"um," the job includes judging one's presentation, even if it happens before the contestant opens their mouth. So, yes, their job is to "pre-judge" based on the criteria.bigpuma said:um, it's not there job to be prejudiced. Prejudiced means to pre-judge, they're job is to judge what they hear not make a decision before a person starts singing. That being said they heard him, he sucked, they said no. They did their jobs.
That analysis does not work in a situation where the person was in front of the 3 judges, and on TV, only for entertainment value.bigpuma said:the appearance is all a part of the package, I don't consider that pre-judging, that is just judging. If they stopped him/her before he/she sang and said sorry no get out before hearing the voice that would be pre-judging. They didn't do that and in fact they have let people through on voice alone despite appearence, although they usually don't last long.
Sure, it is prejudice. It fits right in the definition. We are just debating on the particular factors, purpose, end result and justification of the prejudice.bigpuma said:We are just picking nits here but that is not prejudice. Prejudice suggests that they are judging without just grounds or sufficient knowledge. Basing all or some of your judgements on looks does not equal prejudice. Looks are an important factor in this competition so they use it as part of the qualifications. They have an image of what they are looking for and use that to judge the contestants. it is simply judgement not pre-judgement.