Follow-up questions in political press conferences

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attachedcopy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial researchand education use, including for instruction at the authors institution

and sharing with colleagues.

Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling orlicensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party

websites are prohibited.

In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of thearticle (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website orinstitutional repository. Authors requiring further information

regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies areencouraged to visit:

http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

Author's personal copy

Follow-up questions in political press conferences

Goran Eriksson *

School of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences (HumES), Orebro University, SE-701 82 Orebro, Sweden

1. Introduction

With the point of departure in Conversation Analysis (CA), this paper focuses on sequences with follow-up questions inpolitical press conferences and particularly highlights the strategies used by journalists in such sequences of talk.1 In manywestern democracies, the political press conference is an institutionalized form for communication between leadingpoliticians and journalists (Ekstrom, 2009; Kumar, 2005; Esbaugh-Soha, 2003). It takes place on the initiative of politiciansfor the announcement of policies, programs, decisions, etc., but also for handling more specific, and often more challenging,events such as accidents, catastrophes or political scandals. Normally, and apart from the often brief opening and endingparts, it involves an uninterrupted and monological speech made by the politician responsible, followed by an interactionalphase (Bhatia, 2006; Clayman, 2006). This is a typical question and answer session in which journalists ask questions andpoliticians provide answers.

Follow-up questions, and how they are managed by the participants in the interactional phase, are an activity linked toessential institutionalized aspects of journalism and politics and the relationship between these two institutions. For thejournalists, this is a moment when they have an opportunity to query the politicians’ words or actions, and to hold themaccountable for their deeds; that is, to make the politicians explain or justify their actions, a task often associated with the

Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 3331–3344

A R T I C L E I N F O

Article history:

Received 23 September 2010

Received in revised form 4 July 2011

Accepted 5 July 2011

Available online 9 August 2011

Keywords:

Adversarialness

Follow-up questions

Journalism

Press conferences

Politics

A B S T R A C T

The aim of this study is to deepen the understanding of how journalists use follow-up

questions in political press conferences. This ambition also involves a critical examination

of the previous research on follow-up questions in this context. For the journalists, a press

conference is a time when they have the opportunity to hold politicians accountable for

their words and actions, which is a task often seen as a core democratic function of

journalism. By asking a follow-up, a journalist can pursue an evasive answer and perform

this watchdog role. In total, 6 press conferences from 2009 with the Swedish Government

have been analyzed, comprising 29 sequences with follow-up questions. The analysis is

organized around the following questions: How are follow-up turns related to initial

questions and preceding answers? In what kind of situations do journalists perform

adversarial actions and pursue the politician with their follow-up turn? What other kinds

of actions are performed through follow-up questions? An essential conclusion is that

follow-ups are not necessarily such prominent indicators of adversarialness as previous

research suggests. Instead, a clear majority, 18 of 29, of follow-up questions are non-

adversarial in character and used for other purposes than challenging the politicians’

answers.

� 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

* Tel.: +46 19303815.

E-mail address: [email protected] This study ispartof the 3-yearproject Press Conferencesas PublicArenaat OrebroUniversity, fundedbyTheSwedishResearchCouncil (SW:Vetenskapsradet).

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Pragmatics

journa l homepage: www.e lsev ier .com/ locate /pragma

0378-2166/$ – see front matter � 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2011.07.004


core democratic functions of journalism, often described as the watchdog role. In this context, follow-ups can be used topursue what appear to be evasive or insufficient answers (Clayman and Heritage, 2002a; Clayman, 2006; Banning andBillingsley, 2007; cf. Greatbatch, 1986:108–118). For the politicians, the interactional phase is part of an important publicappearance which is of significance for their political careers. This appearance will be critically judged and reported invariousmedia. A poorer performance, that is, if the politicians fail to provide satisfactory, informative answers and to defendtheir policies, decisions, etc., could have negative consequences for their public aura and, in turn, their popularity.

Previous research on press conferences and follow-up questions focuses exclusively on US presidential press conferencesand is based on a particular coding-system developed by Clayman and Heritage (2002a) in order to grasp the degree ofjournalistic aggressiveness (see also Clayman et al., 2006, 2007; Banning and Billingsley, 2007).2 In this scheme, follow-upquestions are one of three indicators of the journalistic initiative, which concerns towhat extent questions set a constrainingagenda for the answerer. According to Clayman and Heritage (2002a:758), follow-up questions ‘‘embody the exercise ofinitiative’’ since they violate ‘‘the one-turn-per-journalist norm’’ and indicate that journalists find the interviewee’s answerinadequate. The previous research uses a wide and straightforward definition of follow-up questions. The researchersbasically count all occasions when one journalist gets two question turns in a row as a follow-up question.3 This procedurecan certainly say something about the journalistic initiative in press conferences, but it gives minimal information aboutwhat goes on in such sequences of talk. To begin with, we do not know if the second question is a reaction to the precedinganswer or if the journalist is bringing up a new topic on the agenda (cf. Smith, 1990:106–7). For that reason, it is not possibleto tell if the second question is posed in order to pursue an evasive answer or what other actions that could be performedwith the question. In the present study Imake use of amore narrowdefinition, influenced by Greatbatch’s (1986) research onthe performance of follow-up questions in news interviews and Smith’s (1990) rhetorical perspective on press conferences.

The overall aim of this study is to deepen the understanding of how journalists use follow-up questions in political pressconferences. For this purpose Imethodically analyze a corpus of data from6press conferenceswith the SwedishGovernmentfrom 2009. I concentrate particularly on the techniques used by the journalist in such sequences: How are follow-up turnsrelated to initial questions and preceding answers? In what kind of situations do journalists perform adversarial actions andpursue the politician with their follow-up turn?What other kinds of actions are performed through follow-up questions? Towhat extent do these different actions occur? My ambition also contains a critical examination of the previous research onfollow-ups in a press conference context.

