Management of voices
Power and participation in North Belgian audience
discussion programmes
Nico Carpentier[1]
Faculty of Political and Social Sciences
University of Antwerp
1.
Introduction
This paper contains a reflection on a
fundamental claim made by the production teams of two North Belgian (or
Flemish)[2]
audience discussion programmes Jan Publiek and De Eeuwige Strijd: by allowing
'ordinary people' to participate in their programme, they claim they facilitate
and empower 'ordinary people' to discuss social, moral and political topics in
public.
In order to evaluate this claim a discursive
and social constructivist approach will be used: participation is to be
considered a floating signifier, open to articulation. (Laclau 1985: 113) In
this paper it is contended - following Hall's, Fairclough's and Van Dijk's
position that mass media themselves can be analysed as a discourse (Hall 1980:
128-138)(Fairclough 1995: 57-68)(Van Dijk 1985: 5) - that Jan Publiek and De
Eeuwige Strijd contain a discursive articulation of participation. In other
words, the programmes Jan Publiek and De Eeuwige Strijd themselves are a
discourse on participation.
Referring to Pateman's definition of
participation, the division of power within the programme is used to analyse
the articulation of participation. (Pateman 1972: 71) The major questions then
become how the different power relations function, how within the dialectics of
control voices[3] are managed,
power is shared and unequal power relations are resisted, and what discourse on
the participation of 'ordinary people' the combination of power and resistance
eventually produces.
The empirical part of this paper is based on a
selection of data that were collected in the 3ADP-project[4],
but only the data related to the second series of Jan Publiek, broadcast from
September until December 1997 and the first series of De Eeuwige Strijd,
broadcast from January until May 1998, will be discussed. Two specific
emissions on racism will be analysed more in-depth: the Jan Publiek emission on
the 'riots' in Anderlecht (Brussels) was broadcast on 13 November 1997, the De
Eeuwige Strijd broadcast on racism was broadcast on 12 January 1998. A specific
software package (ISI's Profile Timer©, hereafter referred to as
PRT) is used in order to facilitate the content analysis of these two emissions
and to visualize the findings. The analysis of the Jan Publiek emissions is
supplemented with an analysis of the interviews with the two production teams
and with the 20 panel members of Jan Publiek.
2.
Power,
empowerment and participation
As mentioned above, participation is related to
power, although some authors prefer to limit participation to mere presence or
to the exercise of a certain amount of influence. In the field of democratic
theory, elitist theory for instance reduces (political) participation to 'the people [having] the opportunity of
accepting or refusing the men who are ruling them.' (Schumpeter quoted in (Thompson
1970: 23)) In a limited extension of this notion some authors propose that
political participation 'refers to those
activities by private citizens that are more or less directly aimed at
influencing the selection of governmental personnel and/or the action they
take.' (Verba 1987: 2)
On this reduction Pateman remarks: 'Although the terms influence and power are
very closely related to each other they are not synonymous, and it is
significant that […] the former is usually used.' (Pateman 1972: 69) In
order to deal with the tension between influence and power in the definition of
participation Pateman introduces the distinction between partial and full
participation. Partial participation is defined as: 'a process in which two or more parties influence each other in the
making of decisions but the final power to decide rests with one party only'
(Pateman 1972: 70), whereas full participation is defined as 'a process where each individual member of a
decision-making body has equal power to determine the outcome of decisions.'
(Pateman 1972: 71)
Empowerment is traditionally seen as 'moving out of a condition or sense of
deprivation or oppression.' (White 1994: 23) In this more traditional view,
participation is seen as creating access to the sites of decision-making and
power, and empowerment is successively interpreted as the redistribution or
transfer of power: 'It is because they
become empowered that the oppressed can hope to challenge and overcome the
power of those who oppress them.' (Fay 1987: 130) Even within the more
traditional concept, empowerment is seen as a dynamic process, increasing the
level of participation and consequently transferring control and power from one
social group to another. Paradoxically, the decision to transfer power from the
powerful to the powerless is dependant on those in power, without the
participation of the powerless. This situation could be referred to as the
paradox of empowerment.
Although these definitions seem uncomplicated,
they are based on a negative concept of power that refers to a
powerful-powerless dichotomy that was criticized by (among others) Giddens and
Foucault. Giddens refers to a 'dialectics of control' to describe the interplay
of autonomy and dependence, which is at work in any social situation, thus
linking the dialectics of control concept to his structuration theory. In
formulating the dialectics of control, Giddens distinguishes between the
transformative capacity of power - treating power in terms of the conduct of
agents, exercising their free will (Walsh 1998: 33) - on the one hand, and
domination - treating power as a structural quality - on the other hand. (Giddens
1979: 91-92) According to Giddens, power does not necessarily involve
exploitation and coercion, but is also related to freedom and interdependence.
As it is part of all social life, it refers to the transformative capacity or
the 'capacity to change the world.' (Tucker
1998: 114) Power should be seen as a regular and routine phenomenon,
instantiated in social action. (Giddens 1979: 91) Power relations are also
always two-way relations, even if the power of one actor (or party) is limited
compared to the other. Power relations are 'relations
of autonomy and dependence, but even the most autonomous agent is in some degree
dependent, and the most dependent actor or party in a relationship retains some
autonomy.' (Giddens 1979: 93) Quite radically, Giddens concludes: 'An agent who does not participate in the
dialectic of control, in a minimal fashion, ceases to be an agent.' (Giddens
1979: 149) Domination on the other hand involves 'asymmetries of resources employed in the sustaining of power relations
in and between systems of interaction' (Giddens 1979: 93), where Giddens
distinguishes between two major types of resources: allocation (for economic
institutions) and authorization (for political institutions). These resources
are not controlled by a single person, but should be seen as the features of an
entire society. (Tucker 1998: 115) Giddens clearly states that domination
should not necessarily be used in a negative fashion as a noxious phenomenon (Giddens
1983: 50) - just as power is not necessarily linked to conflict and not
inherently oppressive. (Giddens 1984: 257)
From a different angle post-structuralists like
Foucault have also pointed out that in the traditional interpretation, power
was usually reduced to a negative approach, condemning power as morally
'wrong'. In his two major works of the seventies - 'Discipline and punishment'
(1975) and the first part of the 'History of sexuality'[5]
(1976) - Foucault rejects the repressive meaning of power, and defines power as
productive, as 'a general matrix of force
relations at a given time, in a given society'. (Dreyfus 1983: 186)
Foucault foregrounds the productive aspects of power, claiming that power is
inherently neither positive nor negative. (Hollway 1984: 237) Instead power
produces knowledge, discourse and subjects. Foucault criticises the idea of
knowledge being freed from those power relations. One of the basic mechanisms
that are able to make the connection between knowledge and power is the concept
of truth. Foucault links truth with one of his other major concepts - discourse
- by constructing a polarization between true and false discourse. (Karskens
1986: 148) Furthermore, he strongly opposes to the image of the subject as a
rational being at the origin of human action, defining this subject as an
historical construction, produced by power through discourse. In the 'History
of sexuality' Foucault states that power relations are 'intentional and non-subjective'. (Foucault 1978: 95) Power thus
becomes anonymous, as the overall effect escapes the actor's will, calculation
and intention: 'people know what they do;
they frequently know why they do what they do; but what they don't know is what
what they do does.' (Foucault quoted in (Dreyfus 1983: 187)) This does not
mean that the subject is deprived of an active role: according to Foucault
subjects are active in producing themselves as subjects, in the sense of being
subjected to power through discourse. They provide the bodies on and through
which discourse may act. (Kendall 1999: 53) The emphasis on structure to the
detriment of agency should be considered as one of the main differences with
Giddens' dialectics of control, as Foucault prefers a bird's-eye perspective to
social phenomenon - focussing on the overall effect, in stead of considering
subjects as analytic points of departure.
The other characteristics of power Foucault
distinguishes in 'History of sexuality' are quite closely related to Giddens'
dialectics of control: power relations are seen as mobile and multidirectional:
power is practised and not possessed. (Kendall 1999: 50) Foucault also stresses
that power relations are nonegalitarian (Foucault 1978: 94), although
domination should not be considered to be the essence of power. On the other
hand, resistance to power is considered to be part of the exercise of power. (Kendall
1999: 50) As Hunt and Wickham argue: 'Power
and resistance are together the governance machine of society, but only in the
sense that together they contribute to the truism that 'things never quite
work', not in the conspiratorial sense that resistance serves to make power
work perfectly.' (Hunt 1994: 83)
Both Foucault and Giddens have claimed that
their interpretation of power does not exclude domination or non-egalitarian
distributions of power within existent structures. Positive/generative and
negative/repressive aspects of power are united in the dialectics of control
and form a complex power-game, where power is practised and not possessed. The
level of participation, the degree to which decision-making power is equally
distributed and the access to the resources of a certain system are constantly
(re-)negotiated. Processes engaged in the management of voices, confessional
and disciplinary technologies will remain active, but can and will be resisted.
