Transformations of controversial media and the challenges of a culture of dialogue in Syria

Executive Summary: Controversial Media and the Challenges of Dialogue in Syria

This paper examines the phenomenon of controversial media in the Arab world, focusing on the programs “The Opposite Direction” and “On the Table” as prominent examples, and their impact on Syrian public opinion during the political transition.

The study also demonstrates that this type of media relies on confrontation and emotional appeals to provoke the audience and attract viewers, thus weakening the capacity for rational debate and reinforcing social and political polarization.

The study shows that controversial media employs a conflict framing framework that reduces complex issues to rigid dichotomies, leading viewers to emotional alignment rather than critical analysis. Programs like “The Opposite Direction” have contributed to this culture, as discussions have become more like verbal duels focused on scoring points against the opponent rather than exchanging viewpoints.

Nevertheless, the paper suggests that controversial media can play a positive role in the political transition, provided it adheres to strict professional and ethical standards that ensure a balance of voices and representation, and transform conflict from physical violence into constructive symbolic dialogue. In this case, debate can become a means of defusing tensions and transforming conflicts into peaceful national dialogue.

The paper recommends that Syrian media become a tool for promoting national reconciliation and building the public sphere by:

1. Encouraging a culture of mutual listening instead of mutual shouting.
2. Adopting research and analysis as the basis for talk shows.
3. Establishing media codes of conduct that prevent provocation and emotional manipulation.
4. Supporting local and community media that reflect Syrian diversity without polarization.
5. Linking academic media with universities and research centers to foster reasoned debate.

The paper concludes that the success of democratic transition in Syria depends on the media’s ability to act as a catalyst for awareness and reconciliation, moving away from the logic of performative conflict, while making the most of structured debate as a tool for managing conflict and transforming it into peaceful discussion.

Introduction:

Since the late 1990s, the program “The Opposite Direction” has represented a unique model in Arab media in terms of its ability to attract audiences and stimulate public debate. However, it also established a new media style that can be described as “controversial media.”

This style relies more on verbal clashes and the exchange of accusations than on calm dialogue or the production of knowledge. With the emergence of new programs, such as “On the Table,” this approach seems not to have diminished but rather to have taken on new forms in the digital age.

This study seeks to analyze the phenomenon of controversial media as one manifestation of the structural crisis in Arab public discourse, and its impact on the formation of Syrian consciousness during the current political transition.

While Syria today needs media that rebuilds national trust and establishes an inclusive democratic dialogue, some media models continue to perpetuate a culture of division and emotionalism instead of calm reflection and constructive debate.

First, the concept of debate journalism and the dialectic of sensationalism:

The term “debate journalism” refers to a communication style that prioritizes sensationalism and emotional appeal in talk shows, where differing opinions transform into symbolic conflicts between opposing sides, each aiming to score points against the other in the eyes of the audience.

This type of program offers attractive content in terms of viewership, but it lacks analytical depth and a critical approach.

Studies in political communication have shown that this type of media relies on what is known as “conflict framing,” that is, framing the debate as a conflict between two camps, rather than a dialogue aimed at understanding.

This leads to the reinforcement of polarization among the public instead of fostering a culture of dialogue.

In the Arab context, Faisal al-Qassem represents a prominent example of this trend, as he has managed to transform public discourse into something resembling a “verbal duel.” This format guarantees the highest viewership ratings, but it weakens the educational dimension of the media and leads to the oversimplification of complex issues, reducing them to sharp dichotomies: treason versus patriotism, secularism versus religion, loyalty versus opposition, etc.

Secondly, from “The Opposite Direction” to “On the Table” – Reproducing the Pattern:

When journalist Muath Muhareb launched his program “On the Table,” it initially seemed as though he was striving to offer a more rational, calmer, and more balanced alternative.

However, the development of later episodes revealed a return to the same polemical style adopted by “The Opposite Direction,” where the dialogue transformed into a fierce competition to score points rather than clarify ideas.

Experience shows that the appeal of “controversial media” is based on the attention economy, as it feeds on the audience’s emotions and rapid reactions in a digital space dependent on viewership and interaction.

