The Moment of Truth 1/30

[kh92463]

Isn't the host of that show Donny Wahlberg? If so, why are they calling him "Mark" Wahlberg? Maybe I'm the one who is confused but it's driving me crazy.

[TIVO_GUY_HERE]

Isn't the host of that show Donny Wahlberg? If so, why are they calling him "Mark" Wahlberg? Maybe I'm the one who is confused but it's driving me crazy.

Yes it's you.

It's Mark L Wahlberg, not to get confused with the other

[kh92463]

??

[Magister]

Donnie was one of the New Kids on the Block, Mark was Markie Mark & The Funky Bunch.

Well, this isn't that Mark...

[firerose818]

Mark L. Wahlberg is also the current host of Antiques Roadshow. Does that help?

[MickeS]

I forgot to record this show last night. Did the guy with the rug from last week win any money?

[Aniketos]

I forgot to record this show last night. Did the guy with the rug from last week win any money?

Yeah, 100,000 and then he beat "his gambling addiction" and stopped there instead of continuing. See! This show is positive!

[jrinck]

I'm still waiting for Bernard Shaw to come out and ask "If Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered..."

[Rkkeller]

Was it just me or did that toupee look obvious or not the right size or something ? Half his temple area was uncovered and it looked so fake.

I know 2 people with them and you cant notice like with his.

[NJChris]

I think everyone on here and deal or no deal are actors or actor wanna-bees

[DevdogAZ]

??

No, they're not related. The last names are not even spelled the same.

The host of this show is Mark L. Walberg (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0906919/).

The Marky Mark guy is Mark Wahlberg (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000242/).

The New Kids guy who is Marky Mark's brother is Donnie Wahlberg (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005531/).

[TiVoMoJo]

Was it just me or did that toupee look obvious or not the right size or something ? Half his temple area was uncovered and it looked so fake.
I know 2 people with them and you cant notice like with his.

They said during the 1st show he was on that he belonged to the Hair Club for Men. So, I guess that means it's not a toupee per se. Not sure whether he is the President of Hair Club for Men or just a member.;)

[getreal]

Well, that Hair Club is probably located in a treehouse.

Ugh!!

[newsposter]

i refuse to watch but you may be interested (the 2 min clip i saw on chelsea made me say no way will i sit thru those dramatic pauses)

http://www.thefutoncritic.com/news.aspx?id=20080201fox01

FOX has ordered an additional 13 episodes of THE MOMENT OF TRUTH, the No. 1 new show of the season. Hosted by Mark L. Walberg, THE MOMENT OF TRUTH airs Wednesdays (9:00-10:00 PM ET/PT) after AMERICAN IDOL on FOX and will move to its regularly scheduled time period 8:00-9:00 PM ET/PT Wednesday, March 5.

[pmyers]

I have to say that I've really enjoyed the 3 episodes so far.

[TAsunder]

The first contestant was boring and annoying, but since then I've enjoyed it more. The problem with this show is that the entertainment it offers depends directly on the contestant and nothing else, really. That has got to be a formula for disaster in the long run.

[MitchO]

It seems so arbitrary. The first guy from 2/6, the former Marine, admitted so much, yet the test determined he lied about the "stuffed underwear" question? Clearly, he didn't think was lying. So in his eyes, a random (and incorrect) bug in the test cost him $25K. I see lawsuits in the future.

[pmyers]

I have to say that I really enjoy when somebody they know reads the questions directly to them.

[jrinck]

It seems so arbitrary. The first guy from 2/6, the former Marine, admitted so much, yet the test determined he lied about the "stuffed underwear" question? Clearly, he didn't think was lying. So in his eyes, a random (and incorrect) bug in the test cost him $25K. I see lawsuits in the future.

Yeah, that was lame. Why would he be so truthful about everything else and then lie about that? So he'll admit to being a racist and that his girlfriend is boring, but not about stuffing his pants? Come on. :down:

[mcb08]

Yeah, that was lame. Why would he be so truthful about everything else and then lie about that? So he'll admit to being a racist and that his girlfriend is boring, but not about stuffing his pants? Come on. :down:
I don't know that ethnic jokes make you a racist, and who isn't boring once in a while? Admitting to beefing up your package is another story.

