Earlier in the week, one of the contestants was an Episcopalian priest. Ken Jennings had to bring that up an uncomfortable number of times, IMO. It was weird like Ken was going overboard praising religion. Maybe he felt being religious himself, they had that in common. It was probably my imagination since I cringe when people kiss religious rear for no reason. I do think they have categories about religion a little more often than other important subjects.
I know we have discussed this several times and I am wrong to think it, but I still think there are Mormons contributing to question selection. You'd think Mormonism was more important than Quakers or Scientology judging from frequency.
Be like politicians. Answer a question they didn't ask. Simply talk about what you want instead to deflect avoiding the question asked. It doesn't even need to be factual. Just remember to put it in question form.
"Be like politicians. Answer a question they didn't ask."
Wasn't there a Mormon apostle in the recent past who advocated answering the question they should have asked, not the one actually asked? I think his last name was Packer, and it seems to me that the politicians engaging in that behavior are following his lead...
That's what I need. I don't use streaming TV in my kitchen. I have an older one I turn on for the news and noise while I putter and feed the pets. I listen to podcasts a lot in my kitchen too. I don't cook like I used to.
dagny Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I know we have discussed this several times and I > am wrong to think it, but I still think there are > Mormons contributing to question selection. You'd > think Mormonism was more important than Quakers or > Scientology judging from frequency.
I think the same, dagny.
I didn't want to criticize or question, again, the frequency of the Mormon clues so I was asking myself tonight whether I'm just biased to think that. But the last time there was a Mormon clue, not that long ago, I stopped to think about all the religious groups in the world that are never mentioned on Jeopardy while Mormonism is a clue or a response several times a year, at least. And it does seem like the frequency has increased since Ken Jennings has been around. I guess it might not bug other viewers like it may do exmos and maybe the Jeopardy clue crew doesn't notice details like this?
There was another semi-Mormon-related clue tonight as well as the SLC answer. One of the other answers, in the same category, was "the Donner party".
Re the Episcopalian priest, I read tonight that it was the Jeopardy staff who asked him to wear his priest clothes on one of the shows. I think they're succumbing to the pull or need of doing what appeals aside from a serious show and may be trying to cater to a younger audience via social media moments and zappy things etc. With Alex it was just about the knowledge. Different audiences. Hopefully they can straddle the middle.
Too bad the priest made relatively small wagers on Final Jeopardy. He could have made more money, especially as a couple of times he was far ahead of the other contestants but still wagered small. I guess he was trying to play it safe. Bird in the hand 'n all that.
Thanks, Nighty. I couldn't figure out why the priest wore his collar thingy only one day, and why Ken had to make a big deal about it. He wears it when told or inconsistently? OK.
There were a couple times when the priest made $0 or low wagers. Ken made passing comments implying something along the lines that gambling might not be something his beliefs favor.
The guy was smart with a great education, but honestly I felt like him choosing religion as a career was sort of a cop out for his background. (Obviously you and many others will disagree with me on that topic.)
Like you said, there have been a few other questions about Mormonism recently that we have not mentioned here. I also caught the Donnor party one. I would like to know who selected and screens the staff and questions. I suspect Ken has considerable influence. Overall, I think he does a good job. I do like him better than Mayim Bialik.
One thing to keep in mind (and I know this because media is my background) is that Jeopardy, like other game shows, is pretaped., and when the tapings occur, the producers will shoot several episodes in one day. In other words, the times when the Episcopalian priest was on with his priestly garb and the times he wasn't were most likely shot during the same 24-hour period.
The pretaping allows both the host and crew to take vacations, and it allows the contestants to "play" on days where they are supposedly (actually) at work.
Yes, I suspected that is true because I observed it one time when I had tickets to be in the audience for Hollywood Squares (when I lived in So Cal.). There were 2 or 3 shows made in succession.
It makes the collar change thing seem even weirder.
You must have learned interesting things being in media. Very cool.
