I think that's one of the reason's Omarosa got booted is that her name was becoming an entity itself and was overshadowing TRUMP.[/quote]
That's a good point, although I'm not sure Trump would've been aware of that before the show aired on tv.
SkippyUpwood
Nov 21, 2005 @ 5:15 pm
1. I thought Raj was Asian (he was half-Indian).
2. I always though Omarosa was canned because of her breakdown in the boardroom and the fact that it would be unfair to Heidi to fire her before Omarosa(ironically, Omarosa performed the best on the Art task) .
legaleagle44
Nov 21, 2005 @ 5:27 pm
I thought Raj was Asian (he was half-Indian).[/quote]
Raj is indeed half-Indian, and therefore technically Asian, SkippyUpwood. I think what everyone else has in mind, though, is a more "traditional" definition of Asian, i.e., a male of Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, Thai, Indonesian, or Filipino descent. While we've had Ivana representing the female Far-East ethnicity, we've yet to see her male racial counterpart as a candidate. I don't think such a candidate would necessarily fill the "geeky" stereotype any more than Randal has filled the subservient (or militant) black male ghetto stereotypes, but it would be interesting to see whether a male candidate of Far Eastern descent would experience any sort of subconscious racism on the part of either Donald or the fellow candidates.
SkippyUpwood
Nov 21, 2005 @ 5:42 pm
Fair enough - in the UK (where I live and work), Asian generally refers to people with roots in India, Pakistian, Bangladesh etc. East Asia/Far East would avoid confusion.
StickyKeys
Nov 22, 2005 @ 1:00 am
That's true, thanks for pointing that out.
marketdoctor
Nov 23, 2005 @ 1:59 pm
I noticed something: Out of the final six this year, you have five groups that Hitler was really opposed to: An African-American man who was smarter than he was (write your own joke), a Jewish man, an openly gay man, a Russian woman, a physically disabled woman (though not sure if the temporarily disabled were rounded up with their more permanent counterparts). He might have had something to hate about Felisha, as well.
Maybe we're not there yet, but in the past, it's been worse, and the difference between "good" and "bad" is sometimes a lot smaller than the difference between "bad" and "worse". (It's also possible I'm mistaken.)
StickyKeys
Nov 23, 2005 @ 4:12 pm
I see what your saying and it's very interesting. (I've read about five Hitler references today, one involved McDonalds and Albertsons, strange).
I think it's one of those things. I recently had to get a cavity filled and when she was drilling she noticed that there was a crapload more cavity in there. She ended up having to pull it. I think that's what it is, you scratch at the surface and think you have things figured out, but really there's a whole lot of underneath that needs to be cleared out.
Hitler's idea was to pull it, and we all see how well that worked out, Good Lord.
I think the answer is not getting rid of the problem, but recognizing it and taking some action that will not only eliminate it, but provide against future attack. I don't know if that will ever happen, but there are some thngs in the works that are positive.
EDIT: Erm, allow me to clarify lest I come off as a Hitler sympathizer which, eww.
I was saying that Hitler saw something he thought was a problem: Not enough blonde white people controlled the world. So he tried to get rid of the problem via extraction. Get rid of the factors and no problem right? But the issue wasn't that those factors were a problem, just that he had a problem with them, which is his deal, and not the worlds.
Innocent people get hurt when you can't correctly identify a way to fix things. You look at the surface, and think it's easy, but when you dig deeper, you find that the problem doesn't lie on top, but at the root.
I hope that clarifies a little, I don't ever want to make it seem like I support Hitler! Scary.
Jacob
Nov 23, 2005 @ 6:58 pm
Topic, please.
Lanka
Nov 24, 2005 @ 12:37 am
I agree with those that say that there is definitely some level of racial bias in candidate selection and portrayal on the show, which is helped by the viewers stereotypes. I have two thoughts on this:
What is the solution? How can the producers portray minorities in a fair way? It is very hard because there is typically one or two representatives of each minority on the show, and whichever way they act will reflect on the group they represent in the viewers mind. One obvious solution is not to pick or portray candidates in a way that reinforces racial stereotypes, but that is not enough. For example, let's say people have a stereotype that all Asian men are nerdy, you can always pick someone who is as far from nerdy as it can get, but then this character will mention that he's good in math, and the viewer will think "Oh, how typical...". So how far does the producers' responsibility go?
