The Moment of Truth

[JetsIn06]

Good episode, but you know what really drives me up a wall about this show?

The same preview over and over and over and over and over and over. One, it's annoying, and two, it basically destroys any of the suspense that could possibly be there. If they say that a certain question will be asked, I'm going to know they're telling the truth every time until that question is asked.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by JetsIn06

Good episode, but you know what really drives me up a wall about this show?

The same preview over and over and over and over and over and over. One, it's annoying, and two, it basically destroys any of the suspense that could possibly be there. If they say that a certain question will be asked, I'm going to know they're telling the truth every time until that question is asked.

Are you talking about the commercials? Because if I'm not mistaken, the question and answer I saw in the commercial for this one were obviously spliced. The way she answered "yes" in the commercial was not the same as in that clip, so it was an answer to a different question. I think, anyway.

Silly me, I never buy that the answer they show to the question in the commercials is the correct one, because I just assume they are trying to mislead me!

[SportsDino]

That question they asked 'do you think your a good person' is very unfair.

Her normal opinion of herself may be that she is a good person, but they just spent the last two questions completely trashing her character. Either way she answers she would probably have enough nerves and doubt that she would fail a lie detector (if she says 'no' then she would be answering opposite to her normal psyche, and probably have the same level of doubt).

Questions like that should not be a part of the show since it doesn't really demonstrate anything salacious to the viewers anyway.

[Ksyrup]

'The Moment of Truth' turns into a time of pain (www.latimes.com)
02:32 PM PT, Feb 27 2008
On Monday night's episode of the Fox game show "The Moment of Truth," Lauren Cleri admitted that she had been fired from a job for stealing money, would rather give food to a dog than a homeless person, knows things about her father that she keeps from her mother and has avoided sex with her husband by pretending to be asleep.

Then, things got worse. And, according to an article in the New York Post, Cleri and her husband are now separated because of it.

Yes, said Cleri -- whose husband, parents and siblings were sitting before her, along with a studio audience and 8.9 million television viewers -- she has taken off her wedding ring when out with friends, and, yes, she was still in love with a former boyfriend on her wedding day. After she answered that question truthfully, her ex-boyfriend, Frank, not to be confused with her husband, Frank, took the stage to ask, "If I wanted to get back together with you, would you leave your husband?"

"The Moment of Truth" premiered on Fox in January and has performed very well in the ratings. Contestants must answer 21 questions truthfully in order to win $500,000. The questions are selected from a pre-interview they did while strapped to a polygraph. The contestant's loved ones also get one, and only one, preemptory challenge in which they can hit a buzzer to skip a question they may not want to hear the answer to. Along the way, contestants can win $10,000, $25,000 and so on, and once they reach those milestones, they can quit and keep the money. If they answer a question falsely -- as determined by their pre-interview replies -- they are bounced from the game with nothing.

Howard Schultz, the show's executive producer, said on the telephone Wednesday that they investigate every contestant thoroughly, "to create a composite photograph, a mosaic, if you will."

And they know what they're in for, Schultz said. "We let every contestant know that we're going to reach as deep and as far into their lives as we can. Anything is potentially fair game."

He continued: "If we're doing a show called 'The Moment of Truth,' we have to be scrupulously honest with people."

According to Schultz, the producers asked ex-boyfriend Frank to keep his appearance a surprise. A segment producer told Schultz that Cleri had been texting Frank all week to find out whether he might be on the show as one of her interrogators.

As well she should have. Although Cleri's sister hit the buzzer, to much booing from the audience, when ex-boyfriend Frank asked whether she would leave husband Frank for him, his replacement question was no better: "Do you believe I'm the man you should be married to?"

Cleri answered yes, which was apparently the truth, and got to the $100,000 marker.

The host, Mark Walberg (not that Mark Wahlberg), resumed asking the questions. Has she cheated on her husband? Yes, she has. Frank Cleri put his head in his hands. She had two more questions to go before winning $200,000.

Then "The Moment of Truth" turned into a modern "Scarlet Letter." Does Cleri think she's a good person?

Yes, she does, she answered.

No, she doesn't, read the polygraph. Suddenly, Cleri was shocked and penniless. Her family, including her husband, surrounded her.

Walberg asked why that might have happened. Cleri said she didn't know, that she does think she's a good person. "Yet it came up as a lie, which means that somewhere in you, you haven't forgiven yourself," Walberg said. "And somewhere your truth is that you don't think you're a good person at all." (An attempt to contact Cleri through her MySpace page went unanswered as of press time.)

