Games shows - what price your 15 minutes of fame?

There has always been a place for contests between "ordinary people" on TV. Whether you go back to the 1950s and The $64,000 Question (or the British equivalent: Double your money), or you fondly recall The Generation Game from the 70s or you're a fan of Mastermind or The X Factor, everybody watches some sort of competitive programme on TV.

In keeping with the times, they used to be sedate affairs (and series like Countdown still are: which is probably it's main appeal - given it's time-slot and target audience) with due deference to both the contestants and the presenter. The current crop, going back to the advent of mass-appeal phone-ins in the 1990's seems to have metamorphosed into something different, nastier. Something a whole lot more spiteful and base. It's no longer enough to just lose, you have to have the core of your being exposed to inspection and judgement by the audience and for your defeat to bring forth humiliation and emotions - the more the "better".

These days, with so much money at stake: from advertising, rake-offs from the phone-in and franchises to other countries the spiral is to discover what "wins" at bringing in the money and simply to more of it. Do viewers want tears? Easy, select more emotionally unstable contestants. Do they want someone to hate? Simple, put an obnoxious person on the panel of judges. Does the audience want to be shocked? Fine, let's film the contestants 24*7 and see what we can catch them doing. As an added bonus, they might even watch all-day and all-night just in case something salacious happens. It's a sad reflection on our society that these transparent substitutes for our own humdrum and boring lives are so successful at attracting viewers. Viewers who, no doubt, prefer to live vicariously through the people on these shows rather than get off the sofa and do more interesting things, themselves.