A DESCRIPTION FROM THE LIVE PORTION OF THE SHOW

April 16, 2004 9:41 AM

And the apprentice is: Kwame Jackson! Trump fired Bill for how he ran a tournament at Trump National Golf Club and hired Kwame for the way he put together a Jessica Simpson concert at the Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City. USA Today makes an ooopsie.
posted by riffola (38 comments total)

Probably newsfilter/tvfilter/trumpfilter, but a funny mistake.
posted by riffola at 9:42 AM on April 16, 2004

Was this actually linked on the site?

Is seems to be a "boilerplate" page, not directly linked in the site, probably to be edited and used it Kwame won. Are you saying this page was "live?"

Here's the actual posted version...
posted by jpburns at 9:51 AM on April 16, 2004

Next week is TV Turnoff Week.
posted by the fire you left me at 9:52 AM on April 16, 2004

Reactions from the good folks over at PlanetSucks/Socks.
posted by dhoyt at 9:54 AM on April 16, 2004

jpburns, I think it was live for a short period of time, someone on TWoP found it.
posted by riffola at 10:00 AM on April 16, 2004

Oops bad link above, here's the TWoP comment.
posted by riffola at 10:02 AM on April 16, 2004

Not quite as good as the Reagan obituary two years back, but still entertaining to see USA Today step in it.
posted by Johnny Assay at 10:03 AM on April 16, 2004

I didn't watch one minute of the show, but it was hard too avoid the collateral hype that the show was generating. Early on, all the buzz was about how well the women were doing, but yet, in the final they ended up with two men. Is this an appropriate allegory for how it works in real life? Glass ceiling anyone?
posted by psmealey at 10:09 AM on April 16, 2004

John Doyle of the Globe and Mail (who happens to write on the subject of the "glass ceiling" in his article), states that "A Vote for Trump's Apprentice is a Vote for Dubya"
posted by Quartermass at 10:24 AM on April 16, 2004

I don't know if the problem was a glass ceiling or just a more complex dynamic.

As you mentioned, it seemed that the women did really well when the teams were segregated. My wife noticed that the women worked together well and talked extensively with each other in the planning stages. The men on the other hand, would come up with a hare-brained scheme in thirty seconds and then they would all go blindly forward.

When the teams got mixed though, it seemed like the women's dynamic changed completely and they started falling by the wayside. I think the main problems were that some of the women were feuding and the feuds estranged the feuders from the rest of the group, making them easy to vote off.

Yes, I watched the show and enjoyed it. File this one as a guilty pleasure.
posted by rks404 at 10:24 AM on April 16, 2004

Funny you should say that. One of my writers did a story on the Apprentice's glass ceiling. (Self-link, although I didn't write it.)

I also blogged the finale, which was fun.
posted by GaelFC at 10:27 AM on April 16, 2004

Is this an appropriate allegory for how it works in real life? Glass ceiling anyone?

I'm shocked you didn't complain about Kwame being held down by "the man", although not disappointed.

Everyone on that show was already hugely successful; this wasn't a bunch of nobodies. The women on the show were already business success stories -- and they're not going to be hurt by any of the exposure they got from the show, either.

You're barking up the wrong tree on this one. You know, it is possible for men to actually do better than women on occasion, and vice-versa.
posted by Dark Messiah at 10:29 AM on April 16, 2004

Is this an appropriate allegory for how it works in real life? Glass ceiling anyone?

You're joking, right?
posted by Kwantsar at 10:29 AM on April 16, 2004

More like a bimbo ceiling.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 10:33 AM on April 16, 2004

Also, consider that the men did so abysmally in the first few weeks that only those who had survival skills remained at the end. The women didn't have to go through the fire (so to speak) and I think that hurt them more in the latter half of the contest.

Although, I do agree with the Doyle article in that Amy (the last woman standing) was fired more because Trump's people couldn't stand her, rather than for any performance-related reason. Of course, from the way the interviews were edited, it looked like she pretty much brought nothing to the table at that point anyhow. Perhaps we were the ones who were duped.
posted by Jugwine at 10:33 AM on April 16, 2004

Perhaps we were the ones who were duped.

I'd say that anyone who tuned into this travesty when they could have been foing something more meaningful (like masturbating or nose-picking) was duped.
posted by jonmc at 10:40 AM on April 16, 2004

The finale was the worst "ending" in television history, second only to the series ending of Seinfeld. Trump does not handle the camera well when it's live, and because the dialogue in that last half hour was so awful, it was blatantly obvious that the entire show was heavily edited throughout. What a disappointment.

