MythBusters results, question about bias

Reality TV shows such as Big Brother use scripts. Talent shows such as the X-Factor are fixed. Science shows such as Tomorrow's World fake the outcome of experiments (or they used to when the show existed). 'Live' TV is often pre-recorded. Magic shows which proclaim they don't use stooges, use stooges. How any TV show should be done and how it is actually done are very different things, sadly. It's a cynical business.

All of the above is self-evident. Reality TV is scripted. However, not all live tv is pre-recorded. The network morning shows and awards shows aren't pre-recorded. There on a seven second delay, but that's about it.
 
Because his ignore list is so big, it's a wonder he saw any of it.

Ah. Of course.

Not a wonder, though. A miracle.

Not outside the US. :) Our delay was something like a quarter of a second, or whatever it takes the signal to travel to the geostationary satellite and back to earth at the speed of light.

A quarter of a second?

You wanna do the math, before I do it? ;)
 
22,300 miles X 2 divide into 186,282.397 = about a quarter of a second
 
Last edited:
All of the above is self-evident. Reality TV is scripted. However, not all live tv is pre-recorded. The network morning shows and awards shows aren't pre-recorded. There on a seven second delay, but that's about it.

Yes, that would be evident in the qualifier 'often', implying that the pre-recording is not absolute.
 
Last edited:
Reality TV shows such as Big Brother use scripts. Talent shows such as the X-Factor are fixed. Science shows such as Tomorrow's World fake the outcome of experiments (or they used to when the show existed). 'Live' TV is often pre-recorded. Magic shows which proclaim they don't use stooges, use stooges. How any TV show should be done and how it is actually done are very different things, sadly. It's a cynical business.


That's absolutely true. And many "Reality" shows are not entirely synthetic but are based on stuff fed by the producers as well as heavy editing to make things seem different than they are. Shows like "American Chopper" are probably not 100% faked, and based mostly on reality but they edit it to make it interesting and develop characters. IE: dad might have a short temper, but if they showed it in real proportions it wouldn't be that interesting, so they splice together all the anger over the course of a month and leave out the fact that it was really only 2% of the time.


I'm not sure how it works in the UK, but in the US game shows, shows based on audience polls or any other showing that there is any clear winner or which report to be based on such things and with a winner CANNOT be fixed, under extreme penalty of law. This goes back to the 1950's when there were a bunch of fixed quiz shows. They were investigated by the FCC and later a congressional committee. The culimination included several of the producers being prosecuted for fraud and obstruction of justice. Congress passed an amendment to the television communications act which made it illegal to fix a TV gameshow.

There have been investigations by the FCC since then, but I don't believe any shows have been found to be 100% fixed, although some fines have been leveled for deceptive shows or other violations. Similarly, it is illegal in the US to broadcast a television show as "Live" when it has been prerecorded. However, real-time "tape-loop" delays are allowed, but limited in the duration they can be.

I don't know anything about "Tomorrow's world"


I think one should note that these are done for a reason: to get better ratings or to please a sponsor. What would be the gain from outright faking Mythbusters? The show does some interesting experiments, some of which don't work. They show you most of the stuff (or claim to) and it's pretty interesting. If they started really faking it I think that would be something people would start to notice when they can't be repeated or verified. That seems like it would be something fans might be turned off by.

Some of us can attest that Adam and the other members of the show are indeed interesting characters. So why exactly would they *need* to resort to trickery? I'm sure it is edited to make it more compelling. But that's a lot different than faking results.
 
22,300 miles X 2 divide into 186,282.397 = about a quarter of a second

Pssst....

A geostationary satellite remains in the same position above a point on the Earth's surface. Hence, it doesn't matter if such a satellite is above the US or not.
 
