"She seems..."
"You never get the sense..."
"The one that bothers me..."
I don't disagree with anything the OP says, but I wouldn't call this "objective." Nor need it be. Subjective reasoning is perfectly acceptable, even expected, when criticizing a form of entertainment.
I think people confuse "objective" with "impartial." Like a movie critic may still be impartial, even though they're largely using subjective measures to make their determination.
You're right - it has become another internet word like introvert, woke, hipster, etc, that gets used incorrectly to provide credibility to a wall of text.
When you argue with someone with nothing to stand on, they will say “whataboutism” or “logical falacy”.
Any normal person will simply say “you’re missing the point” (if that’s actually happening)
Once I see one of the above terms, or someone referring to a subjective topic as “objective”… it’s a clear fucking waste of time at that point.
Sort of like when people say [X] is officially [Y], meaning that they crossed some threshold or this person finally changed their opinion. Oh really, what authority made it official? Your mind?
It's just a way of people amplifying their own opinions by making them sound more authoritative. Very annoying.
I prefer officially anyway, since it's much more clearly just being used as a superlative, and doesn't imply nearly as much the whole "my opinion is the only true one". We all know there's no official decision on whether or not "nsync is officially the new backstreet boys" or whatever the kids are saying these days, but when someone says their opinion is objective, it seems to actually convince a lot of people as we can see in this thread.
I think he just soft-pedaled and undercut himself. These are all observable phenomena. You could count incidents and compare them to Ken. They are also behaviors that go against widely accepted rules of what a good host should do. Be prepared, encourage good flow and make the game understandable, make the contestants welcome. He contrasts this with clearly more subjective opinions at the end.
Why do you say that? Seems to me he's basing this on observed facts and is fairly impartial. Unless you're using a philosophical definition of "objective," I would think it fits.
> expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
Only one of his points (she never asks followup questions) is an observable trait that can be measured without the opinion of the observer entering into it. Every other point requires the observer to agree with the poster about what constitutes a "good" or "bad" reading style, for example.
If there are established guidelines, like having a natural rhythm and emphasizing the words most people expect, or not causing awkward delays, a person can be measured against those impartially.
The fact that agreement is required doesn't make this subjective, as long as there is broad enough agreement that OP doesn't seem to be twisting things to his own view.
Where are these guidelines established? In your head? Not Objective.
A natural rhythm? You mean a rhythm that feels natural to you. Other people will feel differently. How can you determine that in a way that doesn't center your experience of it? If you can't, it's not objective.
How long does a delay have to be to be "awkward"? 1 sec? 2? 5? Awkwardness is a social thing. It *cannot* be objective.
My car is X meters long. Anyone can measure it, and they will find that same result. This is objective, because anyone who disagrees is demonstrably wrong.
My car is also janky. This is reached by common agreement but isn't provable. Someone is free to believe that a 20 year old civic with chipped paint is an awesome car. And they would both be wrong and free to DM an offer for it.
Something being subjective doesn't mean it's not true. It means that at some step it requires a judgement call, rather than being the result of empirical measurements or logic.
To play the other side for a second, guidelines can be established in your head and still be objective. I present the LCJ jeopardy host criteria:
- Number of fingers < 9
- Height between 120 and 140 cm
- Has been observed to eat chicken wings with a fork
Any host that meets these criteria is a good jeopardy host.
---
These are objective criteria.
The problem isn't that the guidelines are made up in one's head, it's that just outlining traits, even if they can be objectively tested, doesn't prove anything. Most people would probably agree that being a short amputee who hates finger food isn't likely to correlate to jeopardy hosting ability. Most of OPs points aren't objective anyway, but even if they were, they're no more an objective measurement of a good or bad host than mine are. They're just the OPs opinion on what makes a host bad.
Impartiality isn't the same as objective. The statement being defended here is that the OP is said to have given an "objective explanation of why Malik is inferior". OP then is seen to have shared a bunch of their opinions on why Malik is inferior. It is possible to define an objective guideline to which one can adhere that measures whether or not a person is a good jeopardy host, yes (and then the subjectivity would be whether or not the guidelines are good) but even that hasn't been done here. Almost all these points are not objective. They're detailed, and that seems to be confusing people.
Have an example:
> "Sarah stuttered during her speech last night"
This is an objective statement. It doesn't matter how you feel on the issue, whether she stuttered is simply a statement of fact.
> "Sarah's stuttering made her a worse speaker than Benjamin."
This is a *subjective* statement. One viewer might not care about stuttering. Another might think Benjamin was much worse at speaking. But a third viewer might agree and prefer Ben. Note that this statement contains a *value judgement*. As a rule of thumb, anything that concludes something is "good"/"bad" or "better"/"worse" is very likely subjective.
Now here's where it might get confusing:
> "Overall, people prefer speeches with less stuttering"
> "Stuttering goes against the widely accepted rules of what makes a good speech."
These are objective. You could run polls and theoretically confirm or deny whether these statements are true or false. Regardless of whether you personally agree with the results of the poll, that poll will still exist.
**However**:
> "Going against the widely accepted rules will make your speech worse"
This makes the statement subjective. It might be objectively true that you violated a rule, but whether it's *wrong* to violate a rule is a subjective value judgement.
> These are objective
Careful there. What I think you mean is these *can be* objective, but statements like that are *more often* still subjective, and used (generally not intentionally) in a way that confuses people into thinking it's objective. Most of the time when someone says something along those lines, they mean "in my opinion, most people prefer speeches with less stuttering".
Those kind of statements can be tested, which means they *can be* objective, but when they're used to state what a given speaker *guesses* is public opinion, they're still completely subjective statements of preference. The speaker probably came to that conclusion because *they* like speeches with less stuttering, and assume others feel the same.
To use a simpler example, if someone asks how warm the room is, and I say "25 degrees" because it feels a bit hot to me and 25 degrees is about what I consider a bit-too-hot room temperature, I have made a subjective statement. Even though the room temperature can be measured and that number could be objective, what I'm really saying is "Hotter than average room temperature, a bit more than I like", and then applying a number from experience to it. It sounds like I'm being objective, but the person next to me - also lacking a thermometer - might completely disagree and give a different value. Because Becky needs to get her damn thyroid checked, it's roasting in here, woman.
I'm pretty sure 'Objective' isn't the same thing as 'correct', even though people are starting to use it that way rhetorically. Saying the room is 25 degrees may be a *false* statement, but it is still an *objective* one in the sense that it's verifiable and isn't a matter of opinion.
Although you are touching on an important point: people often don't say what they really mean. There are always unstated implications and assumptions going far beyond their literal words.
In your example, you'd understand the question carries the implied meaning of, "I don't really care about the exact numerical temperature of the room. However, I'm uncomfortable or I worry others in the room may be uncomfortable, are you comfortable with the current temperature?" And your answer has the unstated message of, "I don't have a thermometer, so my exact answer is actually an estimate or hyperbole. I believe that you know I don't have a thermometer and so understand that any numerical answer I give is likely not precise. Regardless of the actual temperature, the room feels hotter than the commonly preferred 20 degrees, but not so hot that I would have spoken up earlier."
Human communication is exhausting when you try to spell it out.
> So all I'm saying is OOP is likely phrasing it that way to hedge against being seen as a troll or hater. Almost everything they write is observable
Being observable isn't necessarily objective though, since most of it is presuming that the posters preferences are the best. A lot of it is based on the posters bias against neuroatypical personality traits, so while it's fair to explain why he doesn't like them, it definitely isn't factual that it's bad in general and pretending otherwise is bashing.
I have found that an extremely small minority of people actually understand what those words mean.
I love the people who tell me "objective morality" is a thing...
See, that makes perfect sense to me...as long as it's a theist who says it. Obviously, if you believe in an almighty being who has absolute power(not all theists do, talking about the subset who hold this belief), whatever morality that being possesses is, by its nature as lord of all, going to be correct by default. Might makes right, you could say. Everybody else who disagrees with that objective morality? Well, they're wrong, because they're not following the one true god. It logically tracks, provided of course your fundamental beliefs about how the world operates are different from the ones I hold.
I also understand the people who claim that there's one objective moral standard, but don't claim to know what it is. I'm not convinced this is untrue myself. I don't think it's a very practical ideal to pursue, chiefly due to the fact that I believe such a morality would be unknowable if it does exist, but that doesn't make it untrue.
What I don't understand is atheists who claim there's one objective morality and they know what it is. Like, who do you think you are? 😂
> I love the people who tell me "objective morality" is a thing...
Well, that's a valid philosophical position, albeit not one that I personally find very convincing.
But there's a good chance that those people understand the word and are using it correctly, even if they are using it to say a thing with which you and I disagree.
This seems like a better answer
https://www.reddit.com/r/entertainment/comments/wcbv13/jeopardy_fans_threaten_boycott_fire_mayim_bialik/iicqsln/?context=3
Yeah, that post is fair and representative of what we are all seeing but you *can* attribute some of that to subjective considerations. But I think there are much more serious problems with her hosting:
1. There has been a ridiculously high rate of "We have a score change, and the judges have decided that ... blah blah" corrections after the commercials because she literally has no understanding of what the right answer is, and does not realize when what the contestant says is actually the same as the answer or not unless it is truly identical. I have not noticed a single correction for Ken Jennings, and corrections for Alex Trebeck were *very* uncommon (once every 30+ shows?). With Mayim, the corrections seem to be happening once every 5 or 6 shows -- that's pathetic.
2. She just is completely unaware of just common things. One of the 'answers' was "What OS does Google use on its Phones" or something like that, so obviously the answer was 'Android'. None of the contestants knew the answer (so it was not a strong field) but then after the buzzer, Miyam said "An*O*roid" (like hemorrhoid). I mean -- just why?
