TGABS in the Media

[ichbin]

47 minutes ago, Mondrianyone said:

All ABC needed to do was run a message at the beginning of each show and then a periodic crawl throughout the show explaining that the allegations came too late for them to investigate, but they didn't want to deprive viewers and contestants of the pleasure of watching the competition because of one person's bad behavior.  But that would've taken some actual thought.

Exactly!  Is there no place for reason and common sense at Disney? As far as PR goes I think less of them for taking the action they did rather than acknowledge the allegations but still run the show.    

[ichbin]

19 hours ago, biakbiak said:

I have to imagine the ratings must have sucked since this broke before the show premiered or maybe it was in light of Mario.

Ratings haven't been great, but considering the time of year they probably don't have anything to put in the slot that would have performed any better.  If anything it would probably be worse.  It's not like they have done a lot of advertising either.  This at least has a dedicated following and provides the opportunity to present those fans with ads promoting upcoming shows in 2018.    

[Mondrianyone]

2 hours ago, biakbiak said:

I dont think this has anything to with penalizing Johnny it's a PR move to try to say they won't tolerate this behavior even though they have and will most likely in the future.

Right.  It doesn't penalize Johnny, since everything he's accused of doing is in the past and not associated with this show (as far as we know so far), which anyone who's able to read can learn for him/herself.  So why penalize the viewers and the competitors?  Most of us are smart enough to separate out the the one rotten apple from the whole apple pie.  If ABC and all the other networks are going to start pulling shows because one actor--or director, or script supervisor, or set designer--has behaved inappropriately, we're going to be looking at that old test pattern for most of the foreseeable future.  There has to be a smarter way to handle this kind of thing.  There couldn't possibly be a dumber one than the way they've chosen in this case.

[Guest]

Since it will not be on tonight (or any night for that matter) I'm going to drag out a huge bucket of frozen chocolate chip dough and bake some cookies.

It's nothing fancy, no sponge cakes or rollup cakes with faux flames but any port in a storm I suppose.

[movingtargetgal]

34 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

Since it will not be on tonight (or any night for that matter) I'm going to drag out a huge bucket of frozen chocolate chip dough and bake some cookies.

I will be peeling the wrapper off a stick of cookie dough and just eat it like an ear of corn.  Yes, I'm klassy. :)

[needschocolate]

I am guessing that part of the reason they are not airing the rest of the episodes is that advertisers don't want to be connected with the show anymore. 

I hope they run the rest of the episodes On Demand and/or on the ABC website.  

[Kohola3]

Quote

I am guessing that part of the reason they are not airing the rest of the episodes is that advertisers don't want to be connected with the show anymore. 

I imagine that is the reason.  To continue to advertise in light of the Me Too movement might be construed as tacit support of a sexual predator.  Not good on so many levels.

I do feel sorry for the competitors, however.  They are innocents caught up in the maelstrom.

[Dobian]

ABC can't even pre-empt The Great American Baking Show without a scandal.  Now that it just came out today that Carter Oosterhouse is being accused of sexual misconduct, the two hours of Light Fight that they played tonight in place of TGABS were reruns from last year and both with Taniya Nayak hosting instead of the usual one hour with Taniya and one with Carter.  Yeesh.

Edited December 15, 2017 by Dobian

[chaifan]

On 12/14/2017 at 9:43 AM, Frost said:

Couldn't they do some reshoots and replace Johnny with someone else, like swapping in Christopher Plummer for Kevin Spacey?  It's not like he was in every shot.

In all seriousness, they should air the remaining episode with disclaimers at the beginning, end, and every commercial break, saying they're airing it for the contestants, who did nothing wrong and are donating the ad revenue to a group fighting sexual harassment.

They could CGI a box of puppies over every image of Johnny, and it wouldn't impact the flow of the show one little bit.  He really doesn't do anything.

[libgirl2]

Not sure if I can post links to blogs, but I did read an interview with one of the bakers,

“It’s really heartbreaking,” said Brodak, a writer who has been seriously baking since she moved to Atlanta in 2012. “You put in so much effort. The only reward of this show would have been watching it. There is no monetary prize, nothing beyond just seeing it and the results. That’s being taken away from us. It was four weeks of your life and a lot of hard work. We did it for the love of doing it.”