That's absolutely true. And many "Reality" shows are not entirely synthetic but are based on stuff fed by the producers as well as heavy editing to make things seem different than they are. Shows like "American Chopper" are probably not 100% faked, and based mostly on reality but they edit it to make it interesting and develop characters. IE: dad might have a short temper, but if they showed it in real proportions it wouldn't be that interesting, so they splice together all the anger over the course of a month and leave out the fact that it was really only 2% of the time.


I'm not sure how it works in the UK, but in the US game shows, shows based on audience polls or any other showing that there is any clear winner or which report to be based on such things and with a winner CANNOT be fixed, under extreme penalty of law. This goes back to the 1950's when there were a bunch of fixed quiz shows. They were investigated by the FCC and later a congressional committee. The culimination included several of the producers being prosecuted for fraud and obstruction of justice. Congress passed an amendment to the television communications act which made it illegal to fix a TV gameshow.

There have been investigations by the FCC since then, but I don't believe any shows have been found to be 100% fixed, although some fines have been leveled for deceptive shows or other violations. Similarly, it is illegal in the US to broadcast a television show as "Live" when it has been prerecorded. However, real-time "tape-loop" delays are allowed, but limited in the duration they can be.

I don't know anything about "Tomorrow's world"


I think one should note that these are done for a reason: to get better ratings or to please a sponsor. What would be the gain from outright faking Mythbusters? The show does some interesting experiments, some of which don't work. They show you most of the stuff (or claim to) and it's pretty interesting. If they started really faking it I think that would be something people would start to notice when they can't be repeated or verified. That seems like it would be something fans might be turned off by.

Some of us can attest that Adam and the other members of the show are indeed interesting characters. So why exactly would they *need* to resort to trickery? I'm sure it is edited to make it more compelling. But that's a lot different than faking results.

I don't think anyone is claiming Mythbusters is faked, but if they don't resort to some fakery/shortcuts (to save money and time) then they're probably the only TV show in the world which doesn't.

The UK is going through a TV crisis at present, much to the satisfaction of whistle-blowers like myself. A lot of fixing and faking has been brought to the attention of the press, but it's interesting because the public get all outraged without knowing the complete picture. It's as simple as this: without the shortcuts, most of their favourite shows simply wouldn't get made. Insurance, health and safety, time and cost constraints, unpredictable members of the public, etc mean that the most entertaining things are also the ones impossible to do for real. It's somewhat of a house of cards, if people demand no fakery, they are going to find that certain shows (particularly science and property shows) simply won't get made any more. It's also problematic because some shows (BBC) are funded by TV license funds, paid for directly by the public. However, the BBC is now funding three channels with the same budget it previously had for one. It's not difficult to see how cost becomes far more important than integrity, particularly because of the way shows are made now. Small production companies make the show, not the channel itself. And small production companies often only care about profit, by any means necessary.
 
Last edited:
The UK is going through a TV crisis at present, much to the satisfaction of whistle-blowers like myself. A lot of fixing and faking has been brought to the attention of the press, but it's interesting because the public get all outraged without knowing the complete picture. It's as simple as this: without the shortcuts, most of their favourite shows simply wouldn't get made.

Ok, but the TARDIS really does travel in time and space, right? Don't break my heart.
 
A quarter of a second?

You wanna do the math, before I do it? ;)

Yes, please do the math for me.


Oops, robinson already did it.


Seriously, I was only talking off the top of my head when mentioning that quarter of a second. To be fair, you might want to add a little more to that, since some funny machines like "time base correctors" et al will add a little more to that delay, but not up to seven seconds. I assume (i.e. I am not sure) that the seven second delay mentioned before might be due to some weird regulations in the US, so that they can BLEEP mean words. Word which will be replaced by **** on this forum, as well.
 
I don't think anyone is claiming Mythbusters is faked, but if they don't resort to some fakery/shortcuts (to save money and time) then they're probably the only TV show in the world which doesn't.

There's a difference between fakery and shortcuts. I'm sure that there are occasional shortcuts or parts which may be staged for a refilming because the original event didn't give them a good shot, or parts which are edited out or whatever. That is all a given. There are plenty of documentaries or news shows where a big part can end up on the cutting room floor.