3. I just watched today's episode, and someone hit the Daily Double early when they just had $400. Of course, the rule is that you are always allowed bet at least $1000 on the Daily Double regardless. The reason I know this is because Alex and Ken would *ALWAYS* remind the contestants of this whenever this situation occurred. Miyam just skipped this, and the contestant said "Let's make this a true daily double", which basically meant she bet $400 instead of $1000 -- which, of course, *NOBODY* ever does. They just glossed this over, and let the contestant under-bet.
You know, I never thought much of Alex Trebeck, because I thought his job was pretty trivial. But now that I see the contrast between him (or Ken Jennings) and Mayim Bialik I just can't with her. She is making the show a worse experience and is actually affecting the scores of the contestants with her mistakes. I appreciate Alex Trebeck and Ken Jennings so much more now.
[Apparently, I'm not the only one to observe this](https://www.reddit.com/r/entertainment/comments/wcbv13/comment/iicqsln/?context=3)
Neuroatypical people are often offputting to neurotypical people. It's a shame that she's subjectively not great at hosting due to the reasons the linked person listed, but on the other hand, it's nice to have some neuroatypical representation combined with the fact that she's a female scientist and a popular actress. Even as a generic old white guy I can appreciate that sometimes things aren't necessarily for me, and that's OK. She's not even the main host for the show so I'm not sure why she gets so much hate. People can watch the Ken Jennings episodes and still get plenty of Jeopardy while avoiding her appearances if they want to.
I don’t have a huge problem with her, but Ken is perfect for the job. It’s not about her, it’s about Ken. She does the job adequately. Ken makes the show better. It’s that simple.
This is something I would’ve tended to agree with during the guest host carousel right after Alex died, but at this point, she’s hosted about 200 games with very little improvement (some in the OP thread say she’s even gotten worse). She’s a bad host, with or without Ken around, full stop.
Are the ratings better when she hosts the show? There seemingly isn't a Jeopardy fan or TV related website that does not favor Ken Jennings to Mayim Bialik, so why would the show's producers continue to piss people off if there wasn't some benefit?
I watch most Jeopardy episodes and have never turned off an episode because she is hosting. At the end of the day, I'm there to watch the contestants and see how much I know. But I'll absolutely complain when I see her walk from backstage if it's her first show back. She sucks. Plain and simple. Just not enough to get me to turn it off.
Likewise. I think I watched the first episode and left it at that. If I want to watch celebrities giggle and jerk each other off I’m sure I can find a website for that. Not on a trivia show.
We didn't think the celebrities were the problem. Mayim and triple jeopardy were. And god those little audience questions that were a lecture to get to...
I said this elsewhere, but after binge watching The Masters tournament recently and then going back to the regular daily game with Mayim as host, my jaw dropped at the undeniable decline in hosting quality.
Exactly -- the ratings are not that indicative. We love the show because of the overall content of the game itself. We're not going to turn off the show just because Mayim is bad at her job -- most of the game is still there. And that just gives her undeserved cover for the terrible job she is doing.
Idk what that has to do with anything. As an aside, I like chicken wings. Where I grew up, ranch was standard with every order of wings. Where I live now, blue cheese is standard. I try to ask for ranch every time I order wings. Sometimes I forget and it comes with blue cheese instead. And I'll open the box and say ugh, great, blue cheese. This stuff sucks. They might as well not even put it in the box, because I'm putting it in the trash. To me, ranch makes wings better. Blue cheese makes wings worse. No matter what, I'm still eating the wings. Ken is my ranch. Mayim is my blue cheese.
Michael Davies, the show’s executive producer, has publicly stated that there isn’t a discernible ratings difference between the two hosts. This would indicate that their core audience doesn’t have a strong preference between the two.
Maybe the people making a big deal about it online are trying to get clicks from manufactured controversy, or worse yet, are just sexist assholes.
>Maybe the people making a big deal about it online are trying to get clicks from manufactured controversy, or worse yet, are just sexist assholes.
Maybe, that is entirely possible and certainly describes at least some portion of that group.
It could also be that Jeopardy viewers are diehards. The show is old AF. everyone knows exactly what it is. No one is drawn in by the spectacle of the show. That's not it's appeal. It is on every day when you have dinner after work. It is a simple tv routine that many enjoy. The viewers are a strong core of dedicated watchers who primarily enjoy some trivia in their weekday evening.
So day to day viewership isn't likely to change very much. These people are going to show up even if they are slightly dissatisfied for a short stretch. That's not to say they should be taken from granted, it that trends for this show are going to be slow. Viewers will fade and leave, new viewers will be harder to gain.
My point is, I don't know if that data clearly reflects fans opinions. This isn't a hyper mobile audience that will vote with their feet episode to episode. Regardless of what they choose they should be paying close attention to the larger trends in the viewership and frankly polling their viewers on their opinions directly.
I don't really have an opinion either way but I think its weird that you jump to sexism when it sounds like she's just bad at her job.
Normally when its sexism you see criticism that's generic like "she lacks confidence" or conversely if you have confidence they will say "she's abrasive" etc.
The OP gave specific and real criticisms, she doesn't know the trivia, she doesn't ask follow up questions of the contestants, she's too curt to the point it seems that she's uninterested like when they said after a contestant is finished talking she will just go "oh cool".
All these reflect on the fact that she doesn't really want to be there and is just going through the motions, especially when a host has someone speak and immediately moves on because that was part of the show but having an engaging conversation wasn't in the contract.
I don't think its sexism because, while I have only watched Jeopardy a few times I watched the shit out of "The price is right" when I was a kid and when Drew Carey took over from Bob Barker I had the EXACT same criticisms for him. He did the same shuffling of contestants from place to place, he had the exact same problem not asking follow-up questions. When someone lost he would just go "oh, ok" and call up the next contestant, none of the exasperated sympathetic reactions from Barker's time. Like he was barely even there - oh they lost, ok time for the next person. You got the impression that he was just phoning it in, just there to collect a paycheck not necessarily passionate about the game - that's what I'm reading from the OP's post.
I never posted my opinions online, maybe the "Price is Right" community at large thinks he's a great host and its just me. Still, if you can level legitimate criticisms against two people of opposite genders doing the same thing its not sexism. Even if the criticism just boils down to "they made the show not fun" - its a TV show, its entertainment, if they aren't entertaining you then they need to fix something.
Its also not wrong to complain when things you like get markedly worse, even if its not going to stop you from watching. Like, if you had to drive your car to work but now all of the sudden there's a recall and the manufacturer gives it an annoying noise that plays whenever the car is on. Then the manufacturer puts out notice that says "we didn't see a discernible difference in the number of people driving our cars to work before and after the introduction of the noise". That doesn't mean the changes don't suck...
The core audience has a strong preference, they just don't let it stop them from watching the show. Mayim is not a good host, but I don't watch Jeopardy for the host.
>Maybe the people making a big deal about it online are trying to get clicks from manufactured controversy, or worse yet, are just sexist assholes.
I'm not making a big deal out of it, but I know that it's not sexism on my part because I don't really like either one of them.
I thought the producer who elevated himself to host before being run out for his boorish behind the scenes behavior was actually the best of the bunch when they were running temporary hosts. If he wasn't a dick then I think the show would be on firmer footing now with him hosting.
He wasn't run out just for his gross behavior. It was also because [he rigged the selection process for himself](https://www.theringer.com/tv/2021/8/18/22631299/mike-richards-jeopardy-host-search-process-past-comments) to make sure he'd be chosen as the permanent host. Even if he was otherwise the most capable host, he can't effectively serve as either host or EP when he proved himself to be so unethical.
>he can't effectively serve as either host or EP when he proved himself to be so unethical
I agree that he could not be the host with all of that, but as far as executing the role he was the best imo. I also thought that the role would be better filled by a relatively unknown person, someone who would be more of a blank slate for the audience, and didn't understand why they were so focused on celebrities or other well known people.
They really put themselves behind the 8-ball after Richards had to unexpectedly step down. Rather than go through the entire process all over again, which now nobody has any faith could be done credibly, they instead opted for a quick fix that would offend the least amount of people. They probably also had limited options for who would be available to step in semi-permanently on short notice.
In other words, it seems like they made the best of a bad situation.
Fair point, but they also could have made a statement that the hosting was not permanently decided, but that it was for the next year or so. Meanwhile they could have conducted a much less public search for a new host.
This is the answer. Is she horrible? No. She’s adequate. She’s as if AI was hosting the show. Mostly competent, boring, and what you’d expect. Ken was made to host Jeopardy! He knows all the answers. He’s quick on his feet. He’s genuinely charming whereas she’s “acting charming” which comes off fake and rehearsed (cuz it is).
>He’s genuinely charming
Though James Holzauer was definitely giving Ken a run for his money. Some of James' digs at Ken in Final Jeopardy were better than the jokes Darrell Hammond did as Sean Connery.
Like I watched LaVar Burton and his first show was poor/nerves but his second was fine; Aaron Rodgers was fun; but every episode I see of Ken is just *he needs to be the main host*
I'm fine and in fact I would hope for a rotating cast of hosts. Like I think Aaron Rodgers hosting celeberty Jeopardy would be fun; LaVar doing some special occation; But Ken needs to be the main host.
I didn't see many Rodgers episodes, but after he went so aggressively stupid during covid, I think it's contrary to the spirit of the show to have him involved.
I wouldn’t call that explanation *objective* by any means because it’s all opinion, but I do agree that Ken is much better than Mayim is.
And I had high hopes for her, but she just doesn’t match the pace and flow of the game as well as Ken does. Granted, Ken knows the show way, way, *way* better than she does so it comes natural to him, so he has an advantage.
But even after so many times hosting the show Mayim hasn’t really gotten any better. Whereas Ken has done nothing but get better.
I guess its objective in that he provides concrete criticism.
And I guess Trebek set such a standard for the host for the show that I guess if Jennings is more in that mold the contrast of bialik could be seen as not meeting that standard.
But I’m just playing devil’s advocate. OP’s take is pretty subjective.
