I don’t just watch TV (gasps aloud). I teach English.
I frame AP Literature as a study of gender through works such as Ethan Frome and Anna Karenina. Jane Eyre and Medea. Beloved and King Lear.
If I eavesdrop on a conversation a group is having, I may ask an essential question like “Is Bronte saying all men are flawed and if so how?” and a student may respond, “Men are flawed…but no more so than all humans are flawed, because…”
This is good. This is healthy and educational and insightful.
When I frame an essential question in an English classroom to a group of 17-year-old students, they are particularly astute about the nuances of issues of gender and power and society in literature and it’s easy for me to be confident that the world is in very good hands.
But when I watch the news or television today, I sometimes question myself. I worry how these very capable, articulate students will go into the real world and deal with issues of gender discrimination and equality.
If this season of Survivor is an example: God help us.
This season of Survivor was marked by controversy, when a contestant, Dan Spilo, sexually harassed women on the show on multiple occasions. Even after certain contestants told Dan to stop and then made producers aware of it, they kept him on the show after issuing a vague blanket warning to all contestants. Eventually they removed him after another “incident” with a crew member.
Many of us who cover Survivor (from those of us who live tweet about it to journalists who write about it or do podcasts on it to former contestants who blog about it) have decried the show and its refusal to remove Dan sooner. Others on social media have unfairly lambasted contestants who sided with Dan as part of a way to last longer in the game, even if they were uncomfortable with some of his actions.
Survivor’s failures this year range from the less serious (public relations misstep—not immediately recognizing just how bad they would look by taking no action regarding Dan’s inappropriate actions in early episodes) to utter ignorance (host Jeff Probst’s comments that all of these things were “firsts” and “represented a microcosm of America” but stating that it’s all been a good conversation piece) to terrible casting (which is itself a pretty grievous error) to the completely unforgiveable: not recognizing sexual harassment in the first place and not keeping contestants away from harassing behavior that makes them uncomfortable.
But the most obvious answer for the common-sense viewer was this: It’s 2019. Keep contestants safe.
If doctors have the credo of primum non nocere or First, Do No Harm, then certainly contestants on a reality show deserve that, too.
But let’s back up here and go in order:
From a media studies standpoint: the less grievous issues are still critically important because they’re part of an underlying culture that CBS clearly doesn’t understand.
We’ve seen so many cases in the past few years (from Harvey Weinstein in the film industry to the accusations against Matt Lauer at NBC News to the fall of Les Moonves at CBS), news and entertainment organizations have been shown to be greatly tainted with sexual harassment and scandal. It’s hard to ignore and easy to question whether any male-dominated media culture is truly a safe working environment.
Survivor Season 39 simply reinforces the idea that things may not have changed much.
Defenders of CBS may argue that much of the problem is what CBS has not said, presumably because of the threat of lawsuits or because CBS lawyers are not allowing CBS executives or Jeff Probst to truly say more about the issue. But Probst’s comments that “we’re learning” from this and this is a microcosm of America seem to simply push blame on America and don’t force the show to look at itself in the mirror.
Dan deserves the blame for his actions. But CBS made so many errors here it’s almost inconceivable that no one has been fired.
It is the show that cast Dan. It is the show that seemingly immediately noticed he was sexually harassing women, despite their objections. It was the show that didn’t step in to help. Despite the mantra that the contestants should work out difficult situations on the island themselves because Survivor is a social game, when a network strands you on an island and deprives you of food and loved ones, they are responsible for keeping you safe. Survivor didn’t do that for contestants.
From a media studies angle, this created another issue: everyone became a villain other than the actual alleged perpetrator. America rushed to judge other contestants who (because of being stranded, stressed, and still in a “game”) were forced to make decisions to align with a potential predator. This was monumentally unfair and harmful—in both the game-world and the real world. While Probst may argue this is part of the social structure of the game and what makes the game unique, it’s an artificial construct that’s completely unnecessary. And it’s a sickening thing to watch for viewers. It’s not entertaining, it’s insulting.
From production teams to editors to Probst himself: Why did no one stop to ask the most important question of all: how do we protect our players and make sure they feel safe from each other? The show is supposed to be about battling the elements and outwitting and outplaying. It’s about outlasting because of power and endurance. Not because of a lack of a producer who understands sexual harassment law. Or human decency.
From a “fan” angle, we all admire the tenacity and diversity of the contestants on Survivor. We love when a season is cast well. We want there to be heroes and villains. But Survivor is still a TV show, and CBS owes it to fans to create a show that is well produced, interesting, fresh and entertaining. It does not owe it to us to replicate real-world experiences of pain or trauma that we turn to television to avoid.
But most importantly, Survivor owes it to every contestant to create a safe environment. When you sign up for any type of show, no matter how difficult, you do not sign up for sexual harassment. In 2019, no contestant should be made uncomfortable.
Most of the rest of this column originally was about how to change the show moving forward. I do not believe in the death penalty—literally or (in this case) in television. While I think CBS has done almost everything wrong this season, I also think Survivor has earned its place on the air precisely because of its ability to change with the times. Yes, it has entertained millions of Americans and has a devoted following. But more importantly, it’s helped Americans understand each other better and dispel biases about race, gender and sexual identity. It’s helped Americans create empathy for others. Simply yanking the show off the air and saying “it messed up” is problematic because rigidity without growth never fixes anything. (Just ask the prison system, which is supposed to rehabilitate people.)
As I was finishing up my column this week, CBS announced it has changed its rules moving forward to “fix” the show. This includes pre-show orientation involving harassment, a third-party executive that will be present to receive reports of any issues regarding harassment confidentially and apart from game-play, and rules preventing any unwelcome contact between players and prohibiting any type of harassment that can be brought into game play. It also suggested they will clarify rules about how players live during the game and after they are voted off the game.
What CBS didn’t discuss is casting—which is problematic. Just as we’ve seen with Big Brother, it still falls on a casting director to check a contestant’s history. CBS has had difficulty in the past few years with casting for its reality shows. While Survivor 40 is already filmed and is all previous Survivor winners, when Survivor 41 is cast, there needs to be more in-depth research done on the backgrounds of the players.
On the penultimate episode of Survivor, Elaine—who was about to be voted off, said “Time heals all wounds” and another contestant, Janet, replied, “I always believe there is light on the other side.” While they were talking about Elaine’s difficulty of living on the island after losing her own mother three months ago, they may as well have been talking about the disastrous season of Survivor and the best that we, as viewers can hope for.
On the finale and “live show” (which was pretaped this year so players could feel more safe), the contestant who came forward with the complaint about Dan was able to have the floor. Kellee Kim said while she was able to speak up on the show when things went wrong and unfairly punished for it, she knows that not everyone is always confident with speaking out.
“People in different times are ready to speak up in different ways. I think the most important thing is. . .I hope it’s (this season) defined by change. I feel I can be really proud that I spoke up and I asked for these changes and CBS and Survivor is making these changes. . .I have to fundamentally believe that individuals and institutions are capable of change.” Kim added, “CBS can do better.”
Survivor’s torch wasn’t snuffed with this disastrous season, but its torch is on life support. Its legacy has been shattered by a scandal that frustrated previous players who honored the game and viewers who have wholeheartedly stood by a show that transformed the reality genre. If you are going to be the best example of reality television, you have to genuinely care about people more than the game. CBS failed to do that. Moving forward, there’s no more second chances and no more immunity: CBS needs to follow through and be the gold standard in all aspects of the show in seasons 40 and beyond. Outwit. Outplay. Outlast. And most importantly, keep contestants safe from each other. Yes, Kellee: CBS can and must do better.
