A New Show Gives Struggling Families $101,000-But There's a Sick Twist

[DesertRat]

CBS has a new show that attempts to turn the hardships of American families into “entertainment”. IMO, CBS should pull the show “The Briefcase”, apologize and make a significant donation to non-profits assisting those most in need.

A new contender has emerged in network television's race to the bottom, and it's not on TLC.

On Wednesday, CBS aired the first episode of their new series The Briefcase. The show follows struggling American families who are suddenly given $101,000 and a choice: They can either keep the money or give some or all of it to another needy family.

In a promotional trailer released by the network, a montage of families each explain their personal hardships before shrieking in delight when presented with the cash, only to recoil at the Faustian decision CBS executives have cooked up for them. As Rawstory points out, the entire plot appears inspired by the 1986 Twilight Zone episode "Button Button."

To further increase the awkward tension, families are given information about the other needy strangers they could be helping and are forced to consider whose lives are more worthy of assistance.

http://mic.com/articles/119760/new-cbs-show-pits-struggling-families-in-competition-for-101-000

[Vinca]

1. We need to coin a new word: poorsploitation.

[yeoman6987]

7. I didn't watch it but one of my neighbors did

And she said it is a good show. Both families decided to give the money to the other so both took home 101 thousand. Sounds like two nice families to me. It shows the positives of the American families.

[Vinca]

16. But families in need should not be put in that position. It's not a game.

[yeoman6987]

18. That is a very good point. I didn't think about that.

But you are incredible.

[Vinca]

43. Incredible?????

I'm not sure if you're calling me a liar or an amazing person.

[yeoman6987]

46. Amazing person. I thought it was cool that you put it that way.

You made me think which makes you incredible in my book.

[Vinca]

49. Why thank you. I appreciate that.

[DesertRat]

26. That definitely fits this show

[Warpy]

41. Good one, I'm stealing it

It's always been with us, we old fossils remember "Queen for a Day" back in the 1950s, usually a pious woman whose husband had died or had gotten sick or injured and there she was with six kids (minimum) and no jobs except waitressing or being a maid.

The first people who say "I'll take the first people on the list, they all need it as much as I do" will knock the show off the air because no angst or judgmental thinking.

[whatthehey]

2. It's questionable in taste, likely sensationalized, but still beneficial in the end

If the family decides to, say, split the gains equally, you now have two families 50k each better off than they were. Surely the same ethical dilemma affects everyone not super-rich with a sudden windfall, just sans cameras and oleaginous commentary. I'm not poor enough to qualify, but if I were I'd gladly give up a decent share of 100k I never had in return for keeping the remainder.

[JI7]

3. and top execs will makes millions off of it

[yeoman6987]

8. Considering they take all the risks, they should be able to make some money off it

They could also lose millions if the show bombs.

[Blue_Tires]

40. Execs don't 'lose' millions

Even if a CBS entertainment exec gets fired, that person collects a FAT severance package and then walks down the street to ABC/NBC/FOX, resume in hand...

[yeoman6987]

47. Good point! You are right.

[Starry Messenger]

14. That was a BS hide.

I stand with you.

[raccoon]

4. Reminds me of "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?" If you haven't seen it, watch it.

Reminds me a lot of some of the reality shows nowadays.

[RockaFowler]

20. That was the movie I was thinking of

This and all of these "get rich at whatever cost" shows are just like that movie

[DesertRat]

27. I'd forgotten all about that movie

Yes, I saw it years ago and I do see the comparison. thanks for the reminder.

[Glassunion]

5. Some say the end is near. Some say we'll see Armageddon soon. I certainly hope we will.

I sure could use a vacation from this bullshit three ring circus sideshow of freaks.

One great big festering neon distraction...

Fuck the very notion of this program. Fuck the asshats that thought it up. Fuck the freaks that watch this show. Fuck CBS for airing it.

