I cannot stand watching short form debates on TV. These playfully named “shout shows” are a great way to bring in viewers but a horribly irresponsible method of handling on air arguments. Two or more more people representing different positions come together, hopefully boasting research, academic study and life experience to help educate the opposition on their point of view.

Sounds like grounds for an informative and maybe even entertaining look at an issue that affects society! Hopes of this get tossed out the window quickly. The cameras are locked in on the faces of the pundits, whose frustration fills up the screen as what might have been better suited for a conversation over dinner turns into a catfight.

Rather than witnessing an argument from afar, the viewer is pulled into the intimacy of the argument, highlighted by the tight camera angles and feels the tension of the conversation without even being present. In short, even if they aren’t incredibly interested, watching the conversation-turned-confrontation play out onscreen delivers the same adrenaline rush one would feel while watching two friends fighting. Like a trainwreck, the viewers can’t turn away.

With a short time allotted for a given segment, viewers watch as the “debate” becomes the same renowned experts dropping any sort of polite professionalism as they struggle to persuade the viewer over the ruckus what the “debate” is.

And yes, it is entertaining. When you watch a debate air with a position or bias in mind, the short-form argument is turned into a verbal boxing match, and when you have someone to root for, that makes it all the more exciting. The match is relatively short and the participants have to come out with big swings and uppercuts. They can’t afford to dance around the ring for a few minutes because they don’t have that kind of time.

But it does a great amount of damage to both sides of the argument. Moderation does not play well on TV, a Dude-like response of “Well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man,” will not draw in the ratings and certainly won’t bring interest. The loudest voice in the room might be the least secure, but it sure is fun to listen to, even if it’s just so that the viewer can yell back at the TV in frustration.

However, when you bring in multiple loud voices, it often leads viewers to root for their own side and see the same incivility in the opponent and attribute it to the pundit simply being ‘annoying’ and ‘full of himself.’

A study conducted by scholar Diana C. Mutz and published in the American Political Science Review examined the effects of the so-called “shout shows” on the general public. What they found was that “uncivil exchanges of political views featuring tight close-up shots generated the strongest emotional reactions from viewers and the most attention.” In addition, the viewer’s ability to recall the arguments made was “enhanced by incivility and close up camera perspectives.”

At the same time, “the uncivil expression of views reinforced viewers’ tendency to de-legitimize oppositional views.” So even though the shout shows brought in viewers, the purpose of the argument, to share perspective and make people think critically, is lost.

This is why shout shows need to go. There is already enough in the news.

This sets an extremely poisonous example as to how conversations and arguments should play out. Confidence and the ability to raise your voice over the opposition turns the discussion into a Might makes Right situation.

Because the shout shows draw such crowds, I think that they present a challenge for the general public. When people watch the compacted and sometimes vicious nature of on air arguments, they will be less likely to engage in arguments themselves. Who wants to discuss their developing thoughts on the grey areas in life when when someone on TV is already telling you what to think.

Jeffrey Langan can be reached at lang5466@stthomas.edu.