EveryBig Brotherseason ends with a jury voting on the winner. The jury asks the final two houseguests about their strategy before the vote on theCBSandParamount+show. The finalists also give speeches as their last chance to convince them they influenced the house. There are a couple of jury segments where they watch how newer jurors were evicted. Fans theoretically should be able to tell where the jurors are leaning based on these scenes. But former houseguestsDerek XiaoandClaire RehfussofBig Brother 23explain why you can’t trust the edit!
‘Big Brother’ Jurors Have to Run Through Every Scenario
Derek, Claire, andTaylor Haleappeared onRHAP Liveto react to episode 39 ofBig Brother 25. That showedCory Wurtenberger,Blue Kim, andAmerica LopezjoiningCameron Hardinin the jury house. They’ll vote for someone to win $750,000. There are no live feeds in the jury house, so it’s a mystery what goes on in there.
RELATED:‘Big Brother’: Cirie Has Her Goodbye Message for Cory Ready
“I’ll say this, there is a lot of campaigning,” Claire said. “There is a lot of campaigning that happens in the jury […] house. People will be fans of one person, and you do really try to convince them.” Derek revealed jurors were campaigning againstKyland Youngthe most in their season. “I’m surprised we didn’t see more argumentsagainstJag [Bains]in this jury segmentbecause people seemed a little bitter or angry,” Taylor said. She theorized the audience might be getting tricked and the edit leaves out how jurors really feel about him. Claire and Derek revealed how those segments are filmed.
“They do encourage you to say something positive about everyone in your interviews,” Claire admitted. “So it’s like hard to read. OK, what are they really, really thinking? And who are they really supporting? Because there is an argument for every single person, you know. So it is hard to read.” They talked about how the jury roundtables are filmed.
“They keep you as long as possible to attempt to get you to say something positive about everyone,” Derek explained. “So you run through every scenario. It’s like, ‘OK if [Xavier Prather] is against [Azah Awasum]. Why would X win? Why would Azah win?'” He then said they had to give reasons whyDerek Frazierwould win against Xavier and that was harder for the jurors to answer. After all, Xavier won all the votes against him in the finale.
What does all this mean for viewers of the show? Question everything when it comes to jury segments. The editors and producers want there to be intrigue all the way to the finale. After all, if everyone feels like they know who will win, then why would they tune in? If it seems like the jurors are all agreeing that someone is playing the best game, it could be true. But if there are some surprising opinions that the underdog could win, that might be to make the game seem a lot closer between two houseguests than it is in reality.
