Sex'n'humiliation is not the point of Channel 4

At least we now know that singing badly is considered to be one thing, while having sex badly is another

It might have been trailed in advance as the end of the civilised world, but some good has come from Teen Big Brother: The Experiment. Which is, of course, that the experiment didn't work.

The first reality television show to feature actual copulation on British screens attracted just 1.9m viewers, a smaller audience than any moment in the entire life of Big Brother.

Pity, of course, that to learn that sex doesn't always sell, Channel 4 had to broadcast the intercourse of two people barely old enough to see couples simulating sex at the cinema. It could have learned from what should have been its salutory experience over Boys and Girls that even sex and shopping doesn't necessary pack in the punters.

Channel 4 invested hugely, cleared its Saturday night schedules, and spent a fortune on promotion, only to note that whipping masses of lewd, vulgar, desperate young people into a frenzy, then sending them off to Oxford Street with a credit card, attracted only 1.2m viewers.

Later, the outgoing director of television, Tim Gardam, tried to make out that Channel 4 had only commissioned Boys and Girls because the company didn't want to snub its creator Chris Evans. Indeed. Why merely snub a man when you can visit massive national humiliation on him?

And speaking of humiliation, it must be pointed out that on reality television - Channel 4 being the genre's most enthusiastic proponent - this, rather than anything else, has become the most visible and least popular component in the majority of shows. It may be that the vast majority of Britons failed to tune in to Teen Big Brother because they didn't want to be conned into watching a "rustling duvet" - as an executive assured the parents of one of the hapless kids involved was all that could be seen. But it's more likely that even the jaded public realises that manipulating two teenagers into doing something they'll come to regret deeply, is just not on.

HL Mencken famously observed that "No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public". But Channel 4 has come pretty close in Britain. The channel may be back in the black, after 18 months of redundancies and the dismantling of FilmFour. But it was still the biggest ratings loser of all the big channels in the first half of this year, with the most recent viewing figures below 10 per cent of audience share. Figures like those for Teen Big Brother are not going to be helping in this half of the year.

To compound Channel 4's unease, Channel 5 is trumpeted now for having ditched much of the explicit programming which characterised its early years, and has higher ratings to show for it. The tide is turning against exploitative telly, and Channel 4 is in danger of being left naked on the beach.

Yesterday, the channel's chief executive, Mark Thompson, appeared to have cottoned on to the fact that sleaze and reality TV were not such a dynamic mix. As he announced C4's winter schedule, Mr Thompson remarked that "Buying Temptation Island from Sky and putting it out late at night was probably not what Channel 4 was put on earth to do. We have to be careful about lazy, cynical choices."

Temptation Island is a programme which does try to encourage sexual content, and is certainly not a programme worth defending. But I fear that Mr Thompson may still be missing the point. Sexual content alone is not the most off-putting aspect of Channel 4's recent output, even if it's the stuff that grabs the headlines. It's the way in which so many programmes are plain nasty, designed to make people look stupid, that is so distasteful.

Lazy, cynical choices are not just about sexual content, and amid much to look forward to, some of the same old choices remain on Channel 4. My personal favourite among the crop is a show called A Wife For William, in which viewers are invited to vote on which of 25 "posh potentials" would make the best spouse for Diana's eldest. Considering how badly his mother did out of a similar, admittedly untelevised exercise undertaken by his own family, it might be more seemly to keep any outside talk of suitable partners for the lad to a minimum. It may be William, rather than an ordinary person who'll do anything to get on televsion, who is the fall-guy here. But the show is still by no means an object lesson in mutual respect and human dignity.

Hardly less tasteless is Shattered, a They Shoot Horses Don't They for the noughties, in which contestants are challenged to stay awake for seven days. Apart from anything else, that just doesn't seem very visual. I suppose the idea must be to hope that very tired people are more likely to make idiots of themselves on screen.

Even more sex'n'humiliation television is promised in a show being developed for Channel 4, which intends to film couples having sex, then advise them on how they can enjoy it more. Even though I read this in The Independent, I can hardly believe it isn't a spoof. The programme makers insist that they won't go ahead if they can't "get the tone right", but why they feel it worthwhile even to try is something of a mystery.

And the endless reworkings of successful shows that have become such a television staple remain strong in the schedule. So we can look forward to Boss Swap in the wake of the huge success of Wife Swap. Maybe Boss Swap will be as compulsive as Wife Swap. But only if those who don't have to hang on to their jobs decide to humiliate the bosses they'll never have to see again by roundly criticising them. Laying people open to this sort of treatment seems like a cynical choice of a different kind.

Not, of course, that Channel 4 is by any means the other offender when it comes to making a fool of the man or woman on the street. Simon Cowell, of Pop Idol fame, has made millions out of being absolutely vile to people, and the consensus seems to be that his victims deserve their treatment because they committed the sin of failing to understand their limitations.

At least we now know that singing badly is considered to be one thing, while having sex badly is quite another.

But on Channel 4, such values seem even more debased than they do on the other channels, partly because Channel 4 is supposed to look after the little guy, not humiliate him. Its mandate to provide minority programming means that it shouldn't be chasing ratings - though, of course, its lack of public funding means that ratings secure its financial future.

At its best, Channel 4 provides "minority programming" that everybody wants to watch. Prime examples in the coming season include Ronan Bennett's Hamburg Cell, which promises to dramatise the planning of the 11 September atrocities. Backers in the US have turned down the drama because they don't wish to contribute to the "humanisation" of terrorists, but this is exactly the sort of programming that Channel 4 rightly champions.

It is likely to be controversial. But much of the best of Channel 4 output is controversial. Channel 4 remains responsible for the most controversial television programme of all time, the Brass Eye paedophilia special, which it showed bravery in broadcasting and backbone in defending. Sometimes it appears that Channel 4 believes that all controversy is good. But the sort of controversy that involves getting people on television for half-an-hour, then leaving them to ponder their folly for the rest of their days, is best left alone.

d.orr@independent.co.uk