MovieChat Forums > Quiz Show (1994) Discussion > Why is it illegal to have a quiz show wh...

Why is it illegal to have a quiz show which gives out the answers ?


I don't understand why this whole case needed to go in front of Congress. They weren't breaking any laws. The show is strictly entertainment. That's the whole goal of any television show - entertainment. So, they should be able to do whatever they want with a show. It's not like it's on TV as a government-funded educational program.

Was it morally wrong ? Sure. But does that really mean it needs to be turned into a congressional hearing ? Does this mean we would have Congressional hearings if we find out CBS is helping the contestants of Survivor behind the scenes as well ?

reply

I couldn't agree more. It's about as stupid as an investigation to see if pro wrestling is fixed. Maybe congress had a lot of spare time back then.

reply

Well I think the only reason we (today) don't believe in entertainment-TV to be real is exactly because of cases like that portrayed in the film.

I think people were a lot more gullible back then, and because of scandals like this one that has changed...don't you think?

reply

I don't understand how your reply has to do with my question of why is this illegal.

reply

Fraud springs to mind. When money is offered as a prize and the game is fixed, be it in a Casino or on a quiz show or reality program you are conning the customers/clients/contestants. If the makers of the show made money off the subsequent fame and recognition of the contestant, which it did, then everybody who tried to win the prize was Conned exactly like in three card monty. What would be your reaction to this if it happened with your favorite sports team and you found out they had cheated to win?

reply

hmmm....ok, that's a good point Mandrake.

...but wouldn't it just be a civil suit in that case, brought up by one of the losing contestants ... ? Probably not, but I'm just thinking out loud.

reply

A civil case brought by one of the losing contestants.... Well they wouldn't be able to get the evidence of the corruption. The actual investigation was able to go behind the scenes and investigate, to try to find evidence of fraud. Even in that case it took over 3 years and they barely lucked into finding evidence in the form of note cards with the answers in the possession of a contestant on another show. With a civil case, they wouldn't have been able to investigate and find that evidence, and it would have ended up in court as "they cheated and I know because they cheated for me at first then had me take a dive" "And what evidence do you have to support that?" "...................."
"Okay, case dismissed". Even when Stempel made the initial accusations, they didn't believe him anyway.

I don't know art, but I know what I like!

reply

but then again, with the idea of fraud against the losing contestants, couldn't that just have been covered by having all the contestants sign an agreement which states something to the effect of : "The network reserves the right to hold any of your wins, or to grant a win towards one of the contestants under any circumstances etc etc ..." ?

reply

It could be a civil matter I am not really sure on that count. I am thinking that all the contestants would be able to create a joint action against the makers of the show but only the negative publicity would have any real affect. Basically what happened to the show when it was accused of cheating the makers lost their cash cow and moved onto the next project.

On the contract side if any contestant had signed a contract about 'the network reserved the right' it would only apply if the contestant cheated, if it was the network that cheated then any good lawyer would make that contract null and void.

reply

The whole thing comes down to one single word in terms of illegality: Perjury.

reply

Perjury is only an issue if they lie under oath in a court of law. So once they were in front of the Grand Jury, then yes, they perjured themselves. I think the question is why it was illegal for them to do it in the first place.

reply

[deleted]

The idea was that the game shows were rigged so the contestants knew whether they would win or lose. That wasn't fair to the audience, since it was supposed to be real TV, not a sitcom.

reply

Sure it's not fair to the audience - but it's still not illegal.

reply

It is now, largely because of this incident and similar incidents in the same time period.

reply

[deleted]

I don't understand why this whole case needed to go in front of Congress. They weren't breaking any laws.

You're right, running a rigged quiz show was not illegal at that time. Once it was revealed that quiz shows were often rigged, the general public reacted with outrage. Thus the Congressional hearings, to determine whether legislation was necessary to prevent it from happening again, and if so, what form that legislation should take.

