The NTA's are a farce - Molly-Mae's win proves the public can't be trusted

When the National Television Awards (NTAs) were set up in 1995 it was with the very worthy intention of giving the public a voice when it came to awards ceremonies, which were previously voted for by industry peers or critics. However this year's awards have demonstrated the public can't be trusted with the responsibility as political voting and popularity contests took centre stage rather than true talent. While there were indeed some worthy winners Molly Mae Hague's win in Authored Documentary for Behind it All made a mockery of the category. Admittedly this year didn't feature the strongest line up - critics and experts would never have shortlisted Boyzone's documentary for this award - but the fact she beat out the heartbreakingly moving film There's Only One Rob Burrow feels like something that would happen in a parallel universe.

Has society really become so shallow that a series about a reality show veteran's life after her split from an average boxer who has never won a single belt is deemed award worthy? Moreso than a film about the life of a man who achieved glory in his chosen sport of rugby before battling a horrendous disease and spending his final months raising money for charity rather than feeling sorry for himself.

This is not a case of my personal taste - the Burrows film was quite simply a better piece of work. It had more depth, a stronger narrative and a proper story arc.

You would be loathe to find a bad review of it from critics and a quick search on social media shows it was universally loved when it broadcast. People were in tears. This compares to mixed reviews for both critics and public for Molly-Mae's offering.

You might think it is of no consequence who wins something like this but award wins can be leveraged into future work and endorsements as well as follow up series. So they are deemed quite important.

Apply the same principal to the average job where someone shows up every day and works hard but is passed over for promotion because someone more popular and less qualified and less hard working is selected over them. It is exactly the same scenario. Employees have threatened strikes in regular jobs over promotion issues. That is how serious choosing popular over talented and hard working can be.

The same applies to political voting. While I, and many other showbiz writers, have been desperately hoping someone would break Ant and Dec's over two decade streak as best presenter there is no planet on which Gary Lineker would have been the one to do it were people not "sticking it to the man". (No offence to Ant and Dec but it was getting boringly predictable).

While there is no suggestion Lineker launched a campaign to win, many people on social media boasted of voting for him in protest over his departure from the BBC. Several said they had voted because they saw those posts.

Lineker has had a long presenting career but is a one trick pony. While Ant and Dec were indeed the most deserving on the list this year, if the public wanted a shake up surely Alison Hammond, who at least has shown some range as a presenter and juggles multiple shows, would be a better choice.

I'm all for shaking things up but not when it makes a complete mockery of the system. While it is fine to try and give your favourite show or talent a boost it has to be equitable and it is not an even playing field if people are voting for all the wrong reasons. The NTA's have lost all credibility after this year.