Survivor: Game Changers, the hit competition reality show’s 34th season, was set to be an all-time great. The season’s theme brought back an all-star lineup of castaways from the show’s previous 33 seasons, all of whom had a game-changing impact on the show’s future. Sandra Diaz-Twine, the show’s only two-time winner, was there (Adebowale). Cirie Fields, inventor of the iconic plurality vote—an intricate, strategic move that involves putting votes on more than two castaways—was there (NLN). Tai Trang, the first player to receive a “Sia Award” from the famous musical artist at the end of the season, was there (Simpson). Jeff Varner and Zeke Smith were also there. Varner and Smith bonded over their identities as gay men, with Varner even talking about his activism in the queer community. However, their relationship soured when Varner outed Smith at a Trans man during tribal council, to move the vote off himself. Varner said that Smith was capable of deceit because he had not told the tribe he was transgender. All the other castmates immediately came to Smith’s defense and ultimately voted Varner out; but not before shaming him for his decision to out Smith (CBS).

​

It is important to acknowledge that this ethical dilemma isn’t one of whether Varner outing Smith was ethically permissible, as clearly it was not. Stripping Smith of his autonomy in disclosing his gender identity is undoubtedly unethical, especially when we consider the rampant violence against the Trans community, as outlined by Wirtz et al. in their essay “Gender-Based Violence Against Transgender People in the United States: A Call for Research and Programming.” This paper’s discussion is based on whether the show including this moment for public consumption was the ethically superior choice.  According to Survivor Historian Mike Bloom, a season of Survivor may have as much as “Fourteen hundred and forty minutes” of raw footage to edit down to one 45-minute episode (Bloom). When deciding what to keep and what to leave on the cutting room floor, editors may—or may not, see: hypothetical imperatives—face ethical dilemmas (Crash Course). In the case of Varner and Smith, did the editors make the better ethical choice?

​

Varner outing Smith on national television poses an interesting ethical dilemma in the process of editing reality television. On the one hand, editors have a duty to respect Smith as a human and not treat him as a means to the ends of good ratings and profitability. Bastiaan Vanacker explains in “Commercialization: The Intersection of Economics and Ethics in Reality TV” that reality shows cost a fraction of what scripted shows cost to produce, and these reality programs generate high profits. Drama, spectacle, and controversial moments are generally great for television ratings, and a moment like the one between Varner and Smith is no exception. By publicizing Smith’s outing, are producers and editors capitalizing on something so personal, and frankly dangerous, to Smith?

​

On the other hand, editors also have a duty to be transparent and authentic in their storytelling. Since Varner’s vote-out was unconventional—out in the open of tribal council rather than the traditional secrecy of the voting booth—do editors have a duty to show the vote out authentically?

​

To investigate this ethical dilemma, I will be using Kant’s normative framework of deontology and W.D. Ross’s prima facie duties. I selected deontology as my framework for a few reasons. Deontology first and foremost focuses on the duties we have to each other as human beings, and as explained by Bastiaan Vanacker, Survivor is a man-made creation that is based in human interaction. It also mirrors the universality of Survivor editing, which is evident by Edgic, the process of edit-reading Survivor. Lastly, deontology allows us to focus on the actual ethical dilemma at hand without emotional bias towards the consequences of showing or hiding Smith’s public outing.

​

Vanacker says that deontology is applicable to reality television for two reasons. The first being that reality TV is a man-made apparatus; therefore, it is deontological by pure existence. Kant is explicit in the fact that being a human of a rational mind garners every person’s respect and duty to and from others (Plaisance). Since we are capable of rational thought, we should exercise it to determine what we believe is the most ethical choice in each dilemma.

​

According to “Kant & Categorical Imperatives: Crash Course Philosophy #35,” Kant’s framework is that morality is a constant and almost mathematical process; editing television programs can be seen in the same way, especially Survivor. Fans discovered during the show’s fourth season that there is a formula of sorts for editing the series; so much so, there is a methodology dedicated to analyzing the editing choices of production called Edgic. A portmanteau of editing and logic, Edgic enthusiasts aims to “read the edit” to determine the winner of a season (Holmes). Survivor expert and blogger Martin Holmes states that with Edgic, players are assigned labels based on several factors such as on-screen portrayal and percentage of screen time. Then, based on the edits of previous seasons, a determination is made on who is the most likely winner (Holmes). This implies a universal approach to the edit of Survivor, making it a perfect candidate for deontological investigation.

