The reality TV show Married at First Sight UK was recently pulled from TV following claims of rape and non-consensual sexual acts during filming.
These allegations led to intensified scrutiny of participant safety, with some individuals stating they were not adequately protected during filming.
These safeguarding failings in the entertainment sector raise some serious questions. Who is responsible for ensuring participants’ safety when producing such programmes? Is it the people on set? The production company? The channel that commissions the show?
The answer must be all the above.
Many reality TV programmes involve placing real people in high-pressure situations. These could create vulnerability and expose participants to the risk of significant harm.
Reality TV is Bigger Than Ever
One problem with reality TV is that the more dramatic the storyline, the higher the ratings. The latest Married at First Sight UK series secured 667 million viewer minutes.
But these recent allegations make it clear that the industry can no longer take participant safety for granted. So, how can the industry work to protect participants from abuse and other risks?
The industry needs to reflect on how risk, responsibility, and protection apply to certain highly challenging and unpredictable environments. The industry could also look to other industries for ideas on how to design and implement effective safeguarding policies and procedures. The Ann Craft Trust’s work across the sport sector in recent years is a great example of this.
Safeguarding is About Environments As Well As Individuals
Reality TV highlights that placing people in unpredictable and unfamiliar situations can make them more vulnerable to harm.
In some TV programmes, participants may be:
- Placed in emotionally intense situations.
- Isolated from their family, friends, and their trusted support networks.
- Subject to constant observation while filming.
- Subjected to public scrutiny both online and offline.
All these factors could make one more vulnerable to harm, even if they would not ordinarily be considered “at risk”. Safeguarding considerations must take account of how environments create or amplify risk at an individual level.
Duty of Care Must Be Meaningful in Practice
Broadcasters and production companies often outline welfare measures for their participants, including screening processes, ongoing monitoring, and aftercare once the production has finished.
However, BBC’s Panorama highlighted the failings between policy and practice. Concerns are clearly not being raised, and if they are, it seems that almost nobody is listening or taking action.
This reinforces a core safeguarding message: A policy cannot be effective if people don’t recognise abuse and if they don’t understand how to keep people safe.
Effective safeguarding requires a clear pathway for preventing, recognising, recording, and responding to concerns. Above all, safeguarding requires a culture that puts individuals’ welfare at the top of its priorities.
Reality TV Cannot Continue to Ignore Serious Safeguarding Risks
All organisations should demonstrate robust safeguarding systems that include accountability and transparency at all times, so as to minimise that the risk of harm and abuse.
The impact of abuse doesn’t end when the filming stops.
Participation in reality TV can have lasting effects. Individuals may experience ongoing mental health challenges, and they may feel the impact of intense public attention, including online scrutiny, for years to come.
For safeguarding professionals, this underlines the importance of thinking beyond the immediate setting. Support should extend into what happens afterwards, particularly where people face new risks linked to visibility or exposure.
Consent Matters
TV Participants usually sign appearance and release forms. These act as written consent that they are willing to take part in whatever situations the show demands, while giving the production company a lot of freedom in how they use their image and voice.
The problem is that, in reality TV, this “consent” exists within the context of a previous series. It’s not necessarily the case that participants know just what they’re signing up for.
Reality TV is unpredictable, but it’s not always broadcast live. It might therefore be possible for producers or broadcasters to seek explicit consent from participants before they air any footage, and not just during the screening process.
In safeguarding, consent must be informed, ongoing, and freely given. There must also be systems in place to allow people to safely raise concerns, and to change their mind. This means that it must always be possible for people to withdraw their consent.
What does all this mean for safeguarding?
The issues raised by reality TV are not unique. They reflect challenges seen across safeguarding practice in multiple sectors.
They prompt us to ask:
- Are we identifying environmental and situational risks as well as individual needs?
- Do people feel heard and supported when they raise concerns?
- Are our systems consistent in practice, not just on paper?
- How well do we support people beyond immediate interventions?
- Do regulators do enough to respond to complaints?
Reality TV continues to evolve, and in recent years, many programmes have introduced stronger welfare measures. But these recent safeguarding failures suggest that unhealthy cultures persist.
Where Harm is Foreseeable, it is Preventable
Safeguarding practices must be customised for the entertainment sector, embedded into the practice of all organisations involved, and evaluated regularly as the sector grows.
At the Ann Craft Trust, we believe safeguarding principles should be applied anywhere adults may be at risk or vulnerable to harm.
As conversations about participant welfare in reality television continue, we are keen to explore how safeguarding expertise can support organisations across the entertainment and media industries.
We believe there is value in building partnerships, sharing learning across sectors, and encouraging wider discussions about what effective safeguarding looks like in these unique environments.
Because everyone has the right to be safe.