Introduction

When we analyse the history of television, we realise that the late 1940s and early 1950s were a unique period of television experimentation and the creation of new formats (Timberg, 2002, p. 19). Nevertheless, it took more than thirty years from the inception of the first talk show to the emergence of the first daytime talk show that achieved a reasonable level of recognition (Hixson, 2000, p. 668; Parrent, 2003, p. 44). While the talk show genre aimed to disseminate opinions and engage in debate, the daytime talk show sub-genre emerged to share not just opinions but people themselves—their tragedies, successes and frustrations. A format that gained worldwide popularity after the success of Oprah Winfrey’s The Oprah Winfrey Show in 1986.

Daytime television, the period from mid-morning to late afternoon, is a very specific period of television. It is aimed at people who are not bound by traditional working hours and generally seek to ‘fit in’ with the domestic routines of its audience, which tends to be predominantly female (Cersch, 1999; ERC, 2016; GfK, 2019; Herzog, 1944; Stole, 2003). Typically with modest budgets due to limited audiences, its hosts and other characters face the challenge of attracting as much attention as possible with minimal resources, often resulting in content that many find objectionable, strange and even offensive (Greenberg et al., 1997; Haarman, 2001; Hixson, 2000; Nazareth, 2016; Rössler and Brosius, 2001). As a result, external perceptions of these programmes are varied and sometimes not very complimentary.

Perceptions of daytime talk shows, as articulated by Hixson (2000, pp. 667, 668), range from being heralded as the voice of the common people to potential harbingers of the end of civilisation. Despite geographical and channel variations, these programmes generally share a common thread: successful hosts tend to achieve celebrity status over time, and the many anonymous guests are not afraid to voluntarily reveal facets of their lives alongside the celebrities they so admire (Almeida, 2022; Greenberg et al., 1997, p. 418; Hyatt, 1997; Rössler and Brosius, 2001).

What is questionable and even unnecessary in the eyes of many is of no concern to their dedicated audiences. For decades since the radio era, daytime audiences have seamlessly integrated these programmes into their routines, viewing them as valuable and versatile time (Herzog, 1944; Manga, 2003; McQuail, 2003; Stole, 2003). Typically controversial issues such as the blurring of the lines between reality and fiction and the merging of entertainment and information do not seem to deter their loyal audiences, who often look to these and similar programmes as their main source of enlightenment, knowledge and support (Brants, 1998; CAEM/MediaMonitor, 2021; ERC, 2016; GfK, 2019; Lourenço, 2017; Stockwell, 2004).

Although it is undeniable that the phenomenon of television has undergone several changes over the years, and countless in recent years (Aladro, 2000; Casado et al., 2023; Casetti and Odin, 2012; Correia, 2015; Eco, 1986; Faltesek et al., 2023; Filho, 2015; Lopes et al., 2023; Wolton, 1994), it seems equally undeniable that the main pillar supporting the phenomenon of daytime mass media content has remained practically intact from the beginning. From the early days of radio, there has been a constant attempt to create empathy, supported by emotional connections with the audience (Almeida, 2022; Foster and Kilby, 2023; Herzog, 1944; Hyatt, 1997; Illouz, 2003; Lourenço, 2017; Nazareth, 2016; Peck, 2010). Symbolically, daytime television still cries with those who cry and laughs with those who laugh. And it has never tired of doing so over the past few decades, and the public seems to have never tired of it either.

Certainly, television as a whole and daytime talk shows in particular, irrefutably reflect a society increasingly inclined to prioritise emotional connections over the connection of ideas. This shift has been gradual, but its effects are now being felt as never before, in different fields and atmospheres (Cabanas and Illouz, 2019; Giddens, 1992; Hochschild, 2012; Lipovetsky, 2007; Maffesoli, 1995, 2001, 2014). Moreover, if this shift is now evident in what is conventionally called elite culture, it is even more pronounced in what is classified as popular culture—a domain that television has historically excelled at reflecting (White, 1994; Wolton, 1994, 2000).

