The Case for ‘Survivor’ and Against Media’s Gatekeepers

Regarding Brian Lowry’s June 13 column, “Why Are We Awash in the Soapy Seas of ‘Survivor’?”:

I’m not sure what bothers me more--the long-term implications of the success of a goofy show like “Survivor,” or the lofty tone of a columnist who first proclaims his media brethren the “gatekeepers of what’s deemed important and worth knowing about,” and then tells viewers that if we happen to tune into--or, God forbid, enjoy--”Survivor,” we “deserve” the “video landfill” that network television must therefore be destined to become. The fact that his statements are presented in the context of a criticism of the media’s participation in the “Survivor” hype machine does little to mitigate his scolding tone.

First of all, is “Survivor” really that ominous or offensive? I’m a network television drama writer with 10 years in the business, and I know that the success of this new generation of “reality” shows threatens my employability and that of my colleagues, but I also know that this business is cyclical. There always will be a healthy demand for quality programming of all kinds.

I would argue that when you include all the new outlets getting into the series game, TV has never been better. And though it may be sacrilege to say so, I’m not sure that the content of “Survivor” is so much more contrived, manipulative, cynical or dishonest than that of our worst scripted television series or “news” hours. I myself have imposed some pretty insipid entertainment on the viewing public in weaker moments.

Network TV derives its power from the fact that people have always liked to share and find meaning in the folklore of their times--whatever form it takes. A medium that can easily draw 20 million viewers makes it likelier to find someone around the water cooler who experienced what you did the night before. Is it really so much worse that people discuss whether B.B. could have led his team better in their construction of island shelter than the revelation that Kramer’s first name is Cosmo?

Lowry seems to suggest that that isn’t for the viewer to decide. I guess I’m glad the media sometimes aren’t as good at gatekeeping as he would like them to be.

P.K. SIMONDS

Los Angeles

Lowry’s elitist attitude about “Survivor” (he said it first) just amazes me. Categorizing the series as junk food is about as wrong as you can get. “Survivor” combines a remarkable concept and compelling footage to make a fascinating semi-documentary.

The junk food in network TV is the local news, the endless mindless sitcoms and the awful TV movies of the week.

I think CBS finally put something on TV worth watching.

VAUGHN OBERN

Los Angeles

Lured by all the hype surrounding “Survivor,” I tuned in to the first episode and within 30 minutes was repulsed by what I saw. In an age when the public is in need of strong, positive role models, CBS has given us a group of greedy individuals who would set their grandmothers adrift on an iceberg if it increased their chances of winning $1 million.

The first person to be summarily voted off the island was a woman who beat cancer but couldn’t keep up during a ridiculous relay race. In my mind, she was the only true survivor in the whole sorry bunch. This show is about as entertaining as watching marathon dancers desperately competing for money during the Great Depression.

CINDY MEDIAVILLA

Culver City

To me, “Survivor” is a combination, on a less-challenging scale, of the Discovery Channel’s “EcoChallenge” and a sociological experiment. I find it interesting to see with what ingenuity (or lack thereof) the inhabitants cope with life on the island and how they adapt to and cooperate with each other--or don’t. I eagerly look forward to each new episode.

CINDY ROSENTHAL

Los Angeles