TALK SHOWS ON DAYTIME TV.   Term Paper ID:25928 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: Social psychological analysis of reasons for shows' popularity & guests' willingness to discuss private matters, social role of shows, problem-solving, therapeutic effects.... More...

12 Pages / 2700 Words 6 sources, 17 Citations, APA Format $48.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: Social psychological analysis of reasons for shows' popularity & guests' willingness to discuss private matters, social role of shows, problem-solving, therapeutic effects. Paper Introduction: America Spills Its Guts Introduction It is clear why television networks favor daytime talk shows with sensational subject matter and contentious guests over daytime talk shows with serious purpose and dignity. As is most apparent with the Jerry Springer show, the sensational shows garner ratings. Springer even outpolled Oprah with his emphasis on violent confrontations. However, even more serious talk shows, like Oprah, emphasize subjects that are highly personal and showcase guests who are willing to spill their guts about private matters. This is less understandable. The intention in this paper is to look at some of the theories about why people spill their guts on daytime talk television, with a focus on Phil Donahue as the forerunner and Text of the Paper: The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper. (1997) note that television talk shows may actuallyplay an important role in providing information about sex, sexuality, andsexual behaviors to the American public. Gawk soup. and Smith, S.W.(1997). Daytime talk television has also been seen as dominated by talk aboutsex and sexuality, frequently to the displeasure of critics. On the talk shows, this means that hosts, participants, and audiencemembers all use language that is taken directly from the self-help/therapymovement and attempt to apply it to issues facing participants. Like Priest and Dominick (1994), Squire seemed to see the self-revelations of guests on the Winfrey show as part of a counterhegemonicmovement. (1994). By affecting the public's perception of reality, televisioncontributes to the construction of reality and public policy. Dupree, S. Neither ofthese may be true for participants. (1995). This problem-solving orientation involves the extension of therapeuticlanguage, and therapeutic discourse, throughout American life. One of the main audiences benefitting from exposure on talk shows,beginning with the Phil Donahue show and extending into both Oprah andSally Jessy Raphael is the gay/lesbian/ bisexual/transgender community. Why would theyreveal there deepest secrets to a national television audience? It was he whodeveloped the format that others, like Oprah Winfrey, have refined and madeso successful. (1988). Sheindicated that the alternative view is that daytime talk shows are actuallytheatrical forums which allow for the marginalized of society to enacttheir stories. There are actually several theories aboutwhy people self-disclose on talk shows. (1997). Instead, McConnell contended, Donahue was the first toequate gossip with information. According to Saltzman(1996), that is part of the appeal of daytime talk television. In looking at the Donahue show, priest and Dominick (1994)concentrated on exploring the reasons why people were willing to discusssensitive and private matters on the show and discuss issues that weregenerally considered inappropriate and stigmatizing. As is most apparent with the JerrySpringer show, the sensational shows garner ratings. Greenberg, B.S., Sherry, J.L., Busselle, R.W., Rampoldi-Hnilo, L. They also noted that much of the content of the shows had to do withissues of ordinary life, with a center on family life, sexual activity, anddating. Television provided a forum for sexual minorities topresent themselves to the public in non-stereotypical ways. Thethought patterns which are revealed have their foundation in that movement. Pulp pulpits: Self-disclosure on"Donahue". Other theories look at the importance of problem-solving,the reduction of social tension, and the displacement of ideologicalefforts. (1997). UtneReader, 73, 78-84. (1995). Commonweal, 123(6), 2 . To definethe discourse as gossip is to say both that it is not serious conversationand to say that gossip itself has no redeeming social value. How do theycontribute to the public's perception of reality? Topics were generallypsychological, including such things as obsessions and negotiation skills. Sensation seeking,television viewing motives, and home television viewing patterns.Personality and Individual Differences, 21(6), 1 81-1 84. As Squire (1994) noted,the focus on the Winfrey show was on psychological matters, withpsychologists the most frequent expert guests. Let us look at these in more detail. Or is there more operating herethan is immediately apparent. Priest, P. Donahue lasted for years by providing a forum for manydifferent kinds of people to talk about their personal issues, theiruniqueness, and their sexuality, with the support or questioning of thestudio audience. (1996). It allows them to address a large audience inorder to change people's impressions of their out-group, it helps them toresolve personal issues, and it creates an opportunity for them to engagein discourse that alleviates social tensions. Another theory focuses onthe potential for evangelizing or informing the public which motivates somespeakers. In other words, they watch daytime talk television becauseit is likely to provide them with the kind of high stimulation that theydesire. He pioneered the audience participationformat, which relied on self-revelation by both invited guest and theaudience itself. In other words, while themarginalized are provided their forum, serving their interest, the issuesare explained away in therapeutic or self-help terms, also serving theinterests of the elites and the mainstream.Conclusion People continue to respond