Building on the information analysed above, we emphasise two fundamental pillars that underpin this study. First, daytime talk shows not only help to shape popular culture but also draw their substance from the very elements that make up popular culture. Second, these programmes function as deeply emotional domains, prioritising the effortless exchange of emotions over the more complex exchange of ideas. These core principles form the basis of the central question of this study: What underlying ideas drive the often-heightened emotional climates and responses observed in these programmes, thereby reflecting and influencing popular culture? To answer this question, this exploratory qualitative analysis examines 60 episodes of daytime talk shows in Portugal, as explained in the following section.

Methodology

This analysis is based on Portuguese free-to-air daytime television. The focus was on the three main programmes aired during the first part of the day, broadcast between approximately between 10 am and 1 pm. The study is mainly based on broadcasts between 7 January and 1 February 2019 (working days). As a result, 60 episodes were watched, 20 from each of the different programmes/channels (more than 120 h of broadcasting, not including the various breaks, as shown in ‘Table 1’). The programmes/channels analysed were ‘Praça da Alegria’ on RTP1 (public channel), ‘O Programa da Cristina’ on SIC (private channel) and ‘Você na TV!’ on TVI (private channel). To simplify the description, the original names have been replaced in this study by ‘Talk Show I’, ‘Talk Show II’ and ‘Talk Show III’ as shown in ‘Table 2’.

Table 1 General analysis data.
Full size table
Table 2 General summary of the documentary analysis.
Full size table

In addition to the sample of 60 full episodes, more were analysed (especially specific parts of old episodes). Social networks were also monitored before, during and after the period described in the main sample, from 7 January to 1 February 2019. This provided a more complete picture of the phenomenon analysed and helped to describe and analyse it.

In terms of methodological approach, we opted for documentary analysis, using written and audiovisual documents as sources of information. Documentary analysis, as defined by Moreira (2005, p. 271), involves the identification, verification and evaluation of documents for a specific purpose. Therefore, the main objective was to understand the dilution of certain ideas in a deeply emotional universe. First and foremost, this required a detailed literature review and the construction of a theoretical framework (Carmo and Ferreira, 2008; Denscombe, 2003; Pardal and Lopes, 2011). It is based on three main themes: television in general, daytime television in particular, and popular culture as ‘something’ that reflects and feeds the two realities described above (Carey, 1988; Subtil, 2014; Wolton, 1994, 2000).

To ensure the impartiality of information sources, the guidelines set out by Carmo and Ferreira (2008, p. 73) were followed, including the selection, processing and interpretation of information from reliable sources. In the context of this study, the regular use of the Internet proved to be crucial, allowing access to content that would otherwise have been inaccessible, including the viewing and analysis of talk shows. Nevertheless, this research has always considered the provenance, credibility and authenticity of the sources selected (Denscombe, 2003, p. 214). As it is not possible to watch all three episodes on television at the same time, it was decided to watch the episodes on the official websites of each of the programmes/channels (as also described in ‘Table 2’). Furthermore, watching the programmes after the live broadcast allowed for a longer and therefore more in-depth analysis, including the possibility to stop and watch the same scene more than once.

In addition, daily records of events and their contexts were documented, partly influenced by the researchers’ conventional diaries (Phillippi and Lauderdale, 2017; Sheble and Wildemuth, 2009). The three main areas of information collection for this particular study were: (1) aspects of the physical composition of the programme; (2) aspects of the overall emotional atmosphere; and (3) a particular focus on the main ideas behind the emotional responses within the programme.

In summary, this exploratory and qualitative study used a methodological approach that included documentary analysis, including literature review and analysis of written and audiovisual documents. It was also supported by a tool inspired by the traditional ‘researcher’s diary’, especially during the analysis of the audiovisual recordings (of the 60 talk show episodes). Finally, it is important to highlight that the analysis of this diverse content played a central role in the process of evaluating and discussing the results obtained (Drisko and Maschi, 2015).

