Jeremy Kyle Show cancelled (forever)

Grangousier

Former researcher on the Trisha show (an earlier iteration on the same thing) writes about her experience.

The researchers were given a contributor each, to befriend and then “talk up”. Talking up was the code name for winding up. This entailed spending hours with them chatting, handing out free fags and appearing to be completely taking their side. At some point, we would start dropping in personal observations... “I probably shouldn’t say this, but I think X is making a fool of you! If I were you, I’d tell them *insert top line*.”
“Top line” was jargon for whatever we hoped they would say first: usually the most confrontational sentence we could imagine.

scrumhalf

Yes, it does some good with its rehab programs but by and large it's a modern version of visiting the asylum to laugh at the inmates.

It does, however, occupy what is known as the "nuts and sluts" timeslot. It's not going to be replaced by anything significantly better. 

Veganic

Grangousier said:

Former researcher on the Trisha show (an earlier iteration on the same thing) writes about her experience.

The researchers were given a contributor each, to befriend and then “talk up”. Talking up was the code name for winding up. This entailed spending hours with them chatting, handing out free fags and appearing to be completely taking their side. At some point, we would start dropping in personal observations... “I probably shouldn’t say this, but I think X is making a fool of you! If I were you, I’d tell them *insert top line*.”
“Top line” was jargon for whatever we hoped they would say first: usually the most confrontational sentence we could imagine.

So just like real life then.

digitalscream

Philly_Q said:

There's quite a lot of hypocrisy and holier-than-thou-ness (if that's a thing) about this.

Of course the programme is rubbish, but the people who appear (I've heard them referred to as "contestants" this week, bizarrely) are there of their own free will.  Nobody forces them to take those lie detector tests or DNA tests.  

No, they're not forced to - but they're definitely manipulated into it by folk who've made a science out of it. The participants are selected based on their lack of resistance to that manipulation, essentially for their lack of critical thought and intelligence, and for how easy it is to wind them up.

What is that, if it's not "taking advantage of the vulnerable"?

Philly_Q said:

Few - if any - are genuinely upset by the test results, they just get angry and say the results must be wrong.

C'mon, examine that sentence a bit more closely. Are you trying to say that just because they shout rather than breaking down in tears, they're not upset? Anybody who's taken GCSE Psychology could probably debunk that one for you.

Philly_Q said:

The former guests and audience members who've appeared the last couple of days saying how distressing and awful it was... why were they there?  As dispassionate scientific observers?  Or were they laughing and shouting like everyone else?

That's pretty simple to explain. Yes, they've probably seen the show before, but were unprepared for how bad it actually was. And that's something that often happens on reflection after the fact - it's disturbingly easy for anyone to be dragged along by the mob or authority figures (the production team) and do things you would ordinarily recoil from; you may have heard of an experiment or two which proved that beyond doubt.

And, lest we forget, the audience members are usually picked from a similar pool of folk as the participants - if not deliberately, then by self-selection.

Philly_Q said:

Would they be so concerned if it was hosted by Germaine Greer, with a panel of Guardian readers discussing their relationship traumas?

Highly unlikely, given that such a show would be entirely different in tone and approach, wouldn't it?

Philtre

Turn off the Telly and get back to your Tele!

(No Telly for 5 years. Nice.)

Dungus

Vile, depraved television for guffawing bell-ends. Goodbye. Next up: Love Island... c'maaann! Cancel that shit!

Blueingreen

I've only ever glimpsed tiny bits of this show but I'm glad it's been cancelled.  My main reaction to it was a deep contempt for Kyle himself.  The participants and a lot of the audience had the excuse that they didn't fully grasp what was going on, and the terrible damage it could cause.  Kyle is obviously a clever man and knew exactly what he was doing.

HAL9000

munckee said:

 How so many people went on the show confident they would bluff their way through a lie detector is astounding.

My understanding is that lie detector tests are pretty unreliable even at the best of times. Yet, you can be proved guilty (whether you are or not) in front of a national TV audience. Good riddance.

Edit - Oops, just seen @WiresDreamDisasters beat me to it.

Philly_Q

digitalscream said: 

Philly_Q said:

Would they be so concerned if it was hosted by Germaine Greer, with a panel of Guardian readers discussing their relationship traumas?

Highly unlikely, given that such a show would be entirely different in tone and approach, wouldn't it?

The point I was trying to make there - and I find it hard to put into words - is that the participants are being sort of doubly-patronised.  By the programme makers, who take advantage of their vulnerability, lack of critical thought and intelligence etc (and there you go, I'm uncomfortable labelling them as unintelligent).  And by the programme's critics, who say they need to be looked after, protected from exploitation - so in a way they're looking down on them too.

I suspect many of them would say look, I'm perfectly happy to be here, and fuck off, I don't need anybody protecting me.  They might be wrong, but I think it's what they'd say.

On your other points, I don't really disagree with you, except to say that not everyone is affected in the same way.  Some participants and audience members may be repulsed by the experience and regret ever going.  Some, unfortunately, may be genuinely damaged by it.  But I repeat, many people go on there multiple times and seem to enjoy it, even when they fail the lie detector tests and drug tests they cheerfully go back and do it all again.  They may not realise they're being exploited, but some certainly do and they're still happy to play the game.  Is it really anybody else's business to say they "shouldn't"?

