Next week, Survivor 3: Africa will premier. 16 Americans will be taken to said continent to compete for one million dollars. they will live in small, dingy camps; have very little food; be surrounded by constant danger; and be forced to do everything in their power to Survive.
am i the only one who sees something horribly wrong with this?!?
last time i checked, 100’s of millions of people were already playing this game. 'cept that a third of them have aids. and there’s no helicopter to lift them to safety when they get hurt. their game lasts a hell-of-alot longer than six weeks. and they’re lucky if they can come out it with a few hundred dollars, let alone a million.
so now, a corporation will spend millions to bring 16 more americans to africa, and put them into a safe, friendly version of the life of millions of real, unimaginably poor people. millions of rich (by world standards) americans will watch this at home, and think “man, these guys have it tough. I could never make it for six weeks on only rice and fruit and some meat. And all those animals are so scary!”
meanwhile, while Mark Burnett is spending millions on making a “reality” show and millions are spent by advertisers back in america, many more millions will be be killed by starvation, war, and disease; the the real players in the fight for Survival.
This is a great illustration of the enormous gap between the haves and have-nots of the world. However, I don’t think that Mark Burnett, et al are any different than the millions of others all around us who don’t blink at paying $1.09 for bottled water because the stuff out of the tap just isn’t quite good enough for our delicate, precious pallets.
Wrong according to whom? It’s just business; if they can’t afford their food though luck or start a rebellion against their corrupted government, then tough luck.
Actually, I see your point. From a social sciences background, I can see what you’re saying. Sometimes capitalistic way of thought ‘business is business’ may be considered by some as cruel and cold blooded. And addition to that as bnorton said, some people would pay rather pay something like $1 per glass of water for fear of dying of mild discomfort whereas regular tap water is most likely to be safe and healthy. Are we just breeding ignorant, capitalistic, wimpy cry-babies in N. America these days?
Maybe.
Even so, there’s nothing wrong per say about that (until someone of ‘higher and legit’ authorities say so).
But back to the issue, the thought of Survivor 3 (actually, the show itself) is disgusting as it may be, but it’s hard to bring in the starving dying people into this. If so, there’s just too many other things that we do in N. America that brings about indirect harm to other global citizens.
Jovius, i can definitly see your point. Perhaps, I missed my main point. It is not so much the capitalism that bothers me, but the idea of the show. To focus on a group of americans complaining about the small (to them) amount of food they recieve or the difficulty of living in their ‘camp’ is an insult to all those who struggle for survival every day. My complaint is not against the capitalism of the show, it is against the premise.
While my passionate dislike of “Survivor” is well known, it has an enormous TV audience - one would hope that the producers would use that audience to raise awareness of living conditions in Africa. I doubt very much that they will, but the opportunity to shine a spotlight on Africa is definitely there (there’s a whole new industry of Survivor-style outback tours which sprung up here after the second series).
What would be great is if the contestants had to survive in real Africa, rather than in what is effectively a gilded cage.
I hope very much that the producers will funnel at least some of the money they make from the series back into providing some basic facilities in the immediate area - maybe it’s time to pressure them to do so…
Oh yeah, it’s just a big party. Everyone’s having a grand time. That’s why they come home with their bodies covered in sores from malnutrition, or get airlifted out with 3rd degree burns, or sit in the darkness and cry because they are hungry and cold.
Someone please give me a rational explanation for why ‘Survivor 3’ is ‘disgusting’, while trekking up Mt. Everest isn’t? Or for that matter, sitting at home eating Doritos and typing messages on the ‘Straight Dope’ board with a computer that you could sell and feed 5 African children for a year with the proceeds?
How do you justify buying a pair of running shoes that cost 1/4 of the annual income of half the world’s population?
Great point, Sam. People are so quick to judge others without looking in a mirror first. Having said that, I think it would be a great idea if CBS and Survivor helped to spread the message that these people need help. They have a great opportunity to do that to the millions that will be tuning in.
Well, no I can’t say I really see anything wrong with it. Africa would be exactly the same whether or not the Survivor show was in Africa, North America, or South America.
Would it make those poor, starving, HIV-infected people in Africa feel any better if the Survivors stayed in America, gorged themselves on Cheetos and buffalo wings, had safe sex with HIV-negative partners, and wiped their asses with five dollar bills?
A trek up Mount Everest is done for one reason: spiritual fulfillment in one form or another. Survivor is for corporate profit, and little else (I’ll allow for at least a little entertainment <hah!> value). I think that the main objection is that Survivor is primarily about the change of hands of billions of dollars, while the local people where it’s being filmed often have no resources for survival at all. All the while, the producers are wiping their asses with what would feed a family of four in these areas for a year (ok, maybe that wasn’t the best analogy. But you know what I mean.)
I see. No one climbs Everest just for ego, do they? And god forbid anyone should ever make any money from an Everest climb. And no one in this forum wants to make money - we’re all seekers of spiritual enlightenment, above the crassness of the commercial world.
But let’s pick the other example. Forget comparing it to anything grandiose like climbing Everest. How about people who spend enough money to put an African kid through his or her entire grade school on a fancy sports car, or a cruise on a yacht? How do you justify tying up enough money to feed dozens of people so that you can type messages on the straight dope?
There is NOTHING immoral about ‘Survivor 3’. Those people are under no more obligation to relieve suffering in Africa than you are. And in fact, the show is going to bring several million dollars into the local economy, and I understand they are doing work to help preserve some wildlife areas. But they don’t have to do this to maintain some sort of moral legitimacy - they do that just by following the law and creating entertainment to the best of their ability - entertainment, I might add, that makes millions of people happy and content for at least one hour a week. For that, they make money. Lots of it. More power to them.
Now, if you want to argue the merits of the show itself, whether it’s interesting or boring, that’s a different matter. But that is fair criticism - an artist must be ready to support his or her work. But to attack them on *moral grounds, and to claim that they are somehow remiss in not helping the poor in Africa just because they are there is the height of hypocrisy unless you are giving up all the things you own to do the same.
Yes, the show may improve the economy of the area it is filmed in, and it will hopefully increase awareness of the struggle of people living in Africa. My problem, i guess, is with the idea of spending so much money to make a few tourists starve, when that money could be used to save so many people who don’t have a choice as to whether or not they live there. Perhaps I am just being a kinda preachy (I hope not, I hate people like that), but something about the concept of the show just bothers me.
I tend to agree with Sam Stone in some ways. However, I see your point. If I could be so bold as to put words in your mouth, perhaps it’s the irritating promulgation of insipid reality shows that don’t really represent reality that is irritating in and of itself. They’re annoying and they’re everywhere. And for those of us who don’t get off on watching nasty people gossiping and back-stabbing while they eat bugs for dinner, enough is enough.
The producers of such shows have no obligations to anyone, except to the viewing public, using their ‘lowest common denominator’ theory of programming. It’s true, they certainly have no more obligation to feed the starving than I do. And I do hope their production brings money into the area. Though, I daresay they are more likely to fly their bottled water in from the good old U.S. of A. and bring their housekeepers with them than they are to buy goods and services from the locals.
When I drink MY $1.09 bottle of water, I do so in and around people with the same standard of living as mine. I don’t go stand in an area where people are starving, unclothed, and lacking medical attention and flaunt my way of life while simultaneously making light of theirs.