If you're here it's probably because you were curious in seeing the whole episode from a short excerpt coming from this show, a video called "The most
racist moment on television", which is widely known because of a panelist's infamous racist remark about a show's contestant and the reaction of shock and disbelief
coming from all the other panelists. The very first episode of the American version of Brit reality TV contest "Without Prejudice?" shows exactly what the
competition is all about but it's the panelists views and actions that present their true inner selves instead of the ones competing for a 25 grand prize that
can be won the more about their real personalities are shown and the ones that pleases the most of the "judges", and all of that must be accomplished without
just looking at face value, gender, color or physicallity; it's all about the lives and views each person present. Is life really like that? Let us go deeper into thought
and what this episode has shown us.
Five contestants, five panelists and a host. Contestants: two young white males, one senior white lady, one African-American man and one young woman from Colombia.
On the other side, an African-American man, two white females, one young white male and the guy from Polynesian Islands, and that's the one whom viewers are most enraged when they see the short video. The panelists are judging the contestants based on the perception they get from the contestants and that's when the man loses it completely (in a very serious manner) when he says he didn't like Michael because he's black. Jaws are dropped and a great debate begins, where he exposes why he doesn't like black people and the black member of the jury tells him off, delivering an eloquent speech about union and why racism is bad. This whole part happened at around ten minutes of the show, after that it gets funnier, better and the usual stuff from "reality TV" shows where you are cheering for somebody to either win or lose. Before I forget: the great rule for the panelists is that they cannot ask what the contestants will do if they win the money - it's only answered when each of them get eliminated from the game.
Truth is, I hate those shows. I really do since it only shows the bad side of everybody, there's always stupid rules to be followed or people embarassing themselves in order to get famous or win some bucks - which they'll eventually lose quickly. This whole thing of life is a competition only applies with some reasoning when it's a sports competition or either people applying themselves for a job (sometimes it's really fair, it's the credentials and the interviewee's personal skills). I watched this episode out of curiosity, that got me to a more psychological level since it was thought-provoking and I felt that important issues were enough raised for me to comment on it. A bonus that got me going was a familiar face from the adult entertainment (Jack Venice), his presence was so random, near pathetic but a fun to watch - the man can't act as a serious person and when the real deal about his work on porn shocked the judges the game got hilarious. The old lady's points of view are even more funny than the man and she's such a sweetheart that she also makes you watch this.
Plenty of years in its making and construction but mankind hasn't evolved much when it comes to deal with differences. There's always prejudice and intolerance along the way, through many times in history and the true era of decency, respect and mutual understanding or union through differences hasn't been reached; it's always about baby steps to create a more equally balanced society. The program's idea tries to not make judgments for what people cannot control about themselves and instead everyone has to pay attention for the things the contestants say, or talk about the life they lived and experienced. Fair enough but truth is none of the panelists can reach that, not even the majority of audiences. The biased panelists also makes remarks on the senior lady; the good-looking wide smiling dude keeps complaining that a contestant has a poor sense of fashion (the show made it look acceptable to make a judgment about that as if everybody MUST have a nice wear), and others are thought to be "simply creepy".
Guess anyone can learn something with this episode in question, if not learning with everyone involved you'll be seriously learning more about yourself and how you perceive others. Level of authenticity these days are rare and the program reveals that, not by what the people present about themselves but also the schemes and tricks presented: like many "reality TV", this one is easily staged. Speeches, situations and the outrageous moment are made to look audience grabbing - in reality I don't think the network would broadcast a prejudicial debate like that, and if it went live serious things would unfold to the Polynesian guy. Some fight would ensue, more than just few bleeped words. And to all of that it comes a more than predictable plot twist, I could see that coming far ahead happening and you'll probably know already what happens at the end.
This "Without Prejudice?" was a small comet on TV land, didn't last long after this episode, didn't generate much interest neither now. It's almost purposeless but producers will always try to push some envelope to create stuff that attracts people. Well, I got reflections and some good kicks out of this episode nothing more.
Five contestants, five panelists and a host. Contestants: two young white males, one senior white lady, one African-American man and one young woman from Colombia.
On the other side, an African-American man, two white females, one young white male and the guy from Polynesian Islands, and that's the one whom viewers are most enraged when they see the short video. The panelists are judging the contestants based on the perception they get from the contestants and that's when the man loses it completely (in a very serious manner) when he says he didn't like Michael because he's black. Jaws are dropped and a great debate begins, where he exposes why he doesn't like black people and the black member of the jury tells him off, delivering an eloquent speech about union and why racism is bad. This whole part happened at around ten minutes of the show, after that it gets funnier, better and the usual stuff from "reality TV" shows where you are cheering for somebody to either win or lose. Before I forget: the great rule for the panelists is that they cannot ask what the contestants will do if they win the money - it's only answered when each of them get eliminated from the game.
Truth is, I hate those shows. I really do since it only shows the bad side of everybody, there's always stupid rules to be followed or people embarassing themselves in order to get famous or win some bucks - which they'll eventually lose quickly. This whole thing of life is a competition only applies with some reasoning when it's a sports competition or either people applying themselves for a job (sometimes it's really fair, it's the credentials and the interviewee's personal skills). I watched this episode out of curiosity, that got me to a more psychological level since it was thought-provoking and I felt that important issues were enough raised for me to comment on it. A bonus that got me going was a familiar face from the adult entertainment (Jack Venice), his presence was so random, near pathetic but a fun to watch - the man can't act as a serious person and when the real deal about his work on porn shocked the judges the game got hilarious. The old lady's points of view are even more funny than the man and she's such a sweetheart that she also makes you watch this.
Plenty of years in its making and construction but mankind hasn't evolved much when it comes to deal with differences. There's always prejudice and intolerance along the way, through many times in history and the true era of decency, respect and mutual understanding or union through differences hasn't been reached; it's always about baby steps to create a more equally balanced society. The program's idea tries to not make judgments for what people cannot control about themselves and instead everyone has to pay attention for the things the contestants say, or talk about the life they lived and experienced. Fair enough but truth is none of the panelists can reach that, not even the majority of audiences. The biased panelists also makes remarks on the senior lady; the good-looking wide smiling dude keeps complaining that a contestant has a poor sense of fashion (the show made it look acceptable to make a judgment about that as if everybody MUST have a nice wear), and others are thought to be "simply creepy".
Guess anyone can learn something with this episode in question, if not learning with everyone involved you'll be seriously learning more about yourself and how you perceive others. Level of authenticity these days are rare and the program reveals that, not by what the people present about themselves but also the schemes and tricks presented: like many "reality TV", this one is easily staged. Speeches, situations and the outrageous moment are made to look audience grabbing - in reality I don't think the network would broadcast a prejudicial debate like that, and if it went live serious things would unfold to the Polynesian guy. Some fight would ensue, more than just few bleeped words. And to all of that it comes a more than predictable plot twist, I could see that coming far ahead happening and you'll probably know already what happens at the end.
This "Without Prejudice?" was a small comet on TV land, didn't last long after this episode, didn't generate much interest neither now. It's almost purposeless but producers will always try to push some envelope to create stuff that attracts people. Well, I got reflections and some good kicks out of this episode nothing more.