S29: John Rocker

[cooksdelight]

And me, peachmanogsteen. It makes me wonder how many other people have been blindsided by promises of fame from production, only to be slapped down with creative editing.

John felt like he was hired to do a job, and did as he was told. The contracts they signed were ridiculous.

[NutMeg]

Cooksdelight, can you tell us more about these contracts?

 

BTW and OT, does the "badge" near your name mean you're a moderator? that you write recaps? that you're an insider? something else? I'm sorry if here is not the right place to ask, it's not about you specifically but I don't recall seeing anything about it in the general questions thread, and I keep seeing these half golden thingies popping up in forums I post in, so...   

[bluebonnet]

I appreciate the desire to defend a character on a show if you know them in real life.  I'm the sort of Survivor viewer who just sees them as characters on a screen.  I very rarely seek out information about these characters because I honestly don't care beyond the entertainment they offer on a show.  Respectfully, having this extra info about John Rocker is making him seem to be an even more unsavory reality character than I had already pegged him to be.  What's being said here is that John took a job without preparing for it and that lack of preparation led him to perform in a way he's now saying was coerced.  

 

To be sure, I am also irritated with production for seeking out someone in order to add this particular element in the game.  However, it's not all their fault.  He's still in control of his own actions both before and during the game.  If you take a job, your prepare for it.  If that job means going on a competitive reality tv show, that means reviewing the history of the game and the show.  It also means careful examination of the contract and the expectations of production.  Of course, blindsides still happen with all the preparation possible.  Even as a teacher, I've had things come out of left field (state testing time is the worst!).  Knowing all this extra stuff about John's experience with Survivor, I'm now hoping he gets off the screen as soon as possible.  Fingers crossed he's the quitter or is at least voted out in the next episode or two. 

[Wings]

Survivor production did not prompt him to make vile bigoted and sexist comments for the past decade.  The fact he is friends with Val and Jeremy says nothing.  How many times have we heard racists make exceptions for those of color who happen into their lives,  THEY are different, I am not talking about them.  They are not like the rest of them. 

 

Now I see why Julie took her time; she knew she would win no matter how many times she dropped her ball.  

 

I am sure he had a lawyer read his contract and it was no different than the others. 

 

I take back what I said in the episode thread.  Production did show him where the idol was.  They want him to stay as long as he can!  He has been paid more, I am sure.  He doesn't need or want to win.  He did his job, as he said.  Prick.  

[Nashville]

I don't understand the strategy of sending Jeremy to EI with him. Well, I don't see what strategy there would be anyway! LOL!

 

1. It presented Julie with a chance to further solidify a "soft" alliance (Jeremy) by putting him in a situation (Exile Island) where he might establish SOME kind of game-beneficial connection with her pair-partner (Rocker).
2. If nothing else, it was a good "least BOMH" move; how could Jeremy complain about being sent to EI, when he'd just sent his poor defenseless wife there the previous week?  ;>

[Whimsy]

Hi.  We're getting a little off-topic.  While interesting, this thread is just to discuss John Rocker not other player's strategy. 

[fishcakes]

I believe he was a recruit because Survivor has been recruiting players for years, but I don't believe for a second that the producers coerced him into saying and doing things he wouldn't otherwise say or do. They recruited him precisely because they knew they could let him be who he is and that would be controversial enough. Of course he's going to say they forced him to say the things he said; he's certainly not going to say, "I truly believe all the things I said because I'm a sexist douche."   It's no different from his confessional in the first few minutes of episode 1 where he claims that "the media" portrayed him as a racist and a bigot. Which they did. By accurately reporting the words that came out of his mouth. To me, he's worse than someone like Nadia or Tarzan who say ignorant things and honestly don't understand why they're being offensive. Rocker understands that he's saying hurtful things, but he doesn't care, and if he gets called on it, he blames it someone else, be it the media or producers of the reality show that no one forced him to appear on.

[scowl]

In this episode it seemed like every contestant suddenly remembered Rocker making racist comments to the media. I didn't even know that would have been in the news.

