Trapped within its own logic, it must either collapse in on itself, its "criticism" revealing how much it relies on its critics, or it becomes inescapable. And as soon as you begin to question its conclusions, it's as though the whole edifice begins to crumble. The reason that I used to love watching the original _Jerry Springer_ is that there was a feeling of danger in it. It challenged audiences by giving them something to dislike about themselves and the world around them. Nowadays, TV programmes are presented as though they can be enjoyed without paying any attention to how awful they are. In that context, I'm not sure it's possible to take the Jerry Springer format seriously as it was originally intended. In fact, its originality is now a matter of historical record. The other week I was on my way to see _The Lodger_ at the Curzon Soho and there were a couple of guys with bin bags of stuff who had obviously just come out of a night's drinking. They were both wearing red T-shirts with white writing on them and a big red 'X' through the word 'Springer'. "We've just been watching _The Springer_ ", they told me. I nodded and said, "It was a good programme." No, I take that back, that was another thing they said – "A _good programme?_ Well, that's a load of nonsense. They make a fortune out of ripping off these morons – what good can it possibly do them?" It was as though they didn't think it was possible to like Jerry Springer and his TV show at the same time. For them, perhaps the problem with Springer's show isn't that it exposes the ridiculous side of life but that it panders to that side of our personality. But what if the reverse is true? You watch a show like _Springer_ , and it's obviously only going to leave you more frustrated than it's ever going to satisfy. All you're really doing is saying: "I can do better than that. Here's what I'm going to do with the rest of my life, right now. I want to sit down and write a book like that." Or, "I'll do it in film. With bigger budget and a much bigger studio crew, I'm going to do something much more spectacular with more special effects." That's why I liked _The Jerry Springer Show_ – because the first time I saw it, I remember saying to myself, "Wow, I'd like to do something like that." But when you watch the show, you find that you can't escape the feeling of being trapped. It's a closed circle: people get themselves into this situation and then keep on going round and round it. And if you were in a real situation like that you'd go insane. There's a lot of violence in the show, but it's usually just for the sake of it. I'm not saying that you should go around beating up people – it would be bad for your health. All it does is make you more frustrated. When you see that, you feel like hitting somebody yourself. Of course, I wasn't just being ironic with the phrase 'the show they make a fortune out of ripping off these morons'. On some level I believe what I'm saying – and I'll tell you why I believe that. It was only after seeing the show on TV that I realized it had almost nothing in common with what goes on on Springer's show. In the original _Jerry Springer Show_ , it was important to get the subject back for his interview. After all, he'd got him there, on his programme, so that's why it was imperative for the person to pay him some respect. There was a scene in which Springer got to speak to David Gest about the death of Princess Diana, which was a very moving moment. Then, to finish the show, he invited the other guests onto the stage for a round of applause. They then sang together in his memory, and it was a lovely thing to do. In other words, what they did on Springer's show had been recorded live and then edited afterwards. What you get to see on the show is a re-enactment of the act that was performed. The show is not merely a rip-off of real-life situations but more than that: it's a re-enactment of events that have already happened. And so I came to realize that the real value of his show is not only to keep people watching it, but also to give them something to talk about with their friends. It's important to point out that Springer never got people on his show on the grounds that they'd done anything terrible or had done anything wrong. They didn't say, "Now you've got to tell us about it, Jerry. You've got to tell us why you thought we were so bad." And in the next programme there were other people coming on to talk about what had happened. That's what it was like in the original _Jerry Springer_ – it was people giving their life story. It's like sitting in a bar and having a few drinks with your mates and suddenly telling them about the terrible accident that happened on the motorway that they were driving on. The only thing missing is a black screen and the sound of a crash. Now, after watching the show for years, I understand that some of the guests did do things that I found offensive, but I don't feel that their stories are worthless. It's because they're going to re-enact that kind of story on Springer's show that they get on it in the first place. You don't think, "Oh, he's going to do a murder show so he should put that kid in a pair of tight-fitting jeans and call it _Murder Spuds_ ," because it's much more abstract. It's only in his show that it becomes real. The thing about Springer's show is that there's no chance of it getting banned, whereas if he showed a real programme on Jerry Springer about real events in people's lives, it wouldn't be on for a second. Some other TV network would come along and make it all about some famous celebrity. It would have zero interest to people because they wouldn't care about the people involved. In fact, even though I've lived in London for twenty years, I didn't even know the stars of this week's TV show until a few weeks ago, because the real reason people watch the show isn't because they're interested in what's happening to them, but in the fact that they enjoy watching it because they're really curious about who these people are. It's a much more sophisticated show than the other one, and the BBC won't touch it with a bargepole. Now, perhaps I'm the one who's naïve here, but I hope not. I think a show like _The Springer_ could be one of the most valuable things to ever happen on television because it challenges the audience in a really interesting way – not because it's a bad thing to have a show like that. There's nothing wrong with people watching a show like _The Jerry Springer Show_ and just sitting there as it happens, with all the things that they might be involved in or have experienced in their lives. It's when you're trying to get involved in it that you run into problems. So, in fact, all it does is put you back in the position that they're actually in. If you're able to walk in to a room and ask yourself: "Is this something I'd like to be part of?" then you're going to do a really important thing for other people. What Springer does by allowing people to make fools of themselves on a show like that is to challenge them to question what it is they really want to be doing with their lives. I'm not saying the show should have a happy ending, but it's something that you feel you need to deal with before you end up where the characters on the show end up. That's why it's really difficult to see what is so bad about it. Maybe that's not the correct perspective to take, but I'm saying that if you watch it, you can have a laugh. It's actually fun. It's also important for you to do something different. Just living your life is not going to help in the situation you're in. It's not that I'm suggesting that people do these things as part of their everyday existence. It's just that a show like this could help people understand what they're up against and how much work they have to do if they want to deal with it. This means that, for instance, if they choose to get involved in it, they'll have to put more work into it. If they don't, then they've got to look at their decision-making process. These things won't happen overnight. You'll never suddenly come across a solution to a situation that you're in. But at the same time, if you don't continue to strive for progress, then you can expect to end up like the characters in _The Jerry Springer Show_. So it's not an easy situation. But, in fact, it doesn't really matter because it's not as if you have a choice. It's like having a room full of spiders. It's not that you hate them, you just have to deal with it as best you can. You just have to come to terms with the fact that the world is like that. At the same time, you could try to understand the world from your point