As positive/generative and negative/repressive aspects of power both imply the
production of knowledge, discourse and subjects, productivity should be
considered the third pillar of the analysis of power, thus combining the
theoretical views of Foucault and Giddens on this matter.
Table 1: Foucault's
and Giddens' views on power combined
Not all authors agree upon the distinction
between the Foucaultian concept of productive power and the Giddean concept of
generative power. Tucker for instance treats both concepts as more or less
equal: 'Giddens sees the primary
importance of power in somewhat Foucauldian terms, for power is productive as
well as repressive.' (Tucker 1998: 114) In this paper it should be stressed
that in the Foucaultian analytics of power agency and subjectivity are
considered historically constructed (or produced) by discourse, necessitating a
distinction between generative power (linked to agency) and productive power
(linked to an intentional but unsubjective discourse), following the
interpretation Torfing proposes: 'Foucault
aims to escape the choice between 'power over' and 'power to' by claiming that
power is neither an empowerment, potentiality or capacity [generative power],
nor a relation of domination [repressive power].' (Torfing 1999: 165)
The Foucaultian and Giddean interpretation of
power necessitates a more nuanced view on participation and empowerment, taken
into account the need for supplementing the negative/repressive approach to
participation and empowerment with a positive/generative approach and a
productive approach.
The generative interpretation of power leads to
an re-interpretation of participation and empowerment stressing 'self-discovery, successful human interaction
and the ability to dialogue with people different from one's self' (White
1994: 23), instead of a power-struggle based on the dichotomy between the
powerless and the powerful, and between the empowered and the non-empowered or
the not-yet-empowered. In this more Giddean view to power participation and
empowerment are linked to autonomy, self-reliance and agency, referring to 'intentionally acting subjects'. (Torfing
1999: 137) People are seen here as capable human beings who are able to resist
inequality, or as Freire describes it: 'All
individuals have the capacity for reflection, the capacity for abstract
thinking, for conceptualising, taking decisions, choosing alternatives and
planning social change.' (Freire quoted in: (Thomas 1994: 50)) For this
reason Hamelink uses the term self-empowerment, instead of empowerment. (Hamelink
1995) As White remarks, participation and (self-)empowerment are achieved
through 'conscientisation' (a concept Freire uses) - combining action and
reflection - and 'in generating one's own
power and uniting with others in making demands that are mutually beneficial.'
(White 1994: 25) The emphasis on accessibility of different sites of power is
complemented with the consciousness of the suggestibility of these sites of
power. In this interpretation of power the paradox of empowerment is reduced,
because the 'powerless' are (partially) initiating the power redistribution
themselves, without the necessary benevolent permission of the 'powerful'.
If participation and empowerment are considered
from a productive Foucaultian viewpoint, the ability to participate in the
construction of new or alternative discourses and subjects, in the
reconstruction of existent discourses and subjects and in the construction of
the rules of formation of those discourses is emphasized. Here Foucault's basic
assumption is that discourses should not be considered closed systems: 'The possibility of innovation in discourse
is always present within any discourse itself and within tangential or succeeding
discourses.' (Kendall 1999: 41) Participation thus still refers to the
levelling of unequal power relations, but in contrast to the Pateman definition
it is detached from the role of individuals in a decision-making process. From
a Foucaultian viewpoint participation refers to the possibility to publicly
affirm 'true' discourses (and/or their rules of formation) thus reproducing
them, challenge 'false' discourses (and/or their rules of formation), trying to
replace them by another discursive order or other discursive formations. As
discourses gain their unity from a regularity of dispersion (Howarth 1998: 271)(Foucault
1984: 38), participation allows for the dispersion of statements supportive of
existing discourses or for the dispersion of new discourses, which could enter
into competition with existing discourses (Kendall 1999: 38-39) even with
potentially counter-hegemonic ambitions (in a Gramscian sense). In this fashion
conscientisation could be interpreted as the attempted internalisation of these
counter-hegemonic discourses, where 'the
teacher and the taught are jointly involved in the investigation of knowledge.
The duty of the teacher, thus, is to guide the awaking of the critical
faculties of the individual and to relate it to the tasks of political struggle
and development.' (Thomas 1994: 51) Empowerment - as far as it is still a
valid concept in this context - could then be seen as the internalisation of a
set of specific counter-hegemonic discourses, namely the discourse of
participation itself, and discourses of resistance and social change. The
paradox of empowerment thus becomes almost irrelevant, as the discourses are
produced by the interplay between 'powerful' and 'powerless'.
3.
Power
relations and resistance in an audience discussion programme: the case of Jan
Publiek and De Eeuwige Strijd
Crucial to the combination of these approaches
is the need for a public forum or - to refer to the work of Habermas - a public
sphere: 'By the 'public sphere' we mean
first of all a realm of our social life in which something approaching public
opinion can be formed. Access is guaranteed to all citizens. A portion of the
public sphere comes into being in every conversation in which private
individuals assemble to form a public body.' (Habermas 1984: 49) The
development of communication media has changed the outlook of the public sphere
drastically: 'Going public means going on
the air.' (Carpignano 1990: 50) Although the 'traditional publicness of co-presence' that characterised Habermas'
bourgeois public sphere has not completely disappeared, it has been largely
replaced by a mediated non-dialogical and non-localised publicness. (Thompson
1995: 244-246)
The participation of so-called 'ordinary
people' in audience discussion programmes combines the 'traditional publicness of co-presence' and the mediated publicness.
Thompson convincingly argues that the vast majority of the audience are
watching or listening in their homes to a dialogue without participating in it,
engaging in 'a form of mediated
quasi-interaction'. (Thompson 1995: 246) On the other hand, a selected
group of 'ordinary people' is allowed to gain access and to have their
statements heard (and seen) by other people. Livingstone and Lunt claim that in
this specific sense the viewer is constructed as a citizen. (Livingstone 1996:
33) The participants are considered agents who are able to generate statements
on the topics that are being discussed in the programme. Together with the
host, the production team, the technical crew and the other invitees they
generate a broadcast, where a specific issue is being discussed, and different
opinions being aired/screened.
Their participation on television and their
presence in the media system is predictably met with resistance, as they are
confronted with the production team who themselves have specific objectives and
who are familiar with the rules of practice within the media system. While
participants are empowered by the very same production team - on a limited
scale, by granting them access - to perform in a television programme, the
'ordinary people' are at the same time confronted with different forms of
domination, authority, control, management of voices, confessional and
disciplinary technologies. They too will resist to this domination, thus
continuing and deepening the dialectics of control, which will result in a
negotiated level of participation, a certain distribution of decision-making
powers and a certain access to the available resources.
This negotiation will eventually result in the
production of discourses, not only on the issue that is being discussed, but
also on power, resistance, participation, empowerment and ordinary people,
accentuating the socially constitutive aspects of mass media. (Torfing 1999, p.
213) The performances of the participants during the programme actually show
how participation is articulated in social practice, partially fixing the
discourse on participation of 'ordinary people' in the media system, but also
in other social systems as schools and the workplace. In Jan Publiek and De
Eeuwige Strijd 'ordinary people' are seen to take part in a process that is
usually restricted to members of different elites, including media
professionals. They are seen discussing their views with other 'ordinary
people' and with members of certain elites, often inverting the lay-expert
relation and 'offering a revaluation of
the life-world, repudiating criticisms of the ordinary person as incompetent or
ignorant, questioning the deference traditionally due to experts through their
separation from the life-world and their incorporation into the system, and
asserting the worth of the 'common man'.' (Livingstone 1996: 102) For this
reason Livingstone and Lunt call audience discussion programmes poetically 'a celebration of ordinary experience'. (Livingstone
1996: 101) But the participants are also seen being subjected to management,
confessional and disciplinary technologies, and they are seen resisting those
negative/repressive aspects of power.
In the analysis of Jan Publiek and De Eeuwige
Strijd this paper will focus on the different forms of management and the
presence of confessional and disciplinary technologies, combined with the
resistance these aspects of power provoke. Although this paper does not seem to
do justice to the generative aspects of power, it should be kept in mind that
the different agents gain access to a broadcast and are able to generate
statements on specific issues.