General analysis

Talk show I

Of the three main morning talk shows in Portugal, ‘Talk Show I’ is the only one on public television. The programme is presented by Sónia Araújo (female) and Jorge Gabriel (male). From Monday to Friday, with rare exceptions, the show is hosted by both, roughly between 10 am and 1 pm. Simulating a square, the scenario, a wide and colourful area, features a seated audience as if they were on an outdoor terrace. The show unfolds with this ‘square’ as a backdrop.

It has the constant collaboration of three reporters. Outside the studio, these reporters usually introduce regions, traditions, festivals, and people, among other aspects, with great vivacity and in a very relaxed way. Inside the studio, a few people who specialise in certain areas regularly discuss current affairs—usually in a friendly and thoughtful way. Typically, this talk show opens and closes in a very lively manner. Both hosts and the audience in the studio are especially enthusiastic in those two moments. This vivacity seems to decrease gradually as the show progresses, apart from a few exceptional moments. There is also background music during some conversations or scenes (which seems to help keep the hosts and audience on the same emotional wavelength). Despite the enormous vivacity, this is undoubtedly the least intense of the shows analysed and seems to seek fewer emotional peaks.

Throughout the show, various specific themes and guests who speak as experts in these areas are introduced. The viewer is given useful information about aspects that can simplify and speed up household chores, and clarification on issues that directly or indirectly involve health, among others. In these moments, the expert usually takes the floor or the lead, and the hosts remain in the background, observing and/or asking questions. Without being dazzled by the so-called ‘celebrities’, although they are also brought on stage regularly, this talk show also gives voice to the ‘forgotten voice’—which makes it possible to frequently observe several people connected to popular traditions. So, this talk show seems to be an ‘open window’ to the (mainly Portuguese) world, regularly showing people and their almost forgotten traditions, and not a closed mirror of itself—as television today increasingly tends to be.

In terms of emotional atmosphere, this public service talk show, unlike the other two talk shows analysed, seemed to focus more on emotions that are normally seen as positive. The focus was almost exclusively on expressions of contentment rather than sadness or the like. Even in more dramatic stories, the focus seemed to be on highlighting aspects that could evoke positive emotions in the medium or long term.

Diluted with an emotional atmosphere and supported by popular rhetoric, this programme seems to emphasise, more or less directly, Portuguese popular culture and its traditions, the importance of healthy food and habits, vigilance against possible health problems and acceptance of different ideas, races and religions.

Talk show II

‘Talk Show II’, which was launched on 7 January 2019, is the most recent of the three programmes analysed. It is broadcast on a commercial/private channel, approximately between 10 am and 1 pm, and is hosted by Cristina Ferreira (female).

The setting of the show simulates a house—the host’s own house. Depending on the topic, the conversation may take place in the living room, the kitchen, the office or elsewhere. The guests usually ring the doorbell and wait for the host or someone else to welcome them at the entrance door. After a brief but intense greeting, they are taken to one of the rooms where the conversation—which can also take place during cooking or other activity—unfolds. Unlike other shows, the audience in the studio faces the host. This requires one or more isolated shots to show them.

The show may open with a short pre-planned staging. In such cases, astonishment is the first emotion apparently triggered in the viewer, followed by many others. Finally, the show closes with the winner of the daily contest. The viewers, who can register throughout the show by phone, are called back if they win. The prize giveaway rounds off the show and is a moment of great ecstasy. The ‘Talk Show III’ (also from a private/commercial channel) show follows a similar pattern.

This talk show is energetic and has deeply empathetic rhetoric. Great intensity and deep empathy seem to be the two main pillars sustaining the show’s rhetoric and, obviously, the host’s discourse. As in ‘Talk Show III’, there is a great drive for detail shots. For brief seconds, the protagonism seems to be in the person’s eyes, tears, laughter or gaze rather than in the person themselves. Emotions sometimes seem more important than the people expressing them. Although the first and the last minutes are more intense, there seems to be almost no calmness as the show progresses. The last part of the show, which usually comments on current crime news, is the least enjoyable moment, but not always less intense.

