SHARE YOUR IDEA. Give us your best pitch - the one that came to you on the way to work or in the shower or even in a dream (we'll interpret!).

TELL A FRIEND. The more folks we hear from, the better. Get your friends involved in the quest.

We need to hear from you by March 15. That's when the campaign ends and we tally and deliver the results to Hollywood! Questions or comments?

Want to learn more? Read on to see where we're coming from.



A Different Kind of "Survivor"?

Are the contestants on “Survivor” nothing more than modern-day gladiators? Are they only as good as the figurative carnage that ensues, the damage they inflict? Is the apocalypse upon us?

Of course not, but it does seem like “Survivor” and other reality TV shows like it represent society as something not exactly overloaded with redeeming qualities. Seattle Post-Intelligencer columnist John Levesque recently suggested that the underlying point of the “Survivor” series and its high-profile, prime-time, episodic laboratory was as an “ongoing study in human frailty.” Could that really be what the show's about? The fact that people eventually collapse -- either physically or emotionally -- when the going gets tough? Is that the undeniable proof of our humanity, our penchant for failure? We fail in our relationships, we fail in business, we fail in school, we fail in all aspects of our lives. Why not emphasize it on TV as reality? That's what we're about, right?

Wrong. Could it be that we keep coming back for more “Survivor” at least as much for the successes of the interpersonal relationships as for the collapses? Are we really waiting around for the oddly goofball end-of-show tribal council ritual where the contestants gather in a ring of fire to determine who gets excluded from the next round of action? A recent letter to the editors of Newsweek magazine likened that ritual to typical, primitive scenarios in the “high-school cafeteria” most of us would rather forget.

Isn't it more about the documentary-style action of the rest of the show where we get to watch people work together, to interact, to negotiate conflict? Isn't it the examples of teamwork where members of each tribe have to pull together to achieve a common goal?

What if each team had to complete a whole string of community tasks in order to achieve a common goal? What if the entire team couldn't move on to the next round unless they were able to remain unified and cohesive as a group? What if the group had to keep moving forward toward something? A trek? A sail? A climb? Aren't we fascinated by the way that diverse people with varying degrees of experience figure out how to join forces to make a fire or a shelter? What if that were the whole point of the show? People with widely disparate skill sets trying to remain unified in charting a course through reef-ridden waters? Now that's TV!

The point of all of this is the idea of community. Don't we want “Survivor” and its spawn to teach us something? Isn't there something to learn from watching groups of people try to figure out how to combine their strengths to reach a goal?

Consider this scenario. You take two teams made up of people of diverse backgrounds. The two teams are charged with a series of more minor goals on the way to one major achievement. An individual team can't move forward it has successfully completed the prior level. Each of the minor tasks is structured so that it can't be accomplished unless every member of the team has contributed. The intrigue is the similar; the relationships and conflicts are the same – with just one fundamental difference, the integrity of a community intact is a critical measure of success.

Seems this is more what life, what REALITY is all about. We find our greatest challenges in life in the holding together of communities of people. We work hard to keep families together. We strive to make our personal relationships evolve with time. We struggle to keep companies afloat (economic trends be damned!). We work hard to build political coalitions across ideologies (despite whatever happens to be the climate du jour in Washington). We strategize about building sports teams that take the best characteristics of individuals and try to harness and combine them for the good of the team (no single quarterback ever won the Superbowl). The point of everything is community. Why is that not the intrinsic point of “Survivor”?

Most of us agree -- the show (and even others like it) is profoundly compelling. People are incredibly fascinating to watch. We are a society obsessed with celebrity, motivated by the quest for fame. The people on “Survivor” are everyday folks living normal, everyday lives. For a brief moment, they become stars, and we love to watch because they look so much like us. The problem is, they are asked to do something that only the most Machiavellian among us would support –- to function in their own self-interest at the expense of the common good. They are asked to deceive each other, to out-manipulate each other in order to be the only one left standing. On the original “Survivor,” Richard Hatch was a master of the game, the one that few in the beginning believed would last a few days. But he worked the system and was able to turn everyone else against each other so that he ultimately prevailed.

Could a Richard Hatch “survive” in the real world taking that tack? Unfortunately, probably so. But is this most people's reality? The truth is, we're only as good as the people around us. Nobody in any position of leadership could accomplish truly significant goals without the support of a community. That's the very nature of a social movement. It's what teamwork is all about. It's how families, companies, and organizations thrive. Isn't there room on prime-time TV for shows that focus on what communities of people can accomplish together?

Levesque's column quoted “Survivor” creator Mark Burnett as saying: “It's a great lesson about humans that even when we think we've got a great strategy and a great plan, we continually mess up.” True, we are deeply flawed people. But do we always fail? Perhaps once, twice, even a few times. But in addition to our flaws, we also can display amazing ingenuity when challenged. We can exhibit deep commitment to other people when success depends upon it. What if the next reality TV show pitted real people with real issues and internal conflicts not against each other but against the challenge to unify for the good of the larger human community.

Now that would be one hell of a TV show.




WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU.
Do you agree or are we out of our minds?
CAST YOUR VOTE.

For John Levesque's perspective on reality TV, check out his columns on the Seattle Post-Intelligencer's Web site.