COMM5 Instructor Manual Chapter 6
Russert was known for ambushing his guests on air, confronting them with statements
they’d made in the past that differed from their current views and asking them to reconcile
the differing positions. In addition, the show’s panels are often populated by the same
combative pundits who appear on other TV news and opinion talk shows. As a result, Meet
the Press often succumbs to uncivil discourse characterized by interruptions, talk-overs, and
the demeaning of those who hold opposing views.
There are two reasons why public information programs meant to educate us about
important issues have become “gotcha” scream-fests. First, such shows are profitable for TV
networks because the costs to produce them are relatively low—they don’t require writers
or elaborate sets, and guests receive no compensation for sharing their opinions.
Second, viewers like edginess. Professor Dale Harrison of Auburn University explains,
“Rants add passion to news events and inspire people to take sides on issues”. This is
certainly not a new phenomenon. As journalist James Maguire points out, as far back as 80
B.C., Roman philosopher Cicero speculated that people are more convinced by pathos
(emotion) than by logos (logic). Professor Harrison acknowledges the effectiveness of
pathos, saying, “That’s not all bad, as long as viewers are skeptical about the facts
presented on TV rants and balance their media diet with more reliable sources of facts and
information”. But with newspaper circulation dropping precipitously, more Americans are
getting their news from TV sources, often choosing those whose ideological bent mirrors
their own. As a result, they are less likely to be exposed to valid arguments made by people
with opposing views.
Furthermore, as explored in a presentation by Diana Mutz, Byron Reeves, and Kevin
Wise at an annual meeting of the International Communication Association, experiments
show that although viewers are more likely to remember the main emphasis of the
arguments in less civil debates, they are also less likely to remember the actual arguments
underlying the positions. Compared to more civil debate, viewers are also less likely to
remember the arguments that are opposed to their own opinion.
Despite what viewers say they want, how well does the pundit debate style serve our
democracy? What would Thomas Jefferson—who said, “Information is the currency of
democracy”—think of Bill O’Reilly? How would John F. Kennedy—who said, “The ignorance
of the voter in a democracy impairs the security of all”—grade Keith Olbermann? And what
must Jesse Jackson—who said, “A full and fair discussion is essential to democracy”—make
of the talk-show round tables he participates in, where guests interrupt, fail to listen, and
insult other guests? Fair and balanced? You decide.
Sources:
Colapinto, J. (2006, August 11). Mad dog. Rolling Stone. Retrieved from
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/6417561/mad_dog; Farhi, P. (2009, February
19). Political pundits, overpopulating the news networks. Washington Post. Retrieved from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2008/02/18/AR2008021802267.html; Hau, L. (2008, April 28). Timber!
Newspaper circulation falls again. Forbes.com. Retrieved from
http://www.forbes.com/2008/04/28/newspapers-circulation-advertising-biz-media-
cx_lh_0428newspapers.html; Johnson, P. (2006, September 24). Cable rantings boost
ratings. USA Today. Retrieved from
http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2006-09–24-media-mix_x.htm;
Maguire, J. (2007, February 22). Cicero’s rules of rhetoric and our own shout-fest. Maguire
Online. Retrieved from
http://www.maguireonline.com/2007/02/ciceros_rules_of_rhetoric_and.php; Mutz, D.,
Reeves, B., & Wise, K. (2003, May 27). Exposure to mediated political conflict: Effects of