None of that is really "fakery"

The UK is going through a TV crisis at present, much to the satisfaction of whistle-blowers like myself. A lot of fixing and faking has been brought to the attention of the press, but it's interesting because the public get all outraged without knowing the complete picture. It's as simple as this: without the shortcuts, most of their favourite shows simply wouldn't get made. Insurance, health and safety, time and cost constraints, unpredictable members of the public, etc mean that the most entertaining things are also the ones impossible to do for real. It's somewhat of a house of cards, if people demand no fakery, they are going to find that certain shows (particularly science and property shows) simply won't get made any more. It's also problematic because some shows (BBC) are funded by TV license funds, paid for directly by the public. However, the BBC is now funding three channels with the same budget it previously had for one. It's not difficult to see how cost becomes far more important than integrity, particularly because of the way shows are made now. Small production companies make the show, not the channel itself. And small production companies often only care about profit, by any means necessary.

Right, well there is obviously some difference between the shows as far as the type. Sitcoms and such are obviously fiction so anything goes. On "reality" tv like Big Brother or the Osbournes that's really just a semi-realish sitcom. There's no attempt at factual evidence.

But gameshows or where the audience is asked to call in and the winner is chosen by this method are, at least in the US, audited by the FCC from time to time and it's considered fraud to fix those outright.

AS far as science shows: I guess it depends on what the context is. If they want to demonstrate something like "This is what happends when a tank of hydrogen explodes" that's more a visual aid. But if they want to go and say "We hired some explosives experts for this show and had them conduct an experiment on this tank of hydrogen to demonstrate..." Then they're implying that there is some reality to the experiment and that goes much further.
 
Time base correctors (TBCs) sync up various sources, they don't delay the signal, at least not in any way you could tell.
 
I don't think anyone is claiming Mythbusters is faked, but if they don't resort to some fakery/shortcuts (to save money and time) then they're probably the only TV show in the world which doesn't.

Well specifically the claim originated in that it is what I said what you said meant.

Now what would fakery mean on mythbusters? I don't think anyone questions that many of the scenes are staged when they are talking to the camera, and likely some of the working scenes. It is the testing scenes that faking becomes meaningful.
 
Well specifically the claim originated in that it is what I said what you said meant.

Well, generally I'm the one who decides what I mean.

Now what would fakery mean on mythbusters? I don't think anyone questions that many of the scenes are staged when they are talking to the camera, and likely some of the working scenes. It is the testing scenes that faking becomes meaningful.

Generally, production companies make little or no distinction between 'meaningful' fakery and any other sort. In the case of Mythbusters, I guess we'll simply never know.
 
Anyone happen to catch the Mythbusters 2 hour "supersize" special? All myths were confirmed, except 1 Plausible and 1 undetermined (the rockets blew up). So much for the ratio theory.
 
If you have read or know anything about rocket guidance then the whole idea seems utterly silly. Sure the Shuttle lifts of on two gun powder rockets (sorta :) ) but it has other engines that do the guidance. A chair with umpteen gun powder rockets strapped on would have flown straight for about 2 seconds or so and then tumbled hopelessly out of control. See the old videos from the 50's/60's of rocket launches that went wrong and you'll know what i am talking about.

[nitpick] The Shuttle SRB's also are capable of steering the vehicle. The nozzles of each are gimbaled, using a system called the TVC (Thrust Vector Control). The Shuttle Main Engines also have the capability to throttle up and down a considerable amount, or shut down completely on command, whereas the SRB's once lit are going until expended. But all five main engines can be steered.[/nitpick]

What was missing from the black powder lawnchair rocket was (a) fins and (b) a guidance rail to keep it pointed straight until aerodynamic stability could take over. Could be done. Almost certainly wasn't in the past.
 

Back
Top Bottom