As I’m reading this thread I’m wondering more and more about the host, Jeff Probst’s, role in all this.
He’s presented to the viewers as the alternately benevolent or stern “King of All the Dingos” (as the Salon reviewer put it), from whom all blessings and punishments flow. He’s the boss, we’re led to believe, in such scenes as when he brought new rice to Barramundi in the food-for-tarps deal (“I’ve come out here today because I’m concerned…” (emphasis mine)).
I’ve always figured that was a false impression, that Probst was really just a tool of the producers, who view each day’s footage and then tell Probst what to do and say to the castaways the next day. I wouldn’t even be surprised to learn that he had a tiny mike in his ear so he could receive realtime instructions at challenges or tribal councils.
But if we accept that, then who judges the reward and immunity challenges? We’re led to believe Probst and the camera crew are the only people there to watch them. Should Jeff have noticed Colby taking both carabiners off the rope? Was it up to him to make the distinction between an “intact” and a “knocked-down” plate?
If it was, I don’t have any problem with Colby’s win of those two challenges. Probst then becomes like a baseball umpire: his strikeout call stands even if the replay shows the player was safe.
If it wasn’t…then I’m still not too bothered by it. If the producers watched the dailies each evening and decided the results needed to be remedied, after the reward has been awarded (how would you “take back” a helicopter flight to the Barrier Reef?) then you’d have a muddied game and, more importantly, bad television.
Sorry I have nothing to say about the Dirk/Stacey thing; I’d probably have more of an opinion if I’d watched the first season, but as previously noted I didn’t.