The public forum is at the heart of democracy, and while television debate programs are expected to play this role, critics argue that their limited format and structure do not allow them to fully fulfill this function.
The term public forum, which is widely used today, refers to an open forum of discourse where individual opinions on public issues extend into the public sphere, where individuals can express their opinions and beliefs on social agendas, reconcile divergent opinions, and reflect healthy public opinion on national policies. Such a public forum is essential to ensure freedom of assembly and association and freedom of speech, which are the core of democracy, and to form a healthy public opinion.
As society becomes more pluralized and conflicts erupt among its members, the need for public forums is becoming more prominent. In the modern world, where various social classes and groups clash over different interests and perspectives, public forums are more than just a place to exchange opinions; they play an important role in promoting social cohesion and mutual understanding. This is not just about realizing the ideals of democracy, but is also essential for social stability and integration. This is because public forums allow people with different perspectives to come together to dialog and compromise, easing social tensions and paving the way for common goals.
People expect television debate programs, which have been increasingly broadcast in recent years, to serve as a public forum. However, there is also skepticism about whether television debate programs truly represent a public forum. Television has become a powerful medium, and while there are high hopes for its role and influence, there are also many limitations and problems.
Critics of television debate programs argue that many of them are far from being public forums because they are one-way channels for the arguments of interested groups rather than openly interacting with each other on a variety of public issues. As a result, they argue, television debate programs are turning into “pseudo-public forums” that promote particular positions and distract the public from the social agenda. They are concerned that debate programs can distort public opinion.
Similarly, some scholars criticize television debate programs for reducing the public to passive bystanders, unable to form reasoned judgments and critical opinions on their own. According to them, television debate programs keep the public as passive recipients by giving them the illusion that they are actively participating in the public debate process. They also point out that the format and components of the program, such as the selection of topics, moderation, time slot and amount of airtime, characteristics of the debaters, audience participation, and the moderator’s personality, are pre-determined by the broadcaster, which limits the direction of the debate and the outcome of the debate in a certain way. Regarding the issue of audience engagement, he adds that even if a debate program offers serious reflection on solving social issues, only those who are interested in it will watch it, which limits the audience’s ability to actually participate or influence the program.
Furthermore, the responsibility of television debate programs is enormous, as the role of the public forum is not limited to agenda setting and shaping public opinion, but can ultimately influence the policy-making process. This means that they need to go beyond the role of information dissemination to build a social consensus that can lead to real policy change. In practice, however, criticisms continue to arise that this role is not being fulfilled.
It is encouraging that television debate programs are becoming a major space for discussing social agendas. However, for debate programs to truly evolve into a public forum, they will need to be supported by systematic analysis and research to address the criticisms that have been raised, and broadcasters will need to reflect on them. Viewers will also need to move from being passive recipients of information to active participants, making their voices heard and contributing to the public debate. This will not only be a way to revitalize the public forum, but also an important process that will lead to the maturation of democracy.