​

Finally, using deontology focuses strictly on the ethical dilemma in question, and isn’t concerned with the consequences of Varner outing Smith. It can be easy to conclude that including it could have some serious negative and positive consequences. For one, Varner lost his job at a real estate firm after the backlash from his decision to out Smith (Quinn). More positively, Survivor received a GLADD award for Best Reality TV Program following the incident; Not to mention, a partnership between Smith and GLAAD helped him find love with actor Nico Santos who he would later marry (Hasan). However, these consequences lean into an emotional, not rational, ethical decision for the Game Changers editing team. Kant stresses that when we are making an ethical decision, we need to be rational because other humans are also rational beings worthy of respect (Plaisance). Because of this rationality, we are bound to what Kant called categorical imperatives. These are rules we must follow, even if we don’t want to or if the consequences are harmful (Plaisance). Categorical imperatives are based in logic and reason, and according to Kant, are thus morally obligatory. When we consider Kant’s Formula of Humanity, we are considering how our ethical decisions affect other humans (Crash Course). This formula states we should not use other people as “mere means” for our own benefit. Basically, editors should consider the humanity, autonomy and goals of Smith, Varner and the other castaways of the season when editing the final product. In “Privacy: What has Reality TV Got to Hide?” Madeleine Shufeldt Esch states “For journalists, the key question is how to weigh the publics right to know with an individual’s right to privacy.” This reinforces the idea of our duties to each other as humans. Esch expands on this idea by explaining that privacy helps us maintain personal relationships, and jeopardizing that privacy erodes the intimacy we have between each other, which reinforces the ideas present in Media Ethics: Key Principles for Responsible Practice about Privacy (Plaisance). Choosing to publicize Smith’s outing could have affected the relationships with the individuals in his real life that may not have known he was a Trans man. In an article written by Smith, he starts with “I’m not wild about you knowing that I’m trans,” indicating his autonomy in deciding whether to come out was violated (Smith).

​

A stakeholder that we haven’t discussed yet is the audience. While one could say worrying about the audience begins to delve into consequentialism because it is connected to the end product of what editors are creating, I would disagree. The audience is made up of individual people, and editors have the same duties to the people viewing the show as they do to the contestants, bringing us back to the idea of universalizability of duties. Before including or excluding Varner’s outing of Smith, editors should consider the duty of transparency. Varner was already likely to go home at tribal council, according to the edit. Players were seen throughout the episode discussing the pros and cons of voting him out, and they ultimately decided it was his turn to go. Considering Varner was already being portrayed as the castaway to go home that night, was it necessary to show Varner outing Smith? Considering transparency, the editors still have an ethical obligation to show the moment. Transparency is an integral part of deontology, and providing the audience with an honest, accurate editing of events is an important duty editors have to the audience.

​

However, should editors favor their duty to the contestants or to the audience? It is impossible to say conclusively, since this semester has focused on the fact that ethics is a subject relative to the individuals involved in the ethical dilemma. We can, however, attempt to weigh these categorical imperatives with W.D. Ross’s prima facie duties. These duties are defined as obligations that can only be overwritten by another, stronger ethical duty (Plaisance). A few notable prima facie duties Survivor editors should consider include honesty, justice and non-maleficence (Plaisance). When considering honesty, the editors’ duty to the audience is to provide an accurate portrayal of what happened, which could also be said about the contestants. Justice comes into play through equitable representation of castaways. The audience should be provided with a balanced and equitable portrayal of the events and of castaways, and it could be argued that not showing the moment would strip viewers of their autonomy of an informed opinion on a Varner, Smith or the overall situation. Castaways are also entitled to an equitable and just representation of themselves and others on the island. The duty to avoid harm toward the castaways in this case comes in the form of protecting Smith as a Trans man. According to Kristen Fischer and Dr. Dany Paul Baby, outing can be harmful towards a member of the queer community and can even be deadly. It can lead to violence against the outed individual, or it could lead to self-harm and suicide (Fischer). This is a clear violation of privacy for Smith that should be avoided. Trans members of the audience may also feel threatened by Varner outing Smith if they have experienced something similar in their own lives, and it can be a triggering experience.

 

A stakeholder not included before now is CBS Corporation—the producers and beneficiaries of the show’s financial profits. As the ones profiting off Survivor—and the many ethical issues associated with the profit over people mentality of major corporations—CBS should not be entitled to ethical consideration in this situation. Their main concern is how the final product will make them the most money without regard to the humans they may treat as a means to the desired end of profit. Antonio Argandoña states in “Why is it hard to be ethical in business?” that while not impossible, it is difficult to conduct business ethically for many reasons, including the fast-paced nature of business not lending time to properly investigate ethical dilemmas. Companies also aren’t humans in and of themselves; they are a manifestation of collective actions, decisions and values of the people who created it. This distinction can minoritize the importance of ethics since the human element is removed (Argandoña).

 

After considering many ethical sides of this issue, it can be concluded that editors made an unethical decision in airing Varner’s outing of Smith. First and most importantly, airing the outing stripped Smith of his autonomy in revealing his gender identity not only to the tribe, but to the world. This incident could have irreparable consequences for Smith’s life; as cited earlier, violence is a common experience for members of the Trans community. Second, people have a duty to protect the privacy of others. Privacy is vital to community building and interpersonal relationships, and this violation of privacy could lead to damage to Smith’s personal relationships without his consent. Finally, we have a duty not to harm others, and airing this moment could harm Smith and queer viewers. Even though transparency and accurate storytelling are ethically dutiful in regard to Ross’ prima facie duties, Kant’s universalizability imperative states that if Varner and CBS outing Smith are ethically permissible in this situation, outing anyone on national television would be ethically acceptable; which is a dangerous rope to start walking. Ultimately, by prioritizing sensationalism over ethical responsibility, the editors made a morally questionable decision that compromised both the well-being of Smith and the integrity of the show.