Taking us to the foreign scene, let us speak about how talk show began and evolved in Nigeria. Talk show as a part of public sphere in Nigeria can be dated back to the beginning of mass media. A major breakthrough of talk show in public sphere began in April 2000 with the birth of ‘New Dawn” with nearly one thousand shows. Top among the hosts of this period was Funmi Iyanda. Today, it is on record that Bunmi’s television talk show grew to become a strong voice of the people, a beckon of hope and a brand with integrity. Bunmi’s show came to limelight when she featured an eight year old Senu Gonoda who suffered from a congenital hole in the heart – the effect of the show on the society was indeed overwhelming. People who are considered as the marginalized voice have used talk show as a means to reach out to high power (the government) to air their own opinion which in turn positively influenced the decision about the issue of concern. Talk show can thus be seen as a part of the public sphere because the media here has been used as a means of resolving an issue which was a problem of the society
Are talk shows a part of the public sphere?
In the work of a German philosopher Jurgen Habermas (who is a central figure in this discussion) in his theory of public sphere (1964/1989) - he conceptualizes the public sphere as that realm of social life where the exchange of information and views of questions of common concern can take place so that public opinion can be formed. The public sphere ‘takes place’ when citizens exercising the rights of assembly association gather as public bodies to discuss issues of the day specifically those of political concern. Yet his concepts of public sphere insists on the analytic centrality of reasoned, critical discourse, it exists in the active reasoning of the public and it is in such discourse that public opinion is generated which in turn shapes the policies of the state and the development of society as a whole.
Public sphere is not of course a sphere; it is a metaphorical term that is used to describe the virtual space where people can interact (Hartley, 1992: pp1). A place where people’s conversations, ideas and minds meet- that is public space (Robbins, 1993: xvi). It is the place where information, ideas and debate circulate in society and where political opinion can be formed (Dahlgren, 1995: ix). Speaking in terms of interaction, there are three areas of analytic concern within the interaction dimension of the public sphere: discursive, spatial and communal. The discursive has to do with the nature of the talk which circulates, is the talk political, social and therapeutic? In the discussion of a particular topic there has to be unity and coherence in the questions, views and suggestion; spatial refers to the sites and settings of the social interaction. Where do people meet? What factors foster of hinder their interaction in these spaces? The spatial is seldom separable form the discursive, both together serve to define contexts and occasions, for example, an emotional type of talk the atmosphere would be conducive enough, the people would be comfortably sited; the communal aspect has to do with the nature of the social bonds between citizens, there has to be oneness amongst the people, that is having similar opinions on a particular issue, people talk to each other and thus give each other a sense of how there are thinking. Thus, the term public sphere, there must be interaction to permit and foster the processes of sense-making. The talk show clearly fits into the description mentioned above; as interaction is the key element, the site or the show is clearly defined and different issues are discussed in the shows.
For public sphere theorist there are two dominant models of how such a sphere would operate to serve democratic ends. In Habermas’ view, the goal to be achieved would be an arena in which every voice was given equal access and all opinion would be heard and deliberated on, in ways that allowed for the development of public opinion. However, following a more Gramascian view how hegemonic norms- which are always unstable, dynamic and contested- develop, work through a process by various groups with varying agenda’s and view contest for a voice with an always negotiated, multifaceted and contradictory results.
There are some major themes which are pertinent in both academic literature and popular saying about the public sphere, these are; that the public sphere is too trivialized- consumers are more interested in unimportant information about celebrity, scandals rather than the more serious issues (public affairs); it is too commercialized- critics thought that through the commercialization of the public sphere, it began to represent public opinion rather than to provide a free forum for the emergence of public opinion and also the media do not care about the material in the public sphere, it focuses more on monetary value; it depends greatly on spectacle instead of ratio argumentation; it is too fragmented- and it has caused people to become apathetic about serious public issues- people no longer care about the important issues. But other critics have said the public sphere been trivialized is not entirely bad as it has paved way for feminist in public debates.
