LAST EDITED ON 07-23-06 AT 01:51 PM (EST)

That would be a great question to ask an editor. I don't think it is a question of simply fooling us but rather to create that storyline from which the winners emerge. The editors shape our views of the contestants to get us to react and therefore build the ratings. That is why I concentrate on the long term. Very little "fooling" needed to be done for teams that were first eliminated as they weren't part of what would make the audience tune in each week. The Hanlons were comedic relief, so put them on camera as much as you can for as long as they are there. The only tricks used would be to enhance their "schtick".

How far can we be fooled? I gave you some examples of short term tricks used in Survivor to keep us guessing what will happen next. I've got a few more that show long term effect:

-Survivor Outback was the second season of the series that has now 12 editions. To this day, people who only watch the show each week, argue that the winner, Tina, didn't do much but was lucky to be brought along by Colby who was a strong athlete. People who listened to interviews and Insider information say that Tina masterminded the strategy and Colby actually followed her lead! Why not show more of Tina's strategy? The previous season's winner had been the mastermind and people loved/hated him for his cutthroat way of playing the game. For the second season, the editors thought best to show Tina's good nature. We only got glimpses of her strategies.

-Stephenie was a strong athletic woman who played in season 10 but was on a tribe that got obliterated. She was the last one remaining and the audience fell in love with the underdog who had no chance of beating the machine-like tribe she faced. So much that she was brought back in Season 11. What happened to "America's sweetheart" the second time? She became StepheME, hated for her constant whining and her b*tchy attitude. Sure her game changed from one season to the other, but people that were on those seasons agreed that Stephenie wasn't as good as she was portrayed in Season 10 or as bad as people saw her in season 11. The "real" Stephenie was always somewhere in the middle. The editors chose to hide some of her whining the first time since she faced terrible odds and her determination was endearing i.e. good for ratings. In her second try she was in charge but eventually lost to a likeable woman who herself had been an underdog. The bad side came out to show the contrast between the 2 and why the new girl deserved the win.

On to TAR: Remember how in one of the first episodes we heard the Frat Boys say that the hippies always follow and can't be trusted. We were surprised to hear that and actually noted that it showed another bad side of the Frat Boys. Besides being obsessed with the girls, they became poor sports. Only later did we see the bad side of the hippies in their confrontation with MoJo. They "really" were followers and "really" were shady but by that time the audience had "hippy love". If animosity had been felt early on by the audience, it is very probable that a majority of the audience would have taken MoJo's side against the hippies. That would have been bad for ratings if people had tuned out once the hippies outlasted MoJo. In retrospect, is it surprising that the Hippies, who benefitted from the editors choices, beat the Frat Boys who were made to look bad with the accusations we didn't originally believe?

Those examples are why I think following the long term storylines and depiction of players can enable us to avoid being fooled.

To answer it in the Treasure Hunters, imagine they get a confessional from one of the Air Force team and ask first:
Q-How do you like your chances?
A-We've been lucky. That has helped us. Hopefully, we can stay ahead of the competition. We hope to beat them all.
Q-What do you think of the Hanlons?
A-They're not that bright.

Now imagine the editors cut it so that only this airs: "We hope to beat them all. We can stay ahead of the competition. They're not that bright."
Wouldn't you suddenly start hating them? If you remind yourself that in editing, when someone talks bad about the competition WITHOUT confirmation from other sources, then you are left to see that it simply doesn't bode well for the long term success of the ones making the comments!

By the way; the Fogals have been shown to work with and be "chummy" with The Southie Boys and Air Force. That is part of the redemption I talked about. What if those are the final 3 teams? The animosity was stronger between the Southie Boys and Air Force when the latter accused the former of getting all teams against them. Could the Fogals wind up as the calm racers in that grouping? We don't know but it could be edited that way!