To analyse the different forms of management
and resistance in the Jan Publiek and De Eeuwige Strijd programme, a
distinction between the pre- and post-broadcasting phase on the one hand and
the broadcasting phase on the other hand is introduced. In the pre- and
post-broadcasting phase this paper looks at the methods the production team
used to select, train, inform and manage the participants. In the broadcasting
phase the management of the participants (in regard to the structure of the
broadcast and the authority of the host) is examined. In the conclusion will be
returned to the Foucaultian question of the overall effect and the production
of discourses on power, resistance, participation, empowerment and 'ordinary
people', completely ignoring the analysis of the broadcast-specific discourses
on the issues of racism, integration and tolerance.
4. The formats of Jan Publiek and De Eeuwige Strijd
Jan Publiek is a North Belgian television
audience discussion programme broadcast live on public television (VRT). 'Jan
Publiek' is a Dutch expression for John Q. or John Public and refers to the
so-called 'man in the street'[6].
The talk show host, Jan Van Rompaey, has had more than two decades experience
in presenting talk show programmes on the public broadcast company (radio and
television) in North Belgium. Although he is quite famous Jan Publiek cannot be
defined as a personality-type talk show but should be seen as an issue-type
talk show, based on group discussion. (Carbaugh 1988) Each emission of this
talk show covers one main issue, often summarised by a rather provocative
statement. Several reportages, highlighting different aspects of the main
discussion topic, are shown during the emission, but the emphasis remains on
the group discussion within the arena-shaped studio.
Jan Publiek has as a special feature its panel
of 'ordinary people': during 16 emissions[7]
the same participants, ten 'ordinary' women and ten 'ordinary' men, are present
to discuss a wide range of topics. These people were carefully selected by the
production team at the beginning, and form the core of the program. The
selection procedure of the first panel of 'ordinary people' was aimed at
reaching the general public, and for this reason a call in the written and
audio-visual media to the general public to participate was launched.
Approximate 200 candidates were attracted, among others several people who
already had participated in one of the earlier programmes of Jan Van Rompaey.
Extra effort was made to scout for people with allochtonous origins. In the North
Belgian press (but also by the production team) this panel was often referred
to as 'Klein Vlaanderen' or 'Little Flanders', therefore stressing the fact
that these 20 participants represent the North Belgian society.
Besides this panel of 20 'ordinary people',
four (more or less) famous Flemish people (in Dutch abbreviated into 'BVs') are
invited to participate. These BVs are not always the same people, although some
BVs have reappeared for several times during a series of emissions. As is the
case for the panel members, the BVs have no specific knowledge or experience
related to the issue of the emissions. For this reason several guests -
professional or 'emotional' experts - are invited. They tend not to reappear in
subsequent emissions. Finally, the remaining seats are available for a studio
audience, which not allowed to intervene - except by creating background noise
such as applauding or booing.
De Eeuwige Strijd, which can be translated as
'The Never-ending Battle', is also a North Belgian television programme, but is
broadcast by VTM, a commercial television company. De Eeuwige Strijd is
externally produced by a production company called D&D, which chose not to
go live, but to record the programme semi-live. It is recorded on a Friday and
broadcast the next Monday evening, which means that the weekend is the only
time available for editing.
The name of the programme still refers to the
original version of this programme, which was broadcast on Dutch television and
where participants used to discuss different aspects of the 'never-ending battle between man and women'
(Interview with the producer (De Eeuwige Strijd)). In the North Belgian
version, the 'never-ending battle' now refers to a topic that allows for a
(vocal) battle between participants with contrasting opinions. The host of the
programme is Marlène de Wouters, who has been working at VTM for about ten
years. She started her carrier as a television announcer, but after a couple of
years she combined this career with hosting different talk shows. Just as Jan
Van Rompaey, she is considered to be quite famous.
The structure of De Eeuwige Strijd is more
complex than Jan Publiek, as it consists out of three major parts. In the first
part - the duel - two invited opponents discuss a specific issue, a discussion
that is moderated by the host. In the second part of the programme - the 10
commandments - the hosts interviews two BVs. Her questions are based on the ten
(biblical) commandments. Before the first part and after the second part, the
topic of the third part of the programme (the debate) is announced, which
starts after the commercial break. Only this third part can be defined as an
audience discussion, and for this reason only this part of De Eeuwige Strijd is
analysed in this paper.
The debate in De Eeuwige Strijd has no fixed
panel of 'ordinary people'. All participants are invited for one specific
emission, and they are selected because they have specific knowledge or
experience related to the issue of the debate. Four professional or emotional
experts are placed in front of the studio, standing behind small but high
tables. Together with the host, they face the other participants who are seated
in an arena-shaped studio. In this arena, different groups of participants can
be distinguished. The guests (about one third of the audience present) are
invited by the production team. Some of them are professional or emotional
experts, carefully selected by the production team, while others have stated
their interest in the issue by calling a special telephone number, staffed by a
member of the production team. The second group, the studio audience, is
invited by the television company VTM (and not by members of the production
team). In contrast to Jan Publiek, all participants, including the studio
audience have the possibility to make an intervention.
5.
Generative
power and resistance
The control of the production team does not
exclude the possibility of the participants to generate statements during the
broadcast. The analysis of the Jan Publiek broadcast on the 'riots' in
Anderlecht (see Table 2) confirms that the panel members
play a substantial role in the broadcast: as a group and in comparison to other
groups of participants they are able to use the largest part of the total
speaking time: about 36%. The guests also play a substantial role: they have
about 26% of the total speaking time. The role of the BVs is rather limited.
Although the number of interventions of the
host in Jan Publiek is notably higher (45% of the total number of
interventions), the panel members still are responsible for 28% of the total
number of interventions. The guests have 20% of the total number of
interventions. The average speaking time of the panel members and the guests is
much higher in comparison to the host: 9.7 seconds to 3.3 seconds.
The De Eeuwige Strijd broadcast shows more or
less the same picture (see Table 2). The guests and the desk guests
play a substantial role in the broadcast. The guests have about 41% of the
total speaking time, and the desk guests have another 24%. In contrast to Jan
Publiek the studio audience is also allowed to intervene; they are responsible
for about 9% of the total speaking time.
Similar to Jan Publiek is the high number of
host interventions (42%). Nevertheless the guests and desk guests still have
49% of the number of interventions. The remaining number of interventions is
mainly made by the studio audience (7.5%). The high number of host
interventions is compensated by the low average host speaking time (4.6
seconds) in comparison to the guests (19.5 seconds), the desk guests (13.5
seconds) and studio audience (14.4 seconds). Especially the average speaking
time of the guests is high in comparison to other groups in De Eeuwige Strijd
and in Jan Publiek.
Table 2: Number of interventions and speaking time in the two broadcasts
|
|
Jan
Publiek (32) |
De Eeuwige
Strijd (71) |
||||||||||
|
|
Number of interventions |
Total speaking time |
Average speaking time/turn |
Number of interventions |
Total speaking time |
Average speaking time/turn |
||||||
|
|
N |
% |
Total |
% |
Mean |
std |
N |
% |
Total |
% |
Mean |
std |
|
Host |
254 |
45.5 |
850 |
20.3 |
3.3 |
6.7 |
96 |
42.3 |
443 |
15.6 |
4.6 |
6.0 |
|
Panel members |
158 |
28.3 |
1528 |
36.6 |
9.7 |
10.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BVs |
29 |
5.2 |
346 |
8.3 |
12.0 |
14.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guests |
113 |
20.3 |
1092 |
26.1 |
9.7 |
10.7 |
60 |
26.4 |
1172 |
41.2 |
19.5 |
21.9 |
|
Desk-guests |
|
|
|
|
|
|
51 |
22.5 |
690 |
24.3 |
13.5 |
17.0 |
|
Studio audience |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
17 |
7.5 |
245 |
8.6 |
14.4 |
23.4 |
|
Reportage |
4 |
0.7 |
365 |
8.7 |
91.3 |
16.0 |
3 |
1.3 |
292 |
10.3 |
97.4 |
20.1 |
|
Total |
558 |
100 |
4181 |
100 |
7.5 |
12.2 |
227 |
100 |
2842 |
100 |
12.5 |
19.6 |
A traditional method to distinguish between
'ordinary people' and other types of participants in to introduce a distinction
between lay people and experts, based on the difference between common-sense
knowledge and scientific knowledge. (Livingstone 1996: 92) This distinction
allows for the creation of two categories: 'expert guests' and 'lay guests'. If
the role of lay and expert guests in Jan Publiek and De Eeuwige Strijd -
temporarily ignoring the desk guests - is compared, Table 3 shows that the expert guests in Jan
Publiek clearly have more interventions, more speaking time and a higher
average speaking time. On the other hand, in De Eeuwige Strijd lay guests have
(a bit) more interventions, the total speaking time between lay and expert
guests is well balanced, but the average speaking time of the expert guests is
still much higher (13.8 versus 20.6 seconds).