This situation, she said, “is really bizarre.”

Notably, she said, Iuzzini is not a household name and none of the bakers knew who he was when he came on the show: “I’m glad he’s being called out for what he did. On the other hand, this really punishes the bakers. It doesn’t affect him that much.”

She also said he was nothing but polite during taping. If the allegations happened while he was in production on the show, she’d understand ABC’s need to pull the show. Instead, the network is erring on the side of caution in this post-Harvey Weinstein era where big names are being taken down almost every day. And this is considered a family show." 

[morakot]

It's a shame he was such a crass idiot, because I liked Johnny (FAR more than Paul). I particularly liked his respectful relationship with Mary Berry. (Though, to be fair, Paul behaves better with Mary too.)

[GaT]

15 minutes ago, morakot said:

It's a shame he was such a crass idiot, because I liked Johnny (FAR more than Paul). I particularly liked his respectful relationship with Mary Berry. (Though, to be fair, Paul behaves better with Mary too.)

Mary don't take shit from nobody :-)

[morakot]

Maybe sexual harassers should be sentenced to have Mary (or a wise crone equivalent with them 24/7 for a month). A disapproving look might really help. (Probably more than going to a spa in the desert.)

[Kohola3]

Quote

Maybe sexual harassers should be sentenced to have Mary (or a wise crone equivalent with them 24/7 for a month).

Well, I am no wise crone but lock them up with me and they'd be sorry they were born.  As and ER nurse I participated in way too many rape exams in my life as well as court appearances.  IF you've seen how absolutely horrific and humiliating an exam can be, you know why women are suffering in silence.  And too many of these animals get away with it.  I'm glad we are finally reaching a point in our society where men are going to have to accept responsibility.

I appreciate the fact that Brodak is glad he is being called out. I do feel for the bakers, truly I do.  They got caught at a bad time.

[libgirl2]

39 minutes ago, Kohola3 said:

Well, I am no wise crone but lock them up with me and they'd be sorry they were born.  As and ER nurse I participated in way too many rape exams in my life as well as court appearances.  IF you've seen how absolutely horrific and humiliating an exam can be, you know why women are suffering in silence.  And too many of these animals get away with it.  I'm glad we are finally reaching a point in our society where men are going to have to accept responsibility.

I appreciate the fact that Brodak is glad he is being called out. I do feel for the bakers, truly I do.  They got caught at a bad time.

I still say if they had an inkling of his past behavior, why did they hire him? Because when this was filmed these things weren't coming out and/or they didn't care. Now its an issue and they are trying to do the "right thing". 

[chaifan]

I'm normally not a fan of on-line petitions, but here is one to get ABC to show the remaining episodes online:

 

https://www.change.org/p/abc-make-the-remaining-great-american-baking-show-available-on-online-streaming?recruiter=65451880&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=psf_combo_share_initial.combo_new_control_progress_110217winners

[dubbel zout]

2 hours ago, morakot said:

Maybe sexual harassers should be sentenced to have Mary (or a wise crone equivalent with them 24/7 for a month).

I get what you mean, but a woman shouldn't have to police these jackasses. They're responsible for the actions, no one else.

I wonder if ABC would put together a sort of greatest hits of the unaired episode. We could see what the challenges were, a bit of what happened during baking and assembly, who won, and then the ultimate winner. Johnny wouldn't have to be in it much, and the bakers would get some due.

[libgirl2]

31 minutes ago, dubbel zout said:

I get what you mean, but a woman shouldn't have to police these jackasses. They're responsible for the actions, no one else.

I wonder if ABC would put together a sort of greatest hits of the unaired episode. We could see what the challenges were, a bit of what happened during baking and assembly, who won, and then the ultimate winner. Johnny wouldn't have to be in it much, and the bakers would get some due.

Now that is a great idea. They could do it before they announce the winner and show everyone's journey without any judging. 

[Destiny74]

I actually came here to see what everyone said and you all have expressed exactly what I was going to say.

I am disappointed.  I like the show and looked forward to it.  

Needless to say, watching the show with Uzzini didn't make me want to turn the channel, didn't make me not watch, and certainly didn't make me like him any more.  But, I never watched for him, so...

