An interesting critique of TV survival shows and their negative consequences

https://tv.yahoo.com/news/special-report-dangerous-side-survival-tv-205000449.html

Having read Lundin's books and seen a few episodes of various shows, the criticisms ring true. I doubt Lundin's comments are those of a disgruntled discharged employee.

Good article.

Great article. That's a first to see a calm balanced view of Survival TV. The author made his points without being overly critical about the genre. I do agree that a lot of the stuff they participate in is just for TV and trying to liven up a rather staid boring activity. This was the first article I've read where Stroud actually expresses his opinion about Man Vs. Wild.

I watch Cody in the Dual Survival- it was clear that as the shows went on, he was getting more and more annoyed with the show. His blowup on the Norway episode was slanted against him to make him look bad but he had some real good points that the producers weren't interested in.

I do take one exception though - "It was immediately clear to him that neither of his two partners, Canterbury or Teti, knew much about outdoor survival and that their military backgrounds taught them few useful survival skills." Having watched Dave's videos, he is the real deal and he knows more than people give him credit for although Dave is more into old time historical bushcraft and primitive skills than classic "survivalism".

I think I also missed the Hawke's show where his wife got heat stroke. The producers say "Safety is always our primary concern" but go to great lengths to spice up the show to sell. Somehow that statement rings a bit hollow. Survival TV has its place and has brought awareness to the masses but has also brought plenty of stupidity as well.

The best thing for survival TV would be PBS.Imagine a survival/bushcraft show done like "The Woodrights Shop".it could actually teach people skills and not shoot for ratings.Maybe that is something Cody Lundin should opt for.

BOATMAN
John

Aside from the practicality of the shows, this is what I find troubling:



Translation: by making the survival condition more and more outrageous, someone will eventually get badly hurt or killed, all in the service of making a "reality show" for an audience that may not know what survival reality is. Sure, we expect so little from the media that it doesn't surprise us when they focus on the fringe to do shows on emergency preparation, or when they have Bear Gryllis do all kinds of stuff that would get most people hurt or killed and call it survival. But gambling with people's life to make this sort of show is cold and useless.

I just watched an episode of The Woodrights Shop on YouTube. If Cody Lundin, or any other big name survival skills expert, did that type of step by step walkthrough, I would follow it like TWD.

Good article. Just reinforces why I don't watch TV. I especially don't watch so called "reality TV".

Very good article.

"Other shows in various states of production include one that places contestants alone in the wilderness for six weeks, and still another hopes to send them out for six months. And National Geographic just announced The Raft, which will maroon two pairs of strangers at sea, and another show that will see if an average Joe can survive in the wilderness with an expert offering instruction through an earpiece.

Hawke's comments about "The Running Man" flavor don't seem so over the top when viewed in light of the ideas for these new shows.

Ridiculous. Look at what it did to this guy.

When Survival TV started I used to think it would be good, because at least it would teach a few basic skills, get people interested in taking real training and learning real useful survival skills hands-on. I WAS WRONG because most individuals cannot separated what is useful and what was placed into an episode purely for entertainment value. Indeed over the last 10 years it has just got worse along with the quality of Survival TV.

I get casting call e-mails a few times each year, this year they are busy looking for someone stupid enough to walk into Canada’s Wilderness Naked with only 1 Item. That’s got to be dumbest premise for a show possible, since it took Human Hunter/Gathers 1000’s of years to develop the skills to live up here and they never came into the wilderness Naked or without Clothing, Gear, Weapons, and Help from an Extended Family.

A Few years ago I wrote an Article about the subject Survival TV vs. Reality, but personally I think the situation has just gotten worse since then. With the Departure of Cody Lundin, one of the few Real Survival Instructors on TV from his show it means the Score is now TV Entertainers 8 Survival Instruction 1!

reality TV is neither

PBS had such a show about ten-fifteen years ago, as I remember. It wasn't oriented strictly toward survival and emergencies, but it gave the audience information about staying out of trouble and generally good practices. The host was John Viehman, editor of Backpacker magazine. He did segments with various experts on a wide range of outdoors subjects.

