From problematic object to routine ‘add-on’: dealing with e-mails in radio phone-ins

A B S T R A C T This article investigates the new phenomenon of e-mailedquestions to a radio phone-in programme, BBC Radio 4’s ‘Election Call’. Ourinterest in this phenomenon arose for several reasons. First, as a new form, e-mails were singled out at the beginning of each broadcast for specialinstructions to listeners, although there was evidence that as the seriesprogressed, dealing with e-mail became more of a routine event in eachsubsequent programme. Second, on listening to the Election Call broadcasts,the sequential introduction of an e-mail question appeared to be problematicfor the host (Peter Sissons). First mentions of e-mailed questions were oftensubject to a noticeable amount of disfluency and repair work, in contrast to thewell-rehearsed and highly routine introduction of callers’ questions. Third, theauthors are interested in the function of e-mail questions in terms of how theyare handled by the host and guest. Are they given the same status as a ‘call’,and if not, where do the differences lie? In our analysis we show how theintroduction of this new media form into a well-established context opens upnew structural possibilities for both host as interviewer and politician asinterviewee, in terms of how questions get framed, and how they get respondedto.

K E Y W O R D S : keywords

Introduction

In the run-up to the British general election in June 2001, BBC Radio 4 broadcastits usual morning series of phone-in programmes, ‘Election Call’, where mem-bers of the public are invited to call in and put their questions to a key politicalfigure. This year, for the first time, listeners to the programme were also invited toe-mail their questions to the programme.

This article examines the use of e-mail questions within the ‘Election Call’programme in order to explore the way new technology is adapted to and incorporated into the routine format of a radio phone-in. By examining the use

A RT I C L E 201

From problematic object to routine ‘add-on’: dealing with e-mails in radiophone-ins

J OA N N A T H O R N B O R R O W A N D R I C H A R D F I T Z G E R A L DC A R D I F F U N I V E R S I T Y

Discourse Studies Copyright © 2002

SAGE Publications.(London,

Thousand Oaks, CAand New Delhi)

Vol 4(2): 201–223.[1461-4456

(200205) 4:2;201–223; 022925]

of e-mail questions within the traditional phone-in format we hope to give someflavour of the rich resource this area provides for the continuing analysis ofinteraction in the arena of political discourse and public access media. In orderto explore this interface between the traditional format of calls and the innova-tive introduction of e-mails, our initial focus is on the way e-mail contributionsare flagged up in the opening sequences of the series; in particular, on the waythe host presents this ‘new media’ aspect of the programme, and on what infor-mation should accompany any e-mail sent in. This then gives way to an exami-nation of how e-mail contributors are introduced onto the programme, and thesimilarities and differences that emerge between these contributors and tele-phone callers. From this, our analysis moves to the way the host handles the e-mailed contributions to the programme. In this section, the focus is upon howthe host develops a role for e-mails over the course of the 12 broadcasts, from oneof introducing a new topic to that of support or supplementary question, devel-oping the topic of the previous call. In the final section of the article, our focusshifts to the way the guests on each of the programmes address e-mail questions.Our concern here is to explore the organization of the response by the guest to e-mail contributions in comparison to the way telephone callers are responded to.In e-mailed questions, greetings and personal reference are bound up withauthorship in such a way as to produce a possible blurring in relation to who is‘speaking’, and the types of response such blurring may engender.

Tradition . . .

Past research on broadcast talk, and on radio phone-in programmes in particu-lar, has shown that the introduction of callers onto a phone-in programme is ahighly routinized event (Fitzgerald, 1999; Hester and Fitzgerald, 1999; Hutchby,1996, 1999; Liddicoate et al., 1992; Thornborrow, 2001a, 2001b). Across arange of programmes within this broad generic form, from independent talkradio stations to the BBC, hosts and callers can be heard producing specific orien-tations to the institutional goal of getting on air, and saying whatever it is theyhave to say.

For example, taking one particularly well-researched feature of phone-inshows, the introduction of a caller by the host routinely includes some aspects ofthe caller’s personal identity. The permutations of the information given by thehost can range from first name only (Liddicoate et al., 1992) to first name and geo-graphical location (Hutchby, 1996), to first and second name together with town andcounty and sometimes country from where the call is coming from (Hester andFitzgerald, 1999; Thornborrow, 2001a). The following four openings illustratethese permutations (see Appendix for a transcription key):

[1] First name only:H: Ida’s on the line. Hello Ida.C: good morning.

