Dirty Rotten Scandals - TPIR - March 18 on E!

[Denials]

Holy shit. 
 
Did she “voice to text” that message?   That was the most insane, run-on, hateful thing I’ve read in a long time.  The Unabomber’s manifesto made more sense.

The revival of this whole issue is getting ridiculous.  I saw an Instagram post from Kathleen Bradley tonight, which supposedly proves Barker was a racist.  It was the clip of Pauline chasing Bob!

What’s their end game?  Money?  There’s none.  Bob gave it away in his will.  Despite their best efforts, upon their deaths the models obituaries are still going to say “Former Barker’s Beauty.”

I just don’t get it.  And why now?

Respectfully, I don't see your point.  Also, your language was not very empathetic. 

I used to be a big fan of Roger's, but his actions have shown him to be less than trustworthy on several occasions now, as others have pointed out in posts above. 

Also, if you think about who has what to gain/lose at this point, I tend to believe her a lot more than Roger.  Plus, the sheer number of voices speaking out consistent with her version of the "truth" persuades me greatly - I have a hard time believing that there was a mega-conspiracy going on when several of Barker's questionable choices are well known.

I've had to come to terms with the fact that, although I enjoyed the Bob/Roger show for many years, when you look at it logically, there were clearly a lot of unhappy things going on there as well.  Some of the diehards here will never accept that.

[JasonA1]

I've had to come to terms with the fact that, although I enjoyed the Bob/Roger show for many years, when you look at it logically, there were clearly a lot of unhappy things going on there as well.  Some of the diehards here will never accept that.

Well said.

-Jason

[Nick]

The executor of his estate could bring it. Presumably the NDA binds all of his heirs, etc.

You're a lawyer.  Please tell me how this is not considered an onerous agreement.

You can't defame the dead, so the only cause of action would be a breach of the NDA.

And if Burnett is the executor of Barker's estate, then the question is does she fight it or not?  I suppose it could happen, but would anybody really care to at this point?  Plus, my guess is she didn't get much of Barker's millions and it went to animal rights causes, but hey, I have no proof of that.

Also, if Barker's estate has been closed (as opposed to, say, continuing in the form of a trust), does there even exist an estate that could sue for breach of NDA?

If Janice ever writes a book, I doubt it will be as good as Kathleen's

The late Jim Shea once shared some images from Getty or some such place (I can't seem to find them) of a preview of her book, The Price Wasn't Always Right, which was quashed after she signed a NDA.  It would seem the book was written but never published.

I first met Roger in 1975... Since then I've seen many interviews with him and if he is bitter, sorry, I just don't see it.

Agreed, and if he's still upset about losing his dream job all these years later, I can't really blame him, especially considering what the show became without him.

Further, while only Roger can speak to his experiences with the show, if his were mostly positive, good for him.  Being a yes-man to Barker and earning, what has always appeared to me, the-son-Barker-never-had status probably helped him greatly.  Clearly such was not the case for several others.  I do question, though, why these people remained with the show for so long if they recount their entire experience in negative terms.  You don't stay in a job nearly twenty years if your work environment is that toxic (and weren't the models on perpetual weekly contracts?  Leaving was easy.).

Roger has admitted to making fake accounts on Golden-Road.net after getting let go just to criticize Drew and the show.

Sockpuppeting may have a different perception today than it did nearly twenty-ish years ago when he did this, but I still find it hilarious in hindsight, considering what Roger did to make Golden-Road.net what it was, there he was lurking in our midst.  I think it's also fair to note he did more than just "criticize Drew" but answer criticism against himself.  It's also worth noting that, at that time, most of the active Golden-Road.net user base was in disagreement with the direction the new regime post-Roger took the show, so it's not as if he was stirring the pot.  He had a lot of empathizers.

[BrandonFG]

Agreed, and if he's still upset about losing his dream job all these years later, I can't really blame him, especially considering what the show became without him.

Meh. He's not the first and won't be the last person to lose a dream job. I get being upset, but holding a grudge and badmouthing a show nearly 20 years later is a bit much. I say this as someone who's lost more than one job. I was crushed and then I had to realize I contributed in some ways. Not saying he's completely at fault, but taking a job for granted can lead to your downfall.

And the show's still a Top-3 daytime show and has a generation of fans who likely didn't know who Bob Barker was until this special dropped. Case in point, my stepdaughters in their early-20s had never heard of him; the oldest was in Kindergarten when Drew took over.

[jjman920]

I do question, though, why these people remained with the show for so long if they recount their entire experience in negative terms.  You don't stay in a job nearly twenty years if your work environment is that toxic (and weren't the models on perpetual weekly contracts?  Leaving was easy.).

Some people like the other aspects of their job so much that they continue working in spite of the negative aspects. Also, finding another job (especially a high-profile job like this), is not easy. The fear of having to go without a steady paycheck would also incentivize people to come back to a toxic workplace, even one where their work wasn't guaranteed weekly. I'd also argue fame and notoriety is another factor that would make them come back continually. As I referenced, getting a high-profile gig like this where you could be seen daily by millions on the number one show in daytime television doesn't come along easily. On other television shows, actors have stuck around not only for the paycheck, but just to keep their name in the public consciousness.

Even for the people that worked behind the scenes, working in television on a highly rated show could be and was a dream job that would be hard to give up even if that dream ended up tarnished.

[ClockGameJohn]

I get being upset, but holding a grudge and badmouthing a show nearly 20 years later is a bit much.

This is a rather ironic comment surrounding the original topic itself.

No matter which side you agree with, I would wager that outside of our small community, very few people give a rip about the regurgitated mid-1990s TPiR “scandals” anymore.

