The Jade Goody-Shilpa Shetty race incident, the Australian Big Brother contestant who was not told her father had passed away and now the Dutch donor show in which a terminally ill woman will select a ‘contestant’ to receive one of her kidneys with the support of viewers. All sound quite unreal and unethical to me yet such incidents are now at the forefront of so called reality television.

If the content of these shows is inappropriate, abhorrent and wrong then why are they allowed to continue and perhaps more significantly why do we keep watching them in our millions (me included)?

If we take the former first of all the obvious argument that always crops up when debate emerges over the worth and appropriateness of these ‘reality’ shows is that banning such programmes would compromise the right of the producing company to the freedom of speech.

I think this is a term used all too often without much thought. Bob Dylan once stated, “I think of a hero as someone who understands the degree of responsibility that comes with his freedom” and I think what he was saying was that ultimate freedom brings freewill and it is the ability of those with self-control, respect and understanding who are the true upholders of freedom and not those who have defied this definition.

In light of this view it seems that the production companies are not promoting freedom of speech but in actual fact degrading and abusing its real meaning.

So why do these reality shows continue to attract masses of viewers? Perhaps it is ‘easy’ viewing where very few brain cells are required or maybe we take some sort of delight in watching people embroiled in conflict, making fools of themselves and generally engaging in mindless conversation about who used the last bit of sugar or toilet roll.

Whatever the reason it is imperative that these powerful production companies ensure that any form of injustice is not tolerated thus sending a message to the viewing audience at large that any inappropriate or unfair incidents should always be challenged.