The current explosion of new programmes which degrade and humiliate the studio contestants makes me wonder: Should we be encouraging viewers to take pleasure in others' discomfort or fear? Personally, I believe these programs are unhealthy, and ought to be unacceptable in any modern society. The growth and spread of what I call Degratainment television (entertainment based on degrading people) threatens to unravel the many years of progress the industry has made in entertaining, informing and educating viewers.

To combine entertainment with information and education to create 'edutainment' and 'infotainment' is good, but to add degradation to entertainment to create 'degratainment' is bad television. I am opposed to anything that robs people of their dignity, whether or not it is for financial reward, and regardless of how popular the programs turn out to be. Incredibly, these degrading TV concepts have begun to appear in my part of the world, Asia. The global programming industry has the power to stop creating this rubbish, but instead, it turns its creative energy to providing ever more humiliating scenarios.
Degratainment television attacks people's dignity and encourages the audience to enjoy others' pain and discomfort. I think you know the type of programs I am talking about. Here are a few examples:

- The Jerry Springer Show, which offers Degratainment by producing guests such as two lesbian sisters or cheating couples and encourages its studio audience to jeer at them using foul language.

- The Chamber and The Chair, where contestants are strapped in a chair and variously hosed with ice water, subjected to high temperatures, or have snakes held in front of them while they try to answer questions. This is just a small sample of the humiliations the contestants are subject to.
-o Fear Factor, where contestants try to win money by enduring humiliating ordeals such as lying in pits filled with rats or snakes, or eating strange food such as pig's uterus or buffalo testicles. (see http://nbc.com/Fear_Factor/)
Recently, I was visiting Thailand, an Asian nation known for the politeness of its people and their dislike for confrontation. Thailand has its own version of the BBC degratainment show, ``The Weakest Link,'' where contestants are progressively voted off the show and typically insulted by the host. This show makes a spectacle of negative emotions including aggression, rudeness and a desire to humiliate another person.
In an episode of the Thai show aired there, a woman school teacher burst into tears as she was voted off, and begged her students not to think she was stupid.
This humiliating spectacle upset a lot of Thai viewers, including the Prime Minister who openly criticised the show.
Thailand is not alone in adopting degratainment-format shows. Asian broadcasters in China and Singapore have also shown interest in offering this programming to their viewers.
Who is to blame for this invasion of degratainment into Asia? I would say it is the local Asian broadcasters whose drive for higher ratings has made them forget their social responsibilities.
Foreign program creators and distributors have to share some responsibility. What is happening today is remarkably similar to the opium trade in the early 1800s which led ultimately to the Opium War.
But today there is an important difference. In the 1800s, the West (English) exported opium to the East (Chinese), well aware of the damage it caused, but without promoting and consuming it extensively at home. Today, Western countries are exporting their degratainment, but this time their own people are the main consumers!

To be fair, I believe one of today's degratainment programs from the West (Fear Factor) was inspired by a similar degrading programme seen in the East produced and aired by the Japanese. But as an Asian viewer, I emphasise how alien these shows appear compared with most of our locally produced content. To me, these degradation programs, wherever they come from, are a disease eating away at the fabric of our society and the world wide television industry. Wherever we live, (with a few exceptions because of government rules,) we already have far too much sex and violence content in our shows. I believe this is probably because it is far easier to attract viewers with this kind of content than by trying to educate or entertain people with healthy programming. Healthy programs need strong story lines, whereas shows based on sex, violence or degradation do not. Healthy variety shows, including game shows, also need a great deal of thought put into their format and operation if they are going to have any appeal.
My own latest Game show creation: 'Everyone Wins' (represented by Action Time) is the world's first 'truly virtual interactive Game show. Rather than sit at home as a passive spectator, the viewer is encouraged to watch the show attentively to have a chance at winning special Home Audience prizes. I am sure I could have designed this show with a degrading element, perhaps by suspending contestants over fire, blowing freezing air in their faces, or urging the host to be nasty to losers. Call me idealistic if you will, but I believe in television as a strong media for benefiting mankind, rather than dragging its collective intelligence into the toilet.

I am not carrying out some kind of moral crusade here. In fact, I have profited in the past from other people's embarrassment. Many years ago, I acquired Hong Kong rights to the famous `Squidgy Tapes' which purported to show the late British Princess of Wales flirting with a former body guard. I offered this recording over a pay-per-minute telephone service and made a tidy profit from it. Of course, it was a great invasion of privacy, but I justified doing it in Asia on the grounds that the British media had already revealed it. In any case, people who wanted to listen to the tape had to dial in and be prepared to pay for the service. It was far less intrusive to the general public than a scheduled TV show. Today, I regret having distributed the Squidgy tapes, but at the time I felt obliged to make a commercial success of any available, legal material. Any consideration of the subject's feelings was secondary.
So I think I speak from experience when I urge broadcasters and program creators to concentrate on work which benefits society, rather than causing pain or embarrassment. A modest profit from creating good material is much better than a large profit from doing damage.
We, as broadcasters, creators and producers should never forget our responsibility to the societies we live in. Creating, producing or broadcasting degratainment programs might generate a profit, but it fails any other ethical test. We simply ought not do it. We should turn our talents, instead to creating and promoting a healthier, more secure environment for our next generation to live in.