Hi, I’ve been on vacation in a TOTAL Dead Zone, what did I miss?
I heard that;
- Roger Dobkowitz did an online interview that was also a thinly disguised effort at Damage Control which is necessary because people are starting to talk openly now about Barker not retiring voluntarily . So of course Bob’s Boy lied thru his teeth i.e. “Bob was at the end of a 5 year contract” (important lawsuit-wise) when in fact Barker was just beginning a 5 year contract as Bobbo himself had announced in a radio interview, and the news of which was joyfully reported on g-r.net. Tsk, tsk Roger.
-Drew Carey set up a twitter blog/new Official TPiR site.
-All kinds of public figures died.
-And the price of gasoline is up over $3 again.
Did I miss anything else? ;)

You know, everything with you has to be a conspiracy theory, doesn't it? For as much of a genius as Roger is, he's also a bit of a scatterbrain -- he once swore up and down to ClockGameJohn that Give or Keep hadn't survived the 1970s (and to his credit, he corrected himself the next day). With the length of Bob's contract being essentially meaningless, as he had an "out" clause after every season, I can understand how the beginning and end of one might not seem much different to someone who was constantly trying to get him not to retire.

Apparently "official" Twitter (@tpirhost), "personal" Twitter (@DrewFromTV), and his blog.

Huh. I paid $2.49 yesterday.

Regular "went down" to $2.43 near my house.

/This is not the Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price on the West Coast

You forgot "- Francisco Franco is still dead."

/Was down to $2.56 the other day, but is creeping back up again.
//$2.63 at last check.

Drew had these choice words on his new blog:


If it's the same site I'm thinking of, they do bicker a lot over there but to describe them as a bunch of lunatics with their pants down yelling at telephone poles is taking it WAY over the top.

Fremantle wants to revive priceisright.com in order to have a discussion board under corporate control. That will be fine for rumor control as they can spew out the party line, but I don't think it'll be the happening place for unfettered discussion and yelling at telephone poles.

In California, gas is over $3 per gallon in most places.

Welcome back.

Ohhhh, that's so sweet. A tv producer that's so scatterbrained he doesn't know when his star's contract is up. That's right up there with "They put a "B" next to the African American's names so they would include them."!

Yeah, that and "Let's send the black woman out into the line to do the racist markings!"

Which notion is really more ludicrous?

Yours are Mr Gavazzi. Because sending the black woman out to do the line actually happened.

“Moreover, Clement-Henry claims she was instructed to mark a "B" next to African American contestants, "to make sure that no more than two African Americans are selected" and to make sure they perpetuated racial stereotypes.” CourtTvNews 9-24-04, and Clement-Henry v. Barker et al.

Well if that's the case, I think she doesn't have one. She should have blown the whistle then, if it is true, as opposed to after getting fired.

Tip: trotting out the same sets of quotations as your defense every time gets old.

Here's a interesting bit from the Curling suit, complaint 43c:

"During her testimony at the Riegert trial, [Curling] testified overhearing conversation between Roger Dobkowitz, a line producer, and Stan Blitz, the person in charge for selecting the contestants for the Show, in which Dobkowitz reprimanded Blitz for choosing too many black contestants in one Show, citing to Blitz that "You and I don't have a problem with it, but Barker doesn't like it. He is not pleased!"

To me, Barker demanded the discriminatory "claims", and Dobkowitz was simply following orders. Considering past instances of doing things Barker didn't like/want got you fired, he probably wanted to keep his job.

(Text of the Curling suit I quoted above is available here, thanks to Chad M. for posting the link over at Golden-Road when I inquired.)

Nobody said it didn't. The issue is why she was making those markings. Bob Barker is a lot of things, but he is not stupid enough to assign a black woman to discriminate against black people.

There are alternate explanations for this. I've put one of them forward, and you've dismissed it out of hand -- and without explaining why beyond "Bob Barker is an evil person."

She did have a case, and received a hefty settlement.

She made the markings for the same reason that everyone before her had made the markings, to limit the number of African American contestants. "Dobkowitz reprimanded Blitz for choosing too many black contestants in one Show, citing to Blitz that "You and I don't have a problem with it, but Barker doesn't like it. He is not pleased!" (Thank you tpirfan28, I didn't have that one!)



