Answers and evasions

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.

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.


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.


2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-87
Author(s):  
Nurmala Ohorella

This research aimed to identify the linguistic items which act as hedges in political news interviews in relation to politicians’ gender, as well as to examine the pragmatic functions of these devices. Two transcripts of political news interviews of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trumph, randomly selected from CNN official website (see Appendix), were analyzed adopting Salager-Meyer’s (1997) taxonomy. The study revealed that the frequent used of hedging devices in the two interviews are modal auxiliaries, if clause, and introductory phrase. The most frequently used hedging device subcategory are the modal auxiliary “can”, “will”, “would”, and “should”. Whilst the used introductory phrase are “l think”, “l believe”, “l guess”, “as l said”, and “my understanding is that..”. The findings suggest that these hedging devices fulfill several pragmatic functions. Hedging devices is used by the two politicians to express indirectness, politeness, lack of commitment and probability. In relation to gender, the findings also reveal that the spread of hedging of the two politicians are similar


Author(s):  
Arja Piirainen-Marsh ◽  
Heidi Jauni

AbstractThis paper investigates how rights to knowledge and opinion are negotiated through assessments embedded in questioning sequences in political news interviews. The focus is on describing how assessments index epistemic positions and evaluative stances embedded in the turns through which the institutional goals of the interview are achieved. The analysis shows how assessments combine with other turn-constructional resources to build a critical or opposing position toward the interviewee's actions, deeds, status, views, or attitudes. It also sheds light on the strategies through which interviewees (IE) engage with and resist the positions displayed by interviewers (IR). Findings show that in the data corpus interviewers often challenge the IE through unmitigated assertions of “facts,” while matters of opinion and assessment of the IE involve footing shifts in the form of citations and quoting written texts. The paper adds to existing research on the tensions in news interview talk; the need to present newsworthy information and hold public figures to account while adhering to the norm of factual, neutral reporting.


2010 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 99-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna Thornborrow ◽  
Martin Montgomery

Author(s):  
Laura Loeb ◽  
Steven E. Clayman

The news interview is a prominent interactional arena for broadcast news production, and its investigation provides a window into journalistic norms, press-state relations, and sociopolitical culture. It is a relatively formal type of interaction, with a restrictive turn-taking system normatively organized around questions and answers exchanged for the benefit of an audience. Questions to politicians are sensitive to the journalistic norms of neutralism and adversarialness. The neutralism norm is relatively robust, implemented by interviewers adhering to the activity of questioning, and avoiding declarative assertions except as prefaces to a question or as attributed to a third party. The adversarialism norm is more contextually variable, implemented through agenda setting, presupposition, and response preference, each of which can be enhanced through question prefaces. Adversarial questioning has increased significantly in the United States over time, and in some other national contexts. Adversarial questioning creates an incentive for resistant responses from politicians, which are managed with overt forms of damage control and covert forms of concealment. News interviews with nonpartisan experts and ordinary people are generally less adversarial and more cooperative. Various hybrid interview genres have emerged in recent years, which incorporate practices from other forms of broadcast talk (e.g., celebrity talk shows, confrontational debates) within a more loosely organized interview framework. These hybrid forms have become increasingly prominent in contemporary political campaigns and current affairs discussions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document