Summary
The
quiz show scandal of 1958 shocked and outraged Americans just as they were
becoming comfortable with the television as a medium of communication. In the
beginning, sponsors paid for all of the costs of production, network air time,
and advertising for a television show. Thus they had almost unlimited influence
over the production and content of a show. If a show did not get good ratings,
their product did not sell, and sometimes drastic measures were attempted to
gain viewership. One such measure was fixing the big money quiz show. They
captivated American audiences with large sums of money, tension building sets,
and contestants who were not quite what they seemed. Little did viewers know
that every detail was an elaborate farce meant to capture their hearts and minds.
When the scandal finally went public Americans were outraged at the deceit. The
result was a less trusting relationship by the American people with a medium
which was at first seen as honest and good.
Description
The
summer of 1955 is when the big money quiz show introduced itself to America. Television
was still a new and generally disliked medium, having gained little respect in
the time since its inception. Producers
were struggling to make shows with which mass audiences would connect.
Advertisers, the companies who paid for the production costs, network airtime
fees, and advertising agency commission of the television shows, searched for a
format which would fascinate Americans, thus increasing the sales of their
products, when they seized on to the idea of The $64,000 Question. They thought this spinoff of the popular
1940’s radio quiz show Take it or Leave
it and its famous $64 question had just the right mix of haughtiness,
intrigue, and large cash payouts to create curiosity in an ambivalent public.
Along
with an unheard of winning potential the show elevated its level of validity by
presenting a serious atmosphere and a penchant for ceremony. A guard and trust
officer monitored questions and prizes while one Professor Bergen Evans was
employed as “Question Supervisor” to add trustworthiness and legitimacy to the
intellectual aspect of the show. The set design included an “isolation booth”
to create drama in an otherwise stuffy question and answer show.
Contestants
were expected to answer a series of questions, the first of which was worth
$64. Subsequent correct answers doubled in value until the $4000 threshold was
achieved. After that contestants could advance just one level a week and were
asked questions with increasing levels of complication and difficulty. They could quit at any level, but one
incorrectly answered question would cost them the entire game and most of their
winnings. Exempted from loss were their first $4000, and a bonus prize, a new Cadillac,
for those that reached the $8000 level.
Thus
the advertisers managed to serialize their game show by creating repeat
contestants who would make weekly appearances over spans of several months.
Audiences loved the format. They became personally invested in the success of
the contestants. A single episode of The
$64,000 Question in August of 1955 drew a viewership of over a third of the
population of the United States. To this post war, post depression population
who sought a 1950’s version of the American Dream; a better life than their
parents, a house, a family, and a good job, the big money game show provided a
fast track to those dreams. It presented the possibility of wealth in a single
correctly answered question. What sponsors quickly realized was that that
allure combined with the right personality, an everyday American, drew audience
sizes beyond their wildest expectations.
But
success quickly turned to corruption as sponsors, with their producers under
their thumb, wanted to dictate who would win and who would lose for the sole
purpose of ratings, thus higher revenues. They gave producers license to take
any measures which would assure a shows success. And so, a very intricate and
deep deceit was played out upon the nation.
The
most notorious of all 1950’s game show fixes was between Herbert Stempel and
Charles Van Doren, who appeared together on Twenty
One, a quiz show based on blackjack. Stemple began his run on Twenty One as the answer to the
sponsor’s prayers. He was an average Joe type person, a picture perfect
everyday American. He had a photographic memory and was agreeable to being
coached in his answers and mannerisms. They told him how to dress, cut his
hair, and how to add dramatic effect to his answers. He quickly became a star
and for six weeks he held the spotlight. But the sponsors soon felt he was
unattractive and non telegenic, he presented the wrong image for their product.
They wanted him out. So the producers found Charles Van Doren. Van Doren walked
on to the scene as the son of a famous literary family, and himself a lecturer
of English at Columbia University. He was individually selected, by producer Al
Freedman, at a dinner party. Freedman convinced him of the fix by guaranteeing
a large sum of money and by telling him that only they would know about it and
that it had never been done before. For his part Van Doren was a natural at the
art of engaging the audience and gaining their favor. He was considered
handsome and telegenic. After a standoff between Stempel and Van Doren which
included several ties to increase the drama, Stempel finally took the fixed
fall as ratings soared.
In
August and September of 1958 everything started to unravel as former
contestants of several shows went public with accusations of rigged games.
