Exclusive

Jeff Probst addresses whether Survivor jury members should be sequestered individually

Three blowout votes in a row put the spotlight on if the group living situation at Ponderosa keeps the jury from going into the final Tribal Council with an open mind.

By Dalton Ross April 18, 2023 at 10:30 AM EDT

Richard Hatch won the very first season of Survivor by a single vote. One season later, Tina Wesson did the same thing, barely edging Colby Donaldson with a vote of four to three. The final Tribal Councils were nailbiters. My how times have changed.

In the new era of Survivor that began with season 41, the last three winners have each won by a landslide 7-1-0 vote. Erika Casupanan, Maryanne Oketch, and Mike Gabler each cruised to a comfortable victory. Were they really that much better than their final three competitors, or had the jury come to a group decision before they ever stepped into the final Tribal Council?

On Survivor, when eventual jury members are voted out, they are sent to a group living situation called Ponderosa. As they arrive one by one, they discuss the ins and outs of what has transpired, sharing information — and often bonding for or against certain players still in the game. In the past, there have been concerns among both producers, viewers, and finalists that a type of groupthink develops in such situations, with the most dominant personalities influencing other jury members to form a consensus that might not exist if each player were sequestered individually and could not be swayed.

The problem with individual sequestration is the increased costs and logistics involved. Still, with three straight landslide 7-1-0 votes, is it something the host and showrunner Jeff Probst would consider?

"It's a great observation and you're right, sequestering the jury is simply not logistically realistic," Probst tells EW. "But you bring up an interesting question, and that is: Does it really matter?"

According to the host, the jury is voting on who played the best game, and conversations about that topic — whether they take place before or during the final Tribal Council — are part of the exercise. "Part of the jury's job is to form an individual opinion about who they think played the best game," says Probst. "But like any jury, the deliberation between jury members is part of the process in forming your own opinion."

Continues the host: "That's a long-winded way of saying I think the same thing would end up happening during the final Tribal Council anyway. And I know from talking to jury members, a surprising number of them come into final Tribal with an open mind. So maybe the last three winners have just been a very clear consensus by the jury."

From my reporting and having talked to countless jury members over the years, I have found that Probst is correct in saying that the majority of people voting for the million-dollar winner do claim to have gone into final Tribal Councils with an open mind, but almost all admit to having a lean towards a certain contestant while at Ponderosa.

However, those leans can be swayed. For example, much of the jury for Survivor 42 was leaning towards voting for Mike Turner as the winner as long as he could eloquently and persuasively take ownership of his game and explain why he deserved to be named the champion. When that failed to happen in a disastrous final Tribal performance, they voted for Maryanne instead.

"The real burden falls on the final three," says Probst. "And as we've seen in years past, some players are just better than others at making their case about why they deserve the title of Sole Survivor and the million dollars that goes with it!"

Source: https://ew.com/tv/survivor-jeff-probst-jury-members-sequestered/

--
Brian