[Irlandesa]

3 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

I wonder if ABC would put together a sort of greatest hits of the unaired episode. We could see what the challenges were, a bit of what happened during baking and assembly, who won, and then the ultimate winner. Johnny wouldn't have to be in it much, and the bakers would get some due.

I know it'd cost a little bit of money but give Paul Hollywood and maybe even the hosts a little bit of money to narrate the episodes.  They can show the baking.  Then show Paul judging.  Then have Paul talk about who won each challenge and why. 

[dubbel zout]

Would it be more expensive than the lost ad revenue? I'd think ABC would want to salvage some of it.

[biakbiak]

1 hour ago, dubbel zout said:

Would it be more expensive than the lost ad revenue? I'd think ABC would want to salvage some of it.

It would most likely be more expensive because in addition to the narration all the eps would have to be reedited and there is a holiday theme to the show so airing it atba different time in their schedule would also be weird,

[AZChristian]

10 hours ago, biakbiak said:

It would most likely be more expensive because in addition to the narration all the eps would have to be reedited and there is a holiday theme to the show so airing it atba different time in their schedule would also be weird,

That's a logical explanation.  But WHY wouldn't they just put a disclaimer comment on screen at the beginning of the episode and - maybe - upon each return from commercial?  That would cost almost nothing, and would mean that everyone else on the show is not punished for the actions of one jerk, who was probably already paid for his part in the whole series?

[Kohola3]

17 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

But WHY wouldn't they just put a disclaimer comment on screen at the beginning of the episode and - maybe - upon each return from commercial? 

Probably because zero tolerance is zero tolerance. Otherwise why fire anyone - just make an announcement at the beginning of any meeting, congressional session, or program that one of the people is a bad person but the show must go on or other people might be inconvenienced.

[AZChristian]

9 minutes ago, Kohola3 said:

Probably because zero tolerance is zero tolerance. Otherwise why fire anyone - just make an announcement at the beginning of any meeting, congressional session, or program that one of the people is a bad person but the show must go on or other people might be inconvenienced.

I understand your point . . . but this is a show that was already filmed and in the process of airing when the behavior of the bad person was made known.  HOPEFULLY, this flurry of exposing bad behavior will change the way things are done.  People knew rumors about the behavior of Matt Lauer, etc., for years, but those in control CHOSE to look the other way.  The message has been sent loud and clear that this is not to be tolerated, so HOPEFULLY there will not be as many incidences in the future as there have been in the past.

During this transitional period, I just wish that ONLY the perpetrators were punished.  By removing a show like this, contestants and viewers are punished, and Johnny won't be back as a judge . . . but he's already been paid for this season.  And on shows like the one Kevin Spacey was on, the actors who were also on the show were also paid while the shows were being filmed.  It's unfortunate that their shows won't be aired, but they were paid to act, and that's a done deal.  

To me, it's a whole different situation with GABS.  These folks gave up weeks away from their families and jobs; other than the winner (who gets a trophy), none of them get anything.  It just seems unfair for them to have invested so much and not have the full experience shown because of one jerk.  As a viewer, I would prefer the disclaimer, but let's still respect the bakers and the others who DID behave appropriately.

[biakbiak]

43 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

That's a logical explanation.  But WHY wouldn't they just put a disclaimer comment on screen at the beginning of the episode and - maybe - upon each return from commercial?  That would cost almost nothing, and would mean that everyone else on the show is not punished for the actions of one jerk, who was probably already paid for his part in the whole series?

"We are running a disclaimer," isn't the sort of things advertisers want to hear about programs they are associated with and spending their ad dollars on, it's much easier to just spend it elsewhere.

[Kohola3]

3 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

These folks gave up weeks away from their families and jobs; other than the winner (who gets a trophy), none of them get anything.

I do feel sorry for them but it was 4 weeks out of their lives and it's not like they were overseas fighting ISIS or finding cure for cancer or something. In the long run they'll probably look back and laugh at how it the timing just sucked.

[EyewatchTV211]

1 hour ago, Kohola3 said:

Probably because zero tolerance is zero tolerance. Otherwise why fire anyone - just make an announcement at the beginning of any meeting, congressional session, or program that one of the people is a bad person but the show must go on or other people might be inconvenienced.