2. Press conferences and interaction

In many forms of institutionalized talk (e.g. courtrooms, police interrogations and medical examinations), the role asquestioner is a more powerful position than being the answerer (Thornborrow, 2002), but what characterizes the turn-taking system of political press conferences is that it is the answerer – the politician – that is the talk manager (cf. Clayman,2006:251–2). Several journalists are present and have to compete for the chance to ask questions, which puts the politicianin a position from which s/he can control the interaction and choose the next questioner. In terms of what Thornborrow(2002:27) calls ‘‘territorial power’’, i.e., ‘‘the greater your occupation of the floor is, the more power you have as a participantof the talk’’, this is a favourable situation for the politicians. Clayman (2006:251–2) points out that in comparison with theone-to-one interaction in news interviews, press conferences ‘‘entail a substantial shift in the interactional balance of powerthat favors the public figure over the journalist’’. One basic premise for this shift is that it is the public figure (in Clayman’scase the President) with staff that organizes these events and invites the journalists, often at short notice. Another premise isthat the topical agenda, through the invitation and the introductory speech, is set by the politician. Furthermore, due to thetough competition the norm is one question per journalist, which also has the effect that journalists tend to ask more thanone question within one turn of talk (Clayman, 2006:252).

The performance of adversarialness is generally seen as a key and characterizing element of today’s journalism (McNair,2000:84). As Clayman and Heritage (2002b:188) clearly illustrate in their analysis of news interviews, asking questions is acomplex and tricky thing for journalists, since they ‘‘fundamentally and necessarily handle the competing journalistic normsof impartiality and adversarialness’’ in their question turns. On the one hand, journalists ought to suppress their ownviewpoints and are not supposed to align with the interviewee’s opinions. On the other hand, they must be able to handlemore controversial issues and when they find it necessary, act as the devil’s advocate and question the politicians’ words oractions. For these purposes, for the maintenance of a neutralistic posture while performing adversarialness, journalists canuse certain footing-shift techniques that, for instance, distance the interviewer from controversial issues or make it possibleto avoid affiliating or disaffiliating from statements. However, questions are never neutral; they set agendas for theresponses, they sometimes involve assertions about the current topics and they are often constructed in order to facilitateone form of answer over another (e.g. yes/no-questions) (Clayman and Heritage, 2002b:192).

In their historical survey of presidential press conferences, involving press conferences with all the presidents from 1953to 2000 (from Eisenhower to Clinton), Clayman et al. (2006:565) define adversarialness as ‘‘the extent to which questions

2 In their first study Clayman and Heritage (2002a) use the term hostility instead of adversarialness and the latter concept is used instead of

aggressiveness. In this study I use the concepts as they are used in Clayman et al. (2006; 2007; see also Banning and Billingsley, 2007:467).3 Clayman and Heritage exclude questions that deal with minor problems of hearing or understanding. Turns that respond to a question from the

president and turns that are obviously extraneous to the main activity of the press conference (e.g. a request to close a window) are also excluded.

G. Eriksson / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 3331–33443332


pursue an agenda in opposition to the president or his administration’’. Basically, they use three indicators of this dimensionof journalism: preface adversarialness, global adversarialness and accountability questions (see Clayman and Heritage,2002a:766–71). The first focuses on prefatory statements and if they are explicitly critical of the president; that is statements‘‘proposing that the president’s policies are misguided, statements highlighting contradictions between the president’swords and deeds, statements exposing splits or disagreements within the administration, and statements that explicitlydisagree with something the president has said’’ (Clayman and Heritage, 2002a:766). Global adversarialness concerns thequestion as a whole, if both the prefatory statement and the question embody hostility. Also simple one sentence questionswere coded as globally adversarial and the greater parts of those were follow-ups that disputed the previous answer. Finally,accountability questions, which are not very common, are questions that ask the president to explain the rationale behindactions. Such questions do to some extent suggest that the actions taken by the president are inadequate. Clayman andHeritage (2002a) distinguish between two forms of questions: the ‘‘why did you-type’’ and the ‘‘how could you-type’’. Theformer type is seen as a less hostile action towards the politician than the latter. In the ensuing analysis, the above definitionof adversarialness will be used in order to understand what goes on in follow-up sequences.

As one indicator of the journalistic initiative, the wide definition of follow-ups is functional, but it is also problematic. Inthe Eisenhower-Reagan-study, Clayman and Heritage (2002a) observe an increase of follow-ups, from 14.71% (Eisenhower)to 36.41% (Reagan), which together with other indicators suggest that journalists are becoming more aggressive inpresidential press conferences. Banning and Billingsley (2007)make use of the same definition in a comparative study of soloor joint press conferences and find that journalists aremore likely to ask follow-up questions and thus bemore aggressive insolo conferences. But there are also obvious limits with this approach to follow-up questions. Smith (1990:106–7), whostudies press conferences from a rhetorical perspective, points out some of them. Shemaintains that two turns in a row doesnot automatically mean that the second is a follow-up and launches a more narrow definition which takes the precedinganswer into consideration: ‘‘A true follow-up is generated by a presidential response to a previous question’’ (Smith,1990:106).With this inmind, Smith states thatmost reporters ask a ‘‘pseudo follow-up’’ andmost often they fail to follow upwhen it is appropriate (Smith, 1990:114). However, Smith does not back up her claims with any statistical support, nor doesshe engage in amore thorough analysis of talk in interaction. A definition that parallels Smith’s is the one used by Greatbatch(1986) in his study of news interviews. According to him, follow-up questions (or supplementary questions in histerminology) are ‘‘(i) produced following a response to a prior question, (ii) addressed to the author of that response, and(iii) built off, or on to, the talk (i.e. the response) which precedes them’’ (Greatbatch 1986:87). In accordancewith thesemorenarrow definitions I think that it is notmeaningful to talk about a question as a follow-up if it is not related to something saidin the previous answer as a response to the initial question.

Smith (1990) also identifies what she sees as three basic forms of follow-up questions: clarifications, elaborations andconsistency questions. The latter is when the reporters ‘‘test a president’s consistency regarding two or more answers orconsistency between a president’s press session answer and a statement made at another time’’ (Smith, 1990:107) and issimilar to what Clayman and Heritage term ‘‘contradiction’’ between words and deeds. In addition she also notes thatjournalists sometimes experiment with ‘‘word probes’’ which basically means that the original question is rephrased,sometimes reusing the formulations from the first question. Also Greatbatch (1986:94) detects diverse forms of follow-upquestions. In news interviews interviewers often use them ‘‘to probe, test or otherwise solicit supportive detailing forinterviewees’ statements and arguments’’. He also demonstrates that follow-ups sometimes have an adversarial (or‘‘countering’’) character which have a potential to ‘‘cast doubt upon an interviewee’s preceding assertions’’ Greatbatch(1986:103) or to show that the previous answer is evasive.