And Kwame should have won, damn it.

jonmc, care to explain your opinion, or are you simply venting because you didn't understand the show's popularity?
posted by BlueTrain at 10:44 AM on April 16, 2004

The glass ceiling comment was intended to be humorous, as I thought I had pointed out in the first part of my comment that I hadn't seen the show, and wasn't in a position to comment. Kwantsar, messiah... it's Friday, have a drink, lighten up... or something.
posted by psmealey at 10:48 AM on April 16, 2004

BlueTrain, I understand the show's popularity. It tells me that the viewing public likes to watch pathologically ambitions backstabbing pirahnas supplicate before an aging overfed low-rent Charles Foster Kane for the privilige of being his lackey.

And we are watching them.

As a wise man once said, you shouldn't let other people get your kicks for you.
posted by jonmc at 10:53 AM on April 16, 2004

I am a bit questioning about the whole 'glass ceiling' discussion... more so, I have to ask where they got some of the women, since I've seen vastly more successful and composed women in the workplace than those.

The 'aggressive/emotional' argument falls flat. When a woman begins crying and getting all choked up, that's emotional. Aggressive is Heidi cursing out Omarosa for wanting to take a two hour lunch.

Amy's final firing you can easily attribute to her performance at the interviews - where she admitted afterwards that she didn't even know what she was saying, but just kept talking, and was completely off her game.

On her game, she probably would have made a much better impression to provide some serious competition to Bill and Kwame.

But she wasn't on and blew the round-robin interviews, just like many of us have at one time or another. Interviewing is hard work, and unnerving, and if you're a little bit off, it can turn disasterous.

The tough part was that good people got kicked out early while people like Omarosa skated through to the end because their team kept winning. There are a few women I think should have made it further than Erika or Heidi, but just were on the wrong team.

I think women make great bosses, personally.. though when you get two Type A's together that don't like eachother, they have a meltdown whereas two type A men who don't like eachother I have experienced can still work well together.

As for watching the show, being in the business (financial) world, I found it pretty fascinating, and a great challenge to use the skills that business people are required to have to run a sucessful business in a high-pressure enviornment.
posted by rich at 10:57 AM on April 16, 2004

you shouldn't let other people get your kicks for you.

So you don't read books, watch tv or watch movies?

pathologically ambitions backstabbing pirahnas supplicate before an aging overfed low-rent Charles Foster Kane for the privilige of being his lackey.

Oddly enough, this was one of the only shows I watch on tv, simply because the "game" was different, and presented intelligent people accomplishing difficult tasks. I'm not trying to analyze the show, because obviously it's television and not reality, but it was fun. You don't feel that way. But making up excuses like "backstabbing pirahnas" and "being his lackey" is ignorant, and proves you probably didn't follow the show.

Despite my absolute superficial loathing of Donald Trump, I wouldn't turn down an opportunity to work for his organization, specifically because I don't know the company, nor do I personally know him. Especially considering the amount of experience, exposure, and contacts a job like this could offer.

Finally, simply because you "hate the man" doesn't necessarily mean that your opinion is correct. Link to a site that exposes the show as "demoralizing the public" or causes the general public to lose some IQ points and perhaps you may be on to something.
posted by BlueTrain at 11:12 AM on April 16, 2004

So you don't read books, watch tv or watch movies?

Those are performances. This is people living actual lives and we're all spending our evenings watching them.

But making up excuses like "backstabbing pirahnas" and "being his lackey" is ignorant, and proves you probably didn't follow the show.

I've popped my head in on a few of the other reality shows, and heard enough talk to get the jist of why people like these shows: all the drama subterfuge and schadenfruede. *yawn*
posted by jonmc at 11:22 AM on April 16, 2004

and heard enough talk to get the jist of why people like these shows: all the drama subterfuge and schadenfruede

Mr. mc.. tsk tsk. You know I didn't watch the show for that reason. I watched it because of the tasks given and seeing the real business issues in the resolution of the task.

