LO
Just received this government press release
Quote:
Ufi, which operates learndirect, has today announced that it is ending its sponsorship deal with ITV's 'The Jeremy Kyle Show'. The Central Office of Information (COI) managed the contract.
The Board of Ufi has taken the decision that continued sponsorship of the show would not protect and enhance the strength and reputation of learndirect, one of the country's most well-known names in adult learning
A spokesperson for COI said:
"The criticism of the show - sparked by Judge Alan Berg's remarks earlier this week - means that both Ufi and COI consider it no longer appropriate for learndirect to be associated with the programme."
OMD Fuse, on behalf of COI, selected the programme because a high percentage of Ufi's target audience - people without level 2 qualifications (equivalent to five A*-C grades at GCSE) - watch the show. It has proved a cost effective and successful medium to reach this group and raise awareness of the learndirect helpline telephone number.
Of the quarter of a million people a year that enrol on a learndirect course, more than half mention that advertising or sponsorship led them to make that decision.
The Board of Ufi has taken the decision that continued sponsorship of the show would not protect and enhance the strength and reputation of learndirect, one of the country's most well-known names in adult learning
A spokesperson for COI said:
"The criticism of the show - sparked by Judge Alan Berg's remarks earlier this week - means that both Ufi and COI consider it no longer appropriate for learndirect to be associated with the programme."
OMD Fuse, on behalf of COI, selected the programme because a high percentage of Ufi's target audience - people without level 2 qualifications (equivalent to five A*-C grades at GCSE) - watch the show. It has proved a cost effective and successful medium to reach this group and raise awareness of the learndirect helpline telephone number.
Of the quarter of a million people a year that enrol on a learndirect course, more than half mention that advertising or sponsorship led them to make that decision.
MA
lol, are they really stupid enough to have not copped on to the show's format before now? Blatant hyprocrasy going on there.
NE
It's bizarre when you think about it.
Either the show was never acceptable in format, content and target audience, and this company should never have been sponsoring it.
Or the show is reasonable and the sponsorship was adroitly targeted at a particular section of the audience. In which case, the judge's remarks should be taken as just that - remarks of an (albeit 'powerful') ordinary man.
I despise this sort of keen-jerk reaction to things done purely because it's in the public eye rather than judging it on its own merits.
Either the show was never acceptable in format, content and target audience, and this company should never have been sponsoring it.
Or the show is reasonable and the sponsorship was adroitly targeted at a particular section of the audience. In which case, the judge's remarks should be taken as just that - remarks of an (albeit 'powerful') ordinary man.
I despise this sort of keen-jerk reaction to things done purely because it's in the public eye rather than judging it on its own merits.
CW
cwathen
Founding member
I (and I'm sure many/most people on this board) have undergone personal problems. Mine (along possible with most people on this board) were not in eigth as serious as some of the issues raised on JK - but how many people on here have ever seriously felt the need to have their personal conflict, heartache, and concerns aired for all to see on national daytime TV?
Surely anyone appearing on such a show must accept that they are participating in trash TV which people watch specifically for a laugh and in the hope that some confrontation will break out - just like I enjoy watching chav fights outside of bars.
If you've got personal isues with yourself, your partner, or your family, have it out with those people in private, if you can't resolve the problem without outside intervention then go and see a counsellor, but don't volunteer for your plight to be aired on a tacky chat show and then claim that you only wanted some help.
When it's produced as entertainment, constantly seeking a more preposterous position for it's interviewees to be in, and it's been around long enough for people to know that, the people participating in it deserve anything and everything which happens to them on that show.
Surely anyone appearing on such a show must accept that they are participating in trash TV which people watch specifically for a laugh and in the hope that some confrontation will break out - just like I enjoy watching chav fights outside of bars.
If you've got personal isues with yourself, your partner, or your family, have it out with those people in private, if you can't resolve the problem without outside intervention then go and see a counsellor, but don't volunteer for your plight to be aired on a tacky chat show and then claim that you only wanted some help.
When it's produced as entertainment, constantly seeking a more preposterous position for it's interviewees to be in, and it's been around long enough for people to know that, the people participating in it deserve anything and everything which happens to them on that show.
PC
And the day that does happen, I don't think I'll be feeling very sorry for him. I just can't bring myself to like the man.
He makes some good points, no doubt about it - but he also comes across as inconsiderate and loud at times, being more concerned about getting his own views aired than actually trying to help the guests - in the process reacting to a person's attempt to reply with a shout of "I'M TALKING!" or something similar, to cut them off so he can continue his tirade.
If the show's main purpose is to help people, I think the host should be staying back, listening to what the guests have to say and then responding without any unnecessary shouting and curbing the desire to butt in - which Jeremy inevitably fails at.
It seems he can be quite patronising too - I saw one edition where the first guest - a young female - came onto the show, and within seconds he had referred to her as "sweetheart". Furthermore, this was said without him even hearing the other side of the story from the person who was yet to come out. This use of such a term and clear bias should especially not be allowed from the host of such a show.
I've noticed on more than one occasion if a guest is avoiding eye contact with JK, he will - and when very close to them - say "Look at me!" in an ever louder voice each time they refuse to do so. I'm sure if that continues, one day when he does that or something similar, if at close range then the person could easily lash out, spur-of-the moment and do him some damage, however slight. That's one good reason to not get up close and personal...
tvarksouthwest posted:
But security weren't able to stop these two guests nutting each other, were they? And if that could happen between two love rivals in such close proximity it must only be a matter of time before the same thing happens to JK when he gets too close to a guest he is laying into. Don't say we didn't warn you, Jezza.
And the day that does happen, I don't think I'll be feeling very sorry for him. I just can't bring myself to like the man.
He makes some good points, no doubt about it - but he also comes across as inconsiderate and loud at times, being more concerned about getting his own views aired than actually trying to help the guests - in the process reacting to a person's attempt to reply with a shout of "I'M TALKING!" or something similar, to cut them off so he can continue his tirade.
If the show's main purpose is to help people, I think the host should be staying back, listening to what the guests have to say and then responding without any unnecessary shouting and curbing the desire to butt in - which Jeremy inevitably fails at.
It seems he can be quite patronising too - I saw one edition where the first guest - a young female - came onto the show, and within seconds he had referred to her as "sweetheart". Furthermore, this was said without him even hearing the other side of the story from the person who was yet to come out. This use of such a term and clear bias should especially not be allowed from the host of such a show.
I've noticed on more than one occasion if a guest is avoiding eye contact with JK, he will - and when very close to them - say "Look at me!" in an ever louder voice each time they refuse to do so. I'm sure if that continues, one day when he does that or something similar, if at close range then the person could easily lash out, spur-of-the moment and do him some damage, however slight. That's one good reason to not get up close and personal...
TV
The withdrawal of sponsorship is hardly surprising. It's as if the Celebrity Big Brother debacle has caused sponsors to be more wary of what they put their names to and, just as whatever firm it was pulled out of its association with CBB, LearnDirect have now broken free of The Jeremy Kyle Show.
Back to JK, Graham the psychologist seems a decent enough guy (for what little we see of him); perhaps he should be presenting if ITV is serious about wanting to help people?
Back to JK, Graham the psychologist seems a decent enough guy (for what little we see of him); perhaps he should be presenting if ITV is serious about wanting to help people?