I enjoyed it and learned a thing or two. Not sure precisely why the show lapsed....

Excellent Article. I must have missed this story from a few years back.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...untain-hut.html

[quote=hikermor]PBS had such a show about ten-fifteen years ago, as I remember. It wasn't oriented strictly toward survival and emergencies, but it gave the audience information about staying out of trouble and generally good practices. The host was John Viehman, editor of Backpacker magazine. He did segments with various experts on a wide range of outdoors subjects.

[/quot]

The show was "Trailside: Make Your Own Adventure". It was an outdoor skills show. A lot along the lines of what I learned during Sierra Club's "Wilderness Basics Course"

I remember that show now. I really enjoyed it. It was where I first saw a hammock used for backpacking....

BOATMAN
John

To be fair, the only connection between Bear Grylls and this case is that the Daily Mail decided to throw Grylls' name into the mix to make a better headline. Nothing in the story even suggests that Grylls or any other TV personality had any influence on David Austin (though it did mention that Austin attended several outdoor survival and bushcraft courses).

In reality, for the Daily Mail good headlines beat the truth any day of the week (a good portion of the typical BS stories flying around the internet start with them!).

I remember that show. He had Ron Woods on as one of his experts. Ron tricked Viehlman into eating some grubs just to see his face when he bit into them....

You guys summed it up well, so my addition is more like venting

I saw a few episodes of "Naked & Afraid" and thought that it wasn't thought out all that well

First, those guys are said to be "naked" . Since it is a "survival show" , the word "naked" should be taken in that context and should mean "NO TOOLS WHTSOEVER". They do, however, have two bags and two tools !! So what is the point of putting two clothless ppl (male & female) in a show like this ?

If I would have done this show , I would allow MINIMAL clothing, so the clothing (or lack thereof) isn't the issue , but minimal stuff on you. Let them , then have a tool or 2 with them and call it (minimal survival).

Even in real survival situations you don't here about ppl having NO clothing whatsover, except in aboriginal tribes in rainforests. So , being naked seems rare and irrelevant to survival situations we read about in survival literature.

This just adds to everyone's point that Reality TV is neither.

Oh, and I just have to vent about one participant who was a "survival instructor" or maybe primitive lifestyle instructor who had hard time making useful cordage when he had TWO bags around him.

Shows like this often have hidden rules. Maybe he wasn't allowed to shred the bags.

The nakedness is a gimmick, although a fairly effective one. I do watch this survival show when I don't watch many others, and it's not because the educational content is superior. Generally it focusses on the trauma and what they did wrong, rather than what they did right. Letting them have two tools is actually one of the few points of interest, because we see how much difference different tools make. It seems if they have a fire-starter, then they can get a fire going quickly. If they don't, then it takes many days if they manage it at all, despite their skill with bow drills etc in their home environment. They don't know which local woods to use, and if they don't manage it the first day they quickly become too tired and hungry to work with the patience it needs.

The lack of clothing is a factor for exposure, both to heat and to cold. One guy was incapacitated by sunburn for his first week, and they all struggle with the cold and rain. Also, they all seem to underestimate the effect of insects on morale. No clothing means getting eaten at night, and no sleep. That said, wearing a small swimming costume wouldn't much effect the experience.

Returning to the subject: it's a show I wouldn't consider going on because they don't seem to take enough care over the participants. The crew all leave the island at night, and if there's an emergency it takes them hours to react. Emergencies are likely because of the lack of food, lack of protection and generally dangerous environment. You don't have to go behind the scenes to see how bad it is.

To be fair I have grabbed a hint or two from this show

In one episode the girl manages to weave leaves or palm fondes into hat and some clothing, and even to make a basket that helped her catch a few marine creatures.

I learned from that episode that being a partner with a homesteading expert is sometimes better than being a partner with Rambo.