Julie Chen Moonves Admits She Was a “Jerk” for Rooting Against Rick Devens on Big Brother
Big Brother host Julie Chen Moonves reflects on her reaction to Rick Devens and says her frustration was driven by ego rather than a fair assessment of the game.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/julie-chen-moonves-rick-devens-big-brother-093026-d46b02ae6efb48fcae85ec16cd7fcbb9.jpg)
Julie Chen Moonves has offered an unusually candid confession about her own reaction to a memorable Big Brother player. The longtime host said she was a “jerk” for becoming angry about Rick Devens and rooting against him, acknowledging that her feelings were shaped less by the game itself than by her own “foolish ego.”
Her remarks provide a revealing look at the emotional complications that can develop around Big Brother, a reality competition built on shifting alliances, public opinion and constant judgment. Although Chen Moonves is the person who guides viewers through each eviction and major turning point, she is also watching the contestants make decisions, take risks and build rivalries week after week. In Devens’ case, she now believes she allowed personal frustration to affect the way she viewed his presence in the game.
“I was letting my own foolish ego get in the way,” Chen Moonves said while discussing her past attitude toward Devens. The admission is notable because it does not present her reaction as a carefully considered opinion about strategy. Instead, she described it as an emotional response—one that she now regards with embarrassment and regret.
Calling herself a “jerk” was Chen Moonves’ way of taking responsibility for that response. Rather than suggesting that Devens was at fault for provoking her, she placed the responsibility squarely on herself. Her comments also suggest that her frustration was strong enough to influence whom she wanted to see succeed, even though her professional role requires her to remain at the center of the show without becoming an active participant in its outcome.
That distinction can be difficult to maintain on Big Brother. The program asks contestants to live together under intense conditions while viewers watch their conversations, arguments, celebrations and betrayals. The host, meanwhile, becomes a familiar presence across those developments. A host may ask the questions that shape an interview, explain the rules and announce the results, but the role is still connected to the personalities competing on screen. Strong reactions can naturally form, especially when one player repeatedly becomes the focus of attention.
Chen Moonves’ comments suggest that Devens became one of those players for her. Her annoyance was not simply a passing preference for one contestant over another. According to her account, she was “pissed off” about him and found herself rooting against him. Looking back, however, she no longer considers that reaction a fair or useful one. She sees it as an example of her own ego interfering with her ability to appreciate what was happening in the game.
That self-criticism gives the story a different tone from a typical reality-show debate. Fans frequently argue over which players deserve support and which ones deserve to be eliminated. Those disagreements are part of Big Brother’s appeal. Contestants are expected to manipulate one another, protect their interests and make choices that may be frustrating to people watching at home. Chen Moonves’ reflection is different because she is not merely revisiting a fan argument. She is examining why she became so invested in opposing one particular player.
Her use of the word “ego” is especially important. Ego can enter a television host’s relationship with a show in subtle ways. A host may have a strong sense of how the program should unfold, how contestants should behave or which type of player best represents the spirit of the competition. When a contestant disrupts those expectations, the reaction can feel personal, even when it is not. Chen Moonves’ admission indicates that she recognized this dynamic in herself after the fact.
It also reflects the way Big Brother can blur the boundary between observation and participation. The host does not vote contestants out, choose nominees or control the power shifts inside the house. Still, a host’s questions and reactions can carry meaning for the audience. When Chen Moonves says she was rooting against Devens, she is acknowledging that she was not emotionally detached from his story. Her perspective may not have changed the game, but it changed the way she experienced it.
Devens’ name remains tied to the kind of television presence that can provoke strong reactions. A contestant who commands attention can become a source of excitement for some viewers and irritation for others. Supporters may admire boldness, persistence or the ability to remain central to the narrative. Critics may feel that the same qualities are excessive or disruptive. Chen Moonves’ comments do not erase those disagreements; instead, they show that even someone working closely with the series can become caught up in the same emotional push and pull.
