For a few weeks now, in the U.S., a revival of "Star Search" and a second season of "American Idol" have cropped up on national television. I never watched the original incarnation of Star Search, although I knew of it and what it was about. The most I knew about American Idol was the name.

Both shows are about discovering new talent. American Idol's focus is on finding the next American pop star icon, while Star Search's reach is broader: likely-soon-to-be-stars in music, comedy, and modeling compete against each other and are judged by a panel of judges as well as the public, who cast votes via the web during commercial breaks.

For the viewer, Star Search has a curiosity old-fashioned appeal. Take away the competition part, and the show plays like an old vaudeville show: a series of performers, primarily singers and comics, perform unrelated acts and routines for the entertainment of the audience. The competitive angle to Star Search adds an interesting twist to this century old formula. I like it.

American Idol is quite different. In the first phase of the show, three judges tour the country, holding auditions open to the public. Some tens of thousands are auditioned, and the couple hundred that make it go to Hollywood for the next rounds. Each successive round of auditions gets more demanding and culls the number down further. At 32, the panel of judges steps back and gives control over to the public, who vote on televised performances.

The primary difference between American Idol and the singing portions of Star Search is that American Idol indulges in the worst as well as the best. Particularly in the initial round of judging, there are some truly horrible auditions. The show seems to give the bad ones even more air time than it gives the good ones. The narrator makes snide remarks, but one of the three judges is worse. Simon -- I don't know his last name -- has gotten very rich and very popular with his brutal comments about bad auditions. "You're the worst singer in the world," he told one poor kid (who, admittedly, was pretty atrocious). This quote was turned into a marketing blitz: all the ads for that particular episode showed the clip of Simon saying that while a voice-over advised viewers that they could tune in to find out who he was talking about. When auditions are good, he is not stingy with praise, but when audition are bad, he lays into them with pretty mercilessly. ("I'm not saying this to be mean, but you are one of the worst singers I've ever heard.") This is old news to those who watched the original season of American Idol, but like I said, I never saw that and never really heard about it.

My reaction to Simon is pretty much one of disgust. His defenders point out the virtues of honesty. I agree that it is admirable to be honest with people, and if you're acting as a judge for anything, you have the responsibility to give an honest opinion. Not only that, but you have the responsibility to give an honest opinion without catering to people's feelings. And is Simon truly being honest? It's quite apparent he exaggerates, and even after he has made his point, he often doesn't stop. The indignant reactions of the people he disparages is another point of "entertainment" on the show: they range from classless profanity to more eloquent and very valid points about the lack of need for derogatory remarks.

The parentage of Simon's appeal is apparent. Since the late 1980s, humor in television sitcoms has gradually evolved into hardball insult humor. Where once The Cosby Show was king of the ratings, now there is scarcely a punchline on television that doesn't have derogatory overtones. I don't like the trend, but I'm not saying that derogatory humor is all bad. I admit a sick affinity for Everybody Loves Raymond (currently the only new sitcom I'll have anything to do with), a show with some of the most unapologetically aggressive characters on television.

But there's a significant jump from deriving entertainment at fictional characters insulting each other and very real people hurting each other. Most of the people that showed up at the open American Idol auditions were just kids with dreams. Some of them delivered truly wretched auditions, while others just need practice and training, and still others just had bad days. Whatever the case, Simon had made final conclusions about the whole of their worth 30 seconds after meeting them. "You're the worst singer in the world," he says, and while the kid's face falls and Simon continues, we laugh. Ha, ha.

As I said, the kid in question truly *was* horrible, and it's the duty of a judge at an audition to furnish an honest opinion. But there are ways to do this that don't involve belittling and aggression. Which leads me to one of the reasons I like the current incarnation of Star Search: Naomi Judd, a remarkable and charismatic woman. She's the show's most critical judge, and she does not hesitate to be honest about performances she doesn't like. She gives you her undiluted opinion without making it personally insulting.

As I mulled this point over in my head, I could practically *hear* Dave in my head, chastising me for being too concerned with other people's feelings. In the past, he's made this criticism of my handling of certain situations on RinkWorks. In some cases, I think the criticism is entirely justified, and in all cases, whether I agree or not, I take it to heart. All the same, I think there is a difference between not catering to someone's feelings and taking the initiative to hurt on a personal level.

The purpose of this post? To solicit opinions, of course. If you're the judge at an audition, what's your responsibility? What constitutes being unfortunately honest and needlessly cruel? What do you think about shows like Star Search and American Idol in the first place?