This blog post analyzes whether television debate programs truly function as a public sphere, realizing democratic ideals, or if they are merely imitation public spheres that only convey one-sided arguments.
The term “public forum,” widely discussed today, refers to an open space for discourse where individuals’ opinions on public issues extend into the public sphere. In other words, it signifies a space where individuals express their opinions and beliefs on social agendas, coordinate differing viewpoints, and reflect the sound public opinion formed in this process into national policy. Such a public sphere is indispensable for guaranteeing the freedoms of assembly and association, as well as freedom of the press—the very essence of democracy—and for forming sound public opinion.
As society becomes more pluralistic and conflicts among its members erupt, the necessity of the public sphere is increasingly highlighted. In modern society, where diverse social classes and groups collide with differing interests and perspectives, the public sphere plays a crucial role beyond being a mere forum for exchanging opinions. It fosters social cohesion and promotes mutual understanding. This is essential not only for realizing the ideals of democracy but also for achieving social stability and integration. Through the public forum, people with differing viewpoints gather to converse and compromise, easing social tensions and opening pathways toward shared goals.
People increasingly expect television debate programs, whose broadcast schedules are expanding, to serve as such a public forum. Yet, skepticism also arises regarding whether these television debate programs truly embody the essence of a public forum. As television has established itself as a powerful medium, expectations for its role and influence are high, but simultaneously, its limitations and problems are not insignificant.
Scholars who maintain a critical stance toward television debate programs argue that a significant number of these programs are far removed from being a public forum because they unilaterally convey the arguments of interest groups rather than facilitating open, mutual communication on diverse public issues. Consequently, they criticize that television debate programs are actually distancing the public from social agendas and degenerating into so-called ‘pseudo-public spheres’ that merely promote specific positions. They express concern that these programs can distort public opinion.
From a similar perspective, some scholars criticize television debate programs for reducing the public to passive bystanders, preventing them from forming their own rational judgments and critical opinions. According to them, television debate programs create an illusion for the public that they are actively participating in the public discourse process, thereby keeping them as passive recipients. They also point out that pre-set formats and components established by broadcasters—such as topic selection, moderation methods, broadcast time slots and volume, debater characteristics, viewer participation, and the host’s inclinations—restrict the direction of the debate or the outcome of the argument in certain ways. Regarding viewer participation, they add that even if debate programs provide serious reflection on solving social problems, only interested individuals watch them, limiting viewers’ ability to substantially participate in or influence the programs.
Furthermore, television debate programs bear significant responsibility because the role of the public sphere extends beyond merely setting the agenda and shaping public opinion; ultimately, it can influence the policy-making process. This means they must go beyond merely conveying information to foster social consensus and, based on that, lead to tangible policy changes. However, criticism persists that this role is not being sufficiently fulfilled in reality.
It is encouraging that television debate programs are establishing themselves as a primary space for discussing social agendas. Nevertheless, for these programs to evolve into genuine public forums, systematic analysis and research addressing the criticisms raised thus far must be supported, along with careful consideration by broadcast professionals. Furthermore, viewers themselves must move beyond being passive information recipients and strive to become active participants who voice their opinions and contribute to public discourse. This effort will not only serve as a means to invigorate the public forum but will also be a crucial process in fostering the maturation of democracy.