[mcb08]

It seems so arbitrary. The first guy from 2/6, the former Marine, admitted so much, yet the test determined he lied about the "stuffed underwear" question? Clearly, he didn't think was lying. So in his eyes, a random (and incorrect) bug in the test cost him $25K. I see lawsuits in the future.
Isn't that part of the intrigue of the show? What would be the point of knowingly lying on any question if you knew what the result was going to be?

[scandia101]

i refuse to watch but you may be interested (the 2 min clip i saw on chelsea made me say no way will i sit thru those dramatic pauses)

I use a Tivo to shorten those pauses. Maybe you should look into getting one. I watch this show in about 20 minutes. I don't need to hear "That answer is...







true."
If I 30ss and there not saying goodbye, I know it was true.

[scandia101]

I liked the 1st guy on the first episode because he just gave his yes and no answers. I don't care for an elaboration before or after the answer - I don't need to be convinced.

[plateau10]

I really wish they would just get on with it when their given answer is the "bad" one, which is most of the time, actually, and save the drama for when they actually might have lied (who would lie to make themselves look bad?)

[TAsunder]

I use a Tivo to shorten those pauses. Maybe you should look into getting one. I watch this show in about 20 minutes. I don't need to hear "That answer is...







true."
If I 30ss and there not saying goodbye, I know it was true.

A less radical approach would be to watch it in fast forward and see the giant TRUE or FALSE come up on the screen.

[Amnesia]

I really wish they would just get on with it when their given answer is the "bad" one, which is most of the time, actually, and save the drama for when they actually might have lied (who would lie to make themselves look bad?)That's what I said after the first show. It seemed to me that this episode did have a shorter time for "bad" answers than "good" answers...

[pmyers]

What they should do is video tape the lie detector test and then when they fail a question they show the result on the test.

[That Don Guy]

It seems so arbitrary. The first guy from 2/6, the former Marine, admitted so much, yet the test determined he lied about the "stuffed underwear" question? Clearly, he didn't think was lying. So in his eyes, a random (and incorrect) bug in the test cost him $25K. I see lawsuits in the future.If you watch the last few credits at the end of the show, they say that neither Fox nor the producers take a side in whether or not the answers are actually true or false, and that the contestants agree that the polygraph examiner's decisions are final in terms of the answers used by the show.

The only way I can see a lawsuit happening is if a contestant could prove that the answer used on the show was different from the one the polygraph examiner reported.

What they should do is video tape the lie detector test and then when they fail a question they show the result on the test.The problem is, they have to spend time with the polygraph examiner, who has to show the readout of the test and explain why he/she thought the original answer was a lie. F. Lee Bailey tried this once with a show called Lie Detector (the most famous "contestant" was probably Evel Knievel, who took the test to show he didn't intentionally release the parachute too early on his Snake River Canyon jump), and, as later used in a Jeopardy! answer, now "You have to hook him up to a lie detector to get him to tell you he hosted a show about one."

-- Don

[Martyp]

I like the wording of the question " have YOU ever taken nude photos of yourself ?"

So if she had someone else take the photo its not the same ? :)

Also how the sister would not let her answer the question about tossing her cookies after eatting.

[TAsunder]

If you watch the last few credits at the end of the show, they say that neither Fox nor the producers take a side in whether or not the answers are actually true or false, and that the contestants agree that the polygraph examiner's decisions are final in terms of the answers used by the show.

The only way I can see a lawsuit happening is if a contestant could prove that the answer used on the show was different from the one the polygraph examiner reported.

Unfortunately they just shot themselves in the foot then. Walberg flat out called him a liar in the little "here's what just happened" speech. If their contract states that neither party is taking a position as to the actual truth of an answer, then walberg just violated that statement, and the show was complicit since they edited and released the show afterwards.

[jrinck]

Also how the sister would not let her answer the question about tossing her cookies after eatting.