And that brings me to my second thought. I think the producers of TA *are* responsible, in a much bigger way that the producers of other reality shows, to portray minorities in a fair and unbiased way, and that is due to the nature of the show. If we see a member of some minority that acts on a Survivor in some negative way, while it is damaging, the damage is relatively small because we're not likely to be stuck in a survival situation at any point. However, most viewers do work with people, and if watching TA does have influence in the way they view minorities in the workplace, then the producers have to be very careful. Think about it, in the extreme there may have been black women that were overlooked for jobs because Omarosa influenced their potential employers perceptions. (Those kind of employers didn't deserve them anyway, but that's beside the point).
It seems to me that currently the producers more or less ignore that responsibility. There are clearly many ways in which they can improve, but is there any way to have a completely fair minority representation?
StickyKeys
Nov 24, 2005 @ 12:53 am
Maybe by having more of them? I guess it wouldn't be really representative as some have mentioned here, but would that help?
I do agree that this show has more of a responsibility, but it's because such a medium for entertainment that the real issues sometimes seem to take a back seat.
BlakeSpeare
Nov 24, 2005 @ 6:58 am
I have to wonder how many minorities are applying to be on the Apprentice. The percentage of minorities who apply may be significantly lower than the percentage of minorities in the general American population. Mark Burnett has said that the vast majority of people who apply for Survivor are white, and it could be that way with the Apprentice, as well (I have no way of knowing).
If that is the case, it raises an interesting question. Should the producers create a cast that is representative of the people who applied, or a cast that is representative of the American public? Or should they just cast whoever appeals to them and forget about what race they are?
Erratic
Nov 24, 2005 @ 1:02 pm
That was my first thoughts too, that the monorities simply aren't applying!
If you look at Big Brother this year, Kaysar was an Iraqi-American and was the most popular House Guest ever, but he DID NOT apply to be on the show - his room mate did.
My feeling is that many people coming from a minority background, who have fought tooth and nail to get past racial stereotyping and country club mentalilty to be a force in the business world, will not willingly appear on a Reality Show and subjugate themselves to looking foolish and risk throwing away everything they have worked towards.
If Omerosa had really wanted to be taken seriously in the business world (as opposed to a Entertainment career) do you really think that she would have behaved so dispicably?)
My point, (and I am getting there) is that many of the Middle Eastern cultures are very proud - Reality TV is not exactly in line with that thinking, eh?
Azrael
Nov 24, 2005 @ 3:26 pm
The percentage of minorities who apply may be significantly lower than the percentage of minorities in the general American population.[/quote]
Maybe. The Apprentice isn't likely to draw from the general population, but from a pretty narrowly defined subset.
The percentage of people in the general population with a resume (education, significant status positions and financial success before age 35, 30, or 25) that would get them selected to be on the Apprentice is fairly small. And because America is what it is, the percentage of those people who will be ethnic minorities is going to be even smaller.
fictionista
Nov 24, 2005 @ 11:50 pm
And because America is what it is, the percentage of those people who will be ethnic minorities is going to be even smaller. [/quote]
I remember when the Apprentice was casting for last season (I think). There was a picture of some of the applicant in a hotel ballroom waiting in line. There were a LOT of minorities. It could have been because of the location (Atlanta), but they were out in full force. I'm not sure about other cities though.
Cygnia
Nov 25, 2005 @ 1:06 am
Going back a little on "attractiveness", would you consider plain/"ugly" as a legitimate minority on TA? Personally, I'm sick of looking at all the pretty pretty people on Reality TV, but then again I'm a bitter temp who HAS been discriminated due to perceived appearance. :p
Or what about age?
