Talk Shows - Contribution to the Public Sphere - Essay Example

Depending on the time and place, talk shows contribute more or less to the public sphere in terms of audience and citizen participation. Discuss. By (Name) The Name of the Class (Course) Professor (Tutor) The Name of the School (University) The City and State where it is located The Date Depending on the time and place, talk shows contribute more or less to the public sphere in terms of audience and citizen participation. Discuss. In the 21st century, people live in a society prioritizing globalization and industry fast. In the past decades, the world has witnessed primary changes in mass media, as advances in transport, communication, and technology is embraced in many countries around the world. Exceptional innovations and contemporary media technology is creating new avenues of reaching and communicating with audiences and the public. This corresponds to the emergence of new and influential actors like tabloid and talk show hosts who are increasingly affecting the social, political, economic, and cultural environments by shifting how other actors like citizens, leaders, and journalists bargain in the public sphere. A plethora of academic literature exists in media and communications about the new talk show genres increasingly present in the new media age that continues to cloud many countries of the world (Higgins, 2006 p. 14). As noted by many scholars, talk shows have no social significance because of issues surrounding gendered dimensions of talk show programs (Livingstone, 1994 p. 429), representation and reality, the problem of control over interactions, quality of arguments, and the role hosts or moderators play in talk shows. Even though many criticisms emerge, the debate continues, as talk shows are becoming frequent ways of approaching various social, political, economic, and cultural problems in society. This paper explores the contribution of mass media, especially talk shows on political culture by both encouraging or discouraging audience and citizen participation. It focuses on the role talk shows play in influencing the relationship between audiences, citizens, and leaders in society. There exists a continuous debate in media theory arguing media is involved in influencing the formation, consumption, and expression of public opinion and spread of critical elite opinion. Therefore, the paper seeks to determine the extent the media offer a public sphere where audiences and citizens can debate various issues and make their leaders accountable through talk shows. In realizing this objective, the paper engages in a comparative analysis of the public sphere and its relevant participants in Albania and Lithuania. An analysis of Albania will offer insight into the new media age and the impact of new media genres like talk shows on public sphere and citizen participation. On Lithuania, the paper focuses on its public sphere and participants from the Soviet period, through the transitional period and finally after independence. An Analysis of Lithuania exposes particular features of the public sphere and offers a difference between spontaneous and staged public spheres. Moreover, it demonstrates increased domination of the public sphere by commercial interests and disregard of state ideology. In Albania, the research exposes the role of social groups and media, especially television in creating a public sphere. This analysis supported by not only normal television talk shows as in Lithuania, but incorporates other new age media technologies like mobile phones, social media emails, internet on audiences at home, and in studios used to contribute to talk shows by media hosts. The public sphere theory forms the theoretical background for this paper. Conceptualized by its renowned scholar, Jurgen Habermas, the public sphere is considered an area of social life where situations and events relating to public opinion are formed (Habermas 1989 p. 46). Public opinion revolves around problems and challenges experienced by people in society and the public sphere offers citizens a platform to evaluate the activities and actions of the government and leaders. Both Albania and Lithuania are based on a Hebermas theory of the public sphere because the elite have historically influenced the media to continue representing interests of a disinterested public, especially in political participation. Talk Shows and Public Sphere in Albania Talk shows are common in the new media age, but their presence in the media has historical and social underpinnings. In modern society, the state remains concerned about the individuals and media programming is important to regulate the information shared with the public (Lunt & Livingstone, 1996 p. 79). Therefore, it is important to define talk shows in an attempt to determine their influence on the public sphere in terms of audience and citizen participation. Livingstone (2005) notes, a talk show is considered “a terrain of struggle of discursive practices” (Livingstone & Lunt, 1994 p. 6). It is apparent various interests are present in talk shows apart from the public interests, and this leads to a difference between audiences and the public. Livingstone (2005) argues an audience “is inclusion in a common forum or a shared understanding”, but is differentiated from the public because “audiences are denigrated as trivial, passive, individualized, while publics are valued as active critically engaged, and politically significant” (Livingstone & Lunt, 1994 p.17). Albanian media seldom considers the public in talk shows as interactive actors in shows, but as participants who complement the process (Higgins, 2006 p. 10). This is common in daytime talk shows like 5 PM, Emisioni, and Pasdite në Top Channel and other late entertaining show with opinionated issues and discussions. Many commentators anticipated a change in the new age of technology, but the new media outlets are not adapting appropriately to ensure effective participation of audiences and citizens in the public sphere (Mehl, 2005 p. 77). In many prominent talk shows, the hosts and moderators consider the involvement of the audience and citizens with skepticism thus contribute less to creating a public sphere to encourage public participation (Leurdijk, 1997 p. 151). Not only is the public sphere a realm where situations involving public opinion are formed, it is apparent its existence depends on the initiatives of private individuals who converse to form a public body. In this manner, the body formed contrasts professional, business entities, or any constitutional order limited by the bureaucracy of the state. Even though the public is part of an audience according to Livingstone (2005), powerful stakes through many ways not limited to bribing and threats manipulate talk show audiences. Therefore, the public sphere remains a forum of fulfilling personal interests instead of engaging in crucial public debate. Therefore, the audiences in talk shows fail to engage talk show hosts and leaders actively about challenges and problems affecting society making talk shows contribute less to public sphere and public participation. Historically, Albania media was dominated by a notion that the elites were in charge of doing television while the public are expected to follow talk show proceedings. When Blendi Fevziu, the moderator in the talk show, Opinion had an interview with the head of the Socialist Party, Edi Rama, he was surprised with the concerns and questions advanced by citizens through the talk shows Facebook page. The citizens continuously participate in talk shows in Albania, but their contributions are disregarded for public appropriate opinions influenced by the bourgeoisie class. A prominent scenario in Albania that shifted the role of the citizens in talk shows was The Phil Donahue Show in 2002. The host of the show, Phil Donahue was the first individual to involve the public in a live debate with guest not limited to professional experts, and leaders (Dovey, 2000 p. 112). The role of hosts as mediator between the public and experts, politicians, and VIP guests saw a revolution in the visual media. Timberg & Enler (2002) insist talk show hosts should play the moving mediator role. In this role, they acknowledge a host was responsible for moving the public from passive spectators to active participants in any form of public speaking. The Phil Donahue Show was renowned for dedicating its success with the public, and it witnessed the emergence of the talk show genre allowing audience participation. However, another essential element characterizing Albania public sphere is the lack of real public participation in talk shows (Grindstaff, 2002 p. 25). In an interview with the Morning Post in 2012 during a talk show Klubi i Mëngjesit, Kratsa Adi argued the audience and public in talk shows in Albania are paid. It is difficult to find a sincere public opinion in talk shows and this discourages public participation (Carpignano, Andersen, Aronowitz & Difazio, 1990 p. 94). According to emerging literature, differences exist between an audience and public. Lavingtone (2005) notes public refers to “an orientation to collective and consensual action, perhaps even requires that action be effective for a public to be valued.” In this sense, the public is differentiated from an audience by incorporating the civic culture. In the political process, it is important for people to consider themselves participants and the engage in meaningful discussions. This culture is created in an environment that prioritizes politics, and the civic culture determines the extent civic engagement is hindered or promoted. Dahlgren (2005) described civic culture as “cultural patterns in which identities of citizenship, and foundations of civic agency, are embedded” (Dahlgren, 2009 p. 103). However, it is important that the public participate in talk shows because the type of public sphere created in talk shows influence the media’s level of democracy. Vehbiu (2011) points out that a democratic society allows the continuous and relentless participation of an individual in the community and society in governing the country. Free elections and representation seldom demonstrate real democracy. Therefore, effective public participation is demonstrated through a mutual exchange of knowledge and information from citizens to leaders and from leaders to citizens