[prayin4rain]

55. Amen! n/t

[packman]

6. Here's an idea for a reality show

need a major rework of society, but one can dream---

put every millionaire's and billionaire's and blood sucking corporation's name in a drum then select one per week and force them to lift a few families out of lives of hardship.

That "twist" of whose lives are more worthy of assistance reminds me of the LIFEBOAT game where one is in a group in an imaginary lifeboat and the occupants have to convince the group of their worthiness to survive.

[DesertRat]

28. I'd watch that! nt

[closeupready]

9. What are the producers going to do when someone keeps/receives?

That is, (for those who are unfamiliar with the full concept) two struggling families unknown to each other can keep the $100,000, or give it to this other struggling family (to whom they are LATER introduced) -

What happens if one struggling family keeps it, and the other family gives their $100,000 - even though the donating family needs the money much more? Meaning the less deserving family gets $200,000, and the more deserving get nothing?

[DesertRat]

31. I guess that's the intrigue of the show for viewers

IMO, the very concept of needy families pitted against each other to decide who is the "most deserving" is disgusting.

[deutsey]

11. I guess once the novelty of this wears off

the network will just toss the money into a pit and have the families fight each other for it.

[AZ Progressive]

12. This shows what kind of heart these rich people have. Why do the rich love being evil?

[DesertRat]

32. Not ALL Rich people

Just rich Republicans...

[AZ Progressive]

13. CBS Executives: "Kick them while they're down!"

[Initech]

15. We're seriously venturing into Mad Max territory aren't we?

[DesertRat]

33. Indeed. nt

[Motown_Johnny]

17. Imagine the guy pitching this show....

"It is half Family Feud and half Bum Fight! What's not to love?"

[Liberal_in_LA]

19. keep 75%. give the other family 25%

[demmiblue]

21. Figures. n/t

[Liberal_in_LA]

22. ?

[Mnemosyne]

23. How cruel... nt

[Ichingcarpenter]

24. Anyone remember the 80s twilight zone "Button, Button"

Plot[edit]
Arthur and Norma Lewis are slowly descending into abject poverty. One day, they receive a mysterious locked box with a button on it and a note that says Mr. Steward will come visit. Then, just as the note says, a smartly dressed stranger who introduces himself as Steward comes to their door when Arthur is out. He gives Norma the key to the box and explains that, if they press the button, two things will happen: they will receive $200,000 and someone "whom [they] don't know" will die.

snip


"Button, Button" was first published in Playboy, June 1970, a short story written by Richard Matheson. The story was republished as part of a collection of Matheson's short stories.
In the original short story, the plot is resolved differently. Norma presses the button, and receives the money—after her husband dies in a train incident where Arthur is pushed onto the tracks (the money was the no-fault insurance settlement, which is $50,000 instead of the $200,000 in the Twilight Zone episode). A despondent Norma asks the stranger why her husband was the one who was killed. The stranger replies, "Did you really think you knew your husband?" which leaves the reader questioning what Steward meant.
Matheson strongly disapproved of the Twilight Zone version, especially the new ending,


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Button,_Button_%28The_Twilight_Zone%29


Sadism and greed as a game show.....I think the concept is evil

[DesertRat]

34. It really is evil

CBS probably got the idea from that episode.

[panader0]

25. How would YOU like to be Queen for a Day?

From wiki:
Format[edit]

The show opened with host Jack Bailey asking the audience—mostly women—"Would YOU like to be Queen for a day?" After this, the contestants were introduced and interviewed, one at a time, with commercials and fashion commentary interspersed in between.[2]

Using the classic applause meter, as did many game and hit parade-style shows of the time, Queen for a Day had its own special twist: Each contestant had to talk publicly about the recent financial and emotional hard times she had been through. The applause meter had also been used on earlier series, including Fred Allen's Judge for Yourself, a variety and game show which aired on NBC from 1953 to 1954.[3]

Bailey began each interview gently, asking the contestant first about her life and family and maintaining a positive and upbeat response no matter what she told him. For instance, when a woman said she had a crippled child, he would ask if her second child was "Okay." On learning that the second child was not crippled, he might say, "Well, that's good, you have one healthy child."

