DeWayne Wickham: CBS's "Survivor" Staging Race War

In his latest nationally syndicated column, DeWayne Wickham says the CBS show "Survivor" is going to stage a race war -- reality style in its next season which begins September 14th. The following is an extended excerpt from Wickham's column.

Take my word for it; this is going to be “must see TV.”

The wise guys who run the CBS show “Survivor” have come up with an idea that’s likely to swell the program’s audience. In its new season, which begins Sept. 14, the 20 contestants vying for the million-dollar prize will be separated into groups according to their race or ethnicity.

That’s right: “Survivor” is going to stage a race war — reality TV style. The show’s producers aren’t selling it quite this way, but that’s what it sounds like to me. I’m not talking about the kind of racial conflict that erupted in the 1960s and nearly ripped this nation apart, but rather something that will appeal to the unspoken racism that festers just below the surface for many people in today’s more tolerant society.

Ironically, a panel created by President Lyndon Johnson to investigate the causes of the rash of race riots in the ’60s concluded in 1968 that television networks could help improve race relations by doing a better job of accurately portraying blacks.

“Television should develop programming which integrates Negroes into all aspects of televised presentations,” the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders said in its final report. “Television is such a visible medium that some constructive steps are easy and obvious.”

But in July 1999, then-NAACP President Kweisi Mfume looked at the upcoming fall prime-time television season, he complained that it constituted a “virtual whitewash in programming.”

Within weeks of that sharp criticism, the major television networks — ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox — brokered agreements with the NAACP to increase the number of blacks in their programs. The issues raised by Mfume “are relevant and extremely important,” CBS head Leslie Moonves said at the time. “I think we all agree that those of us in the entertainment industry need to make sure the characters on our screen reflect the diversity of our population as a whole.”

But in recent years, CBS has gotten more criticism than praise for the blacks that have turned up on “Survivor.” The show has been accused of selecting black contestants who perpetuate the stereotype of the “crazy black woman” and “angry black male.”

In defending the decision to group contestants along racial and ethnic lines in the new season, host Jeff Probst explained that the idea grew out of criticism that the show “was not ethnically diverse enough.” Of course, increasing the diversity of the show’s contestants is a good idea. Dividing them into four — white, black, Hispanic and Asian — competing tribes isn’t.

The show’s contestants — they’re called “castaways” — are supposed to be stranded on a deserted island where they alternately must work together and against each other to avoid elimination. The last “Survivor” wins the $1 million prize.

In past seasons, the show’s creator, Mark Burnett, has paired men against women and the young against the old, but I suspect that pitting racial and ethnic groups against each other will boost “Survivor’s” audience.

“He’s been taking the fault lines in society and using them in the show,” said Eric Deggans, media critic for the St. Petersburg Times. “This is probably the last fault line he can find ... Frankly, I prefer this to the way they’ve dealt with race under the table before.”

That’s one way of looking at it, but I see this thing differently.

Television has turned us into a nation of voyeurs. Millions of Americans tune in to watch so-called reality shows that have people eat disgusting things or brave tortuous ordeals for a cash prize. We watched a revolution erupt in the Soviet Union; a student stare down a tank in China and two wars unfold in Iraq — all of this on live TV.

I worry that for too many of us the lines between reality and “reality TV” have blurred.

The steady diet of reality shows press the limits of good taste and sensible behavior. And I fear that the upcoming season of “Survivor” will drag television viewers deeper into this swamp.

I'll take Wickham's word for it that this is going to be "must see TV," but I disagree that CBS's decision is a bad thing for television or America, and I don't see this season of "Survivor" dragging television viewers into a swamp of bad taste. I'm glad there is finally an adequate number of Blacks, Latinos, and Asians on the show.

If anything, this season of "Survivor" has the potential to build racial pride. More often than not, I tend to root for Black people when they are contestants in these television reality shows. Even though I get nothing when they win, I want to see Black people compete and win sometimes. I was glad to see Randal Pinkett become the first African American winner of "The Apprentice". (Click here to visit Pinkett's website.) Who didn't want Akeelah to win the spelling bee? (See, "Akeelah and the Bee".) I thought Ty Barnett was funnier than Josh Blue and should've been named the "Last Comic Standing". I rooted for Rueben Studdard and Fantasia Barrino (site) to win "American Idol". So, yeah I admit I like to see someone who looks like me compete against people who don't look like me and win. But, what Wickham seems to miss is that Americans don't necessarily root for people of their own race. I was glad to see Omarosa Manigault-Stallworth get booted off "The Apprentice". And if the Blacks team on next season's "Survivor" rub me the wrong way, or seem to be weak, or do something to shame the Black community, I'll have no problem rooting for another team.

Not only isn't this a bad idea, it isn't even an original one. You might remember NBC and Donald Trump thought about doing the same thing on "The Apprentice". (Click here to see my take on that.)