With themore narrow definition as a starting point, only sequences in which a journalist asks a second question which istopically related to the first question and is linked to the answer provided by the politician are examined in this study. Thismeans that the analysis involves sequences with a second question that potentially treats the preceding answer as evasive orin some other sense inadequate. What could be questioned with my definition is that it excludes cases in which a journalistfollows up on another journalist’s question. My definition also implies close inspections of the sequence organization ofturns (see Schegloff, 2007); that is, how the participants relate to each other’s actions and to the specific situations whenfollow-up questions are asked. In the analysis I take into consideration how the politicians relate to the questions and howthe journalists, in turn, act in relationship to both their own questions and to the foregoing answers.

3. Data

The data consists of a sample of 6 downloaded press conferences with different members of the Swedish Governmentbetween January and April 2009. On average, such conferences take place approximately 15 times amonth and are normallybroadcasted live via the Government’s webpage.4 These webcasts are also available and can be downloaded afterwards. Theinteractional sessions of these press conferences have been transcribed according to established CA-conventions fortranscriptions (see Appendix A), initially developed by Jefferson (2005). The original transcripts have been translated intoEnglish (see Appendix B for original extracts). A problem in this study is that in the recordings introductorywords in questionturns are sometimes not audible. Another problem is that, more often than not, it is difficult to interpret the non-verbalinteraction (such as signs for the right to ask a question), which could be of vital importance for how the participants handle

4 See http://www.regeringen.se/.

G. Eriksson / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 3331–3344 3333


the situations analyzed. I have chosen to include a mixture of solo and joint (involving two or four politicians) conferences.All of them follow the same pattern: they start with a brief introductory and welcoming phase, followed by a presentationand the obligatory question and answer session. Normally, the interactional phase lasts about 15 min. It ends on theinitiative of the politicians (or sometimes someone in their staff) and in this phase the attending journalists are usuallyinvited to conduct individual interviews with the politician(s) after the press conference.

4. Results

Looking closer at the occurrence of follow-up questions in the present data with the narrow definition in mind, I find25 single questions and 29 sequences with one or more follow-up questions (see Table 1). This means that in SwedishGovernmental press conferences it is more common to get a second turn and chances to ask at least one follow-up questionthan not (53.7% vs 46.3%).

One reasonable conclusion from these figures is that the one-question-per-journalist norm, which is present andseemingly strong in the US context, is not evidently valid in the Swedish Government’s press conferences. Actually, in thelatter context the chance to pose a follow-up question seems to be the norm; it is an accepted and integrated part of thequestion and answer session. Actually, there is not one single occasion when a politician verbally stops a journalist formtaking a second turn, although there is one occasion when a politician hinders a journalist from posing a third question. Infact, the politicians can sometimes operate so as to secure an opportunity for the journalists to ask a follow-up question. InExtract 1, one of the politicians (Mats Odell = MOd) manages a situation in which (probably) two journalists are competing(Lines 1–3) to gain the floor by giving IR1 the chance to ask a follow-up question (Line 4). The politician is here using hisposition as a talk manager to secure the journalist a follow-up.

Extract 1

1 IR1 on- =

2 MOd = yeah =

3 IR2 [inaudible ]

4 MOd [ yes ] Jan Almgren wants to follow up =

5 IR1 = on- only a brief one /.../

Another, and so far preliminary, conclusion concerns the territorial power and that Swedish journalists, in comparison withtheir American colleagues during the presidential press conferences, seem to gain access to the floor much more easily. Ofcourse, this is partly but not only due to the more limited number of journalists attending press conferences with theSwedish Government (something I will discuss in the final section). What it means, however, is that Swedish journalists canprepare their initial questionswith the knowledge that theywill have a good chance of getting a second turn. In the followingsections, I will examine how they use this power and to what extent the journalists perform more adversarial questioningwith their follow-ups. Note that on some occasions in the following analysis, I have chosen to leave out parts of thepoliticians’ answers. In the current context, these answers are often extensive and sometimes oriented towards ratherdetailed and technical aspects of the topics discussed. Since I claim to analyze the sequence organization of turns, this way oftreating the answers might seem inconsistent, but for more practical reasons (spatial) this is how I proceed.

4.1. The performance of adversarial follow-up questions

I start this part of the analysis by examining sequences in which journalists follow up answers with an adversarialquestion. Such follow-up questions clearly indicate that the journalists find the response to the initial questionunsatisfactory and set up the politician in a position fromwhich s/he is supposed to progress previous answers and explain orjustify their actions. In the present data, adversarial follow-up questions follow after an accountability question or an initial

question where a certain answer (yes or no) is clearly preferred.In the first two examples (Extracts 2 and 3) the initial question sets up the politician in a position from which a yes/no

answer is preferred and the follow-up clearly indicates that the journalist understands the preceding answer as evasive.Extract 2 is from a press conference which involved the leaders of the four conservative/liberal parties (called The Alliance,SW: Alliansen) that have been in power since 2006. This particular press conference concerned a settlement between theseparties on the future energy supply in Sweden and among other things it included an agreement to open up for new nuclear

Table 1Occurrence of single questions and follow-up questions (FU) (narrow definition).

Single Q 25

Q+1FU 22

Q+2FU 4

Q+3FU or more 3



power stations (Extracts 3 and 4 are from the same occasion). Extract 2 includes the opening question of the interactionalsession and is explicitly (Line 3) directed towards Maud Olofsson (=MO), Minister of Energy and Enterprise, and also theDeputy Prime Minister. Olofsson is the leader of the Centre Party, which earlier had been a leading opponent to nuclearenergy in the political debate.

Extract 2

3 IR1 =maud olofsson [ i- ]s there any opposition between

4 IR2 [ may- ]

5 IR1 the investment in wind power and nuclear power

6 (.) can it be that (.) the power companies will

7 instead invest in new nuclear power stations (.)