[Xena]

For the Rocker supporters - what do you think of the twitter rant posted in the very first post of this thread?    Or is that ok?  It was last year, not decades ago.

 

I don't buy the argument that 'that's not real life, it's twitter'.  I don't refer to women as c*nts in real life, nor do I do that in twitter.

Edited October 3, 2014 by Xena

[Nutjob]

In this episode it seemed like every contestant suddenly remembered Rocker making racist comments to the media. I didn't even know that would have been in the news.

It was a really big deal, and got a lot of media coverage. The interview was in Sports Illustrated, so he got national attention for being a bigot, racist, and jerk. His reputation amongst MLB players wasn't so great, either.

[Rick Kitchen]

Rocker's bigotry came out pretty clearly in his book, which has nothing to do with Survivor.

 

 

Jeff Kent was the better baseball player, but not a crossover personality perhaps?  Kent never made national headlines for being a jerk (though teammates seemed to not like him).

 

Kent's assholery in the Giants' clubhouse is legendary.  And I'm a Giants fan.

[cooksdelight]

Cooksdelight, can you tell us more about these contracts?

BTW and OT, does the "badge" near your name mean you're a moderator?

No, I cannot tell more about the contracts, as I've not read them. And yes, I am a moderator and no, I do not write recaps. The more talented recappers here at PTV have that in the bag. :)

[scowl]

It was a really big deal, and got a lot of media coverage. The interview was in Sports Illustrated, so he got national attention for being a bigot, racist, and jerk. His reputation amongst MLB players wasn't so great, either.

 

I guess after I read "Ball Four" twenty years ago and the Pete Rose scandal happened, I'm not shocked by anything in the MLB any more and no longer pay any attention.

[Nashville]

He wanted to go to EI, all the talk about being beaten by a girl was just that. Smack talk for the cameras, urged on by production.

First off, I am absolutely NOT a John Rocker fan.

That being said™ - when Rocker made his "beaten by a girl" comment, he had turned from Probst to Julie and was grinning at her, and she was smiling back. My takeaway was that of a guy joshing with his girlfriend.

I also wouldn't expect Rocker to have the self-awareness to recognize how bad that sound bite would play when aired; past history would tend to indicate otherwise.

Totally my own perception - YMMV.

[jjj]

Now I see why Julie took her time; she knew she would win no matter how many times she dropped her ball.

 

I do not understand this statement -- is it because it was set up for Rocker to lose and go to EI?  Or that it was his plan to lose (that is, not a production plan)?  And:

I take back what I said in the episode thread.  Production did show him where the idol was.  They want him to stay as long as he can!

 

How do we know production showed him where the Idol is?  I thought there were legalities about production affecting the outcome.  I'm sure I am too naïve for this game. 

[Wings]

I do not understand this statement -- is it because it was set up for Rocker to lose and go to EI?  Or that it was his plan to lose (that is, not a production plan)?  And:

 

How do we know production showed him where the Idol is?  I thought there were legalities about production affecting the outcome.  I'm sure I am too naïve for this game. 

 

 

Scroll back.  There is either a link or post that talks about him being a recruit and what that involved.  

I do not understand this statement -- is it because it was set up for Rocker to lose and go to EI?  Or that it was his plan to lose (that is, not a production plan)?  And:

 

How do we know production showed him where the Idol is?  I thought there were legalities about production affecting the outcome.  I'm sure I am too naïve for this game. 

 

 

Scroll back.  There is either a link or post that talks about him being a recruit and what that involved.  

[jjj]

Thanks -- it must be in a link, because I read all the posts.  I'll poke around. 

 

No, there is nothing in this thread about him being shown where the idol was. 

Edited October 3, 2014 by jjj

[cooksdelight]

He was not shown where the idol was. He found it on his own, based on the clue Jeremy showed him.

[Wings]

Thanks -- it must be in a link, because I read all the posts.  I'll poke around. 

