When I watched Who Wants to Be a Millionaire with Regis Philbin back before 2000, I was just a kid and knew very few of the questions, but I was fascinated by the trivia format and Regis's way of talking to the contestants, as well as the fastest fingers competition, the catchy music: I loved it, even before I had seen Jeopardy, which of course has lasted longer and been more of a consistent force in American TV. But Millionaire definitely had its moments especially at its peak in 2009 when it aired in PrimeTime, and I could see why. It never occured to me, though, that the format of its live audience and 10 other contestants surrounding the stage could leave the format so ripe for cheating, but that's exactly what happened in the British version of the show in 2000, when Charles Ingram colluded with his wife and another contestant to win the million dollar grand prize. There's a Youtube documetary of the whole incident, and it leaves me without a shadow of a doubt that cheating occurred and that Ingram received help to win the million dollars, as it did the jury in the criminal case against Ingram, giving him 18 months in prison. As unclear and confusing as the evidence in the Adnan Syed murder cases is, the case against Ingram and wife and co-conspirator was just as clear, cut and dry. Ingram at multiple times said he was going to go for one of the answers, but after hearing a cough, changed his mind.
I've never really seen cheating in person, only heard of stories of people cheating on exams by writing notes under the lid of their hats, having secret notes somewhere, writing it on their hands, having special glasses, etc., etc., but I've never busted someone red-handed: I'm usually paying attention to the test itself rather than other test-takers, so it was pretty interesting to watch a case of cheating on national TV play itself out with a system of coughing when the right answer came out. Millionaire used the multiple-choice format, with the right answer coming up in one of the 4 answers, so it allows potential cheaters to just signal the right answer, rather than have to feed the answer from nothing to the contestant playing, and especially with the long pauses during the questions allowing the contestant to think, it's almost shocking that others didn't try to cheat before him (I guess other than the fact that there are hundreds of cameras in the studio and sound devices, etc. that might catch you).
The Ingram Case is actually a great case on human greed: Ingram "won" the million dollars using the cheating strategy, but because he attracted more scrutiny by going all the way that high (and more chances to get caught), whereas Millionaire would have likely let it go if he had stopped at $125,000, maybe even $250,000. Indeed, right after winning the million his wife seemed to have chided him for something, which turns out to be likely breaking their plan and going for more money than agreed upon. At some point Ingram, in that chair, likely saw that the plan was working, it seemed like a cinch, no one had said anything, so why not keep going? Speaking from some experience with a guilty conscience like playing "mafia" or other similar games involving lying and deception, when you've gotten away a few times with a lie, it fuels one's bravado and confidence that no one finds out, and then greed (I know that feeling from the stock market and not taking profits when the market is at an all-time high) not being satisifed with the money in hand.....always wanting to go for the 2 in the bush. Sad, what a little money/power/love can do to someone who's never had any of those things before.
America apparently loves scandal, and there have been plenty of sports scandals like the Houston Astros sign stealing scheme (someone used technology to steal the opposing pitchers' signs and buzz it to the hitters so the hitters knew what pitches were coming), New England Patriots Deflategate (deflated some of the footballs to make them easier to hold on to), Spygate (used cameras to film opposing teams' practices), etc., but this is the first time I've heard of game shows. I was thinking if there could ever be cheating on Jeopardy!, and it definitely seems less doable: they are free-response questions that need to be spoken by the contestant within seconds of the clue coming up, so it's very unlikely anyone from the audience can help, and even having a buzzer or some sort of earpiece link with someone at home with Internet access to speak to you the answer would not allow an accomplice a chance to type it into Google and search for answers. The only thing I could see in the future is some advanced technology like a brain chip inserted into the contestant's brain to immediately google the clue like Watson did and come up with a most likely answer, or maybe a Google glass device like in "Iron Man" that processes the clue upon seeing it and spits out an answer in the glasses? That actually......seems doable one day. Oh and the other way would be if one of the writers that had access to the clues/answers sent them out to a contestant.....hmm, I'm sure there are safeguards there, right???? Watch out, Jeopardy showrunners!
No comments:
Post a Comment