Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Aussie WWTBAM faces another controversy  (Read 2796 times)

CherryPizza

  • Guest
Aussie WWTBAM faces another controversy
« on: July 09, 2003, 08:23:43 PM »
Hi everyone, this is my first post to this board. I think I may have spoken to some of you at various times. Anyway, my Australian Game Shows site is back online and can be found at http://zap.to/ozgames

Anyway, it seems that a new trend in the Aus game show world is heavily scrutinising answers to questions. A couple of weeks ago, a contestant on Catch Phrase was deemed incorrect for answering \"boogieman\" to a question whose answer was \"bogeyman\", and much debate occurred since if he had been deemed correct, he would have won a car.

And this week on WWTBAM, there was a near re-run of an incident from last year when a contestant playing for $64,000 was asked which country's flag contained a large R in the centre. The contestant, unsure of the answer, guessed Reunion, was deemed incorrect and left with $32,000. However, the \"correct\" answer of Rwanda was no longer correct, as the Rwandan flag changed on 1/1/2002. Since no answer was technically correct, the program was obliged to award him the $64,000 and re-instate him.

This week's incident occurred when a contestant, also playing for $64,000 was asked how many justices sit on a full bench of the High Court of Australia. The contestant guessed five, and was deemed incorrect because according to WWTBAM, the correct answer is seven. However, as a newspaper article on the incident states, \"While it is correct that seven judges sit on the High Court, the term Full Court or Bench is defined under the Judiciary Act (1903) as a hearing comprising \"two or more justices\"\".

At this stage the Nine Network, which airs WWTBAM, is standing by its decision to judge the contestant wrong.

Brandon Brooks

  • Member
  • Posts: 1221
Aussie WWTBAM faces another controversy
« Reply #1 on: July 09, 2003, 09:56:53 PM »
Quote
Hi everyone, this is my first post to this board. I think I may have spoken to some of you at various times. Anyway, my Australian Game Shows site is back online and can be found at http://zap.to/ozgames
Not bad.  You have some dead picture links, though.  Random question:  Has Aussie TPIR aired yet?  If it has, how is it?
Quote
Anyway, it seems that a new trend in the Aus game show world is heavily scrutinising answers to questions. A couple of weeks ago, a contestant on Catch Phrase was deemed incorrect for answering \"boogieman\" to a question whose answer was \"bogeyman\", and much debate occurred since if he had been deemed correct, he would have won a car.
Yeesh.  That's sticky.  What the hell is a \"bogeyman?\"

Quote
And this week on WWTBAM, there was a near re-run of an incident from last year when a contestant playing for $64,000 was asked which country's flag contained a large R in the centre. The contestant, unsure of the answer, guessed Reunion, was deemed incorrect and left with $32,000. However, the \"correct\" answer of Rwanda was no longer correct, as the Rwandan flag changed on 1/1/2002. Since no answer was technically correct, the program was obliged to award him the $64,000 and re-instate him.
Eh, it happens.  WWBTAM did the right thing.  No big deal.
Quote
This week's incident occurred when a contestant, also playing for $64,000 was asked how many justices sit on a full bench of the High Court of Australia. The contestant guessed five, and was deemed incorrect because according to WWTBAM, the correct answer is seven. However, as a newspaper article on the incident states, \"While it is correct that seven judges sit on the High Court, the term Full Court or Bench is defined under the Judiciary Act (1903) as a hearing comprising \"two or more justices\"\".

At this stage the Nine Network, which airs WWTBAM, is standing by its decision to judge the contestant wrong.
Now, that's just a horrible question.  If it was about the U.S., then it would cut and dry.  (That question was a mighty easy one for $64,000.  I know right off the top of my head that there are nine justices; how hard could it be to remember how many there are in Australia?)  They should do something about that.  

Brandon Brooks
« Last Edit: July 09, 2003, 09:58:44 PM by Brandon Brooks »
Brandon Brooks

CherryPizza

  • Guest
Aussie WWTBAM faces another controversy
« Reply #2 on: July 09, 2003, 10:05:41 PM »
Quote
Not bad. You have some dead picture links, though. Random question:?Has Aussie TPIR aired yet??If it has, how is it?

Yes it has... pretty much the same as it was last time around. It was originally to have had a new host, but they recycled the host from the former series... it's not doing anything \"wrong\", but it doesn't seem as new and fresh as it should.

I think I know which pics you mean... I'm trying to solve that. Do you mean the Family Feud pic and the one of Sale champ Vincent Smith?

Quote
Yeesh. That's sticky. What the hell is a \"bogeyman?\"

Apparently it's an alternative pronunciation of \"boogieman\", the way it's said in the UK, I take it.

Like the \"flag of Rwanda\" ordeal, I think that it was wrong to have that puzzle the way it was to start with. After all, Australians don't say \"bogeyman\", therefore an Aus game show shouldn't have a puzzle to which that is the correct answer. (the puzzle picture had \"bowgee\" written on it, which therefore could not have been pronounced \"boogie\", so technically the producers may have been right, but were perhaps wrong to depict that pronunciation
« Last Edit: July 09, 2003, 10:08:18 PM by CherryPizza »

Peter Sarrett

  • Member
  • Posts: 226
Aussie WWTBAM faces another controversy
« Reply #3 on: July 10, 2003, 04:32:15 PM »
Quote
Quote
Yeesh. That's sticky. What the hell is a \"bogeyman?\"

Apparently it's an alternative pronunciation of \"boogieman\", the way it's said in the UK, I take it.