Habermas’s writing provides a vision of the ideal public sphere- a vision that is common both to academic and popular thinking.
“the public sphere should ideally deal only with serious issues of real
importance- only party politics and not celebrity issues, sport or entertainment. It should not be sensational, easily accessible or commercialized. It should refuse to dumb down to consumers and rather demand that they work harder to improve themselves. It should only engage in rational, logical arguments: not emotional or spectacular appeals. And it should be unified and different kinds of culture”.
Despite the fact that Habermas stressed the standard that cuts out to be public sphere one should not forget the fact that talk shows also contribute immensely to public participation and expression. It has also been conceived that talk show may be considered as a different form of public sphere. According to Livingstone and Lunt (1993), they suggested that talk shows are a candidate for oppositional public sphere, emphasizing the expression of interested point of view that give voice to participants’ perspectives and aiming at compromise rather than consensus. Habermas’s bourgeois theory is different for the oppositional public sphere, while Habermas’s theory centers on rational critical discussion in which in an argument other position should be considered, the oppositional public sphere just aims for negotiation compromise. The oppositional public sphere favors feminist theory and women, the female viewers love the chance to hear the voices of ordinary people speak on everyday life
Gerard Hauser proposed a different direction for the public sphere than previous models. He proposed that public spheres were formed around the dialogue surrounding issues, rather than the identity of the population that is engaging in the discourse. “Emphasizing the rhetorically of public spheres foregrounds their activity". Rather than arguing for an all inclusive public sphere, or the analysis of tension between public spheres, he suggested that publics were formed by active members of society around issues. They are a group of interested individuals who engage in vernacular discourse about a specific issue. Publics may be repressed, distorted, or responsible, but any evaluation of their actual state requires that we inspect the rhetorical environment as well as the rhetorical act out of which they evolved, for these are the conditions that constitute their individual character. These people formed rhetorical public spheres that were based in discourse, not necessarily orderly discourse but any interactions whereby the interested public engages each other. This interaction can take the form of institutional actors as well as the basic "street rhetoric" that "open[s] a dialogue between competing factions.” The spheres themselves formed around the issues that were being deliberated. The discussion itself would reproduce itself across the spectrum of interested publics "even though we lack personal acquaintance with all but a few of its participants and are seldom in contexts where we and they directly interact, we join these exchanges because they are discussing the same matters. In order to communicate within the public sphere, "those who enter any given arena must share a reference world for their discourse to produce awareness for shared interests and public opinions about them.
There are different genre of talk shows which can be divided into different spectrums; Public affairs format, conflict issue oriented (trash talk show) therapeutic format which centers on social problems in personal perspective. Most of the scholarly writings available labels talk show as trash television but it is worthy to note that one man’s trash is another man’s pot of gold, there is this conjured image of talk show as a place were demented individual with deviant behaviors scream at each other but this is not the case all the time as some have been seen to depict positive effects and enhances public participation which can be termed as public sphere.
Studies have shown that talk shows offer potential for ‘public sphering’ because it is one of the few spaces were ‘ordinary people’ engage in conversation on television or radio, creates awareness of certain issues that are rarely included in topics of other forms of public sphere. Leurdijk (2000) qualifies talk shows as a postmodern public platform for debate; she concludes that the talk shows offers opportunity for women and men of different background to get their own voices heard, in a framework that allows for more diversity than traditional news media do. In other words, talk shows should be seen not just in the light of it been a public sphere but as a way in which voice is given to those who would not ordinarily be heard (an ordinary citizen is given a microphone an has the opportunity to ask a top government official a question), it gives people the opportunity to express their opinion /views on issue of concern. Talk show are more like a college of opinion, experiences and thru the sharing of individual experiences it allows not only new topics but different styles of talking about them. The restrictions of the bourgeois public sphere as discussed in the work of Habermas (1989) and his critics Calhorn (1992) are alleviated in favor of a more diverse spectrum of topics and styles considered appropriate for public concern and debate.