I found the bickering and problems like Omarosa annoying and a distraction to the stuff I was watching it for.
posted by rich at 11:29 AM on April 16, 2004

I can't remember if someone had posted this in an earlier thread, I'm sorry if they had, but I kind of sums up my feeling about the spate of reality tv shows.
posted by headless at 11:32 AM on April 16, 2004

headless: good story, thanks
posted by jacobsee at 12:23 PM on April 16, 2004

I've heard Amy's been offered a job from Trump anyway.
posted by whoshotwho at 12:46 PM on April 16, 2004

"Reality's Apprentice" discussion from 3 days ago
posted by obloquy at 1:01 PM on April 16, 2004

I watched it because of the tasks given and seeing the real business issues in the resolution of the task.

Seriously? I didn't see much of it, but it seemed like kind of a joke to me. Selling knick knacks? Coming up with "ad campaigns"? Wait a sec, this is all fake and super duper scripted right? Everyone knows this right?
posted by loquax at 1:12 PM on April 16, 2004

Reuters has a story about USA Today's goof up.
posted by riffola at 1:24 PM on April 16, 2004

Jon, come on, man.. I didn't watch the show either, but if they want to discuss it, don't ruin the thread for them.
posted by Hildago at 1:28 PM on April 16, 2004

So what was up with Sam offering 250K to Trump so that he could work for him as well?
posted by bshort at 1:35 PM on April 16, 2004

I wouldn't have hired any of them. I think they all belong on the Island of Misfit Toys. Heidi is the choo choo with square wheels and Omarosa is the boomerang that never comes back... well you wish at least. Not one of them could project manage their way out of a box or close a door, let alone a sale.
posted by jasenlee at 1:39 PM on April 16, 2004

I watched it because of the tasks given and seeing the real business issues in the resolution of the task.

Doesn't the fact that USA today had a fairly detailed alternate ending tell you anything? I know people like to think that 'reality tv' is in fact reality, but it's scripted like everything else. It just gives the illusion of reality.
posted by jnthnjng at 3:07 PM on April 16, 2004

You could write a pretty good and accurate feature piece on Georgia Tech's rise to the championship, but that doesn't mean the NCAA tournament is fixed.
posted by smackfu at 3:19 PM on April 16, 2004

Jon, I'm a fan of your angry style, but if you didn't watch the show then you're just venting anti-reality-TV rage on something you haven't even bothered to watch.

I got roped into watching it, and I didn't hate it as much as I thought I would. (I spend a lot of time at a friend's house; his wife-to-be controls the TV and loves those kinds of shows.) At first I hated everyone on the show; I thought they were all a bunch of buzz-word-throwing jack-offs. But, as being forced to endure a TV show makes you wont do do, I gave the program a chance.

Each contestant came to the table with an impressive list of achievements. This isn't some allegedly random population sample in a lame "whacky and / or zany setting". We're watching a group of success stories fighting it out for a chance to work directly under one of America's biggest business moguls.

Sure, I can see how this kind of show doesn't appeal to everyone -- no show does. However, as far as "reality based" programming goes, The Apprentice was the least deplorable I've had to watch. And it's not like winning the show ensured success for anyone. So you work for Donald Trump now; the key operator in that sentence is you work. To me, that's a little more impressive than giving someone a mountain of cash for selling out their friends, or whatever satisifies the current reality-TV craving.
posted by Dark Messiah at 4:22 PM on April 16, 2004

Is this an appropriate allegory for how it works in real life?

I watched a part of one episode. Didn't seem even remotely connected to the actual realities of business - expect to the extent that Trump used the show itself as one of his many branding strategies.
posted by MidasMulligan at 7:28 PM on April 16, 2004

The fact that some people think it was "reality" at all, and that it in any way represented "real business" is the most amusing part of it.

These shows are based, solely, on the clashing of personalities and the ensuing drama. Not very far removed from soap operas.

They've been scripting reality shows since the first season of "Real World". Indirect at first, now on to basically full-on performances.

I don't know that we've ever truly seen a REAL reality show in the states. I suspect it would be stunningly boring, hence why we've not seen it.

I agree with Jon's disdain, but not because it's real people living their lives with us watching, but because it is not; it is in fact a product of editing wizardry and incredible freedom with chronologies and context.

If these people were truly successful, and not just the product of trumped up bios, then it makes me ever more fearful and confident that "Dilbert" is in fact the last word in business reality.
posted by Ynoxas at 10:11 PM on April 17, 2004

Why oh why did I not say "Trump-ed up"?

Regrets, I've had a few.
posted by Ynoxas at 10:12 PM on April 17, 2004