8 instead of investing in the wind power so that you

9 can’t rea:ch the go:al thirty terawatt hours

10 (1.0)

11 MO we are gi:ving a very clear signal to the market just

12 now that (.) is in the renewable sector .hh that we

13 are raising the certificate goal to twenty-five

14 terawatt hours (.) and the certificate is of course

15 formulated so: if you set twenty-five terrawatt n-

16 then it will be twenty-five

17 /.../

33 MO we are not pro:mising any state subsidies for

34 expanding nuclear power .hh so in that respect then

35 .hh then we’ll be less: (.) nyah: s: s: planned

36 economy and more market economy .hh eh: but the clear

37 instruments of control for the renewable, (.) they eh

38 are in this document=

39 IR1 =but somewhere there must be any- anyway a limit to

40 how much money there is for the total energy

41 investment .hh and if (.) (f:) the in:dustry then

42 chooses to invest in nuclear power(.) how will you

43 be able to force: them to eh:(.)develop this

44 win:d power generation

45 MO no:o I’m not going to force anyone instead I’m going

46 to: .hh encourage those people that .hh (.) from my

47 points of departure then: eh:: uh (.) choose to

48 invest in the renewable /.../

The first question turn is rather complex and is organized as two yes/no-questions clearly linked to each other. The firstquestion (Lines 3 and 5) is not in itself adversarial, but the journalist develops his question and points out that the currentpolicy could be problematic, since it could hazard the development of wind power which also has been claimed to beimportant for the government and especially for the Centre Party. This question ‘‘tilts’’ towards an affirmative and, for thepolitician, unfavorable answer; it sets up the politician in a position from which she is expected to agree to the inbuiltassumptions of the question, which she cannot do since that could be interpreted as she admits that the policy could fail.The politician claims that this policy will leave the decisions to the investors, but that it also signals to them to invest inwind power. For instance, the government will not give any state subsidies for expanding nuclear power. In the follow-upturn, the journalist displays that he finds the preceding answer insufficient (and not affirmative) and he then developsand deepens his initial question. With a prefatory statement (Lines 39–41) the journalist claims that there must be a limitfor how much money there is to invest in energy supply. He then goes on and points out the hypothetical situation thatthe investors can decide to invest in nuclear power (Lines 41–42) and asks how she would handle such a situation and‘‘be able to force them’’ (Line 43) to reach the goals set up for the development of wind power. With this action thejournalist progresses and deepens his initial question and explicitly formulates what is problematic with the suggestedpolicy, that is, how things could go wrong in the future. In her response, Olofsson initially reacts to the word ‘‘force’’ and



says that she will ‘‘encourage’’ people to invest in renewable energy. She also claims that the major investments today arein these forms of energy.

Also in Extract 3, the first question is organized as a yes/no-question (Lines 1–2), which positions the politician in asituation in which he is supposed to demonstrate the government’s stance. This case differs from the one above since thisquestion is not pushing for an affirmative answer. Instead, the question is oriented towards making the politician(Jan Bjorklund=JB, leader of Folkpartiet) elucidate an aim with the present policy; that is, if the intention is that the nuclearcorporations should take the full costs for their liability insurances.

Extract 3

1 IR is the intention that the companies should take the

2 full costs I mean the nuclear companies

3 JB (.) as I said it i:s the nuclear liability act today

4 (.) eh it implies that one should take out insurance to

5 a certain level but we think that Sweden should ratify

6 the Paris convention and then it will be to take out

7 insurance to a higher level so already here in this

8 settlement we find a greater demand on insurances (.)

9 then there is besides that a question about something

10 called unlimited liability which eh eh: is

11 complicated and which has to be further investigated

12 a- and then we will concl- we will come to conclusions

13 when that investigation is completed but already

14 in this there is an increase in the requirements of

15 insurance

16 IR but an increase but as long as it is not one hundred

17 percent it is sort of a subsidy

18 JB (.) this is how it is actually that that we- if it

19 concerns really huge infrastructural matters /.../

In his answer, the politician is saying that the corporations on the market must take a more extensive responsibility in thefuture, but that this has to be further investigated.With his follow-up turn (Lines 16–17), the journalist clearly demonstratesthat he finds this answer incoherent in relation to the initial question. He points to the fact that as long as it is not 100% thegovernment’s proposal means that the market will not have to take full responsibility for the insurance costs. In this follow-up a confirmatory answer is preferred and it sets up the politician in a face-threatening situation. If he does not (somehow)agree with the journalist’s assumption, his answer will appear as irrational.

In the following examples, the initial question is an accountability question of the why-did-you-kind. In the beginning ofExtract 4 the journalist explicitly addresses the question to Maud Olofsson and he asks for the logic behind her decision tosettle with the other three parties of the government. The journalist initially stresses a contradiction between the party’sprevious standpoint in the debate and the current policy (Lines 2–3) and this part of the question involves an assumptionthat the Centre Party nowwants to build newnuclear power plants. The question that follows (Lines 3–4) is an accountabilityquestion, since the journalist asks the politician to explain the rationale behind her actions.

Extract 4

1 IR maud olofsson you said that you haven’t changed

2 line regarding nuclear power but previously you did

3 want to phase out and now you want to expa:nd explain

4 why you have not changed line in that case=

5 MO =but that’s just how it is with compromises .hh eh:

6 if we agree: so I- (.) I‘m not demanding of my three

7 colleagues that they should change their minds about

8 nuclear power but they aren’t demanding that I should

9 change my mind either (.).hh instead a compromise

10 includes of course (.) things that I can be satisfied

11 with and the centre party can be satisfied with .hh



12 and that my colleagues can be satisfied with

13 /.../

27 then: I can feel that I but I’m spending my energy:

28 (.) on (.) building up the renewables and redirecting

29 IR but reasonably when you earlier wanted to phase out

30 and now want to build new that i:s really

31 changing standpoint anyway

32 MO though we don’t want to build new but there’s three

33 of us that think it’s important .hh and I: accept it

35 .hh and also I think it’s important to understand

36 what a compromise is /.../

In her answer (Lines 5–28), Olofsson does not accept the question’s inbuilt assumption about new nuclear plants and shedevelops a response inwhich she is trying to explainwhat the ‘‘compromise’’means fromher point of view. She claims that shehas not changed her opinion and that the settlement also involves incentives to develop the renewable energy sources, such aswind power. In the follow-up turn (Lines 29–31) the journalist reformulates the initial question and queries the precedinganswer as a reasonable explanation for the Centre Party’s actions in this case. His question indicates that he finds the answerevasive and an insufficient explanation for howOlofsson has handled the settlement. By repeating the contradiction betweenthe Centre Party’s previous standpoint andwhat the journalist seems to interpret as the implications of the policypresented (tobuild new nuclear plants) he treats the preceding answer as illogical or as a denial from the politician that this policy implies ashift of opinions. It is organized as a yes/no-question where clearly an affirmative answer is preferred. In her answer, thepolitician continues to question the journalist’s assumption and explains her view of the implications of the settlement.