 

No, there is nothing in this thread about him being shown where the idol was. 

 

 

No.  There is reason to believe that it is a possibility.  I am never one to leap to extreme production manipulation but I did on this one.  And we will never know.  He was specifically recruited and there is some logic to getting a helping nod.  .  

[poppy-]

I am not surprised that contestants over the age of 35 know who he is.  He was memorably famous.  Similar to Michael Vick. Even people who don't watch football know who Michael Vick is.

 

"I lost to a girl" was a lazy attempt at humor, I think.  We've seen what he looks like when he's genuinely pissed off that he lost, and this wasn't that.

[ratgirlagogo]

 

I am not surprised that contestants over the age of 35 know who he is.  He was memorably famous.  Similar to Michael Vick. Even people who don't watch football know who Michael Vick is.

Yes, it was the kind of notoriety that got him in Leno and Letterman's monologues, much like Vick.  Kent was a jerk but you'd kind of have to be a baseball fan to know that (he was a jerk in the Mets clubhouse too, and I'm a Mets fan).

[KnitsWithRaceCars]

Thanks -- it must be in a link, because I read all the posts.  I'll poke around. 

 

No, there is nothing in this thread about him being shown where the idol was. 

 

If you're interested in this, have a look at the "Conspiracy" thread in this forum.  It has a discussion about how Production seems to have at least one favorite each season, someone who they want to stay in the game longer, so they "unintentionally intentionally" or "legally intentionally" (meaning without violating the players' contracts and other legal regulations) favor those players and facilitate them staying in the game through tribe swaps, the way the HII clues are handed out, and other "twists."  In the opinions of some viewers, like myself and other viewers who I know personally and have discussed it with, Rocker fits the description of the type of person who Production likes to have in the game as long as possible.

[jjj]

Thanks, KnitsWithRaceCars, I love a good conspiracy, so will take a look at this thread!  I have to admit, I had never heard of John Rocker before now (new handle will be "LivesInCave") but this second episode of "Survivor" was an eye-opener! 

[phlebas]

I'm unclear on CBS' motive behind casting John in the first place.  

 

Were they hoping for him to be the Loud Idiot Bigot Rocker as he's been portrayed in the media for the last 15+ years? If so, they must be disappointed they only got him through three episodes, and the first one didn't really have any big OH NO HE DIDN'T moments.  He was basically a standard issue Type-A D-Bag that we see almost every season. The only difference was we knew that much about him going in.

 

Were they trying for a redemption arc? Seems unlikely if they really did coach him up for the "got beaten by a girl" stuff.

 

I know it's all stunt casting to get eyeballs, but I don't know what they wanted the eyeballs to see to make them stick around. Maybe they figure just getting them to look is enough to get them hooked on the whole season. Might even work if this season had other interesting characters.

 

(I have similar questions about the Twinnies, but I don't watch TAR so I'd never heard of them before two weeks ago.)

Well, I have thought more about John Rocker in the last few days than I had in the previous 15 years, so I guess I can stop. Go Braves.

[ratgirlagogo]

 

Well, I have thought more about John Rocker in the last few days than I had in the previous 15 years

You and everyone else in America.  Dalton Ross called this last episode "Revenge of the 7 Train" which is my favorite description  so far. 

[scowl]

Once again my life is free of anything related to Major League Baseball.

 

Does Survivor hate MLB? They've cast Jeff Kent, arrogant David Samson, and now this Rocker guy. 

[lookingforaname]

I was pretty anti-John Rocker until I listened to his interview with Rob Cesternino on Rob has a website:  http://robhasawebsite.com/survivor-2014-san-juan-del-sur-exit-interview-john-rocker-blood-vs-water-cbs/  - Cesternino at the end of the interview summarizes how I feel - that after the interview you kind of get the sense that John is a lot more goofy and trying to be funny than what you see if just given a text copy of the things he said.  Whether he actually is funny is another issue.  I was pretty surprised by the interview though, and did kind of get a perspective turn-around from it. 