Actually, it's the correct spelling of the word, regardless of where you are.  There's no such thing as a BOOGIEMAN (unless you're at a disco). BOOGEYMAN or BOGYMAN is also correct.

  - Peter

Matt Ottinger

  • Member
  • Posts: 12242
Aussie WWTBAM faces another controversy
« Reply #4 on: July 10, 2003, 05:36:52 PM »
With the usualy caveat that this isn't scientific, and many factors could skew the results, here's what Google has to say:

BOOGEYMAN - 46,900 Hits
BOGEYMAN - 38,800 Hits
BOOGIEMAN - 18,700 Hits
BOOGYMAN - 3,040 Hits

BOGYMAN, BOGIEMAN, BOGGIEMAN and even BOOGIMAN turn up in smaller numbers.

So on the internet, anyway, there are considerably more references to the \"boo\" sound 'boogeyman' than the long-o sound 'bogeyman'.   If it was the answer to a trivia question, there's no way they'd get away with accepting one pronunciation but not the other.  But since it's the solution to a puzzle where the \"correct\" pronunciation was provided, I can see why there's some debate.
This has been another installment of Matt Ottinger's Masters of the Obvious.
Stay tuned for all the obsessive-compulsive fun of Words Have Meanings.

Peter Sarrett

  • Member
  • Posts: 226
Aussie WWTBAM faces another controversy
« Reply #5 on: July 10, 2003, 09:31:51 PM »
Why would you turn to Google for a spell-check when you can turn to an authority on the subject like Merriam-Webster (www.m-w.com)?  The spellings I cited are from that source.

Both pronunciations (Boogie and Bogey) are considered correct.

  - Peter

Brandon Brooks

  • Member
  • Posts: 1221
Aussie WWTBAM faces another controversy
« Reply #6 on: July 10, 2003, 09:36:18 PM »
[quote name=\'Peter Sarrett\' date=\'Jul 10 2003, 08:31 PM\'] Why would you turn to Google for a spell-check when you can turn to an authority on the subject like Merriam-Webster (www.m-w.com)?  The spellings I cited are from that source.

Both pronunciations (Boogie and Bogey) are considered correct.

  - Peter [/quote]
 Because Australians may not consider Webster's as a reputable source; they just might pay more attention to Oxford, though I'm not sure.

Brandon Brooks
Brandon Brooks

starcade

  • Guest
Aussie WWTBAM faces another controversy
« Reply #7 on: July 10, 2003, 11:03:00 PM »
On the High Court question, the wrong answer was given as correct, but was 2 one of the answers??  If not, they should've reinstated the player at 32K and started him where he was...  Geez, and we think the American version gets a little dicey sometimes...

CherryPizza

  • Guest
Aussie WWTBAM faces another controversy
« Reply #8 on: July 10, 2003, 11:34:47 PM »
Somebody else here in Aus informs me that the contestant has been re-instated. Apparently it's been advertised that he'll be back on the next show

Robert Hutchinson

  • Member
  • Posts: 2333
Aussie WWTBAM faces another controversy
« Reply #9 on: July 11, 2003, 12:08:01 AM »
[quote name=\'Peter Sarrett\' date=\'Jul 10 2003, 08:31 PM\']Why would you turn to Google for a spell-check when you can turn to an authority on the subject like Merriam-Webster (www.m-w.com)?  The spellings I cited are from that source.[/quote]
Or you can turn to The American HeritageŽ Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, which is just fine with \"boogieman\". M-W is an authority, but there are certainly others.
Visit my CB radio at www.twitter.com/ertchin

Matt Ottinger

  • Member
  • Posts: 12242
Aussie WWTBAM faces another controversy
« Reply #10 on: July 11, 2003, 12:35:07 AM »
Quote
Why would you turn to Google for a spell-check when you can turn to an authority on the subject like Merriam-Webster (www.m-w.com)? The spellings I cited are from that source.
Because it's a fun (though, as I said, unscientific) way to quantify exactly how all the varient spellings show up in the real world.  Well, virtual world, but you know what I mean.  For example, it's interesting that Merriam-Webster doesn't consider 'boogieman' to be valid (BTW, my Random House does), yet it shows up on the internet about eighteen times more frequently than 'bogyman', which they do consider OK.  It's neither right nor wrong, just a way to look at the common usage of the various choices.  

In other words, M-W shows us how things SHOULD be.  Google more accurately shows how things really are.
Ain't language fun?
Quote
Both pronunciations (Boogie and Bogey) are considered correct.
Apparently not according to Australian game show producers.  That's the reason we're having this conversation.
This has been another installment of Matt Ottinger's Masters of the Obvious.
Stay tuned for all the obsessive-compulsive fun of Words Have Meanings.

CherryPizza

  • Guest
Aussie WWTBAM faces another controversy
« Reply #11 on: July 11, 2003, 01:06:28 AM »
Quote
Quote
Both pronunciations (Boogie and Bogey) are considered correct.
Apparently not according to Australian game show producers.  That's the reason we're having this conversation.

According to the producers of Catch Phrase there are two pronunciations for the word, but the puzzle in question could only be correctly interpreted as \"bogeyman\".

According to the Australian public, though, the only way to say it is \"boogieman\", and it was therefore wrong to have a question whose only possible answer is that other pronunciation. One could therefore equate it to the WWTBAM question/s in which none of the answers was correct

There are more details about it on My homepage