Above I have shown three cases inwhich journalists use their follow-up turn in order to question the politicians’ answers,but as will be shown in the following analysis, follow-ups are not always adversarial. In fact, a majority of the follow-upquestions are of amore neutral, non-adversarial character and set up the politician in amore favourable position. Of the totalof 29 sequenceswith follow-up questions, 11 involve adversarial follow-ups and 18 do not. So, instead of using the follow-upturn for pursuing evasive or inadequate answers, which could be a critical moment for the politician, the journalists use it forother, not particularly threatening, purposes. In the next section I will scrutinize those cases.

4.2. The performance of non-adversarial follow-ups

In the following analysis I will identify and exemplify three basic forms of actions carried out by the non-adversarialfollow-up questions. These actions invite the politician to give more information on the current topic/policy, to assess a specific

matter or situation, or to confirm that the journalist’s interpretation of the policy or the preceding answer is correct.Extract 5 (which is from a press conferencewith Anders Borg, theMinister of Finance) is an example of how the journalists

set up the politician to give more detailed information on the current topic/policy. This follow-up question is comparable towhat Smith (1990:107) calls elaborations. It is also similar to what Greatbatch (1986:94) describes as a standard use in newsinterviews, as it requests the interviewee to support the preceding answer with more comprehensive information.

Extract 5

1 IR the opposition says this about the ten billion that

2 you put up on labour market policies the most of it

3 goes to the unemployment fund (.) is that true

4 AB yes that’s true (.) it’s true that the h- largest

5 part of labour market measures always at any

6 time (.) mainly is a cost for

7 unemployment benefit and support (.) that is how it is

8 and always will be

9 /.../

16 AB it is obvious that that we have one of the most

17 extensive social transfer systems

18 in Sweden and when unemployment increases

19 then then the expenses for it increase=

20 IR =bu- but is it possible to say how much of the ten

21 billion that is used for unemployment (.) e- expanded



22 payme[nts for the unemployment fund and how mu]ch of >>

23 AB [ I would say the most of ]

24 IR >> to education =

25 AB =I would say that most of it goes to eh as always

26 (.) as on every other occasion (.) mainly

27 to activity compensation and to the unemployment fund

28 /.../

The first question (Lines 1–3) contains a preface in which the journalist expresses a critical opinion, linked to a thirdidentified party (the opposition), followed by a yes/no question (Line 3). It has some resemblancewith Extracts 2 and 3, but inthis case the politician manages the question differently. He answers the initial question with a plain and affirmativeresponse (‘‘yes that’s true’’, Line 4), and he then goes on to explain why this is the case. In the follow-up turn (Lines 20–24),the journalist is asking for more detailed information about how much the government spend on the unemployment fundand on education. The question is of a deferential character. It starts with ‘‘is it possible to say’’ (Line 20) and it sets up thepolitician in a position from which he can develop a description of how the expenses are distributed.

During the press conferences, follow-up turns are also used in order tomake the politicians evaluate certain aspects of theirpolicies. Extract 6 is froma jointpress conferenceheldbytheMinisterof Finance,AndersBorg (AB), and theMinisterof FinancialMarkets, Mats Odell (MOd), to present one governmental action to help out the banks during the so-called financial crisis.

Extract 6

1 IR may I just ask so I know I’ve understood this

2 correctly ehm i-if we say that it’s a new emission

3 then the state contributes fifteen per cent

4 these conditions apply a-anyway as these

5 lim [itations for bonus a- ]

6 MOd [yes, they are valid for] every krona that they

7 want to take through this programme if it’s fifteen

8 per cent then consequently the private sector

9 has taken eighty-five per cent and as to the rest

10 of course the state goes in with exactly

11 the same conditions as the. the eighty- five private

12 investors

13 IR: but how- =

14 AB =may I just add this be-because it’s important

15 as long as there’s thirty per cent private (.) in the

16 emission. it’s the bank that decides the conditions

17 /.../

21 AB if there is a private component in- they are regarded

22 as adjusted to market conditions eh (.)

23 IR wh- wh-what do you think the risk is now that eh that

24 some of the banks will get put off by these

25 restrictions which there anyway are and

26 that [they won’t agree for that reason]

27 MOd [they it´s just not (.) ] it´s just not

28 reasonable I- I said here earlier /.../

The initial question is indirect (Lines 1–5). It involves a self-referencing frame (‘‘may I just ask’’, Line 1) and an explicitrequest to the politician to confirm the journalist’s interpretation of the presented proposal. The question is organized as ayes/no question, and, at first, Odell gives the journalist an affirmative answer (Line 6) and explains how the policy functions.The journalist is trying to gain access to the floor for a follow-up turn (Line 13), but on this occasion Borg adds information onhow their proposal works to Odell’s answer (Lines 14–22). The journalist can then gain access to the floor and completes hisfollow-up turn (Lines 23–26). This question involves a request for an assessment of the risks with the current program(‘‘what do you think the risk is now’’, Line 23). Through this action the floor is open for the politicians to discuss what theythink is reasonable for the banks.



A third form of non-adversarial follow-up question is when the journalist asks the politician to confirm that thejournalist has interpreted the politician accurately. To a certain extent this resembles what Smith (1990:107) termsclarifications. In Extract 7 the journalist’s initial question is adversarial in character (Lines 3–10). It points out acontradiction betweenwhat the politician previously has stated and the policy presented (in this case it concerns changesin the school-system).

Extract 7

1 JB well the oor is open

2 (.)