Carpignano et al (1990) privilege the talk show as a new site within the public sphere which embodies strong democratic potentials. Amongst other things, they point to the fact that these programs are geared towards public debate using conversational discursive modes- they establish bonds of familiarity with television audience and the studio audience via its talk; also most times common sense prevails over expertise.
“the crises of the beourgios theory is fully visibly and displayed
before our eyes… if we think about the reconstruction of a public
sphere in terms revitalization of old political organsation…
then the embroyic discursive practices of a talk show might
appear interesting. (Carpignano et al, 1990, p54)
Taking us back in time to the eighteenth century, the way in which people engage in public sphere was well established in various locations including coffee shops and salons, areas of society where various people could gather and discuss matters that concerned them. The coffee houses in London society at this time became the centers of art and literary criticism, which gradually widened to include even the economic and the political disputes as matters of discussion. In French salons, as Habermas says, "opinion became emancipated from the bonds of economic dependence". It not only paved a forum for self-expression, but in fact had become a platform for airing one’s opinions and agendas for public discussion which may or may not influence the decision making. Bringing us back to the twenty-first century, public sphere hasn’t changed much but the medium has evolved, initially news oriented journalism was one of the few medium in which public sphere took place but now journalism has evolved and gave birth to talk show which is a positive tool in public participation/discussion.
When one mentions talk show, what first come to mind is television talk show, moving beyond television talk show they is also the internet radio talk show which takes a different dimension from the usually form of talk show. It requires experts and also people that have interest in a particular topic to listen to the show and then give there own opinion. Talk radio is a radio containing discussion about topical issues. Most shows are regularly hosted by a single individual, and often feature interviews with a number of different guests. Talk radio typically includes an element of listener participation, usually by broadcasting live conversations between the host and listeners who "call in" (usually via telephone) to the show. Listener contributions are usually screened by a show's producer(s) in order to maximize audience interest and, in the case of commercial talk radio, attract advertisers. These has also proved to be a good way of public sphering as it gives a larger number of people the chance to participate in a critic rational discussion which has positively influenced decision making process in the society.
Analysis of Tyra Banks show
Habermas’s public sphere theory and talk show as a cultural forum for the expression of marginal voices share similar assumptions that emotional expression is subordinate to rational critical discussions.
Using the Tyra Banks show to refute the claim that talk shows should be a part of the public sphere, it is a tabloid talk show genre, which is emotional (emotional expression plays a vital part and shows the magnitude of feeling which is required in therapeutic shows) sensational (its focus centers on issues facing women) and issue-oriented (centers on social problems in personal perspective). The audience range from working class people to middleclass housewives to young people to experts from different spheres of life.
An example of one of Tyra Banks show was the Teenagers spiraling out of control, Tyra starts as she would do in all other shows by introducing the topic which involves young teenage girls who are between the ages of 14 and 18 making money out of odd jobs. The show commences with tyra offstage introducing the topic of the show which was the length teenager go to make money theses days, she directly faces the audience at home trying to portray that they are also an important part of the show. she stressed the fact that back in her days a typical teenager would get a job in fast food joint or at the clothing store but now things have changed, then she introduces the first guest, an 18years old girl who proudly admits that she went into the business she does because it is what she has always wanted to do. After answering a series of questions there is footage of a prerecorded message in which she was even quoted as saying "I'm a player, but that's okay, because I got it like that!" but she clearly advices young people not to venture in such business as it is a very dangerous business. The members of the audience are then given the opportunity to ask questions and make comments on the issue, then the second guest is introduced, she has a similar story but clearly regrets all her actions, a crying mother who describes the horrible acts her daughter has committed, primarily using drugs, promiscuity, prostitution, doing drugs, watching pornography etc. The parent and Tyra discuss the daughter's behavior, while she is backstage. A pre-recorded message is then played which shows the daughter doing one of her rendezvous with her clients, the messages are filmed before the main taping, the primary purpose being to rile up the audience as well as the concerned family member, and to brag about or deny doing anything wrong or be sober for such behavior.
