The Talk Show in Relation to the Free and Democratic Debate - Dissertation Example

Critical discussions of the televisual public sphere often prioritise the talk show. How would you assess the talk show in relation to the free and democratic debate of the public sphere? The materialisation of mainstream broadcast television in the 1950s and the emergence of omnipresent dissemination of the format in the 1960s arguably blurred the traditional distinction between the personal and political by “producing a public sphere in which social questions are understood in terms of individual dramas” (Mirzoeff, 2002, p.451). Therefore, the advent of mainstream broadcast television created a new public sphere through increased audience participation. To this end, Mirzoeff (2002) posits that the televisual public sphere format “fosters a particular form of spectatorship: it creates a split or multiple identification, in which there is an approximate reflection of the viewer’s experience, but also simultaneously, a re-channelling of this experience into a limited number of conventional and highly moralised narratives” (p.451). As such, the televisual format has enabled the self reflection of the spectator to become part of the public sphere narrative, which in turn “provides a space for ideological formations to take root” (Mirzoeff, 2002, p.451). Moreover, Mirzoeff (2002) posits that the evolution of the talk show is a prime example of re-narrativizing everyday experiences through a participatory format spearheaded by Phil Donahue, paving the way for Oprah, Sally Jesse Raphael and Jerry Springer. Additionally, Mirzoeff highlights the point that the key factor to the popularity in the talk show programs is the use of guests that “tend to be both ordinary in their resemblance to other middle class Americans and exceptional in that their function is to narrate some form of transgressive or unconventional behaviour” (p..453). However, on the other side of the spectrum, the popularity of the talk show format has fuelled polarised academic debate as to whether television talk shows are a valid new public sphere on a par with pre-existing political institutions as a form of public debate, particularly for marginalized social groups (Mirzoeff, 2002, p.453). Alternatively, critics of the televisual format argue that the confessional aspect of the talk show undermines the validity of the talk show as a genuine public sphere for debate and propose that the talk show is essentially a manipulated format of television, creating the illusion of participation with the overall purpose to entertain and thereby controlled by the programming objectives. For example, in US the term “talk show” includes chat shows that feature groups of guests as well as the confessional Jerry Springer format. With regard to the latter participation format, this will involve guest participation and the host will typically undertake the role of mediator, which is an important distinction to make in considering how the talk show operates as a media experience (Tolson, 2001, p.7). To this end, Tolson asserts that “if the talk show is the most controversial TV genre then much academic commentary seems impelled to line up either for or against the terms of the controversy (2001, p.7). In general terms, the crux of the debate regarding the talk show is whether the format provides a novel sphere for democratic debate, thereby further blurring the distinction between the public and private. The focus of this paper is to critically evaluate the extent to which the talk show format creates a public sphere for debate. To this end, it is submitted at the outset that ultimately the extent to which the talk show operates as a valid medium for democratic debate in the public sphere ultimately depends on the nature of the talk show format. The “talk show” aegis is inherently wide and covers chat shows and participatory confessional formats. Accordingly, in terms of critical debate the talk show format attracting most criticism is the confessional format, which Timberg and Erler (2002) suggest has led to academics questioning the importance of the talk show as a form of promoting democratic debate in the public sphere (p.200). Nevertheless, it is submitted that in principle, whilst the confessional and exploitative nature of talk show can prove uncomfortable viewing; the talk show has effectively made some characteristics acceptable in the mainstream and representing marginalized groups that are ignored by mainstream media (Mirzoeff, 2002, p.452). However, on the other side of the spectrum, Mirzoeff criticises the fact that a concomitant result of this has been “the repetitive comments of audience members” and the “anodyne and remarkable unimaginative pronouncements of psychologist-experts who inevitably serve up the same advice for very type of supposed