I prefer facts over excuses. No explanation is necessary because the facts in this case, and in all the other 10 or so lawsuits against Bob Barker speak very clearly and very consistently.

The record will show that I don't often jump into other people's back-and-forth debates or back Steve up in arguments, but...

By claiming you prefer facts over excuses, you are in fact giving an excuse for never addressing his request that you explain your dismissal of the idea. There's nothing that makes claims made in a lawsuit facts. By definition, they're one side of a story, backed up only by an assertion that everything presented is truthful. On April 25 of this year, in the Paul Alter thread, you implied that Bob Barker and Roger Dobkowitz would be willing to lie in giving their side of the story, yet here you cite the claim filed against CBS - one claim, not "10 or so" - as "fact". It's having to have it both ways - what one person says while insisting they are truthful must be true, but what another person says while they insist they are truthful might not be true, solely depending on your opinion of their trustworthiness. Unless there was some admission of wrongdoing in the settlement agreement, the fact that there was a settlement only means that there was some monetary amount where both sides thought that they would come out ahead.

I can believe that Barker was a badly-behaved egomaniac, and I can believe that Roger would have done whatever he had to to keep Barker happy. His job was to keep the show running smoothly, and if the talent isn't happy, that's hard to do. Believing it doesn't make it true.

There are thousands of pages of sworn testimony by dozens of witnesses in the ten or so lawsuits against Bob Barker. If people would read the court docs, that would eliminate the back-and-forth debates because that many different people telling essentially the same facts is compelling.

There really is no reason to spend time debating and debunking excuses or made up scenarios that never happened. Why waste the time?

PS "...one claim, not "10 or so" - as "fact" " Actually references to Barker's racism came up in several different testimonies from different witnesses.

Please point us (at least myself - but since you're trying to prove a point) to these documents in question if you're bringing them up. It'd help.

First, you say there are "thousands of pages." Then you say your side of the debate would be easier if people would "read the court docs."

You're kidding, right?

LA Superior Court: Parkinson v. Barker, Barker v. Hallstrom, Reigert v. Barker, Paris v. Barker, Freim v. Barker, Jordan v. Barker, Clement-Henry v. Barker, Curling v. Barker.

No Mr Gavazzi, I didn't say it would make my side of the debate easier, I said it would eliminate the back-and-forth debates if people would read the court docs.

As for reading the court docs, I would think that you would like to be informed.

I would think that I would not like to sift through thousands of pages. I would also think you'd realize how absurd it was for you to have made both of those statements in the same paragraph.

Are there .pdf versions of these, Pentellit?

Well, there you have it.

...that doesn't even mean anything. It's just your way of yet again not giving the question a real answer.

(...and actually, what was the question? Pentellit's sidestepped it so many times now that I can't even remember.)

(Then again, that was probably the goal to begin with.)

You invited Pentellit to cite the on-the-record accusations of racism. Pentellit cited the relevant cases. You said you did not wish to have to read through them. Pentellit is telling you, correctly, that that's on you, then.

All caught up now?

Oh, yes -- through the thousands of pages. Pages which she presumably knows the location of if she's been through them as thoroughly as she seems to be implying, and which I don't.

I guess I don't see why she can't provide the locations for us.

True. It's not like it's something I could take on my next trip to the, uh, library. :)

And I don't see why she has any obligaton to, save to prove herself to you, which clearly doesn't concern her. Which is her choice.

Seeing that she wants to get the word out, I don't see why it wouldn't help her cause. Like she said - she's basing it on facts, why not be pointed in the direction of said facts?

While I don't entirely disagree with you, it all boils down to whose opinions she cares about. Again, her choice.

First you have to prove there is some kind of malfeasance in Barker refusing to allow more than two African-American contestants per show. It is entirely feasible that he is within his rights to do so. TPIR is an artistic work and not a public accomodation, and as an artistic work the producer has leeway in terms of casting. No one would ever try to dictate to, say, Steven Spielberg how many whites/blacks/Asians/Hispanics he should cast in one of his motion pictures. I believe the same applies to TPIR. To do so would open a whole can of worms in terms of freedom of artistic expression and First Amendment rights.

