Were Ant and Dec Right to Remove the Post?

Yes. And Here’s Why.

By Steve Whittle, Founder of Tough To Talk

The question being asked repeatedly over the past few days is simple on the surface: Were Ant and Dec right to remove the promotional post for their podcast?

My answer is yes. But not for the reasons some people assume.

To explain why, we need to accept that two things can be true at the same time.

First truth: This was not intentional, and it was handled well

I do not believe for a second that Ant and Dec set out to shock, provoke, or make light of suicide in order to promote their podcast. There is no evidence of that, and suggesting otherwise helps no one.

What matters just as much is how they responded once concerns were raised. Their statement said:

“We did not mean to cause any offence with this promo video and we are sorry if it has upset anyone. We have taken on board the comments and have deleted the video.”

That response matters.

• They listened.

• They acknowledged impact.

• They apologised without defensiveness.

• They took action. No doubling down.

• No culture-war framing.

• No attempt to argue people into silence.

That is exactly how situations like this should be handled, and it deserves to be recognised.

Second truth: The post still caused harm, and that’s why removal was right

Acknowledging good intent and a good response does not mean pretending there was no impact.

The issue was not comedy, humour, or the podcast itself. It was the combination of a screengrab showing legs suspended in the air alongside the title “Hanging Out with Ant and Dec”.

For many people, particularly those struggling with suicidal thoughts or those bereaved by suicide, that imagery is not abstract or playful. It can act as a reminder, or reopen something painful.

This is not about people being offended. It is about risk.

When that risk becomes visible, removing the content is not censorship. It is responsibility.

What the evidence tells us

There is decades of research showing that the way suicide is portrayed in media matters.

The World Health Organization, in its guidance Preventing Suicide: A Resource for Media Professionals, is clear that prominent or repeated suicide-related imagery can increase distress and suicidal behaviour among vulnerable people.

This is often explained through the Werther effect, which shows that certain portrayals of suicide can increase risk for people who are already vulnerable. This does not mean one image “causes” suicide. It means exposure can push someone closer to crisis when they are already struggling.

There is also the Papageno effect, which shows that responsible portrayals, ones that avoid harmful imagery and instead focus on coping, hope, or help-seeking, can reduce risk and encourage people to reach out.

In the UK, Samaritans’ media guidelines for reporting suicide echo this evidence. They exist to reduce harm, particularly for those experiencing suicidal thoughts or those bereaved by suicide, a group Samaritans identify as being at higher risk themselves.

This guidance is not about stopping expression. It is about reducing avoidable harm.

Why fame and reach change the equation

Ant and Dec are trusted public figures with enormous reach, particularly among men. That reach is often a force for good. Campaigns like ITV’s Britain Get Talking have helped normalise conversations around mental health and encouraged people to open up.

But reach also amplifies mistakes.

When imagery is shared nationally and fronted by people who are widely liked and trusted, its impact is multiplied. For most people, it passes unnoticed. For a minority, it lands heavily. When suicide is involved, even unintentionally, that minority matters.

That is why removal was the right call.

This is not about being “woke”, fragile, or censoring free expression

It’s important to say what this is not.

This is not about policing humour. It is not about enforcing censorship. It is not about people being too fragile to cope with difficult ideas.

Media already accepts limits when there is clear evidence of harm. We do this with safeguarding children, libel, hate speech, advertising standards, and public safety. None of that killed creativity, culture, or free expression.

Suicide is no different.

The question here is not offence. It is risk. And risk can be reduced without silencing anyone. The same message can be communicated, the same podcast promoted, without using imagery that carries avoidable harm.

That is not censorship. That is good decision-making.

Why Tough To Talk exists

At Tough To Talk, we work with men who are least likely to speak up and most likely to die by suicide. We also support families living with the long-term impact of suicide bereavement.

We see how stigma, silence, and casual references to suicide make it harder for people to ask for help. That is why we focus on impact, not intent. And why we push for learning, not blame.

So, were they right to remove it?

Yes.

Not because Ant and Dec did something deliberately harmful. Not because people were “offended”. But because listening and reducing risk when it becomes clear is the responsible thing to do.

Two things can be true at the same time.

Ant and Dec handled this well. And removing the post was the right decision.

Both of those statements can stand together without contradiction.

Editor’s Note

This article was written in response to public discussion around promotional imagery used for Ant and Dec’s podcast. Its purpose is not to assign blame, but to explain why certain suicide-related imagery can cause harm, why intent and impact are different, and why removing content can sometimes be the most responsible response.

About the Author

Steve Whittle is an award-winning men’s mental health and suicide prevention campaigner and the founder of Tough To Talk. Drawing on lived experience of suicide attempts and bereavement, Steve has become a leading national voice on male suici

de prevention, working in male-dominated spaces to challenge stigma and silence.

A certified suicide first aid assessor and tutor, Steve speaks regularly at national conferences and advises organisations across industry, sport, and the emergency services. His work focuses on reducing risk, increasing understanding, and helping men feel able to seek support before crisis point.