The Jeremy Kyle Show

The guests were, according to the New Statesman, "poor, mainly white, always working-class families" who were concerned about the personal problems of someone they knew.[14][15] In the opinion of Anoosh Chakelian in the same publication, it curated "a morbidly chaotic picture of a British underclass – for those watching at home to scoff and sneer at – with the veneer of helping them".[16] In a 2007 article for The Independent, the journalist Paul Vallely referred to Kyle treating his guests "with a false mateyness, calling them 'babe', 'sweet' or 'Davey boy'".[17] A former producer has alleged that the show's guests had mental health problems; the producer commented anonymously that the guests were normally "at the very least depressed" and that "if they truly screened for mental health issues, there would be no one on that show".[8]

Episodes featured guests discussing personal problems, with Kyle mediating between involved parties. Common problems shown in episodes included uncertainty over the biological father of a baby, a family member committing petty theft, infidelity, and addiction to drugs.[18] The producers have stated that backstage and after-show support and counselling was offered, guided by Graham Stanier, Kyle's in-show psychotherapist and director of aftercare.[7] With other guests, polygraphs and DNA tests were frequently used to determine whether an individual had been lying, or to reveal whether two people were biological relatives.[19] The DNA tests used on the show were performed by Alpha Biolabs, based in Warrington.[20]

Frequently, when friends or relatives of the show's guests entered the stage having heard backstage what had been said, strong language and fights would break out, although the latter was not shown, with the camera giving a view of the audience and Kyle until his security team had restored order. This led to the show being compared, by a former producer, with Roman gladiatorial combat in its brutality.[9]

As the talk show's host, Kyle was known to react with hostility and anger towards those who he saw as having acted improperly. Paul Vallely related an intervention by Kyle in 2007: "'I don't mean to be judgemental,' he adjudges. 'I'm just trying to help you in the little time I've got, but you too are both as bad as each other.' Minutes later he turns to one of them. 'Do something about your anger issues,' he says, evidently not realising he too is shouting".[17] Accused of having a patronising attitude towards many of his guests, Kyle has been accused of exploitation. He has expressed a belief he was acting in the best interests of the guests and is intent on helping to solve their personal problems. After the show had been running for nearly four years, Kyle said over 300 people had entered rehabilitation funded by the programme.[21] Critics, however, have said that Kyle's reactions and comments are repetitive and well-worn, such as "Put something on the end of it!" in the context of birth control, or his annoyance at unemployed fathers.[8][18]

The validity of the help provided to guests has been called into dispute; professional psychotherapist and TV agony uncle Phillip Hodson, who was offered the chance to work on the show, said that he believed the audience ratings were more important to the show's producers than solving the guests' problems.[7] A former producer for the show said in October 2007 that the production team encouraged guests to react angrily to one another.[9]

In the show a polygraph (referred to as a "lie detector") is applied to cases of theft and infidelity and the method is claimed to indicate whether someone is being deceptive.[22] However, the validity of polygraph tests have been questioned by researchers[23][24] to the point that they are rarely cited as a source of legal evidence in countries such as the United States, and its use on the show has been criticised, in spite of the show asserting the results to be infallible. At one point to prove the legitimacy of the "lie detector" test Jeremy Kyle performed a live on stage test with the question, "Are you, or have you ever been a llama?" to which he replied yes, which was identified as a lie. Carole Cadwalladr wrote in The Observer in 2008: "Kyle regularly claims the lie detector is 96 per cent accurate, whereas a 1997 survey of 421 psychologists estimated it to be 61 per cent. Or not much better than chance."[8] An on-screen disclaimer is now shown before polygraph results are read out on the programme, stating, "The lie detector is designed to indicate whether someone is being deceptive. Practitioners claim its results have a high level of accuracy, although this is disputed."[25]

By May 2019, the programme had directly led to two court cases related to assault and leading to convictions.[16]

On 24 September 2007, a Manchester District Judge, Alan Berg, sentenced a man who headbutted his love rival while appearing on the show. Judge Berg was reported in the Manchester Evening News as saying: "I have had the misfortune, very recently, of watching The Jeremy Kyle Show. It seems to me that the purpose of this show is to effect a morbid and depressing display of dysfunctional people whose lives are in turmoil", and that it was "a plain disgrace which goes under the guise of entertainment". He described it as "human bear-baiting" and added that "it should not surprise anyone that these people, some of whom have limited intellects, become aggressive with each other. This type of incident is exactly what the producers want. These self-righteous individuals should be in the dock with you. They pretend there is some kind of virtue in putting out a show like this."[26]

An ITV spokeswoman responded in defence that "we take the safety and well-being of studio guests extremely seriously. It is made clear to all guests prior to going into the studio that no violence is ever tolerated."[27] In an interview with the Daily Mirror, Kyle responded by saying: "Sometimes people need to be stripped bare before they can be helped."[28]

An appearance on Kyle's programme by a couple on the issue of alleged infidelity led to a man's assault of his female partner and criminal charges being made against him.[29] The woman sustained a "shattered eye socket and cheekbone and bite marks".[30] At Peterborough Crown Court in July 2009, Judge Sean Enright jailed the man for two years after he admitted causing grievous bodily harm. The judge said "there is plainly an element of cruelty and exploitation in what takes place" on Kyle's programme, and that the couple "must have both suffered considerable mortification and embarrassment".[31] Grant Cunningham, the head of ITV's factual programming, expressed surprise at the judge's comments, as the judge had not seen the programme, and refuted his claims.[29][31]