Importantly, she did not present her earlier opinion as a definitive judgment on Devens’ character. Her criticism was directed at her own conduct and state of mind. She did not say that Devens deserved to be disliked or that her opposition was justified. She said she was wrong to allow her ego to shape her response. That distinction keeps the focus on personal accountability rather than reopening an old argument about whether the contestant was a good or bad player.
Chen Moonves’ willingness to revisit the episode also adds an element of vulnerability to her public persona. Television hosts are often expected to project confidence and control. They move conversations forward, deliver information clearly and maintain the rhythm of live or highly structured programming. Admitting that she was emotionally caught up in a contestant’s journey presents a less polished but more relatable side of her relationship with the show.
For Big Brother viewers, the confession may be familiar in another way. Many fans have watched themselves become more invested in a player than they originally expected. A houseguest’s decisions can feel so personal, particularly when they affect a favorite contestant, that viewers begin to celebrate every setback or complain about every success. Chen Moonves’ reflection suggests that she experienced something similar, even though she occupied a different position from the audience.
The difference is that she eventually recognized the limits of that investment. Rooting against a contestant may be part of being a fan, but allowing that preference to dominate one’s judgment can make it harder to see the larger story. Chen Moonves’ phrase about her “foolish ego” conveys that realization plainly. She came to understand that her reaction was not really helping her evaluate Devens or appreciate the competition. It was making the experience about her own irritation.
That kind of reassessment is particularly meaningful in a show where perception is always changing. A player who seems threatening one week may become valuable the next. A decision that appears reckless can later look strategic. Contestants are constantly seen through new circumstances, and the audience is encouraged to revise its opinions as the game develops. Chen Moonves’ reflection follows the same pattern: with distance, she was able to reconsider the emotion that had once seemed so powerful.
Her remarks do not indicate that every viewer should adopt the same opinion of Devens. Big Brother has always invited divided responses, and disagreement is part of the conversation surrounding the series. What Chen Moonves is questioning is not the right to dislike a player, but the reason she allowed that dislike to become so consuming. Her conclusion is personal rather than prescriptive.
That distinction matters because the host’s role can sometimes make any visible preference seem more consequential than it actually is. Viewers may look to Chen Moonves for an interpretation of the game, even when she is simply facilitating the program. By acknowledging her bias, she also separates her personal reaction from the official story of Big Brother. The show’s outcome belongs to the contestants and the decisions made within the competition, not to the host’s private hopes for who should win.
Chen Moonves’ confession may therefore be read as both an apology and a lesson in perspective. She recognized that her anger toward Devens was not a neutral observation. It was a feeling intensified by pride, expectation and the desire to see the game unfold in a particular way. Once she identified those influences, she could admit that her behavior had not reflected her best judgment.
The comment is also a reminder that reality television is designed to produce strong emotional responses. Big Brother does not merely ask viewers to follow a contest. It encourages them to form loyalties, question motives and react to every change in power. That structure can make it difficult for anyone connected to the program to remain completely untouched by its drama. Chen Moonves’ experience shows how easily enthusiasm can turn into frustration, even for the person guiding the audience through the season.
Still, she appears to have reached a more generous view of the situation. By describing herself as a “jerk,” she did not minimize the intensity of her earlier reaction. She acknowledged it directly, then explained that it came from the wrong place. The result is a rare moment of self-examination from someone who has spent years presenting the show with authority and composure.
For fans, the revelation adds another layer to the ongoing conversation about Rick Devens. His presence on Big Brother was clearly strong enough to inspire passionate responses, including from the program’s own host. But Chen Moonves’ current perspective is less about relitigating his performance than about recognizing her own mistake in judging him through the lens of personal annoyance.
In the end, her message is straightforward: she let her ego get in the way, she rooted against Devens, and she now believes that reaction was unfair. That honesty does not change the competition or rewrite the feelings she had at the time. It does, however, show the value of reconsidering a strong opinion after the pressure of the moment has passed. For a show built around strategy, perception and shifting loyalties, Chen Moonves’ self-correction is fittingly one more example of how the meaning of a Big Brother moment can change with time.