Cliff Notes – TV’s biggest ever scandal that almost killed game shows for good
- The 1950s game show scandal, involving shows like The $64,000 Question and Dotto, revealed widespread rigging, leading to a significant decline in public trust and viewership.
- Following immense public outcry, Congress amended the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit prearranged outcomes in quiz shows, enforcing stricter regulations on broadcasters.
- The fallout from the scandal resulted in mental health issues for some contestants, with long-lasting effects on the industry and a notable delay in the resurgence of big-money quiz shows until the late 1990s.
TV’s ‘biggest ever scandal’ that almost killed game shows for good
Twenty-One was at the centre of one of the biggest scandals in TV game show history (Picture: NBCU Photo Bank/NBCUniversal via Getty Images)
Game shows are no stranger to controversy—we could never forget Charles Ingram, the Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? contestant whose coughing took cheating to the extreme and eventually inspired its own ITV drama.
Although it might come as a surprise to know that game show scandals are far from a new thing. In fact, they date back as far as the 1950s—yep, the days of black and white broadcasts.
But while such drama wasn’t televised in vibrant colour, it still sent shockwaves through television, leading to a major shift in the industry’s ethics.
An example of this is The $64,000 Question, an American game show broadcast on primetime on CBS-TV from 1955 to 1958.
The concept was simple, as players had to answer general knowledge questions correctly to earn money, with the difficulty increasing each round. The final question put a $64,000 offer on the table, which, in today’s money, is equivalent to a whopping $750,000 (£578k).
However, in mid-August 1958, the programme was investigated amid a wider probe into the network’s quiz shows.
The $64,000 Question was part of a major investigation in the 1950s (Picture: CBS Photo Archive/Getty Images)
A federal investigation initially began looking into fellow CBS show Dotto, which was cancelled without explanation. It later emerged that a contestant had been given answers in advance, forcing officials to delve into the culture of other shows.
Consequently, NBC’s Twenty-One, which put contestants head-to-head in answering general knowledge questions to accumulate 21 points, was soon included in the probe.
Before viewers knew it, the presence of game shows on their screens was rapidly declining. Just weeks after suspicions were raised around Dotto, Challenge contestant Reverend Charles Jackson came forward with a confession.
He admitted that he had been told answers before appearing on the show, and by mid-September that year, Lorillard Tobacco Company had cut its sponsorship ties. The $64,000 Question was then replaced on CBS with a ‘special news programme’ on September 14.
When the Nielsen ratings emerged for that autumn, there had been a noticeable drop in figures for quiz shows in light of the drama. This led to rumours that The $64,000 Question was moving to a less popular time slot.
Dotto was hosted by Jack Narz and was one of the first CBS shows to raise suspicions (Picture: CBS via Getty Images)
On November 2, The $64,000 Question aired its final episode, and operations ceased for good on November 21.
So, why the rigging? Well, while you’d think TV companies wouldn’t be so keen to hand out stacks of cash, in those days, they secretly slipped players answers to ensure certain outcomes, as this would boost ratings.
Television game shows were still very much in their infancy at this time, too, meaning regulation was slack and formats were far from the contrived, meticulously curated ones we see today.
Unsurprisingly, the revelations led to mass uproar among the viewing public, who felt betrayed by the hosts and contestants they had welcomed into their living rooms each night.
Industry-sponsored polls at the time actually discovered that between 87% and 95% of the American public was aware of the fraud scandal.
Previous contestants of the 1950s shows confessed to being fed answers by producers (Picture: CBS via Getty Images)
Many members of the public also feared for the impact the scandal could have on young people, since TV was still emerging as a medium and it was uncertain how easily it could influence those staring at the screen.
Eventually, the fallout was so significant that the government had no choice but to act. If they hadn’t, who knows whether we would still have game shows today…
Following immense public pressure to impose stricture rules on broadcasters, Congress amended the Communications Act of 1934. The revised version prohibits networks from prearranging the outcomes of quiz shows.
In the years that followed, and still to this day, it became common practice for producers to closely monitor what was happening on game show sets to ensure fairness in play.
Several individuals were also prosecuted after their swindling was exposed by the FCC (Federal Communications Commission).
We all remember the Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? coughing scandal of Charles Ingram (Picture: PA)
Producers involved in coaching contestants were called before a jury to appear in testimony in September 1958. 150 were sworn in as witnesses, but a prosecutor later estimated that only 50 told the truth.
In a sad turn of events, a number of contestants involved suffered mental health problems after their collusion with execs surfaced.
Leonard Ross, who won a combined $164,000 on The Big Surprise and The $64,000 Challenge at the age of just 10, endured severe mental health problems in the years following.
Having struggled with depression into his adulthood, he took his own life in 1985, aged 39.
It wasn’t until the 1990s that big-money quiz shows would begin enjoying prosperity again in the United States.
Thanks to a US adaptation of British game show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? launching in 1999, ABC achieved a huge spike in ratings thanks to critical success and popularity among viewers.
It’s still just as loved today and is going strong here in the UK, but, well, as we mentioned at the start, it isn’t exactly a golden example of ethics and compliance, is it?