ECPR

Install the app

Install this application on your home screen for quick and easy access when you’re on the go.

Just tap Share then “Add to Home Screen”

ECPR

Install the app

Install this application on your home screen for quick and easy access when you’re on the go.

Just tap Share then “Add to Home Screen”

"Ironic Cynicism and Electoral Impact: Humor in the SBS6 Hart Van Nederland Debate"

Democracy
Elections
Populism
Qualitative
Political Engagement
Beer Prakken
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen
Beer Prakken
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen

Abstract

On October 17, 2023, the SBS6 Hart van Nederland debate for the Dutch general elections sparked significant controversy and discussion, and even famous national pollster Maurice de Hond attributed Geert Wilders electoral victory to this very debate. Surprisingly, however, most studies downplay the effects of political debates on persuading voters (e.g., McKinney and Carlin, 2004; Palacios and Arnold 2021; Ettensperger et al., 2023). Nonetheless, this debate’s unique blend of serious political argumentation, laughter, playfulness, theatricality and its peculiar relationship to controversial talk, imply that Vandaag Inside necessitates a novel investigation of political debates and its relationship to spectacle, primed by humor and play. There is a whole debate on debates (pun intended) on whether televised debates are mere spectacle or contribute to more reflective (or deliberative) citizens. At this moment, most authors argue for a more nuanced take within this question (Turkenberg 2022, Coleman 2020, 2012). On the one hand, televised debates often promote spectacular content. On the other hand, these debates often attract many viewers, and they frequently function as an informative tool for voters. In this paper, I am analyzing humor in the SBS6 debate to highlight underlying discursive themes and to address whether this debate was as spectacular and non-reflective as the news media claimed it to be. The methodology consists of the following: I will be using a grounded discourse (or thematic) analysis after coding the humorous instances during the debate. These humorous instances are playful utterances such as jokes, ironic statement but also physiological behavior such as laughter and smiling. After the grounded analysis, I will put forward the argument that not the spectacular nature of the debate helped Wilders, but rather the general theme/discourse of ironic cynicism of the moderator, audience members and the politicians themselves.