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 out polled 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 Oprah Winfrey and Sally Jessy Raphael as contemporary practitioners.
According to Pots et al. (1996) high sensation seekers tend to watch more daytime television (along with music videos) than their low sensation seeking peers. In other words, they watch daytime talk television because it is likely to provide them with the kind of high stimulation that they desire. It is exciting in some way.
What they watch also helps to inform their view of reality and their response to it. Ira Glasser (1988) indicated that television plays a major role in developing the public's perception of reality and has an important influence on public policy. He looked specifically at the impact of sports coverage and talk shows, noting that they help construct the public's understanding of various American civil rights movements, among other things. By affecting the public's perception of reality, television contributes to the construction of reality and public policy. It is this power that talk shows wield.
What is the role of the participants in talk shows? How do they contribute to the public's perception of reality? There have been numerous vocal critics contending that talk shows contribute to a decline in America culture, a ...