Winston Smith
Nov 25, 2005 @ 2:42 pm
I have to wonder how many minorities are applying to be on the Apprentice. The percentage of minorities who apply may be significantly lower than the percentage of minorities in the general American population. Mark Burnett has said that the vast majority of people who apply for Survivor are white, and it could be that way with the Apprentice, as well (I have no way of knowing).
If that is the case, it raises an interesting question. Should the producers create a cast that is representative of the people who applied, or a cast that is representative of the American public? Or should they just cast whoever appeals to them and forget about what race they are?[/quote]
I personally would love to see an Apprentice (or Survivor, or another show) made up entirely of African American (or another ethnic group) contestants. I think it would be really interesting, although I'm at a bit of a loss to verbalize why. As a white person maybe I think I'd get some sort of cultural insight?
Going back a little on "attractiveness", would you consider plain/"ugly" as a legitimate minority on TA? Personally, I'm sick of looking at all the pretty pretty people on Reality TV, but then again I'm a bitter temp who HAS been discriminated due to perceived appearance. [/quote]
I never find the 'attractive white women' anything special. Maybe its because they look like everyone else on TV and blend together. I do think that unconventional looks are a handicap to being cast, especially on the Apprentice. The opinion that Trump tends to keep attractive women around when perhaps they should be fired is well documented, but I'm not sure there's ever been a firing that we could blame on lack of 'beauty'.
Lily Bart
Nov 25, 2005 @ 3:10 pm
If you look at Big Brother this year, Kaysar was an Iraqi-American and was the most popular House Guest ever, but he DID NOT apply to be on the show - his room mate did.[/quote]
This is an interesting point. One of Kaysar's reasons for being on the show -- as stated by him -- was that he wanted to show the public that not all Muslims or Arabs are anti-American, pro-terrorism, etc. People adored him and he's one of (if not the most) popular HGs on Big Brother.
So assume that many minorities are auditioning for TA. Discount the famewhores. Who's left? People who genuinely want to work for Trump. Okay. And maybe many of them also want to provide an example of an intelligent, hard-working, accomplished African-American, Asian, East Indian, etc. But those would fall under the "serious applicants" category, which for TPTB, doesn't usually make for good TV. There's always a mix of the famewhoring delusional crackpot (e.g. Markus, Melissa) and the competent, bright competitor (e.g. Alla, Randal) -- both white and minority.
I'm not, however, saying the end results aren't damaging...
SkippyUpwood
Nov 26, 2005 @ 7:38 am
Discount the famewhores. Who's left? People who genuinely want to work for Trump. Okay. And maybe many of them also want to provide an example of an intelligent, hard-working, accomplished African-American, Asian, East Indian, etc. But those would fall under the "serious applicants" category, which for TPTB, doesn't usually make for good TV. There's always a mix of the famewhoring delusional crackpot (e.g. Markus, Melissa) and the competent, bright competitor (e.g. Alla, Randal) -- both white and minority. [/quote]
I think the problem is that Trump and Burnett lost the balance. Yes, you need the 'characters' for any reality TV show but you need competant people for credibility (TA is after all chasing a radically different audiance than Big Brother). Also if everyone is a 'personality' then none of the real personalities will come out (would we have noticed Omarosa if she had been in series 3?). To be honest I'd rather have 7 relatively quiet candidates, 7 candidates with strong personalities (but good business sense) and 2 completely 'off the wall' candidates than 18 people dropping their skirts/running around in their boxers/threating to break a few kneecaps etc.
Also, the problem with casting candidates for their personalities rather than their business sense is that it makes FUTR a very strong strategy since in the early to mid rounds of S2/S3 it was almost a cert that someone would completely screw a task up. Of course you can that mass firings were the solution but that messes up the structure of the season and undermines the credibility of the rules.
IMHO The real reason why 'The Benefactor', 'Rebel Billionaire' et al failed was not so much Trump's personality and charisma (though that was a factor) it was because Cuban and Branson thought that by casting it entirely with 'Big Brother' types and removing the serious element they could get even higher ratings when instead they quickly ailenated most of their audience.
