In this blog post, I’ll examine issues of manipulation and falsity in TV programs—including “Challenge Golden Bell”—and discuss the wise mindset viewers need to avoid uncritically accepting what they see on TV.
The entire student body is gathered in what appears to be a high school gymnasium. Teachers, the vice principal, and even the principal are seated together, watching the students. My eyes are drawn to the floor, which is divided into squares labeled with numbers from one to one hundred, and to the large golden bell hanging behind the students. The host says, “Alright, here’s the question. This question is on current events and general knowledge….”
The scene above is from the program “Challenge Golden Bell,” which aired on the Korean broadcaster KBS. It’s a show that everyone has seen at least once—whether they’ve tried solving the questions themselves or cheered on the last remaining student as they struggled to answer each question one by one. In fact, this program, which began in 1999, established itself as a long-running quiz show that aired for many years. However, unlike when this manuscript was written, regular broadcasts were suspended as of June 28, 2020; therefore, it is now more accurate to view it as a classic, long-running program of the past. The fact that it aired continuously from 1999 and garnered the interest of many viewers over such a long period remains a key characteristic of the show.
What I intend to discuss now is not the program’s longevity, popularity, or its impact on the public. Rather, using this program as a starting point, I would like to address the issues of program manipulation and falsification—which were major topics of debate at the time—as well as the prudent attitude viewers should adopt in dealing with such falsifications.
Unless a program is based on fiction—such as a drama or movie—factual accuracy and objectivity are considered essential in any program. This is particularly true for documentaries and quiz shows, where it is clear that the program must not prioritize ratings alone and must be free from any arbitrary manipulation during filming and editing. This factual accuracy is a promise to the viewers watching the program, and it can be assumed that viewers will accept the situations presented in such programs as fact. In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that the production team holds 100 percent of the “right to manipulate” the content. This is because, regardless of what kind of manipulation a producer might employ at any stage, viewers have no choice but to accept it as fact while watching TV.
I actually participated in ‘Challenge Golden Bell’ during my high school years. Before participating, my assumption—as I’m sure anyone’s would be—was that a quiz show naturally guarantees a certain degree of objectivity, and that at the very least, the person who answers a question correctly should be able to move on to the next one. However, what I witnessed on ‘Challenge Golden Bell’ was not that at all. We had a training camp the day before the actual recording, and just before going to bed, every student received a stack of A4 papers. These papers contained dozens of questions and their answers, presented as “predicted questions.” Of course, the questions listed there were asked exactly as written the next day, but the vast majority of students failed to answer them correctly and were eliminated midway through the show. This was because everyone was thinking, “Surely they wouldn’t actually ask these here, would they?”
If this sounds like an excuse for not solving all the problems, one might counter, “Wouldn’t it have been enough if you’d memorized them all, even if it meant pulling an all-nighter?” However, if you ask whether that truly aligns with the purpose of the program or represents what the viewers have in mind, the answer is obviously “no.” The more than 1,000 students at the school weren’t all participating just for fun. Furthermore, the grand prizes offered at the time—such as full scholarships to universities—were by no means something to be taken lightly. In other words, from the production team’s perspective, it would be far more ethical to set questions based on the actual high school curriculum or lower the difficulty level rather than provide study guides in advance out of concern for contestants being eliminated.
That’s not all. So-called “cheating” was very common on the ‘Golden Bell’ program. The person next to you, the person in front of you, and the person sitting diagonally across from you—all became targets for cheating. To give you an example of what I actually witnessed: once the show had passed question number 30, the remaining students looked as if they had survived by splitting into several groups of five or six, clustering around a single top-performing student like E. coli growing on an agar plate.
It is, of course, necessary to use mechanisms like the “losers’ comeback round” to control the number of surviving students and maintain the program’s appeal. However, manipulating the number of survivors by introducing elements not shown on screen—such as leaking questions in advance—is tantamount to deceiving the viewers.
In addition to cases like this, where the program’s basic premise is ignored, there are also programs that outright fabricate scientific data or deceive viewers. “The Martian Virus,” which aired on cable TV, was also a program surrounded by various controversies regarding cast selection and production. In a famous statement made by one cast member during an interview, she said, “At first, they asked me to appear as a certain type of woman. But when I refused, they offered me a role as a different type of woman for the next episode.” Cases such as “The Woman Who Eats Only Snacks” and “The Woman Who Decorated Everything in Pink” sparked controversy at the time regarding whether the broadcasts were staged or manipulated, and viewer reactions were largely negative, with comments like, “Is she here to promote a shopping mall again?” Of course, only the production team and the cast know the actual truth, but this provides a clear glimpse into the fictitious nature of some unscrupulous TV programs. “The Martian Virus” was a program that aired from 2009 to 2013 and has since ended.
Looking at it another way, manipulation isn’t limited to altering existing facts. Even without conveying false information, manipulating the atmosphere is also a form of deception. For example, in the “Golden Bell” program mentioned above, even though the camera captured students peeking at each other’s answers and cheating, the producers did not attempt to address the situation; instead, they simply edited out the cheating scenes before airing the episode—which is also a form of deception.
In addition to this, there are more than a few programs—such as “PD Notebook” and “Superstar K”—that have been embroiled in manipulation controversies. As the examples above illustrate, television programs are a medium where manipulation is relatively easy to carry out. And at the time, the standard response was that only after allegations of manipulation were raised by some viewers or misconduct was exposed would a few executives step forward to apologize and promise to make corrections. From the production team’s perspective, they are captivated by the precise numbers represented by viewership ratings and strive to create broadcasts that are a bit more sensational, a bit more attention-grabbing, and a bit more detached from reality. The point is that, from the viewer’s standpoint, it takes greater “wisdom” to watch a program that is obviously rigged and not just vent frustration later when the manipulation is exposed, realizing they’ve been deceived all along.
The more viewers there are who know how to watch programs with discernment—and who can make their own judgments before the review committee even steps in—the more such deceptive broadcasts will disappear. The shock I felt while appearing on ‘Challenge Golden Bell’ has prevented me from watching TV programs without a critical eye ever since. Therefore, rather than relying on hearsay, I hope you will recognize the falsehoods in broadcasts based on what I actually saw and felt, and take this opportunity to reassess how you’ve been consuming information up to now. As someone once said, “The only thing true in the news is the date.” Just as consumers save money by being wise, viewers must also strive to ensure that objectivity is maintained in broadcasting by being as discerning as possible.