[Jeremy Nelson]

Respectfully, it seems that some fans haven't had to endure a job where their relationship with those in power soured quickly, yet they had to stay for whatever reason. Staying has a long term effect on people- just because it happened for two decades, yet three decades have passed doesn't mean it stopped causing grief and PTSD. Ask any abused spouse or discriminated employee who left their post in 1995 if they still have some anger toward the person(s) who wronged them then. I don't care what the models were paid, how the public viewed them, how thankful they should be, or whatever- at the end of the day, this boils down to a person in power using their influence over their employees to cause harm, and there's enough stories about these abuses of power happening throughout history where this shouldn't be such a farfetched idea to people.

Wherever you stand on this, what's most dangerous about Roger's statements is that he vehemently denies what's happened when there seems to be pretty clear evidence that, at the very least, this wasn't a healthy work environment for the models. It'd be one thing if he just stayed quiet on the matter, but to still paint this world to fans as one where the models were the problem, despite having no real backstage power, is alarming.

[Matt Ottinger]

And now, The Motion Picture!

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/the-price-is-right-models-battle-bob-barker-movie-1236558051

This will be another chance for the LFAT gang to lose their collective minds, since a fictional BASED-on-a-true-story screenplay can take far greater liberties with the truth.

[SamPrainito]

Legal question….

Wouldn’t have to be fictional?  Couldn’t Fremantle sue to prevent the use ofthe TPIR title, logo, set design, theme song, etc?

We might end up with a film about how mean old Bill Baker treated the models on that long running classic “The Cost is Correct.”

Kinda like a “ripped from the headlines” episode of “Law and Order”!

[Adam Nedeff]

Legal question….

Wouldn’t have to be fictional?  Couldn’t Fremantle sue to prevent the use ofthe TPIR title, logo, set design, theme song, etc?

We might end up with a film about how mean old Bill Baker treated the models on that long running classic “The Cost is Correct.”

Kinda like a “ripped from the headlines” episode of “Law and Order”!

The answer to all of your questions is "We just had a basically-fictional movie about a contestant named Michael Larson who was on a game show called Press Your Luck hosted by a man named Peter Tomarken."

[Nick]

This will be another chance for the LFAT gang to lose their collective minds, since a fictional BASED-on-a-true-story screenplay can take far greater liberties with the truth.

You know, I would say that loyal friends and true of The Price Is Right would be people who would not "lose their collective minds" since they would be the people who know nobody is telling the full truth concerning Hallstrom et al. v. Barker, and the true story will now never be known given that Barker is dead.

[chris319]

Does Kathleen talk much about Paul Alter in her book?

[Sodboy13]

You know, I would say that loyal friends and true of The Price Is Right would be people who would not "lose their collective minds" since they would be the people who know nobody is telling the full truth concerning Hallstrom et al. v. Barker, and the true story will now never be known given that Barker is dead.

Then perhaps Bob should have said something other than "Women be lying" while he was alive. Can't play the "gotta hear both sides" card when the victims finally have some control of the narrative and the perpetrator, defiant to his last public word on the matter, is taking a dirt nap.

Bob had ample opportunity to give his side of the story, moreso than anyone else involved.

[Nick]

Then perhaps Bob should have said something other than "Women be lying" while he was alive... Bob had ample opportunity to give his side of the story, moreso than anyone else involved.

Fully agree, though a LFAT of TPIR ≠ a LFAT of Barker.  The college beach bum Barker worshipers who routinely showed up to the tapings in the late '90s and '00s who looked to the audience for their every move were certainly not LFATs.  I consider myself a LFAT, but the Dennis James version would be my number one ranked version.  I, like many here, commend Barker on his craft but agree he was a terrible man off camera.

Nobody really cares about my opinion on Hallstrom et al. v. Barker, but I might as well just state it that it's everyone sucks here.

Barker did nothing but call everyone liars and offered no truth.  Now he's dead.

Roger offers a similar story to Barker calling everyone liars but offers no truth.  As much as I respect the man for his fantastic work as producer of The Price Is Right, he's doing himself no favours by offering no truth if he's going to open his mouth on this.  His Strong interview would have been the perfect opportunity, but alas, only Adam and company can tell us what was edited out of the final cut, and I'm sure he didn't say much there except he wanted to move onto a different subject.

Hallstrom et al. just won't let this die when they really should.  I can accept that the hurt from whatever happened still stings and maybe even traumatizes all these years later, but trying to keep the narrative going now that Barker's too dead to oppose anything is dirty pool.  Further, their unwillingness to let this go says to me whatever their version of events they're sharing is probably overstated.  Again, Barker can't offer a counterpoint now, so we'll never know the truth.

Business Insider, Gotham Group and whoever else is trying to keep this story going via articles, documentaries and now a film really ought to do something better than try to turn this into a fourth-wave feminist piece that's "#MeToo before there was #MeToo".  Money's clearly the only motive and not journalistic integrity.  Barker is dead.  The other side of the story cannot be obtained anymore.  How is that professional journalism?  I know my J-school instructor wouldn't call this a well-written story.

As John stated above, nobody gives a rip about this anymore, and it's not as if the truth is about to come out.  It's over.

[BrandonFG]

Business Insider, Gotham Group and whoever else is trying to keep this story going via articles, documentaries and now a film really ought to do something better than try to turn this into a fourth-wave feminist piece that's "#MeToo before there was #MeToo".  Money's clearly the only motive and not journalistic integrity.  Barker is dead.  The other side of the story cannot be obtained anymore.  How is that professional journalism?  I know my J-school instructor wouldn't call this a well-written story.

It's part of a series on problematic reality and game shows; they also covered America's Next Top Model. I doubt it has anything to do with feminism or the #MeToo movement.

I also don't equate hard-hitting journalism with the E! Network. But people love dirty laundry.