The “Format” of Talk Shows

In this blogpost we would like to analyze the format of talk shows. The talk show format is a television genre where usually one person talks about a number of topics mediated by a host. The talk show can be set apart from actuality programming, interviews, and reality TV. We will question the format of talk shows by zooming in on the differences and similarities between daytime and late-night talk shows, including elements like sets, target audiences, gender. We will conclude that the structural and narrative format of daytime and late-night talk shows stays consistent over the years and is transferred in the same TV format on a global scale, although arguments can be made to state that the talk show does not have a format at all.

We would like to use three articles that deal with the TV format industry. By studying four ‘super-formats’, Jean K. Chalaby concludes that formats can be seen as bridges that make connections between cultures and borders (296). We would like to use Chalaby’s definition to analyze the position of talk shows in the TV format industry. We will briefly touch upon Katherine Meizel’s theories about adding concepts such as ‘national identity’, ‘awareness’, and ‘potential power’ to the debate on globalized TV formats. Tasha Oren uses US food television to analyze “the extent to which contemporary television relies on the structural (and narrative) logic of the format” (20) and notices a development in setting, gender, and ideology. Her thoughts on this evolution inspired us to write about the talk show format and examine American talk shows as a case study to look at the reinforcement of traditional gender roles in these talk shows.

Despite being a very familiar concept that is seen all over the world, talk shows are much harder to define as a format than other TV programs. First of all, talk shows revolve around the discussion of semi-random topics that vary according to the interests of its host and audience. That implies that content and narrative are entirely dependent on the interests of local audiences. Therefore, a talk show can never have the same “distinctive narrative dimension” in order to be “licensed outside its country of origin in order to be adapted to local audiences (Chalaby 295-6).

Another key difference is transnational adaptability. Formats that are typically sold in different countries often retain a similar name while changing hosts and participants. Many talk shows simply cannot be sold abroad due to the central position of its host in the title: shows named after their hosts like the Ellen Degeneres Show, the Jimmy Kimmel Show or the Wendy Williams Show cannot become formats since they cannot be wholly  “adapted outside its country of origin”(Chalaby 295). Although there are a few exceptions to this, it is hard to speak of talk shows as unanimously having the potential for being “inherently transnational” (Chalaby 295). If talk shows did belong to one specific format - since they do often share many similarities such as the setting or the main concept of inviting guests -  it should be debated why talk shows are not all suing each other over rights - or better yet: why they cannot sue each other over them.

Thirdly, talk shows do not have the same internationally diversifying effects as other tv formats. According to William Robinson,economic globalization can be seen as the main cause for the rise of transnational television. This brings forth a more internationally diversified audience and the development of a “polyarchy” over an oligarchy (Meizel 214). Where most of these adaptable formats can work to enrich transnational capital, talk shows can be seen as doing the exact opposite: they stimulate the rise of national capital and national identity over transnationality (Meizel 218).

A last interesting point to note is that Chalaby gives the basic requirements needed for a TV show to be a format. Aside from the fact that the talk show genre by definition often conflicts with her arguments as shown above, it is also remarkable to note that throughout Chalaby’s entire text, the talk show is never once mentioned.

Talk shows - 1950's

Even so, there are certain arguments that give reason to believe that the talk show is in fact a format. Talk shows have been broadcast on television since the emergence of the medium in the fifties. There are two major genre formats, namely daytime and late-night talk shows. Talk shows were originally designed for women and the extreme popularity of talk shows in the 1990s was a reaction against the rather masculine films from the 1970s. Talk shows use a format that gives minorities a voice and does away with the Grand Narrative.

Some of the most famous daytime talk shows on contemporary television are The Ellen Degeneres Show, The View, The Queen Latifah Show, Rachel Ray, The Talk, Katie, Bethenny, and The Wendy Williams Show. Some of the most famous late-night talk shows that are currently broadcast on television are The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon, Late Night with Seth Meyers, The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, The Late Late Show with James Corden, Jimmy Kimmel Live!, Conan, and The Daily Show with Trevor Noah. There are two things that strike us here: daytime talk show hosts tend to be female and many of them are African-American, whereas late-night talk show hosts tend to be middle-aged white males. There have been some exceptions lately, such as Lopez Tonight and Chelsea Lately, but even they conform to the standard format that is discussed below.

The sets of daytime and late-night talk shows are very different from each other and seem to stem from the 1950s’ gender stereotypes. Daytime sets have a domestic sphere: both host and guest are sitting on the same level and the decor is arranged like a living room with a coffee table in front of arm-chairs and plants in the background. Late-night sets have a public/business sphere: the host is usually situated slightly higher than the level at which the guest is sitting and the decor is furnished like an office where the host sits behind a desk with a city view in the background (the city was a place for men, women stayed home in the suburbs). The differences in setting between daytime and late-night talk shows reinforce the gender gap discussed in the previous paragraph. These sets come from the 1950s, a time when in the United States there were very clearly distinctive gender roles and ideals. The wife would stay at home in the suburbs and do her housework and chores during the day. In the afternoon she would have time to watch a daytime talk show with a domestic sphere and female host. The husband, on the other hand, would go to work in the city center during the day, and when he came home at night, he would watch a late-night talk show with a public sphere and a set that resembled an office.

Even though the 1950s’ gender roles do not exist anymore as such in most parts of the Western world, the talk show format seems to stay the same. Furthermore, the Web 2.0 makes us realize that the structural and narrative formats of talk shows are the same in all parts of the world. Whether we watch a talk show in the US, the Netherlands, Spain, or China, the format seems to be consistent. Whereas there is a clear development in the format of cooking shows over time (Oren 20-33), the talk show format seems to stay the same.

In conclusion, the talk show is a globally used yet problematic “format”. The topic has much potential for debate or research. On the one hand, talk shows cannot be subjected to the standard criteria proposed by Chalaby to define most other TV shows as formats. On the other hand, talk shows seem to have a consistent format with a clear distinction between daytime and late-night sets and hosts, which in turn is transferred on a global scale.

Proposition: To what extent can we talk about the talk show “format” considering the current definitions in the field as well as the consistencies in structure and narrative?

Works Cited:

Jean K. Chalaby (2011), ‘The making of an entertainment revolution: How the TV format trade became a global industry’, in: European Journal of Communication 26 (4), 2011, pp. 293-308.

Katherine Meizel (2010), ‘The United Nations of Pop: Global Franchise and Geopolitics’, in: Idolized: Music, Media, and Identity in American Idol. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 192-219.

Tasha Oren (2013), 'On the Line: Format, Cooking and Competition as Television Values’, in: Critical Studies in Television 8 (2), pp. 20-35.

Initials: RO, GK, AL