Apparently it isn't zero tolerance considering http://ew.com/tv/2017/12/15/carter-oosterhouses-christmas-show-to-air-on-abc-despite-sexual-misconduct-allegations/

[biakbiak]

19 minutes ago, VMepicgrl said:

Apparently it isn't zero tolerance considering http://ew.com/tv/2017/12/15/carter-oosterhouses-christmas-show-to-air-on-abc-despite-sexual-misconduct-allegations/

It wasn't even Zero Tolerance with Johnny. The allegations came out before the show premiered, they apparently looked into it and felt there was merit to the allegations.

[needschocolate]

16 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

I know it'd cost a little bit of money but give Paul Hollywood and maybe even the hosts a little bit of money to narrate the episodes.  They can show the baking.  Then show Paul judging.  Then have Paul talk about who won each challenge and why. 

Perhaps one of the things that will come out of all this is that there will be something added to all contracts along the lines of "If you commit or have committed any acts that will cause the show to stop airing, you agree to pay the lost ad revenue (or return the income received)"  Then the offender would pay for the changes you suggested.. 

[Nessie]

23 minutes ago, biakbiak said:

It wasn't even Zero Tolerance with Johnny. The allegations came out before the show premiered, they apparently looked into it and felt there was merit to the allegations.

That's my biggest problem with the way this whole thing has been handled.  ABC had to have looked into it at the time (late November), but they apparently didn't find enough merit in the accusations (Johnny denied them or said he didn't remember the incidents in question, so I guess that was good enough for them - at the time).  Then the accusations against Mario became public and they panicked, fired Mario and pulled TGABS.  The difference, of course, is that no one else on the Chew is being punished for their coworkers assholeniss (which is as it should be).

In between this and ABC's habit of cancelling new shows after as little as two episodes, I seriously question why I even watch any shows on their channel any more.

[biakbiak]

4 minutes ago, Nessie said:

The difference, of course, is that no one else on the Chew is being punished for their coworkers assholeniss (which is as it should be).

The other difference is that The Chew's filming schedule. It is likely that any pretaped shows with Mario have been pulled so kt will have an impact on some guests. 

[Nessie]

2 minutes ago, biakbiak said:

The other difference is that The Chew's filming schedule. It is likely that any pretaped shows with Mario have been pulled so kt will have an impact on some guests. 

That's true.  Not to derail this thread too much with Chew talk, but I didn't even think about that, since he was there so seldom even before he was asked to step away.  But still, I'm sure those guests were paid, as well, so they just missed out on 10 - 15 minutes of exposure for their newest project.  It's hard for me to feel too bad for them, unlike TGABS contestants. 

[Rahul]

On 12/16/2017 at 11:41 AM, VMepicgrl said:

Apparently it isn't zero tolerance considering http://ew.com/tv/2017/12/15/carter-oosterhouses-christmas-show-to-air-on-abc-despite-sexual-misconduct-allegations/

WTF. This really gets my goat. Why isn't ABC being called out for their double standard? It looks like they just wanted an excuse to yank TGABS off the air.

[Adiba]

On 12/15/2017 at 8:25 PM, Irlandesa said:

I know it'd cost a little bit of money but give Paul Hollywood and maybe even the hosts a little bit of money to narrate the episodes.  They can show the baking.  Then show Paul judging.  Then have Paul talk about who won each challenge and why. 

They could definitely do this --they film so much more than what is used ultimately, and Paul or another narrator could do the voice work. They could just do a one-off special showing condensed challenges and the winner.

[GaT]

1 hour ago, Rahul said:

WTF. This really gets my goat. Why isn't ABC being called out for their double standard? It looks like they just wanted an excuse to yank TGABS off the air.

I think this is the real reason. No matter what they try, they can't get the US version to be as good as the UK version. They keep bringing the show back slightly modified, but nothing works, so instead of just cancelling it outright & risk people being mad, they're using this as an excuse to permanently dump the show.

[mlp]

Quote

Why isn't ABC being called out for their double standard?

I'm not so sure there is a double standard.  From what I've read, they investigated the claims against Johnny and Carter and found only Johnny's substantiated.  

