Survival Entertainment, Friend or Foe? An exclusive interview with Cody Lundin

**RangerXanatos** · 07-23-2014, 11:03 AM

There's been a huge debacle about survival shows and their authenticity ever since Man VS Wild. Add to that the falsified military service record given by Dave Canterbury and the more recent firing of Cody Lundin over "safety issues" on Dual Survival, just how trustworthy are ANY of these shows? I hope the interview on this blog clears up some of those questions.

http://masterwoodsman.com/2014/survi...t-cody-lundin/

-I personally know the writer of this blog, Christian Noble. I have spent three trips out in the woods with him and hold him in high respect.

I also like how David Wescott saw fit to make a couple of comments.

David Wescott June 27, 2014 at 12:57 am #

In the past month I’ve gotten quires from History, Discovery, National Geographic, the Weather Channel, BBC and a few unaffiliated “producers” looking for “talent.” My common response has gotten to be “You ought to be ashamed of yourself for the crap you are putting on the air. I refuse to be a part of your human freak show. Sorry. But you would consider doing something of value, I’d gladly help you out.” I’m not sure what it will take to get their attention, but it seems the tide isn’t being turned right now. Survival drama is too hot a ticket for them to ignore I guess.

David Wescott July 2, 2014 at 12:03 am #

I just got another inquiry about wanting to find professional trackers and do a show about trackers doing their thing. Look at the credentials of this producer that is going to show the world how trackers work.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1643782/?ref_=fn_al_nm_5

I’m sure he is a fine person and well-intentioned. But this shows you the mix of shows that survival drama is finding itself mixed up with, and the people who are positioned to produce these shows.

**ninjasurvivor** · 07-23-2014, 11:33 AM

They already did a man tracker show. Four guys track down one skilled survival guy. It was one of the most boring unrealistic survival shows I've ever seen. Now they want to do another one?

**natertot** · 07-23-2014, 12:04 PM

Ranger, I believe that Dave Canterbury was and is qualified to teach skills and demonstrate them. I believe he lied because he felt that his resume didn't reflect his ability. Not saying it was right to lie. I also respect him because he did admit his mistakes and apologized for what he had done. He showed great humility in doing so.

I think the issue lies with producers and networks. They don't believe that a show designed to demonstrate useful skills would actually be profitable. Who knows, perhaps they're right.

**RangerXanatos** · 07-23-2014, 12:57 PM

Natertot, not trying to make this into a DC love/hate thread but in the interview it was stated that Discovery NEVER asked for credentials or proof of the hosts skills. DC didn't need to lie. I think DC does have the skills and ability to teach them, but he showed a lack of integrity to tell the truth. And it's not the first time DC has had a problem with "humility."

Originally Posted by natertot

Ranger, I believe that Dave Canterbury was and is qualified to teach skills and demonstrate them. I believe he lied because he felt that his resume didn't reflect his ability. Not saying it was right to lie. I also respect him because he did admit his mistakes and apologized for what he had done. He showed great humility in doing so.

I think the issue lies with producers and networks. They don't believe that a show designed to demonstrate useful skills would actually be profitable. Who knows, perhaps they're right.

THIS^

There must be some sort of profit, although maybe not as much, to a show demonstrating useful skills or Ray Mears (although he's not shown in the US much) wouldn't have any of his shows.

**hunter63** · 07-23-2014, 01:12 PM

I can say that I really don't care.....These are TV shows.......People will watch till they get tired of it and change the channel.
This get way too much press......makes "Days of Our Lives" sound logical.

**ninjasurvivor** · 07-23-2014, 01:53 PM

The truth of the matter is that educational survival material works better in the format of one person demonstrating skills to the viewer. That's why I actually liked Bear Grylls, because he would show how to do things, explain it, and fabricate scenarios that allowed him to demonstrate these skills.

The survival shows that have couples focus on the dramas and interactions between them. They are so over-edited for dramatic effect that you really get very little in the way of educational value. I continue to watch them because it is mild entertainment, since its designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator. The only ones I don't watch are the contest ones like the race in Alaska or the BG one where contestants had to drink their urine. At that point it becomes so stupid that it doesn't appeal to me on any level.

**Seniorman** · 07-23-2014, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by natertot

" ... I think the issue lies with producers and networks. They don't believe that a show designed to demonstrate useful skills would actually be profitable. Who knows, perhaps they're right.

You're correct. Teeeveee is about one thing and one thing only: MONEY. If it isn't profitable, the networks and cable show producers don't do it.

