The materialization 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-channeling of this experience into a limited number of conventional and highly moralized 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).
[...] 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 p.452). [...]
[...] 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. [...]
[...] Similarly, Vanessa's rival show 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). [...]
[...] 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 in itself is a remarkable phenomenon in an age fascinated by glamour and by spectacle. [...]
[...] 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 commercialize popular culture or whether they offer a novel televisual public sphere for political debate (Haralovich et al 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. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