disorder” (2002, p.454). Moreover, it is arguable that it is precisely this participatory format which lends itself to self-reflexivity that accounts for the immense popularity of the talk show format. Indeed, this is supported by Mirzoeff’s assertion that “the split between the subversive and the hegemonic is exemplified in the person of the host him – or herself, who has the avatar of the regular guy or woman just like me” (2002, p.455). As such, it is arguably the participatory nature of the altered version of oneself, which shapes the televisual public sphere in the US (Mirzoeff, 2002, p.453). To this end, Mirzoeff asserts that “within the ostensible abundance of television programming there are a few core narratives which are repeated over and over again. This ideological work is all the more effective because it is experienced as profoundly apolitical and belonging to the customer” (Mirzoeff, 2002, p.453). Moreover, this participatory reflection of the self in the talk show format heightens a sense of immediacy in the viewing experience; which is fuelled by multiple media streams enabling immediate offsite participation through online chat rooms sending in questions to guests in the studio (Timberg & Erler, 2002). Nevertheless, whilst heightening public participation, this still begs the question as to whether the talk show format provides a vehicle for democratic debate in the public sphere, particularly when considering the controvertible integrity of such programs. For example, if we consider the UK talk show format by analogy, in 1999 a researcher working on the BBC’s Vanessa show was suspended after the discovery that two guests purporting to be strippers and feuding sisters were in fact recruited from an entertainment agency (In Tolson, 2001, p.1). The BBC fired the researcher on grounds that “audiences must be able to believe in the integrity of our programs” (In Tolson, 2001, p.1). Similarly, Vanessa’s rival show “Trisha” was accused of the same, which further supports the submission at the outset of this paper that the value of the talk show as a genuine televisual vehicle for democratic debate in the public sphere will ultimately depend on the nature of the talk show format and the integrity executed by programmers. Moreover, in highlighting this point, Tolson (2001) refers to the alternative example of the talk show regarding the Jenny Jones murder case where the family of the man murdered in 1999 appeared on a talk show program and subsequently initiated a lawsuit against the Time Warner and US legal rulings on media responsibility for criminal acts (p.2). In considering this scenario in comparison to the Vanessa and Trisha debacle, Tolson (2001) comments that “it would seem that the TV talk show is something of a double bind. They are damned if they do feature fakes and damned if they don’t. Either way, in continuous press coverage of this sort, talk shows have now become the most controversial genre” (p.2). Indeed, the controversy surrounding the talk show format is evidenced by some talk shows being targeted through public campaigns such as the Dump Springer Coalition and Stattuc (In Tolson, 2001, p.3) Alternatively, in the US the talk show format became the most popular TV genre in the 1990s; particularly the Oprah Winfrey Show and recently the multi formatted Ellen de Generes show. By comparison, in the UK, whilst talk shows are popular and pervasive in the daily TV schedule, dramas generally fare better. Nevertheless, Tolson comments that “what is incontrovertible, however is that the talk show has become ubiquitous, and a major focus for critical discussion by academic commentators as well as journalists” (Tolson, 2001, p2). For example, the Vanessa saga raised debate as to why a talk show purporting to be about discussing controversial socio-political issues affecting average members of the public had to resort to hiring actors in faking a social issue for entertainment purposes. As such, this has fuelled controversy as to the efficacy of the talk show medium for promoting democratic debate. Indeed, the fakery involved in the Vanessa saga arguable is “emblematic of developments in modern media company, cheap to produce, daytime programming, stripped across the schedules, heading increasingly downmarket entertainment” (Tolson, 2001, p.2); which far removed from any notion of providing a public vehicle for democratic debate. However, Tolson (2001) argues that from a theoretical perspective, talk shows “matter because they are a focus for considerable public debate and because they are crucial to the landscape of popular television” (p.3). Notwithstanding the merits of this argument from a theoretical perspective, this is clearly undermined by the purpose of programmers competing for audiences and therefore further supports the proposition that the extent to which talk shows operates as valid