(All academic now, since the show has been cancelled.)

Dungus

Lie detectors don't work and never have, apparently. They can be used to detect some things and to put people in uncomfortable situations (forcing them to tell the truth), but they're only used on TV for the spicy drama.

digitalscream

Philly_Q said:

But I repeat, many people go on there multiple times and seem to enjoy it, even when they fail the lie detector tests and drug tests they cheerfully go back and do it all again.  They may not realise they're being exploited, but some certainly do and they're still happy to play the game.  Is it really anybody else's business to say they "shouldn't"?

Therein lies the problem - they go back time and time again, thinking they can "win" this time when it's overwhelmingly likely that they're not only causing damage to their own lives, but also everyone in their lives. The fallout from the kind of crap that goes on in that show shouldn't be underestimated - and that heavily affects a lot of people who didn't consent to go on the show. The kids, for example. That's really my main objection to the show (and it was my first reaction when I first saw it). You don't have to be a shrink or a genius to realise that the blast radius is going to be massively larger than just the people who go on the show.

So yeah...it should be up to society to say "No, we can't tolerate this any longer" out of compassion for the innocent casualties. Of course, with the way today's world works, it only happened after somebody died.

Philly_Q said:

(All academic now, since the show has been cancelled.)

That doesn't mean we can't have a good old argument about it

VimFuego

my own take on this is that it's the sort of thing that people shouldn't watching, viewing this sort of cheap voyeurism isn't healthy, at least IMO. We shouldn't be appealing to our baser instincts. Whether the participants are there of their own free will is irrelevant to me, it's the effect this has on the viewer.

SouthpawMark

Government have just launched an inquiry. 

57Deluxe

so then, expect to be seeing Jeremy Kyle The Musical anytime soon...

PhilW1

In his new job Kyles just been told people don't need a lie detector when being asked if they 'want fries with that'!

FarleyUK

What amazed me is that people were WILLING to go on it. If your partner says "We're going on the Jeremy Kyle show", why the actual fuck would you go along?

Not exactly going to be positive news, is it?

digitalscream

FarleyUK said:

What amazed me is that people were WILLING to go on it. If your partner says "We're going on the Jeremy Kyle show", why the actual fuck would you go along?

Not exactly going to be positive news, is it?

It's because, for the majority of the people who go on there, I suspect the desire to show themselves to be right to the rest of the population of JK fans is stronger than their desire to show empathy with their family members, and dealing with it like adults is completely beyond them.

Norwegian_Blue

Does this mean we'll also be seeing the back of Love Island soon? It's 1 up on JK as far as I know. 

Emp_Fab

Kyle and his show were a shit-stain on society.  Kyle himself is a complete and utter turd of a man, a cowardly weasel who gets in the face of anyone to spit his vile and hypocritical judgements in the name of “entertainment”, but only if he’s surrounded by muscle-bound minders.

I guarantee he’d piss his pants if anyone confronted him alone in an alley.  ....but of course he wouldn’t be that careless to expose himself to such risks.  I’d love to see the security he’s bound to have installed at his home.

There aren’t many people I would happily smack in the face with a large frying pan without warning, but he is top of my list.  I absolutely despise him and would laugh if someone kicked the shit out of him.  God knows he deserves it.

He’s not fit to clean the shoes of the people he has on his show.  Utterly spineless.  A pompous, stuck-up, snot-nosed, English, giant, twerp, scumbag, fuck-face, dickhead, asshole!

Come the revolution, he’d be first against the wall, no fag, no last words, a gag so you didn’t have to listen to the wankstain talk.

 I’m overjoyed his shitfest show has been canned.  All we need to do now is find the pricks that watched it enough to give it the obscene ratings it got, and execute the lot of them.

WiresDreamDisasters

Emp_Fab said:

Kyle and his show were a shit-stain on society.  Kyle himself is a complete and utter turd of a man, a cowardly weasel who gets in the face of anyone to spit his vile and hypocritical judgements in the name of “entertainment”, but only if he’s surrounded by muscle-bound minders.

I guarantee he’d piss his pants if anyone confronted him alone in an alley.  ....but of course he wouldn’t be that careless to expose himself to such risks.  I’d love to see the security he’s bound to have installed at his home.

There aren’t many people I would happily smack in the face with a large frying pan without warning, but he is top of my list.  I absolutely despise him and would laugh if someone kicked the shit out of him.  God knows he deserves it.

He’s not fit to clean the shoes of the people he has on his show.  Utterly spineless.  A pompous, stuck-up, snot-nosed, English, giant, twerp, scumbag, fuck-face, dickhead, asshole!

Come the revolution, he’d be first against the wall, no fag, no last words, a gag so you didn’t have to listen to the wankstain talk.

 I’m overjoyed his shitfest show has been canned.  All we need to do now is find the pricks that watched it enough to give it the obscene ratings it got, and execute the lot of them.

LOL. Why did you specifically point out he's English?