Table 3: Number of interventions and speaking time of the lay and expert guests
in the two broadcasts[8]
|
|
Jan
Publiek (32) |
De Eeuwige
Strijd (71) |
||||||||||
|
|
Number of interventions |
Total speaking time |
Average speaking time/turn |
Number of interventions |
Total speaking time |
Average speaking time/turn |
||||||
|
|
N |
% |
Total |
% |
Mean |
std |
N |
% |
Total |
% |
Mean |
std |
|
Lay guests |
34 |
30.1 |
247 |
22.6 |
7.3 |
10.1 |
63 |
56.8 |
872 |
46,8 |
13.8 |
13.7 |
|
Expert guests |
79 |
69.9 |
845 |
77.4 |
10.7 |
10.8 |
48 |
43.2 |
990 |
53,2 |
20.6 |
25.6 |
|
Total |
113 |
100 |
1092 |
100 |
9.7 |
10.7 |
111 |
100 |
1862 |
100 |
16.8 |
20.0 |
This analysis might give the impression that lay
people only have a modest role to play. If all the participants are grouped in
either the lay category or the expert category (ignoring the host), the picture
largely changes: in Jan Publiek the experts only have about 26% of the number
of interventions, and 28.5% of the total speaking time. Even if the BVs are
disregarded (as they could be seen as members of the media system and as such
experts) these percentages do not rise substantially. In De Eeuwige Strijd the
role of the expert guests remains substantial (37.5% of the number of
interventions, and 47% of the total speaking time), but lay participants are
the major type of participants in this broadcast as well.
Table 4: Number of
interventions and speaking time of lay and expert participants in the two
broadcasts (host excluded)
|
|
Jan
Publiek (32) |
De Eeuwige
Strijd (71) |
||||||||||
|
|
Number of interventions |
Total speaking time |
Average speaking time/turn |
Number of interventions |
Total speaking time |
Average speaking time/turn |
||||||
|
|
N |
% |
Total |
% |
Mean |
std |
N |
% |
Total |
% |
Mean |
std |
|
Lay guests |
34 |
11.3 |
247 |
8.3 |
7.3 |
10.1 |
63 |
49.2 |
872 |
41.4 |
13.8 |
13.7 |
|
Lay panel members |
158 |
52.7 |
1528 |
51.5 |
9.7 |
10.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Lay) BVs |
29 |
9.7 |
346 |
11.7 |
12.0 |
14.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lay studio audience |
|
|
|
|
|
|
17 |
13.3 |
245 |
11.6 |
14.4 |
23.4 |
|
Expert guests |
79 |
26.0 |
845 |
28.5 |
10.7 |
10.8 |
48 |
37.5 |
990 |
47.0 |
20.6 |
25.6 |
|
Total |
300 |
100 |
2966 |
100 |
9.9 |
11.1 |
128 |
100 |
2107 |
100 |
16.5 |
20.4 |
These tables show that lay people - 'ordinary
people' - have access to this media subsystem and have the opportunity to
generate statements. A few examples of these statements will show that the
participants are able to 'give their opinion' on certain issue, even if those
opinions are not always considered politically correct and might actually harm
the participant making the statement.
'PM19[9]:
They should immediately arrest whoever participates in riots like these and
send them and their families back to their country of origin.' (Jan
Publiek, broadcast 32)
Statements like these actually generate
resistance as well, as some participants do not agree with previous statements.
In the broadcast of De Eeuwige Strijd a participant (from a Moroccan origin)
tells the audience and the other participants how she was attacked and beaten,
claiming that the problem of safety was not only a problem of white elderly
Belgians. When some of the other participants start to laugh, resisting her
claim, she reacts rather aggressively, despite the attempts of the host to cool
things down, emphasising her claim and implicitly referring to her opponents as
inhumane.
'7113:
This week, they came back. They knocked on my door. I opened it, my husband was
in the bathroom and the children were asleep upstairs. It was 11h30 at night. I
thought, something had happened, so I opened the door. […] He grabbed hold of
me, and you can see the result.
[laughter]
Host: We're not going to laugh, that's not the intention.
7113: You all find this funny?
Host: No, we don't find this funny.
7113: Hurting people, that's funny? Then you start to live?' (De Eeuwige Strijd, broadcast 71)
The discussion on generative power and the
resistance this type of power provokes, is related to the concept of a debate,
where different participants are able to generate statements and have to
opportunity to resist to previous statements by generating new statements. It
should be noted that in the concept of generative power and resistance to this
type of power, the need for a critical consensus, as propagated by Habermas (Livingstone
1996: 160), remains highly problematical.
6. Management in the pre- and
post-broadcasting phase of Jan Publiek and De Eeuwige Strijd
6.1
The
concept
Before the series starts, both production teams
have already decided upon the concept (in agreement with the network
management). Members of the production teams went on scouting missions to other
countries or were inspired by talk shows they simply had seen on television:
'At the early beginnings, when there was no talk show culture, D&D
has been so kind to send us all, well to send me and some other people, to the
Netherlands to see: how does Sonja [Barend] work? How does Karel van de
Graaf work? How do they produce talk shows in the
Netherlands? I went to see Jerry Springer in the States, to find out how they
work.' (Interview
with the producer (De Eeuwige Strijd))
'For a couple of months we watched other channels, to see what they had
to offer. I scouted the French market and Jan [host/producer] went to the
States to go and see a number of programmes.' (Interview with the executive editor (Jan
Publiek))
'There was a BBC programme - I forgot the name, […] and there's the
'Lagerhuis' in the Netherlands. That's also a programme that relies on at least
10 people that give their opinion. You can't invent new formats, and combining
those two formats led to a format that didn't exist yet.' (Interview with the host/producer
(Jan Publiek))
The production teams also refers to previous
projects they were involved in: the host/producer and the executive editor of
Jan Publiek have been involved in a series of talk shows on public television:
Argus, Zeker Weten and Schermen, which all tried to avoid the traditional
one-on-one talk show format. The first series of Jan Publiek did not include a
fixed panel of 'ordinary people', which placed the researchers in the
impossible situation of finding 50-60 guests for each emission. This learning
process supported the development of the concept of a fixed panel, which was
introduced in the second series of Jan Publiek. Before De Eeuwige Strijd
D&D had produced Marlène, a talk show which, in their opinion, had all the
ingredients of a debating programme. As mentioned before the Dutch sister
company had already produced a similar programme, based on the battle between
the sexes. Furthermore it is highly unlikely that the format of Jan Publiek
didn't affect the conception of De Eeuwige Strijd, considering the competitive
situation of the two broadcasting companies.
The format of both audience discussion
programmes were developed long before the participants are invited to attend a
broadcast, and even before the panel members of Jan Publiek are selected to
participate. These concepts - which form the framework in which all actors have
to function - are firmly in the hands of the production teams, and when
accepted by the network's or production company's management, they become rigid
frameworks, which are not considered negotiable.
6.2
Selecting
the panel members for Jan Publiek
Of the people who react to the call for
participation, which was launched by the production team of Jan Publiek, a
first selection is invited to a test-discussion - with the entire production
team present - where they quote the candidates on a wide range of criteria: as
they want the panel to be a representation of the North Belgian society,
respecting its diversity, they focus on traditional socio-demographic criteria
and to a lesser degree on political orientation. Individual panel members thus
become re-presentations of certain social groups (students, older people,
intellectuals, allochtonous people) without actually representing them, thus
referring to the double connotation of representation, which is emphasised by
Spivak. As Spivak noted (Spivak 1986; Spivak 1988), Marx distinguishes two
interpretations of representation: Vertretung or 'speaking for' (as in
politics), and Darstellung, or 'making present' (as in art/media or
philosophy). The production team did not confine themselves to the
representational criteria: part of the panel had to be more rational, others
more emotional, some should have a sense of humour, and some possess a
particularity distinguishing them from the others and allowing the viewer to
identify with them. The production team also had specific demands for each of
the panel members: they had to be eloquent, quick, speak clearly, have
clear-cut opinions and should not be fixated on a certain topic. The selection
process results in a panel of 'ordinary people' composed of 20 men and women,
of different backgrounds and ages, who are granted access to the media system
and can publicly generate statements on a wide range of issues. Besides an
equal male/female-division, there are two migrants (both women) participating,
three youngsters (21 and younger), two older people (70 or older), two
homosexuals (both men), as well as people situated at the right wing spectrum
of the political scene and more leftist people. The panel members receive
little training (on media and debating techniques or on the actual use of the
audio-visual technology) or information beforehand. Before the series of 16
broadcasts actually starts, they are invited to participate in a
test-broadcast. This test-broadcast mainly consists out of a technical briefing
- explaining the new panel functioning of micro-phones and cameras - combined
with a limited number of 'house-rules'. They are supposed to request for an
intervention by raising their hand, are asked to be brief, and stay to the
point. More specifically - they are asked to react to what the previous
speaker(s) has/have said and not to refer to what has been said during an earlier
phase of the programme. These 'house-rules' are repeatedly mentioned in
different letters from the executive editor or the host to the panel members:
'It is impossible for Jan [the host] to give the floor to everyone at
the same time. The possibility exists that you didn't get the opportunity to
say something about a particular subtopic. Avoid coming back to something that
has been said before. [...] If you react, react to the topic that is being
discussed at that moment.' (Letter from the executive editor to the panel members, 18 September
1997 (Jan Publiek))
6.3
Structuring
the debate and selecting the guests
Before each broadcast both production teams
select the topic(s) of the broadcast, the guests and the structure of the
debate. Once a topic has been selected the production team engages in an
internal discussion in order to find different approaches to the general topic.