Going back to age and looks I'm sorry but in the end this programme is supposed to be searching for an apprentice. Anyone who is over 40 and looking for an apprenticeship isn't really a credible candidate (after all why aren't they running their own company or getting a CEO job through the normal route). I personally would like Trump/Burnett to only hire candidates between the ages of 23-35(though I know Katrina and Kelly would not have been hired by that measure).
tjmor
Nov 26, 2005 @ 12:11 pm
On the age restrictions. There were several women and one man well over 50 in my graduate school. The women went back to school after seeing their kids off to college. The man lost a job in manufacturing (their business was outsourced and the company moved overseas). As far as I know he and two of the women are extremely successful now, the rest hold good jobs and seem happy about it. Oh, and the majority of them had more energy and spark than the rest of us.
SkippyUpwood
Nov 26, 2005 @ 1:08 pm
I'm not saying that older people shouldn't be allowed to go to graduate school or that people are washed up at 35 but in a contest that is supposed to be the absolute cream of American business talent I'm sure that they can find credible people between 23-38. If this was a normal job interview for a real CEO position then sure legal conventions and business commonsense say hire the strongest candidate (though I wouldn't consider hiring someone under 25) but if I was interviewing candidates for an internship/traineeship (which is what this job is) I would rather hire a 28 year old rather than a 50 year old simply because if it took one candidate 25-30 years to get to a managment traineeship position and another candidate 5-10 years then obviously the latter is a better candidate (all other things being equal as they obviously aren't).
Also, to be a little non-pc, people will always want shows where they can flip down on the couch open a can of beer and watch a bunch of 25-35 year old battle it out. If you had 50 year olds on The Apprentice then you would lose a lot of the 21-35 demographic (including myself) and you would also lose those who appreciated a bit of eye candy (ditto). I think there definitely needs to be 50% more minorities on the show (and if this means affirimative action for certain ethnic groups then that's whats needed) but comparing Age Discrimination and discrimination based on weight (in context of the entertainment industry) with the serious problems of racial and sexual discrimination is plain silly.
Sketchee
Nov 26, 2005 @ 4:27 pm
If this was a normal job interview for a real CEO position then sure legal conventions and business commonsense say hire the strongest candidate (though I wouldn't consider hiring someone under 25) but if I was interviewing candidates for an internship/traineeship (which is what this job is) I would rather hire a 28 year old rather than a 50 year old simply because if it took one candidate 25-30 years to get to a managment traineeship position and another candidate 5-10 years then obviously the latter is a better candidate (all other things being equal as they obviously aren't).[/quote]
However, just because a candidate is 25-30 years older doesn't mean they spent that entire time time 'getting to management traineeship position'. They could have had a family, had another career prior their current job, etc. Assumptions like the ones you've just made are the reason why age discrimination in terms of hiring for a position is dangerous.
To bring this back to The Apprentice, we've seen on--more so on Martha's version, but it applies to Donald's candidates as well--that younger candidates are often more inexperienced on paper and in the workforce. (Some are quite competent.) So I do agree with you that experience or lack of experience may play a part, but I think the Apprentice has demonstrated that age and experience don't necessarily go hand in hand. It really depends on what they really are looking for. The candidates really don't know the exact job they are getting until the very last episode, but the past Apprentices serve as good examples...
Also, to be a little non-pc, people will always want shows where they can flip down on the couch open a can of beer and watch a bunch of 25-35 year old battle it out. If you had 50 year olds on The Apprentice then you would lose a lot of the 21-35 demographic (including myself) and you would also lose those who appreciated a bit of eye candy (ditto). I think there definitely needs to be 50% more minorities on the show (and if this means affirimative action for certain ethnic groups then that's whats needed) but comparing Age Discrimination and discrimination based on weight (in context of the entertainment industry) with the serious problems of racial and sexual discrimination is plain silly.[/quote]
Shows like the Biggest Loser and heck Trading Spouses seem to do well. Not filled with attractive people, but they stick to the premise and sell the product. Not filled with attractive people at all. This point has been made in the show itself, you can sell sex and attractiveness and it can work as the easy route. You can also present a great product and work to find it's audience. I think the show's producers underestimate the number of viewers who are really looking for business oriented role models and not just another pretty face. I wouldn't mind a wider view including overweight and older participants. (For the record, I'm neither.) I think they could sell the other aspects of the show without resorted to the low eye candy. Definitely agree with you that more of us minorities should be represented.
