Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE DEATH OF a guest on the Jeremy Kyle Show, which led first to its suspension and then to its axing, raises serious issues regarding the role of the daytime TV talk show as a programme format.
This type of show is difficult to place into a strict classification. But in both the US and the UK a type of entertainment uniquely suited to the demands of television has evolved.
The daytime talk show, at its best, combines some of the principal qualities of other successful dramatic forms – the emotional intimacy of melodrama and elements of comedy, while at the same time being able to offer a compelling immediacy which no work of TV fiction can provide.
The versatility of these shows allows them to straddle the genres within television, from journalism to melodramatic soap opera.
In America, The Oprah Winfrey Show was a forerunner of the intimate audience discussion programme.
Oprah initially opted for opposition rather than pluralism but later limited her format to discrete disclosures and consciousness-raising issues and offered less talk-time to confessionals.
On programmes like Jeremy Kyle, ITV’s long-running daytime show, the audience (in the studio and at home) was encouraged to tell its own stories, to agree or disagree and to confront or support the speaker – generating a cacophony of narratives on and beyond the small screen.
The host
Within the framework of the talk show genre, there exists a certain ambiguity concerning the role of the host.
Is he or she the chairperson of a debate, the referee, a conciliator, a judge, the compère of a game show or a therapist?
At times, the host can play any one of these roles, moving between debate and therapy session.
Over the years, Jeremy Kyle’s offering moved in the direction of the American voyeuristic talk show, The Jerry Springer Show.
Stories are told of mothers taking a stand against abusive fathers or teenagers telling of their battle with eating disorders or substance abuse.
All of these real-life traumas increase audience identification. Some of these programmes can create a type of ‘therapy genre’, that generates a supportive intimacy (but only for the duration of the programme).
Therapeutic insights may have been temporarily gained but many television critics and mental health campaigners have been sceptical of this genre, citing its dangers for participants.
Shows like Jeremy Kyle and Jerry Springer walk a precarious line between sympathy and sensationalism. These shows encourage a type of confession that may amount to exploitation.
In 2008, the Guardian newspaper reported that people with serious mental health issues were being publicly humiliated on the Jeremy Kyle Show. The stepmother of a guest said that she had repeatedly told the researchers of his mental health problems – but they still encouraged him to appear on the show.
This Tuesday, another former guest of Jeremy Kyle told the Guardian, that appearing on the show was the worst thing that had happened in his life and had made it difficult to secure employment.
While he received follow-up calls from production staff after his appearance, they were simultaneously uploading clips online of his appearance, accompanied by captions describing him as the rudest and most hated guest ever.
“It’s like stabbing someone in the back multiple times and then asking if the person is okay,” he said.
In 1996, on the US chat show, The Jenny Jones Show, a guest, Scott Amedure was fatally shot after the show by another guest, Jonathan Schmitz.
Amedure had revealed an attraction to Schmitz, who insisted he was heterosexual. The ensuing court case raised issues of broadcasting ethics and the irresponsibility and negligence of intentionally creating explosive situations without due concern for the possible consequences.
The initial jury award to the Amedure family was $25 million. This was later overturned by the Michigan Court of Appeal, due to its ‘chilling’ effect on the entertainment industry.
Rules in Ireland
Back home in Ireland, the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland implements strict codes and standards to hold all broadcasters to account and this is backed by rigorous oversight. We have strict programme guidelines and those who breach them, including by exploiting vulnerable guests, can expect to pay a large fine.
So it is hoped that we have sufficiently robust procedures here to ensure the welfare of TV guests, especially those that may be vulnerable.
Perhaps the UK regulators should examine those Irish codes and standards as well as our oversight regime.
They could start by ensuring that rigorous ‘ informed consent’ forms, similar to those signed by any vulnerable person who undergoes medical treatment, are in place.
Following the tragic outcome from the Jeremy Kyle Show, it is clear that far more needs to be done in the UK – not only to ensure the integrity of broadcasting but more importantly, the emotional and psychological welfare of all invited guests.
Dr Finola Doyle O’Neill is a Broadcast Historian at the School of History, UCC.
She lectures in Irish Media History and Crime and the Media in Ireland and is the author of The Gaybo Revolution: How Gay Byrne Challenged Irish Society.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Well balanced and non judgemental article.. if only everyone could think and act that way…
What we need is a Whole System that works,
It’s time to drain the sespool of leaders and show them with your VOTES , who are the real bosses , they work for us ,NOT the other way around
@Karllye kripton: the politicians don’t decide what drugs get approved, to do so would drive healthcare to a dystopian system to be decided by public opinion rather than expert medical professionals, so I’m unsure how votes would achieve your desired effect
@Karllye kripton: that’ll make a huge difference .. not .. you cant vote out any of the leaders in THE HSE .. they are employees if the state …
@Vocal Outrage: Unfortunately this isn’t true. Look at Orkambi. Deemed to be not cost effective by the NCPE. Recommended not for reimbursement. Simon Harris decides to fund it. Despite this money coming at the expense of various other cost effective treatments. I wish the general public were fully aware of what a self serving decision this was, and how much it has cost the HSE, for a very marginal benefit, when you look at the overall CF population. But it looks good in the press.
