WON 5.5D's Classic Game Show-Twenty One Game Show-Snodgrass Controversy

Here's an episode of the rigged game show "Twenty One" and the James Snodgrass Controversy which was part of the 1950s quiz show scandal. Herb Stempel was a contestant on Twenty One who was coached by the show's producer Dan Enright. While Stempel was in the midst of his winning streak, both of the $64,000 quiz shows were in the top-ten rated programs but Twenty One did not have the same popularity. Enright and his partner Albert Freedman were searching for a new champion to replace Stempel to boost ratings. They soon found what they were looking for in Charles Lincoln Van Doren. Charles Van Doren was an English teacher at Columbia University when a friend suggested he try out for a quiz show. Skeptical at first, Van Doren decided to try out for the quiz show Tic-Tac-Dough because of the possible money a contestant could win. Enright, who produced both Tic-Tac-Dough and Twenty One, saw Van Doren's tryout and was familiar with his prestigious family background that included multiple Pulitzer Prize-winning authors and highly respected professors at Columbia University. As a result, Enright felt that Van Doren would be the perfect contestant to be the new face of Twenty One.[6] <br /> <br />As part of their plan, the producers of Twenty One arranged the first Van Doren-Stempel face-off to end in three ties. This strategy paid off as millions of viewers tuned in the next evening to watch. Although the manipulation of the contestants on Twenty One helped the producers maintain viewer interest and ratings, the producers had not anticipated the extent of Stempel's resentment at being required to lose the contest against Van Doren.[7] After achieving winnings of $69,500, Stempel's scripted loss to the more popular Van Doren occurred on 5 December 1956. One of the questions Stempel answered incorrectly involved the winner of the 1955 Academy Award for Best Motion Picture. (The correct answer was Marty, one of Stempel's favorite movies; as instructed by Enright, Stempel gave the incorrect answer On the Waterfront, winner of Best Picture the previous year.) After his preordained loss, Stempel spoke out against the operation, claiming that he deliberately lost the match against Van Doren on orders from Enright. <br /> <br />Initially Stempel was dismissed as a sore loser, but in August 1958 some evidence came to light that bolstered his credibility. Ed Hilgemeyer, a contestant on Dotto, announced that he had found a notebook containing the very answers contestant Marie Winn was delivering on stage. The final stroke, however, came from Twenty One contestant James Snodgrass, who was found to have sent registered letters to himself containing the advance answers. Such evidence was considered irrefutable. It eventually emerged that the 12 September 1956 debut of Twenty One had gone so badly that sponsor Geritol called producers Enright and Jack Barry the following day and demanded changes. Under pressure, Enright and Freedman decided to rig the show. Jack Barry, co-owner of Barry-Enright Productions and the show's host, was not involved in the actual rigging, but later helped in the cover-up. <br /> <br />By October 1958, the story was widely known and the quiz shows' Nielsen ratings plunged. The networks denied any knowledge and canceled the now-suspicious shows. The American public's reactions were quick and powerful when the quiz show fraud became public: between 87% and 95% knew about the scandals as measured by industry-sponsored polls.[8] Meanwhile, New York prosecutor Joseph Stone convened a grand jury to investigate the charges. Many of the coached contestants, who had become celebrities due to their quiz-show success, were so afraid of the social repercussions that they were unwilling to confess to having been coached, even to the point of perjuring themselves to avoid backlash. The judge sealed the grand jury report for unknown reasons. <br />All media is used under Section 107 of the Fair Usage USA Copyright Act, as well as the Compilation and News Reports sections of the USA Copyright Act. All videos are for the enjoyment of the viewer. No Copyright Infringement Intended.