All "reality" TV is crap, a large proportion of humanity loves voyeurism at some level. whether it's people watching at the local shopping centres or peeping through someones window . Reality TV provides for these type of people.
I always say get out of your house and live your own life.

As for the actual show it's self, not seen it, don't intend to see it. From the adds and other media it's gotten, it's clear there's nothing constructive about it. Unless of course the people on it are taught how to mange their money, and get a job.

BTW lots of jobs picking fruit, no need to wallow in the sewer that is the western subs of Sydney.

I watched all three episodes, there was nothing wrong with the show other than it purported to take people like Ash and Peta seriously, people like that lie about everything all the time, classic Aussie BS artists. The dead giveaway was their explanation for how they ended up in the state they're in, according to them they did 12 months each in prison on a first offence drug posession charge for a few cones worth of Ganja. Yeah right, I know a few people who've been busted for possession and for a first offence at most they copped a good behaviour bond. A year inside probably means they were sentenced to three so it was clear that they were dealing, more than likely in the dreaded Ice and that their dopey daughter had brought an undercover cop to the house and they'd been busted with a commercial quantity.
Their eldest daughter and son were Ice dealers and users, their son Corey was a hopeless addict, Ash and Peta were most likely mid level dealers and yet you get this ridiculous performance near the end with Ash "losing it" and threatening to bash anyone who sell Ice to his kids. Maybe there are people on the North Shore of Sydney or the leafy East of Melbourne who've honestly never met anyone like that but there's a whole block of Drongos like that a street away from me in Reservoir and I grew up living on the edge of a country housing commission estate, Ash and Peta don't fool me.

Struggle Street was certainly a door opener; a door that many in the community would never have seen, or if they had, would not have chosen to open.
The three-part series was a story, told by people suffering severe economic disadvantage. It was told to a small group of production crew who were, in effect, the "authors" of that story.
This brings out the fact that what an author writes or reports is that person's particular impression or outlook on whatever tale is being told. It is a personal recount, not some prior scripted campaign attracting meticulous planning and redrafting until it is in a suitable form for airing.
As Evelyn points out,'participants may willingly let the media into their lives, but remain ignorant of how their stories will be shaped in the editing suite and in the subsequent marketing campaigns.'
That's precisely it - the story was a story, not some kind of marketing campaign. Its appeal will vary depending on the audience which watches it, but the fact remains that a huge number of people did watch it.
Don't worry about why they watched, just accept that they saw something which may have surprised them and set them thinking

I watched all three episodes and was gobsmacked what losers the main family were. Just about everyone seemed to be borderline psychotic or at least sociopaths.

I disagree with Ponder's comment "This brings out the fact that what an author writes or reports is that person's particular impression or outlook on whatever tale is being told. It is a personal recount, not some prior scripted campaign attracting meticulous planning and redrafting until it is in a suitable form for airing."

The people in the series were free to express themselves any way they chose. Their true colours came out... that's the way they are and the way they live, like pigs.

The trailers for the series said it was about everyday Australians just trying to survive. None of those people I would call normal.

Yet it's a story that must be told! How else are we ever going to obligate the genuine among us to care enough to do something about it!?

It's actually unfathomable that we should have post code poverty traps in a land as rich and well resourced as OZ; let alone have over 100,000 homeless?

From my perceptive, all the Ginas and Clives of this world could consume far less of everything!

Eliminating quite massive superannuation subsidies and welfare for the rich like say, negative gearing or health insurance subsidies, would be a useful start?

Which would likely free up a few billion to start making some inroads into this problem?

But not with handouts or sit-down money; but rather, with scholarships and micro venture capital loans!

And there has to be a role for responsible government, to ameliorate the problem by rebuilding our manufacturing base and putting people back to work!

What do they think we pay them for? A tea party or endless talk feast? Or placing endless roadblocks in the path of genuine progress?

Thankfully some are working to fix the problem! Just not do nothing real, Australian Governments? And if the cap fits?

I mean why is it we almost alone in the english speaking world have the highest median house prices and comparatively huge energy bills!?

And make no mistake, bring those two into line with the best benchmark apples for apples comparisons/practice; and you've effectively dealt with 90% of the problem!?

And indeed, doubled and trebled discretionary spending, the real workhorse and wealth creator of the domestic economy!
Rhrosty.

An excellent article by Dr Evelyn Tsitas.

My take on Informed Consent is:

1. The consent seekers need to adjust their approaches to the consent givers.

Those giving consent need to have a level of education, or should ideally be advised by an independent lawyer, as to their rights particularly on what consent means. Knowledge of what defamation means, on average, varies geographically.

For example, if consent seekers are seeking consent from households in Inner North Shore Sydney the seekers might reasonably assume that a community with a high number of educated people, many of them lawyers, will be more informed than those in Mt Druitt.

2. Even outside consent forms geography or group makes a difference. Consent seeking journalists and their editors, practice self-censorship, even if they don't admit it. The chances that they may be politically or personally pressured or actually sued would more likely come from Inner North Shore worthies than people in Mt Druitt.