While I don't doubt that the contract may have said XYZ about how you can comport yourself in public following the show (e.g., non-disclosure language and such), there's sort of three things to consider.
First, one of the simple truths about contracts is that, if someone wants to breach it...they're gonna breach it. I tell this to clients not infrequently, particularly when they ask me to write an "ironclad" contract. There's no such thing. If they breach, they breach, and then the question becomes whether (A) you have the will to enforce the contract, and (B) whether the contract is written in such a way as to ALLOW you to enforce it.
Second, the devil is in the details as far as whether you'd actually breach the contract by saying this or that, including HOW you say it. It depends on what you say, and also on how the contract is worded specifically. Like, it might say you're flat-out prohibited from making disparaging comments about the show. But that'd call into question whether saying "So the show was edited so that I came across as saying XYZ, but in fact, the way I feel is ABC." Is that a disparaging remark? I mean, it's not like you're saying "Those lying sonsofb****es edited me to say XYZ! The show is a total scam!" It's simply contradicting what the show depicts (actually, what the show implies BY depiction), which isn't necessarily the same thing as disparaging. So, Yaya saying "We're buds in real life! It's all cool and I really respect her work, regardless of how it may appear on camera," may not be a breach. On the other hand, if they word it to say that you ALSO won't do anything to contradict or undermine the depiction of the show, or act in a way that might be detrimental to ratings, that's a different story. There's also the question of enforceability. Even if the contract says "You must also give us your firstborn male child and commit seppuku live on camera if you breach" that doesn't mean that the clause is enforceable. However...
Third, perhaps the saddest truth about contract law (once you get past the "if they wanna breach, they're gonna breach" thing) is that you still have to have the means to fight a legal battle. The 800lb gorilla is still an 800lb gorilla, no matter what the contract says. Unless you get an attorney who'll work for free, it's gonna cost money -- lots of it -- to defend in court against NBC/Universal or their subsidiaries. So, even if you're right, even if you're safe under the contract, just getting to a point where you can file a motion that'd get the case tossed out is gonna cost a fair bit of coin. And THAT is where the law gives way to practicality.
Now, in all likelihood, I wouldn't expect NBC/Uni to actually try to sue Yaya and/or Jessica for damages...because realistically they don't have the kind of deep pockets that'd make the lawsuit worthwhile. (Old legal aphorism: "You can't get blood from a stone.") But they could easily rattle sabres to get them to pull the video, and perhaps get a gag order from a court that'd shut them up and stop them from making similar future statements, the violation of which WOULD result in serious freakin' penalties (which they still wouldn't be able to pay, but that's not really the point).
Anyway, the behind the scenes stuff about these kinds of shows is not surprising, but somethign that I wish WAS made more public, if only in the hopes that it'd make people tune out. On the other hand, everyone knows that WWE wrestling is fake, and they still enjoy the show.
Hmm. Actually, there's a pretty apt comparison there... "Reality" shows are about as "real" as WWE wrestling is. The action itself is real (if somewhat choreographed), but the "drama" is all made up.
I have a few toy props to make over. But if you are proclaiming yourself in a contest to be a maker of goods, you need to be the maker of the goods 
