Via Henry Farrell, the lead article in the new American Political Science Review is Diana C. Mutz, “Effects of “In-Your-Face” Television Discourse on Perceptions of a Legitimate Opposition" (PDF):
Abstract: How do Americans acquire the impression that their political foes have some understandable basis for their views, and thus represent a legitimate opposition? How do they come to believe that reasonable people may disagree on any given political controversy? Given that few people talk regularly to those of opposing perspectives, some theorize that mass media, and television in particular, serve as an important source of exposure to the rationales for oppositional views. A series of experimental studies suggests that television does, indeed, have the capacity to encourage greater awareness of oppositional perspectives. However, common characteristics of televised political discourse—–incivility and close-up camera perspectives—–cause audiences to view oppositional perspectives as less legitimate than they would have otherwise. I discuss the broader implications of these findings for assessments of the impact of television on the political process, and for the perspective that televised political discourse provides on oppositional political views.
In her experiments, Mutz filmed actors debating from two perspectives -- close-up and medium distance -- and also varied interruptions and agitation, while keeping the script and debaters constant. This design allows her to show convincingly that incivility and close-up imagery, which are the defining characteristics of cable talk shows, increase subjects' perceptions that the other side's views are illegitimate. It's a clever study that provides scientific confirmation of an important fear about the political consequences of shout TV. Highly recommended.
Comments