Court Files Heighten Drama, Skepticism Around ‘Survivor’

It’s an old story. A manufacturer discovers a product might be defective and, with millions of dollars at stake if the problem harms the company’s image, does its best to mitigate any possible damage.

That appears to be in part what CBS had in mind by releasing the testimony of Dirk Been, a contestant on the first “Survivor,” heading into a long holiday weekend--forcing the 206-page deposition, a potential bombshell if borne out, to compete with “Pearl Harbor” for headlines.

CBS characterized Been’s testimony in a manner that can only be described as putting the best spin on comments that, if true, undermine the show’s credibility.

Been was deposed as part of fellow contestant Stacey Stillman’s lawsuit against the program, CBS and producer Mark Burnett. Stillman alleges Burnett manipulated the voting to protect another contestant, crotchety Rudy Boesch, at her expense. While CBS stressed in its announcement that Been never uttered the word “manipulation” at any point, he essentially accused Burnett of doing precisely that, both in his testimony and a May 23, 2000, letter to the producer.

Been felt “cheap and used,” he wrote Burnett last year, once “I began to see the true level of your involvement, understanding how you swung votes and seeing the things you swept under the rug.”

“Maybe in Hollywood it is okay to mislead and tell half-truths,” Been continues, concluding by asking Burnett, “I guess what it comes down to is, how well are you sleeping at night?”

Thanks to “Survivor,” Burnett can sleep on a bed feathered with $100 bills if he wants to. And that very fact--that “Survivor” has blossomed into a cottage industry worth hundreds of millions of dollars over time to CBS and the producer--could point the way toward understanding what is at stake here, how the story will play out, and perhaps whom and what to believe.

In his deposition, Been testified that while his vote was ultimately his own, he chose to expel Stillman instead of Boesch “directly because of the influence of Mark Burnett.”

According to Been, Burnett “believed that certain people would make a better TV show than others, and he did what he could to have influence over those people staying on the island.”

Been even weighed in within his letter--long before The Times decided to drop the term--on the propriety of calling “Survivor” a “reality-based TV show,” given “how [Burnett and another producer] were involved once the game started.”

For his part, Burnett stated that “at no point during the production of ‘Survivor’ did I or any other producer, staff member or crew member ever direct any of the participants to vote for or against a particular participant, or attempt to manipulate, coerce, induce, intimidate or influence the participants’ voting.”

Other contestants, including Sean Kenniff, who also voted against Stillman, have supported Burnett’s account.

So whom and what should a jury--and more important, the public--believe? CBS and Burnett, who have so much riding on the show? Stillman, looking for a seven-figure payday? Richard Hatch, currently on CBS parent Viacom’s payroll as a correspondent for “Entertainment Tonight”? Kenniff, who parlayed his participation into a gig on the newsmagazine “Extra”? Colleen Haskell, who thanks to “Survivor” finds herself co-starring in a movie, “The Animal,” due out this week? Any of the other contestants trying to extend their 15 minutes of fame?

Even Been attempted to seal his deposition, saying in a court filing he feared its contents would negatively affect his show-business aspirations.

Though Burnett denies manipulating who was voted off, he previously admitted reenacting scenes to make them more telegenic, including a swim race that was shot again using body doubles so cameras wouldn’t be visible.

Burnett insisted the reenactments didn’t alter the outcome and that he is “just making entertainment.” At the time, CBS called that admission “nothing more than window dressing. It doesn’t involve the contestants and doesn’t in any way influence the outcome of any challenge, tribal council, or change the view of reality as it occurred.”

Yet given what CBS has invested in “Survivor,” one has to wonder whether Burnett or the network would readily admit otherwise--indeed, whether CBS could condemn Burnett at this point if he strangled a “Price Is Right” contestant immediately outside Television City.

That’s because the undeniable reality here is money talks more eloquently than Been possibly could, which is why CBS chose to proceed with a second edition of “Big Brother” this summer despite the charges of manipulation that plagued that show, albeit with a new producer overseeing production.

In similar fashion, Fox ordered a second version of “Temptation Island,” where the producers either failed to conduct adequate background checks on contestants or chose to ignore information that would have disqualified one couple from participating in the game--a choice, in other words, between being inept and being deceptive.

Where all this leads, other than perhaps into Stillman’s pocket, is anybody’s guess. People who participate in such programs, based on history, tend to be a bit flaky. Even Been’s letter shifts from thanking Burnett profusely and calling “Survivor” a “near-perfect experience” to talking about how “cheap and used” he felt, which suggests he might have a future in entertainment after all.

Despite federal rules governing game shows dating back to the quiz-show scandal of the 1950s, few anticipate this matter is even on the radar of a hands-off Federal Communications Commission. As documented on journalist Peter Lance’s Web site, https://thestingray.net, Burnett has vacillated on whether these rules apply, recently telling the Chicago Tribune that “Survivor” was not a game show, contradicting his characterization of the show in an online chat last July.

That leaves only what impact this might have on the public, which by and large seems to accept the series as escapist entertainment--a pretty travelogue mixed with office intrigue--and little more.

From a broader perspective, however, proof “Survivor” was manipulated would doubtless provide fodder to those who already profess the media cannot be trusted. In that context, one also has to contemplate how media outlets who have cashed in on “Survivor’s” popularity would handle such revelations. Would CBS News’ “The Early Show,” or local CBS TV and radio stations, chronicle the lawsuit as breathlessly as they did those voted off the island, especially with “Survivor III” just around the corner?

If nothing else, this courtroom drama underscores yet again the need for skepticism about what television calls “reality” with so much money hanging in the balance. And while Hollywood has always loved a good yarn about a whistle-blower, it’s doubtful Stillman will be embraced as the next Erin Brockovich when the whistle she’s trying to blow is aimed at Hollywood itself.

*

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