Summarize this content to 2000 words in 6 paragraphs in Arabic Unlock the Editor’s Digest for freeRoula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.Speaking a few months before he died in 2023, Jerry Springer found himself reflecting on his legacy as the face of a tawdry talk-show that famously featured as many violent confrontations as conversations, and less help than humiliation. “I’m so sorry. What have I done?” he said. “I have ruined the culture.” Jerry Springer: Fights, Camera, Action, a grimly intriguing Netflix two-parter about the vile and reviled programme, leaves you wondering whether that mea culpa went far enough. More than just representing the nadir of American entertainment, The Jerry Springer Show was, we see, capable of ruining lives. It is likened here by a former staffer to a sociological experiment that revolved around “playing people’s psyches until you get a result”. That result would usually be an on-set fist-fight between romantic rivals or ideological extremists. In 2000, however, the hostility would spill off-screen when two guests murdered a third, Nancy Campbell-Panitz, hours after their love triangle episode aired. Seemingly immune to cancellation, the show would go on for a further 18 years.The documentary begins by tracing Springer’s unlikely journey from serving as mayor of Cincinnati to so-called “king of sleaze”, and explains how a 2am schedule-filler became a daytime behemoth for the best part of three decades. Central to both transformations was Richard Dominick, the show’s senior producer-cum-professional provocateur. It was he who recognised that plumbing new depths of depravity would bring rising viewing figures, with audience members baying for blood and chanting Springer’s name. Dominick remains entirely unapologetic, even proud of the “brilliant” ratings the show secured. However, some producers who worked under him are today less flippant about the way they sought out sensation and engineered outrage, whipping emotionally vulnerable (and typically working-class) guests into a frenzy.But if the film is damning of the show’s abundant exploitation and dearth of ethics, it can be frustratingly misfocused — more invested in the behind-the-scenes drama than the impact on guests (only one of whom appears here, along with Campbell-Panitz’s son). There is also an all-too cursory interrogation of what the show’s popularity says about human society or psychology, while an interesting point about how Springer paved the way for the sensationalisation of US politics is left unexplored. The result is a documentary that offers at once too little and too much. The array of Springer Show clips — of episodes ranging from adultery to zoophilia — means that the film trades on the same lurid content it is condemning. And there lies the depressing truth underpinning the whole thing. Had there been no screaming matches, no punch-ups, no scandals, no one would be talking about it now. ★★★☆☆ On Netflix from January 7