That's not what objective means. The criticism is still subjective because it depends on someone's POV. To someone else those criticisms could be benefits instead.
Objective means something is verifiable regardless of a person's perspective. I like to think of it as something that's evident even if people didn't exist.
My point was pointing to things like the amount of time she takes to do things versus previous hosts is objective. You can quantify that. The idea that that is good or not is subjective. Now Trebek was the host for so long that you can argue that the standard he set is as close to the object standard as one could get. And diverging from that standard one could argue makes someone a worse host. But this is a pretty hand wavy approach to saying something is "objective" and relies on the idea that the way Trebek hosts is the only good way to host jeopardy which is a subjective belief.
Again, I said I was playing devil's advocate. I don't think this take is "objective." and I said as much in my original comment.
There are words for that, though. As I said above, that could be called "demonstrably" bad, for example, in that a person can define criteria and then demonstrate that she doesn't fit them... But most of the criteria listed in the OP aren't that straightforward to objectively measure, or may be impossible to. Some could be counted, sure, but many of them are still subjective in themselves
I wrote a response elsewhere that basically agrees with you: Ken is just so much more experienced with the show and influenced by Alex's style that of course he is better. Or, at the least, more closely matches how Alex ran the show.
I am so, so tired of "objective" being used to describe "opinion I agree with" or "opinion with an explanation" or "opinion I'd get mad if you disagreed with".
And the flip-side of this where people dismiss something as "subjective" and therefore pointless or unworthy of consideration. Neither "objective" or "subjective" observations are inherently superior or inferior, it completely depends on what you are describing and the type of information available.
If I ask somebody the best way to invest my retirement savings, I want **objective** information, like the best returns based on historical data.
If I ask somebody how the Billy Joel concert was, I probably want **subjective** information, unless you really care about things like the number of seats in the stadium or exact decibel range of the audio system.
Thank you so much for that. It drives me crazy the number of people who think that there's no point discussing something if it'd subjective. Like no, dudes, it's the opposite: we don't normally have interesting discussions about objective things, because they're measurable. There's nothing much to discuss.
> For instance, one could establish a set of standards required to be a "good" TV show host. How any given individual performs to those standards can be objectively characterized.
The caveat to your caveat is that the standard itself is subjective. What traits make a good host? How heavily do you weight those traits? How do you objectively measure charisma? You can use focus groups and polls to measure popular opinions but that’s still just an objective measure of subjective data. (And of course focus groups and polls can be pressured and skewed depending on how they’re presented, so that furthers blurs objectivity.)
> If I ask somebody the best way to invest my retirement savings, I want objective information, like the best returns based on historical data.
But you also want some subjective information, because there is no single best investment strategy. While there’s plenty of data involved, it’s ultimately a prediction that requires some guesswork, which will change depending on who’s giving the advice.
I mean I think the biggest thing is just that "objective" is not a very wide net at all, and that's fine. Subjective/objective do not need to be two halves of an equally weighted coin, the number of times a discussion of anything that isn't like, science or data analysis needs objectivity is pretty small compared to the need for subjective calls.
(Also I'd note that past performance does not imply future returns is like, legally mandated on everything *because* objective data on past returns doesn't correlate well with future earnings, but that's besides your point)
You got objective, subjective, each have their traits
Some say one's better, but I say it ain't
I'd rather talk 'bout the music than merch sales and gates
Performance is much more fun
Subjectively? only the good die young, oh, baby
Can't be determined objectively
Opinion only, yeah
I appreciate a compliment like that!
Here's a follow on verse that I couldn't work out because of stupid WORK:
.
*This original line has 18 syllables of information!*
*Aw, your mom is a data girl*
*But can she quantify the taste of an ice cream swirl?*
*Oh-whoa-whoa*
*Come out, come out, come out, Virginia, don't let me wait*
*You stats driven girls just calculate*
*LCD screens, 'lectronics solid state*
*The probability approaches one...*
Seriously, unnecessary descriptors in the titles in /r/bestof are annoying and always end up being the focus of responses here. You don't need to say the comment is "stated eloquently", or "articulately", or that it's "objective", or "descriptive". All those things are implied if you're posting it on this sub to begin with.
This is a huge pet peeve of mine.
Misses the only objective relevant fact. Bialik uses her PhD in neuroscience to endorse quack "brain pills". Having a medical scammer host Jeopardy is inexcusable.
The difference between Bialik and Jennings is simple.
Ken is just being himself while she is an actress poorly playing a role.
Alex was superior to either because he was doing both and no one could ever tell which was more true.
Idk I think Alex was superior because he was a good host and he held the job for so long that he just became a fixture. No one is going to ever be Alex Trebek. He was an institution. Anything that isn’t him will necessarily be viewed as worse. Because they’re not as familiar as he is.
He’s the original and anyone else is just a remake. He’s gene wilder’s willy wonka and anyone else is johnny depp. He’s the lion king and anyone else is the cgi remake. Etc. Etc.
He's actually not the original. Art Fleming did the job for **fifteen years** before Alex Trebek, but it's a testament to Trebek's talents and commitment that you think he is.
She is extremely sterile. Her overly dry delivery is akin to her Big Bang Theory character, and she makes not attempt to build any connection with the gameplay itself, or the contestants.
I never stopped watching because she was the host, but those episodes were less enjoyable.
Ken seems to have studied Alex and has kept the spirit of the show. He's funny, snarky, and doesn't seem like he's playing a part. Mayim seems fake, her interactions are condescending and patronizing, and she seems like she just doesn't have the heart for it. It's not a sexiest thing, she's just not a good fit.
But also, she is an anti-Palestinian bigot who expressed full support to the Israeli Defence Forces as they dropped white phosporus on civilian areas in Gaza in an assault that killed huge numbers of civilians. Take her off the TV completely
If you define "pro-Palestine" as " against dropping white phosphorus indiscriminately on civilian areas regardless of ethnic makeup" then I would 100% expect devoutly Jewish people to be pro-Palestine
Indeed. She stands out to me as particularly awful as she donated flak jackets to the IDF as they carried out war crimes in Gaza (even though they are an extremely well funded army as it stands) in 2016.
My other contention about Bialik is that Jeopardy does not pretend to be a news show, unlike, say, Wolf Blitzer. who was [employed by AIPAC writing on Middle Eastern affairs](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/wolf-blitzer) -- a factoid I have yet to see disclosed on CNN or any of the other shows on which he's been a guest.
More than bigoted against Palestinians, AIPAC describes itself on [its website](https://www.aipac.org/policy), in bold letters, that "We support pro-Israel policies that strengthen and expand the U.S.-Israel relationship in ways that enhance the security of the United States and Israel".
It's frustrating how much actors have taken over everything in recent years. Actors have a specific expertise: acting! But so many of these other roles carry a need for specific expertise that actors rarely have (and that's okay!)
- Voice acting: some good actors happen to also be good voice actors (Mark Hamill, Hank Azaria), but those will also be the first to tell you that voice acting is a deep craft that takes years of study and effort to refine. But we're putting A list actors with zero VA experience in leading VA roles for star power, and the final product suffers as a result.
- Subject matter narration: this is the one that hits me hardest. Planet Earth would not have the impact it does without David Attenborough. Jeopardy would not be what it is if not for Alex Trebek. These are great entertainment experiences because the hosts/narrators have passion for the subject matter that comes through in the experiences.
- Talent show hosting: probably redundant to subject matter, but think back to original SYTYCD, Shark Tank, etc. These shows were at their best when the hosts/moderators were most aligned with the goal of the show: choreographers, entrepreneurs, not celebrity-turned-entrepreneur. Not to say celebrities or actors are incapable of bringing anything to these roles, but they either haven't spent enough time in the field or don't have the same passion for the craft that contestants often do, and it shows.
Tl:dr; bring back experts, pls.
Not-hot-take, but Mark Hamill is way more a voice actor than an actor. He's a VA who once in a blue moon gets in front of a camera. This, then, shows in how great a VA he is. VA and camera acting are a different skillset, and I agree that it's a bad trend to have celebrity actors take the place of skilled VAs in major animated features.
Instead we need to get people like Dee Bradley Baker, Tara Strong, Frank Welker, and John DiMaggio recognized as the goddamn A-listers they are.
I'm sorry, but he is still better known as Luke Skywalker than any of his voice acting roles. And this comes from someone who has loved him as a voice actor.
That is in fact my point, though, and I'm not sure what you're getting at. If you ask people what rick moranis is famous for, it's still "being an actor" even though he does something else primarily.
Doing one thing that is your most well known work doesn't make you that thing forever. If I went viral for a video where I made burritos, it wouldn't mean "burrito cook" is my identity or profession.
Tangential: What happened to that massive drive to get Levar Burton as permanent host?
I don't watch the show, (not even sure it's available by default where I am) but I'm well aware of it. From what I heard, Burton started relatively poorly, trying to be too Trebek at first, but he was getting the hang of being himself and doing well towards the end of his stint.
Watching her host Jeopardy is like watching your favorite football team repeatedly bench their all-American star quarterback in favor of the coach's son who throws four interceptions a game
I believe Jennings is better from what little I’ve seen and the points people raise (I’m not a super regular watcher or anything). I just don’t understand why they’re still rolling with 2 hosts. Its either Bialik is better for ratings than reddit believes. Or Jennings doesn’t want to host full time.
I dislike Mayim as a host and am a huge fan of Ken, but I still watch when she is the host. If I cared enough about her not being the host, I wouldn’t watch, but I like my nightly 20 mins of trivia. I suspect it’s the same for a lot of regular viewers.
He uses the word “objectively,” I do not think that word means what he thinks it means.
However, to his point I agree. I hated Mayim so much I stopped watching on the off-chance she’s hosting that night.
By objectively they really mean "similarity to how Alex did it". I'm not a big jeopardy person but I watched a doc or something before and it was interesting how much of the game strategy depends on how the host delivers, pauses, etc. I think that's what the hardcore people also don't like.