legaleagle44
Nov 26, 2005 @ 4:33 pm
comparing Age Discrimination. . .with the serious problems of racial and sexual discrimination
is plain silly[/quote]
As someone who is currently unemployed at the age of 44 (and who is consequently competing against candidates for a paralegal position who are literally young enough to be his children), I must respectfully take exception to the idea that age discrimination cannot validly be compared to racial and sexual discrimination. The comparison is quite valid, I assure you; age discrimination in employment is just as much a violation of Federal and State anti-discrimination laws as is discrimination on the basis of race, religion, or gender--and the threshold age for a claim of age discrimination is only 40. In other words, many a lawsuit has been won by an over-40 candidate who was either passed over for employment or advancement or who was replaced by a younger candidate simply because the other candidate was younger; the "life experience" of the older worker or candidate (as opposed to the mere "book smarts" of the younger candidate) be damned.
Jacob made the following brilliant observation at the conclusion of his recap of the most recent episode, and I think it bears repeating here because it's directly on point:
And finally, nobody in the corporate world ever got ahead through actual innovation -- only by whining about their relative lack of experience as the thrill of a lifetime. As any busy manager can tell you, what successful business requires is as many inexperienced personnel as possible, because everybody likes to explain basic shit to somebody when they should be doing their own work.
Oh wait, that's just Trump. [/quote]
While I don't know the extent to which anti-discrimination laws would actually apply to the show (however, at least one legal blow has been struck against possible handicap discrimination), I do believe that Mark Burnett and Donald Trump would do well to at least consider adhering to them as guidelines if they really want to set an example to the rest of the world as to how to succeed in business. At least Martha tries to do that on her show.
SkippyUpwood
Nov 27, 2005 @ 8:11 am
This is probably straying OT but I have to point out that obviously age discrimination can be awful and unfair (such as your case) but there can be times when it is justified. Certainly the laws which are coming to force in the UK, which ban indirect as well as direct discrimination, are going way too far. The firm that I work for is going to have to scrap our graduate entry scheme (because less older people went to uni), scrap any requirement that employees be flexible where they live (because older people supposedly have more problems moving) and we're going to be banned from using the words 'dynamic', 'enteprising' and 'energetic' (because they imply that the firm wants only younger people) in our recruitment ads.
I appreciate your point about the legal positions being the same but in terms of morals and ethics I would think racial and sexual discrimination are far, far, far more awful - and unlike Age Discrimination never justified under any circumstances.
IMHO age is a legitimate occupational requirement for the entertainment industry (at some level The Apprentice is entertainment). Would Friends have been as popular if the characters had been in their 40s or 50s or if Jennifer Anniston had been 20st? Yes, there are shows which are popular and break these rules (e.g Desperate Housewives - though I don't watch it) but for a particular demographic (18-30) these things do matter.
tjmor
Nov 27, 2005 @ 10:34 pm
and we're going to be banned from using the words 'dynamic', 'enteprising' and 'energetic' (because they imply that the firm wants only younger people) in our recruitment ads.[/quote]
If your firm does not require female employees to have babies every year or male employees not to have a single gray hair, or something else along those lines, or if there is a legitimate age requirement, I'd have to disagree with the 'genius' behind the banning. I'd like to politely and respectfully hint that this looks like quite an uneducated assumption that people over 40 cannot be dynamic, energetic, or enterprising. In fact, this is one very prejudiced view. I don't even have to go far to find an example. Just take a good look at Donald Trump and Martha Stewart. Is any of their young and vibrant contestants more 'dynamic', 'enteprising' and 'energetic' then DT or MS?