Meaning the answer is obviously YES.

[drumorgan]

Love her, or hate her, Dr. Laura has an interesting post in her blog about this show. I think I agree with her...
In a never-ending supply of lows, TV’s newest contribution to the destruction of dignity, modesty, and compassion is on the Fox Network, entitled “The Moment of Truth.” The basic concept is to have people admit to immoral, illegal, embarrassing, stupid, crass or just plain dumb behavior while attached to a “polygraph,” which purports to determine whether the answer given by the contestant is “truthful.” Truthful answers are rewarded by cash, up to a half-million dollars. It’s sickening to see what some folks will destroy in their own souls and relationships for money - even a lot of money.

The New York Times (January 25, 2008) described a scenario on the series’ premiere show:

‘Ty, a personal trainer, said ‘yes’ when asked if he has delayed having children because he is not sure that Catia, his wife of 2 1/2 years, would be his ‘lifelong partner.’ After he replied, a disembodied female voice delivered the verdict: ‘The answer is….(long dramatic beat) TRUE!’ The camera panned to Catia, who stopped smiling and murmured ‘I’m dying here.’ Her friend, April, turned to her and asked in a semi-whisper ‘Is it worth $100,000 to learn that?’”Well, financially, it wasn’t worth anything because when Ty was asked whether he had ever touched a female client more than was strictly necessary, his “no” was determined by the polygraph to be a lie, and he lost all his winnings

This is sick stuff. All truths ought not to be spoken.

[scandia101]

A less radical approach would be to watch it in fast forward and see the giant TRUE or FALSE come up on the screen.

If I wanted to spend more time rather than less time watching this show, that would be a good idea.

[mattack]

I like the wording of the question " have YOU ever taken nude photos of yourself ?"

..and they said "as an adult". Is a kid going to take nude photos of themself? (Except maybe for purposeful incrimination of an adult, something Alicia Silverstone's character in "The Babysitter" would do, if that's the right movie I'm remembering..)

[Martyp]

..and they said "as an adult". Is a kid going to take nude photos of themself? (Except maybe for purposeful incrimination of an adult, something Alicia Silverstone's character in "The Babysitter" would do, if that's the right movie I'm remembering..)


Well the adult was put in to cut out baby pic's and such and with the talk about kids net pages there are lots of teens putting nude pics on thier blogs and such.

[wendiness1]

Unfortunately they just shot themselves in the foot then. Walberg flat out called him a liar in the little "here's what just happened" speech. If their contract states that neither party is taking a position as to the actual truth of an answer, then walberg just violated that statement, and the show was complicit since they edited and released the show afterwards.

Sure did. Walberg said something like "caught him in a lie". I would think the producers would have preferred some comment like "the lie detector indicates a lie". On the other hand, it made it past the editing and the producers could have cut that if they felt it was a problem. They must have a pretty extensive contract with the contestants.

I thought this was a foolish premise since, if lie detectors were 100% effective, one merely had to tell the truth have have a guaranteed win (what's the top prize? 1M?) Looks to me like the producers can (and might) be manipulating the interpretation of the answers. Or perhaps the interpreters feel obliged to find at least one lie in the bunch. Plenty of opportunity here to fix the outcome.

As for suspense, they destory that possibility every time they show a preview. If the "alarming question" hasn't yet been asked, you know all preceding answers are true.

The poor guy looked totally stunned. I believe him. I believe the lie detector was wrong - or the interpretation was. As was already mentioned, this seemed a really silly question to lie about, given what he'd already admitted to.

And yes, I also see law suits.

[JLucPicard]

I don't remember the exact phrasing of the question (was this the guy that was an underwear model?), but something to the effect of whether he's ever padded his underwear (seems like a popular question on this show).

If I remember right, this guy was a Marine. I've seen pictures from my dad's days in the Navy where they had some kind of "talent" show just to entertain themselves while at sea. There were guys who would dress up as girls as part of the show. I also have a nephew who served two tours in Iraq, and some of the video they shot of things they did - well, even as a loving uncle I was laughing and cringing at the same time (mostly laughing! :D).

