Współczesna debata telewizyjna a konflikt destruktywny
Loading...
Date
2011
Authors
Advisor
Editor
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warmińsko-Mazurskiego
Title alternative
Modern TV debate and destructive conflict
Abstract
W artykule dowodzi się tezy, że współczesne debaty publiczne, emitowane w telewizji (takie jak emitowany od 2004 roku w TVP2 program Jana Pospieszalskiego „Warto rozmawiać”), są zdarzeniami komunikacyjnymi zasadzonymi na konflikcie destruktywnym, a więc takim, który wg L. Kriesberga, nastawiony jest nie na problem wywołujący frustrację, ale jest manifestacją agresji, a celem sporu staje się nie pokonanie różnic dzielących strony, ale pokonanie oponenta. Wynika to z sytuacji komunikacyjnej debaty telewizyjnej i nastawienia w pierwszej kolejności na zdobycie uwagi, a potem zaspokajanie potrzeb odbiorcy sekundarnego – widza. Podporządkowane są temu takie elementy, jak wybór tematu debaty, jej scenariusz, dobór uczestników, a w dalszej kolejności ich zachowania werbalne i niewerbalne.
W rezultacie, w debacie telewizyjnej złamane zostają typowe dla debaty konstruktywnej reguły i strategie, i zastąpione zostają zachowaniami typowymi dla konfliktu destruktywnego, takimi jak: brak otwartości na argumenty drugiej strony, nastawienie na pokonanie antagonisty, niechęć do szukania innych rozwiązań, jak tylko moja wygrana - twoja przegrana, działania nastawione na prowokację i podważanie wiarygodności partnera, przenoszenie ciężaru debaty ze sprawy na osobę, posługiwanie się argumentacją niemerytoryczną, niezgoda na konstruowanie wspólnego stanowiska.
Taki wzorzec debaty telewizyjnej, która stała się pośpieszną, bezproduktywną prezentacją rozbieżnych stanowisk, nie prowadzącą do żadnych konkluzji, nastawioną najwyżej na obrażenie rozmówcy i dostarczenie widzowi krótkotrwałych emocji, buduje powszechne przekonania o niemożności dialogu i porozumienia w dyskursie publicznym i dominującym w nim antagonizmie.
The article proves the point that modern public debates on TV, such as Jan Pospieszalski’s Warto rozmawiać [It’s worth talking], aired since 2004 on channel 2 of Poland’s public broadcasting corporation TVP, are communicative events based on destructive conflict, i.e. the ones that, according to L. Kriesberg, do not actually aim at a resolution of a problem, but, serve as the occasion for a manifestation of aggression, while the aim of the argument is not to overcome differences dividing the warring parties but to subdue the opponent. This results from the particular communicative situation of a TV debate and the adopted attitude to, first, attract attention and then to satisfy the needs of the secondary recipient – the viewer. To achieve that, such elements as the choice of the subject for a debate, its scenario, selection of the audience, and then the verbal and non-verbal behaviour of the audience, are all subordinated to the purpose. Ultimately, such a TV debate violates the rules and strategies typical for a constructive and rational debate, which are subsequently replaced with the types of behaviour representative for destructive conflict, i.e. lack of openness to the arguments of the opponent, the attitude of defeating the antagonist, reluctance to find other solutions than one’s own, acts of provoking or inciting, undermining credibility of opponents, shifting the focus of a debate from the essential matter to that of a personal critical remarks, introducing ad hominem abusive that involves insulting one's opponent, a refusal to work out a common position, etc. It is this pattern for a TV debate, i.e. the one that has become a hasty fruitless formation and presentation of opinions devoid of conclusion and designed primarily to offend the interlocutor and to provide the audience with excited and short-lived emotions, that enhances the common belief that dialogue and problem solving in public discourse is not possible and that antagonism is a dominant factor in it.
The article proves the point that modern public debates on TV, such as Jan Pospieszalski’s Warto rozmawiać [It’s worth talking], aired since 2004 on channel 2 of Poland’s public broadcasting corporation TVP, are communicative events based on destructive conflict, i.e. the ones that, according to L. Kriesberg, do not actually aim at a resolution of a problem, but, serve as the occasion for a manifestation of aggression, while the aim of the argument is not to overcome differences dividing the warring parties but to subdue the opponent. This results from the particular communicative situation of a TV debate and the adopted attitude to, first, attract attention and then to satisfy the needs of the secondary recipient – the viewer. To achieve that, such elements as the choice of the subject for a debate, its scenario, selection of the audience, and then the verbal and non-verbal behaviour of the audience, are all subordinated to the purpose. Ultimately, such a TV debate violates the rules and strategies typical for a constructive and rational debate, which are subsequently replaced with the types of behaviour representative for destructive conflict, i.e. lack of openness to the arguments of the opponent, the attitude of defeating the antagonist, reluctance to find other solutions than one’s own, acts of provoking or inciting, undermining credibility of opponents, shifting the focus of a debate from the essential matter to that of a personal critical remarks, introducing ad hominem abusive that involves insulting one's opponent, a refusal to work out a common position, etc. It is this pattern for a TV debate, i.e. the one that has become a hasty fruitless formation and presentation of opinions devoid of conclusion and designed primarily to offend the interlocutor and to provide the audience with excited and short-lived emotions, that enhances the common belief that dialogue and problem solving in public discourse is not possible and that antagonism is a dominant factor in it.
Description
Sponsor
Keywords
debata, telewizja, konflikt, debate, television, conflict
Citation
Prace Językoznawcze vol. 13, 2011, s. 241-253.