All shows are based on the primary concept of "story telling," Conflict and Resolution. That creates "drama." Without Conflict and Resolution in a show, it becomes nothing more than just another "How To ....." instructional presentation, and today, You Tube has dozens of hundreds of them floating around... most being rather boring.

Therefore, in these various "survival" shows the producers interject "Conflict" and "Danger!," etc., and then "resolve" the problem. Is there any real danger? Of course not, but it is made to appear that the protagonist is nearly at the end of his life unless he can actually make an immediate fire with those wet sticks by rubbing them together. Voila! He manages to make a fire and saves his life!! Resolution.

All the shows are the same in concept: lots of "Conflict" and then the life saving "Resolution" figured out by our local survival-expert-of-the-day. The writers and producers come up with the "dangerous" scenarios and they are filmed. People watch because there is some created drama, rather than some guy walking around out in the woods looking for some Miner's Lettuce to eat.

That's the way it is in Show Biz."

S.M.

**ninjasurvivor** · 07-23-2014, 02:20 PM

A show demonstrating useful skills can be profitable. It's called youtube. You have a channel, you have videos, you have subscribers, and you have adds. This generates viewership revenue. If you have an associated business on top of that or other sponsors then you can make more money. It's a win win for everyone because people can watch exactly what they want, not what they are force fed.

It's also why Joe Teti has only one interesting youtube video (his BOB). And Dave Canterbury has 900. Yet Joe keeps his gig on the boob toob because people still want to watch fluffy survival drama.

**natertot** · 07-23-2014, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by RangerXanatos

Natertot, not trying to make this into a DC love/hate thread but in the interview it was stated that Discovery NEVER asked for credentials or proof of the hosts skills. DC didn't need to lie. I think DC does have the skills and ability to teach them, but he showed a lack of integrity to tell the truth. And it's not the first time DC has had a problem with "humility."

THIS^

There must be some sort of profit, although maybe not as much, to a show demonstrating useful skills or Ray Mears (although he's not shown in the US much) wouldn't have any of his shows.

I don't care whether people love or hate DC. He did come out and owned his mistakes and trief to make things right. That is a rarity for tv, and he did it on his own. To say Discovery never asked for creditials maybe playing with semantics. He had to present himself to the producers and show them that he had done something to be worthy of the part.

You pretty much agreed with me on the second part, which is why there are no real educational survival shows.

**alaskabushman** · 07-23-2014, 03:35 PM

Modern survival is different from primitive living skills, which is different from urban preparedness, which is different from homesteading, which is different from wilderness living or “bushcrafting"....Even many survival instructors are unaware of the differences, and the media, not knowing the difference either, puts out whatever they think is valid.

This is an excellent point from the interview, I wish people would understand this better.

**ninjasurvivor** · 07-23-2014, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by alaskabushman

This is an excellent point from the interview, I wish people would understand this better.

Survival is such a vague yet simple term in itself. It is usually synonymous with some type of wilderness survival, however. And it's based off of a scenario where an individual is alone or with only a few companions, and has few resources and must effect self rescue. All of the tv shows are based around that concept.

I am an outdoor enthusiast with interests in bushcraft and survivalism. A prepper, for example, may have zero interest or knowledge in primitive survival, hunting, etc.

**finallyME** · 07-25-2014, 10:14 AM

Ranger, thanks for the read. I found it very interesting. I have always loved Cody, and still do.

**Wildthang** · 07-25-2014, 12:34 PM

I often wonder how many people have put theirselves at risk because of survival shows. There has got to be a lot of people out there that would think they can survive simply because they have watched it on TV. I think that is the bad part of survival television and we wil really never know the statistics.

**Rick** · 07-25-2014, 01:02 PM

I watch on occasion simply for the entertainment value. Generally, it's Les Stroud although I did like Dual Survival until Dave started doing the weird stuff like cauterizing his arm. As long as you understand that even the better of them, like Les, spend time with local experts on flora and fauna prior to the show then you can view it for what it really is....entertainment. Very few people, including us, would fare very well if dropped into an unknown environment for a week.

**finallyME** · 07-25-2014, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by Wildthang

I often wonder how many people have put theirselves at risk because of survival shows. There has got to be a lot of people out there that would think they can survive simply because they have watched it on TV. I think that is the bad part of survival television and we wil really never know the statistics.

Cody addresses this in the interview. Apparently he keeps a file for all the cases he hears about.