The interview would climax with Bailey asking the contestant what she needed most and why she wanted to win the title of Queen for a Day. Often the request was for medical care or therapeutic equipment to help a chronically ill child, but sometimes it was as simple as the need for a hearing aid, a new washing machine, or a refrigerator. Many women broke down sobbing as they described their plights, and Bailey was always quick to comfort them and offer a clean white handkerchief to dry their eyes.

The harsher the circumstances under which the contestant labored, the likelier the studio audience was to ring the applause meter's highest level. The winner, to the musical accompaniment of "Pomp and Circumstance", would be draped in a sable-trimmed red velvet robe, given a glittering jeweled crown to wear, placed on a velvet-upholstered throne, and handed a dozen long-stemmed roses to hold as she wept, often uncontrollably, while her list of prizes was announced.

The prizes, many of which were donated by sponsoring companies, began with the necessary help the woman had requested but built from there. They might include a variety of extras, such as a vacation trip, a night on the town with her husband, silver-plated flatware, an array of kitchen appliances, or a selection of fashion clothing. The losing contestants were each given smaller prizes; no one went away from the show without a meaningful gift.

Bailey's trademark sign-off was: "This is Jack Bailey, wishing we could make every woman a queen, for every single day!"

[valerief]

30. I remember that as a kid. I thought it was twisted then. nt

[DesertRat]

37. I remember that show!

I watched it as a kid with my Mom. That show seems warm and fuzzy compared to "The Briefcase".

[valerief]

29. Ah, a show that makes us sympathize with the very wealthy. All those choices the

very wealthy have to make. Not do I eat today or take my meds, but how rich do I decide to be today?

on edit: Not that I think 100K is very wealthy, by any means, but when the show rules come down to "share or not share" one can't help but think of the very wealthy.

[DesertRat]

36. I know

Ugh

[stevenleser]

35. There is a strong element of cruelty in most reality shows. They are the new coliseum

- American Idol: Involves taunting and humiliating those they think don't measure up and doing so in front of millions of people.

- Bachelor/Bachelorette: Involves rejection from a prospective romantic partner in front of millions of people

etc.

[valerief]

38. Excellent point. Our narcissistic culture has elevated cruelty to an art form. nt

[Turbineguy]

39. Highbrow

bumfight.

[geek tragedy]

42. Meet the new head of programming.

[Major Nikon]

44. In season 2 they put teens in an arena with primitive weapons

[DesertRat]

45. Don't give them any ideas

I'm sure that would get good ratings.

[Township75]

48. So people are whining that a poor family or families with have/split $101k?

Some of you clearly would keep the money for yourself whether you are poor, middle class or rich.

Good for those that benefit from his show!

[chervilant]

51. People are not

"whining" that a poor person/family gets $100K, or that they are "encouraged" to split it. Most DUers who've commented herein above recognize that this 'program' is demeaning and disgusting.

[Township75]

52. How is this demeaning to give people money

In exchange they are put in a show. It is voluntary right? Maybe I missed something but if the show is just about how they use the money then I don't see how it is different than shows like shark tank or shows in general.

They could give me the $101k and see what I do with it and I would be fine but I wouldn't qualify as poor.

[Warren DeMontague]

50. Yeah, Thats fucked up.

Here, poor people, agonize over some crumbs while we rake in more than 45 times that amount for each 30 second superbowl ad.

[Orsino]

53. Just until they legalize gladiating. n/t

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

54. A rehash of "Queen for a Day"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_for_a_Day

[alphafemale]

56. Where can I volunteer to be exploited like this?

And I won't have to sleep in the rain eat grubs?

Seriously. Sign me up.

[fishwax]

57. .