A topic is thus divided by the production team into different subtopics. Guests
are selected by the production teams in order to be interviewed on a specific
subtopic. In the case of De Eeuwige Strijd, four of the selected guests are
chosen to perform as desk guest, which means that questions will be put to them
on various subtopics. Both production teams stress that the subtopics, the guests
and the structure of the debate are intrinsically linked:
'The questions and the structure that have been made, is based on the
guests, on what they say. Questions are made for that purpose. Some general
questions are drafted for the panel members, but the structure is established
based on the topic's files and on the guest's files.' (Interview with the executive
editor (Jan Publiek))
In the search for guests, the production teams
usually take the initiative to contact possible participants, according to the
perceived needs of a specific programme or issue. Only in the case of the
telephone hotline of De Eeuwige Strijd (where viewers can call the production
team to solicit for participation in one emission if they have 'a story to
tell') and in the case of the panel members of Jan Publiek (where television
viewers (and newspaper readers) were invited to solicit to become a panel
member), the future participants were allowed the initiative.
While selecting the guests, the production
teams try to create a balance between the advocates and opponents of the issue
being discussed, and between the presence of professional and emotional
experts. The presence of professional experts is often considered a necessary
evil: although they are needed for their expertise in order to 'establish the framework for the discussion'
(Interview with the producer (De Eeuwige Strijd)), they also have the
reputation of being unable to translate their abstract knowledge into 'human'
language.
'We always try to create a mix between experts and ordinary people, and
it is regrettable to see how few experts are able to talk normal. Most of them
… well … If you're working with television, you sometimes try to explain
experts: 'look guys, this is really important: try to leave out the scientific
jargon. Try to use human language. Most of them can't.' (Interview with the executive
editor (De Eeuwige Strijd))
The presence of emotional experts, who are
usually considered 'ordinary people' who have certain experiences related to
the issue being discussed, is valued highly. Here criteria are comparable to
the criteria of the panel member selection: emotional guests have to be
eloquent, quick and speak clearly.
'And that are the people we really need: the emotional experts that are
able to tell their story in a way that is fascinating and comprehensible for a
large audience, the VTM-audience, in order to - almost automatically - allow
for [viewer] identification and increase the involvement.' (Interview with the producer (De
Eeuwige Strijd))
Representational criteria were only rarely
mentioned as possible criteria for participation. If mentioned, they only
relate to equal gender representation at the level of professional expert
selection. Some references to equal gender representation were made in a
negative way, questioning the necessity of such 'positive action' (or what they
understand positive action to mean):
'It's not our job to engage in positive action, or to forward
emancipation. The criterion for the selection of guests was […]: if it's a
woman, ok, so much the better, but she has to be as good as the male
specialist.'
(Interview with the host/producer (Jan Publiek))
'When selecting the guests, I always tell the researchers, if we have
the choice between a man and a women, get the women.' (Interview with the producer (De
Eeuwige Strijd))
Although Jan Publiek and De Eeuwige Strijd use
their guests and the corresponding subtopics to structure the emission, thus
pre-structuring the entire debate, the differences in format lead to (slight)
differences in structure. The structure of a broadcast of Jan Publiek can be
schematised as shown in Table 5. After the introduction of the
general topic and the first reaction of a number of selected panel members, the
first subtopic is introduced, which is followed by a reportage and/or an
interview with a guest. Then the panel is allowed to react and after the first
reactions of panel members the guest can engage in the discussion as well (A).
After a certain amount of time the host initiates a new subtopic, starting the
entire procedure all over again (B). At the final stage of the emission, the
host stops the discussion and introduces next week's topic.
Table 5: Structure of a Jan Publiek broadcast
Table 6: Structure of
a De Eeuwige Strijd broadcast
In an emission of De Eeuwige Strijd the host
first introduces and interviews the desk guests. In a second phase the first
guest is introduced, possibly followed by a reportage on the subtopic the guest
has talked about. In other cases the reportage is used to introduce the guest.
After the interview with the guest, usually the desk guests are allowed to
react. In some other instances, members of the studio audience can also react
or an additional reportage is shown. The guest can also engage in the
discussion (A). After a certain amount of time, the host turns to another
guest, starting the procedure from the beginning (B). At the end of the
broadcast, the host ends the discussion with a (vague) conclusion and says
goodbye to the audience at home.
6.4
Managing
the guests and the panel members
In the week before the actual broadcast a
member of the production team visits the guests for a preparatory interview
and/or for a reportage. The production team also does research on the
background of that person and this information is stored in a file, accessible
to the production team. Before the actual broadcast the guests are briefed (if
the time permits separately from other participants); this briefing can be seen
as the continuation of the prior interview(s) with the guest.
In the case of Jan Publiek the interviews with
the guests can be seen as mere fact-finding interviews, without much negotiation
on the actual contents of the interview. During the briefing, the guests are
given an outline of the structure of the broadcast, and their role in it. The
exact questions that will be presented to the guest are not discussed, although
the researcher will refer to the previous interview in order to make clear what
type of questions will be posed:
'You've done an interview with someone, and from
that interview we sometimes select parts that are very interesting to us, but
are mere side issue for the guest we've
invited. And if Jan [the host/producer] incorporates a series of questions in
his structure referring to a specific anecdote, for instance, then I will talk
to the guest and tell him: do you remember the anecdote you told me during the
interview? Jan will refer to that anecdote. I tell them, I mean, it is a live
broadcast. I usually tell them: 'look,
it is a live broadcast, we can't
decide what you are going to say, you can chose what you say, but we have
invited you because you have that opinion, because you have told us interesting
things about these issues, so try to take this into account.'' (Interview
with a researcher (Jan Publiek))
In the case of De Eeuwige Strijd the briefing
plays a slightly different role, as the previous interview contain more
negotiative aspects: while the first interview with the potential guest is
usually seen as explorative, the second interview contains a negotiation on the
content of the intervention. The briefing in De Eeuwige Strijd functions more
as a reminder of the outcome of that negotiation.
'We start with a comprehensive interview. That interview should be
in-depth, it should uncover all problems the issue is about. [...] The
researchers put that on paper, and I have a look at it to see what's missing,
or what's good, or what's redundant. And then [claps in his hands] that's
moulded in the shape of a debate. That person says this, and that person says
that, … All is linked in the scenario, and armed with this scenario the
researchers visit the guests for a second time: 'you've said this, you've said
that, … Can you agree? And that's the question that will be put to you. We've
remembered - or the producer has selected - this and that and that, can you
recognise yourself in it? Sometimes the answer is yes, sometimes it's no, and
sometimes it is: no, I don't want to say that on television. Eh, ok, well, then
you don't say it. It's her story. But in that case the researcher gets a
roasting, because the programme is based on controversy. It is based on crass stories
and strong opinions. [...] But in principle the person who going to intervene
in the programme, gains a clear understanding in his/her part of the dossier,
and the question: can you recognise yourself in this? Can you say this? Say it,
because you said it then [during the first interviews]. Say it like that, or if
possibly, a bit shorter because we only have this much time? Can you formulate
your question immediately? Because you do have people … for them this is really
important, and they use a different perspective as the production team. They
don't have the same interest.' (Interview with the producer (De Eeuwige Strijd))
The briefing of the guests, the re-telling of
the same experiences before and during the emission and the negotiation on the
content of an intervention raises questions with the production team of De
Eeuwige Strijd on the spontaneity of the guests’ interventions:
'They [guests] should know: you will have the opportunity to say what
you want to say, but only after this and that has been said. [...] If you want
to react, you can, but please try to do it at the right moment. [...] We hope
that the interventions - despite their spontaneity - are made at the right
time.' (Interview
with the executive editor (De Eeuwige Strijd))
'It happened once to me, I got into conversation with a women during
make-up and we talked about the issue. I thought, that's a really horrible
story, she's telling me. And then we started the programme, and she told us
absolutely nothing. A normal reaction from her point of view, because she has
to tell the same story twice, within the hour. She thought, I've already told
her my story. [...] So I still prefer some spontaneity.' (Interview with the host (De Eeuwige
Strijd))
In Jan Publiek the panel members are treated in
a totally different way, as they are attributed a very specific role that
allows them to feature in a series of emissions. The topic of each broadcast is
only revealed to them in a short telephone call or fax by the production
assistant one day (or sometimes two days) before the day of the broadcast.