3 IR you said the other day that pupils (.) will have a

4 chance to qualify for higher education already when

5 they are in occupational training (.) and then I don’t

6 really understand how it would be possible because you

7 said that was possible through their individual

8 choices (.) but if the difference is three hundred

9 points and the individual choice is

10 only [ two hun ]dred points where (.) will [we find ] >>

11 JB [ hm: ] [one has ]

12 IR >> the other one hundred=

13 JB =you take the two- th- th- there are two possibilities

14 either you take these two hundred through the

15 individual choice and then you read another hundred

16 points beyond the two thousand five hundred or you

17 choose to read something totally different on the

18 individual choice and then you choose to read three

19 hundred extra points .so that eh means that you read

20 a little bit more yes so-

21 IR it- it’s like an extended program or

22 JB yes one could say that one hundred points is not much

23 but if you chose three hundred then it would be

24 expanded /.../

In his first question turn, the journalist states that he does not understand how the new (occupational training)programs function on one point. He relates to a previous statement made by Bjorklund (‘‘you said the other day’’, Line 3)concerning the possibility for the pupils to prepare for higher (college) education and that he does not understand howthat is possible with this policy. In his answer (Lines 13–20), the politician points out two possible solutions to theidentified problem and concludes that these students will have to extend their programs. The journalist’s follow-upquestion is constructed as a yes/no-question and it is oriented towards getting confirmation that he has understood thepolicy correctly (‘‘it’s like an extended program or’’, Line 21). This is exactly what the politician does. He affirms that thejournalist’s interpretation is an acceptable way to comprehend the policy, and the journalist sees no reason to follow-upwith a third question.

5. Conclusions and discussion

One important conclusion from this study in relationship to previous research on political press conferences isthat follow-ups are not necessarily such prominent indicators of adversarialness as this research suggests (Banningand Billingsley, 2007:468). In US presidential conferences the occurrence of a follow-up could certainly be anaction which indicates journalistic aggressiveness, but it is a context-bound indicator which presupposes that thecompetition for the floor is fierce and that a follow-up implies a norm-breaking action. In a context, such as the pressconferences with the Swedish Government, in which the follow-up does not violate any norms it is necessary tomethodically analyze each specific occurrence of them in order to fully understand what kind of actions are performedthrough follow-up questions.

Through this analysis, two types of situations when journalists perform adversarial actions through the follow-up turnand set up the politician in a more face-threatening position have been identified. Such follow-ups occur when the initialquestion is pushing for a particular answer (yes or no) and it sets up the politician in a situation in which s/he is supposed to



take a stand or give a clear-cut answer, but does not provide such an answer. The journalist then repeats or reformulates thefirst question in order to get an adequate answer. They also occur when journalists pose accountability questions and theanswer provided by the politician is not accepted as a reasonable explanation from the journalist’s point of view, which thenleads to a follow-up turn. The analysis also reveals three forms of non-adversarial follow-up question, which set up thepoliticians inmore favourable positions. These actions invite the politician to givemore information on the current topic/policy,to confirm that the journalist’s interpretation of the policy or the preceding answer is correct, or to assess a specific matter or

situation. In the present data, a clear majority, 18 of 29, of follow-up questions are non-adversarial in character and used forother purposes than challenging the politicians’ answers. Even if the data is too limited for more wide-reachinggeneralizations these figures underline the importance of not taking the occurrence of follow-up questions as immediatelyrelevant indicators of adversarialness.

Follow-up questions concerns institutionalized aspects of journalism and politics and the relationship between them.This study shows that follow-up questions have the potential to be important tools when journalism appears in a watchdogrole. In this particular case – the Swedish Government’s press conferences – there is an interesting relationship between thispotential and the territorial power. In relationship to news interviews, the press conference is claimed to be favourable forthe politicians since they manage the talk, which means that they can hinder a second turn (Clayman, 2006:251). As thisanalysis reveals, the politicians rarely use this position, so normally the journalists can access the floor for a second turnrather easily. In turn, thismeans that they have good opportunities to pursue inadequate answers or in other ways challengethe politicians. One noteworthy aspect in the current study is that this territorial power ismore often used for other purposesthan pursuing or challenging the politician’s answers.

So, what do these results indicate? One possible answer is that the Swedish journalistic culture, and particularly hownews journalists understand their relationship topoliticians, differs fromthe journalistic culture of theUS; that is, that Swedishjournalists have a more deferential, non-aggressive relationship to the politicians. To judge from previous research onnews journalism and the relationships between journalism and politics, this does not seem to be the case. Studies ofSwedish journalism point out that it has developed a more autonomous attitude towards the political sphere over the yearsand that journalists appear in an adversarial role to a greater extent today than they did in the 1970s (see Eriksson, 2011;Djerf-PierreandWeilbull, 2001). It seemsthat thisdevelopment iswell in linewith thedevelopment in theUS(cf. Claymanetal.,2006; Entman, 2004; Patterson, 1993) and other western countries.

But what other possible answers are there to the question above? One answer is that for the journalists, who are presentin order to represent the public, these press conferences necessarily constitute a ‘‘balancing act’’ (see Smith, 1990:65). On theone hand they must get detailed and valid information about the policies, get assessments, etc., and on the other hand, theymust hold the politicians accountable for theirwords and actions. If the latter became too prominent, it would probably be anobstacle for the previous task. Another plausible answer is that press conferences with the Swedish Government are notparticularly public events. They are webcasted live and possible for anyone with an Internet connection to view live orafterwards, but normally they do not gather a massive audience. In a news interview, often broadcast for a potentially hugenumber of viewers, the journalist is acting on behalf of the public and posing adversarial and challenging follow-up questionsis an indispensible part of that performance. The press conference is another kind of performance, which will not be a trulypublic event unless journalism chooses to make it into one, e.g. by means of a live broadcast (which is rarely the case). Itappears that the journalists do not always feel the pressure to play the devil’s advocate role in this context. A third possibleanswer is that the journalists also have opportunities for individual interviews just after the question and answer session andthat, due to the competition and ambitions to get exclusive statements, they do not want to pose their most excellent andchallenging questions when other journalists are present.

For future studies of press conferences I think it is relevant to deepen the understanding of how the norms (such as the oneinvolved in situationswith follow-upquestions)are sustained in theongoing interaction.An interestingquestion concernshowthe participants orient towards each otherwith gestures, body postures and looks. Do the politicians look at the journalistwhoposed the questionwhen theyanswer a question?Do they by suchmeans show theyexpect a follow-upquestion?Do the otherjournalists tend to avoid competing for the floor in such sequences of talk? Such studiesmust necessarily contain data gatheredthrough participant observations and the researcher’s own visual recordings of the press conferences.