My mom and I watched a TV game show taping when I was a child. I want to say it was, "The Match Game." We watched at least two shows tape that day, and as a child, I was amused that the cast members changed their clothes between tapings. I remember that they reminded everyone about what day it would be aired as well.
I recently read that they apparently tape 5 shows in a day. So a contestant would know PDQ that they are a 5-day champ - or not.
So the players must take at least 5 changes of clothes with them as I don't think I've ever noticed someone wearing the same things in more than one game (not that I notice clothes much).
I guess the priest had his clergy outfit with him but apparently he only wore it for the 4th episode, at the request of the staff.
So maybe that's a little weird on their part, but not his?
I can't begin to guess their reason for that. He said he only wore his collar et al because they asked him to.
It was a funny coincidence that they had a religion category when he was on. I noted that he wasn't always able to ring in first to get the chance to answer all five of those questions. He did get lucky a few times though as there seemed to be a lot of clues that were in his ballpark - kind of religion-related history etc.
I don't know if there's been a rule change but I thought you couldn't be in the Tournament of Champions unless you had won 5 games but lately Ken has been saying they might be on again, even if they've only won 4. I think the selection may go by total earnings, if they don't have enough 5-day champs to fill up the roster for the tournaments. So I guess this guy may well be back. I think some of the other champs will really challenge him.
The Jeopardy! universe is expanding, I've read, with celebrity tournies and former champs coming back. Like Holzhauer needs to win more money!!
And yes, I'm getting used to Ken now. I was disappointed he was chosen to replace Alex T. I was initially hoping for the football player, only to have somebody good to look at (superficial, I know!) but they went with the safe choice and OK so I have to admit Ken's fitting in well there. He's certainly knowledgeable enough to host such a show. So he has creds. That counts. I may have winced as much as I did purely due to the Mormon connection because yuck. But he seems capable and pleasant and yes, obviously he knows stuff and enjoys the game.
Why though, I wonder, did the show choose the 2 hosts whose names were at the bottom of my list of choices. I know my analysis was superficial and theirs professional. Looks like they were correct. At least, with Ken.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/04/2022 05:56PM by Nightingale.
dagny Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The guy was smart with a great education, but > honestly I felt like him choosing religion as a > career was sort of a cop out for his background. > (Obviously you and many others will disagree with > me on that topic.)
I didn't notice what his background was. Out of interest, why do you say his choice to become a priest is a cop out?
I don't necessarily or automatically disagree with your opinion on it.
It is sweet, I thought, and loving, that he plans to put his winnings away for his child's future education costs.
I don't remember now exactly what he said his education included, but he kind of implied in his introduction that after all that, he decided to be a priest. I was thinking something more like a professor or inventor or something technical when he first started talking. I'm not one (as you would guess) to but a high value on priestly roles but it takes all kinds.
Nightingale Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > One of the other > answers, in the same category, was "the Donner > party".
The clue for that one would be "an innocent group of west-bound pioneers who were slaughtered by Mormons."
Gordon B. Stinky Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nightingale Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > One of the other > > answers, in the same category, was "the Donner > > party". > > > The clue for that one would be "an innocent group > of west-bound pioneers who were slaughtered by > Mormons."
The correct question for your answer would be "Who were the Fancher party." The Donner party were the ones who were crossing the Sierra Nevada mountains and got stuck in a blizzard and resorted to cannibalism to survive.
Yeah, I got mixed up that way too. I had to look it up to check the facts. There was cannabalism in that most unfortunate trek. I forget already what part the Mormons played - were they some of the rescuers? Or maybe I could just look it up again...
Maybe they should stick to Wheel of Fortune where they can buy a vowel and the host is more in line with extreme views.
Besides, what could be more like Mormonism than Vanna posing there waiting for the dumb letters to light up so she can pretend she's doing something to help?
dagny Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Besides, what could be more like Mormonism than > Vanna posing there waiting for the dumb letters to > light up so she can pretend she's doing something > to help?
Yeah, it's not very 21st century is it?
I was thinking that same thought when her job was recently reduced to just pointing, not even having to touch the letters any more, due to laser beams or something??
