Talk Show Dramatics
Often called “tabloid talk,” (Shattuc, 1997, p.14) daytime talk’s themes mirror the shocking topics of the age of yellow journalism. For example, on March 4th, 1884, the New York World newspaper featured a headline which screamed “A Quintuple Tragedy – An Entire Family Annihilated by Its Murderous Head.” (Shattuc, 1997, p. 18) Similar in excitement, one daytime talk show aired an episode titled “Wife Slavery: Women Mutilated by Men” on March 11th, 1994. (Shattuc, 1997, p. 18)
Yet talk shows have established for themselves a niche all their own with the public audience, despite their reflection of newspapers of old. Initially popularized by Phil Donohue in 1967 as a way to “take TV talk out of its preoccupation with entertainment celebrities” (Stark, 1997, p. 278), daytime talk began as a presentation of never before addressed social issues. With the addition of a live audience and interaction between the guests, host and audience, daytime talk has become a genre unto itself.
Developing over time into a broad field by way of new hosts and shows, TV talk has spread to dominate the daytime lineup. Shows began as politically and socially geared interview programs, but in searching for a wider audience, have become colored with controversy. Donohue began his series with interviews of such notable figures as Martin Luther King Jr. and Bobby Kennedy, but grew to realize his audience would multiply if he confronted more scandalous issues.
In introducing such topics as homosexuality to the audiences of the 60’s, Donohue won the attention of a shocked public. Geared toward provoking reactions, Donohue’s themes set the standard for many programs to come. As Donohue put it, “If (they) were going to survive with a visually dull format, with people sitting on folding chairs and two cameras and no budget, (they) had to do issues that made people sad, mad, glad.” (Kurtz, 1996, p. 54)
Such television icons as Oprah and Sally Jesse Raphael followed suit in attempting to evoke an emotional response, whether positive or negative, from their audience. Oprah, described as “an emotional and energetic performer who liked to hug her guests,” (Kurtz, 1996, p. 58) sought to incite reaction, targeting a largely female group, and set herself apart by identifying issues never before addressed by the media.
Early in her career Oprah “specialized in plumbing to the darkest depths of the human condition;” (Kurtz, 1996, p. 58) a skill that pushed her far ahead of her competition, even surpassing her predecessor Donohue. Even today, it is this same theme that runs through all talk show topics – exploring the “darkest depths of the human condition.” (Kurtz, 1996, p. 58)
Currently leading the way in terms of shock value, talk show host Jerry Springer has become notorious for his portrayal of the most scandalous of human issues. Regarding such matters as infidelity, sexual identity and family struggle as appropriate show themes, Springer and his counterparts in the current daytime television market have become the objects of intense criticism as to their effect on the public.
With the idea in mind that human struggle is a pitiful source of entertainment, critics rip apart TV talk, regarding it as a source of cultural degradation. Often regarded are the cultural and social implications talk shows have in discussing scandalous topics. As Kevin Glynn (2000) says in his book “Tabloid Culture,” “During the daytime, the talk shows round up the dregs of the Earth for the daily sleaze-letting. Kids watch – in the summer, or after school. Thanks to talk TV, my kid knows more about birth control than a pharmacist.
Think of what they absorb about our cultural values from women with breasts the size of ocean liners, housewives who moonlight as prostitutes and crack addicts who sell their babies.” (p. 184) It is argued that such programs as “The Jerry Springer Show” and “The Ricki Lake Show” present a twisted view of society, and implant a skewed vision of reality upon an impressionable audience.
In presenting social issues in a sensational way it is protested that talk shows give the public a marginalized view of societal groups. Displaying shows with such titles as “Women Who Have Stolen Their Best Friends’ Boyfriends” and “Mother – Daughter Feuds Over Men” (Abt, 1997, p. 60-61) for example, may cause the viewing audience to develop a view of women as treacherous and needy for attention from men. After all, talk shows deal with “real” people and “real” lives, as opposed to sitcoms, which are scripted and rehearsed.
Therefore, as opposed to fictional programs, which depend on definitively created characters, these shows are seen as representative of some portion of society, since their subjects are real people. As Vicki Abt (1997) says, talk television is dangerous because “the images on the TV playing in the family room are a part of the everyday life going on around (viewers)âÂ?¦This particular fiction is passed off as a slice of real life.” (p. 93)
Furthermore, talk shows are censured for provoking conflict and enmity between guests. The most evident example of this can found be in a situation involving “The Jenny Jones Show” and an episode which brought together men with their secret crushes of the same sex.
