On Radio 4 tonight 8.00 pm - The Moral Maze may be of interest,

Michael Buerk is back from the jungle for the last in this series of the Moral Maze and so there can be only one subject - the morality of reality TV. Since appearing on our screens in the 1990's, most notablywith Big Brother, "reality TV" has evolved into a global phenomenon with such a huge variety of programmes. Shows like the X-Factor and Strictly regularly top the ratings, but are they good for us? A key element for many is the deliberate humiliation and degradation of those taking part, with us the audience getting the opportunity to help dish out the pain via the phone vote. Terrific fun of course and people like Michael Buerk know what they're letting themselves in for and are well paid for taking part. But critics argue its contrived and even semi-scripted format glorifies and rewards the worst aspects of human nature that coarsens and brutalises our culture. They also claim its all-pervading presence has spawned a self-perpetuating cult of celebrity that has no relationship to talent or achievement. But do these criticisms really add up to anything more than patrician sneering at popular culture? Reality TV is a very mixed bag and its critics always conveniently ignore programmes like Jamie's Kitchen and Jamie's School Dinners - genuinely transformative and campaigning programmes that offered jobless youngsters the chance to train and lead a nationwide campaign to improve the quality of school meals. Studies also show that reality TV fans are very conscious of the extent to which they are watching performances; audiences enjoy debating the merits of participants and often uphold social values and punish poor behaviour. Does the seemingly unstoppable tide of reality TV reinforce or dilute society's moral fibre?