Issue: Do television talk shows harm society?

 There are always two sides of the coin. Based on the report on this issue, television talk shows can be an advantage or disadvantage. The influence of talk shows is often traced with the content standards of a particular society. This content standard is otherwise known as cultural quality. Cultural quality is defined according to the preferences of the consumers of the television show. Preferences are often variable. They change according to race, culture, and era. The advantage of television talk shows is often attributed to the 20^th century where topics are neutral and wholesome. Talk shows are more laid back in the 1960s to the early 1990s. It has probably changed in the mid-90s when a new television talk show format became popular. The tabloid talk shows as subgenres of talk shows were first introduced in 1960s but it gained popularity in the 1990s when a peculiar twist of reality was added to it to incite the guest but excite the viewers. The viewership of these kinds of talk shows had generally increased. This proves that consumers want action and more energy in the presentation of talk shows in contrast to the relaxed and just-sitting-around conversations of the guest and host who talk about random topics that are quite ordinary and neutral in mood.

I viewed one talk show in the 1980s and somehow I got bored with its topic about tipping in restaurants. This does not even change a heartbeat of my mood, well except for the fact that my senses were quite withdrawn with the topic presented. I tried to compare my emotions and attention span by watching the Maury Povich show which yields the exact opposite of the laid back television shows. Maury Povich show is an example of a tabloid show with a twist. Guests are often asked to reveal their quite peculiar problems about not knowing who the father of the child they bear. It is a show that presents a never-ending search for answers of the father-of-my-child dilemma. Often, the main guests are women with the perspective fathers. The issue ends when a verdict is reached through a DNA test that shows who the real father is. It is indeed a queer issue for it to be presented on national television. Such topics that even involve narratives of sexual encounters are treated with a sense of privacy in conservative countries. In the Philippine setting, same talk show format has been prosperous in the viewership ratings. Face-to-Face is the first in the country. It is referred to as the “brangay hall on air” because of the show’s nature to resolve micro level issues on air. Morality issues of gender, queer sexual relationships and

family feuds are being tackled on air.  Now, is this a good influence or a negative implication of societal values?

One side argues that talk shows like these are quite helpful to people especially those whose voices are not often heard. The issues of morality, peculiar sexual encounters, and taboo family feuds are often treated as if they are worthy to be heard. In a conservative culture one may find this offensive however people have become more open to sensitive issues like these. It is advantageous in the sense that it does not condemn or discriminate people who are carry the burdens of these morality issues. Most often people treat issues of gender, relationships, and feuds are treated passively in the public’s eye while some societies treated them with contempt which results to concealment or suppression of reality. In the argument of talk show advantages, all social and morality issues are addressed with objectivity and sense of equality. This might have been the result of the fight for equality of rights and opportunities. On the side of the guests, they have found a consoling haven for their misfortunes. Some tabloid talk shows like Face-to-Face attempt to resolve the issue by providing a medical or psychological doctor, a legal counsel, and a spiritual representative. Somehow this seems a reassuring avenue for the people concerned with issues in morality.

On the other side of the coin, a critic may say that television talk shows are disadvantageous as to how people think. Some may think that it is actually fine not to be morally upright because of the acceptance to those queer and sometimes referred to as ‘freak’ issues. Another contention is that people have become too passive about these issues that they find themselves uninvolved of these societal issues.  Like bystanders, consumers have become passive absorbers of what media presents. Most often people forgo their social responsibility as consumers of media which is quite a disadvantage to society.

Personally, I think the influence of tabloid talk shows is dependent on the culture and exposure to media of a certain viewer. If a viewer becomes used to the kind of media content it becomes a preference. An individual preference collectively becomes a cultural standard that defines cultural quality. In conservative cultures tabloid talk shows might become too offensive to be patronized. Nevertheless, as citizens of a technology-mediated society, we should be more open-minded to the trends. The degree of positive and negative influences of media is actually a variable of our pre-existing beliefs and attitudes.