This article in The Washington Post is about how game shows are getting dumber; how shows like Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? come from the viewpoint that the viewers are low in I.Q. points and therefore enjoy watching idiot contestants. Here's one section of the piece…
Some of the program's questions are difficult, but it's unusual to get more than two real tough ones in a row. Among the questions in the debut episode: Name the ship the Pilgrims sailed on from Plymouth, England, to the Plymouth colony in America in 1620. Name the closest star to the Earth. What country has the longest shared border with the United States? What is the suffix in the word "undoubtedly"? TV executives call those kinds of questions "relate-able," by which they mean "unlikely to challenge viewers too much and thus make them feel bad about themselves."
More than a few viewers apparently appreciate the approach. Are You Smarter's elevation of familiar, simple facts to brain-twisting stumpers has proved to be monstrously popular, attracting a larger audience than any new show in the Fox network's history, some 26.5 million (although it admittedly was helped by following the even more popular American Idol). The quiz show's second episode drew 23.4 million.
My view? I think the whole premise of the article is wrong on two fronts. First off, there have always been game shows that required no intelligence or knowledge to get to the big prizes. Anyone ever see Beat the Clock, which was one of the most successful of the genre? How about Let's Make a Deal? To win on Newlywed Game, you only had to be on roughly the same mental wavelength as your spouse. To win on Match Game, you only had to fill in the blank with a word like "boobs" or "buns." Those were all pretty popular shows and on most, you could have the brains of a refrigerator and still win a refrigerator.
So this is not a new trend at all. Secondly, the point of Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? seems to have eluded the author of the article so I'll explain it: The point of the show is to laugh at the stupid people. It comes from the same place as those jerk-on-the-street interviews that Jay Leno does where we're supposed to howl with laughter that some people think Ben Franklin was our first president. With some of the other shows, it's just mindless or near-mindless fun, which is not always a bad thing.
I'm surprised the reporter came to his conclusions. He interviewed two of the most knowledgeable people I know on the subject of game shows, Fred Wostbrock and Steve Beverly. On the other hand, I've seen very few articles lately in The Washington Post that I thought knew what they were talking about. What has happened to that paper? I think they're the ones trying to cater to stupid people.