[cooksdelight]

When I met him last week, and watched last week's show with him and Julie, I also got the impression that he's a good guy with a good sense of humor. We had an enjoyable dinner and conversation afterward. I'd hang out with them again anytime. And he adores her, that was so obvious. They make a cute couple. I didn't like him before meeting him based on all the stuff posted online, but I am always willing to give someone a chance to prove me wrong, and his attitude to me was one of a man who's matured and hates that his past is still being brought up at every given opportunity by anyone who wants to take a jab.

[Rick Kitchen]

His columns on World Net Daily speak for themselves.

[Lantern7]

I can't help but hate the guy. He's a loudmouth, he was a recruit, and he didn't have the numbers Jeff Kent did. I know . . . relief pitchers are different from second basemen, but Rocker was mostly a set-up reliever who embarrassed himself to the public, and wound up screwing up on Survivor. I know there's now a villain gap in the current season, but I take solace knowing that John's payday will be puny compared to those who did better than him. And hopefully, Burnett & Probst will recruit more guys like Cliff in terms of former pro athletes, and less on assholes like Rocker.

[ProfCrash]

I don't know the man but what he has said in the past is reprehensible. His comments in the Sports Illustrated article are flat out disgusting and wrong. From what I have read in his recent posts, he and I could not discuss politics or social issues because I strongly disagree with him on pretty much everything.

 

I do not think his comments in the media then or now are reasons to vote him off of the game and I don't think that is why he was voted out. I think his revelation that he was working with Val and Jeremy was what did him in and that his past comments gave Josh the final push to get him out.

 

His interview on Rob's show is funny and very vulgar. I am happy to hear that he gets along with Jeremy, Val, Natalie, and Nadia but there are plenty of folks who can get along with individuals but still have strong biases against a larger group of people. It does happen. I guess as long as he treats individuals well that is what really matter but it does not wipe away the larger comments that he has made.

 

I do think it points to an uncomfortable in truth in the US, that many of us are prejudice and we simply don't see it because we do have black/gay/Jewish/Muslim/minority friends and so how could we be prejudice? We don't necessarily hear what we are saying about larger issues as clearly as others do and are confused because we legitimately have friends of whatever minority group we just made an offensive comment about.

 

For example, I have African American friends but I find myself giving African Americans on the metro a second look because I am more worried about an African American man taking my IPad  then a White man. I catch myself doing it and feel ashamed and embarrassed but I still do it. I cannot believe I would ever make the comments that he made but we see this type of thing on Big Brother every season. A group of similarly minded people, many times white men but the most egregious example is two seasons ago with men and women, and all the sudden you hear all sorts of vile crap because it is safe to speak. Then you hear the people chime in that said individual really isn't a racist or a misogynist because they have X number of friends in the group that they just made vile comments about, complete with pictures.

 

Long and the short if it is that this is an excellent example of where many Americans are in terms of race relations. We don't understand our own prejudices because many of us have friends, really they are friends, in the group that we are biased against. We don't see that the stereotypes that exist are still damaging because we elected an African American President (although many of my African American friends say he is bi-racial and not African American) or we have friends in said group or we know people at work who have great jobs who are in said group. We don't hear what we say clearly enough to hear those stereotypes and the undertones of past history and issues. We don't get that the problem is still there and get confused when it emerges.

 

Rocker has no filter and I think is an excellent example of this problem. My issue with him is that his words have been printed and type by himself and he doesn't have the ability to be embarrassed and try and change. So he has been faced with his prejudice and has not changed, that is my issue.

[lookingforaname]

I think what you're saying is a complexly nuanced critique that I'd agree with.  I think the shift that occured for me was thinking he was a total racist buffoon.  He is saying and has said obnoxious things that do have the effect of reflecting and perpetuating racial and gendered bias, but without the kind of malice that I orignially attributed to him.  Like you said, actually pretty typical of what is embedded inside American culture, and possibly even within myself.  Interesting things to chew on.