To put it another way, the public found out what was going on, screamed "there oughta be a law against that," and Congress did exactly what it was supposed to do. Congress has to be able to gather information and inform itself in order to legislate effectively; that's why it can hold hearings, subpoena witnesses, etc.

Lying to a Congressional investigation is illegal and was back then. Several of the witnesses who tried to cover things up during their testimony ended up with perjury convictions.

reply

Right, it wasn't illegal to rig a game show at that time. If it was, then guys like Dan Enright would have ended up in jail.

Even if a game show tried to do what twenty-one did back then, I still don't think anyone would actually go to jail nowadays.

reply

You are wrong. It's illegal to rig any contest, including game shows.

reply

I agree wholeheartedly, but it seems the first person to sniff around the scandal was a prosecutor, not an investigative reporter.

So it got prosecuted, not simply blown wide open.


~~~~~~~
Please put some dashes above your sig line so I won't think it's part of your dumb post.

reply

Which makes me ask : Didn't HE have something better to do than sniff around a game show ? The guy went to Harvard and was working for a Senator. I would think he could think of something better to do than dedicate his time to something a little more significant than this.

reply

Considering how big of a deal it became, you could say he didn't have anything better to do. Given the coverage and everything that became of the scandal it definitely was the thing that made him famous. The trial was his claim to fame, regardless of how nonsensical it seems for him to pursue it now.

"Even though I'm no more than a monster - don't I, too, have the right to live? " -Oh Dae-Su

reply

Television was viewed differently back then. There was more of "the airwaves belong to the public" attitude and integrity was expected of those who used them. Perhaps it was because it was still a fairly new medium and the fact that people trusted it - that may have been the underlying motivation for the original interest. Congress did have oversight over it and until you complete your investigation you don't know what it might uncover. There very well may have been crimes committed in the furtherance of the cheating (bribery, extortion, fraud, threats, regulatory infractions, etc.) - I can't remember now but if perjury occurred before the grand jury then obviously that was a crime.

And don't forget that people did lie to Congress. Sometimes even if you can't prove a crime occurred (that is, we can't prove everyone who was in on it and to what extent) it's still important to the public interest to put on the record what people claim happened. Sometimes all you can do is lay it out and let the public decide who they think lied or was dishonest. The scandal opened the eyes of the public to the level of deception being foisted on the American people by various powerful entities. It also put a lie to a lot of people who were tarnished by it all - some to greater degrees than others.

This is one of my favorite films. Being familiar with Goodwin I thought Morrow was wonderful in the role. For me these movies about ethical dilemmas create more powerful drama than any other. Shattered Glass comes to mind as another favorite.

A poster asked for most powerful scenes. For me they were when Goodwin is playing poker with Van Doren and he tells him "I know you're lying," when Goodwin is confronted by his wife about how his feelings for Van Doren were allowing him to escape being confronted with a subpoena versus his treatment of Stempel, and when Van Doren tells his dad he cheated and his dad reminds him "your name is my name."

The picnic at the van Doren home in Connecticut is wonderfully played out showing the obvious tension and dysfunctional relationship between Charles and his father which has become invisible to family members and so clear to Goodwin witnessing it as an objective outsider.

reply

You seem to be missing at least a couple angles on the situation. As someone above explained, the losing contestants and possibly advertisers were being defrauded if they weren't in on the scheme. If you went on a game show, or to a casino or anything similar, and you found out later the game had been rigged so certain people would win and those "certain people" did not include you, I'm fairly certain that you or many people in that situation, and even many others who were not necessarily themselves defrauded, would feel cheated and demand something be done about it.

That happened in this instance. A local grand jury was initially called to investigate charges of conspiracy to defraud, and as it turned out, some witnesses called before that grand jury lied under oath. That's a perfect recipe for the original "sin" no longer being the issue, now perjury becomes the issue and the story tends to get much bigger than it would have otherwise.

