merge 1 or more people are pulled from the tribe they have been with and get sent to another tribe.
It's not like it's going to be a competition of Blacks against Whites against Asians to see what race is going to win the money.

**RavenMad2099** · 08-26-2006, 10:47 AM

I think it's a horrible idea. I wonder what the official slant will be in the CBS news division? Will they be able to stop talking about Katie Couric's new hairstyle long enough to tell us? Will their morning show cover the results of the week's proceedings like it's important news we all care about?

God, network TV is awful.
HBO used to be my refuge, but with the cancellation/wrapping up of quality shows like Deadwood and The Sopranos, even that is coming to and end. I'll be withdrawing my subscription soon and sticking to channels like History International and Science even more closely. If that means I'm out of touch with pop culture, so be it. I don't feel like I'm missing anything.

**Drkraven** · 08-26-2006, 03:52 PM

Survivor is the only reality show I watch, this idea is stupid. Dusty is right as to how it goes and it will not last more then 2 or 3 weeks.

**Brandon** · 08-26-2006, 04:24 PM

The tribes probably merged within a couple weeks, but this is evidence that they are running out of ideas.

**Sephy** · 08-26-2006, 11:57 PM

"How could anybody be so desperate for ratings?"

There's a big LOL right there. I'm sure CBS is going to pull an entire season of one of its flagship shows.

**Art-Florida** · 08-27-2006, 10:04 AM

Political Correctness is a disease - you cure it by facing up to Reality.

**Gabrosin** · 08-28-2006, 09:16 AM

I don't get it. The television show (and by extension the network) is doing something controversial. I think we can all agree that they're not doing anything illegal... they're well within their rights to divide up their own game show however they'd like, and participation is strictly voluntary... any offended participants can choose not to play. So where's the issue here? If people want to see this show with this premise, they'll watch. If it offends them, they won't watch. And the ratings will determine the success of the decision. If only everything in life were so simple.

**Losac** · 08-28-2006, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by Gabrosin

I don't get it. The television show (and by extension the network) is doing something controversial. I think we can all agree that they're not doing anything illegal... they're well within their rights to divide up their own game show however they'd like, and participation is strictly voluntary... any offended participants can choose not to play. So where's the issue here? If people want to see this show with this premise, they'll watch. If it offends them, they won't watch. And the ratings will determine the success of the decision. If only everything in life were so simple.

Rack this.

**FellsPointRaven** · 08-28-2006, 10:16 AM

HBO used to be my refuge, but with the cancellation/wrapping up of quality shows like Deadwood and The Sopranos, even that is coming to and end.

Slight aside here, but was anyone else a little disappointed with the last episode of Deadwood last night? I was all geared up for a big gun battle and hopefully the kicking of George Hearst's ass, but instead felt it was kind of anti-climactic.

Entourage rocks. Looking forward to another season of that.

"Reality" TV sucks. Personally I think the idea for Survivor is shitty, exploitative and appealing to the lowest common denominator, but main stream TV has been doing this for years so I wouldn't expect it to change now. I won't watch, but guarantee this show will continue to get high ratings and as long as people lap this crap up, networks would be stupid NOT to put out stuff as cheap to make and marketable as this.

**Dusty728** · 08-28-2006, 11:53 AM

anyone else a little disappointed with the last episode of Deadwood last night?

YES! I knew Hearst wouldn't die as long as they kept it true to real life but I was hoping Bullock would beat the hell out of him and that Woo's "chinks" and the others would kill alot of his men.
I Don't understand how they can just drop a show that is winning awards and has such high ratings.
They are supposed to be doing 2 movies to tie everything up and bring it to a close but I havn't heard when that will be.

**RavenMad2099** · 08-28-2006, 02:00 PM

There was so much suspense throughout the episode, I felt a little let down also. I was praying Tolliver would shoot Hearst at the last second, but I knew he had chickened out as soon as he pointed his gun at the whore’s head. Like Dusty, I figured Hearst wouldn’t die. The writers have already said they won't contradict historical fact by killing characters based on real people before their time. That's why Al, Bullock, Utter, and Jane are safe, too.

When Milch wrote and filmed this episode, he fully expected to have a fourth season to finish the story. Hearst thinks Deadwood will become a company town, but Swearengen, Bullock, and everyone else obviously have different ideas. I believe that would have been the main story arc for season four, ending with the first fire that destroyed Deadwood.

Instead of 12 hours, now we only get 4 to wrap everything up.

**Raineman** · 08-28-2006, 08:41 PM

Are you kidding me! These executives are genius'. Look at how much talk this is getting already. Look at the audience they just added (and trust me, they didn't lose any 'cause they'll watch now to see what happens).

Add to their regular audience, pissed off politically correct a$$wipes, NAACPers, racist jerks, and folks with nothin' better to do. They'll all be watchin'.

Separate tribes by race? BRILLIANT!