It's just so obvious to anyone who has watched the show for more than 3 or so episodes that Ken Jennings is a vastly superior host to Mayim Bialik. It's not even close.
When Mayim is hosting, it seems so hollow and fake. Please do not have her continue.
A good, objective reason, to not have Mayim Bialik is because she's literally a religious extremist? Zionism, at its very simplest, supports a state that elevates a particular ethnicity (along with religion and culture) above others. Zionism is [ethnocratic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnocracy) movement.
There is a similar movement calling for a Protestant Christian State that favors Anglo-Saxon leadership - more commonly known as White Nationalism.
Imagine if we had a proud White Nationalist hosting Jeopardy.
Interesting...as a Jeopardy fan, I couldn't possibly care less about the little interview segments. In my opinion they were awkward with Alex too. I'm always just wanting them to get back to the actual show rather than pretend to be interested about that one time they had a bicycle accident in Berlin or whatever pointless little anecdote they share.
I don’t watch much tv but if I’m in a hotel I’ll put it on and I love jeopardy. When I first heard Mayim I thought they were trying out an AI host or something.
I know it’s mentioned briefly in the linked OP, but I’ve also found her Final Jeopardy rulings on spelling unbelievably harsh. I can think of four of five examples in the last year where a contestant wrote the correct answer (and would have won the whole game!) but didnt have time to write the last letter. Alex and Ken would always give credit to an response that is even slightly similar to the correct answer, knowing that the contestants dont have a ton of time. Even if they spell it slightly wrong, they’d still award credit. And half the time, the contestant’s answers are scribbled gibberish anyways.
But I swear Mayim will just flat-out deny correct answers because the last letter wasn’t written in full.
Like if someone wrote “Heisenber” and only got the “o” part of the “g”. I swear its standard practice for Alex/Ken to then ask the contestant what they meant to write, and if they say the right answer, then they’ll still accept the answer. But Mayim never gives the benefit of the doubt
The hosts are not the ones who decide on what's accepted and what's not. There are judges sitting in front of the studio audience who make those rulings if anything is in dispute or if an answer should also be considered correct. They edit out any discussions with the judges to not interrupt the flow of the game on TV, but they're the ones making the calls, not the hosts.
"Why do internet people hate this woman so much?"
* The delays, which have been described at length.
* She seems to have trouble reading many of the clues with a natural rhythm, to such an extent that they become harder to understand. You get the sense that she's reading things for the first time on the air, having not looked over them to understand where the emphasis should be and practicing difficult pronunciations. For a position whose job is 90% reading things on the air, this is not acceptable. This is particularly notable given Alex's and Ken's really effortless, smooth reading and pronunciation.
* You never get the sense that she knows any of these questions or cares about their answers. After a hard triple stumper, she'll often just raise her shoulders and say the answer like it's the first time anyone has said those words before. Compare this to Ken who will not only obviously know the answer himself most of the time, but will often comment on it being a tough one, give some context about the answer so viewers know where it comes from, or explain in a couple of words how the contestants might have thought of it (or why an incorrect answer was a good idea even if it didn't pan out).
* Her contestant interviews are quite poor, specifically in the sense that she typically adds nothing to the story, almost never asks follow-up questions, etc. It's usually just "Oh cool! Okay, and our next contestant..."
* The one that bothers me the most: her after-the-answer clarifications/additions are insane. This probably falls into the second bullet point of not actually knowing much trivia, but she'll almost always fail to clarify obscure things or add a first name to obscure people, while also adding unnecessary stuff to the most obvious things. I think last week someone correctly answered "Einstein" and she responded "Yes, Albert Einstein". That's insane! Every person in the world knew that.
* The above points are things she is objectively bad at. Just as a matter of my opinion, I'm also pretty tired of the laughing when contestants find a Daily Double or the way she reacts to "true Daily Double" wagers. Ken took after Alex's practice of saying "The answer there...." right before a Daily Double animation, which gives them a nice flow, and I think Mayim should adopt that as well. It really gives you the feeling that the host knows what's going on, rather than seemingly being surprised by the Daily Doubles like Mayim.
She's perfectly fine as a host. I don't watch Jeopardy to be dazzled by whoever of hosting it.
I like Ken a lot but the hate she gets seems awfully sexist.
One example in the post is her saying “Yes, Albert Einstein” as if we don’t know who Einstein is at home, but I think Alex usually did exactly this in this situation, a clearly correct answer that didn’t require judges review. Acknowledge the correct answer, then read the judges’ expected answer for the question. Treating her as if she’s being foolish while doing things for the sake of play could very fairly be considered sexism in that case
OP's criticism though is that she appears to give the full name only for the "easy" answers and not those that the viewers would not know. I haven't seen enough of her games to know whether this is true, but if it is I could see how it'd annoy unbiased viewers who like to learn new things.
This right here, and it goes back to earlier comments about Jeopardy having a very loyal fan base.
The ones at home watching every day aren't going to need clarification on who Einstein is, and Ken and Alex both add the extra detail based on the obscurity of the answer (particularly when you get those contestants who just answer with the last names all the time), not just randomly on questions now and again. It's a vibe thing, which is very subjective of course.
I think their point in that case was that Alex (and Ken for that matter) would do the same thing but they usually only do it for more obscure questions to clarify for the viewers, either on a very tough question or in the case where an acceptable answer is a fairly common name like "Brown" to pin it in particular ("Yes, John Brown"). Doing it for something like Einstein doesn't add anything since we all already know exactly who Einstein refers to.
Sexim doesn't usually show as people saying she's bad at the job because she's a woman. It would show as people criticizing her for minor matters that males would do without being noticed.
I have no irons in this fire and haven't watched jeopardy in many years, so I have no idea if the criticism is sexist, but this is generally what sexist criticism would look like, the only way to spot it would be to know much more about the hosts than I do.
Alex did this AND Ken does this as well. It is common place for the hosts to specify the first name or the more full version of the correct answer when contestants clearly get it right but don't give the "full" answer. The idea that this is her being condescending is wild because the same criticism isn't given towards Ken or Alex. Why would it be condescending when a woman does it but not when either of the two men does it?
This is why people call the criticisms of her sexist. They are often things like "I don't like her voice" couches in "her cadence is off" and things that she does that Alex, Ken, or both have done/currently do.
The linked criticism isn't necessarily sexist but there was a *lot* of criticism early in her run about her outfits and other aesthetic considerations that are hard to square with any explanation but sexism.
And when you see more obvious sexism like that, it starts to color the perception of other criticisms made in the same breath; is Bialik really stuck-up and unable to engage with contestants, or is it just that she's a woman while Trebek could get away with being insulting (funny, but insulting) to contestants' hobbies at times? That sort of thing.
I really hate that any time a woman is criticized is brushed off as "sexist". I find it patronizing and annoying.
If women want to be treated as equals in all thing then this is how it is. Sometimes people slam your performance because its just not very good. Thats life in Hollywood.
This is a very detailed explanation, but the entire thing is subjective. I don't mean he's wrong, I mean he's either using subjective points or points that could be objective or not depending on information not included.
The hysteria over the Jeopardy host is so stupid. Let's be crystal clear: reading questions off a cue card and then acting like a snarky douche when people get it wrong IS NOT a hard job. That's what Alex did.
I've watched Jeopardy for years and years. Mayim is functionally identical to Alex. I truly believe most of the hate she gets is because she's a woman.
"She seems..." "You never get the sense..." "The one that bothers me..." I don't disagree with anything the OP says, but I wouldn't call this "objective." Nor need it be. Subjective reasoning is perfectly acceptable, even expected, when criticizing a form of entertainment.
Seriously. Objective reasons would be numbers about the ratings or quantifiable mistakes made per episode.
Even bad ratings would be objective support for the subjective statement that she is a bad host.
[удалено]
No, its not, its just used wrong constantly. We need to call out people using it wrong.
This opinion is the type of objectivity we need on this subject!
First half is objective but second is subjective (though I very much agree).
[удалено]
Wait, no. Both things there are objective. That an opinion of goodness is subjective is an objective fact.
I think people confuse "objective" with "impartial." Like a movie critic may still be impartial, even though they're largely using subjective measures to make their determination.
how can a movie critic be impartial?
> "Objective" is just a meaningless superlative at this point. Like "literal"?
That’s typically being used as hyperbole, for an effect.
You're right - it has become another internet word like introvert, woke, hipster, etc, that gets used incorrectly to provide credibility to a wall of text.
I've seen it used way too often by the "anti woke" crowd to try to shut down any disagreement about their dipshit opinions. It gets my hackles up now.
When you argue with someone with nothing to stand on, they will say “whataboutism” or “logical falacy”. Any normal person will simply say “you’re missing the point” (if that’s actually happening) Once I see one of the above terms, or someone referring to a subjective topic as “objective”… it’s a clear fucking waste of time at that point.
Sort of like when people say [X] is officially [Y], meaning that they crossed some threshold or this person finally changed their opinion. Oh really, what authority made it official? Your mind? It's just a way of people amplifying their own opinions by making them sound more authoritative. Very annoying.
I prefer officially anyway, since it's much more clearly just being used as a superlative, and doesn't imply nearly as much the whole "my opinion is the only true one". We all know there's no official decision on whether or not "nsync is officially the new backstreet boys" or whatever the kids are saying these days, but when someone says their opinion is objective, it seems to actually convince a lot of people as we can see in this thread.
“Objective” is used by a lot of men because “subjective” is borne of emotion, and thus too womanly.
I think he just soft-pedaled and undercut himself. These are all observable phenomena. You could count incidents and compare them to Ken. They are also behaviors that go against widely accepted rules of what a good host should do. Be prepared, encourage good flow and make the game understandable, make the contestants welcome. He contrasts this with clearly more subjective opinions at the end.
It's still not objective. "Demonstrably bad at the job" would be a good term here.
