The Effects of In-Your-Face Political Television

[Toro]

The effect of 'in your face' political television on democracy

Washington, DC—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, a journal of the American Political Science Association (APSA). The full article is available online at http://www.apsanet.org/imgtest/APSRNov07Mutz.pdf.

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.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/200...a-teo121207.php

 

[jillian]

I've been saying for years that the "Rush Limbaugh school of debate" had done huge damage to political discourse in this country.

 

[Avatar4321]

I've been saying for years that the "Rush Limbaugh school of debate" had done huge damage to political discourse in this country.

yeah heavin forbid someone give reasonable points of disagreement with all things liberal.

 

[jillian]

yeah heavin forbid someone give reasonable points of disagreement with all things liberal.

it's the incivility in the way he says things. or are you so entrenched that you can't see it?

by the by, there's never been anything reasonable, or truthful, about Rush. but do try again.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

it's the incivility in the way he says things. or are you so entrenched that you can't see it?

by the by, there's never been anything reasonable, or truthful, about Rush. but do try again.

As opposed to Whats his name , you know the guy who's last name starts with an O. Or the demonizing done on mainstream news or Public TV. Sure thing. Rush he is all to blame.

 

[Larkinn]

As opposed to Whats his name , you know the guy who's last name starts with an O. Or the demonizing done on mainstream news or Public TV. Sure thing. Rush he is all to blame.

Limbaugh has been a political commentator since 1987. Olberman has been doing it since 2003.

Besides the fact that Limbaugh has 3 times the numbers of viewers Olberman has. But I'm sure its all his fault. After all, liberals are ruining the world, right?

 

[Gem]

Why does none of the blame fall to the MSM - who are increasingly putting their own opinions and biases into the news...or politicians themselves, who have abandoned the notion of professionalism in politics and simply insult and demean their opponents publically at all times - during planned addresses and during off-the-cuff remarks to the MSM.

Why place so much blame on one stupid man who comments on politics that the majority of the nation does not listen to...and so little on those actually MAKING the political decisions...and the media that is supposed to be reporting it in an unbiased way?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Why does none of the blame fall to the MSM - who are increasingly putting their own opinions and biases into the news...or politicians themselves, who have abandoned the notion of professionalism in politics and simply insult and demean their opponents publically at all times - during planned addresses and during off-the-cuff remarks to the MSM.

Why place so much blame on one stupid man who comments on politics that the majority of the nation does not listen to...and so little on those actually MAKING the political decisions...and the media that is supposed to be reporting it in an unbiased way?

Because they are so blinded by ignorance and prejuidice they can not see it.

 

[Larkinn]

Why does none of the blame fall to the MSM - who are increasingly putting their own opinions and biases into the news...or politicians themselves, who have abandoned the notion of professionalism in politics and simply insult and demean their opponents publically at all times - during planned addresses and during off-the-cuff remarks to the MSM.

Why place so much blame on one stupid man who comments on politics that the majority of the nation does not listen to...and so little on those actually MAKING the political decisions...and the media that is supposed to be reporting it in an unbiased way?

Because while the people are bitching about how the MSM is so biased and whining about it, they tend to turn to the parts of the MSM which are extra biased...that is the ends of either one of the spectrums. The middle outlets are losing their audience because nobody wants balanced news anymore.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Because while the people are bitching about how the MSM is so biased and whining about it, they tend to turn to the parts of the MSM which are extra biased...that is the ends of either one of the spectrums. The middle outlets are losing their audience because nobody wants balanced news anymore.

What a joke, there was no middle before Fox and they are closest to it. The rest are so far left as to be laughable.

I repeat.... provide examples of NEWS from FOX that is slanted. You all failed in the last three thread about this, maybe this will be the charm for you? Maybe this tme you can actually provide REAL news programs from Fox that are biased?

You keep making the claim, back it up.

 

[Larkinn]

What a joke, there was no middle before Fox and they are closest to it. The rest are so far left as to be laughable.

I repeat.... provide examples of NEWS from FOX that is slanted. You all failed in the last three thread about this, maybe this will be the charm for you? Maybe this tme you can actually provide REAL news programs from Fox that are biased?

You keep making the claim, back it up.

"homicide bombers".

Anything left of you does not mean liberal.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200407140002

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies_and_allegations_of_bias#_note-50

Read the part about internal memos. Hell, read it all.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

"homicide bombers".

Anything left of you does not mean liberal.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200407140002

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies_and_allegations_of_bias#_note-50

Read the part about internal memos. Hell, read it all.

In other words you have nothing, thanks for sharing.

Ohh and I am waiting for that example of "ranking member" used by the MSM before the 90's take over by the Republicans. Maybe you can provide that, perhaps Wiki has a cite for you. Or even Media matters.

 

[Larkinn]

In other words you have nothing, thanks for sharing.

Did you even bother to read?

Ohh and I am waiting for that example of "ranking member" used by the MSM before the 90's take over by the Republicans. Maybe you can provide that, perhaps Wiki has a cite for you. Or even Media matters.

Man...you really are paranoid. OMG its all a conspiracy...they didn't use the term ranking member!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry I don't do research to disprove the weird shit you make up. Not worth it.

 

[midcan5]

From much I have read criticisms today are tame compared to the past. The part that is interesting is how each party kills its own. Bush killed McCain in South Carolina, Hillary is attempting a murder of Barack. I do find the swift boat sissies an annoyance, bitter old men criticizing a fellow soldier because he exercised his constitutional to speak freely.