Why Are We Awash in the Soapy Seas of ‘Survivor’?

For once, the standard tirade of talk-radio yahoos and conspiracy theorists resonates with truth: Blame the media.

In this case, however, the subject is not President Clinton’s durability in the face of serial scandals but the initial ratings for “Survivor,” a CBS “reality” series whose early success, inevitably, will open the floodgates to more exercises that place ordinary people in humiliating, dangerous or just plain bizarre situations in the name of entertainment.

Why blame the media? Because the press, the hard-boiled gatekeepers of what’s deemed important and worth knowing about, bought into the hoopla hook, line and sinker--baited into providing CBS millions of dollars’ worth of free publicity exceeding anything the network could have purchased.

The major TV networks, after all, aren’t what they used to be. They no longer enjoy a near-monopoly in an environment where the average home has access to nearly five dozen channels, plus computers, the Internet and other alternatives that, God forbid, might actually draw us away from the tube.

So networks are frantic to generate awareness of the programs they offer. Fox’s “Who Wants to Marry a Multi-Millionaire?,” before the scandal regarding its would-be groom, represented a prime example, something on its face so inane as to inspire understandable curiosity.

“There’s a kind of desperation about it,” observed onetime NBC Chairman Grant Tinker a few months ago when asked about the trend. “There are so many players now, and getting noticed is so difficult, the approach seems to be you just do something bizarre and hope that it works.”

CBS has sought to accomplish precisely that by ordering “Survivor”--a European format that hinges on recruiting 16 strangers, then shipping them off to a remote island where they compete to see who stays until the finish--and “Big Brother,” a similarly themed Dutch import whose peeping is directed at a small group isolated in a house together for 100 days.

Forget about the voyeurism, the quirky get-rich game show aspect (winners walk away with cash prizes), the real-life soap opera format--all integral elements of this particular genre.

“Survivor” and “Big Brother” were about nothing more than creating buzz, and the press--afraid of being left trailing the bandwagon--complied beyond CBS’ wildest dreams.

In recent weeks, “Survivor” has been seemingly everywhere. The cover of the New York Times Sunday magazine. USA Today, with full-color furor. The Washington Post. Entertainment Weekly, “Entertainment Tonight,” “Access Hollywood,” and the list goes on. During a conference call with reporters a few weeks ago, CBS Television President Leslie Moonves gloated, “We’ve gotten more radio requests and more press requests [for the program] than any show in the history of CBS.”

The Times joined in as well, putting the story on its front page in February--days before the “Who Wants to Marry a Multi-Millionaire?” fiasco stoked debate regarding the insane depths to which ordinary people will plunge just to be on television.

“Survivor” is clearly a juicy concept, invoking images of the anything-for-ratings future writer Paddy Chayefsky envisioned in the 1976 film “Network.” Its prosperity will undoubtedly inspire new wrinkles on that theme, leaving cynics to wonder if the film’s real on-air murders and prime-time showcases for political terrorists can truly be far behind.

Still, real-life excesses have become so commonplace it’s hard to muster much public outrage anymore. While it might be nice for programmers to exercise a little social conscience, the notion of responsibility has become almost quaint. Facing fierce competition, TV executives have succumbed to their basic directive--put on fare people will watch--and it’s naive to expect otherwise, like the fable about the scorpion who stings the frog as it ferries him across a stream.

Guided by that mind-set, CBS can slough off the fact one of its contestants, Richard, was arrested for allegedly abusing his 9-year-old son after returning from the island, just as the Swedish producers dismissed their culpability in regard to a suicide that followed one of the Swedish editions. We can’t control these people outside the show, they say, just as networks can’t keep sitcom stars from abusing painkillers or crashing high-priced cars.

There is cause to wonder, however, about people who would court this kind of potential notoriety--agreeing to marry a total stranger on live TV or occupy a house for 14 weeks, allowing a cameraman to document their every move. Might such a personality be a little off-kilter in the first place? And could the experience trigger erratic behavior, especially in someone, unlike those actors, unaccustomed to the spotlight?

These are legitimate issues to consider as TV dives headlong into turning half-baked social experiments into prime-time spectacle. Unfortunately, these programs came into being precisely because they invite such questions, meaning even examinations such as this are welcomed in executive suites, producing the headlines networks so desperately crave.

In terms of media tonnage, CBS also provided a demonstration of synergy through its various corporate tendrils, leveraging parent Viacom’s cable channels (including MTV, home of “The Real World”) and CBS’ sister radio stations to market “Survivor.” As usual, some of the promotion was disguised as news coverage, including a tie-in with CBS’ “The Early Show,” where co-host Jane Clayson seemed positively giddy last week interviewing ousted contestant B.B. Andersen--perhaps overjoyed at the prospect someone might actually be watching.

Even CBS employees Howard Stern and David Letterman incestuously weighed in on a series ripe to be lampooned, feeding perceptions “Survivor” is a big deal, one media outlets ignore at the risk of looking behind the curve. Although manufactured, it’s the kind of feeding frenzy witnessed on news stories, from Elian Gonzalez to Princess Diana, where judgment and restraint are the first casualties.

To be fair, though, easily manipulated reporters couldn’t turn “Survivor” into an instant sensation without the help of an often-overlooked accomplice--namely, the viewing public, who for all the media’s influence can’t be forced to watch anything.

While the assertion may smack of elitism, the 19 million people tuning in “Survivor” last Wednesday can indeed be wrong, in the sense that by willingly consuming the TV equivalent of junk food they are ensuring the networks will soon be peddling similar slop on every corner, leading to stranger and more perilous stunts, as pressure to titillate a jaded audience invariably mounts. So long, Mr. Rogers’ neighborhood. Hello, Mr. Chayefsky’s video landfill.

From that standpoint, when the press sobers up, it can share some of the hangover with its customers. Because, as with politicians and government, people don’t always get the television that’s most illuminating or uplifting, but ultimately, they get the television they deserve.

*

Brian Lowry’s column appears on Tuesdays. He can be reached by e-mail at brian.lowry@latimes.com.