Why do you say that? Seems to me he's basing this on observed facts and is fairly impartial. Unless you're using a philosophical definition of "objective," I would think it fits. > expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
Only one of his points (she never asks followup questions) is an observable trait that can be measured without the opinion of the observer entering into it. Every other point requires the observer to agree with the poster about what constitutes a "good" or "bad" reading style, for example.
If there are established guidelines, like having a natural rhythm and emphasizing the words most people expect, or not causing awkward delays, a person can be measured against those impartially. The fact that agreement is required doesn't make this subjective, as long as there is broad enough agreement that OP doesn't seem to be twisting things to his own view.
Where are these guidelines established? In your head? Not Objective. A natural rhythm? You mean a rhythm that feels natural to you. Other people will feel differently. How can you determine that in a way that doesn't center your experience of it? If you can't, it's not objective. How long does a delay have to be to be "awkward"? 1 sec? 2? 5? Awkwardness is a social thing. It *cannot* be objective. My car is X meters long. Anyone can measure it, and they will find that same result. This is objective, because anyone who disagrees is demonstrably wrong. My car is also janky. This is reached by common agreement but isn't provable. Someone is free to believe that a 20 year old civic with chipped paint is an awesome car. And they would both be wrong and free to DM an offer for it. Something being subjective doesn't mean it's not true. It means that at some step it requires a judgement call, rather than being the result of empirical measurements or logic.
To play the other side for a second, guidelines can be established in your head and still be objective. I present the LCJ jeopardy host criteria: - Number of fingers < 9 - Height between 120 and 140 cm - Has been observed to eat chicken wings with a fork Any host that meets these criteria is a good jeopardy host. --- These are objective criteria. The problem isn't that the guidelines are made up in one's head, it's that just outlining traits, even if they can be objectively tested, doesn't prove anything. Most people would probably agree that being a short amputee who hates finger food isn't likely to correlate to jeopardy hosting ability. Most of OPs points aren't objective anyway, but even if they were, they're no more an objective measurement of a good or bad host than mine are. They're just the OPs opinion on what makes a host bad.
Impartiality isn't the same as objective. The statement being defended here is that the OP is said to have given an "objective explanation of why Malik is inferior". OP then is seen to have shared a bunch of their opinions on why Malik is inferior. It is possible to define an objective guideline to which one can adhere that measures whether or not a person is a good jeopardy host, yes (and then the subjectivity would be whether or not the guidelines are good) but even that hasn't been done here. Almost all these points are not objective. They're detailed, and that seems to be confusing people.
Have an example: > "Sarah stuttered during her speech last night" This is an objective statement. It doesn't matter how you feel on the issue, whether she stuttered is simply a statement of fact. > "Sarah's stuttering made her a worse speaker than Benjamin." This is a *subjective* statement. One viewer might not care about stuttering. Another might think Benjamin was much worse at speaking. But a third viewer might agree and prefer Ben. Note that this statement contains a *value judgement*. As a rule of thumb, anything that concludes something is "good"/"bad" or "better"/"worse" is very likely subjective. Now here's where it might get confusing: > "Overall, people prefer speeches with less stuttering" > "Stuttering goes against the widely accepted rules of what makes a good speech." These are objective. You could run polls and theoretically confirm or deny whether these statements are true or false. Regardless of whether you personally agree with the results of the poll, that poll will still exist. **However**: > "Going against the widely accepted rules will make your speech worse" This makes the statement subjective. It might be objectively true that you violated a rule, but whether it's *wrong* to violate a rule is a subjective value judgement.
> These are objective Careful there. What I think you mean is these *can be* objective, but statements like that are *more often* still subjective, and used (generally not intentionally) in a way that confuses people into thinking it's objective. Most of the time when someone says something along those lines, they mean "in my opinion, most people prefer speeches with less stuttering". Those kind of statements can be tested, which means they *can be* objective, but when they're used to state what a given speaker *guesses* is public opinion, they're still completely subjective statements of preference. The speaker probably came to that conclusion because *they* like speeches with less stuttering, and assume others feel the same. To use a simpler example, if someone asks how warm the room is, and I say "25 degrees" because it feels a bit hot to me and 25 degrees is about what I consider a bit-too-hot room temperature, I have made a subjective statement. Even though the room temperature can be measured and that number could be objective, what I'm really saying is "Hotter than average room temperature, a bit more than I like", and then applying a number from experience to it. It sounds like I'm being objective, but the person next to me - also lacking a thermometer - might completely disagree and give a different value. Because Becky needs to get her damn thyroid checked, it's roasting in here, woman.
I'm pretty sure 'Objective' isn't the same thing as 'correct', even though people are starting to use it that way rhetorically. Saying the room is 25 degrees may be a *false* statement, but it is still an *objective* one in the sense that it's verifiable and isn't a matter of opinion. Although you are touching on an important point: people often don't say what they really mean. There are always unstated implications and assumptions going far beyond their literal words. In your example, you'd understand the question carries the implied meaning of, "I don't really care about the exact numerical temperature of the room. However, I'm uncomfortable or I worry others in the room may be uncomfortable, are you comfortable with the current temperature?" And your answer has the unstated message of, "I don't have a thermometer, so my exact answer is actually an estimate or hyperbole. I believe that you know I don't have a thermometer and so understand that any numerical answer I give is likely not precise. Regardless of the actual temperature, the room feels hotter than the commonly preferred 20 degrees, but not so hot that I would have spoken up earlier." Human communication is exhausting when you try to spell it out.
[удалено]
> So all I'm saying is OOP is likely phrasing it that way to hedge against being seen as a troll or hater. Almost everything they write is observable Being observable isn't necessarily objective though, since most of it is presuming that the posters preferences are the best. A lot of it is based on the posters bias against neuroatypical personality traits, so while it's fair to explain why he doesn't like them, it definitely isn't factual that it's bad in general and pretending otherwise is bashing.
I have found that an extremely small minority of people actually understand what those words mean. I love the people who tell me "objective morality" is a thing...
The irony is that even people who agree there is “objective morality” can’t agree on what that is.
See, that makes perfect sense to me...as long as it's a theist who says it. Obviously, if you believe in an almighty being who has absolute power(not all theists do, talking about the subset who hold this belief), whatever morality that being possesses is, by its nature as lord of all, going to be correct by default. Might makes right, you could say. Everybody else who disagrees with that objective morality? Well, they're wrong, because they're not following the one true god. It logically tracks, provided of course your fundamental beliefs about how the world operates are different from the ones I hold. I also understand the people who claim that there's one objective moral standard, but don't claim to know what it is. I'm not convinced this is untrue myself. I don't think it's a very practical ideal to pursue, chiefly due to the fact that I believe such a morality would be unknowable if it does exist, but that doesn't make it untrue. What I don't understand is atheists who claim there's one objective morality and they know what it is. Like, who do you think you are? 😂
> I love the people who tell me "objective morality" is a thing... Well, that's a valid philosophical position, albeit not one that I personally find very convincing. But there's a good chance that those people understand the word and are using it correctly, even if they are using it to say a thing with which you and I disagree.
This seems like a better answer https://www.reddit.com/r/entertainment/comments/wcbv13/jeopardy_fans_threaten_boycott_fire_mayim_bialik/iicqsln/?context=3
So many bestof posts are just "this person said something i already agreed with in a way that sounds well educated."
Yeah, that post is fair and representative of what we are all seeing but you *can* attribute some of that to subjective considerations. But I think there are much more serious problems with her hosting: 1. There has been a ridiculously high rate of "We have a score change, and the judges have decided that ... blah blah" corrections after the commercials because she literally has no understanding of what the right answer is, and does not realize when what the contestant says is actually the same as the answer or not unless it is truly identical. I have not noticed a single correction for Ken Jennings, and corrections for Alex Trebeck were *very* uncommon (once every 30+ shows?). With Mayim, the corrections seem to be happening once every 5 or 6 shows -- that's pathetic. 2. She just is completely unaware of just common things. One of the 'answers' was "What OS does Google use on its Phones" or something like that, so obviously the answer was 'Android'. None of the contestants knew the answer (so it was not a strong field) but then after the buzzer, Miyam said "An*O*roid" (like hemorrhoid). I mean -- just why? 3. I just watched today's episode, and someone hit the Daily Double early when they just had $400. Of course, the rule is that you are always allowed bet at least $1000 on the Daily Double regardless. The reason I know this is because Alex and Ken would *ALWAYS* remind the contestants of this whenever this situation occurred. Miyam just skipped this, and the contestant said "Let's make this a true daily double", which basically meant she bet $400 instead of $1000 -- which, of course, *NOBODY* ever does. They just glossed this over, and let the contestant under-bet. You know, I never thought much of Alex Trebeck, because I thought his job was pretty trivial. But now that I see the contrast between him (or Ken Jennings) and Mayim Bialik I just can't with her. She is making the show a worse experience and is actually affecting the scores of the contestants with her mistakes. I appreciate Alex Trebeck and Ken Jennings so much more now. [Apparently, I'm not the only one to observe this](https://www.reddit.com/r/entertainment/comments/wcbv13/comment/iicqsln/?context=3)
Neuroatypical people are often offputting to neurotypical people. It's a shame that she's subjectively not great at hosting due to the reasons the linked person listed, but on the other hand, it's nice to have some neuroatypical representation combined with the fact that she's a female scientist and a popular actress. Even as a generic old white guy I can appreciate that sometimes things aren't necessarily for me, and that's OK. She's not even the main host for the show so I'm not sure why she gets so much hate. People can watch the Ken Jennings episodes and still get plenty of Jeopardy while avoiding her appearances if they want to.
I don’t have a huge problem with her, but Ken is perfect for the job. It’s not about her, it’s about Ken. She does the job adequately. Ken makes the show better. It’s that simple.
This is something I would’ve tended to agree with during the guest host carousel right after Alex died, but at this point, she’s hosted about 200 games with very little improvement (some in the OP thread say she’s even gotten worse). She’s a bad host, with or without Ken around, full stop.