The show under analysis also seems to constantly ‘deify’ all collaborators, even if they are not regularly seen. For example, the cleaning lady sometimes has protagonism. She is not treated as a ‘cleaning lady’ but as an ‘aunt’. The demonstration of affection, directly or indirectly, suggests that it is intrinsic to the show’s rhetoric.

Rather than emphasising only particularly positive emotions, as in the first programme analysed, this programme had a much wider range of emotions. Emotional expressions associated with anger, sadness, revolt and others were also evident. However, it is important to emphasise that the motives and ideas behind these expressions, although sometimes intense and uncompensated, appeared to be noble. Issues such as social injustice, the mistreatment of women, and child abuse seem to act as catalysts for these reactions, which are almost invariably based on ideals of equality and social justice. There was also a focus on other noble themes, with constant attention to the well-being of viewers, emphasising the importance of healthy eating, healthy lifestyles and the prevention of potential health problems. Aspects of financial literacy were also addressed. And, among other things, a discourse warning against toxic masculinity and domestic violence was often addressed in a more or less direct way.

Talk show III

Like the other talk shows analysed, it is broadcast from 10 am to 1 pm (roughly). The protagonism is shared between Manuel Luís Goucha (male) and Maria Cerqueira Gomes (female). The setting includes a visible staircase leading to an upper platform, sometimes used during the show. Unlike ‘Talk Show II’, and similarly to ‘Talk Show I’, the audience on site can be seen during most of the show.

In the commentaries on current affairs, more than the search for words to promote a mild discourse, as is the case, in ‘Talk Show I’ as a whole, one can sometimes notice the use of certain emotionally inflamed statements. This is more along the lines of ‘Talk Show II’, but at some points, this is done so even more intensely. During the broadcast, this talk show proves to be the one that sometimes allows for more unpredictability on the part of the hosts or some of the other participants. This provided a greater number of emotions associated with surprise in the programme environment. However, as in the other two programmes analysed, the first and last minutes are the liveliest. Like ‘Talk Show II’, it ends with a competition and a live phone call to the winner. This is also usually a moment of great ecstasy.

Similar to the programme analysed earlier, the emotions conveyed in this particular programme were consistently linked to noble themes, with a strong focus on concepts such as equality and social justice. Notably, this programme took a step forward by depicting an even broader range of emotions. Within this emotional narrative, a strong stance against the exclusion of minorities, whether based on race or other factors, was unmistakable. In addition to the issues of health care and nutritious food already explored, the societal problem of male chauvinism in Portuguese culture was frequently raised. The need for women to reject all forms of domestic violence, both physical and psychological, was also regularly highlighted.

Discussion

It is no longer news that the media in general, and the television phenomenon in particular, reflect the societies that surround them (Carey, 1988; Eco, 1986; Wolton, 1994). Nor is it news that the daytime content of the mass media, since its inception in the days of radio, has tended to favour the sharing of light, emotional content and popular rhetoric over dense content centred on complex ideas and focused on a cultural elite (Herzog, 1944; McQuail, 2003). We refer to the communication of a more emotional and popular ‘nature’, which this study also confirms, in line with other recent studies (Almeida, 2022; Foster and Kilby, 2023; Lourenço, 2017; Nazareth, 2016).

The negative labels associated with these and similar programmes are numerous, varied and long-standing (Hixson, 2000; Manga, 2003). Beyond this general criticism, however, both older and more recent studies indicate that emotions mediated by the media can, more or less directly, bring various benefits to those who consume them (Cousins, 1976; Gaisberg, 1942; Hennefeld, 2016; Herzog, 1944). Of course, there are also other views that highlight the unfavourable aspects of these realities (Greenberg et al., 1997; Haarman, 2001; Postman, 2006; Rössler and Brosius, 2001). And, of course, both perspectives are legitimate, true and not necessarily contradictory. Therefore, this vision does not seek to favour one thesis over the other, but only to focus on the positive aspects that inhabit this reality under analysis.