Schultz said that from what he's read, the polygraph is 94% to 97% accurate. When a contestant answers falsely on a seemingly simple question, Schultz said sometimes "they don't even hear what they're saying." However, various studies say the accuracy of polygraphs can't be pinpointed, with some tests estimating they're less than 70% accurate.

When "The Moment of Truth" has perhaps busted up a marriage, is the show responsible?

"I don't know," Schultz said. "She's the one answering the questions."

They have a psychologist on the set to talk with contestants and families afterward. In Cleri's case, Schultz said that the infidelity had come up off-camera before the taping, and he said to her, "Do you realize what this could mean?"

For what it ultimately could mean, the Web provided some answers Wednesday. An excerpt of Cleri's episode was highly viewed on YouTube. It had been viewed 146,206 times and counting, with 1,678 comments (and counting).

And on Cleri's MySpace page, the settings had been changed to "private." It read: "Lauren is going through a VERY difficult time right now. Please leave me alone. Please."

--Kate Aurthur

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

And on Cleri's MySpace page, the settings had been changed to "private." It read: "Lauren is going through a VERY difficult time right now. Please leave me alone. Please."

--Kate Aurthur

Fuck her. What did she think was going to happen?

Fuckin idiot. Probably thought she was going to come on, come clean, get a little cash and then ride off into the sunset with the guy she wanted.

Didn't happen. You received $0 and alot of bad publicity.

Karma is a bitch. Enjoy

[rkmsuf]

I still don't get the shock factor by the contestants. They ask them what 50 questions and pick 20 of them? Surely they would expect these questions. Should be a no brainer to answer if you've gone that far. Just the act of signing up for the show in the first place, nevermind hearing all the possible questions they might get during taping of the show.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

That question they asked 'do you think your a good person' is very unfair.

Her normal opinion of herself may be that she is a good person, but they just spent the last two questions completely trashing her character. Either way she answers she would probably have enough nerves and doubt that she would fail a lie detector (if she says 'no' then she would be answering opposite to her normal psyche, and probably have the same level of doubt).

Questions like that should not be a part of the show since it doesn't really demonstrate anything salacious to the viewers anyway.

I think one reason to put questions like that into the show is so they don't have to pay up. Get the good stuff out there for people to see, and then strike 'em out with a curveball into the dirt.

Frankly, I don't see what the media uproar is about here. These people agreed to do the show, she knew what kinds of questions would be asked, and she went through with it anyway. Maybe if I knew these people, I'd feel something for them, but I don't get why America should care what happens to these people once the show goes off the air. What are we supposed to do? Call for the show's cancellation because some woman told America that she cheated on her husband? The dude already knew she cheated.

Eh, big deal.

[Drake]

When "The Moment of Truth" has perhaps busted up a marriage, is the show responsible?

Hmm. The show hasn't actually busted up a marriage. A cheating slut may have broken up a marriage. All the show did was inform the husband about the reality of the relationship he was living in. The damage to the relationship had already been done.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by Drake

Hmm. The show hasn't actually busted up a marriage. A cheating slut may have broken up a marriage. All the show did was inform the husband about the reality of the relationship he was living in. The damage to the relationship had already been done.

Yeah, I didn't watch it, but it seems like the wife just used the show as her way to let her husband know it was over while hoping to get a payday. Seems like a very cruel way to let him know, but he is the only one I feel bad for and the show certainly didn't break up that marriage.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

Yeah, I didn't watch it, but it seems like the wife just used the show as her way to let her husband know it was over while hoping to get a payday. Seems like a very cruel way to let him know, but he is the only one I feel bad for and the show certainly didn't break up that marriage.

Yeah, I was thinking that as well. The final incident in these situations is just the catalyst for change. The multitude of situations that occurred before the show were the reason that the marriage broke up.

[rkmsuf]

or it's completely staged

[Pumpy Tudors]

According to an article in the New York Post, the guy already knew that his wife had cheated on him before. His reaction was more related to the fact that she had admitted it in front of a national television audience. Dude didn't really get new information from this TV show.

[ThunderingHERD]

Even if we assume 75% accuracy for the polygraph (which is quite a stretch) then you're still going to "detect" a "lie" once every four questions--even if the contestant is being entirely truthful. By asking multiple questions at testing time (pre-show) that get at the exact same topic ("Would you leave your husband for me?"/"Do you think I'm the man you should be married to?"), then cherry-picking the questions to ask on the show, you can essentially script everything out.