Information about the structure of the broadcast, the subtopics or the guests
is not given to the panel members. They are not encouraged to read or reflect
on the topic, and they are requested not to discuss the topic with the other
panel members, especially not in the hours before the broadcast, when they are
in the VIP-bar having dinner or waiting to have their make-up done.
The production team legitimises the lack of
training and information of the panel members by stressing the importance of
spontaneity, which, according to their view, will increase the level of reality
and authenticity. They consider situations where a panel member quotes a
specific source (a book or a report for instance) or refers to an earlier
discussion as avoidable, because it is not the 'real' opinion of the panel
member in question. A second related argument to legitimise the lack of
training or information is the fear of influencing the panel member's abilities
or opinions. For this reason the host and most of the members of the production
team - except for the production assistant, responsible for coaching the panel
members - also refrain from talking to the panel members before the broadcast
starts:
'They are 20 people chosen from the audience, and that is their
strongest point. And you should keep that strongest point, you shouldn't start
to mould them, you shouldn't model them, as you do with a host, or counsel
them, as you would counsel an expert because he has a specific function. Their
function was to be themselves. It was important to have [...] them play the
same role.'
(Interview with the executive editor (Jan Publiek))
7.
Resistance
to management in pre- and post-broadcasting phase of Jan Publiek and De Eeuwige Strijd
Confronted with the different managerial
attempts of the production teams, (some of) the guests will try to resist,
although the possibilities for resistance are limited, as they are placed in
the position of being one-time guests in the talk show, whose format, roles and
structure are considered non-negotiable. This does not mean that the invited
guests have no opportunity to resist the power structures of the programme, as
they firstly enter into a negotiation with a researcher on the exact contents
of their intervention (and the questions being asked) in the pre-broadcast
phase and secondly can not be forced to stick to their story during the
broadcasting phase, sometimes much to the surprise and irritation of the
production team.
'We ask them for their permission: 'is it ok if Marlène [the host] asks
you for your opinion at that moment?' And it still happens that we fall of our
chairs from surprise, because someone has said something during the preliminary
interviews, and then says something completely different in the studio. You
then ask yourself: why? Really, I don't understand the mechanisms playing at a
moment like that. I can understand if people clam up completely and suddenly
think, I don't want to get involved. [...] Yes, that I can understand. But
saying something completely different, that I can not understand.' (Interview with the executive
editor (De Eeuwige Strijd))
In the case of the De Eeuwige Strijd broadcast
on racism, the production team actually feels that they have made a mistake,
because of the differences between the preliminary interviews and the actual
interventions during the studio debate:
'Yes, we've been caught. We have been naive and stupid. We have made
that mistake because we were too idealistic: we wanted an open conversation on
the issue, so we scouted for nice people allowing such an open chat, and then
we go out looking for opponents, but those with more modest opinions, so that a
conversation would still be possible. [...] Looking back, we can see where we
went wrong, we didn't check them thoroughly enough. If we had known it all, we
would also have known that they were going to put forward some radical
opinions.'
(Interview with the executive editor (De Eeuwige Strijd))
After the debate, participants use another strategy:
they complain after the broadcast to the production team, showing their
dissatisfaction and frustration with the allocated speaking time, linking
allocated speaking time and possibility of articulation:
'The only thing they complain about, and they are absolutely right, is
that they don't get enough time for nuances. Someone gives an over-simplified
opinion, and before they have the time to nuance, someone else gets the floor.
This gives the wrong impression about what they actually wanted to say. [...]
But they have learned to keep it brief. After a while people learned to use a
couple of pithy sentences, instead of a lengthy discourse.' (Interview with the host/producer
(Jan Publiek))
Finally, the participants also tend to engage
in a post-broadcasting discussion, in the bar, often with the members of the
production team present. During most interviews with the members of the two
production teams, they mentioned regretting that there were no cameras present
to register the discussion in the bar:
'And sometimes, the discussions continued afterwards, in the bar, and
those debate were quite fierce, sometimes even more fierce than in the studio
during the debate.'
(Interview with the host/producer (Jan Publiek))
'So there usually starts a discussion afterwards. And I always regret
that there are no cameras to register that discussion, because it is more real
and direct. They are standing [at the bar], and they don't sit on one side of
the studio, opposed to people at the other side of the studio, but then they
are facing each other.' (Interview with the producer (De Eeuwige Strijd))
When it comes to the possibilities of
resistance, the panel members are placed in a better situation, as they are
re-invited for a series of emissions and are considered a major actor in the
programme. Although they have more options to resist the production team's
management, their attempts to co-decide are mostly considered interference and
are not taken seriously. Panel members have for instance suggested topics for a
broadcast, but the suggestions were not used. The production team clearly
considers the selection of the topics as part of their job. When questioned on
the involvement of the panel members in the topic selection, one of the members
of the production team jokingly remarked:
'If you involve the panel, they'll soon take over the building.' (Interview with the production
assistant (Jan Publiek))
Some panel members studied on certain topics,
but were discouraged by fellow panel members and by members of the production
team. Their eagerness to at least have the opportunity of preparing the
discussion influenced the decision of the production team to inform the panel
members of the topic of the broadcast at least a day before the actual
broadcast.
'So the golden mean was: everyone has a day to prepare, and that's the
limit. They didn't have to think about the subject if they didn't want to, and
those who wanted to think about it got a day's time, which gave them some
time.' (Interview
with the host/producer (Jan Publiek))
Also the panel members have proved to be quite
sensitive about the limited amount of speaking time they get. On one occasion
they actually analysed four emissions to check the differences in speaking
time.
'They called me to hand over something. And I started laughing. I said:
don't you have better things to do? For four broadcasts they had written down
all names, the number of interventions and the seconds they had spoken. And
then they said: look, Jan [the host] prefers that panel member to others, have
a look at the number of turns he gets.' (Interview with the production assistant (Jan
Publiek))
Some panel members also asked to be evaluated
by the production team, but their request was not accepted.
'That's one of the things I blame the production team for. We actually
suggested that for a couple of times, we would have liked to be present at some
of their evaluation meetings, if need to be without interfering. We were a part
of the programme, and the programme was build round ... It was rated highly
because ...'
(Interview with PM14 (Jan Publiek))
Panel members tried to solve this problem by
addressing the host and the other members of the production team during the
discussions at the VIP-bar, after the broadcast, but these efforts hardly
succeeded:
'Afterwards he [the host] rarely speaks about the broadcast, you don't
get the chance to discuss it. 'It's 12 o'clock' he says, 'we're going to close'
or 'one final drink', but there was little discussion [...]. Of course, he had
to talk to the people he invited [the guests].' (Interview with PM17 (Jan Publiek))
In a later stage the production team accepted
performing a minor and superficial evaluation, giving limited feedback to the
panel members. An evaluation of the performance of the host and the production
team by the panel was not asked for, nor was it considered. The executive
editor explains, again stressing the importance of not influencing the panel
members:
'They [the panel members] are an important instrument in the programme,
but you should be able to continue using them as instruments, which means that
you cannot afford to show your cards. They have strongly requested to be
evaluated, to see whether they performed well or not. We did, but you shouldn't
change them.'
(Interview with executive editor (Jan Publiek))
An even more radical form of resistance is the
threat to simply drop out of the panel. As the entire selection procedure is
oriented towards a carefully established balance between different
representational aspects, the production team would try to avoid a dropout at
all costs and would consider it a major setback. But some panel members[10]
found their participation too limited and actually considered quitting the
programme, as one of the interviewees explains:
'Jan [the host] didn't give me much space to say something. Just those
'little words' and then it was someone else's turn. Which for me was ...
sometimes it was very frustrating, I arrived at my home and I thought: 'I won't
go anymore, who does he think he is ... he won't allow me to say anything.