accordingly (Dahlgren, 2009 p. 106). In an article titled How Television ‘kill’ Politics, Fuga (2010) argues public participation in Albania is not characterized by a mutual exchange because politicians can exchange information with the public through talk shows, but the public lacks an appropriate medium to comment, oppose, support, or argue with politicians in studio talk shows (Grindstaff, 2002 p. 242). This results to asymmetry in communication because through politics, society is influenced, but society cannot influence politics due to poor sharing of information from politicians to citizens. Talk Shows and Public Sphere in Lithuania In Lithuania, the media was an essential part of the former Soviet Union (Carpignano, P., Andersen, Aronowitz & Difazio, 1990 p. 94). It served the state well in propaganda, legitimizing its actions, and mobilizing the people. The prioritization of Communist ideological principles led to increased exploitation of the media in creating an indoctrinating environment that endlessly served the people with communist ideals. The state aimed to create a loyal citizenship in building an effective and efficient Communist system. Economic and social issues dominated television and radio talk shows, as the government intentionally disregarded civic engagement by discouraging critical political talk in the media. Moreover, the Soviet also intruded on media privacy to eliminate any available evidence against the government. During the Soviet period, the media was exploited to create a staged public sphere. The government did not need a public sphere that created space between the public and authorities, but one that ensured space between the authorities and the public (Høyer et al, 1993 p. 34). The media needed to create a public sphere that demonstrated support for state policies, not a forum where such issues were discussed. Habermas agrees a representative public sphere characterized the Soviet period where political leaders had almost absolute control over the public. An encompassing public sphere to discuss political and critical issues affecting Lithuanians were occurring in alternative spheres, such as the cultural sphere while other elements like communication networks and discussion clubs were common in this period for political discussions Nevinckaitė (2012) illustrated the difference between a proper public sphere and the Soviet’s public sphere was seen in the differences between talks show hosts who steered conversations and news presenters who read prepared texts. He evaluated data collected from a language research assignment where numerous amounts of audiovisual texts beginning in 1961 and ending in 2011 were created. After analyzing the data obtained from the audiovisual texts, the results revealed various aspects of the USSR’s public sphere in the Soviet period, transitional period, and after the independence of Lithuania. The talk show hosts in both audio and visual media played a significant role in the transitional period by transforming the public sphere subsumed in state ideology. Even though Nevinckaitė (2012) encountered challenges in analyzing talk shows due to the scarcity of such programs in the Soviet period, it is apparent many dialogues in this period were scripted in advance. This practice contrasts talk shows in the 21st century, but a large proportion of talk shows were mediated by long sections of texts prepared and presented to talk hosts beforehand. In this manner, talk show hosts and news presenters had limited freedom and independence in encouraging public participation in media. However, the beginning of the transitional period in the late 20th century led to a change in the public sphere from a staged public sphere to a spontaneous and participatory-based public sphere. Talk show hosts and news reporters became popular because the transitional period witnessed the emergence of real talk show programs, such as Veidrodis. This talk show program was politically critical of the state, and this made it one of the most popular talk show programs in Lithuania (Jakubowicz, 1995 p. 18). More and more platforms were offered in audio and visual media for public engagement and the critical role played by presenters and talk show hosts made the difference between the staged and spontaneous public sphere that characterized the Soviet period and transitional period respectively. However, the period after independence following the decline of the Soviet Union in 1990 signaled another shift in the public sphere. Talk show hosts and news anchors did not enjoy the recognition of their counterparts in the Soviet and the transitional era of the country. The involvement of talk show hosts and news anchors as participants in the public sphere sustained public participation during those periods, but it is apparent they were losing relevance fast in the new media age (Dahlgren, 2009 p. 103). Not only is the public sphere intruded with a multiplicity of talk show genres like celebrity talk shows, couple shows, and other prominent shows in the new media age, commercial interests are interfering with the public sphere through the new media spreading in the digital age (Høyer et al, 1993 p. 84). The public