2007-05-25 08:13:01 · 11 answers · asked by rick 2 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Television ➔ Reality Television
On the actual voting, no. There are too many people and websites watching it very closely to slip one by on all but the closest votes.
However, before the votes happen, how the show is edited, what they show, what the judges say and who gets camera time are all decisions that are made with a purpose. To that end, if the producers don't like someone, they can make them seem very bad. If they like someone, with editing they can make them glow. Just like any campaign in politics, how you are portrayed on the air can make a huge difference in how you are perceived by the voting public. And on-air persona is largely impacted by conscious decisions by video editors.
You also get the sense that the judges have favorites beyond what you see on camera. They probably have meetings that go something like this:
"John would be really hard to market and is difficult to work with."
"I agree."
"Okay. Next time around, let's blast his performance so America votes him off."
So yes, in a way, the context is fixed since no two performers are playing on a truly level playing field.
2007-05-25 08:26:06 · answer #1 · answered by USC MissingLink 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Do you REALLY think they are going to give a million dollar contract to the person that a bunch of viewers vote for?
The thing Howard Stern and his fans tried to pull, with millions of bogus votes for that Sanjaya, demonstrated that it is fixed. They actually did affect two voting cycles, but on the third one, once it became news that Stern and his fans were swinging the votes maliciously, all of a sudden he lost and got voted off.
It just doesn't make sense, unless the votes were manually "adjusted" to accomodate the maliciousness they knew was going on. That's their right, of course, but it goes to show that if they could override the public votes for a legitimate reason, they could just as easily "adjust" them at any other time too.
And it would be surprising if they didn't do that. They know who they want to win. If the people agree, great. If not, all they need to do is make the other person's lines busy and they can "bend" the votes to work the way they prefer.
Money is money. They aren't going to throw a million dollar contract to Sanjaya just so that Howard Stern and his fans can have a laugh at their expense.
2007-05-25 15:26:02 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't know that it is fixed, more than I believe it's a popularity contest. Those two shouldn't have been the ones in the finals.
2007-05-25 15:22:20 · answer #3 · answered by Big Bear 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, but I don't think they always fix it though. I think it was fixed when for exaple, Jennifer Hudson and Melinda Doolittle both went home, but by the season finally it was fixed enough so they could let who ever wins, win.
2007-05-25 15:21:44 · answer #4 · answered by ~sunflower 26~ 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think if it were fixed Melinda would have won. The night she was eliminated Simon was visibly upset for the entire show. so the judges clearly know who's going home in spite of the producers claim that they don't.
2007-05-25 16:44:16 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes, by the drone thinking of mainstream media and the ignorant sleepwalking of mindless infidels with jerky nervous systems.
2007-05-25 15:19:46 · answer #6 · answered by Broken 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes absolutely!
2007-05-25 15:20:00 · answer #7 · answered by dolphins4jcs 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I would not be surprised. It must be real hard to count 74 million votes.
2007-05-25 15:18:31 · answer #8 · answered by pattypat999 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well after Sanjaya's run I'd say its fixed
2007-05-25 15:28:28 · answer #9 · answered by Amanda S 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
of course
2007-05-25 16:30:25 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