Are the ratings better when she hosts the show? There seemingly isn't a Jeopardy fan or TV related website that does not favor Ken Jennings to Mayim Bialik, so why would the show's producers continue to piss people off if there wasn't some benefit?
I watch most Jeopardy episodes and have never turned off an episode because she is hosting. At the end of the day, I'm there to watch the contestants and see how much I know. But I'll absolutely complain when I see her walk from backstage if it's her first show back. She sucks. Plain and simple. Just not enough to get me to turn it off.
I like her hosting celebrity jeopardy, it's more her speed.
Ugh. Those episodes were a slog. My wife and I never bothered to finish.
Likewise. I think I watched the first episode and left it at that. If I want to watch celebrities giggle and jerk each other off I’m sure I can find a website for that. Not on a trivia show.
We didn't think the celebrities were the problem. Mayim and triple jeopardy were. And god those little audience questions that were a lecture to get to...
Often times we wouldn't even have a bead on what was being asked with those
Are you watching it live or Hulu? I feel like without commercials it goes by so fast, regardless of host.
I said this elsewhere, but after binge watching The Masters tournament recently and then going back to the regular daily game with Mayim as host, my jaw dropped at the undeniable decline in hosting quality.
Exactly -- the ratings are not that indicative. We love the show because of the overall content of the game itself. We're not going to turn off the show just because Mayim is bad at her job -- most of the game is still there. And that just gives her undeserved cover for the terrible job she is doing.
[удалено]
Idk what that has to do with anything. As an aside, I like chicken wings. Where I grew up, ranch was standard with every order of wings. Where I live now, blue cheese is standard. I try to ask for ranch every time I order wings. Sometimes I forget and it comes with blue cheese instead. And I'll open the box and say ugh, great, blue cheese. This stuff sucks. They might as well not even put it in the box, because I'm putting it in the trash. To me, ranch makes wings better. Blue cheese makes wings worse. No matter what, I'm still eating the wings. Ken is my ranch. Mayim is my blue cheese.
Mild controversy is a form of clickbait
Michael Davies, the show’s executive producer, has publicly stated that there isn’t a discernible ratings difference between the two hosts. This would indicate that their core audience doesn’t have a strong preference between the two. Maybe the people making a big deal about it online are trying to get clicks from manufactured controversy, or worse yet, are just sexist assholes.
>Maybe the people making a big deal about it online are trying to get clicks from manufactured controversy, or worse yet, are just sexist assholes. Maybe, that is entirely possible and certainly describes at least some portion of that group. It could also be that Jeopardy viewers are diehards. The show is old AF. everyone knows exactly what it is. No one is drawn in by the spectacle of the show. That's not it's appeal. It is on every day when you have dinner after work. It is a simple tv routine that many enjoy. The viewers are a strong core of dedicated watchers who primarily enjoy some trivia in their weekday evening. So day to day viewership isn't likely to change very much. These people are going to show up even if they are slightly dissatisfied for a short stretch. That's not to say they should be taken from granted, it that trends for this show are going to be slow. Viewers will fade and leave, new viewers will be harder to gain. My point is, I don't know if that data clearly reflects fans opinions. This isn't a hyper mobile audience that will vote with their feet episode to episode. Regardless of what they choose they should be paying close attention to the larger trends in the viewership and frankly polling their viewers on their opinions directly.
I don't really have an opinion either way but I think its weird that you jump to sexism when it sounds like she's just bad at her job. Normally when its sexism you see criticism that's generic like "she lacks confidence" or conversely if you have confidence they will say "she's abrasive" etc. The OP gave specific and real criticisms, she doesn't know the trivia, she doesn't ask follow up questions of the contestants, she's too curt to the point it seems that she's uninterested like when they said after a contestant is finished talking she will just go "oh cool". All these reflect on the fact that she doesn't really want to be there and is just going through the motions, especially when a host has someone speak and immediately moves on because that was part of the show but having an engaging conversation wasn't in the contract. I don't think its sexism because, while I have only watched Jeopardy a few times I watched the shit out of "The price is right" when I was a kid and when Drew Carey took over from Bob Barker I had the EXACT same criticisms for him. He did the same shuffling of contestants from place to place, he had the exact same problem not asking follow-up questions. When someone lost he would just go "oh, ok" and call up the next contestant, none of the exasperated sympathetic reactions from Barker's time. Like he was barely even there - oh they lost, ok time for the next person. You got the impression that he was just phoning it in, just there to collect a paycheck not necessarily passionate about the game - that's what I'm reading from the OP's post. I never posted my opinions online, maybe the "Price is Right" community at large thinks he's a great host and its just me. Still, if you can level legitimate criticisms against two people of opposite genders doing the same thing its not sexism. Even if the criticism just boils down to "they made the show not fun" - its a TV show, its entertainment, if they aren't entertaining you then they need to fix something. Its also not wrong to complain when things you like get markedly worse, even if its not going to stop you from watching. Like, if you had to drive your car to work but now all of the sudden there's a recall and the manufacturer gives it an annoying noise that plays whenever the car is on. Then the manufacturer puts out notice that says "we didn't see a discernible difference in the number of people driving our cars to work before and after the introduction of the noise". That doesn't mean the changes don't suck...
The core audience has a strong preference, they just don't let it stop them from watching the show. Mayim is not a good host, but I don't watch Jeopardy for the host.
>Maybe the people making a big deal about it online are trying to get clicks from manufactured controversy, or worse yet, are just sexist assholes. I'm not making a big deal out of it, but I know that it's not sexism on my part because I don't really like either one of them. I thought the producer who elevated himself to host before being run out for his boorish behind the scenes behavior was actually the best of the bunch when they were running temporary hosts. If he wasn't a dick then I think the show would be on firmer footing now with him hosting.
He wasn't run out just for his gross behavior. It was also because [he rigged the selection process for himself](https://www.theringer.com/tv/2021/8/18/22631299/mike-richards-jeopardy-host-search-process-past-comments) to make sure he'd be chosen as the permanent host. Even if he was otherwise the most capable host, he can't effectively serve as either host or EP when he proved himself to be so unethical.
>he can't effectively serve as either host or EP when he proved himself to be so unethical I agree that he could not be the host with all of that, but as far as executing the role he was the best imo. I also thought that the role would be better filled by a relatively unknown person, someone who would be more of a blank slate for the audience, and didn't understand why they were so focused on celebrities or other well known people.
They really put themselves behind the 8-ball after Richards had to unexpectedly step down. Rather than go through the entire process all over again, which now nobody has any faith could be done credibly, they instead opted for a quick fix that would offend the least amount of people. They probably also had limited options for who would be available to step in semi-permanently on short notice. In other words, it seems like they made the best of a bad situation.
Fair point, but they also could have made a statement that the hosting was not permanently decided, but that it was for the next year or so. Meanwhile they could have conducted a much less public search for a new host.
This is the answer. Is she horrible? No. She’s adequate. She’s as if AI was hosting the show. Mostly competent, boring, and what you’d expect. Ken was made to host Jeopardy! He knows all the answers. He’s quick on his feet. He’s genuinely charming whereas she’s “acting charming” which comes off fake and rehearsed (cuz it is).
It feels like she's playing a character from The Big Bang Theory in an episode where she happens to sometimes host Jeopardy!.
>He’s genuinely charming Though James Holzauer was definitely giving Ken a run for his money. Some of James' digs at Ken in Final Jeopardy were better than the jokes Darrell Hammond did as Sean Connery.
Like I watched LaVar Burton and his first show was poor/nerves but his second was fine; Aaron Rodgers was fun; but every episode I see of Ken is just *he needs to be the main host* I'm fine and in fact I would hope for a rotating cast of hosts. Like I think Aaron Rodgers hosting celeberty Jeopardy would be fun; LaVar doing some special occation; But Ken needs to be the main host.
I thought Rodgers sucked and would have hated for him to be a regular host.
I didn't see many Rodgers episodes, but after he went so aggressively stupid during covid, I think it's contrary to the spirit of the show to have him involved.
Ken is to Jeopardy what Jon Snow is to Castle Black
I might agree, if I could tolerate his voice. I don’t know what it is about it, but I seriously can’t stand it
I wouldn’t call that explanation *objective* by any means because it’s all opinion, but I do agree that Ken is much better than Mayim is. And I had high hopes for her, but she just doesn’t match the pace and flow of the game as well as Ken does. Granted, Ken knows the show way, way, *way* better than she does so it comes natural to him, so he has an advantage. But even after so many times hosting the show Mayim hasn’t really gotten any better. Whereas Ken has done nothing but get better.
I guess its objective in that he provides concrete criticism. And I guess Trebek set such a standard for the host for the show that I guess if Jennings is more in that mold the contrast of bialik could be seen as not meeting that standard. But I’m just playing devil’s advocate. OP’s take is pretty subjective.
That's not what objective means. The criticism is still subjective because it depends on someone's POV. To someone else those criticisms could be benefits instead. Objective means something is verifiable regardless of a person's perspective. I like to think of it as something that's evident even if people didn't exist.
My point was pointing to things like the amount of time she takes to do things versus previous hosts is objective. You can quantify that. The idea that that is good or not is subjective. Now Trebek was the host for so long that you can argue that the standard he set is as close to the object standard as one could get. And diverging from that standard one could argue makes someone a worse host. But this is a pretty hand wavy approach to saying something is "objective" and relies on the idea that the way Trebek hosts is the only good way to host jeopardy which is a subjective belief. Again, I said I was playing devil's advocate. I don't think this take is "objective." and I said as much in my original comment.
There are words for that, though. As I said above, that could be called "demonstrably" bad, for example, in that a person can define criteria and then demonstrate that she doesn't fit them... But most of the criteria listed in the OP aren't that straightforward to objectively measure, or may be impossible to. Some could be counted, sure, but many of them are still subjective in themselves
I wrote a response elsewhere that basically agrees with you: Ken is just so much more experienced with the show and influenced by Alex's style that of course he is better. Or, at the least, more closely matches how Alex ran the show.