sphere should separate commercial interests and state interests (Habermas 1989 p. 16). In the Soviet period, the public sphere through media responded to state interests while the transitional period saw the entry of new actors like talk show hosts and news anchors who changed the public sphere to ensure mutual gains between the state and the public (Jakubowicz, 1995 p. 98). However, after independence, new actors, commercial partners, who significantly transformed the new media industry in many Western countries, intruded the mass media. The actors are commercializing the media fast and transforming it from an educator to an entertainer. The commercialization of media and its attempt to foster an entertainment industry is responsible for a decline in Lithuania’s public sphere created in the transitional period. The transitional period signaled an integration of the state and public interests, but the bourgeois public sphere is crumbling. Private individuals assembled in a public body dominate its public sphere, and its influence over officially regulated media contrasts interests with the officially elected public body. In this manner, commercialization characterizes all media activities while disregarding critical discussions needed for effective public participation. The intrusion of commercial interests in media was witnessed in the proliferation of talks show genres today. This has shifted s the media from an educator to an entertainer because (1) celebrities replace experts are in talk shows and (2) audience interference where talk show audiences intentionally fail to participate in discussions constructively. Zoonen (2012) agrees television is a medium dangerous to the encouragement and maintenance of political citizenship. The declining role of informative and critical talk shows and discussions are quickly replaced by popular participatory talk show genres like Pop Idol, Big Brother, and American Idol (Van Zoonen, 2004 p. 39). This has led to the emergence and sustenance of fan communities around various entertainment genres, and Zoone (2012) identifies various similarities between fan communities and political constituencies around parties, ideologies, and leaders. Both parties come into existence because of performance and are similar in activity because they strive for discussion, imagination, knowledge, participation, and implementation. Finally, both are subjective, but rely on rationality. This leads to affective intelligence and this is destructive to political citizenship because entertainment replaces the affective intelligence essential for political activity and involvement (Van Zoonen, 2004 p. 46). In Lithuania, the commercialization of the media is noticeable in the significant changes in the role of a hero through the Soviet period, transitional period, and after independence. During the Soviet period, a hero was considered a participant in war or a laborer or worker. The different periods have led to a decline in its use and a change in its functions, especially in media talk shows. Here, heroes are considered the people who endure crime and violence or individuals with particular problems, and whose situation increases the audience’s interests in order to fulfill commercial interests. Emotional appeals remain essential in the entertainment industry, and this explains transformation of the concept of hero in the new media age. There are few political and critical talk shows in Lithuania because they are subsumed by numerous talk shows limited to economic and social discussions thus less contribution to the political public sphere Moreover, the prominence of celebrity roles played by various individuals in society explains the proliferation of talk show genres in the age of globalization. This also illustrates the trends in commercialization of media and culture like in talk shows, such as Oprah Winfrey (llouz, 2003 p.121). As described by Habermas, the public sphere is constructed to include issues beyond common interests. The celebrity role is belittled to include dancers, pop singers, and other members of the elite striving for fame instead of retaining its representative role of representing art, literature, and theater like in the Soviet period. The celebrity role is limited to representatives of popular culture that serves the commercial interest of actors influencing the activities of the new media (llouz, 2003 p.100). Conclusively, talk shows only champion government ideologies socially and economically, and fail politically, thus the public cannot engage constructively with the government. In Lithuania, the citizens are not effectively benefiting from emergence of new media, as commercial interests sideline public participation and involvement in the policy making process. Even though the citizen’s contribution in talk shows has significantly increased, it does not equate to civic engagement because the talk shows are already manipulated by influential actors with business interests. Talk shows are influential actors in the public sphere, and advances in technology, transport, and communication is changing this role fast. Globalization has led to commercialization of the public sphere, and talk shows