scarletsmith
Nov 28, 2005 @ 10:21 am
The percentage of minorities who apply may be significantly lower than the percentage of minorities in the general American population.[/quote]
This is probably what is occurring. In a former job I had, the particular government agency I worked for was told by Congress in no uncertain terms that they were doing a lousy job of hiring and retaining "underrepresented" groups (read: anything other than white males). The Congresscritter leading the charge presented a chart that contrasted the percentage of {insert ethnic/race/minority here} in the general US population vs. the percentage inside this particular branch. When it was pointed out to Congresscritter that the pool of eligible candidates for the jobs within this organization (U.S. citizen, Bachelor's degree in a technical field, clean background history needed to obtain clearances) broke out almost exactly like the demographics already working within the organization, the Congresscritter and several others on the committee were decidedly unhappy (and then they insisted that the branch "make a commitment to diversity" anyway).
Reality TV is much the same way--there's a population that would actually apply (or who would qualify to apply) that is likely not in synch with the overall U.S. population. That's not discrimination; that's just the way it is.
SkippyUpwood
Nov 28, 2005 @ 4:35 pm
Regarding the banning
It wasn't my decision (or my bosses's for that matter) it was based on explicit legal advice and guidance from the trade association. Several Airlines where these laws currently operate had to pay massive fines because they used such phrases. I'm not for age discrimination in most cases but I'm annoyed when age discrimination laws get so strict that even innocuous things get canned. Indeed, as you correctly pointed out such laws are actually quite patronising to older people.
Agatha Christie
Dec 9, 2005 @ 10:27 am
I just read a post in the Media Section that had a quote from Trump in US Weekly saying that Randal is a good leader but he's lazy. Oh really, Trump? Your one remaining African-American contestant with his five degrees and his own consulting business is lazy?
Sure Randal is low-key, but the fact that low-key becomes lazy in Trump's mind just seems really damning. This comment is just further proof to me that Trump is incapable of thinking about anybody (other than straight WASP men) in terms other than stereotypical cliches. Or just downright racist, homophobic, sexist cliches.
Why do I even watch this show? I feel so dirty. And how has Trump not been struck by lightning on his giant, poofy, empty head?
Aaron2
Dec 9, 2005 @ 10:49 am
Trump said that? That's one of the frustrating things about trying to get a job with a racist. It doesn't really matter what your qualifications are. 5 degrees, Rhodes scholar, his own business, millionaire, loved by all, including his competitors? The guy is probably smarter than me. ;)
I'd like to think that from this, people would realize that the barriers that African Americans talk about do exist, but in many cases, people want to believe what they already believe.
Randal's too good for Trump.
tjmor
Dec 9, 2005 @ 11:20 am
Trump may be a racist. But in this particular case Randal is not doing good, at least not so far. I don't see race as an issue here. I understand why DT said Randal's lazy - riding the coattails of your own superb education or other prior achievements without putting much effort into tasks at hand could by all means be considered as lazy. This means to me that Trump believes Randal is capable of good performance, but lazy to prove it.
Randal is very impressive: he is a great scholar and very elegant and good mannered man; and he's been commended and greatly admired for that by a wide audience. But now, on his final task these qualities are good to have, but they are in dire need to be complemented by some business acumen and what they call fire in the belly - to me, this is true for any candidate, Regardless of their race.
fictionista
Dec 9, 2005 @ 2:11 pm
Trump may be a racist. But in this particular case Randal is not doing good, at least not so far. I don't see race as an issue here. I understand why DT said Randal's lazy - riding the coattails of your own superb education or other prior achievements without putting much effort into tasks at hand could by all means be considered as lazy. This means to me that Trump believes Randal is capable of good performance, but lazy to prove it. [/quote]
I wish Trump would have specified that Randal was lazy on the final task. Because while he hasn't been perfect, Randal was not lazy throughout the season. From what we saw, he worked hard on his tasks, especially as PM. Is he laid back? Definitely. But I would not call him lazy, except maybe on this task, and that's from what we've seen so far.