Two motivational speakers are then introduced, the first been a lady who has lived the life of these teenagers, who tries to convince them to change their wild ways before it's too late. Another is motivational speaker an expert (Doctor) who advice the girls on their actions tell them the pros and cons of their currently life and the outcome of the future.
The show ends with a crying reunion between the mother and the daughter, with the daughter typically saying she has changed for good. Some, however may become even more out of control and even return three weeks later. Post-show updates used to be shown before the credits rolled, but this practice has ceased in recent years. If they have changed for the better, the girls may be brought back on the show in a future episode. Tyra Banks ends the show by saying, the actions and lifestyles of these teenagers are not acceptable to her.
The shooting of the show takes place in a studio, were the members of the audience sit in rows in different rows that all adjacent to the stage were the host and the guests are seated, the role of the audience varies in different shows, from being passive clappers to been active and asking questions, they are an important part of the show because they also help to make the show lively.
Habermas in his theory said that the bourgeois public sphere was an illusion of disinterest, the potential for a public sphere exists in the commonalities and consensus which arise through the disinterested exchange of views, which is to say that these people come together to discuss issues of concern and afterwards go back to their normal lives as the case of the girls in the show, the public sphere is not a place where decision are taken but where issues are discussed to influence the decision making, it obviously is not up to the host to make decision to change their lives it is only a means to influential there decisions. The tendency for the bourgeois public sphere which concerns Habermas is to become increasingly institutionalized and specialized and so to increasingly exclude dissenting or critical voices. However, even though excluded, dissenting voices tend to form alternative forum for discussion which Negt & Kluge generate oppositional public sphere.
In a brief summary, there has been a shift from talk show been just a part of the public sphere but also as an institutional constrained space means through which the voice of ordinary citizen might be heard. The analysis shows that Tyra bank show is a rational critical discussion in which participation positively influences the decision making and the society. Speaking in terms of ethics, using Habermas’s discourse ethic the interaction between the host of the show and the guest can be distinguishes with four types of validity claim; meaning, appropriateness truthfulness and sincerity, this can be used to check the example of Tyra Banks show as it clearly meets the standard.
Finally, a public sphere has four important features that allow for the free flow of deliberation: first, the status of the speaker is disregarded, the speaker is an important person, since it is not the speaker that is the key issue, there would not be much emphasis on him/her as an individual; second, the common interest in truth in the public sphere means that discourse proceeds by way of rational argument- the issue of discourse, the use of logical reasoning and evidence in support of the claim, the calculated anticipation of disagreement, involving the acknowledgment and perhaps accommodation of counter positions, the refutation of counter positions; third, the public sphere opens new topics to discussion, this can range from political, social, economic or personal/emotional but it must be in line with the rational critical discussion; fourth, the public sphere is inclusive — anyone may join, this is the key feature that coins out the name ‘public’ it is the ordinary private citizens not the necessarily the prominent figures that come together to discuss different issue that are of concern. From the literature written above, talk shows can be looked at in terms of it been an oppositional public sphere and also a means through which the voices of the common man can be heard, thus, it is pertinent to say that a talk show can and should be regarded as a part of the public sphere because it obviously meets Habermas theory of rational critical discussion
Benefit of Talk Show as Public Sphere
Are talk shows a part of public sphere? A better look at the meanings of talk show and public sphere and the journey so far will reveal the fact that talk show in public sphere is a crucial part of and symbol of the reality of democracy in action. There are different benefits of talk show in public sphere which is inexhaustible and cannot therefore be overemphasized. It is an avenue to show the prevailing thought pattern of enlightened men, women, boys and girls in a democratic society like ours.
