553
alt-text
A social post and a follow up. The post shows a screengrab from the show, and the follow up shows the happy couple featured in it taking a selfie.
Tom Zohar @TomZohar • 2h
I love watching old episodes of Supermarket Sweep because these two just said they're "business partners" who "design sets for plays" and I'm like oh I'm sure
Tim Leach
Here we are! Just celebrated our 41st anniversary. Married in 2008 on our 25th anniversary as soon as it was legal in California. We ran a business together designing and painting backdrops and sets for 27 years.
I'm also an aussie and never seen the show, but I'm assuming the show is/was a reality TV show so they came on during the 90's and the couple gave their backstory as just business partners.
Someone recently watched re-runs and made a post commenting that they're clearly were actually a couple, That post went "viral" the couple saw it and commented with proof that yeah they were gay all along.
Supermarket Sweep was a game show themed around grocery shopping, not a reality TV show.
Unless we're calling game shows reality TV now in which case I'll be very sad.
Never seen it, don't think it ever aired in Australia so I'll take your word for it. I would personally lump game shows in with reality TV just for the fact that the shows aren't scripted and the people on them are usually average joes and not playing a role
One could argue that game shows are less scripted than reality TV. They tried unscripted reality TV and found out just filming normal people doesn't drive ratings, so they have a ton of producers inventing drama.
Oh! Reality TV! I don't know why that never occurred to me.
The second post being a comment specifically on the first post...are you sure? The original is a Tweet, the updated post is on Facebook
https://ew.com/supermarket-sweep-couple-react-to-going-viral-8686460
I mean yeah, EW isn’t the most valueable of sources, but “reality tv gay couple” isn’t likely to get much coverage anyway
Fair enough. And I don't think you need an especially high quality source for something like this. Especially not when the source you did use presents its sources so transparently.
It was so believable, I didn’t question it. Any good post is hitting every major social network.
Yeah that's true. I was just confused because the way this post is framed makes it look like two separate posts, rather than being clear one is a comment on the other (e.g. if the follow-up Tweet from Tom had been shown, or if Tim's Facebook comment had been shown under the assumed post of the screenshot of the Tweet).
Gotcha. They were two separate screenshots I found & stitched. How should I have presented ‘em? Could’ve annotated I suppose, added a title to each. Or stitched them vertically, and annotated “a few days(?) later…” in between or something.
Oh this is OC? To be honest, if you found two separate screenshots I'm not sure there was much you could have done. The ideal would be if the screenshot was something like this one:
Though I had to edit the page to remove a post in between before taking that screenshot.
But I think ultimately I just didn't have the context beforehand to get what it was, and I don't know if that was possible to overcome in a simple post.
“Update” annotation in between das right 👌 thanks :)