Appendix A

Key to transcriptions

in the long run Underlined items were audibly stressed.

the gy:m A colon indicates that the prior sound was prolonged.

shi- A hyphen denotes a glottal stop or ‘‘cut-off’’ sound.

.hh Marks audible breathing or sighs.

(1.3) Numbers in parentheses denote elapsed silence in seconds.

(.) A period denotes a pause shorter than one second.



= An equal sign indicates that one sound followed directly after the other.

yes I [am Brackets mark the onset of simultaneous speech

[which you.

>> Indicates that a continuous utterance with no break or pause was broken

up in order to accommodate the placement of overlapping talk.

Appendix B

Original transcripts

Extrakt 1

1 I1 ba- =

2 MOd = ja =

3 I2 [ohorbart]

4 MOd [ ja ] Jan Almgren ville folja upp =

5 I1: = ba- bara en kort- /.../

Extrakt 2

3 I1 =maud olofsson [ fi ]nns de nIn motsattning mellan

4 I2 [fa -]

5 I1 satsningen pa vindkraft och karnkraft

6 (.) kan de va: sa att (.) kraftbolagen kommer att

7 satsa istalle pa nya karnkraftverk (.)

8 istalle for att satsa pa den vindkraft sa att ni

9 inte kan na : ma :let tretti terawattimmar

10 (1.0)

11 MO vi ge:r ju en mycke tydlig signal till marknaden just

12 nu som (.) finns pa re fornybara omra det .hh att vi

13 hojer certifikatsma let till tjufem

14 terawattimmar (.) a certifikaten e ju sa utformade

15 att: satter man tjufem terawatt- (n-)

16 da bli:r de tjufem terawatt.

17 /.../

33 MO vi lo:var inga statliga subventio:ner till att

34 bygga ut karnkraften .hh sa att i den meningen sa

35 .hh sa blir vi mindre: (.) njeh: s: s:

36 planekonomisk a mer marknadsekonomisk .hh eh: men dom

37 tydliga styrmedlen pa de fornybara, (.) dom: eh

38 finns i de har dokumentet=

39 I1 =men na nstans finns de ju an- anda en grans for

40 hur mycke pengar de finns till samlad

41 energiinvestering .hh och om (.) f: n:aringslivet

42 da valjer att satsa pa karnkraft, (.) hur ska du

43 kunna tvinga: dom till att eh: (.) fa fram den har

44 vin:dkraftproduktionen

45 MO ne:j ja kommer inte a tvinga na n utan ja kommer a :

46 a : .hh uppmuntra dom manniskor som .hh (.) fra n mina

47 utga ngspunkter da : eh:: uh (.) valjer att

48 satsa pa de fornybara (.)



Extrakt 3

1 I ar e avsikten att bolagen ska bara sina

2 fulla forsakringskostnader alltsa karnkraftsbolagen

3 JB (.) som jag sa det a: sv- atomansvarighetslagen idag

4 (.)oh innebar ju att man ska forsakra sig upp till

5 en viss niva men sverige ska menar vi ratificera

6 pariskonventionen a da ar det att forsakra sig till en

7 hogre niva .sa redan redan i den har overenskommelsen

8 ligger att storre krav pa forsakringar (.)

9 sen finns det dar utover en fra ga om na t som

10 kallas for obegransad skadesta ndsansvarig som oh .o:h ar

11 komplicerad och som v- den ma ste utredas vidare

12 a a da far vi slutsa- dra slutsatsen

13 att den utredningen ar klar men redan i detta

14 ligger en hojning av kraven pa

15 forsakring

16 I men en hojning men sa lange det inte ar hundra

17 procent sa ar det ju en sorts subventionering

18 JB (.) .sa har ar det val i for sig att att vi t- om- det

19 riktigt stora infrastruktursammanhang /.../

Extrakt 4

1 I maud olofsson ni sa att ni inte har andrat linje nar

2 det galler karnkraften men tidigare ville ni avveckla

3 och nu vill ni bygga ut forklara varfor ni

4 inte har andrat linje i sa fall =

5 MO = men sa har ar det ju med kompromisser .hh oh:

6 om vi kommer overe:ns sa j- (.) jag begar inte av mina

7 tre kolleger att de ska andra sig om

8 karnkraften men de begar inte att jag ska andra mig

9 heller (.) .hh utan en kompromiss

10 inneha ller ju saker som jag kan va nojd

11 med och centerpartiet kan va nojd med .hh

12 a som mina kolleger kan va nojd med

13 /.../

27 MO da kan jag kanna att ja men jag lagger min energi:

28 (.) pa (.) att bygga det fornybara och stalla om

29 IR2 men rimligtvis nar ni tidigare ville avveckla

30 a nu vill bygga nytt det ar val

31 en a- andrad standpunkt and a

32 MO fast vi ville inte bygga nytt men vi ar tre stycken

33 som tycker att det ar viktigt .hh a jag accepterar det

34 .hh alltsa jag tror att det ar viktigt a forsta

29 vad ar en kompromiss /.../

Extrakt 5

1 I oppositionen sager ocksa att av dom har tio miljarderna

2 som ni har satsat pa arbetsmarknadspolitik da gar det

3 mesta till a-kassan (.) stammer det



4 AB ja det stammer (.) det stammer att den h- storsta n

5 deleav arbetsmarknadspolitiska a tgarder alltid vid varje

6 tidpunkt (.) i huvudsak ar en kostnad for att ge

7 a-kassa och aktivitetsstod (.) sa ar det

8 och sa kommer det alltid va

9 /.../

16 AB det ar ju alldeles sjalvklart att att vi har ett av de

17 mer omfattande sociala transferereringssystemen

18 i Sverige a nar da arbetslosheten stiger

19 da da stiger utgifterna for det =

20 I = m- men gar det a saga hur mycket av de tio

21 miljarderna som gar till a-kassa- (.)o- okade

22 utbetalnin [gar av a-kassa och hur myc]ket som >>

23 AB [ja skulle saga att merpar-]

24 I >> gar till utbildning =

25 Ab = jag skulle saga att merparten ga r till oh som alltid

26 (.) som vid varje annat tillfalle (.) oh att det ga r

27 i huvudsak till aktivitetsersattning och till a-kassa

28 /.../

Extrakt 6

1 I fa r jag bara fraga sa att jag har fattat

2 ratt alltsa ehm o- om vi sager att det ar en nyemission

3 sa gar staten in med 15 procent

4 galler a- anda de har villkoren da de har

5 be [gransningarna for bonus a -]

