Pattern Explanation of Dialogic Action Choice by Debaters on Televised Debate –Study Case: I.R. Iran Electoral Debate

The experience of broadcasting election debates in Iran show that these debates failed to express the views and plans of the candidates and instead candidates attacking each other and debasing their competitors. In this essay, after classifying the types of interactions between the debaters, the causal conditions and the context that has led to such approaches has been identified and a Paradigmatic model for management of TV debates is proposed. The research method is the grounded theory, and the data were obtained through a semi-structured, deep interview with 14 people who were familiar or involved in the process of planning, producing, and organizing debates. Findings of the essay suggest that although personal characteristics of the debaters are influential in choosing the approach of persuasion or action of attack and defend, the sudden change of political space during the election, the short duration of electoral propaganda, the presumption of the lack of impartiality of the debating organizer towards  some of the candidates and viewers, the inadequate structure and the rules of the debate are factors that led the debaters to focus on the pattern of attack and defend and rise the tensions among debaters. In order to manage the actions of debaters, TV debates should be converted to media events with specified rules and structure.