For that question, all it would have took was for that guy to have padded his butt in a similar "review" show or something while in the service. Even though the question seems to be likely interpretted as padding a person's "endowment" (especially if he was asked about being an underwear model just before the question was asked during the test), that question could have easily given a FALSE reading if his answer was based on that premise, though he may have done it in some completely unrelated fashion that hadn't occurred to him consiously at the time of answering the question (even if it wasn't for purposes of enhancing the look of his endowment).

I think that may also be why they say they don't have to answer the question the same way they did on the test. If, after having taken the test and answering "NO" to that question, he remembers the incident of padding his backside, he could then answer "YES" and that 'yes' could then be interpretted as TRUE.

The apsect of this show that someone needs to decide if it's worth watching or not is the voyeuristic "I wonder how many horrible/illegal/immoral things someone will cop to to try and win some money". From that apsect, I'd love to see someone win the whole $500,000 just to see what they'd cop to.

It pretty much does have 'trainwreck' written all over it in the same way that the Audition Weeks have on American Idol.

[wendiness1]

For that question, all it would have took was for that guy to have padded his butt in a similar "review" show or something while in the service. Even though the question seems to be likely interpretted as padding a person's "endowment" (especially if he was asked about being an underwear model just before the question was asked during the test), that question could have easily given a FALSE reading if his answer was based on that premise, though he may have done it in some completely unrelated fashion that hadn't occurred to him consiously at the time of answering the question (even if it wasn't for purposes of enhancing the look of his endowment).

I think that may also be why they say they don't have to answer the question the same way they did on the test. If, after having taken the test and answering "NO" to that question, he remembers the incident of padding his backside, he could then answer "YES" and that 'yes' could then be interpretted as TRUE.


Lie detectors don't work that way, though. If you aren't consciously aware that you're lying, it won't register as a lie. It can't register an unconscious lie. This was pointed out to me by a police officer when I was having a polygraph. IF you believe in lie detectors.

[toddvj]

I like how the contestants always act surprised when they have a new question read to them, like they are hearing the question for the first time. I mean, I know that there were 50 questions during the polygraph, but still...

I'm waiting for somebody to go further. If the questions we've seen so far are the mild ones, I'd like to see the really bad ones.

[pmyers]

I just assumed that all underwear models "stuffed" per the directors. Either to accentuate the form or to round things out so that you couldn't actually see b*lls which probably couldn't be printed.

[MitchO]

I thought this was a foolish premise since, if lie detectors were 100% effective, one merely had to tell the truth have have a guaranteed win (what's the top prize? 1M?) Looks to me like the producers can (and might) be manipulating the interpretation of the answers. Or perhaps the interpreters feel obliged to find at least one lie in the bunch. Plenty of opportunity here to fix the outcome.

Agreed. My point is it should be 'have no shame, answer all the questions, win it all'. If the contestants agrees that the show's interpretations of True or False are the be all, end all, it sure seems to me that they (the producers) can arbitrarily "decide" that a question was answered incorrectly at any time, save themselves the prize money and move on to the next person. All that embarrassment for nothing.

There's just way too much room for either manipulation.

The poor guy looked totally stunned. I believe him. I believe the lie detector was wrong - or the interpretation was. As was already mentioned, this seemed a really silly question to lie about, given what he'd already admitted to.

Again, that's my point. Given our information about his character, what levels of information he's willing to give for this show/money and the premise of the show itself, he had ZERO REASON to lie about something that seems, in comparison, so tame. He truly doesn't think he lied.

[Dssturbo1]

wonder if he still has a job at the restaurant after he admitted to stealing other waiters tips and padding tickets for bigger tips?????

[That Don Guy]

Unfortunately they just shot themselves in the foot then. Walberg flat out called him a liar in the little "here's what just happened" speech. If their contract states that neither party is taking a position as to the actual truth of an answer, then walberg just violated that statement, and the show was complicit since they edited and released the show afterwards.
The credits say that Fox and "the producers" don't take a stand. It says nothing about the host.

-- Don