"The Briefcase" Should Pack Up And Leave

Ignore them and they'll go away. This logic isn't just for people who bother you anymore. Most reality shows -- although vapid and ultimately meaningless -- can also safely be ignored because their sense of importance is entirely self-deluded. However, the problem with a show like "The Briefcase" is that ignoring it will make the network think this kind of exploitation is acceptable. News flash, CBS: it's not!

To be clear, I absolutely refuse to watch an episode of "The Briefcase" for fear of compromising my values and my brain cells. Instead, I'll provide its basic premise to illustrate my disgust. Two families with financial difficulties are given briefcases with $101,000 in them (why there's an extra thousand instead of an even hundred is beyond me, but I digress). A choice is outlined: they can either keep some or all of the money, or they can give away some or all of the money. They aren't aware that the other family has the same amount and instructions, and they have three days to decide what to do and how much to give. Here's the kicker: during those three days, the families are told about the others' plights, in an attempt to up the ante and sway their decisions for better or for worse. When I count to three, can we all get nauseous?

Besides the obvious, what troubles me is that "The Briefcase" is a lose-lose situation in most of its scenarios -- not just a loss of money, but a loss of integrity. If you choose to give away even a small portion and they choose to keep all of it, they're extra rich (and arguably terrible people) while you're left with less even after doing something noble. No one should ever be in the position to put a price tag on the worth of a family's life and circumstances. It creates a false sense of betterment and superiority, which is the only sense that money can buy in such a tragic, uniquely American mindset. The only logical conclusion is that both parties should give away all of the money so that everyone can fully benefit. Unfortunately, that kind of drama-free ending wouldn't play well in the morally bankrupt realm of "reality" television, let alone if it happened every single episode. In the mind of the producers, surely no one would watch if the stakes were removed and an outcome was guaranteed from the beginning.

Fellow CBS reality shows "Survivor" and "The Amazing Race" feature contestants who have consciously made a choice to portray themselves and their competitive skills in a visibly game-oriented setting. "The Briefcase," on the other hand, depicts people's actual, real-life struggles with today's uncertain economy: poverty, unemployment, and living conditions, where choice is clearly not an option. Rather than addressing the issue with the sensitivity and call-to-action of a documentary, the show is aiming for profit and (alleged) entertainment value. Or worse, for sport. For shame is more like it! Bottom line: they are asking people to place a dollar amount on the problems of others, all for the amusement of the viewing public, and it is truly sickening.

By the time of its May 27 premiere, critics and commentators denounced "The Briefcase" almost unanimously. "Time" even went as far as declaring it the worst reality show ever. Low praise indeed, especially after the parade of thoughtless exercises in manufactured reality stretching from "The Simple Life" and "Jersey Shore" to the franchises of "The Bachelor/The Bachelorette" and "The Real Housewives of (Fill In The Blank)." Considering its repellent peers and reputation, why has "The Briefcase" already lasted this long? The almighty dollar has spoken, of course. Its modest ratings don't classify it as a breakaway hit, but they are comparatively good for the hit-or-miss summer season. Apparently, advertisers remain unfazed, as I have yet to hear of anyone formally pulling out of the show. I just can't fathom why any company would want to be in business with a show (or network, for that matter) implicitly linking them to such a deplorable message.

Despite recent younger-skewing hits ("How I Met Your Mother" and "The Big Bang Theory," to name a few), CBS has often been labeled as a more conservative channel with a generally older audience. As it turns out, even they aren't immune to the proliferation of this sub-human brand of diversion. I almost want to scold them because they're supposed to be the "grown-up" of the broadcast networks. The show could maybe skate by if it subverted its premise to deploy a biting satire on human nature and the state of our country. Maybe. But when all is said and done, CBS simply should have known better than to exercise such poor judgment by green-lighting this hot mess of cold ethics.

In the past, I have lobbied networks to save shows like "Wonderfalls" and "Veronica Mars," but this is the first time I've ever felt so strongly that a series does NOT deserve to take away airtime from other (likely better) slot-fillers. If you feel the same way, please consider signing the online petition to have CBS cancel the show. Their goal is currently 500 signatures, but I'm not sure how many names it will take for the network to legitimately consider the request. The way I see it? Even if nothing happens, at least we can say we made an effort and took a stand.

The immortal rallying cry of the 1976 film "Network," which eerily predicted the rise of sensationalized programming, rings true now more than ever. "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!" Television may be part of big business, but as its consumers, we still deserve to be heard and respected.