positively to daytime television talkshows, including programs as diverse as those of Oprah Winfrey and JerrySpringer. The Nation, 262(13), 19-22. They would limit the sexualcontent of talk shows, the violence, and other content they consider lessthan wholesome (Dupree, 1995). There are, however, both positive and negativeaspects to the domination of discourse by thought and language from self-help and therapy sources. McConnell's formulation seems much too simplistic and dismissive forwhat is an important American (and global) cultural phenomenon. In other words, guests contribute to undermining the mainstream,or consensus, view of normality and reality. The theories about why people expose their private lives are relatedto this. Mediaweek, 5(41), 4. Greenberg et al. One theory holds that talk showsprovide a forum for the marginalized and disenfranchised, that they areactually empowering to underrepresented groups. There have been numerousvocal critics contending that talk shows contribute to a decline in Americaculture, a "sleazing" of America society. Meers, E. Journal of Pragmatics, 2 (6), 519-531. Saltzman, J. The Antioch Review,55(2), 2 6-213. A third theory looks at the talk show as an extension of thetherapeutic discourse that has come to rule American culture andconversation. SIECUS Report,25(5), 8. However, even more serious talk shows, like Oprah, emphasize subjectsthat are highly personal and showcase guests who are willing to spill theirguts about private matters. They wanted to reach a large audience to inform, or persuade. Although critics decry the exploitation of guests, daytime talktelevision also provides an important forum for marginalized, silence, andunderrepresented people. It is, in other words, a mixedblessing. They conductedfocused interviews with 29 subjects who had appeared on the Donahue show.Subjects ranged from age 12 to age 68 and represented both genders. The Advocate, 698-9, 48-51. Nonetheless, it is an important forum for sexual minorities whohave been hidden, stigmatized, and silenced, at least in mainstreamculture. He assertedthat Americans are drawn to these shows because they show ordinary peoplethey can relate to and deal with subjects that are the content of everydayconcern and gossip. It is thispower that talk shows wield.Reasons for Revealing What is the role of the participants in talk shows? However, in her view, that therapeutic discourse serves toalleviate deep social tensions, funneling energy away from political actionand more distinctively ideological focus. Nonetheless, the stories that are told are generallythose of the non-elite. What it entails is the extension of boththe speech and thought patterns of the therapeutic and self-help movementsinto wide areas of mainstream American culture. What they watch also helps to inform their view of reality and theirresponse to it. Ellen Willis (1996) supported that viewpoint, noting that critics whoattack television talk shows for pandering to popular culture and therebycheapening it, are often members of the elites who resent therepresentation of non-elites and fear loss of control of the culture. Diann Shoaf(1997) discussed this cultural phenomenon, noting that it is widespread inboth literature and television. Communication Theory,5(1), 58-82. According to Frank McConnell (1996), the problem with the Phil Donahueshow was that he seldom featured substantive issues on his shows dealt within a serious way. Daytime television talk shows: Guests, content andinteractions. Otherwise, the mass media portrays people in ahomogenized and sanitized manner that is unrecognizable as real life. ForMcConnell, it is simply gossip. For Donahue, his guests, and his audience, thisconstituted information and problem-solving, among other things. and Halford, J. and Dominick, J.R. Phil Donahue was the original daytime talk show host. AsMeers (1996) noted, homosexuality was one of the favorite topics oftelevision talk shows during the preceding year and this has been the casefrom the beginning. Long before there was an Ellen, with its prime-time portrayal ofa lesbian woman living her ordinary life, there were lesbians and gay menon the daytime talk shows, providing the audience with the opportunity tolook and begin to revise its opinion of those groups of people. This is not necessarily a criticism; certainly Shoaf found much favorablein this therapeutic spread. Glasser, I. Television talk shows: making intimacies public. In other words, the talk shows are filling a role in society, althoughan informal one, that is not provided by schools or other more formalinstitutions. and Dunham, J.F. References DeCapua, A. AndSmith, S.W. (1996). (1996). At the same time, while these marginalized people are provided with aforum, that forum also serves the interests of the elites, according toPeck (1995). There is evidence to support the idea that talk shows serve theunderrepresented and marginalized in a way that more honored televisiondoes not. Television and the construction of reality.Applied Social Psychology Annual, 8, 44-51. Although talk shows are thought of as bizarre in some respects,the content seems to show that the subject matter is really quite mundane.What is often characterized as bizarre is the individuals who arerepresented. Squire, C. Again, this might simply be a mainstream culture's criticismof those who do not fit in the cultural hegemony, those who aremarginalized and generally underrepresented and under-valued. What hath Phil wrought? This is less understandable. Plucking after mystery. (1993). This seems borne out as at least one aspect of participants'motivation in a study of discourse strategies on the Sally Jessy Raphaeland Bernard Meltzer programs. In a more mundane explanation, it also seems possible to viewparticipants as seeking help for their problems. Strategies in the discourse ofadvice. Much of the content of these shows involves self-revelation ontopics that are often thought of as private. They noted that