@Peter Wheen: my point exactly, when you make populist medical policy decisions like that, against professional advice, then other parts of the service will suffer. I guess I was referring to how it should be
My mum was seen by many consultants in a private hospital in Dublin for pains that eventually had her bed ridden. After 4 months of various tests and different pain killers she took very ill and rushed to hospital. A simple CT scan not done previuosly by any consultant showed she was riddled with cancer and died the next day. My trust in private hospitals was questioned from that day onwards..
I remember my granfather saying he was on 9 pills a day in his late 70s. Now a day most fit 30 year olds are putting 4 tablets into themselves
Something is definitely wrong if half a million people are on anti depressiants. It’s all a scam
@Tom Padraig: Perhaps rather than blaming the medication, you should consider the circumstances that lead to people requiring antidepressants as opposed to labelling it all a scam.
@Philip Kavanagh: He is not wrong. One example would be the number of teens on Meds to treat their “ADHD” because they once told mummy to fork orf after eating a bag of skittles and downing five cans of red bull.
@Philip Kavanagh: As evidenced by the experience of those involved in the Air Corps chemical scandal, many if not most people on ADs do not need them. However they are the current quick “fix” for clinicians and a very lucrative one for industry.
The overprescription of ADs is a scourge & a scandal. The increase in anxiety & depression is being driven by what we eat, what we drink and what we breath.
ADs are one of the current unsustainable answers to an already unsustainable problem, counselling is the other.
Treating depression & anxiety along with so called suicide prevention is a fooking industry at this point.
@Ronan Sexton: He is wrong. Some people need antidepressants for a specific period, others will be on them for life. Like for most illnesses, medication is only one of the range of treatments. To write it all of as a scam is dangerous and stupid.
@Chemical Brothers: Back up your unsubstantiated claim with actual sources that “many if not most people on ADs do not need them”.
@Philip Kavanagh: The numbers on antidepressants in Ireland is simply staggering. To believe that all these people actually have mental health illnesses is simply beyond belief.
We are mass medicating a massive portion of our population out of ignorance.
I suppose the matter of not wasting billions on whats planned to be a multi tier health system for our kids in the supposed “best new hospital in the world (if you are wealthy and can afford expensive health insurance)”, would allow us buy a couple of billions more worth of drugs.
Can I ask if Dr. O’Connor believes, like a recently published Cork based gastroenterologist, that IBS is a psychosomatic illness?
“More than 50 per cent of my outpatients have symptoms caused by psychosomatic conditions, such as irritable bowel syndrome, which cannot be elucidated or cured by the molecular biologists”
@Chemical Brothers: wow, a little off topic, no?
@James Brady: Not really IBS and the like is overwhelming Gastroenterology Depts in all our hospitals. If all Gastroenterologists think IBS is psychosomatic then the problem is not being dealt with properly and is a further drain on the same pot of resources.
It stands to reason that if spending on expensive drugs means less money for other hospital spending then if something else is using up funds like for huge numbers of unnecessary “arse covering” endoscopy that then further eats into the same pool of money.
@Chemical Brothers: It’s not unnecessary. It is necessary to investigate or you can’t say with confidence that pt has IBS as opposed to something more serious. IBS is a diagnosis of exclusion. If gastroenterologist is arranging endoscopy to investigate, they are likely looking to rule out conditions with overlapping presentations such as coeliac, crohns, ulcerative colitis. When all investigations are negative and the symptoms are still of concern, it is not unreasonable to attempt treatments which have evidence of working in these cohorts of patients such as specific diets etc.
@Stephen Chaney: Thanks for reply. Considering the large percentage of those diagnosed with IBS in outpatient clinics would an approach of trying diet first rather than an expensive, invasive, unpleasant endoscopy procedure with attendant risk be a better course of action?
Is the endoscopy first approach being driven more by fear of missing a cancer and being sued for same rather than what may be a simpler approach?
Genuinely just asking, have had cameras both ends with nothing sinister found but have subsequently had success with dietary measures but not necessarily measures that consultants are familiar with.
This is one of the best articles offering a comprehensive and fair analysis on our Health System, I can’t fault it. This should be framed.
Agree with Dr O’Connor – balanced views sustained by experience. Have been treated well in both systems, though public AnE requires patience.
In the UK there are set targets for delivery – something like Cancer surgery within 4 weeks maximum. If we set our public hospitals targets and then offered the patient free private care if not met that would focus minds on efficiencies.
@Pat Redmond: or just pay hospitals (and drs etc) per procedure. The countries with the shortest waiting lists are those with systems based on insurance where hospitals are paid like that.
he makes some valid points, but the chances of Ireland producing a high quality low cost health service are slim. We don’t do low cost for things like that in this country.
Great article and much that needs to be said- just would like to suggest another option- we need to recognise that the price tag on patented medicines bears no relationship to the cost of bringing the drug to market- but is the price unilaterally set by Pharma and is based on the maximum profit it can bring to its shareholders- which for life saving or life enhancing drugs is very high indeed. We need to bring some balance of power to the negotiating table to prevent monopoly abuse- ultimately by replacing the monopoly with an alternative incentive such as grants for R&D.
Off topic.
have your say