"In Your Face" Political Television and Democracy

How well do "in your face" type televised political debates inform viewers about the content and legitimacy of each sides views?:

The effect of 'in your face' political television on democracy, EurekAlert: Television can encourage awareness of political perspectives among Americans, but the incivility and close-up camera angles that characterize much of today’s “in your face” televised political debate also causes audiences to react more emotionally and think of opposing views as less legitimate.

These findings come from a research project conducted by political scientist and communications scholar Diana C. Mutz (University of Pennsylvania) and published in the November issue of the American Political Science Review... The full article is available online.

Conflict is inherent in any democracy, but the legitimacy of democratic systems rests on the extent to which each side in any controversy perceives the opposition as having some reasonable foundation for its position. Mutz’s research investigates two key questions. First, does televised political discourse familiarize viewers with political perspectives they disagree with? Second, if so, do viewers perceive such oppositional views as more legitimate after seeing them hashed out on television?

The research involved three distinct experiments and a laboratory setting that presented adult subjects with televised political debate including professional actors, a professional studio talk show set, a political discussion between two purported congressional candidates, and a moderator. All participants saw the exact same exchange of political arguments, but some viewed these arguments presented in a civil and polite tone, whereas others saw an uncivil exchange that resembled so-called “shout show” political conversations. In addition, some saw the exchange of political views from a close-up camera angle, whereas others saw the same event from a more distant camera perspective. Key findings include:

• Uncivil exchanges of political views featuring tight close-up shots generated the strongest emotional reactions from viewers and the most attention.
• Viewer recall of arguments was enhanced by incivility and close-up camera perspectives.
• Watching the political television programs improved people’s awareness of issue arguments, regardless of whether viewers watched civil, uncivil, close-up, or medium camera perspectives.
• Incivility affected audience perspectives most significantly when shown in an up-close camera perspective.
• The uncivil expression of views reinforced the viewers’ tendency to de-legitimize oppositional views, while the civil expression of the same views enhanced their perceived legitimacy.

“Televised political discourse would seem to be in the service of a deliberative body politic,” observes Mutz, as “any exposure is better than nothing at all.” But she concludes by noting that “when uncivil discourse and close-up camera perspectives combine to produce the unique ‘in-your-face’ perspective, then the high levels or arousal and attention come at the cost of lowering regard for the other side…[discouraging] the kind of mutual respect that might sustain perceptions of a legitimate opposition.” When people experience politicians with whom they disagree from the uniquely intimate perspective of television, their dislike for them only intensifies. This makes it more difficult for the winner in any given context to acquire the respect of the opposition that is often necessary for governing.

If I am the director of a television program featuring political debates on a network interested in promoting the views of one side over the other, I could probably use this information to my advantage - e.g., lots of baiting of the other side, and lots of close-up camera shots whenever the other side displays incivility in response.

Comments

[Arne (not anne)]

"the civil expression of the same views enhanced their perceived legitimacy"

It would be interesting to know whether civil expression enhances voter's ability to perceive the truth of illegitimate arguments.

[barry payne - economist]

In the Kennedy-Nixon debates, those listening on the radio thought Nixon won and those watching it on TV thought Kennedy won.

There's a long list of off-limit verbal and body language adopted by politicians necessary to survive in a broadbased, common denominator world.

Combine that with a brain-dead MSM and question-answer windows in seconds and the last refuge of sensationalism lies in clinical, pornographic-like close-up visual shots designed to extract maximum shock value over the 24-hour news cycle.

That it works to influence voter support speaks to the primal level at which many make such decisions. In an increasingly complex world too difficult to negotiate and too suspicious to trust, reading one's facial expression as a litmus test is well understood by the public relations industry.

Manipulation? Like a taunt designed to draw a visual snark? When to strike?

A reporter did it to Bush the other day. With perfect timing, after a few questions fielded by Bush with scripted responses on the NIE about Iran, he was asked about his body language appearing to project discomfort, implying a raft of incriminating intentions and motives that could betray the very words coming out of his mouth at that moment.

The still photographers were there to capture the grimacing, repressed snarl on Bush's face for immediate publication as he chided the reporter that the "Psychology 101" maneuver wasn't working.

[Esben]

Mark Thoma, are you sure that you should use close camera action on the "other" side? This seems to assume that it is the incivility of a candidate that pushes us away from him. But isn't it just as reasonable to assume that it is the incivility of our OWN candidate towards the other side, which de-legitimizes that other side's views in our eyes because we identify with him? And is this is the case then close ups of him should make the experience more intense and let us identify even more strongly with his passionate views.

Further research seems to be needed before this can be used as a discrediting technique.

[hari]

I've a feeling the good old days are LOST! Lost because we can't have good and decent arguments without calling names and whatnots.

I recall a young Jewish student friend who fell in love with a lovely Catholic in our undergraduate class...which led some of us who really didn't understand the classical religious problem to visit with their respective parents and bring them together on the wish of the "lovers"!

It was NOT a dialogue of the deaf! It was, however, very constraint and distressing. No one really raised their voices...a very civilized way to crystallize what religion meant in those days!

Today, when I listen to the candidates, I'm not only shocked at their basic intelligence (not all of them!), but their inability to have a good give-and-take without rasing unpleasant things ....

Civilization has changed....or goes in cycles!