The empty chairs that symbolized the absence of public officials in the debate have been replaced by government supporters who voice their opinions but are not the real ones in charge. Likewise, in most of the evening “debates” we have opposition supporters, and few opposition members who criticize government policies.
Alban ZENELI
The confrontation in the television studio was once the moment of truth for politicians and debaters through facts and arguments, or as Habermars says, "the essence of democracy was careful argumentation and reasoned exchange of arguments." Today, it has turned into a stage where the main protagonists are absent, there is no careful argumentation, there is entertainment, there is noise, there are clashes to go viral and consequently to be invited to other debates.
In this situation, public officials - politicians avoid critical journalists, while debates are filled with opinion leaders who speak for and against them, in a format that resembles a show. The empty seats that symbolized the absence of public officials in the debate have been replaced by government supporters, who express their opinions, but are not the real ones in charge. The same is true on the other side, in most of the evening "debates" we have opponents of the Government and supporters of the opposition, and few oppositionists who criticize government policies.
In terms of television genre, television format, debate is experiencing an exodus: not because there is a lack of topics, but because there is a lack of accountability. Politicians, both in power and opposition, have found ways to communicate without being challenged. Government and opposition officials prefer more controlled exits into the public sphere: conferences without questions, friendly interviews, or communication through social networks. This avoids uncomfortable questions and reduces political risk for them. But can a system where difficult questions are avoided be called a democracy? Who is really to blame?
Such television formats shift from facts to the perceptions and ideological beliefs of the guests, while citizens are left without direct information and without concrete responsibility in matters of public interest.
This change, according to Jurgen Habermas, is due to the imperatives of the attention economy that is a key characteristic of social media. In these channels, the media are now competing for attention, much like the tabloid press once did.
"By aligning political programs with entertainment and consumer offerings, which address citizens as consumers, we are touching on depoliticization trends, which have been observed in media studies since the 1930s, but which are now evidently intensifying through social media offerings."
Addressing this issue even more fundamentally, in "The New Structured Transformation of the Public Sphere and Deliberative Politics," he says that in fact, the direction of topics based on the attention economy imposed by social media damages the democratic system by harming the public sphere, which is qualitatively filtered.
"A democratic system is damaged as a whole if the infrastructure of the public sphere cannot direct citizens' attention to relevant and decision-making topics and can no longer ensure the formation of competitive, i.e. qualitatively filtered, public opinions," he writes.
Although journalists may receive negative responses from politicians, both in power and in the opposition, experts in the field and public officials of institutions, this does not absolve the media from the responsibility of showing the public that they are organizing the debate without the participation of a party. Not simply being replaced by opinion leaders, analysts, or those who Bourdieu calls fast-thinkers. The latter undoubtedly have their place in debates, to give opinions, but not to be held accountable nor to defend in a partisan manner.
However, debate as an initiative is not dead—it has been displaced, fragmented, and deformed into fragments. Its return requires public pressure, courage from journalists, and responsibility from the media to hold them accountable. Because democracy does not need more voices in the studio, but more answers from decision-makers.
(Alban Zeneli is a lecturer at the Department of Journalism, Faculty of Philology at the University of Prishtina. He is also the author of many scientific publications in prestigious international journals. Zeneli is a regular columnist at hybrid.info).