This is the stupidest show I have seen. It's premise is social "Experiments" but always changes multiple facets of the scenario but then say "All we changed was the color of skin", "... the way she dresses", or "...race of xyz". This is false and they change multiple facets sometimes even changing who is seated in the restaurant first or who instigates the confrontation and it is all based on the outcome they want. That way they can narrate the scenario to pull at the emotions of the audience. Like check out the abusive boyfriend in the restaurant video the first scenario is a timid conservative dressed lady scared she will get his order wrong before he gets there. The second scene they say "We are now only going to change the way she is dressed and see if her sexy clothes make a difference" but they place the boyfriend in the restaurant first the girl comes in late and confident loud not timid not scared. The boyfriend is even dressed differently. Such a fake show that just tries to continue adding fuel to the fire by narrating the outcome they wish to portray. It like the old song lyrics "Tin roof rusted" no one knew what the heck she was saying until they read the lyrics and then it was like OHHHHH I hear it now. Or saying "dog says "hello" now the mind will hear "hello" when the dog whines.

I agree that John Quinones' hidden camera show keeps doing the same scenarios over and over again. The same basic concept like Candid Camera but very dramatic. The show keeps using that same actress, Traci, every time. I know because I would usually see her online or on television. They always do the same scenarios in a public place like a restaurant, store, park, bar, etc. Of course, the same or different actors with overacting and manipulating differences. But the major annoying part is John Quinones himself. You never know that the scenario was a set up and that you were in a fake intervention with the actors/actresses. In the behind-the-scenes, Quinones controls and manipulates everything for the scenes and hidden cameras. After that, John Quinones walks up to you with that damn smile on his face. His camera crew follows him and he always asks the person why he or she did or did not intervene. He's like hiding in the shadows waiting to come out and greet you. He always does that annoying, nagging voice when he narrates. Especially when he says, "I'm John Quinones and this is What Would You Do?" My expression says, "You have just been manipulated by John Quinones." I'll probably say, "I have been played by John Quinones." The same manipulation that he does over and over again. That's the annoying part with this show. What I noticed in some episodes is that a few bystanders who would not show their face on camera they would leave quickly before Quinones could talk to them. I remember one female bystander during the dropping money experiment; she picked up the money or check and did not return it to the nearby bank. That was when Quinones asked her a question but the lady angrily confronted him and called him a bitch. I was like, "Did she really say that to him?" I was laughing hysterically. Another one is when I saw the e-cigarette experiment when this lady got into her car and Quinones came by to greet her but she drove away before he could speak a word. I would be with these bystanders by giving them credit to move on or not talk to Quinones at all. If I would see that same actress, Traci, in the public, then I would say, "I've seen you on What Would You Do!!! Nice try, Quinones!!!" Because I know for sure it's Traci. Anyway, this show has always been stale since 2009 and Quinones is going to do the same scenario in a public place. He'll also do the same thing by coming out and saying to the person that the scenario was just a manipulating social experiment. He does this over and over again. The more Quinones keeps doing it, the more it's going to get stale. I don't think he gets tired from working this stuff.Here are my two opinions and review about Quinones and the show. (1) I really don't like John Quinones. (2) I don't give a damn about him, his annoying voice or that grinning smile either. My review is that I give his show a one star rating and "B" for boring. Here's what I have to say to John. "Dear John Quinones, your show needs to be kicked off the air for good. I've already lost the show's interest. You're boring me most of all. This show has always been stale from time to time." When will John Quinones ever stop? The answer is...never. He'll keep doing what he does with the hidden cameras and social experiments. This is my opinion and that's what I have to say about Quinones and the show "What Would You Do?" Period.

There once was a certain type of pride in being an investigative reporter in that one would dig up the news in all manner of methods and from all sorts of sources, and it was real news. What passes for investigative journalism now on both national and local newscasts, and news specials like this show, is setting up and making the news, and doing it in a way that shows the ultimate superiority of journalists to know what's best.This show is only one example of the phony setup or sting operation to create a feel-good moment for the viewer. I put into this same category such programs as the NBC Dateline To Catch a Predator, and all other setup situational news programs of this type. With this I also include the myriad of local newscasts that promote themselves as "looking out for you" when they do a setup sting on some business.This is not investigative journalism, but this is taking the easy way out to get ratings and to feel like they've really done something, and to show all of us that newcasters are experts on any subject that comes up, and by insinuation they know best how we should run our lives, and what way we should vote. While these people are creating something, and I mean creating not reporting, they are failing their duty to tackle the tough subjects of the real world.They don't investigate where the WMDs of Iraq went, or how the Patriot Act ended up a bad idea, or why we have so many people without work STILL, or why we need two people to support one household now, or why and who sent weapons to Mexico that killed hundreds, or why and who allowed our citizens to be killed in Libya, or any coverups of these, or why China is allowed to pollute the world and steal our secrets, or where our right to privacy went in the last decade.But instead, they either just propagate government pronouncements or tell us how we should act in setup situations that could only possibly have one right answer, theirs. Or that it is okay to create unethical and criminal acts with false situations. This is the EASY WAY OUT of saying you are doing investigative journalism, when you really are not. It is as bad as the local police doing things easily by making every single driver pull over for an inspection just to catch a few, rather than do the hard police work of watching and observing those drivers who are problematic, or shooting someone (or even a dog) before determining that they are actually a threat.What a country this has become, run by power-hungry corrupt federal institutions, over-zealous enforcement officers, and journalists who think they are the 4th branch of the government, and that their journalism degree gives them omnipotent knowledge of all subjects.

One time when I was living in Indiana and engaging in a dispute with a dry cleaner who had failed to clean a shirt as promised, another customer stepped in and informed me I didn't need the shirt cleaned, anyway. Probably everyone has dealt with a presumptuous idiot who considers it her right to meddle in other people's business. Remember Mrs. Norris in Mansfield Park? Remember Maude? Well, those are the people this show is aimed at, and probably the kind of people who made it. It's a glorification of hubris. Underneath that, of course, it's a trouble-making exercise: it starts fights and then sits back and watches. Here's the set-up: Someone is rude to someone else in a public place--rude, that's all; not violent or threatening. The show rewards the bystander who interferes, knowing nothing of the circumstances, and thereby risks endangering both himself and the person he's supposedly defending; risks escalating a mere discourtesy into a physical confrontation. At the same time the show punishes the people who do the wise thing: sit and mind their own business, rather than make a situation worse by ignorant intervention. The punishment they receive is nagging by the announcer: "AND SHE JUST SITS THERE AND PRETENDS NOT TO NOTICE!!!!!!" Damn right.A show like this could only have been imagined and carried through by protected idiots: people with the security--i.e. money, job, house--to feel smug and superior and entitled to boss other people; eternally protected from recognizing either their own stupidity or the possible consequences of it. So let me point out the simplest of the facts this show doesn't grasp: A person so far out of control or so oblivious to ordinary standards of conduct as to lash out in a public setting will only be provoked further by a stranger butting in: the meddler could in fact be starting a fight. Police and other professionals who deal with such situations know this. If everyday folks are going to take it on themselves to police their neighbors' conduct they had better learn the same. In the meantime, this show should be kicked off the air. It's a public menace.