[Quilt Fairy]

The really GOOD thing about this is that I won't have to look up how to spell "Iuzzini" every time I want to post here!

[BW Manilowe]

On 12/14/2017 at 2:27 PM, dubbel zout said:

I agree. Johnny is just too prominent to cut out successfully.

A disclaimer would have been a better choice, but the networks don't want to deal with the social media outrage a minute longer than they need to.

And The Chew actually ran a disclaimer about the Mario Batali situation before they aired their first episode after that scandal broke. The only thing is, they had said Mario wouldn't be doing any new episodes & they either weren't gonna air repeats with him in them or they were gonna cut him out, as much as possible, of any repeats they were airing which he originally appeared in. And I don't think Mario was even in the episode that aired after the disclaimer. From what I heard, there didn't seem to be any weird places where he may have originally been in it & gotten removed before airing. I think it was either an episode he wasn't supposed to have been in to start with, or else it was taped after the scandal broke & he was told not to do new eps until the investigation into the allegations ended. Then Mario was fired within a day or 2 of that.

My point is, if The Chew could continue airing whatever eps they're airing right now--new, repeats, or a mix, considering they may or may not have started their Christmas/New Year's hiatus when Mario's issues were disclosed--after airing a disclaimer, then this show should've been able to, too. After all, I think Mario actually admitted to at least some of the things he was accused of but Johnny never did; it was all speculation with him.

[jcbrown]

The Mario story broke over a weekend and I do not think he was slated to be in any episodes the following week. They asked him to step away while they investigated and fired him like 48 hours later.

I still think ABC did the right thing here, though the right-er thing would have been to pay attention to the rumblings and either not hire Johnny or at least not start airing the season, since by that point it was clear which way the wind was blowing. I agree it does suck for the contestants and for those of us who like the show (in my case, despite Johnny, whom I've never cared for much). I wonder if they will bring it back for another season with new host(s) or if this is the end?

[Kohola3]

43 minutes ago, jcbrown said:

I still think ABC did the right thing here, though the right-er thing would have been to pay attention to the rumblings and either not hire Johnny or at least not start airing the season, since by that point it was clear which way the wind was blowing.

I have to wonder if the rise of the "Me, Too" movement made a difference.  When the rumors were surfacing, attention on powerful males taking advantage of their positions to harass women was not in the forefront.  Now it is and ABC probably had to step up or look like they condone that behavior.  

[biakbiak]

12 minutes ago, Kohola3 said:

I have to wonder if the rise of the "Me, Too" movement made a difference.  When the rumors were surfacing, attention on powerful males taking advantage of their positions to harass women was not in the forefront.  Now it is and ABC probably had to step up or look like they condone that behavior.  

The first story about it was the last week of November which was pretty peak #Metoo and after many of the high profile firings. I was sort of shocked that they even decided to air it which does make me wonder what they would have done if not for the Mario story breaking and more women coming forward.

[Mabinogia]

They should have just aired the show with a disclaimer that he has been fired and they are airing it for the bakers who gave up their time and talent to be on this show. Then maybe put some kind of public service awareness thing in the beginning. It is just punishing the wrong people to not air the show. I doubt he really gives a fuck if it airs or not. He got paid.

[needschocolate]

If I recall correctly, one the contestants on this season was on a previous season but had to leave due to a family emergency.  She gets a second chance and the show is pulled off the air.  That is some crappy luck.

[libgirl2]

14 minutes ago, needschocolate said:

If I recall correctly, one the contestants on this season was on a previous season but had to leave due to a family emergency.  She gets a second chance and the show is pulled off the air.  That is some crappy luck.

Oh wow, I forgot about her! That is awful. 

[libgirl2]

I just saw the winner on GABS's Facebook page. 

[MerBearHou]

54 minutes ago, libgirl2 said:

I just saw the winner on GABS's Facebook page. 

Ooooooh, thanks for the heads-up!  I just checked on Facebook -- great winner!

[GaT]

I'm going to stay away from finding out who the winner is in case they decide to put the rest of the shows online or OnDemand.

[BW Manilowe]

For those who are already spoiled about who ended up winning this season...

From People: 'Great American Baking Show' Winner Talks About This Season's Abrupt End

[biakbiak]

The winner's statement is lovely.