The Student Room Group

Jeremy Kyle axed. Should Love Island be next?

The Jeremy Kyle show has been recently axed from its slot on ITV after one guest, 63-year-old Peter Symond committed suicide after his appearance on the show. He is understood to be one of many former guests who have had struggled with mental health problems after an appearance on the controversial tabloid talk-show.

Questions are now being raised across the TV industry as to whether sufficient after-care provisions are being but in place on reality TV programs.

The argument could be made that if The Jeremy Kyle Show should be axed after a guest suicide (a programme with 16 series and 3,320 episodes), then should ITV too axe other reality programs. A stark example being Love Island, a program with 1/4 the number of series, 5% the number of episodes and 2 recent suicides.

This too could also be to some, a class issue. The Jeremy Kyle Show, a show with a primarily working-class demographic is axed for reasons existent in shows like Love Island with a wealthier demographic, which both tackle issues in the lives of their respective audiences.

I would be interested to hear other peoples' opinions on the matter. I myself am unsure. Do you believe that Jeremy Kyle should have been cancelled? Do you believe that other reality TV shows, like Love Island, should also be looked at under a similar lens? Do you think that this shows bias against the viewers of the show and their background?


PS: This is a very sensitive issue, and I would like to pass on severe condolences to all the victims and families of those affected by suicide. I would like to link the Samaritans should anyone else be affected by depression and suicidal thoughts. https://www.samaritans.org/how-we-can-help/contact-samaritan/.

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
Yes
Reply 2
I like both shows, but if Jeremy Kyle is cancelled due to one suicide in fourteen years, then Love Island should be cancelled due to two suicides in four years. It's double standards.
Do you think that if there were better regulated legal provisions surrounding the mental health of participants - with screenings before participation and strict after-care guidelines following appearances that this would be a different debate? Or do you think that possibly the negative publicity that appearances on reality shows bring should act as enough of a deterrent from continuing their screening?
Ye
Personally, i think ITV should focus more on improving the aftershow care and mental health support rather than axing a show. While tragic I don't fully blame Jeremy Kyle for his death, just because he has his name on the show doesnt mean he controls what happens in the show.
Reply 6
yeah, love island has so many issues associated with it- not only affecting the mental health of contestants but also perhaps the mental health of viewers
Original post by zerya
I like both shows, but if Jeremy Kyle is cancelled due to one suicide in fourteen years, then Love Island should be cancelled due to two suicides in four years. It's double standards.



Could the argument be made that the double standard exists because of the guests that appear on the show? (which like you suggest, is unfair) i.e. TV networks are more likely to support shows that feature more conventionally attractive, more middle-class guests that can appeal to their respective audiences?
the majority of reality shows like BB just exploit the people on the show, but if your low enough to apply and bare all on these shows then so be it.Again money talks and these wannabee people are so eager to get on TV in any fashion.JK show is entertainment but he does egg these people on to get a reaction , he instigates rather than helps.again most of these horrid shows start on ITV and ITV2 Im glad that BBC steer well away from these dull heads the Mummy diaries Love island Im a CelebGoggleboxTowieThe BachelorBig BrotherTake me Out
Reply 9
Jeremy Kyle was a long time coming, the show was so toxic and made fun of people living in difficult situations.There is no place for that sort of television in 2019.
Original post by king•axolotl
Do you think that if there were better regulated legal provisions surrounding the mental health of participants - with screenings before participation and strict after-care guidelines following appearances that this would be a different debate? Or do you think that possibly the negative publicity that appearances on reality shows bring should act as enough of a deterrent from continuing their screening?


That sounds like "Dog fighting would be ok as long as an official dogfight vet had a look over the animals before and after the fight"
Original post by SuspiciousDuck
Personally, i think ITV should focus more on improving the aftershow care and mental health support rather than axing a show. While tragic I don't fully blame Jeremy Kyle for his death, just because he has his name on the show doesnt mean he controls what happens in the show.


Could you say that rather than mental health support, that the entire premise of The Jeremy Kyle Show exploits vulnerable people? Of course, I agree that not a single person should be blamed for this, but rather its an institutionalised problem.
i was just gonna vm you this: :jumphug: and ask how ur studies are going :smile:

(im in a loving mood so catch me now :colonhash:)
Totally agree. To an extent, I suppose both shows are reliant on a varying element of exploitation of their guests. On one hand, young social media stars vying for success in the media industry, on the other, people struggling in their personal lives with an apparent sense of hopelessness. Agree?
Reply 14
Original post by king•axolotl
Could the argument be made that the double standard exists because of the guests that appear on the show? (which like you suggest, is unfair) i.e. TV networks are more likely to support shows that feature more conventionally attractive, more middle-class guests that can appeal to their respective audiences?

I don't think it comes down to the guests on each show, I think it's a matter of their controversy. JK is much more controversial and shocking to watch than LI and I think that's where the double standards lie.
RIP Jezza. Disgraced all the UK lol. But it's still kinda sad since it's such a British icon, even a bad one. Same for Big Brother. At least Love Island and them are scripted (I'm positive majority of the events have to be planned and written and the antics and "drama" are performances and people can actually make a damned good living after being on it:facepalm2:) whereas Jeremy Kyle has literally benefited all this time from literal bagheads and tw*ts. I always wonder how they get on after seeing themselves. I was constantly egged on to apply to the show. Thankfully I'm not all gone in my head and said **** NO.
Original post by StriderHort
That sounds like "Dog fighting would be ok as long as an official dogfight vet had a look over the animals before and after the fight"


It's my years of being forced to agree with things I disagree with things at debate club, I swear! Anyway, how do you suppose we decide which shows are exploitative of their guests and which aren't? Surely all shows have an element of detriment to those who appear on them, where do we draw the line?
Good luck with your exams!!!
I’m not sure about after show care on these programmes? How long is it reasonable for ITV to be looking after its former participants?

Moreover with some shows the broadcaster is not the same as the people who produce the programme. Take the GBBO, it’s produced by Love productions but broadcast by channel 4. Who’s responsible there?
I suppose they're on different spectrums. Sex on TV in LI vs the issues on JK. Do you think there are any other shows this could extend to that have a similar level of popularity?
Original post by zerya
I don't think it comes down to the guests on each show, I think it's a matter of their controversy. JK is much more controversial and shocking to watch than LI and I think that's where the double standards lie.