6 MoD [ ja det galler for ] varje krona som man

7 vill ha av det har programmet ar det femton

8 procent da har foljaktligen den privata sektorn

9 tagit 85 procent a i ovrigt

10 sa ga r ju staten in pa exakt

11 samma villkor som de .de attifem

12 privata investerarna

13 I men hur- =

14 AB = far jag bara lagga till det sa f- for det ar viktigt

15 sa lange det ar <30 procent privat (.) med i

16 emissionen bestammer banken villkoren>

17 /.../

21 finns en privat komponent i- anses det vara

22 marknadsmassigt oh (.)

23 I hu- hu- hur bedomer ni risken nu for att oh for att

24 na gra av bankerna avskracks av de har

25 begransningarna som anda finns och

26 att [de inte gar med av den anledningen]

27 MoD [ det kan inte va (.) ] det kan ju inte

28 va rimligt ja- jag sa har tidigare att /.../

Extrakt 7

1 JB da sa ordet ar fritt

2 (.)



3 I du sa haromdan att elever (.) ska kunna valja att

4 lasa in hogskolebehorighet redan nar de gar pa

5 yrkesprogrammet (.) a da fattar inte jag riktigt hur

6 det skulle kunna ga till for da sa du att det kunde man

7 det kunde man lasa in pa individuellt

8 val (.) men om skillnaden ar tre hundra

9 poang och individuellt val bara

10 ar [ tva hun ]dra poang var (.) [hittar man] de>>

11 JB [ mm ] [man har- ]

12 I >> har ovriga hundra =

13 JB =man tar de tva - d- d- det finns tva mojligheter

14 antingen sa tar man (.) de har tva hundra som finns pa

15 individuellt val a sen sa laser man till hundra

16 poang utover de tva tusefemhundra eller

17 sa valjer man individuellt val na t helt annat.

18 a da far man valja trehundra tillaggspoang

19 sa att det blir o::h man laser till na got

20 ja sa -

21 I na - na t slags som ett utokat program eller

22 JB ja det kan man val saga 100 poang ar ju sa lite

23 ut men t-valjer man trehundra da blir det ju

24 utokat /.../

References

Banning, Stephan, Billingsley, Susan, 2007. Journalist aggressiveness in joint versus solo presidential press conferences. Mass Communication & Society 10(4), 461–478.

Bhatia, Aditi, 2006. Critical discourse analysis of political press conferences. Discourse and Society 17 (2), 173–203.Clayman, Steven, 2006. Arenas of interaction in the new media era. In: Ekstrom, M., Kroon, A., Nylund, M. (Eds.), News from the Interview Society.

Nordicom, Goteborg, pp. 239–264.Clayman, Steven, Heritage, John, 2002a. Questioning Presidents: journalistic deference and Adversarianlness in the Press Conferences of U.S Presidents

Eisenhower and Reagan. Journal of Communication 52 (4), 749–775.Clayman, Steven, Heritage, John, 2002b. The News Interview. Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Clayman, Steven, Elliot,Mark, Heritage, John,McDonald, Laurie, 2006. Historical trends in questioning presidents 1953–2000. Presidential Studies Quarterly

36 (4), 561–583.Clayman, Steven, Heritage, John, Elliot, Mark, McDonald, Laurie, 2007. When does the watchdog bark? Conditions of aggressive questioning in presidential

news conferences. American Sociological Review 72 (1), 23–41.Djerf-Pierre, Monika, Weibull, Lennar, 2001. Spegla, granska, tolka: Aktualitetsjournalistik i svensk radio och TV under 1900-talet. (Reflect, examine,

interpret: Journalism on Swedish radio and television during the 20th century).Prisma, Stockholm.Ekstrom,Mats, 2009. Power and affiliation in presidential press conferences: a study on interruptions, jokes and laughter. Journal of Language and Politics 8

(3), 386–415.Entman, Robert, 2004. Projections of Power: Framing News, Public Opinion, and U.S. Foreign Policy. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Eriksson, Goran, 2011. Adversarial moments: A study of short-form interviews in the news. Journalism 12 (1), 1–19.Esbaugh-Soha, Matthew, 2003. Presidential press conferences over time. American Journal of Political Science 47 (2), 348–353.Greatbatch, David, 1986. Some standard uses of supplementary questions in news interviews. In: Wilson, J., Crow, B. (Eds.), Belfast working papers in

language and linguistics, Vol. 8. University of Ulster, Jordanstown, pp. 86–123.Jefferson, Gail, 2005. Glossery of transcripts symbols with an introduction. In: Lerner, G. (Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation.

John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 13–31.Kumar, Martha, 2005. Presidential press conferences: the importance and evolution of an enduring Forum. Presidential Studies Quarterly 35 (1), 166–192.McNair S Brian, 2000. Journalism and Democracy: Evaluation of Political Public Sphere. Routledge, London.Patterson, Thomas, 1993. Out of Order. Knopf, New York.Schegloff, Emanuel, 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis, vol. 1. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Smith, Carolyn, 1990. Presidential Press Conferences: A Critical Approach. Praeger Publishers, New York.Thornborrow, Joanna, 2002. Power talk. Language and Interaction in Institutional Discourse. Longman, London.

Goran Eriksson is associate professor in Media & Communication Studies, Orebro University, Sweden. He received his PhD in 2002 and mainly writes in the areasof politics andmedia. Examples of his recent work include ‘‘Themanagement of applause and laughter in live political interviews’’,Media, Culture & Society (2009),‘‘Interviews as communicative resources in news and current affairs broadcasts’’, Journalism Studies (2010) (co-authoredwith Asa Kroon Lundell), and ‘‘Politiciansin celebrity talk show interviews: the narrativization of personal experiences, Text & Talk (2010).


Follow-up questions in political press conferences

Documents

Transcript of Follow-up questions in political press conferences