That clip illustrates this really well. What possible reason would the woman have for lying on that question? I'm sure there were several other questions that they had lined up for her (at least during the test) which would produce the same story arc.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by ThunderingHERD

What possible reason would the woman have for lying on that question?

Isn't the point here that more than likely, she was fooling herself? This is like a horoscope-type question - you're going to read into it what you want to believe is true, even if the "real truth" is the opposite. She thought (or tried to convince herself) that she was a good person, but what happened was her body (the physical stuff - heartrate, perspiration, blood pressure, etc.) betrayed her.

What I'd be really interested in knowing is whether these are the types of questions a trained polygraph examiner would ask. This question - "what she thinks about herself" - and the other question that sticks out to me, from the very first episode, about whether the personal trainer touched his female clients "more than is required," seem awfully sketchy. Which is probably one of the reasons, aside from the fact that some people can manipulate the results, that these things can't be used in court.

[ThunderingHERD]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Isn't the point here that more than likely, she was fooling herself? This is like a horoscope-type question - you're going to read into it what you want to believe is true, even if the "real truth" is the opposite.

I agree that this is what the producers were going for, but it simply isn't coherent. If we agree that she believes the answer she gave to be correct then in what meaningful sense does she not "think" she's a good person? It seems definitionally true unless you fool around with semantics and produce a meaning for "think" that has little in common with its common usage. Even in that case it wouldn't be relevant if the contestant didn't share that definition.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by ThunderingHERD

I agree that this is what the producers were going for, but it simply isn't coherent. If we agree that she believes the answer she gave to be correct then in what meaningful sense does she not "think" she's a good person? It seems definitionally true unless you fool around with semantics and produce a meaning for "think" that has little in common with its common usage. Even in that case it wouldn't be relevant if the contestant didn't share that definition.

I guess the problem there is that no one could miss the question if we were to assume that their answer equaled their true thoughts. My guess is that she really doesn't "think" she's a good person, but she wants to think she is. And that's all that she is willing to consciously allow herself to think.

Or some such bullshit like that.

That's why I'm interested in whether "do you think" questions are legit among real polygraph examiners.

[Glengoyne]

I'm actually hoping that this show dies a quiet death.

It looks like it is just Jerry Springer in prime time. Oh and anyone who watches this show shouldn't be allowed to vote.

[mattlanta]

Ehh... it was alright.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I'm actually hoping that this show dies a quiet death.

It looks like it is just Jerry Springer in prime time. Oh and anyone who watches this show shouldn't be allowed to vote.

more like only people that watch this should be allowed to vote

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by MattJones4Heisman

more like only people that watch this should be allowed to vote

I thought the only people who voted were the people who watch this.

[Ksyrup]

No, it's more like we should allow people to watch this only when voting.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

That question they asked 'do you think your a good person' is very unfair.

Her normal opinion of herself may be that she is a good person, but they just spent the last two questions completely trashing her character. Either way she answers she would probably have enough nerves and doubt that she would fail a lie detector (if she says 'no' then she would be answering opposite to her normal psyche, and probably have the same level of doubt).

Questions like that should not be a part of the show since it doesn't really demonstrate anything salacious to the viewers anyway.

I think that the "correct answers" to the questions comes from basing the lie detector on those questions when they were asked them prior to the show, if I understand it correctly. Prior to the actual live show sh would have been asked that question and the base answer would depend on if she lied or told the truth then.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

No, it's more like we should allow people to watch this only when voting.

Actually voting should occur after the politicians are put on this show.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Unless you answer all 50 pre-show questions with a "truth" reading on the polygraph, isn't it impossible to win it all or even get close. Before the show tapes, they can just go through all 50 answers, pick the one (or several) that came up a lie and then toss them in anywhere during the game (but of course only after they get the really gory details on the true ones). It seems the only good strategy is to take about $10,000 and get out of there.

I'm guessing the producers can concoct several ambiguous questions to engineer a couple of "false" readings.

This show is a croc and a complete waste of time.

[Ksyrup]

IIRC, he tells contestants that they are allowed to change their answers at any time before they answer a particular question.

We watched the first 2 episodes and haven't watched again. It is basically Jerry Springer in the form of a game show.