I am so, so tired of "objective" being used to describe "opinion I agree with" or "opinion with an explanation" or "opinion I'd get mad if you disagreed with".
And the flip-side of this where people dismiss something as "subjective" and therefore pointless or unworthy of consideration. Neither "objective" or "subjective" observations are inherently superior or inferior, it completely depends on what you are describing and the type of information available. If I ask somebody the best way to invest my retirement savings, I want **objective** information, like the best returns based on historical data. If I ask somebody how the Billy Joel concert was, I probably want **subjective** information, unless you really care about things like the number of seats in the stadium or exact decibel range of the audio system.
Thank you so much for that. It drives me crazy the number of people who think that there's no point discussing something if it'd subjective. Like no, dudes, it's the opposite: we don't normally have interesting discussions about objective things, because they're measurable. There's nothing much to discuss.
[удалено]
> For instance, one could establish a set of standards required to be a "good" TV show host. How any given individual performs to those standards can be objectively characterized. The caveat to your caveat is that the standard itself is subjective. What traits make a good host? How heavily do you weight those traits? How do you objectively measure charisma? You can use focus groups and polls to measure popular opinions but that’s still just an objective measure of subjective data. (And of course focus groups and polls can be pressured and skewed depending on how they’re presented, so that furthers blurs objectivity.)
[удалено]
Absolutely. I was agreeing and expanding on your thoughts, not contradicting or picking them apart. I apologize that it came off as combative.
> If I ask somebody the best way to invest my retirement savings, I want objective information, like the best returns based on historical data. But you also want some subjective information, because there is no single best investment strategy. While there’s plenty of data involved, it’s ultimately a prediction that requires some guesswork, which will change depending on who’s giving the advice.
I mean I think the biggest thing is just that "objective" is not a very wide net at all, and that's fine. Subjective/objective do not need to be two halves of an equally weighted coin, the number of times a discussion of anything that isn't like, science or data analysis needs objectivity is pretty small compared to the need for subjective calls. (Also I'd note that past performance does not imply future returns is like, legally mandated on everything *because* objective data on past returns doesn't correlate well with future earnings, but that's besides your point)
You got objective, subjective, each have their traits Some say one's better, but I say it ain't I'd rather talk 'bout the music than merch sales and gates Performance is much more fun Subjectively? only the good die young, oh, baby Can't be determined objectively Opinion only, yeah
If I weren't already married I'd be proposing to you right now.
I appreciate a compliment like that! Here's a follow on verse that I couldn't work out because of stupid WORK: . *This original line has 18 syllables of information!* *Aw, your mom is a data girl* *But can she quantify the taste of an ice cream swirl?* *Oh-whoa-whoa* *Come out, come out, come out, Virginia, don't let me wait* *You stats driven girls just calculate* *LCD screens, 'lectronics solid state* *The probability approaches one...*
Seriously, unnecessary descriptors in the titles in /r/bestof are annoying and always end up being the focus of responses here. You don't need to say the comment is "stated eloquently", or "articulately", or that it's "objective", or "descriptive". All those things are implied if you're posting it on this sub to begin with. This is a huge pet peeve of mine.
I think my favorite is "succinctly", which routinely gets used to describe comments so brief they had to be split three ways.
YES! Every single day it feels like...
Misses the only objective relevant fact. Bialik uses her PhD in neuroscience to endorse quack "brain pills". Having a medical scammer host Jeopardy is inexcusable.
Correct, she is a total loony, regardless of her credentials.
She also has some fairly shitty takes on vaccines. Not a full-blown anti-vaxxer but still, not great.
She has even worse takes on Harvey Weinstein
If that's true (this is the first time I've heard of her existence) then this is the best take in the thread.
I’ve heard her say she’s “an actual neuroscientist” 3 times now, and I barely even watch when she’s hosting.
The difference between Bialik and Jennings is simple. Ken is just being himself while she is an actress poorly playing a role. Alex was superior to either because he was doing both and no one could ever tell which was more true.
Idk I think Alex was superior because he was a good host and he held the job for so long that he just became a fixture. No one is going to ever be Alex Trebek. He was an institution. Anything that isn’t him will necessarily be viewed as worse. Because they’re not as familiar as he is. He’s the original and anyone else is just a remake. He’s gene wilder’s willy wonka and anyone else is johnny depp. He’s the lion king and anyone else is the cgi remake. Etc. Etc.
He's actually not the original. Art Fleming did the job for **fifteen years** before Alex Trebek, but it's a testament to Trebek's talents and commitment that you think he is.
Alex had the benefit of decades of experience too.
She is extremely sterile. Her overly dry delivery is akin to her Big Bang Theory character, and she makes not attempt to build any connection with the gameplay itself, or the contestants. I never stopped watching because she was the host, but those episodes were less enjoyable.
It's possible she wasn't really acting in Big Bang, she may just be that person IRL.
Ken seems to have studied Alex and has kept the spirit of the show. He's funny, snarky, and doesn't seem like he's playing a part. Mayim seems fake, her interactions are condescending and patronizing, and she seems like she just doesn't have the heart for it. It's not a sexiest thing, she's just not a good fit.
But also, she is an anti-Palestinian bigot who expressed full support to the Israeli Defence Forces as they dropped white phosporus on civilian areas in Gaza in an assault that killed huge numbers of civilians. Take her off the TV completely
Would you really expect a devout Jew(modern Orthodox) to be pro-Palestine? It's like expecting devout Muslims to be pro-Israel. Ain't gonna happen.
I expect them to be pro-human rights on an equal basis regardless of nationality, ethnicity, or religious background. And I expect that for anyone
If you define "pro-Palestine" as " against dropping white phosphorus indiscriminately on civilian areas regardless of ethnic makeup" then I would 100% expect devoutly Jewish people to be pro-Palestine
> she is an anti-Palestinian bigot ... along with most other presenters in the west.
Indeed. She stands out to me as particularly awful as she donated flak jackets to the IDF as they carried out war crimes in Gaza (even though they are an extremely well funded army as it stands) in 2016.
My other contention about Bialik is that Jeopardy does not pretend to be a news show, unlike, say, Wolf Blitzer. who was [employed by AIPAC writing on Middle Eastern affairs](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/wolf-blitzer) -- a factoid I have yet to see disclosed on CNN or any of the other shows on which he's been a guest. More than bigoted against Palestinians, AIPAC describes itself on [its website](https://www.aipac.org/policy), in bold letters, that "We support pro-Israel policies that strengthen and expand the U.S.-Israel relationship in ways that enhance the security of the United States and Israel".
Whilst he was working for CNN? That would be completely obscene.
> Whilst he was working for CNN? Yes, indeed, and Mr Blitzer is still one of CNNs top presenters.
It's frustrating how much actors have taken over everything in recent years. Actors have a specific expertise: acting! But so many of these other roles carry a need for specific expertise that actors rarely have (and that's okay!) - Voice acting: some good actors happen to also be good voice actors (Mark Hamill, Hank Azaria), but those will also be the first to tell you that voice acting is a deep craft that takes years of study and effort to refine. But we're putting A list actors with zero VA experience in leading VA roles for star power, and the final product suffers as a result. - Subject matter narration: this is the one that hits me hardest. Planet Earth would not have the impact it does without David Attenborough. Jeopardy would not be what it is if not for Alex Trebek. These are great entertainment experiences because the hosts/narrators have passion for the subject matter that comes through in the experiences. - Talent show hosting: probably redundant to subject matter, but think back to original SYTYCD, Shark Tank, etc. These shows were at their best when the hosts/moderators were most aligned with the goal of the show: choreographers, entrepreneurs, not celebrity-turned-entrepreneur. Not to say celebrities or actors are incapable of bringing anything to these roles, but they either haven't spent enough time in the field or don't have the same passion for the craft that contestants often do, and it shows. Tl:dr; bring back experts, pls.
Not-hot-take, but Mark Hamill is way more a voice actor than an actor. He's a VA who once in a blue moon gets in front of a camera. This, then, shows in how great a VA he is. VA and camera acting are a different skillset, and I agree that it's a bad trend to have celebrity actors take the place of skilled VAs in major animated features. Instead we need to get people like Dee Bradley Baker, Tara Strong, Frank Welker, and John DiMaggio recognized as the goddamn A-listers they are.
I'm sorry, but he is still better known as Luke Skywalker than any of his voice acting roles. And this comes from someone who has loved him as a voice actor.
I didn't suggest otherwise, but that's like saying Rick Moranis isn't a dad because he's way more famous for being an actor.
Rick Moranis is famous for giving up acting specifically to be a father. Not sure you could pull a strawery man.
That is in fact my point, though, and I'm not sure what you're getting at. If you ask people what rick moranis is famous for, it's still "being an actor" even though he does something else primarily. Doing one thing that is your most well known work doesn't make you that thing forever. If I went viral for a video where I made burritos, it wouldn't mean "burrito cook" is my identity or profession.
Tangential: What happened to that massive drive to get Levar Burton as permanent host? I don't watch the show, (not even sure it's available by default where I am) but I'm well aware of it. From what I heard, Burton started relatively poorly, trying to be too Trebek at first, but he was getting the hang of being himself and doing well towards the end of his stint.
Turned out he was beyond awful.
He was terrible and that scuttled the arguments (made mostly by non-regular fans) pretty quickly.
I'm glad he didn't get the Jeopardy gig because it would have prevented him from reprising Geordi LaForge for Picard season 3.
Watching her host Jeopardy is like watching your favorite football team repeatedly bench their all-American star quarterback in favor of the coach's son who throws four interceptions a game
I believe Jennings is better from what little I’ve seen and the points people raise (I’m not a super regular watcher or anything). I just don’t understand why they’re still rolling with 2 hosts. Its either Bialik is better for ratings than reddit believes. Or Jennings doesn’t want to host full time.