Guest Jonathan Schmitz appeared on the show, expecting to be introduced to a female admirer. Schmitz was instead shocked when he found out that the admirer was in fact his friend, Scott Amedure, a homosexual male. Apparently angered and humiliated by the dramatic event, Schmitz viciously attacked Amedure after the show, showing up at Amedure’s home and killing his former friend. While Jones refuted her own guilt for the event, many viewers and critics alike blamed her and the show for inciting the confrontation.
In less severe ways, however, TV talk show hosts provoke drama daily. Shows with such titles as “Mothers Who Ran Off with Their Daughter’s FiancÃ?©s” introduce distraught guests betrayed by their own family. (Shattuc, 1997, p.146) Yet, instead of providing comfort to these guests, they are often berated by the other guests and audience alike in an attempt to create a greater shock value.
Also, as opposed to sitcoms and television dramas, these shows do not provide a definitive resolution. Guests are left wounded by unexpected revelations, and left open to further embarrassment by having their personal humiliation witnessed by the viewing public�.all in the name of entertainment.
In contrast, many critics argue that talk shows should be judged on the same scale as sitcoms. They are programs created purely for entertainment value, not to promote any social ideal or act as a model for human behavior. Others argue that cultural breakdown is not the fault of talk shows, but rather it is society’s lessening quality that provides sources of topics for these shows. As Lora Wiley, an assistant to talk show hosts Jerry Springer and Geraldo Rivera stated, “Some people contend that (talk shows) contribute to the denigration of societyâÂ?¦But (the talk show industry) maintains that (it is) not the cause of it, (it is) the result.” (Apt, 1997, p. 88)
In defense of the argument that talk shows create dramatic confrontations, critics remark that guests agree to appear on the shows. They are not forced into the situation, and in watching any talk show, one can witness the typical situations presented and draw from them that they are getting themselves into a situation which may be highly dramatic and shocking. Though guests may be unhappy with the situation they are presented with once onstage, they are there of their own volition.
Talk shows have also received both criticism and lauds for featuring what seem like therapy sessions on camera. Many hosts, including Oprah Winfrey, Montel William and Sally Jesse Raphael have featured therapists in their programs as commentators on the given situations as they develop onstage. Increased ratings and a spin off attest to the popularity of “Dr. Phil,” Oprah Winfrey’s token on-air therapist.
Boasting to have the “ability to bring the stories to the people in such a way that it reaches through the screen and pulls them in – where they feel like they’re (there) and they feel like they’re involved,” Dr. Phil extends his advice on the Oprah show, encouraging guests to “stop talking and start doing something.” (“Dr. Phil at the Controls,” 2002) Viewers write in to the program, noting that they find comfort in Dr. Phil’s advice and relate to the problems of the featured guests, so in a roundabout way, they receive free advice through watching the Oprah Show.
However, critics debate the validity of this advice. On air therapists have no history of counseling with the guests and are often giving their first impression responses, not the true in depth diagnoses of legitimate doctors. Also, by featuring such private issues on air, it is argued that viewers “lose sight of the difference between social identity and private emotions.” (Shattuc, 1997, p. 258) Heartfelt emotions and secret pain are introduced as equally viable fodder for programming as makeovers and talent competitions.
In my opinion, blaming talk shows for the degradation of society, or decline of culture is a much the result of finding what you look for in a subject. If a person wishes to blame talk shows for cultural decline, many examples can be cited as to how these programs have established examples of the morally offensive behavior as normal or widespread, when in truth, guests on these shows are just the minority.
However, I believe that reaching such conclusions is reading much too far into shows which are meant merely to attract an audience and entertain. I find shows such as Jerry Springer and Ricki Lake to provide entertainment value; I do not read into the actions of the guests as to discover examples of how I should act or feel.
Furthermore, I see the guests on these shows as creating their own image. While some critics argue that guests are exploited, I believe that by appearing on a talk show, they place themselves at the mercy of the program. Previous episodes could provide guests with examples of what type of subjects each show deals with. In claiming they could never have expected to be embarrassed, as they were while on air, such as was the result of the incident on the “Jenny Jones Show,” guests need only to refer to previous episodes of the program. In doing so they could come to realize that many talk shows are out for shock value, and that they are not going to be the exception.
Talk shows, while perhaps not examples of the highest cultural entertainment our society has to provide, do attract millions of viewers each day. Commercials for new shows appear with every looming television season, some to be quickly canceled, others to gain a dedicated following of viewers. Though the quality of their content is hotly debated, ratings seem to determine that talk shows will not be taken off the daytime lineup anytime soon.