I don't really enjoy that show anyway. I only have it on because my mum watched it as well as Jeopardy and so now I watch for her - or something - I know that sounds silly. But we did enjoy watching Jeopardy together, so much that we kept score for all the answers we would yell out before the players did. I don't know why I bothered with score-keeping as Mum always got the highest score. Every time.
So it's a habit for me. I don't keep score against myself any more. All I usually learn each show is how much information I *don't* know about this world of ours. I especially don't know current music or movie categories. I keep hoping they'll include more of the Galapagos-type categories that Alex used to do. I enjoyed those. And could understand them, lol.
One of the categories was to identify a Senator from the clue. Out of all the Senators we've had, one had to be Romney with the clue "Graduated cum sum laude from Brigham Young." I can think of better clues for Mitt, but no surprise they picked a Mormon one.
In the introduction, one of the contestants said he was born very prematurely and got a certificate when he joined the 1 kilo club. Ken wanted to know if they still met and maybe they have lots of refreshments. That seems kinda Mormonish given my background. He wasn't wondering if they party or serve booze, but refreshments! Do other people hope for punch and cookies at everything? Maybe so.
I don't think others would pick up on tiny things that I associate with Mormon centric backgrounds, or agree with me, but there you go.
Yeah, two nights in a row, dagny. There *are* other religions in the world. To be generous, maybe they're intrigued because it's an "American" faith? It's hard to imagine they're actually trying to push Mormonism or that they're catering to a host's faith.
But what's beyond egregious, way over and above the Mormon thing, is tonight's clue about "Scotch women". **Screech**
Scotch is for whisky, tape, trees, glue, pie and soup.
But not for ancestry. And never ever ever for women from Scotland!! They would be "Scottish women".
What on earth is the Jeopardy crew thinking? :)
Maybe they need an international checker for things like this but I guess this type of error doesn't happen often enough to make it worthwhile for them. Although they try to be inclusive and sensitive.
But the show's entire premise is knowledge. The Scotch thing is a clanger.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/05/2022 11:15PM by Nightingale.
I didn't see the Scotch question. I stepped away a few times.
That does seem uninformed. Who says that!? Were they trying to save space to fit in the word on the board?
You can bet they won't make the mistake of saying Mormon for the church though. For being a "global" church with all those international missions, they don't seem to have a "clue" about some things!
It's one thing to memorize scads of encyclopedia style trivia. It's quite another to understand it.
I know I am unreasonably biased and innocent things they do fuel my confirmation bias. Maybe I pick up on Mormon dog whistles too easily. Thanks for understanding.
dagny Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's one thing to memorize scads of encyclopedia > style trivia. It's quite another to understand it.
Very true.
> I know I am unreasonably biased and innocent > things they do fuel my confirmation bias. Maybe I > pick up on Mormon dog whistles too easily. Thanks > for understanding.
Not unreasonable, in the circumstances, dagny. The circumstances being any amount of exposure to Mormonism.
I hadn't noticed, or remembered, that they don't use the word 'Mormon' on the show. I'm going to pay attention to that from now on. Because what nevermo would ever know to avoid the M word and go for "Latter-day Saint" instead? Maybe they have to be careful not to post a clue that would elicit the M response. Isn't there a Mormon Trail or similar? Would you have to change it to the Latter-day Path or something now since the updated revelation about their new name?
I would be surprised to learn that it's actually a choice of the program to feature Mormonism and then to also dance around the church's sensitivities. But I do often make the mistake of thinking that people are reasonable, not to mention honest. Because yeah, not always, on either count.
I would feel ticked off too, dagny, if this show, or any, whitewashes the church. Obviously, as a TV entertainment show in search of a wide audience they're not going to badmouth it (because that's not part of their style anyway, about anything) but don't try to sugarcoat and mainstream it either. Maybe I'm still too trusting but I don't think KJ would put his hand on the scale like that. I could well be wrong though. It's been known to happen. :/
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/06/2022 06:46PM by Nightingale.
