Television, Political Debate, and Trust

Brian Frederking

February 1, 2006

Please do not Meet the Press. Do not play Hardball. Do not Factor in O’Reilly. Do not join the Capital Gang. 

I know that they are more exciting than Jim Lehrer, Ted Koppel, or Brian Lamb. The ideological jousting gets our adrenaline going. It’s like Wrestling for Wonks.

But these shows are hazardous to our democratic health.

The growing dominance of television in our politics has coincided with a massive decline in trust of our politics and politicians. In 1964 over 75% of US citizens said that they trust the government to do the right thing almost always or most of the time. By the mid-1980s trust had plummeted to below 25%. Today most polls show trust at around 40%.

Television has helped to cause this drop in political trust. Media coverage has become increasingly negative over the years. Both survey and experimental evidence show that citizens who watch high amounts of television news have lower levels of political trust. Prominent political scientists like Thomas Patterson at Harvard argue that negative media coverage encourages citizens to mistrust politicians.

            And now a study in the February 2005 American Political Science Review shows that “uncivil” televised political debate decreases political trust. Dian Mutz (Pennsylvania) and Byron Reeves (Stanford) found that citizens who watched uncivil political debates score lower on a variety of measures of political trust than citizens who watched the same substantive debate conducted in a civil manner.

Mutz and Reeves explain the results by arguing that televised political debates show politicians and pundits violating “normal” social behavior. Most people are extremely polite, even when political disagreements arise. And most people do not distinguish televised debate with face-to-face debate. So when we watch less-than-polite televised debate, we decide that we would never want THOSE people over for dinner, and our trust in the political process declines.

            Declining trust in political institutions has tremendously negative consequences. Citizens with low political trust are less likely to support government attempts to provide public goods, both those supported by liberals (education, environment) and conservatives (law and order through a strong police and military). When there are problems that only government can solve, our untrusting citizens are increasingly less likely to support public attempts to solve those problems. Why let those bozos reform health care?

            But as these TV programs show, higher screaming quotients increase ratings. O’Reilly outdraws Jim Lehrer. The Mutz and Reeves study also supports this: citizens watching the uncivil debates rated the programs as having more entertainment value than the civil debates. This is one of the many ways in which market forces undermine democracy. What we need (a government capable of providing public goods) is defeated by what we want (pundits providing a Guantanamo Bay or trial lawyer body slam).

A fascinating part of the Mutz and Reeves study is the evidence they present that most do not distinguish televised debate from face-to-face debate. We apply the same norms of politeness and sincerity to both types of interactions. We expect the pundits to behave as they would in our living rooms.

But these shows are NOT what happens in our living rooms. For some it is all show business. It is outrageous, perhaps even insincere. And this charade turns off many Americans. For others on these shows, it is mortal combat, and the nastiness of the duel also disgusts us.

            And yet we watch. Like our reaction to an accident on the highway, we pay attention to things that simultaneously repulse and fascinate us. But in this case, the short-term entertainment value erodes our long-term democratic health.

            So please, do not go to Scarborough Country or join the McLaughlin Group. We need to reinvigorate our democratic health. Take your medicine and watch Jim Lehrer.