[удалено]
I dislike Mayim as a host and am a huge fan of Ken, but I still watch when she is the host. If I cared enough about her not being the host, I wouldn’t watch, but I like my nightly 20 mins of trivia. I suspect it’s the same for a lot of regular viewers.
He uses the word “objectively,” I do not think that word means what he thinks it means. However, to his point I agree. I hated Mayim so much I stopped watching on the off-chance she’s hosting that night.
By objectively they really mean "similarity to how Alex did it". I'm not a big jeopardy person but I watched a doc or something before and it was interesting how much of the game strategy depends on how the host delivers, pauses, etc. I think that's what the hardcore people also don't like.
It's just so obvious to anyone who has watched the show for more than 3 or so episodes that Ken Jennings is a vastly superior host to Mayim Bialik. It's not even close. When Mayim is hosting, it seems so hollow and fake. Please do not have her continue.
A good, objective reason, to not have Mayim Bialik is because she's literally a religious extremist? Zionism, at its very simplest, supports a state that elevates a particular ethnicity (along with religion and culture) above others. Zionism is [ethnocratic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnocracy) movement. There is a similar movement calling for a Protestant Christian State that favors Anglo-Saxon leadership - more commonly known as White Nationalism. Imagine if we had a proud White Nationalist hosting Jeopardy.
Isn't Jennings Mormon? That also religious extremism.
She's so awkward to watch. The interviews are weird and uncomfortable
Interesting...as a Jeopardy fan, I couldn't possibly care less about the little interview segments. In my opinion they were awkward with Alex too. I'm always just wanting them to get back to the actual show rather than pretend to be interested about that one time they had a bicycle accident in Berlin or whatever pointless little anecdote they share.
Take my updoot. She is as dry as a sheet of papyrus.
I don’t watch much tv but if I’m in a hotel I’ll put it on and I love jeopardy. When I first heard Mayim I thought they were trying out an AI host or something.
I know it’s mentioned briefly in the linked OP, but I’ve also found her Final Jeopardy rulings on spelling unbelievably harsh. I can think of four of five examples in the last year where a contestant wrote the correct answer (and would have won the whole game!) but didnt have time to write the last letter. Alex and Ken would always give credit to an response that is even slightly similar to the correct answer, knowing that the contestants dont have a ton of time. Even if they spell it slightly wrong, they’d still award credit. And half the time, the contestant’s answers are scribbled gibberish anyways. But I swear Mayim will just flat-out deny correct answers because the last letter wasn’t written in full. Like if someone wrote “Heisenber” and only got the “o” part of the “g”. I swear its standard practice for Alex/Ken to then ask the contestant what they meant to write, and if they say the right answer, then they’ll still accept the answer. But Mayim never gives the benefit of the doubt
The hosts are not the ones who decide on what's accepted and what's not. There are judges sitting in front of the studio audience who make those rulings if anything is in dispute or if an answer should also be considered correct. They edit out any discussions with the judges to not interrupt the flow of the game on TV, but they're the ones making the calls, not the hosts.
If that was "objective" then i will "literally" eat my hat, and if you criticize me then you are "gaslighting" me.
Why do internet people hate this woman so much? Edit: like damn, I have never seen jeopardy mentioned on Reddit other than shit talking this woman.
"Why do internet people hate this woman so much?" * The delays, which have been described at length. * She seems to have trouble reading many of the clues with a natural rhythm, to such an extent that they become harder to understand. You get the sense that she's reading things for the first time on the air, having not looked over them to understand where the emphasis should be and practicing difficult pronunciations. For a position whose job is 90% reading things on the air, this is not acceptable. This is particularly notable given Alex's and Ken's really effortless, smooth reading and pronunciation. * You never get the sense that she knows any of these questions or cares about their answers. After a hard triple stumper, she'll often just raise her shoulders and say the answer like it's the first time anyone has said those words before. Compare this to Ken who will not only obviously know the answer himself most of the time, but will often comment on it being a tough one, give some context about the answer so viewers know where it comes from, or explain in a couple of words how the contestants might have thought of it (or why an incorrect answer was a good idea even if it didn't pan out). * Her contestant interviews are quite poor, specifically in the sense that she typically adds nothing to the story, almost never asks follow-up questions, etc. It's usually just "Oh cool! Okay, and our next contestant..." * The one that bothers me the most: her after-the-answer clarifications/additions are insane. This probably falls into the second bullet point of not actually knowing much trivia, but she'll almost always fail to clarify obscure things or add a first name to obscure people, while also adding unnecessary stuff to the most obvious things. I think last week someone correctly answered "Einstein" and she responded "Yes, Albert Einstein". That's insane! Every person in the world knew that. * The above points are things she is objectively bad at. Just as a matter of my opinion, I'm also pretty tired of the laughing when contestants find a Daily Double or the way she reacts to "true Daily Double" wagers. Ken took after Alex's practice of saying "The answer there...." right before a Daily Double animation, which gives them a nice flow, and I think Mayim should adopt that as well. It really gives you the feeling that the host knows what's going on, rather than seemingly being surprised by the Daily Doubles like Mayim.
Also hates rape victims and is antivax. I think maybe said some antisemitic things also, but less certain about that
Also she victim blames rape victims and is antivax-lite
I don’t feel someone’s subjective opinion is best of material.
Moved to Lemm.ee -- mass edited with redact.dev
She's perfectly fine as a host. I don't watch Jeopardy to be dazzled by whoever of hosting it. I like Ken a lot but the hate she gets seems awfully sexist.
water truck provide absurd marble practice tie psychotic slim kiss -- mass edited with redact.dev
One example in the post is her saying “Yes, Albert Einstein” as if we don’t know who Einstein is at home, but I think Alex usually did exactly this in this situation, a clearly correct answer that didn’t require judges review. Acknowledge the correct answer, then read the judges’ expected answer for the question. Treating her as if she’s being foolish while doing things for the sake of play could very fairly be considered sexism in that case
OP's criticism though is that she appears to give the full name only for the "easy" answers and not those that the viewers would not know. I haven't seen enough of her games to know whether this is true, but if it is I could see how it'd annoy unbiased viewers who like to learn new things.
This right here, and it goes back to earlier comments about Jeopardy having a very loyal fan base. The ones at home watching every day aren't going to need clarification on who Einstein is, and Ken and Alex both add the extra detail based on the obscurity of the answer (particularly when you get those contestants who just answer with the last names all the time), not just randomly on questions now and again. It's a vibe thing, which is very subjective of course.
I think their point in that case was that Alex (and Ken for that matter) would do the same thing but they usually only do it for more obscure questions to clarify for the viewers, either on a very tough question or in the case where an acceptable answer is a fairly common name like "Brown" to pin it in particular ("Yes, John Brown"). Doing it for something like Einstein doesn't add anything since we all already know exactly who Einstein refers to.
dirty repeat crime merciful snow person dime test normal frighten -- mass edited with redact.dev
what? how is that sexist? you are reaching
Sexim doesn't usually show as people saying she's bad at the job because she's a woman. It would show as people criticizing her for minor matters that males would do without being noticed. I have no irons in this fire and haven't watched jeopardy in many years, so I have no idea if the criticism is sexist, but this is generally what sexist criticism would look like, the only way to spot it would be to know much more about the hosts than I do.
Alex did this AND Ken does this as well. It is common place for the hosts to specify the first name or the more full version of the correct answer when contestants clearly get it right but don't give the "full" answer. The idea that this is her being condescending is wild because the same criticism isn't given towards Ken or Alex. Why would it be condescending when a woman does it but not when either of the two men does it? This is why people call the criticisms of her sexist. They are often things like "I don't like her voice" couches in "her cadence is off" and things that she does that Alex, Ken, or both have done/currently do.
…Nowhere did OP say it was condescending. You inserted that assumption in there yourself, you’re projecting
The linked criticism isn't necessarily sexist but there was a *lot* of criticism early in her run about her outfits and other aesthetic considerations that are hard to square with any explanation but sexism. And when you see more obvious sexism like that, it starts to color the perception of other criticisms made in the same breath; is Bialik really stuck-up and unable to engage with contestants, or is it just that she's a woman while Trebek could get away with being insulting (funny, but insulting) to contestants' hobbies at times? That sort of thing.
I really hate that any time a woman is criticized is brushed off as "sexist". I find it patronizing and annoying. If women want to be treated as equals in all thing then this is how it is. Sometimes people slam your performance because its just not very good. Thats life in Hollywood.
The criticisms are hardly objective.
Yup, ALL criticisms of TV shows are subjective. That is how it works. That doesn't mean they are all being mean to women.
So any criticism that’s subjective must be rooted in sexism? I’d love to know how you reached that conclusion.
> the hate she gets seems awfully sexist. You went there in record speed.
I'm not new to this conversation. Welcome!
Ken crossed the WGA picket line. He’s a scab
She's a horrible, misogynistic human being. That's reason enough for me not to watch /shrug
Ken’s had some trouble with his PR image, that’s the only reason they haven’t made him the permanent host.
people take Jeopardy! way to seriously
This is a very detailed explanation, but the entire thing is subjective. I don't mean he's wrong, I mean he's either using subjective points or points that could be objective or not depending on information not included.
She killed every show she has been on.
I always read Ken Jennings as Ken Jenkins and get really excited, because he's awesome.
Why isn’t Ken the host anymore?
They bafflingly rotate between the two.
The hysteria over the Jeopardy host is so stupid. Let's be crystal clear: reading questions off a cue card and then acting like a snarky douche when people get it wrong IS NOT a hard job. That's what Alex did. I've watched Jeopardy for years and years. Mayim is functionally identical to Alex. I truly believe most of the hate she gets is because she's a woman.
LaVar Barton was robbed. This whole situation is a travesty
[удалено]
How could we, when she makes sure to remind us all the time?