Talk show as a public sphere is a key to understanding how most political issues are played out, these can be seen on Larry King live, a popular show aired on CNN which addresses more of hard news/public affairs especially those of political nature, the show is a forum were various political, societal, religious, cultural and intellectual discourses of people are exchanged. Talk show in public sphere serves as the expression of information, opinion, interest and ideologies of the talking population thus creating a political link between millions of anonymous citizens by giving them a sense of belonging, it is only in a talk show that one would probably see an ordinary citizen given the authority to question a politicians actions out rightly. Through the vehicle of public opinion, talk show in public sphere has helped to put the government in touch with the needs of the society while the people themselves regard the public sphere as a regulatory institution against the authority of the State. It is this importance of talk show as public sphere that placed the dialogue surrounding issues above the identity of the people engaging in the discourse.
Talk show in public sphere is also a platform to which societal ills can be corrected; this can be linked to Oprah Winfrey show which uses a therapeutic style, she uses the examples of her past as a way of getting across to people involved in various ill act, she puts herself in the place of the guest empathize with them, tries to comfort them and finally gives an advice which might be based on experience or gotten from other experts. “It operates through the solicitation of free-flowing talk around deeply personal matters, but also in the general focus on psychological and socio-psychological issues”
In summary, talk show as a public sphere is a crucial part of a contemporary democratic society as it creates a space for deliberation on most political matters thereby educating the people on various issues of relevance. Talk show as public sphere is an arena where policies are formulated and sometimes helped toward the implementation of such policies. It is a forum for socialization as it can conveniently get people from different background in all ways into taking over an issue. Talk show as public sphere can sometimes serves as a campaign ground where social vices are condemned and way forward posited, a good example of this would be Oprah Winfrey in the campaign of Barack Obama, she used her strong personality as a medium to reach out to people to vote an a way to bring publicity to the presidential candidate. A talk show discusses different issues which range from personal, social, political, economic, religious or business issues which affects and directly or indirectly influences members of the public. It is therefore a part of public sphere
CONCLUSION
I maintain that talks shows are a blend of broadcasting necessity and audience interest, a unique context for negotiating issues and moreover a useful communicative interface between public and private sphere. Talk shows are not simply progressive or regressive, even though they do not lay emphasis on particular governmental institutions there are glaring debates about the public sphere’s growing intercessions into the family and regulations of the individual body. They maintain the structure of social debates by always placing private issues within social matrix; as a result, the talk show participates in an arena comparable to Habermas’s Public Sphere. Talk show can thus be regarded as television representative of a public sphere.
Also, from the three interactive dimensions that make up a public sphere; discursive, spatial and communal one can see that talk shows clearly meets some of the criteria’s and as such it can be considered to form part of the public sphere.
REFERENCE
Crossley, N. & Roberts, J. (2004) After Habermas: New perspectives on the public sphere(Ed). Oxford: Blackwell publishing.
Dahlgren, P. (1995) Television and the public sphere: Citizenship, Democracy and Media. London: Sage publications.
Dovey, J. (2000) Freak shows: First person Media and Factual Television. London: Pluto press.
Gamson, J. (1998) Freaks Talk Back: Tabloid Talk Shows and Sexual Nonconformity. Chicago: University of Chicago press.
Gamson, J. (1999) Taking the talk show challenge: Television, Emotion and Public Spheres. Chicago: University of Chicago press.
Livingstone & Lunt, P. (1994) Talk on television: Audience participation and public debate. London: Routlegde publishers
Mckee, A. (2005) The public sphere: An introduction. Cambridge: University press.
Monroe, P. (1995) Television, The Public Sphere and National Identity. New York: Oxford University press.
Shattuc, J.M (1997) The Talking Cure: TV talk shows and women. Routledge, New York
Tolson. A.‘(ed)’ (2001) Television Talk Shows: Discourse, performance, spectacle. Lawrence Erlbaum associates publishers, Mahwah, New Jersey.