It's somewhat analogous to the 1919 Black Sox scandal, wherein certain Chicago White Sox players conspired to "throw" the World Series in exchange for cash from underworld figures, who in turn stood to make a lot of money by knowing in advance who was going to win. You could say it's "only a game", but the problem is the conspiracy is a fraud perpetrated on those who lost money because, unbeknownst to them, the games were not on the "up and up". All the law needed for jurisdiction was one victim of the fraud, which they found in the form of Charles C. Nims, a man who legally bet on the White Sox to win without knowing the series was fixed. Mr. Nims represented the many thousands who lost money or were otherwise defrauded because they were unaware of the fix.

Congress got involved in the TV game show conspiracy because, as explained in the movie, they have oversight in TV and radio via their responsibilities concerning the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the regulation of interstate commerce. The federal government, with oversight by congress, has extensive regulatory authority when it comes to broadcast media, including but not limited to game shows. Certainly an ongoing conspiracy wherein people were being defrauded out of possible winnings by a rigged format of which they were not aware would fall well within their investigative purview.

reply

@MyDarkStar Didn't HE have something better to do than sniff around a game show ?
Dick Goodwin: "We're gonna put television on trial. Television. Everybody in the country will know about it."
...
Chairman: "The networks? The pharmaceutical industry? Cosmetics? That's big game, son. You don't go huntin' in your underwear."

It was so significant that the Chairman warned Goodwin to be careful.

reply

I also can't believe that Congress didn't have better things to do with their time than waste it on this nonsense. It just goes to show that Congress was just as corrupt and worthless then as it is today. This whole case is more an implication of the stupidity of the American people. Anyone who believes television, including what passes for news, is anything but entertainment is an idiot. What is really pathetic is the fact that it would probably be easier to pull this off today, with the dumbed down American sheople, than it was 60 some odd years ago. Look how many gullible people believe "reality" TV programs today are real. They don't call it "programming" for nothing.

reply

Exactly. "Reality" television is obviously 99% scripting, editing, and behind the scenes maneuvering. I think the fifties were an especially idiotic time in America. We seemed to indulge in a lot of naive fantasies then about who we were (I was not born until the seventies so I am repeating things I heard over the years from parents and other relatives who lived through the fifties -- I don't really even remember the seventies). The U.S. was full of moral righteousness as the Cold War took off in earnest, and I think that was the point Redford was trying to make with Sputnik (chronologically incorrect) placed at the beginning of this film --America thought of itself as the "morally superior" culture, so the thought that the golden-boy son of a very prominent American intellectual family could participate in such a flamboyant fleecing of the American public was shocking to the very, very, very naive average American of the fifties. The idea that television, like movies have always been, is first and foremost show business --with all that term implies-- was lost on the medium's initial audience.

Yes, now it seems disgustingly absurd that CONGRESS wasted time on fcking television game shows. I also remember the Tipper Gore nonsense in the 1980s, which was also an appalling misuse of gov. time and resources (during the AIDs crisis and a homelessness crisis among many other issues) to attack and censor rock musicians. Even John Denver testified. Get a bunch of hysterical Americans screaming at their congressmen with faux moral outrage (hysterical suburban housewives in the 1980s who never noticed that popular music, since like the days of Cole Porter in the 1920s, can have raunchy-azz lyrics) and congress will embarrass itself doing just this sort of thing.

"I love those redheads!" (Wooderson, Dazed and Confused, 1993)

reply

I agree with OP. Show Biz is Show Biz. One example that comes to mind: when the Beatles first came to NY, word got out that Ringo had lost a ring and was desperately looking for it. The teenyboppers had conniption fits and were pulling up sewer covers. Years later, an interviewer asked Cousin Brucie about it. He shrugged and said "That's how we did things". The first, unstaged 21 show bombed. It obviously needed goosing in order to succeed. The whole movie was much ado about nothing.

reply

Yeah, that's why no one went to jail.

reply