[...] But on the other hand, if I don't go, I'll be the one who loses out. So I
kept going 'till the series ended. Sometimes it was very hard, but when on
Thursdays I always asked myself, shall I go? And then suddenly I decided, yes,
I'll go, and if I get the chance, I will say these and these things.' (Interview with PM13 (Jan Publiek))
8. Management in the broadcasting phase of Jan Publiek and De Eeuwige Strijd
During the broadcasting phase, the processes of
control and management are more complex. The production teams exercise control
on two major planes. Firstly the host controls the process of turn taking: they
have the authority to grant or deny participants permission to speak. They are
supported by the director and the technical crew, who control the microphones
and the cameras. This form of control is combined with a pre-prepared
structure, only partially known by the participants. Secondly, the host also
has the authority to question, interview and even criticise people. This means
that the authority of the host is not limited to the process-level function as
moderator, deciding on who gets a turn or not. As the scheme below illustrates,
the host of an audience discussion programme can actually play different roles,
depending on the degree they can intervene at the content-level and on the
degree they can intervene at the process-level.
Table 7: Possible roles of
the host in an audience
discussion programme
As it is made clear to the participants before
every broadcast, the host is in control of the turn taking. Participants can
solicit for a turn by raising their hand, but it is the host's decision to
grant that person permission to speak. Moreover the host can always decide to
give a participant an unsolicited turn. Because of these rules, the role of the
host as formal introducer and debating partner is at least formally excluded.
About ¼ of the interventions of the host can be defined as related to
moderation. As the broadcasts are very structured, the host still has a limited
introductory role to play (6% of the coded interventions in Jan Publiek and 14%
in De Eeuwige Strijd). And the hosts cannot always resist the temptation to
make apparent judgements and comments, however, these two situations put them
in the position of a moderator-debater (3% of the coded interventions in Jan
Publiek and 8% in De Eeuwige Strijd). In both programmes about half of coded
interventions are related to interviewing.
Table 8: Interventions of the host[11]
|
|
Jan
Publiek |
De
Eeuwige Strijd |
||
|
|
N |
% |
N |
% |
|
Introduction |
17 |
5,84 |
16 |
13,56 |
|
Moderation |
80 |
27,49 |
29 |
24,58 |
|
Debating |
10 |
3,44 |
9 |
7,63 |
|
Interview without questions about the personal
situation |
143 |
55,33 |
46 |
48,31 |
|
Interview with questions about the personal
situation |
18 |
|
11 |
|
|
Other |
23 |
7,9 |
7 |
5,93 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
total |
291 |
100 |
118 |
100 |
8.1
The
authority of the host as a moderator
Advised by the director of the programme (via
an audio-connection), the host autonomously decides who gets a turn, and who
doesn't. Once a participant has made a first intervention, the host can decide
to allow someone else to speak or address the same participant again - asking
for an elaboration. These second and third consecutive turns are only rarely
solicited for by the participants and the decision to ask the participant for
an elaboration is entirely the host's to make.
As the tables below show, the majority of the
turn taking is effectively controlled by the host in both programmes. In the
Jan Publiek emission almost 60% of the turns are unsolicited turns, granted by
the host, and another 17% of the turns are solicited turns, again granted by
the host. In the De Eeuwige Strijd emission the unsolicited turns granted by
the host cover 52% of the debate, the solicited turns granted by the host
amount to only 6%, showing that Jan Publiek offers more possibilities for
(successfully) soliciting for a turn. On the other hand, turn-taking and
getting a turn from another participant - which will be discussed later as they
are defined as possibilities for resisting the host's management - occurs much
more frequently in De Eeuwige Strijd. Another difference between the two
programmes can be found in the share of unsolicited first interventions, which
is in the case of Jan Publiek rather small (only 13% of the unsolicited
interventions granted by the host are first interventions), compared to De
Eeuwige Strijd where almost 30% of the first interventions granted by the host
are unsolicited. This shows that in Jan Publiek the host tends to wait more
often for a participant to ask permission to speak instead of directly
addressing someone, something that happens more frequently in De Eeuwige
Strijd.
Table 9: Interventions of participants in Jan Publiek
(host excluded): turn taking and type of participant[12]
|
|
Panel |
BVs |
Guests |
Total |
|||||
|
Gets a turn from
the host & has solicited |
|||||||||
|
|
First intervention |
40 |
25,32 |
8 |
27,59 |
4 |
3,54 |
52 |
17,33 |
|
|
Later interventions |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Gets a turn from
the host & has not solicited |
|||||||||
|
|
First intervention |
7 |
4,43 |
2 |
6,9 |
15 |
13,27 |
24 |
8 |
|
|
Later interventions |
67 |
42,41 |
18 |
62,07 |
70 |
61,95 |
155 |
51,67 |
|
Gets a turn from
a participant & has not solicited |
|||||||||
|
|
First intervention |
1 |
0,63 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
1,77 |
3 |
1 |
|
|
Later interventions |
19 |
12,03 |
1 |
3,45 |
14 |
12,39 |
34 |
11,33 |
|
Takes a turn |
|||||||||
|
|
First intervention |
9 |
5,7 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
4,42 |
14 |
4,67 |
|
|
Later interventions |
15 |
9,49 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
2,65 |
18 |
6 |
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Total |
158 |
100 |
29 |
100 |
113 |
100 |
300 |
100 |
|
Table 10: Interventions of participants in De Eeuwige
Strijd (host excluded): turn taking and type of participant
|
|
desk guests |
guests |
studio audience |
total |
|||||
|
Gets a turn from
the host & has solicited |
|||||||||
|
|
First intervention |
0 |
0 |
2 |
3,33 |
4 |
23,53 |
6 |
4,69 |
|
|
Later interventions |
2 |
3,92 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
1,56 |
|
Gets a turn from
the host & has not solicited |
|||||||||
|
|
First intervention |
7 |
13,73 |
13 |
21,67 |
0 |
0 |
20 |
15,63 |
|
|
Later interventions |
18 |
35,29 |
27 |
45 |
2 |
11,76 |
47 |
36,72 |
|
Gets a turn from
a participant & has not solicited |
|||||||||
|
|
First intervention |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
Later interventions |
7 |
13,73 |
7 |
11,67 |
6 |
35,29 |
20 |
15,63 |
|
Takes a turn |
|||||||||
|
|
First intervention |
11 |
21,57 |
2 |
3,33 |
4 |
23,53 |
17 |
13,28 |
|
|
Later interventions |
6 |
11,76 |
9 |
15 |
1 |
5,88 |
16 |
12,5 |
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Total |
51 |
100 |
60 |
100 |
17 |
100 |
128 |
100 |
|
If the different types of participants are
incorporated in the analysis, it should be noted that in Jan Publiek the panel
members play a specific role as they solicit relatively often for a turn (with
success), and are also responsible for a large part of the turns being taken,
without the permission of the host. In contrast, almost ¾ of the guests' turns
(and to a lesser degree the BVs' turns) are unsolicited turns granted by the
host. In the De Eeuwige Strijd emission the guests also tend to play a more
passive role, waiting for a turn to be granted, without soliciting, while on
the other hand the desk guests are more actively engaged in taking turns. The
studio audience in De Eeuwige Strijd is only allowed a minor role in the entire
broadcast, but they tend to be quite active in soliciting for a turn and in
taking turns. It should also not be forgotten that the studio audience in Jan
Publiek is not allowed to speak at all.
The host also decides when the next speaker
gets a turn, which often means that the previous speaker is interrupted. The
host legitimates these interventions by pointing to the limitations in time.
For this reason interventions have to be brief and to the point - according to
the host:
'We
cannot give someone the floor for an entire minute. If you count the number of
people that are present in the studio, and the minutes we have, the total
speaking time, this leaves little time for the individuals. So, uh. What we do
- what I do - is giving the floor to as many people as possible. This means
that long statements are out of the question.' (Interview with the
host/producer (Jan Publiek))
'It
goes so quickly. It's like … if you should divide it by the number of people
that want to give their opinion … then we would have so to speak 5 seconds per
person. That's not possible. So I am aware of the fact that a lot of people
probably go home with the idea: now I've reacted spontaneously, and I still
don't get to speak.' (Interview with the executive editor (De Eeuwige
Strijd))
In the process of turn-taking the host is
supported by his technical crew, who control the volume of the microphones.
During the discussion the volume of all the microphones is kept very low, with
the exception of the host's microphone, which is open for the entire broadcast.
Before the broadcast the participants[13]
are informed that the microphones are (more or less) closed, that they have to
ask permission to get on the air and that the host can decide to literally cut
them of if he deems it necessary:
'But
what isn't possible is for someone to demand a turn and keep it. In this format
it simply isn't possible. I'll give someone else a turn, and tell them: the
microphone's dead and then it's finished. He can shout, but then it's finished.
