|
November 18, 2007
Conflict is central to liberal democracy since the legitimacy of democratic outcomes requires that political and policy options be contested and evaluated. And yet liberal democracy also rests on the premise that each side in any given controversy perceives the opposition as having some reasonable foundation for its positions. This underpins the view that liberal democracy requires an informed citizenry who can make rational decisions on political issues.
Given that few people speak directly to political advocates of opposing views, then how do we come to perceive that reasonable people may disagree on any given political controversy? Many hold that mass media, and television in particular, serve this purpose. Many political pundits then hold that television has changed Australian politics in some fundamental way. How so? In what way?
The content of television is both image and words spoken. The effect is for viewers to develop a sense of intimacy with public figures whom they have never met, and with whom they may have emphatic disagreements, strong emotions. This changes the old way the public private distinction has been drawn.
Some more questions:
Does televised political discourse familiarize viewers with rationales for oppositional political perspectives? If so, does it thereby enhance the extent to which oppositional views are perceived as legitimate? What difference does it make that most of what people experience of public discourse in the political world reaches them through television? Does television have the capacity to educate viewers about oppositional positions and to increase the perceived legitimacy of oppositional views? If it has the capacity, then does television emphasis on in-your-face political disagreement ultimately undermine its ability to serve educate viewers about oppositional positions and to increase the perceived legitimacy of oppositional views?
This article in the American Political Science Review has a good go at answering these questions. What does it conclude?
Televised political discourse is undoubtedly serving an important purpose.People do appear to learn from political television, and this includes learning about why others hold the opinions that they do. The ABC's Lateline or Difference of Oinion would be an example of this. However,
...when uncivil discourse and close-up camera perspectives combine to produce the unique “in-your-face” perspective, then the high levels of arousal and attention come at the cost of lowering regard for the other side. The “in-your-face” intimacy of uncivil political discourse on television discourages the kind of mutual respect that might sustain perceptions of a legitimate opposition.
This, which is the house style of Fox News in the US, is unpacked as follows:
...close-up perspectives on uncivil discourse routinely damage perceptions of the candidates and issue arguments that subjects are already prone to dislike; that is, attitudes toward the least-liked candidate, and the perceived legitimacy of rationales for opposing issue positions. The same pattern of effects did not occur for attitudes toward the preferred candidate, nor for perceptions of the legitimacy of arguments for the preferred issue position.
That 's why Fox News does what it does---- aims to increase the magnitude of the difference that is perceived between their own conservative side and the liberal opposition.Thus one of the legacies of political television may be to damage the notion of a “worthy opposition.” To the extent that televised political discourse puts viewers unnaturally close to their political “enemies,” it intensifies negative feelings about the opposition, and does not serve the goals of consensus or compromise.
|
Gary,
There's a similar argument from psychology about affective resonance explaining the strong response, positive and negative, to Pauline Hanson. In her case it worked with radio as well, because her voice sounded as distressed and angry as her facial expression.