mediums of democratic debate in the public sphere is inherently dependent on the motives of the programmers putting out the programme. Nevertheless, Tolson (2001) makes an extremely important point that the interesting facet of the rising popularity of the talk show format is that they are based on talking and enjoying listening to people talk; which “is in itself is a remarkable phenomenon in an age fascinated by glamour and by spectacle. Whether or not the guests are real, and however they may or may not be exploited, there is a discursive dynamic to this performance of talk, which engages contemporary audiences” (p.3). Moreover, it is precisely this “discursive dynamic” that highlights the potential of the talk show format in providing an important vehicle for democratic debate in the public sphere. On the other hand, from a sociological perspective empathy can be found with the moral despair of religious leaders and journalists, joining academics in lambasting such shows, particularly with regard to the perceived negative impact on culture, as highlighted by the faking incidents (Tolson, 2001, p.7). For example, Nelson and Robinson referred to the fact that in 1994 they both were invited to appear on a talk show on the topic of male escorts and commented that their role was pre-scripted and that they were provided with a blueprint for the show and that the show was entirely scripted (in Tolson, 2001, p.7). Moreover, Tolson (2001) comments that “for Nelson, this undermined the show’s claim to be engaged in serious investigative journalism; and there is a very interesting account of the host’s performance of feigned spontaneity, even in enterprise” (p.7). Moreover, Nelson and Robinson (1994) refer to the fact that the faking it dimension of the talk show format further raised socio-cultural issues such as the representation of gender “deviance” along with the “conservative agenda which amounts to denigrating and punishing a woman’s assertion of sexual autonomy. The show thus presented a simplified and manageable morality tale in which normative gender roles were unthinking and taken for granted” (In Tolson, 2001, p.8). To this end, Dines and Humez (2003) highlight that the media representation of gender has been greatly shaped by the rise of the talk show format. In supporting this argument, they refer to the example of talk shows such as Oprah and Ricki Lake, which shifted the feminine social discourse and eroded boundaries regarding the public and private sphere. For example, with regard to Ricki Lake, Moskowitz (2001) argues that it “was perhaps most responsible for introducing no-holds-barred format of TV talk shows” (p.268). In highlighting the erosion of the public/private sphere argument, the Ricki Lake show focuses on young people and “with shows like “Listen Family, I’m Gay…. It’s Not a phase…. Get Over It! “Girl You’re Easy Because you’re Fat….Respect yourself ASAP” and “Mom, I’m 13…. But I’m going to make a baby!” In less than four month’s time the show was being aired on 212 stations, breaking Oprah’s record of 179 (Moskowitz, 2001, p.268). On the other hand, whilst such shows may be criticised for eroding the public/private sphere and are plagued by continuous allegations of fakery, it is arguable that they provide a valuable public sphere for discussing morality issues that are considered too unsavoury or uncomfortable for conservative mainstream media outlets. On the other hand potential fraud involved in such shows clearly raises cultural issues and risks undermining the potential utility of the talk show format as a vehicle for democratic debate in the public sphere. For example, Abt and Seesholtz (1994) posit that “to experience the virtual realities of television talk shows is to confront a crisis in the social construction of reality. Television talk shows create audiences by breaking cultural rules, by managed shocks, by shifting our conceptions of what is acceptable, by transforming our ideas about what is possible, by undermining the bases for cultural judgment, by redefining deviance and appropriate reactions to it, by eroding social barriers, inhibitions and cultural distinctions” (In Tolson, 2001, p.7). Therefore, to this end, Abt and Seesholtz argue that the talk show from a cultural perspective is the worst embodiment of popular culture as evidenced by the increasing use of fakery and manipulation for entertainment purposes in precedence to offering a vehicle for public debate. This in turn raises serious issues with regard to mass media and control of formatting especially as the ability of the talk show to provide a viable medium of democratic debate as a public sphere is inherently dependent on the programming. Indeed, Curren and Seaton comment that “the mass media are rather like the political parties in that they tend to gravitate towards the centre in response to competitive