Herbert Stempel was among the accusers. At first they were dismissed as sore
losers. But when another former contestant of the show Twenty One brought forth as evidence registered letters to him self
predicting exactly the results of his performance people were forced to take
notice. A grand jury was convened and everyone was called to testify;
contestants, producers, network executives and sponsors. Nearly one hundred
people perjured themselves in an attempt to keep their reputations clean,
including Charles Van Doren. Later that year the House Subcommittee on
Legislative Oversight held hearings into the quiz show scandal. Ultimately as
one person came clean, and then the next, it became clear that the shows were
fixed.
Americans
were stunned; they felt angry and deceived; their faith in the honesty of
television was destroyed. The shows ratings plummeted and they were quickly
cancelled. At the time the only thing illegal about the affair was the perjury
committed by those who had lied to the grand jury. But the scandal had a
dramatic impact on the future of commercial television. Networks became leery
of single sponsor programming and henceforth divided advertising time into
fifteen, thirty, and sixty second increments. This limited the amount of
influence any one sponsor could have over program content. No immediate legislation followed but by 1960
President Eisenhower signed a bill declaring illegal any contest or game with
intent to deceive the audience. But it was the American public who felt the
greatest impact. In an age yet unsullied by credibility gaps and covert agendas
the mass deception served as a first warning sign that television, and American
life, might not always be what it seemed.
Statement
“I’ll
believe it when I see it”, is what people say when they are told of something
spectacular, unimaginable, or yet unseen.
As human beings our sense of sight has a remarkable impact on what we
accept as truth.
Television
communicates with human beings through sight and sound. It is a powerful and
influential medium. If information is presented as real or truthful people are
inclined to believe that it is so. We tell ourselves that networks would not
lie to their viewers and that people would not accept money for unethical
performances. Humanity wants to believe
in its own inclination toward goodness.
As
a form of visual communication television has the potential for great harm. It
influences people’s perceptions not only about the truth or fiction of a
particular situation but also the value of certain people, groups, and ideas.
It has the power to make individuals act against their code of ethics. The
promise of celebrity and money acts its seduction on our ego which turns giddy
at the thought of individuality; of elevation beyond the rest of our peers; and
the recognition of our individual importance. To achieve this end we will lie
to ourselves and call our untruths a harmless folly, a victimless crime, or a
simple acting performance. But if a game show were simply a performance we would
return the prize money at the end of the day.
It
was not until the quiz show scandal of 1958 emerged that people realized that
television was not always truthful. Until then Americans were easily influenced
by television because it presented them with new ideas and impressions. They
were given a picture of the perfect American life, which everyone aspired to
have, and they bought in to the idea that television was a good and honest
medium.
Television
survived and flourished as a medium of visual communication regardless of the
quiz show scandal. It is a part of our daily lives. It has even more power
today to influence ideas, people, and outcomes which is good reason for viewers
to find secondary supporting information to back up the “facts” they hear and
see on television.
As
it turns out just because you can see it, doesn’t mean you should always
believe it.
Bibliography
Doctor wins $64,000 Dr. Joyce
Brothers, 28-year-old New York psychologist, is hoisted to shoulders of some of
her "staff" of boxers after winning top prize on the TV program,
"The $64,000 Question", 1955.
http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2012647128/
(accessed November 5, 2012)
Doherty,
Thomas. “Quiz Show Scandals”. The Museum
of Broadcast Communications. Web. 5 Nov. 2012. www.museum.tv/eotvsection/php?entrycode=quizshowsca
Fernandez,
Orlando. Quiz show “21” host Jack Barry
turns toward contestant Charles Van Doren as fellow contestant Vivienne Nearine
looks on, 1957. http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/00652124/
(accessed November 5, 2012)
Little Rock dentist bags big money
prize on television quiz name game, 1957.
http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/00652125/
(accessed November 5, 2012)
Quiz show “21” host Jack Barry turns
toward contestant Hank Bloomgarden as fellow contestant James Snodgrass looks
on, 1958. http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/00652123/
(accessed November 5, 2012)
Van Doren,
Charles. “All the Answers: The quiz-show scandals-and the aftermath.” The New Yorker, 28, July. 2008. Web. 5
Nov. 2012. www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/28/080728fa_fact_vandoren?currentPage=1
Venanzi,
Katie. “An Examination of Television Quiz Show Scandals of the 1950s.” University Honors, 1997. Web. 6 Nov.
2012. <universityhonors.umd.edu/HONR269J/projects/venanzi.html>