Anybody else here who's heard of the Freedom Of Information Act? You've got the information on where to file the request and what to request, all you need to do is make the request and, as long as it's a public document, pay to get a copy that you can read at your leisure.

All fine and dandy; once again though (and as Chris has a point - her choice) - she's the one with the axe to grind, let her lead the way with the documents.

Therein lies a commentary on the sad state our society has fallen into. When I was in school we didn't have computers (ye gods!), so we had to do all of our own research. Now, it's gotten to where we say, "Show me where it is, I haven't got the time to do it myself."

That means 99% of the people are expecting the other 1% to do the research, and then they demand the right to the final results. Sad, but true. Therefore, I agree that Pentellit has every right not to divulge her sources or provide links to them. If you, and you know who you are gentlemen, want the info badly enough you can do a little digging yourself to find it. As for her having an "axe to grind", I didn't see any axe -- heck, I didn't even see a tree!

No offense intended to anyone, and these opinions are solely my own and are not related in any way to those of the Game Show Forum moderators.

/Gets off his soapbox -- end of lecture.

When she's stated on record that she's a fact-checker for Chris Mann's tell-all about Barker and the majority of her posts are against Barker, my perception is that she has an axe to grind. My .02.

As for your case regarding doing gruntwork to get what you want, point taken; however, I don't have the at-least $320 it might take to download the "thousands" of pages from the L.A. Superior Court's website.

Granted, Mr. Barker is not God and is human, and as such is not perfect. However, while I have been aware of the raft of lawsuits against him for various slights real and perceived, I was not aware of her purpose in doing all this research, therefore I feel I was too hasty in my assessment of her intentions. My .03, to make it an even .05.

As for your comment about the excessive costs involved in doing gruntwork, I should have realized just how expensive it's become to do your own legwork. Money is tighter than ever and I, for one, most definitely have not got $320 or whatever laying around free to do it. Your point taken in return. That makes the score 1-1 and it's your serve for the win.

Hey - we both see where we're trying to come from, right?

To disclose why it's $320; eight cases that Pentellit talked about... a name search under "Barker" will cost $4.75. It's a flat fee of $7.50 for each document downloaded, so that's another $60. However, that's up to 10 pages. After that, each page is seven cents - up to a charge of $40.

There might be a site out there that already has this - I don't know. My searches probably weren't thorough enough but I didn't make any progress.

So - it's back to square one -- and pentellit's choice.

Mr. Bill, just so you know, Chris Mann has called me numerous times in order to double check facts regarding the show since I have long-standing friendships with people who work or worked there. I have arranged introductions and interviews for him. Chris is an amazing researcher. His book "Come and Knock On My Door" was made into the hit tv movie about Three's Company. He is currently writing the biography and tribute to the late and definitely great John Ritter.

As for myself, like most people who know the real behind the scenes dramas of TPIR, I was repulsed by what I personally witnessed Bob Barker, with the help of his boy Roger, do to alot of hard working, honest people. Eight lawsuits tell the story.

If anyone here does actually wish to become better informed, and you invest your time and energy and do all the research work on the court docs, please make sure that you chronicle, catagorize, copy and cross-reference everything you read so that others who aren't going to take the time or do the work, won't have to.

You can expend all kinds of time, trouble and expense retrieving and reading court documents and in the end, what have you accomplished? What have you proven? You may simply wind up corroborating what pentellit has been saying all along or what was broadcast on E! Hollywood True Story.

For now, the conclusions reached on E! True Hollywood Story are good enough for me. I'll buy and read Chris Mann's book when it comes out. What I really want to know, though, is why criminal charges were never brought against Barker for allegedly firing people who testified truthfully against Barker's interests. I'm curious whether all of these out-of-court settlements that were reached had some kind of clause prohibiting criminal charges from being filed. Pentellit, do you know anything about it?

Hi Chris, good question. I don't know. Is it because they were civil cases and require someone making charges?

Anyone know?

I don't see why you couldn't file a civil suit and bring criminal charges, unless you settle and dropping the criminal charges is part of the settlement.

Question is, then, are settlements always sealed?