I've said it before, but a TV program would not focus on a social and historical footnote without reason. My guess is that they constantly do market research and realize that a large chunk of their audience is Mormon.
OK, so it took me a minute to figure out what the social and historical footnote is. At first I thought you meant Mormonism itself. Now I'm thinking you're referring to the Fancher Party or the Donner Party?
Did I get the gist? Sorry if not.
(Or is it we, the audience - we're the footnote? LOL)
I've never thought about the make-up of the audience before. Why so many Mormons (if true)? Because it's a family-type show, unlike much else that's on?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/06/2022 07:18PM by Nightingale.
I meant the Mormon church. Mormonism is a footnote to all but a few million people, including us. One day it will be like the Strangites, a tiny sect that even most Mormons have never heard of. Which begs the question why the network would invest in it unless Mormons are a very important audience.
Why would TBMs prefer it to other shows? I don't know. A guess would be that it's entertaining and safe. It provides a modicum of intellectual stimulus but, as Dagny intimates, does not require an overarching understanding of topics that would challenge Mormonism and Mormon thought patterns.
The church requires people to exist in boxes. They are to be kind and understanding (to those whom the church declares inside the box) and to study diligently (those subjects that are within the box). Jeopardy is safe, isn't it? A bit of a thrill but nothing that requires that one venture out of the container? And it is so short that it can provide a moment of thrill in an otherwise structured life every single predictable day?
Lot's Wife Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I meant the Mormon church.
Oh, so my first impression about your comment was correct.
I've never thought of it that way. But, yes, a blip of history.
Or, as GBH would have it: A little fleck.
----
So that thought caused me to look up GBH's 1996 Mike Wallace interview (that I only heard about due to RfM). It clangs even worse now, if possible:
Interview segment, verbatim:
Mike Wallace: From 1830 to 1978, blacks could not become priests in the Mormon church. Right?
Gordon B. Hinckley: That's correct.
Mike Wallace: Why?
Gordon B. Hinckley: Because the leaders of the church at that time interpreted that doctrine that way.
Mike Wallace: Church policy had it that Blacks had the mark of Cain. Brigham Young said, "Cain slew his brother, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin."
Gordon B. Hinckley: It's behind us. Look, that's behind us. Don't worry about those little flecks of history.
Mike Wallace: Skeptics will suggest, "Well, look, if we're going to expand, we can't keep the blacks out."
Gordon B. Hinckley: Pure speculation. [Laughs.]
-----
Yeah, funny - not funny.
This is a useful explanation for the church all right:
Question: WHY?
GBH: "...the leaders of the church at that time interpreted that doctrine that way."
So, does that mean they were wrong? Because the interpretation had to be changed? Was it wrong then but right now?
And what about all the other questionable doctrines and interpretations within Mormonism? Are they also in line to be reviewed and revised?
Where does that leave the concepts of inspiration, prophecies and scripture?
When a few years later King asked him about the possibility that people could become gods, he said "I don't know that we teach that. I don't know that we emphasize it."
Then a few weeks later he said in a major Mormon event, very possibly conference, that we should rest assured that he knows LDS doctrine.
Lot's Wife Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I assure you, NG, that I am a Scotch woman.
LOL
I'm partial to a drop myself now and again.
I swear a couple of glasses in a hotel in Scotland saved my life one time when I had picked up an exceedingly nasty bug on a train trip. Of course, if I hadn't been travelling to Scotland on that train I wouldn't have succumbed to the illness in the first place. That was a trial but the Rx a joy. I'm still positive the bartender's suggested remedy saved me.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/06/2022 06:35PM by Nightingale.
Nighty! There was another clue semi-related tonight.
The clue was "The ritual performed here" and the answer was "laying on of hands." I missed seeing the image they displayed and don't remember now if anyone knew the answer (I'm not curious enough to watch it again). This is not exclusively a Mormon ritual but still.
I think Lot's Wife is right. They must know who their audience is and maybe want to cater to them. Watching from SE Idaho as I am, I'm maybe contributing to this! I don't think Alex would be thrilled but who knows.