There have been success stories as a result of guests being on the show, such as the case of a morbidly obese young woman who lost a lot of weight after her appearance on the show.[32] Stanier told The Observer that he was "immensely proud" of the help provided to the show's guests, with "full shows of people coming back on the programme who have been successful in overcoming drug, alcohol or relationship problems, through the care that we have provided".[7]

Carole Cadwalladr of The Observer attended the filming of a special for the DVD Jeremy Kyle... Live! In Your Street. Jamie, a guest for the special, told Cadwalladr that he "was totally stitched up", calling his appearance "public humiliation". Jamie says that he "just wanted the DNA test" but "didn't have the money to get it done", and claims that the researchers "didn't care about the feelings of the people". He stated that when he informed the producers of his bipolar disorder and borderline schizophrenia, "There wasn't really a reaction". His stepmother Karen commented that the show was "so, so very wrong" and "almost like ritual abuse". A spokesperson for ITV stated that a psychotherapist found "no evidence of mental illness" in Jamie, and claimed that "guests had to produce identification and were processed through security checks prior to admission"; however, Cadwalladr was present for the filming and disputes this.[8]

Cadwalladr interviewed another person who appeared on the show, Kevin Lincoln. Although Lincoln rang up the show and wanted to take part, he signed the consent form only minutes before filming. Lincoln believes he was there "under false pretences" and says the show was "completely the opposite of what I was told it would be". He expected to discuss "his ex-girlfriend of trying to force him out of the wrestling gym where they both trained", but the segment was captioned "Ex, get out of my life!" and featured his ex-girlfriend "basically [accusing him] of being a stalker". Lincoln spent the two months between filming and broadcasting trying to prevent the episode from airing to no avail; once it aired, Lincoln reports that "I was forced out of my gym and all of my wrestling gigs were cancelled".[8]

It has also been alleged that the producers "plied an alcoholic guest with beer before he appeared on the programme".[33] ITV has denied these charges, claiming that "two of the guests were given alcohol to counteract withdrawal symptoms while the third had not mentioned a drink problem", that "guests are not deliberately agitated before appearing", and that the show provided to its guests "proper, professional help, funded by the programme, which has really and undeniably helped hundreds of people".[7][9]

In 2015, the show received both criticism and interest following a segment where the show's audience laughed at a male domestic abuse victim by the name of Geoff. In his segment, Geoff recounted how he had been locked in a flat three storeys up by his abusive girlfriend and had to escape by jumping from a balcony, sustaining significant injuries in the fall. The audience, containing significant amounts of both men and women, proceeded to engage in uproarious laughter towards Geoff for several seconds until Kyle gained control of the situation, heavily criticising the audience over their engagement in the associated double standard of not criticising female abusers.[34]

It has also been alleged by a former guest on the show that due to Ofcom rules, they were forced to change out of a jumper with a branded logo into a tracksuit, before being vilified by Kyle for their clothing choice.[35] It has been alleged, by Zoe Williams of The Guardian and others, that guests were separated prior to the show and assigned separate researchers who would "wind up" guests in order to bring about a reaction when they appeared together during the programme's recording.[7][36]

The show received extremely negative reviews. In The Observer, Carole Cadwalladr was of the opinion that "the show is built around creating a spectacle out of the damaged fragments of people's lives" and summarised it as an "explosive spectacle of anger, vitriol and confrontation". Of Kyle, Cadwalladr said that "Some of his opinions are so well-worn they're almost catchphrases" and wrote in 2008 that the show was "more like a witchcraft trial. Where the judge and jury is Jeremy Kyle". Cadwalladr further criticised the "lie detector" as "the modern equivalent of the ducking stool, or at least about as scientifically accurate".[8]

In Vice, Joel Golby opined that instead of being about the guests, the show was "about Jeremy, purring and padding around the studio", whom Golby called a "shark in the prime of its life". Writing that the show was "built on repetition", Golby called it "exemplar of the British fighting style" and commented that "in less artful hands, the misery would become a miasma. With Kyle at the helm, it becomes something else – characterful, textured misery".[18]

In The Times, columnist Martin Samuel described the show as "a tragic, self-serving procession of freaks, misfits, sad sacks and hopelessly damaged human beings" and its guests as "a collection of angry, tearful and broken people, whose inexperience of talking through painful, contentious, volatile issues leaves them unprepared and inadequate for a confrontation of this nature" whilst noting that they "can only appear intellectually inferior to the host, too, with his sharp suit and well-rehearsed confidence".[37]

Reviewing for The Guardian, Charlie Brooker wrote that the show was "completely and utterly horrid". Brooker described Kyle as "unafraid to hurl abuse at his hapless idiot guests" and commented "not that I'm saying Kyle himself is an agent of Satan, you understand. I'm just saying you could easily cast him as one. Especially if you wanted to save money on special effects".[38] In an episode of Charlie Brooker's Screenwipe, Brooker later described the show as "a non-stop bellowing festival, in which a cast of people who resemble a sort of aquatic livestock chart the outer limits of incomprehension."[39]

Derek Draper, writing in The Guardian, said that Kyle "effectively projects himself as a strong father figure, setting boundaries and trying to teach responsibility and restraint" to those on his show.[40] Johann Hari of The Independent called the show's morality "unconsciously but wonderfully progressive", as it attacked "Men who treat women badly. Homophobes. Misogynists. Neglectful parents." However, Hari believed that "[t]here are good reasons to be worried". Hari summarised the show by saying that "distressed people [...] have their wounds ripped open for our enjoyment", suggested that all guests should receive ongoing counselling, and commented of how the working class were treated on the show: "[t]here are also ugly prejudices encoded in the sneers".[41]