pressures” (Curren & Seaton, 2003). This therefore highlights the wider reality of the talk show format being used as a genuine vehicle for public debate. Whilst, theoretically, the format clearly lends itself to the inclusion of the populace, the business of television highlights the overriding concern of programming responding to “competitive pressures” as highlighted by Curren and Seaton (2003). This in turn leads programmers to create manipulative formats for the purpose of entertainment to secure ratings, which can devalue the role of the talk show as a model for democratic debate in the public sphere. Moreover, the structure of the television marketplace and horizontal integration paradigm results in a handful of media barons with influence and power of media to broadcast their ideology and increase of competition among channels for advertisers (Curren & Seaton, 2003). This in turn leaves the reality of effectively fewer businesses controlling the mass media. As such, it has been submitted that the shrinking media ownership has given way to the incorporation of a Marxist media model through the back door; which in turn shapes programming formats particularly with regard to political issues (Briggs & Burke, 2005). The most obvious example is the global Murdoch Empire. Rupert Murdoch owns Sky News, controls the Sun and the Times newspapers and owns almost 35% of distributed newspapers (Briggs & Burke, 2005). Moreover, Murdoch is unabashed in expressing his agenda “for better for worse, our company….is a reflection of my thinking, my character, my values”, which is in line with Chomsky’s extrapolation in “Media Control: the spectacular achievements of propaganda” (Chomsky, 1999). Furthermore, if we consider the example of the UK by analogy, Chomsky argues that the UK is effectively a “spectator” democracy, which is regulated by an elite group to create a different version of reality as a result of media manipulation (Chomsky, 1999). Moreover, from the private sector perspective, Curran and Seaton posit that “Murdoch wields considerable power…. and is often wooed by politicians to persuade him to favourably cover their campaigns” (Curren & Seaton, 2003). Furthermore, they refer to the political relationship between Tony Blair and Murdoch, which began a relationship in 1995 to switch allegiances. Indeed, in 1992, the Sun’s headline “it’s the sun wot won it for John Major” brought the question of press bias to the fore (Curran & Gurevitch, 2000). If the media can switch alliances based on political incentives and in return can influence public voting minds, then this challenges the perception of Blulmer and McQuail (1968) that people do not react to political media messages (Curren & Seaton, 2003). These further highlights the point the media control of output will inherently be reliant on the objectives of those wielding control, which suggests the inherent limitation of the talk show format by analogy as a televisual mode of democratic debate as a public sphere. Moreover, if we further consider by analogy the example of Murdoch’s power as a media baron, it extends beyond election time with continuous power in the private sector to manipulate stories (Curren & Seaton, 2003). This in turn enables domination over other media stations and output. Additionally, if we consider the Propaganda model extrapolated by Chomsky, the model centres on “the inequality of wealth and power and its multilevel effects on mass media interest and choices” (Chomsky, 1999). Indeed a survey undertaken by Lewis, which was published in the Guardian found that “a survey of the main broadcasters’ coverage of the invasion of Iraq shows the claim that the BBC was anti-war is the opposite of the truth” (www.guardian.co.uk). It is submitted that the propaganda model highlights the risks posed by an unregulated media, which in ultimately controls the extent to which a televisual medium can genuinely be considered as a vehicle for no-holds-barred democratic debate. This is further evidenced by consideration of the Propaganda model, which suggests that ownership of media institutions such as Murdoch’s empire is a reflection of his own view and agenda, much in the same way the BBC is accused of representing views of its regulators in the UK. Moreover, the BBC is further dependent on UK Government funding and the renewal is at the Government’s discretion. On the other hand, the licence fee paying for the BBC creates a restriction on the right to freedom of choice, whereby the licence fee paying public resent paying a licence to access ITV and Channel 4. Therefore with a model in favour of increased media control, clearly questions are raised as to the true extent of media freedom particularly (Curren & Seaton, 2003). Therefore the above analysis demonstrates that on the one hand, a theoretical advantage of the talk show format is that