Race to the bottom

Sept. 15, 2006 | "Black people don't like to be told what to do. We have a bunch of headstrong people around here -- me being one of them." -- Nate, African-American tribe

"We fly under the radar, nobody suspects these little people with slanted eyes to see anything or to be strong enough to do anything or maybe don't even speak English. People always underestimate the Asians." -- Cao Boi, Asian tribe

"We're used to being in this tropical setting." -- Billy, Hispanic tribe

"I don't believe that just because these groups have the cultural similarities that that will make them more specifically cohesive. This is 'Survivor,' somebody is gonna win a million dollars, and they're gonna have to cut the throat of the guy next to them at some point." -- Jonathan, White tribe

The anxiously awaited 13th season of "Survivor" started with a flurry of predictions by various tribe members, as the four teams, separated by race, guessed at how ethnic differences might play a part in the game. But the real guessing game began weeks ago, when producers' announcement of the show's racial twist resulted in a public outcry. Critics called it a gimmick, declaring the idea "racist," "stupid" and "preposterous." Naysayers claimed the show would enforce racial stereotypes by grouping members of the same race together, and suggested that editing based on racist notions was inevitable. According to Advertising Age, several companies have pulled their sponsorship since the theme was announced, but producer Mark Burnett and host Jeff Probst have been adamant in backing the show, and CBS hasn't bowed to pressure to remove it from the lineup. "I still feel very strongly that this was worth doing," Probst told a reporter from Pittsburgh CBS affiliate KDKA. "I think it will surprise people. I think it will entertain people, and hopefully it will be inspiring rather than discouraging."

Still, plenty of critics and journalists weren't buying Probst's positive spin. In an article in San Francisco Chronicle, writer CW Nevius suggested that simply grouping people of the same race together might encourage misconceptions and stereotyping. He pointed to Rush Limbaugh's racist comments on the show as proof -- Limbaugh posited that the black team would be poor swimmers, the Asians would be brainiacs and the Latinos would "do things other people won't do."

And once Thursday night's show aired, journalists roundly criticized it. Robert Bianco of USA Today called it "a publicity stunt of the rankest and most obvious kind," and stated that "'Survivor' has embraced the very essence of discrimination: treating people not as individuals but as members of an ethnically defined group." (Bianco also complained about the separation of the different tribes onto different islands, perhaps unaware that this format was used last season as well.) Charlie McCollum of the San Jose Mercury News declared that the first episode wasn't contentious enough, calling the format "pure hype": "This wasn't some grand social experiment or clueless racism. It was and is an attempt to reverse a ratings slide, nothing more." And Alessandra Stanley of the New York Times sniped that "even with this fraught conceit, CBS may have to worry more about ratings than race relations."

Of course, worrying about ratings doesn't exactly set the producers of "Survivor" apart -- the teams behind every single show on network TV are engaged in a shallow ploy to attract viewers. In fact, the show's producers have been quite open about their attempts to mix things up every single season, recognizing that any reality competition will begin to feel repetitive without such twists, which have included everything from pitting men against women to creating four tribes separated by age and gender, as they did last spring. You don't have to buy the notion that Probst and Burnett are high-minded civil servants engaged in a quest for the truth, of course, but that doesn't mean they don't have a genuine interest in keeping the show fresh and unpredictable for viewers. Remember, both men made their names on this show; it's their baby. Summing up their latest concept as a dishonorable ploy may be the easiest conclusion, but it's clearly not the most accurate one.

Next page: "I saw a chicken, I grabbed a chicken ..."