Is this the real life - Has reality TV finally lost the X-factor?

With X-Factor dominating our screens once again it's hard to see an end to the reality TV craze, but despite decent viewing figures, you can't help but feel the 'magic' of the show is beginning to fade.

Of course I'm bound to say that, as a self-confessed cynic, but surely even the faithful can see how doing the same show six times over can begin to grow stale. It's not like an edgy drama where you can kill off characters, get new directors or have some shocking plot twist (those wondering what I mean watch House immediately), because they are constrained by the rules of their own format.

The system was altered this year by an introduction of music and an audience at the audition stage. You can't help but feel a slight nod to Britain's Got Talent is due, but still the poor quality of some of the acts which reach our screens is enough to make even the hard-faced Cowell cringe.

There's never been any doubt that it is all an act. Cowell is the king, it's his show and he's ALWAYS right, even when he's being brutal and harsh it's never just to put someone down.

Unfortunately, because SO many people now apply for the show the process has been stripped down countless times to get through the vast amount of people looking for their big break. Thousands never make it to the judgemental glare of Cowell before they are told they don't have what it takes, and even then not everyone is given a fair chance, as the show would mystically have you believe.

One story I heard from a young man called Adam exemplified this 'injustice' more than most. Some would say "Well, that's the industry, you have to be lucky", but surely the point of a show like this is that everyone can have the same chance?

In Adam's case, he started with the best intentions: a level head, a clear mind and some actual vocal talent (always a plus). After reaching the first audition he was called through to potentially begin his musical career, only to be met by an apathetic, dazed individual, who he was told would be listening to him sing.

He walked in and told the judge his name and what he was going to sing, to which the man responded "Fine" staring off idly into the distance, barely even registering that Adam had come in. Despite being virtually ignored Adam went ahead and sang, and the apathetic judge let him through. As it turned out, this man was by no means a professional, just someone TalkbackThames had found to help out with the auditions, and wasn't given any training or guidance in how to pass or fail people, making the process a bit of a 'pot luck' scheme.

Another one or two rounds of similar treatment ensued before Adam found himself up against the real deal: the X-Factor judges themselves. Surely this is when it becomes serious? When the people who have got to that stage actually show some talent?

The audition organisation team pulled Adam aside before this crucial stage, but not to offer encouragement, to suggest that he change his song choices from the ones he'd been singing the whole process so far, the likes of Usher and Ne-Yo, to "something a bit more mainstream".

Adam wasn't too keen on the idea, but the team persisted "something like err...who's that guy? Oh, R Kelly, what about that 'I Believe I Can Fly' one?" Adam begrudgingly agreed.

Adam waited patiently backstage for his turn, listening to the acts before him, some good, some pretty bad, until he was told to get on stage and walked out before the panel and a room of excitable spectators to make or break his music career there and then.

Cowell asked him routinely which song he would be singing, and as Adam said the name his face quickly fell from receptive disapproving. He sang through about six seconds before Cowell decided he'd had enough and said: "Sorry, it's a no" to which his panel of puppets quickly concurred.

After all the time and energy put into the process it came down to six seconds of a song he was forced into singing, but that wasn't the worst thing about it.

A few weeks later when the show began to air, Adam noticed something interesting on the Xtra Factor (ITV2's cash in show designed to give more insight into the process). Host Holly Willoughby was talking to Cheryl Cole about big audition no-nos, and the first thing Cole said was "Well, anyone who sings 'I Believe I Can Fly' is out". Adam's face fell as the show cut to a montage of people performing the song, and he immediately saw himself performing the first line.

Never has it been more clear what X-Factor is, not a talent show, but a glorified freak show that builds hopes and shatters dreams needlessly.

With Big Brother 10 having suffered plummeting viewing figures compared to the shows hay-day, perhaps the shelf-life of X-Factor is almost due as well? Strictly Come Dancing has shown how the older generation can be lured into the petty past times of the TV-watching majority, though it's still managed to drag up it's own controversies (no pun intended - honest).