subjects used impression managementtechniques to manage their stigmatized status and risked greatly in orderto have the opportunity of informing the public and dispelling stereotypes,an option not often available to out-groups. Both Meers and Gamson (1996) note that while daytime talk shows givesexual minorities the opportunity to speak and advance the cause of sexualminorities, they also exploit them. It is exciting in some way. (1997) indicated that a systematic analysis of theshows' guests indicated that there was an overrepresentation of female,youthful, and African-American guests. Journal of Communication, 44(4), 74-97. Peck, J. Priest and Dominick (1994) concluded that the action was a tactic in acounterhegemonic struggle in which out-group members sought to breach thecultural mainstream. America Spills Its GutsIntroduction It is clear why television networks favor daytime talk shows withsensational subject matter and contentious guests over daytime talk showswith serious purpose and dignity. Do ask, do tell: TV talk shows may be crass andvoyeuristic, but they give a voice to those who have been silenced. (1996). Willis, E. Instead, talkshows provide the opportunity for these groups which are underrepresentedin other venues to portray aspects of their lives to the public. (1996). What about the talk show participants themselves? Are theyjust sleazy, neurotic, pitiful people? Bring in the noise. Why ordinary Americans like daytime talk shows.USA Today, 125(2618), 63. He looked specifically at the impact of sportscoverage and talk shows, noting that they help construct the public'sunderstanding of various American civil rights movements, among otherthings. They contribute toreconstructing that view of reality by presenting other viewpoints andother kinds of lives. Clearly, this is not the mainstreamof the culture as represented on prime-time television. In a somewhat similar vein, Squire (1994) contended that the OprahWinfrey show was particularly empowering for women, and for African-American women because of its challenge of gender subjectivities.According to her, the show uses both emotional and empirical excess inorder to undermine common assumptions about gender and gender relations.The show is involved in constructing the public's understanding of gender,race, sexuality, and class and the interrelationships between thesefactors. Squire (1994) asserted that the show contributed a feminismgeneralized from black women's histories and writing and engages in a kindof super-realism. Potts, R., Dedmon, A. They decry the fact, however,that this conversation takes place in so public and informal a setting.For them, the fact that talk shows are filling such a role indicates thatschools are failing to do a good job on sexuality education and mustreevaluate the comprehensiveness of the sexuality education that they dooffer. It alsoprovided a forum for sexual minorities to reach out to other members oftheir out-group, helping support each other and resolve problems. For example, participants may find the forum an opportunity to informthe audience at a deep personal level about their lives and the meaning ofthose lives. Springer even out-polled Oprah with his emphasis on violent confrontations. To her, the discourse that the minorities on Oprah Winfreyand Sally Jessy Raphael engage in is the therapeutic discourse mentionedearlier. (1994). Theylooked at the talk show pragmatically, as a means to provide them withaccess both to the mainstream and to their own marginalized, or out-groupmembers. Targeting talk TV. Although not all guest maybe able to articulate these reasons, research has indicated that thesepurposes are served. The Oprah Winfrey Show.Feminism and Psychology, 4(1), 63-79. However, itseems as though this, too, serves an important purpose for severaldifferent constituencies of the talk show. Empowering women? Shoaf, D.B. Spilling their guts may be a conscious political act,as with lesbians, gay men, or transgender people, or a less conscious, butstill political, and meaningful, act on the part of members of other out-groups. They are helping ordinary people deal with their dailyproblems, including problems with sexuality. The intention inthis paper is to look at some of the theories about why people spill theirguts on daytime talk television, with a focus on Phil Donahue as theforerunner and Oprah Winfrey and Sally Jessy Raphael as contemporarypractitioners.Watching American Spill its Guts According to Pots et al. The most significant finding in these interviews was that subjectsrevealed an evangelical fervor in discussing their subjects on the talkshows. (1996). Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 41(3), 412-427. In their study of the guests and content of television talkshows, Greenberg et al. The researchers discovered that there was acommon strategy to both advice-seeking and advice-giving on these shows.The focus was on explanation, elaboration, and narration, with advice-seekers telling their stories and advice-givers helping them explore theiroptions and determine appropriate choices (DeCapua and Dunham, 1993). McConnell, F. Ira Glasser (1988) indicated that television plays a majorrole in developing the public's perception of reality and has an importantinfluence on public policy. What others view as sensation, or exploitation, Squireviewed as a tactic in changing the public's view of women and marginalizedgroups. Gamson, J. Greenberg, B.S., Rampoldi-Nhnilo, L., Sherry, J.S. (1996) high sensation-seekers tend to watchmore daytime television (along with music videos) than their low sensation-seeking peers. These forums focus on minority groups and poor whites.They are not the province of the elites in any respect, except possibly forthe guest experts. TV talk shows as therapeutic discourse: Theideological labor of the televised talking cure. If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again: Search for: or Click here to request an essay written just for you.