Speaking on behalf of the public in broadcast news interviews

2009 ◽  
pp. 221-243
2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (6) ◽  
pp. 672-689
Author(s):  
Joanna Thornborrow ◽  
Mats Ekström ◽  
Marianna Patrona

This paper focuses on the relationship between journalism and right wing populist discourses in the context of broadcast news interviews. We analyse a specific feature of question design in which the public is invoked as a source of opinionated positions in adversarial interviewing. Analysing data from a range of socio-political contexts, we identify a shift in adversarial questioning along a scale of ‘soft’ populism, that is the attribution of views and concerns to a generic public ‘in crisis’, to ‘hard’ populism, where interviewers construct hypothetical scenarios in which populist positions are attributed to ‘some people’. We argue that the democratic role of journalists as public watchdogs, holding politicians and public figures accountable on behalf of the public, is challenged by this normalisation of populist moral order discourses in a routine journalistic practice, both drawing on and contributing to the propagation of populist agendas and anti-democratic populist rhetoric.


Journalism ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 119-137
Author(s):  
Argyro Kantara

Ekström and Kroon Lundell, Ekström, Hutchby refer to hybridity in political news interviews as the mix of activities or the systematic shifting between speech exchange systems otherwise associated with non-interview settings. In their examination of journalists’ mixed interactional activities, both Hutchby and Ekström discuss how hybridity is explored as an interactional resource to question politicians and/or create an argumentative environment, breaching the neutralistic role of the broadcast news journalist. In this article, I examine instances of journalists’ breaching neutralism not through their hybrid questioning practices but through their listening practices in one-on-one interviews conducted during the 2012 Greek general election campaigns. In my data, journalists use hybrid listening practices to co-produce politicians’ arguments and to answer their own questions. Findings indicate that journalists’ hybrid listening practices provide political actors with new ways to mainstream and appropriate their manifestos to the public.


2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
M’Balia Thomas

In the wake of ‘Black Lives Matter’, this paper examines the concept of testimonial injustice and the prejudicial stances held towards victims that diminishes the credibility of their claims and the social support they receive from the public. To explore this concept, the following work revisits the widely parodied U.S. originating broadcast news report, The Bed Intruder. In the broadcast, victims of a home invasion and attempted rape deliver a public call that outlines the conditions of their victimhood and the potential threat to the community. A rhetorical stylistic analysis of the victims’ testimonial discourse and a thematic analysis of a sample of YouTube videos that reappropriate and parody their discourse are conducted. The analyses highlight the memetic elements of the video parodies that acknowledge the victimisation and yet strategically misconstrue events in ways that 1) render the victims and their claims less credible and 2) fail to provide them with the moral concern such an acknowledgement deserves.


Journalism ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Hutchby

This article discusses elements of hybridisation in political interviewing within the contemporary environment of broadcast news. Beginning from a conversation analytic perspective, four types of political interview programmes are described in terms of their different approaches to questions and answers; opinions and arguments; and neutrality, agency and advocacy. The analysis then turns to the different ways in which ‘tribuneship’ is manifested in different types of interview, comparing the representation of the public interest as found in both neutralistic and adversarial interviewing with the type of personalised and ‘non-neutral’ tribuneship found in hybrid political interviews.


Childhood ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 230-244 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emiljano Kaziaj ◽  
Sofie Van Bauwel

Children are not considered to be an appropriate audience for news coverage based on their presumed lack of emotional maturity, critical thinking and proper knowledge. This article challenges these views by presenting the opinions of children aged 10–15 who report having watched broadcast news nearly every day. Additionally, the views of adults aged 25–62 are investigated. Children contest to the ways they are being portrayed by the news media and demonstrate their need to be considered as active participants in the public sphere, which is presented by the news media as an exclusive domain for adults.


2019 ◽  
Vol IV (I) ◽  
pp. 43-54
Author(s):  
Saira Asghar Khan ◽  
Samina Amin Qadir ◽  
Rizwan Aftab

This study aims to investigate the functional performance of interruptions in political news interviews. The selected sample for this study consists of approximately 200 minutes of recordings of political news interviews from the public state owned channel PTV World. The methodological framework for this study comes from Conversation Analysis. The analytical framework for the analysis has been developed from a study of literature pertaining to interruptions. At the initial level of analysis all interruptions are identified for their function (cooperative, disruptive and neutral), finally a qualitative exploration is carried out to see what purpose these serve in the specific format of news interviews. The findings reveal that a significant number of interruptions (80%) are of the disruptive nature. This result implicates that the interruptions by anchor are being used for controlling talk and significantly setting the agenda of the discussion within the political news interview and impacting the political view of the audience.


2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 108-122
Author(s):  
Jill A. Edy ◽  
Patrick C. Meirick

Abstract Generating public consensus on issue priorities is one of the most important functions of news agenda setting. However, the nature of that consensus is not well understood. Agenda setting might build a public consensus focused on a limited set of priorities, but it also has potential to build a consensus that broadens the public’s issue agenda by generating shared concerns about problems beyond the bounds of personal experience. Evidence shows that from 1968–2010, broadcast news’ agenda-setting effect tended to broaden the public agenda rather than focus it. This tendency of news agenda setting to broaden the public agenda is not affected by the news agenda’s breadth or by which issues dominate the news, although issue-level agenda setting effects may, under some circumstances, focus the public agenda. If broadcast news does not focus the public agenda, it is unlikely a focused agenda will be generated by a more fragmented media ecology.


2001 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 403-442 ◽  
Author(s):  
STEVEN E. CLAYMAN

This article provides an overview of the dynamics of answering and resisting or evading questions in broadcast news interviews. After a preliminary examination of the practices through which answers are recognizably constructed, the analysis turns to the practices through which interviewees manage responses that resist the agenda of an interviewer's question. When resisting overtly, interviewees engage in various forms of “damage control.” When resisting covertly, interviewees take steps to render the resistance less conspicuous. Both sets of practices facilitate resistant responses by reducing the negative consequences that might otherwise follow. Such practices demonstrate that, although interviewees have developed practices for resisting questions, the norm of answering remains a salient feature of the contemporary broadcast news interview.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document