Was there something strange about the June 7, 2023 episode of the Jeopardy! game show? Here’s the answer, in the form of a question.
Like so much of American popular culture, this TV episode–where nearly two dozen clues became “triple stumpers,” eliciting no guesses from any contestant—yielded plenty to ponder among seekers of practical wisdom.
On a recent “Inside Jeopardy” podcast, host Buzzy Cohen suggested the episode’s clearly bright players—Suresh, Kristene, and Collete—might have been sleepy or hungry because the taping took place late in the morning. The obvious, and very rare, level of silence among the buzzers during the half-hour had peeved numerous fans.
(In a previous podcast, Buzzy had hinted that Jeopardy! participants in general might be wagering too timidly.)
My reaction, as a loyal viewer and amateur social critic, was concern that the June 7 threesome accidentally spotlighted mega-trends our culture needs to monitor.
By not even venturing long-shot attempts, possibly fearing they would send their dollar totals into the red, the trio reminded us that the game of life won’t produce excellence (or excitement) unless we grab for the gusto. Repeat after me: “Make it a true daily double.”
We’ve got to be in it to win it. But, in various settings, too many of us are losing our zeal, holding our peace, becoming more defensive, settling for “good enough.” We lack confidence in what we know, and indeed many of us fear we know less than we should.
The Jeopardy! meritocracy symbolically shakes its finger at the insufficient, narrow, and self-centered education some kids—and parents–receive these days, even as torrents of new data emerge about everything. How shall we explore, and think about, reality?
“Old” facts, remembered or forgotten on the Alex Trebek Stage, create their own controversies. Some fans reportedly sniped at one episode’s trio of competitors who all failed to buzz in with the word “hallowed” to complete “be thy name” in the Bible quotation/prayer. They had no guesses.
As our shared pool of common knowledge shrinks, we hear calls for fewer merit-based pursuits so that kids aren’t embarrassed or disempowered. Should our culture, or a game, force people into traps of failure perpetuated by supremacy, outmoded expectations, and systemic racism?
(The best answer in any showdown between a cold-hearted meritocracy and a diversity-equity-inclusion paradigm is probably something in the middle. Jeopardy! reminds us of the ancient wisdom that humans need to play; their competitions bring sustainable growth as a form of fun. They benefit both the striving individual and the team-spirited group.)
Even in this successful show’s dedicated fan community, one hears occasional allegations that the hosts and judges are making mistakes. Idealistic perfectionists may fear TV bosses are risking carelessness as they expand the franchise with spin-offs and tournaments, requiring the crew to take on extra assignments and hours. Nobody wants to place Jeopardy! in jeopardy!
One former contestant ventured into social media, opining that the show did not reflect a broadened, awakened culture of “quizzing.” He wondered if the program was a meaningful test of intellectual attributes, or merely a glorified reality show with contrived conditions.
These trending dramas call to mind increasingly common observations about American society.
Are meek contestants guilty of “quiet quitting” (or “quiet quizzing”)? A recent Gallup report on the state of the workplace estimated that close to 60 percent of employees in the country are quiet-quitting in one form or another, partly because they do not find their work satisfying or rewarding. This happens not only in offices, but in daily life.
Are we also watching the “dumbing down” of the population due to personal insecurities, distracted mindsets, and one or another sort of intoxication/addiction?
Might the profit goals of bosses lead to “skimplification” that erodes quality and frustrates audiences? Our media frequently hyperbolize and oversimplify, using sensationalism to glue us to our screens. But podcasts and other formats suggest that wise audiences also will stick around when content probes subjects diligently, in depth.
More folks nowadays seem to be guilty of sloppy work—or sloppy thought about the purpose and rewards of work. Some management mavens fear we are less attentive to detail. In a world where truth is relative, objectivity is prejudicial, and screen-assisted multitasking is commonplace, are would-be gladiators persuaded not to sweat the small stuff, especially when that stuff is called “trivia”?
Although fewer people affiliate with religions or believe in God today, this game show has a liberal-arts and humanities tradition of elevating our brains through “answers” tied to particular faiths. Will this lens of meaningfulness guarantee fewer correct responses—and increased fan allegations of offensive irrelevance?
Emotions, self-conceit, and “tribal” identification powerfully shape what we learn about and care about. Some contestants may be deterred from brandishing their knowledge if they fear being judged by current criteria akin to clickbait.
Given all this gravitas I am imposing on a TV show that grew from humble roots in 1964 (see video), perhaps it’s time to take a break for some “potent potables”!
Should such a program—especially one that pursues high standards, honors diverse and beautiful minds, and inspires nightly family gatherings nationwide—burden fans and foes alike with all these risk analyses, so many galvanizing questions?
Yes! That’s the whole idea of Jeopardy! … and of any arena for boldly inquiring whether our culture can handle the truth.
OnWord 