Jonathan Storm | Voted off for who you are: How enlightened

BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. - Not all fun and games, but surprisingly informative and entertaining,

Without Prejudice?

premieres tonight at 9 on GSN, the Network for Games.

The premise: Don't get voted off, and you'll win a whopping $25,000 (hey, it's a small network).

Well, that sounds pretty stupid and unoriginal.

But the way people get shown the door makes a fascinating study in sociology.

"I don't like him because he's black," says one of the voters about one of the contestants, and we're off to the races.

Votes don't go your way in this show because of how you dance or sing, or get along with others, or shoot a bow and arrow.

They come because of how you make a living, where you're from, how you think and how you look. In short, you sink or swim just because of who other people think you are.

The first vote comes after the contestants say hello.

Marline has fake-looking puffy lips. One of the judges, the same one who doesn't like the color of Michael's skin, thinks Nancy, 74, "has one foot in the grave."

But none of those supposed deficiencies are enough to send those folks packing. John goes because enough of the five judges agree with one woman, who says simply, "He creeps me out."

As the show progresses, the panel and viewers learn progressively more about the contestants. One's a porn actor.

Buh-bye.

And what would he have done with the dough, asks host Robi Ludwig, a psychotherapist whose experience in group work helps her to keep the panel on track and to prevent the bozos from monopolizing the conversation?

"Grab a limo, and, like, 10 friends, and just go out and have some drinks."

The panel of five is very happy with its choice.

"We're really careful with how we cast that panel," said executive producer David Young, who originated the Without Prejudice? concept in Britain. "For every one that's got something bad to say, we make sure we've got something good to say, and we make no apologies for that. . . . It does seem to bring out a really serious, intelligent debate."

And the strange thing is, he's right. These relatively average people aren't afraid to express their views. It's impossible not to cheer one person's comments and decry another's, yet it's intriguing to see such a variety of style and opinion coalesce in five people who become a microcosm of the society.

"People apply to be on the show," Young said. "We toured the country . . . and I think you'll see a great representation of America as participants and contestants on it. . . . The ones who had something important to say, something valid to say, some of the things actually many of us don't want to hear on television, were given the chance to say that."

The main qualification for the contestants was a willingness to let their lives hang out on national TV. As the show moves on, they are asked about political issues: Too much sex and violence on TV? Too many jobs going overseas? Not enough control of guns?

The panelists seem to care only about gun control, one cute gal revealing that she and her hubby are armed to the teeth for self-protection. "It's not the Wild West," argues another.

And another contestant gets the hook, leaving two, who then must answer personal questions from the panelists. It's extraordinary to see what they're willing to reveal.

"I could have been more sexually responsive to my first husband," says Nancy.

As many lessons as there are about the lives and opinions of our fellow citizens, one gets strongly emphasized on Without Prejudice?:

Forget the 25 grand, people will do just about anything to get themselves on television.

Join Jonathan Storm and Ellen Gray, television critics for The Inquirer and the Daily News, today at 11 a.m. as they chat live about the new celebrity "Apprentice," the return of Isaiah Washington to prime time, and other topics from the press tour in Beverly Hills. Go to

http://go.philly.com/tvchat

Television Review

Without Prejudice?

Debuts tonight at 9 on GSN