The talk shows analysed, although closer to entertainment, fall under the umbrella of what is often called infotainment—a place where information and entertainment are mixed (Brants, 1998; Lourenço, 2017; Stockwell, 2004). On this basis, it was not surprising that professionals from fields such as law, psychology, economics and others were routinely seen on these programmes. This helped to raise the quality of the content being shared. Although they often used popular—and emotive—language, the themes and messages were generally clear and focused on the well-being of people and society in general.

Several authors stress the importance of public service media content being distinctive and, to some extent, levelling (Bustamante, 2003; Lopes et al., 2023; Pinto, 2005; Sousa and Santos, 2005; Túñez-López et al., 2021). And ‘Talk Show I’, the only one from the public channel, showed some differences from the others. The topics chosen tended to provoke less inflammatory emotional responses. What is more, in terms of emotional reactions in general, they were not only more restrained but also more focused on emotions perceived as positive (expressed mainly through laughter). This programme really does seem to adopt a different attitude, characterised by greater caution, and to a certain extent, in the media landscape in which it is inserted, it can act as an ‘alternative’ or ‘level’ in relation to the others (Pinto, 2005).

In so-called ‘modern knowledge’, emotions are considered to be fruits of the past, precursors of what is now called ‘music’ (Darwin, 1872; Spencer, 1857). Moving away from the complexity of this concept, but retaining the analogy in general, we argue on the basis of this analysis that this ‘background music’ does indeed seem to create an environment conducive to the dilution of certain relevant information that would otherwise not be shared in popular culture and consequently not consumed by certain viewers—who feed only, or almost only, on what is offered by these traditionally popular means. Thus, this symbolic music seems to act as a ‘mediator’ of more complex information in the universe of popular culture, allowing certain individuals with specific characteristics and needs (Cersch, 1999; ERC, 2016; GfK, 2019) to stay updated and informed. Although it cannot be directly equated with pure information without emotional elements, it certainly represents an improvement over the complete absence of an informational stimulus.

Conclusion

This study sheds light on the particular relationship between emotions, media and popular culture, focusing specifically on daytime talk shows in Portugal. The analysis of 60 episodes reveals a nuanced landscape where emotive language coexists with efforts to disseminate relevant information. Despite the emotional rhetoric, these talk shows often include expert opinions on topics ranging from health to finance, challenging popular preconceptions about their content. Moreover, the study reveals an alignment of emotionally exaggerated responses with noble motivations, such as promoting social justice and equality.

Although they are generally very similar, the three talk shows analysed have different characteristics in some respects. ‘Talk Show I’, the public service programme, seemed to be more restrained in emotional intensity and tended towards positive expressions, emphasising Portuguese popular culture and traditions. In contrast, ‘Talk Show II’ and ‘Talk Show III’, on commercial/private channels, show greater emotional intensity and cover a wider range of emotions related to social issues such as social injustice and gender equality.

This qualitative study allows us to obtain some evidence that can contribute to a broader view and less biased understanding of the ‘relationship’ between these realities under analysis. The present exploratory analysis challenges some stereotypical views about the presence of emotions in popular culture in general, and in daytime talk shows in particular, and reveals their potential to contribute positively to the dissemination of relevant information, especially in a context where emotional connections usually take precedence over intellectual discourse.

The most pertinent question, then, seems to lie not in the presence of emotions in manifestations of popular culture, especially in the entertainment sphere, but in what can actually be diluted in these manifestations. This perspective shifts our attention beyond the emotional surface, highlighting the relevance not only of the emotions themselves but of the content that is intertwined with them. The heart of the matter is not the emotional spectacle, but what is subtly diluted in this universe, challenging us to explore the deeper layers of the messages being conveyed.

In this particular analysis, emotions helped to dilute relevant and useful information for the viewer and for social well-being in general. Thus, based on this study, there is no denying that emotions in popular culture (can) deserve praise.