Probably the best way The Xfactor is summed up is in comedian Ben Elton's book 'Chart Throb', which satirically takes off the series in a way which you feel could so easily could be completely true. It splits contestants into four groups: Blingers, Clingers, Mingers and Singers.

Blingers are the over-the-top personalities that make up the Chicos and DJ Talents of this world, while Clingers are those so desperate for the opportunity to save their lives and usually have some ridiculous sob story attached. Next come the Mingers which speak for themselves really, serving as ammunition for the book's incarnation of Cowell to fire insults at by being so horrendously awful, and of course the Singers (a very small group) are those who may eventually win.

So the next time you join the masses in watching Simon and the gang try to find the next big thing, consider if you're watching it because it's genuinely entertaining or just because there's only dated films or the BBC's own version on the other side.

Censorship: Protecting the public or hiding the truth?

Film and television have always been subject to some sort of censorship, even at the most basic level, shows or films regarded as too violent, sexual or controversial have been banned. In video games too, censorship is a big issue, with Mortal Kombat being the victim of a media storm in the 90s for its violent finishing moves.

In the age of 24/7 entertainment and relentless information exchange, is it still right for companies to censor information? When you mention censorship, you might think of the limits on the Chinese version of Google or the propaganda of Nazi Germany, but in reality it goes on without the general public even realising.

The most recent example which I noticed was the broadcast of an episode of [Scrubs] on E4. The episode seemed innocent enough, 6 o'clock on a Tuesday evening, but as I watched, I noticed a few things that just weren't quite right. Dialogue was cut short, suggestive lingering camera shots removed and the shows signature fantasy moments bizarrely tame. The reason: censorship. The network, for whatever reason, had taken out the comedy's 'edgier' moments, leaving the show a shadow of it's former self.

There are watershed issues to consider of course, and the concept itself (which essentially forbids the broadcast of illicit material until after 9pm) is important to protect the 'innocence' of children etc. But the real worry is that many of the omissions were nothing more outrageous than you might see on your typical episode of Eastenders, leading us to conclude that either the network is being over-cautious, or deliberately toning-down to appeal to their viewers.

Surely with the show available on DVD, they must know that many fans of the show will have a series or two, so may have watched the show before, making these omissions obvious. Obviously to those who have never seen the show before will be none the wiser, but it is still a concern.

This is just one example of the negative effects of censorship. There are claims long-term exposure to violence on television causes an increased risk of violence in the real world, but there is little evidence to substantiate that this affects more then a sever minority.

Back in 2000, the BBC reported on a study called 'Making sense of Censorship', which concluded that four out of five people would rather watch un-edited versions of film and television, and judge for themselves what not to watch.

The poll also raised the concern of children's viewing, with 98% of adults saying they were responsible for deciding what their children should and should not watch. Interestingly, almost two thirds of people were more worried about censorship on the internet, an issue which has still not been significantly tackled by authorities. At the time the BBC spoke to Nick Jones, head of film programming for Channel 4 and FilmFour:

"This puts the emphasis on facts rather than pre-conceived myths, It shows middle England is more informed and wants to make its own choices about what they watch - based on information and not the intervention of a 'nanny state' It is now time to take a hard look at confused legislation that assumes there is such a thing as 'the moral majority'" (Jones 2000)

There was controversy last year in the wake of Heath Ledger's death, when there were calls to omit the scene in 'The Dark Knight' which showed Ledger as the Joker in a body bag.

In 1995 Simon Birch wrote a report which discusses why censorship should be stopped. He concluded that the system is not working and that there are discrepancies which mean the public is being mis-informed:

"Sooner or later they will have to amend a system which allows more explicit detail of real sexual peccadilloes through the written media than it allows the viewing public to see within a fictional context." (Birch 1995)

In the end, if the public objects to how something is being done, the government is forced to act to change it, but if people do not even know it is going on in the first place, then we may begin to see an ever-increasing problem in years to come.