The Jeremy Kyle Show: Guest death sees tables turn

The basic question prompted by Steve Dymond's death is whether the very genre of which Jeremy Kyle is the personification has any place on our screens.

Nobody doubts it is a commercial success. In a highly competitive market, the show has delivered solid ratings for years; and the fact that it has been on air for 14 years is testament to ITV's support for it.

But is it right to allow private trauma to become public spectacle? And is the ultimate result nothing less than the exploitation - for commercial gain at ITV, and for voyeuristic viewers - of highly vulnerable people?

Here, some important caveats are vital.

Guests on the show have provided their consent. They are familiar with the programme, and generally know what they're getting into. And there is care provided for them by the production team.

But ultimately, is the show really there to help people - or to entertain an audience, both in the studio and at home?

Today I interviewed Professor Sir Simon Wessely, Professor of Psychiatry Kings College London.

He thinks any claim that the show is about helping people is little short of contemptible, and describes it as a "theatre of cruelty" in which people on the edge are exploited.

What to do with the show is a question for ITV rather than Ofcom who, being a post-transmission regulator, don't want to be accused of censorship.

There is a massive disconnect here, between those who don't like what Jeremy Kyle does, and want him off the airwaves, and millions who tune in. Those who want it off air generally don't watch it.

If you're interested in issues such as these, you can follow me on Twitter or Facebook; and subscribe to The Media Show podcast from Radio 4.