The Bitter Jury

The Survivor jury is a complex beast. People, like Survivor Caramoan winner John Cochran, have written essays on the Survivor jury system. The subject of a 'bitter' jury is one that is often brought up in the game of Survivor. Many say that there is no such thing as a bitter jury, while others argue it is an inherent part of the game. There's been huge debates in all genres of reality TV including of course Survivor, and even shows like Big Brother, on whether a jury's bitterness was to fault for someone losing, or another person winning. What does the term bitter mean? Well to most people it's usually a term used to describe a jury member who doesn't vote for the person they want to win or believe should've won. According to Google, bitter means "having a sharp, pungent taste or smell; not sweet" just kidding this isn't a Paula Deen cooking blog (although she did compete on reality TV (DWTS), the definition used for people is "angry, hurt, or resentful because of one's bad experiences or a sense of unjust treatment." In this respect, it would mean the jury being "bitter" towards one of the finalists because of actions they made in the game. In my opinion, yes the bitter jury is a very real thing. But I believe we are asking the wrong question, and this is what people really mean when they throw around the term "bitter jury." They mean, does the jury have a right to be bitter? The right to base their vote off of that emotion? Well the answer is yes, technically they can vote for whoever they want for whatever reason, they earned their spot on the jury and earned that decision. But is that "ethical"? Is that the right thing to do? 

As fans of the show we always want the jury to vote for who played "the best game." We've built up this criteria for what good game play is as the game has evolved, and it's been pushed more then ever in the last 10 seasons or so. And that is the idea of "big moves!" "She voted out her mom !" Jeff Probst says constantly, using Ciera Eastin as the poster child for this campaign. But honestly, why is this the criteria we follow? I think it goes to the core of Survivor as a whole, which is that it is a GAME. Just like monopoly, or checkers, the people who make the best "strategic" decisions usually win. But there's one thing Probst is not taking into account when he bashes winners like Michele Fitzgerald for winning the game, and that is that Survivor is not like monopoly, it's not just the "game." Unlike other games, Survivor has a very real emotional and social aspect attached to it. So you can't compare it to other games, and say that well "the person who played the most strategic choices, obviously played the best game and they deserve to win, and if the jury doesn't vote for them well, let's just mark them as bitter." Because we are HUMANS, and the people who are playing survivor are humans, well as far as I know. Let's just say your on the jury, and you have to vote for either your boyfriend who cheated on you, blindsided you, or some body who was genuinely a nice person and didn't do much wrong to you emotionally. Do you just say "Oh, well I'm going to vote for my boyfriend obviously because he found more idols, and did a lot of flashy stuff at tribal, and was so strategic. That totally makes up for him cheating on me!" NO. And that's exactly what it's like when some body blind sides you in Survivor, and then you're on the jury. You don't not vote for the other person, just because they didn't play as many idols, even though they were much kinder and didn't burn you as bad. Overall this just means that survivor is predominately a social game, over a strategic game, and viewers have to realize that and learn that.

Case Study

The first most infamous example of the "bitter jury" brawl, was back in Survivor Samoa, when the young country girl from Arkansas, Natalie White, took down one of the most well known Survivor villains, Russell Hantz, in the jury vote. To this day, 9 years later, people still argue that Russell should've won. Why is this? Because Russell made more "big moves!" he found more idols, and dictated the strategic portion of the game. And yes, he did it masterfully and it got him and Natalie along with Mick Trimming, the Foa Foa underdogs to the final 3. Along with all of this on his survivor resume, he was rude, not easy to get along with, and very arrogant towards the apposing Galu tribe. So when Galu made up 8/9 people on the jury (Jaison being the only Foa Foa member) we're they all supposed to just leave the way Russell made them feel behind. Should they have told themselves "this isn't real life, he did what he had to to win." Well first off he didn't have to act a lot of the way he did to win, and survivor is real life. Then 7 of them voted for Natalie (0 of them in Heroes vs Villains when he made it to the final 3 again the very next season) and they had every right. The right to be BITTER, yes bitter. Feeling bitter is an emotion, humans have emotions, and our human biology overrules some body finding more necklaces in the woods. Natalie was kind to the Galu, and not to mention she did make a few "strategic" moves, such as the blindside of Erik at the very first merge tribal council. Mean while Shambo and Fincher voted for Russell, because he played a more strategic game, and that's ok too. People can vote for whoever they want, just like how America could've voted for Trump if they wanted to, and even though I don't agree with the choice in my eyes, doesn't mean it was the wrong one, and doesn't mean they didn't have every right to.

Overall

WE are not there on the island, we do not have to deal with the emotions that the castaways do when faced with the final jury vote. The bitter jury is real, and it's something viewers have to accept instead of trying to fight it and bashing people for it. People can vote "bitterly" and that's ok, people can also vote for some body if they think they made the most "big moves" and that's okay too. There's no one way to vote, and although Probst will continue to shove this idea of voting for the person who made the most strategic moves in the game down our throats, it's just simply not realistic and he is feeding us false expectations when it comes to the vote.