tjmor
Dec 9, 2005 @ 3:40 pm
I am sure Randal would've said it with greater poise had he had to characterize Trump. But Trump? Not a chance. He is just incapabale of elegant speaking.
nodoze
Dec 9, 2005 @ 7:38 pm
Trump probably thinks that if you're not moving around frenetically or yakking up a storm then you're not doing anything of value. But Randal is cerebral, not physical, and Trump doesn't understand that type of person. I truly don't think Trump's use of that word "lazy" was connected in any way with ethnic stereotyping, but I do think it indicates that Trump harbors disrespect for intellectual work that doesn't generate $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
Divagalore
Dec 10, 2005 @ 12:52 am
Ironically, Trump has consistantly referred to Rebecca as a star, yet I don't recall ever seeing much impressive with her. Throughout the season she seemed a bit whimpy until she gets into the boardroom trying to save her ass. When it comes to her performances on the tasks, it always looks like she's being carried by her teammates(it's looking this way during the final task as well). Unless editing has hidden the greatness that is Rebecca...i'm still wondering why she's in the final 2.
As for Randal, he's not perfect, but lazy is the last metaphor i'd put upon him. Based on last night's show, I wouldn't be suprised in the least bit if the Outback Steakhouse guy was told to act overly upset, as a way to rattle Randal. Then there's Mark acting like he's doing all the work, while everyone else is slacking. Again, it could've all been a set-up to add to the dramatic effect. After four seasons of watching this show, the final task almost always seems have some type of disasters..its become contrived now.
tjmor
Dec 10, 2005 @ 1:04 am
Divagalore, if your assumption about Randal having been set up is true, then this is outrageous. But what if this is not a set up? What if what we see is true?
GrinAndBearIt
Dec 10, 2005 @ 1:33 am
Divagalore, if your assumption about Randal having been set up is true, then this is outrageous. But what if this is not a set up? What if what we see is true?[/quote]
If what we're seeing is true, how do you explain the rest of the season? Randal never showed himself to be "lazy," as Trump called him--particularly if you compare his behavior during tasks with Kelly Perdew from season 2. Whenever Kelly wasn't PM, he slacked off big time--especially on tasks where he had immunity. Randal, on the other hand, has always shown himself to be efficient, cooperative, take charge (when it was necessary), and competent. And he always contributed to the tasks. True, he wasn't the most creative Apprentice wannabe, but then none of these people have been particularly impressive in that regard. That's not to say that Randal was perfect, but he's certainly shown himself to be more capable than anyone else there. That he could be as incompetent and overwhelmed as he looked in last night's episode just doesn't make sense.
Hoola
Dec 10, 2005 @ 1:54 am
I don't think Mark would have called him "superman" if he had a reputation for being a lazy leader. It just seems like such a stereotype - both of academics and of black men. And on three out of four seasons the black man has also been the academic. Maybe Randal is just running on fumes because on the last task he pulled an all-nighter while Rebecca slept. So very lazy of him.
I worked in event planning and catering and sometimes clients don't understand that there is an order of operations and that three people setting up chairs for two hours in not necessarily worse than six people setting them up in one hour - it's the same amount of man hours and there are other tasks that can be completed concurrently. People just want to make sure that you are responsive and they are really in charge, sometimes.
Azrael
Dec 10, 2005 @ 5:45 am
Divagalore, if your assumption about Randal having been set up is true, then this is outrageous. But what if this is not a set up? What if what we see is true? [/quote]
Well, what we see about Randal is true. Or, at least partially true. But, human behavior is seen and interepreted differently depending on who is observing. And context matters. Trump apparently doesn't see what Randal's competitors see.
I was already skeptical when it looked like a black man had to be universally loved by all the apprentices, overcome recent tragedy, and be a Rhodes Scholar to boot to even have a chance at being The Apprentice.