The technician follows my lead very well as he directs the microphones. It's
absolutely not easy to … and I play a major role in it. But I rarely cut
someone of. They all know and they are all used to it, and they know that they
have to be brief. And they usually are.' (Interview with the host/producer
(Jan Publiek))
8.2
Structuring
the debate
As already mentioned above, a programme is
highly structured: the available air-time is divided into subtopics, which are
sometimes initiated or supported by a pre-made reportage, an interview with one
of the guests, or in the case of Jan Publiek a general question to the panel.
The segmentation of a programme reduces the topic to a certain number of
subtopics, which in its turn eliminates other possible subtopics or angles.
Table 11: Structure of the Jan Publiek programme 'Riots in Anderlecht'
|
Intro |
Introduction by the host |
|
|
P0 |
Introduction to the discussion, introduction of the panel, and first
reaction of the panel to the main topic |
|
|
|
0. |
Reaction of one of the two allochtonous panel members to the 'riots' |
|
P1 |
Reportage on a manifestation following the killing of an alleged drugs
dealer by the police |
|
|
|
1a. |
Discussion: How doe the panel members react to the television images |
|
|
Guest Bruno Bauwens, PVDA (Maoist party), organiser of the
manifestation |
|
|
|
Guest Houssein Boukhriss, Centre for equal rights and for the
suppression of racism |
|
|
|
1b |
Discussion: who's responsible? |
|
|
Guest Khadija Zamouri, living in Brussels |
|
|
|
1c. |
Discussion: are migrants guests or part of Belgian society? |
|
P2 |
Reportage on the situation of allochtonous people in Brussels and
their views on the police |
|
|
|
2a. |
Discussion: the position of the police |
|
|
Guest Paul Van Keer, National Syndicate of the Rijkswacht (national
police force) |
|
|
|
Guest Patrick De Poel: Police commissioner in Anderlecht (Brussels) |
|
|
|
2b. |
Discussion: the position of the police (continued) |
|
|
2c. |
Discussion: crime and drugs problems in Brussels |
|
P3 |
Reportage on the discrimination of allochtonous people |
|
|
|
3. |
Discussion: economic discrimination |
|
P4 |
Reportage on the family of the victim |
|
|
|
4. |
Discussion: what do autochtonous people know about allochtonous people |
|
P5 |
5a. |
Discussion: safety in Brussels |
|
|
Guest (hidden identity) on living in Anderlecht |
|
|
|
Guest Nicole Pletsers on living in Anderlecht |
|
|
|
5b. |
Discussion: safety in Brussels (continued) |
|
P6 |
6a. |
Giving migrants the right to vote |
|
|
Results of the televoting |
|
|
|
6b. |
Giving migrants the right to vote (continued) |
|
Ou-tro |
Outro by the host (introducing the topic of next week) |
|
In the emission of Jan Publiek nine phases
could be identified. In an introductory phase the host introduces the topic and
(as usual) introduces two of the 20 panel members. In this broadcast the two
allochtonous panel members are introduced and one of them is briefly
interviewed. The core of the broadcast is formed by six subtopics, which all
but one has specific reportages and/or guests. The last of the six subtopics
concerns the so-called 'televoting', where viewers can dial one of the two
telephone lines, answering 'yes' or 'no' to one specific question, in this case
whether migrants should be allowed to vote. In the final phase of the broadcast
the host says good-bye and briefly introduces next week's topic.
In the De Eeuwige Strijd broadcast on racism,
ten phases can be distinguished. After the commercial break - separating the
first part with the 'tweestrijd' and the '10 geboden' from the debate - the
host gives a brief introduction of the topic, which is followed by an
introduction of the four desk guests. In this broadcast, eight phases form the
core of the programme, mainly supported by the presence of guests, and to a
lesser degree by the showing of a reportage (which occurs in phase one and
seven). In the final phase (and after a fierce discussion) the host expresses
the hope that 'people can come to a
mutual understanding and will strive for more tolerance', thanks the
participants and says good-bye to the viewers.
Table 12: Structure of
the De Eeuwige Strijd programme 'Racism'
|
Intro |
Introduction by the host |
|
|
P0 |
Introduction to the discussion, introduction and first reaction of the
desk guests |
|
|
P1 |
Guest Houssein Boukhriss from Moroccan origin, born in Belgium, on
integration and living together |
|
|
|
Guest Thomas Coppens, principal of a school in Antwerp |
|
|
|
Reportage on the school in Antwerp |
|
|
P2 |
Guest Mark Joris, teacher, on Islam and their alleged religious
intolerance |
|
|
|
2. |
Discussion: the alleged religious intolerance of Islam |
|
P3 |
Guest Hilda Wegge, living in Borgerhout, feeling safe? |
|
|
|
Guest Nadia, from Moroccan origin and a victim of crime |
|
|
P4 |
Guest Billens, alder(wo)men in Lokeren, on local 'riots' and problems
with youngsters |
|
|
|
Guest Hoessein Bougris, teacher police school on crime and
allochtonous youngsters |
|
|
|
3. |
Discussion: the link between crime and allochtonous youngsters |
|
P5 |
Desk guest Hadri Rabbeha on her headscarf |
|
|
P6 |
Guest Shokrima Hassim from Moroccan origin with Belgian nationality,
on integration and living together |
|
|
|
5. |
Discussion: who has to do the effort to integrate? |
|
P7 |
Reportage on people's self-definition of being racist |
|
|
|
Guest Dominique Van Kraaienest, researcher on racism |
|
|
|
6b. |
Giving migrants the right to vote (continued) |
|
P8 |
Summarising remarks from guests and studio audience |
|
|
|
Guest Wouter Eilich, social worker, how to improve the situation |
|
|
Ou-tro |
Outro by the host |
|
The host - together with his production team -
knows the structure of the broadcast, and will try to keep the discussion
within the bounds of the subtopics. In the two programmes different strategies
are being used to protect the segmentation of a broadcast. In the case of Jan
Publiek, which is broadcast live, the host makes clear interventions to protect
the structure. Firstly he has to prevent participants starting a discussion
that is scheduled to happen only later, and secondly he has to prevent that too
much attention is spent on (related or otherwise) topics that are (in the
production team's opinion) not the issue of the emission. An example of the
first type of intervention can be found in the fragment below, where a BV
refers to the right to vote, a subtopic which is planned to be discussed only
at end of the broadcast:
'BV7:
[...] And secondly I am touched that this mister from the Rijkswacht [national
police force] talks about democratic forces and democratic values, and so on.
If we are to take democracy seriously what are we waiting for to grant
foreigners the right to vote at a municipal level?
Host: Ok, we'll come back to that issue, that's a promise. Albert? [host
gives a turn to another participant]' (Jan Publiek, broadcast 32)
In the second fragment the host of Jan Publiek
repeatedly tries to cut of a panel member, who attempts to describe how he
(having an autochtonous origin) was refused entry at a club, 'proving' that not
only people who look Moroccan or Turkish are being refused entry at clubs:
'PM6: No, a friend invited me, and we were
standing in front of the door, and they wouldn't let me in. I didn't know what
kind of club it was, but then I knew.
Host: But we are drifting away from the subject.
PM6: Yes yes, but I wanted to return to this topic, because it is a
prejudice [is being interrupted]
Host: So you have.
PM6: I think that it should be possible that you can go to a certain
place knowing that you will meet a certain type of people, I think that should
be allowed. [is being interrupted]
Host: We're drifting away. Betty? [host gives a turn to another
participant]' (Jan
Publiek, broadcast 32)
In the case of De Eeuwige Strijd the structure
is not only protected by the possibility of editing the broadcast, but also by
the presence of the large number of guests, who (preferably) all have to get a
(series of) turn(s) on the subtopic they are invited for. Drifting away from
the subtopic is hardly possible, as only a few people are allowed to react
before a new guest is being introduced and interviewed. In this specific
broadcast the host quite often explicitly uses the argument that she has to
give 'the others a turn as well', as
is the case in the fragment below, where a desk guest is denied a turn after
which a new guest is introduced:
'7105: Can I, can I?
[...]
EP1: No sir, I have to give the others a turn as well. Madam, ok, ok,
madam Bellens, madam Bellens, you are an alder(wo)men in Lokeren. There have
been violent riots in Lokeren [...]' (De Eeuwige Strijd, broadcast 71)
On the next page a PRT-overview is given of the
two broadcasts. Every intervention is chronologically indicated with a small
rectangle, with the beginning of the broadcast at the left hand side, where the
different types of participants are indicated. At the bottom of the screen the
phases are indicated, while the vertical lines show the different sub-topics.
The horizontal lines show the time until the first intervention of a
participant.
