I only ever saw part of an episode of this once and that was enough. While it was hard to believe that people lined up to be on a show which delighted in exposing people when they were, shall we say, not at their best, it seems a tad ironic that I have seen a headline that claims the staff are complaining about a duty of care to their jobs..... thoughts?
Jeremy Kyle - Show has gone - hooray!
- Thread starter Chipper
- Start date
- Messages
- 7,156
- Edit My Images
- No
With such "car crash TV" you never see the outcomes......there may be many participants damaged by the experience (of their strange(?) 15 minutes of fame). But sadly there is now one participant, who as far as it seems discernible, has taken his own life as a direct result of being in the spotlight on the show.
The real sadness in my eyes is that this program endured for so long, simply because we will never know how many others have been hurt by it!
On a side note ~ how is it that such vicarious living type programs appeal to people. The young woman I caught a bit of an interview with on the news was in the audience. She came across as a quite rational ordinary person......so just what was it about this program that attracted her to want to be in the audience???
Of the odd time when channel hopping I caught sight of it, it looked like a combination of bear baiting, cock fighting....even a Gladiatoreal fight. Why on earth was it made in the first place.
PS but frankly I am pleased it has been canned.
The real sadness in my eyes is that this program endured for so long, simply because we will never know how many others have been hurt by it!
On a side note ~ how is it that such vicarious living type programs appeal to people. The young woman I caught a bit of an interview with on the news was in the audience. She came across as a quite rational ordinary person......so just what was it about this program that attracted her to want to be in the audience???
Of the odd time when channel hopping I caught sight of it, it looked like a combination of bear baiting, cock fighting....even a Gladiatoreal fight. Why on earth was it made in the first place.
PS but frankly I am pleased it has been canned.
Last edited:
As far as I am aware no one is forced to appear on the show. If people didn't want to appear, the show would have dried up years ago. I am unsure how the show could be held accountable for something someone has volunteered to take part in. There are people now calling for Love Island to be cancelled also because a contestant committed suicide a while ago, again the participants appear voluntarily. Whilst it is unfortunate these people have committed suicide, I fail to see how the shows are to blame when the participants have volunteered for the "experience ".
I'll be honest, i've seen snippets of it a few times. personally I think the production company preyed on vulnerable people with the promise of their '15 minutes of fame' couple with a night or 2 in a hotel with all expenses paid. Is there room/a need for a format like it? I'm not sure myself, but it had rather a large following as far as I know.
I've been asked to do heroin before, I said no.. Its not hard to say no to things you don't want to do.
Similarly in my younger days I've had "help" to party, if have got addicted it'd have been no ones fault but my own! Wouldn't blame the person who offered it me because I'm a grown up and can say no to things I don't want to do!
Similarly in my younger days I've had "help" to party, if have got addicted it'd have been no ones fault but my own! Wouldn't blame the person who offered it me because I'm a grown up and can say no to things I don't want to do!
There's a book called "the psychopath test" which might interest some. In it there's a bit about a reality tv show and how they selected the right sort of people to appear on it. The researcher would call them and one of the questions was what medication were they taking as they knew that people talking a certain type of medication would be likely to be good (car crash) tv as they'd be likely to have a melt down or otherwise behave in "good" way... I can't remember the details but I think it all ended badly for that researcher and the show. Anyway, it all seems to parallel the Jeremy Kyle guests and where we find ourselves now. I obviously can't say if there's been a similar selection process based on medication for the Kyle show but I wouldn't be too surprised if there was some weighting given to how people may react.
I'm not too sure I'd blame the Jeremy Kyle show exclusively and ban it though as although show seems to be at the centre of this social media will be in the mix too and perhaps even more to blame and I haven't heard anyone campaigning for Facebook and all the others to be banned. Maybe better regulation, control and selection is the way forward rather than a ban as if we ban where do we stop? How about Love Island (I've never seen it but believe it's been linked with suicides,) how about banning the various dancing competitions as they don't seem to be able to resist having affairs and breaking up relationships, how about banning The Apprentice? What about those shows that confront cowboy builders etc? Surely even a cowboy builder could be pushed to commit suicide if hounded enough? Where do we stop?
I'm generally not in favour of bans. Maybe the various TV companies need a good collective kick up the @rse and maybe they need to be told to be more responsible, professional and more compassionate and to have good support services for those who may need it.
I'm not too sure I'd blame the Jeremy Kyle show exclusively and ban it though as although show seems to be at the centre of this social media will be in the mix too and perhaps even more to blame and I haven't heard anyone campaigning for Facebook and all the others to be banned. Maybe better regulation, control and selection is the way forward rather than a ban as if we ban where do we stop? How about Love Island (I've never seen it but believe it's been linked with suicides,) how about banning the various dancing competitions as they don't seem to be able to resist having affairs and breaking up relationships, how about banning The Apprentice? What about those shows that confront cowboy builders etc? Surely even a cowboy builder could be pushed to commit suicide if hounded enough? Where do we stop?
