By Dennis O’Neil
The 13th season of “Survivor” is set to premiere Sept. 14, and already the upcoming season has sparked some of the greatest controversy in the show’s history.
“Survivor” producers have decided the contestants for this season, which will take place in the Cook Islands of the South Pacific, should be chosen on the basis of race and ethnicity. The show’s teams will then be divided according to their racial or ethnic group, with the categories encompassing African-American, Asian, Hispanic and Caucasian origins.
“The idea came to us on the basis of the criticism that “Survivor” wasn’t ethnically diverse enough,” host Jeff Probst recently told TV’s “The Early Show.” “So we set out and said, “Let’s turn this criticism into something positive for the show. I think it fits in perfectly well with what ‘Survivor’ does, as it is a social experiment, which is taking the show to a completely new level.”
The backgrounds of the show’s contestants clearly represent how extreme this “social experiment” can be, as they perpetuate the show with people from many different walks of life, ranging from a heavy metal guitarist to a professional volleyball player to a boxer/waitress. This represents a departure from previous seasons of “Survivor,” where the background of the competitors has been fairly homogenized along both racial and occupational lines.
“We’re going to take some heat for it,” says series creator and producer Mark Burnett, “but it’s a great cast.”
Thus far, “Survivor’s” decision to diversify has been met with some positive responses. In a recent article for the “Los Angeles Times,” columnist Tony Pierce stated, “Any stupid game show that can get tens of millions of people talking
about issues that affect us all should be praised, not scorned.”
Pierce also praised the marketing genius of the show’s approach, which will allow it to appeal to a broader audience than in previous seasons. “I think it is a bold move on CBS’ part,” said sophomore Ashley Pierce. “It definitely creates a more interesting conflict for the contestants, which in turn makes it more interesting for the viewer.”
There is, however, an aspect of “Survivor’s” new approach that simply echoes a current trend in reality T.V. programming of implementing race as a means of increasing ratings.
There recently have been numerous shows that have utilized similar approaches to that of “Survivor,” such as the F.X. program “Black: White,” which enlisted a makeup squad to turn a black family into a white one, and “Welcome to the Neighborhood,” which depicted families of different racial or ethnic origins competing for the same home on a Texas cul de sac.
There also was talk of “The Apprentice” pitting white teams versus black teams before the idea was shot down at NBC.
“The controversy over ‘Survivor’ could definitely make it more interesting to people,” said senior Michael Sossman, “but the new approach feels very ratings motivated.”
Positive response has been heavily mixed with outraged or skeptical response as well.
A recent article in the “New York Post” addressed the “Survivor” controversy with the headline “What’s Next? Germans vs. Jews?” And there has also been a campaign against CBS by a group of New York City officials to get the show pulled before its premiere. The group, composed mainly of city council members of African American, Asian and Hispanic descent, threatened to protest in front of New York City Hall, saying that “Survivor” promoted divisiveness.
“The idea of having a battle of the races is preposterous,” city councilman John Liu told MSNBC. “How could anyone be so desperate for ratings?”
Great ratings have admittedly been much harder to achieve for “Survivor” over the past few seasons. The show lost one in four of its previous viewers last season when its approach was to divide the teams on the basis of gender.
This new approach may be just what the show needs to re-inject it with the kind of popularity that it once enjoyed.