it blurs boundaries and pre-existing categories that are considered fundamental to traditional forms of social order (Tolson, 2002, p.9). However, on the other hand, whilst this enables marginalized sections of society to be represented, Tolson (2002) argues that the distinctions between deviant, public and private and fictional, along with the deconstruction of categories means that “television talk shows create an ersatz community without any of the social and personal responsibilities that are attached to real life” (p.9). In turn, this clearly raises socio-cultural issues in trivialising serious issues. For example, Shattuc in Haralovich et al (1999) refer to the example of an episode of the Oprah Show in 1994: “Today I am sitting between two people who have never been this close face to face since one very unforgettable night two years ago. Debbie says that the man sitting across from her locked in a closed room, held a gun to her, and violently raped her. Jawah says Debbie is lying” Oprah Winfrey, May 3 1994 (p.168). Therefore, this highlights the crucial point that whilst theoretically the talk show format clearly provides the medium for being used as a forum for democratic debate of the general public as a public sphere; the reality of the television business model shaping television output clearly begs the question as to whether talk shows merely commercialise popular culture or whether they offer a novel televisual public sphere for political debate (Haralovich et al, 1999, p.168). This is further supported by Haralovich et al’s observation that “Shattuc posits that “Oprah Winfrey’s visceral description from her May 1994 show seemingly relegates the social issues involved in rape to the realm of cheap thrills. But on another level, the program’s dramatic individualised account allows ordinary citizens in the studio and at home – to enter into a debate about sexual power in their everyday lives, a rare moment on network television (1999, p.168). Moreover, Haralovich et al (1999) argue that the sensationalism and politics is a key ingredient in the consciousness of American culture, which therefore begs the question as to whether “a portion of the public sphere comes into being in every conversation in which private individuals assemble to form a public body?” (p169). This in turn would support the utility of the talk show as political public sphere and to this end, Haralovich et al (1999) posit that there is clearly a subconscious element to American culture that “daytime TV talk shows are involved in the political arena” (p.169). Furthermore, in light of the popularity of such talk show formats, the heightened popularity of such shows and increased role of the average citizen in formulating political opinion has led to arguments that such shows trivialise politics. In addition, this has led to the argument that the Oprahfication of America raises the question as to whether such television “content be political and be public arenas where people form opinion freely?”(Haralovich et al, 1999, p.169). Alternatively, Abt and Seesholtz refer to the therapy meets entertainment argument in understanding the talk show phenomenon whereas Livingstone and Lunt argue that such television shows are clearly instances of a televisual public sphere (in Tolson, 2002). However contention still remains as to the role of such shows in the public/political democratic debate context. Notwithstanding, it is evident that the talk show format clearly represents an individualist perspective of socio-political issues and therefore it is too dogmatic to argue that talk shows do not offer a public sphere for democratic debate. Nevertheless, ultimately the extent to which this televisual format can genuinely offer democratic debate as opposed to public manipulation for entertainment purposes depends on the objectives of the programme makers and decision makers. Bibliography Briggs, A., & Burke, P. (2005). A Social History of the Media. Polity Chomsky, N. (1999). Profit over people: neoliberalism and global order. Seven Stories Press. Curran, J & Gurevitch, M (2000). Mass Media and Society. Arnold Publishers Curran, J., & Seaton, J. (2003). Power without Responsibility: The Press and Broadcasting in Britain. 6th Edition. Routledge. Dines, G. & Humes, J. N. (2003). Gender, Race and class in media. Sage Publications Haralovich, M. B., & L. Rabinovitz (1999). Television, history and American Culture: feminist critical essays. Duke University Press. Mirzoeff, N. (2002). The Visual Culture Reader. Routledge. Moskowitz, E. S. (2001). In therapy we trust: America’s obsession with self-fulfilment. JHU Press. Timberg, B. & Erler, B. (2002). Television Talk Show: A history of the TV talk show. Tolson, A. (2001). Television talk shows: discourse, performance, spectacle. Lawrence Eribaum Associates. University of Texas Press. Read More