But this pattern, while gaining popularity, weakens the ability of Arab media to fulfill its enlightening and knowledge-based role, and reinforces the culture of confrontation that has exhausted Arab societies in general and Syrian societies in particular.

Third, the psychological and social impact of polemical media:

Research in political media shows that programs based on verbal clashes reshape collective consciousness on emotional grounds. Viewers do not receive information but rather experience a temporary emotional reaction, leading them to take sides rather than understand. Iyengar and Hahn (2009) indicated that continuous exposure to polarizing content generates what is known as “selective exposure,” meaning a tendency to follow only supportive viewpoints. This weakens intellectual diversity and increases intellectual rigidity.

In the Syrian context, the continuation of this type of media deepens the divisions between political and social groups and prevents the establishment of a media environment conducive to national reconciliation.

Instead of being platforms for bridging viewpoints, talk shows become platforms for fueling anger and division, which contradicts the needs of the transitional phase, which is based on understanding and national unity.

Fourth, Controversial Media and Democratic Transition in Syria:

In the post-war phase, Syria needs media that rebuilds the public sphere on new foundations: responsible freedom, pluralism, and independence from political polarization.

However, the continued influence of controversial media hinders this process because it links public opinion to emotion rather than reason.

Democratic transition cannot succeed in a media environment that reproduces division through television screens, where political dialogue becomes more akin to theatrical conflict than institutional debate.

Therefore, the Syrian Future Movement believes that rebuilding national media must be part of the transitional justice project, as a process of intellectual and cultural reform no less important than judicial or constitutional reform.

Fifth, Towards a New Dialogue-Based Media for the Syrian Era:

The Syrian Future Movement believes that the media challenge in the new Syria lies not in the absence of freedom, but in its misuse.

Media freedom must be translated into professional and ethical responsibility that rejects sensationalism for its own sake and strives to create critical knowledge that establishes a shared national identity.

Therefore, the Syrian Future Movement proposes that the future Syrian media be based on the following pillars:

1. Establishing a culture of mutual listening instead of a culture of mutual shouting.
2. Reinstating the importance of research and analysis in talk shows.
3. Adopting media codes of conduct that prevent the manipulation of collective emotions.
4. Encouraging local and community media that reflect Syrian diversity without polarization.
5. Linking academic media with universities and research centers to elevate the level of public discourse.

Sixth, Debate Media and the Transitional Phase in Syria:

1. From the perspective of communication philosophy and democratic transition, debate media can be beneficial if managed consciously by:
2. Transforming conflict from physical violence to symbolic violence, that is, transforming past political or military tensions into organized platforms for dialogue.
3. Adhering to strict professional standards, such as balanced representation of all parties, avoiding personal provocation, and confining discussion to objective issues.
   Investing in the media to build the public sphere by promoting rational debate and defusing public tensions, thus facilitating the political transition and supporting national reconciliation.
   However, the current media landscape in Syria shows that programs like “The Opposite Direction” and “On the Table” still rely more on confrontation and emotional outbursts than on constructive debate, which limits their impact on the political transition and may even be detrimental if they continue in their current form.

Conclusion:

From “The Opposite Direction” to “On the Table,” the Arab media scene repeats its cycle: debate, confrontation, polarization, and then oblivion. However, Syria, currently undergoing a unique democratic transition, needs a new national media that redefines dialogue as a value, not a tool, and makes the written word a means of understanding, not argument.

Media reform at this stage is a national necessity for rebuilding societal trust and establishing a culture of civic dialogue, which forms the foundation for any comprehensive national project.

References:

1. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
2. Iyengar, S., & Hahn, K. S. (2009). Red Media, Blue Media: Evidence of Ideological Selectivity in Media Use. Journal of Communication, 59(1), 19–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01413.x
3. McNair, B. (2011). An Introduction to Political Communication. Routledge.
4. Dahlgren, P. (2009). Media and Political Engagement: Citizens, Communication, and Democracy. Cambridge University Press.
5. Kraidy, M. M. (2009). Reality Television and Arab Politics: Contention in Public Life. Cambridge University Press.