http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/au ... lity-shows

HATE 'reality TV' (most of it's about as 'real' as a soap drama), but I found it hard to disagree with those two I don't know the difference between

I didn't know about the proposed regulating of children appearances either

Apparently they always stand in the correct order - Ant and Dec. A Google image search pretty much confirms this.

Does anyone else think that Ant looks like Frankenstein's monster?

Anyway, yes I broadly agree with them. You can't tell people not to audition simply because your first impression is that they can't handle it. It would be even worse if you subjected every applicant to some sort of psychological profiling.

However, I've never really been a supporter of young children in the entertainment industry. You always wonder how much they've been influenced or coerced by their parents, and even with the greatest of care it is never going to be an ideal environment to grow up in. However, I'm no expert and I'm not their parent so I'm in no position to judge. There are far worse things a kid might experience than appearing on a talent show.

^ Like the thread says, you learn something new every day

Actually, yes, yes you can. The whole point of the 'auditions' for X Factor and the like is they're pretty much about first impressions only and they're a filtering process, not actually anything about developing or nurturing an artist. If the judge's first impression is that the person would be a basket case almost as soon as they got anywhere near a TV studio, that's actually a bloody good reason to tell them to sod off home before it got to that point.