are not positively contributing to public participation, but new media is offering plenty opportunities for the people to engage their governments. It is seen that the new media age is characterized by the proliferation of talk show genres, and this has significantly changed the focus of talk shows. Talk shows are currently focusing on the economic and social life of the people while ignoring engaging citizens in critical and political discussions needed to keep governments in check. Moreover, in countries where political talk shows are encouraged, as seen in Albania, the content is highly distorted by talk show hosts. In this situation, a talk show host shields influential people participating in the public sphere from public scrutiny through numerous instituted regulations. This demonstrates commercial interests are overshadowing public interests and the public sphere is the battleground. However, talk shows are focusing on social and economic aspects of life, and in any case, where the media air political discussion, the content is regulated to ensure it is not critical and dangerous to commercial interests. The invasion of new media by commercial interests has significantly changed the role of talk shows, and this is dangerous for society because the elite are finding new avenues to control public scrutiny. Moreover, it is worrying many influential people are controlling and owning one of the fundamental means of public information and communication, and limited information sharing is destroying the right and freedoms of speech and information essential in a democracy. Therefore, future research should focus on determining other means influential and commercial interests are reinforced by talk shows because I believe this influence may be spread not only through talk show hosts, but other factors make it much stronger. All in all, it will be possible to determine how talk shows contribute less to the public sphere and identify other means of encouraging civic engagement in the new media age. List of References Carpignano, P., Andersen, R., Aronowitz, S., and Difazio, W., 1990, Chatter in the age of electronic reproduction: talk television and the public mind. In B. Robbins (Ed) (1992). The phantom public sphere. pp. 93-120. Dahlgren, P., 2009, Media and political engagement: Citizens, communication and democracy. Chapter 5, Cambridge: CUP. Dovey, J., 2000, Freakshows: First person media and factual television. London: Pluto Press. Grindstaff, L., 2002, The money shot: Trash, class, and the making of TV talk shows. Chicago: UCP. Habermas, J., 1989, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Tr. T. Burger, with the assistance of F. Lawrence. Cambridge: Polity Press Høyer, S. ed., et al., 1993, Towards a Civic Society. The Baltic Media’s Long Road to Freedom. Tartu: Nota Baltica. Higgins, M., 2008, Media and their publics. Maidenhead: Open University Press. llouz, E., 2003, Oprah Winfrey and the glamour of misery: an essay in popular culture. New York: Columbia UP. Jakubowicz, K., 1995 “Media as Agents of Change.” In Glasnost and After. Media and Change in Central and Eastern Europe., eds. D. L. Paletz et al. Cresskill: Hampton Press. Leurdijk, A., 1997, Common sense versus political discourse: Debating racism and multicultural society in Dutch talk shows. European Journal of Communication, 12(2), 147-168. Livingstone, S. and Lunt, P., 1994, Talk on television: Audience participation and public debate. London: Routledge. Livingstone, S., 1994, Watching talk: Engagement and gender in the audience discussion programme. Media, Culture and Society, 16, 429-447. Lunt, P., & Stenner, P., 2005, The Jerry Springer Show as an emotional public sphere. Media Culture & Society, 27(1), 59-81. Lunt, P., & Livingstone, S., 1996, Rethinking the focus group in media and communications research. Journal of Communication, 46(2), 79-98. Mehl, D., 2005, The public on the television screen: towards a public sphere of exhibition. In S. Livingstone (Ed.), Audiences and publics: When cultural engagement matters for the public sphere (pp. 77-98). Bristol: Intellect Press. Opinion, 2013, An interview of Blendi Fevziu with Mr. Edi Rama, June 20, 2013, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiXCquaf-no&noredirect=1 Press, A., and Johnson-Yale, C., 2008, Political talk and the flow of ambient television: Women watching Oprah in an African American hair salon. In Goldstein, P., and Machor, J. L. (Eds.), New directions in American reception study (307-323). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Timberg, M. B. & Erler, J. R., 2002, Television talk: a history of the TV Talk show, Texas: University of Texas Press The Morning Club, 2013, An interview of Blendi Salaj with Adi Krasta, March 25, 2015. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qdGLGAuawE Van Zoonen, L., 2004, Imagining the fan democracy. European Journal of Communication, Vehbiu, A. (2011). Mute public, Peizazhe të Fjalës, February 17, 2011. http://xhaxhai.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/publiku-memec 19(1), 39-52. Wood, H., 2005, Texting the subject: Women, television, and modern self-reflexivity. Communication Review 8(2), 115-135. Read More