Randal didn't seem to work any less on those two tasks (where he was called a slacker) than did Rebecca. Randal told Rebecca that the last thing he'd done was not step up.
But when did we see him being lazy? Do non-lazy people need to be busy doing whatever Trump and Rebecca think non-lazy people do ALL the time?
Felisha or Alla said he stayed up all night and won that last task almost single handledly. He stayed up all night on the Techno task. His team persuaded him to go to sleep on the last task even though we did see him idle a couple of times in the aired episode.
That said, based on what we've seen, Rebecca seems to be less deserving of winning this thing than most of the final ten. I almost wish Randal had been lazy on the Microsoft task so he and Rebecca would have been the team sent home. He probably would have been selected as support staff on the final task, so I would have still seen him in every episode. And, at this point a Felisha win would have been easier to swallow than what's bound to happen...
Booklord
Dec 10, 2005 @ 9:00 am
If the apprentice position is 90% publicity and 10% real job as many suspect then it would seem that Randal has this contest in the bag. Last season Trump got his female apprentice. This season he can get his minority apprentice. Based off the tasks one could make a very strong case for Randal over Rebecca. Also Randal has shown himself as a very stable, considerate individual. If hired its highly unlikely that he would do anything embarrassing.
Randal should be a slam dunk.
So why are things starting to look bleak? Why has the editting and music turned against him? I can think of three possibilities that don't involve racism.
A) Trump's going to hire Randal. They're just messing with us much like how they did with Kendra suffering all those problems in the first ep of the final task then fixing them all in the second ep of the final task.
B) Rebecca truly has Trump so enamored that he's considering hiring despite Randal's stronger position. The editting is merely softening us up for his firing.
C) Randal pulls a Tana and messes up his final task so severely that Trump can no longer justify hiring him. The editting is merely softening us up for his firing.
My gut is telling me its C.
DeepInTheHeart
Dec 10, 2005 @ 1:41 pm
Randal pulls a Tana and messes up his final task so severely that Trump can no longer justify hiring him. The editting is merely softening us up for his firing.[/quote]Randal may have problems with his task, but to "pull a Tana." Naw, Randal couldn't crater to that level of oblivious incompetence. I can see something along the lines of a "B minus" performance as per Kwame (i.e. passing grade only), but not anything along the lines of the Keystone Kop performance turned in by Tana Goertz. Can you imagine Randal impatiently waving his hand and saying, "Ok, come along governor!" or hiding out to avoid his teammates for the sake of "looking like a boss"?
charma
Dec 10, 2005 @ 1:48 pm
Just looking for a reason, ey Trump?
Lazy? What would he call Rebecca, broke angle notwithstanding?
I better quit while I'm ahead.
CheekyCricket
Dec 10, 2005 @ 3:33 pm
But I would not call him lazy, except maybe on this task, and that's from what we've seen so far.[/quote]
I watched the episode again and don't think he's being lazy on the final task. Laziness suggests that he's not putting effort into what he's doing, but what I see is steady, consistent effort. He's not noisy, he doesn't pat himself on the back every few hours like Rebecca does: he's managing the overall process, but he's not being a micromanager. Rebecca, on the other hand, is relying just as heavily, if not more heavily, on her employees, just like she relied on Randal to carry her through the final two tasks, but every decision she makes is being spotlighted, and even when she stands there holding a clipboard, she's treated like a near-genius. The fact that Randal only has the $5,000 seed money to work from, while Rebecca has the seed money, plus an extra $10,000 for the VIP reception, plus an on-site staff, is being overlooked.
I recognize now that Trump, and maybe Burnette, and maybe both, really want to see Rebecca win for reasons that I do not understand, despite her uneven performance and so-so record, but I wish they weren't doing it at Randal's expense, by making him look like a bumbler. That's where it starts to look like racism. Although, come to think of it, they managed to get Alla out of the way, too, so maybe the racist feeling of this is just a byproduct of their desire to make Rebecca look a lot better than she is.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.