I'm generally not in favour of bans. Maybe the various TV companies need a good collective kick up the @rse and maybe they need to be told to be more responsible, professional and more compassionate and to have good support services for those who may need it.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 11,773
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
It's a little like setting up a show on the edge of a cliff, then persauding those who weren't bright enough to know better that the whole world will watch in amazement and awe if they'll just run and jump off - and of course many do, resulting in different degrees of personal harm. So yes, they were stupid enough to jump, but it seems to me that those who persauded them to do something they would never have done on their own carry a very considerable responsibility for their harm.
It can be difficult to feel sympathy for the stupid, but those that prey upon them are despicable.
I wonder if this will be enough to turn the tide against the parasitic entertainment of reality TV?
It can be difficult to feel sympathy for the stupid, but those that prey upon them are despicable.
I wonder if this will be enough to turn the tide against the parasitic entertainment of reality TV?
Lie detector tests aren't accurate - which is why they're not used in the British legal system. They're used purely for 'entertainment' on that show.
And I have no words to describe someone who thinks that vulnerable people being manipulated equates to those people 'making their own choice'. That's psychopathic levels of personality disorder.
And I have no words to describe someone who thinks that vulnerable people being manipulated equates to those people 'making their own choice'. That's psychopathic levels of personality disorder.
.... That sounds rather snobbish, perhaps you don't mean it to be.
If you are going to class or categorise people like that then you could equally (or rather, unequally) say that most of the populace may be described as "lowest common demoninator people".
"Good riddance"? < What happened to 'live-and-let-live'? Or should I say 'live-and-let-die'? No-one is forced to appear on these TV programs and no-one is forced to watch them - I didn't watch The JK Show except one program and was then bored, but I enjoyed watching Love Island.
If you are going to class or categorise people like that then you could equally (or rather, unequally) say that most of the populace may be described as "lowest common demoninator people".
"Good riddance"? < What happened to 'live-and-let-live'? Or should I say 'live-and-let-die'? No-one is forced to appear on these TV programs and no-one is forced to watch them - I didn't watch The JK Show except one program and was then bored, but I enjoyed watching Love Island.
"You do realise that there are other views of life that are different from yours?" right? Doesn't mean it's psychopathic levels of personal disorder.
But you can't deny the fact that he wanted to be on the show. I don't see how you can even blame the show for his death? It hadn't even aired yet so there had been no back lash from people.
I've not said at any point the man deserved to die but the blame stands with him and not a show, which by all accounts gave him great aftercare till he stopped accepting it.
But you can't deny the fact that he wanted to be on the show. I don't see how you can even blame the show for his death? It hadn't even aired yet so there had been no back lash from people.
I've not said at any point the man deserved to die but the blame stands with him and not a show, which by all accounts gave him great aftercare till he stopped accepting it.
So do you think someone with suicidal tendencies should be subject to such an ordeal?
I suppose I'm odd because I believe society owes a duty of care to the vulnerable.
Even if you don't subscribe to the view that civilised society is measured on how it treats it's most vulnerable members, it's often simply cheaper to help with peoples problems than to mop up the consequences.
I suppose I'm odd because I believe society owes a duty of care to the vulnerable.
Even if you don't subscribe to the view that civilised society is measured on how it treats it's most vulnerable members, it's often simply cheaper to help with peoples problems than to mop up the consequences.
.... No, I don't believe that someone with suicidal tendencies should be subjected to such an ordeal but the guy wasn't forced to go on the show and the show has always had the potential for confrontation to contribute towards solving issues.
As Keef (Richards?) points out :
I don't think that costs should be a factor - Surely suicides aren't discouraged (are they still illegal?) just to save subsequent messy (literally) mopping up costs.
As Keef (Richards?) points out :
I don't think that costs should be a factor - Surely suicides aren't discouraged (are they still illegal?) just to save subsequent messy (literally) mopping up costs.
.... For once I tend to agree with you Phil. But if only a tiny percentage ever get real help from the experience (or ordeal), then that is surely a good thing.
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him (her/it etc) drink. I guess that some horses will commit suicide by drowning themselves in the water!
Perhaps another subject, but why is suicide considered to be a crime? The word 'commit' suggests criminal or illegal action. If someone wants to exit, why not let them? - It might help reduce the over population problems
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him (her/it etc) drink. I guess that some horses will commit suicide by drowning themselves in the water!
Perhaps another subject, but why is suicide considered to be a crime? The word 'commit' suggests criminal or illegal action. If someone wants to exit, why not let them? - It might help reduce the over population problems