(Liddicoate et al., 1992: 543)

202 Discourse Studies 4(2)

[2] First name and town:H. 23 January 19891.H. John is calling from Ilford good morning2.J. .h good morning Brian

(Hutchby, 1991: 120)

[3] First and second name and town: EC18//03/06/87SB: Sally Allen from Newham in London helloCaller: yes hello

(Thornborrow, 2001a: 123)

[4] NR[FE:15:94(9)]01N: Michael Mason from London what do you make of this02M: um..well Sir Ian has touched on the point I wanted to

(Fitzgerald, 1999: 57)

The opening sequences of calls may only take a few seconds. Within thissequence the transition from host to caller is accomplished typically through ahost’s first turn in which the caller’s name and location is given. After this theremay be a greeting sequence between host and caller before the caller takes uptheir turn to say whatever it is that they have called in to the programme to say.

[5] NR[FE:15:94(4)]01N: Naomi Lonfordwood from Wincham in Surrey02Na: um I’ve got a number of gay friends..I’ve I’ve()in03 theatre in the literary world. I’ve got a number of gay04 friends and as far as I can see

[6] NR[FE:15:94(9)]01N: Michael Mason from London what do you make of this02M: um..well Sir Ian has touched on the point that I wanted03 to make..I’ve..been a gay journalist for twenty one years04 or more on gay news and now more recently on capital05 gay..um so I’ve seen the act in operation

(Fitzgerald, 1999: 57)

These extracts are more or less typical of caller induction sequences found inradio phone-in broadcasts. The sequential structure is organized in such a waythat once the host has finished introducing the next caller he or she embarksupon the point they called in to make.

. . . and innovation

Whilst discourse and conversation analytic research into phone calls to radioprogrammes continues to offer a valuable source of knowledge about domains ofpublic participation and interaction in the public sphere, the advent and acces-sibility of new technologies such as the Internet and e-mail are seen to offer anew dimension to public access broadcasting. The media has been quick to utilize various Internet resources such as news web-sites and bulletin boards, as well ase-mail correspondence to newspapers and letters sections on radio magazine

Thornborrow and Fitzgerald: E-mails in radio phone-ins 203

programmes, and now, as evidenced by the 2001 ‘Election Call’, live radio phone-in programmes.

As noted earlier, the programmes we examine in this article are a series of liveradio phone-in programmes broadcast simultaneously on radio, TV and theInternet. For three-quarters of an hour (or 75% of the programme) the pro-gramme is broadcast through all three media whilst the final 15 minutes of theprogramme is only available through the Internet. Contributions from the listen-ing audience are invited through the phone lines and also through e-mail (greatplay is made in the early editions of this programme about this new way of con-tributing to the programme). Because of this, the programme provides an inter-esting combination of a live broadcast medium in which ‘live’ e-mailcontributions are incorporated with live telephone callers. Our aim, then, is toinvestigate the status of e-mailed questions and how they are brought into theinteractional space of the phone-in programme, in relation to the well-estab-lished, normative procedure for introducing callers outlined earlier.

Within the programme, the newness of e-mail contributions to the livephone-in is a feature explicitly oriented to by the host within the introductionsequence. Although it may be standard practice in radio phone-in programmes(Hester and Fitzgerald, 1999) to let listeners know how they may take part in theprogramme via the telephone, in this series of programmes the host also includesthe means of contributing to the programme via e-mail.

[7] EC1/PS/GB/1PS: [—] call us on 08700100444.hh election call has been a fixture

in British election campaigns since the nineteen seventies but thisyear for the first time you can contact us by e mail hh.(on vote) two thousand and one at bbc dot co dot uk..hh we’re also being (.) web cast live? (.) on the bbc newson line web-site at www dot bbc dot co dot uk (.) slash, news.and the internet programme (.) will continue after the radio 4and bbc 2 programmes have finished. (.) (hope) that’s clear.

[8] EC2/PS/AW/1PS: [—] you can still call us on 08700100 4(.)4(.)4(.)..h this year

fuh the first time you can contact election call by e-mailas well at vote two thousand and one? at bbc dot co dot uk,.hh and please remember on your e-mail to say where you’recalling from..hh we’re also being (.) web cast (.) live?on the bbc news online website at www dot bbc dot co dot(0.7) uk. (.) slash news (.) and the internet programme will continueafter the radio 4 and bbc 2 programmes have finished..hhh well (.) the first election caller is on the line. uh Jason R(oll)from Salisbury in Wilsh- in Wiltshire you’re through to AnneWiddecombe

[9] EC3/PS/SH/1PS: (.) and you can still call us on 08700 100 4(.)4(.)4(.). (0.8).hh this

year for the first time you can contact election call by e-mail


at vote (.) two thousand and one at bbc dot co dot uk (.) andplease remember on your e-mail (.) to say (.) where you’re from.we’re also being web cast live (.) on the bbc news online website(.) at www dot (.) bbc dot (.) co dot (.) uk (.) slash news (.) and theinternet programme will continue after the radio 4 and bbc 2programmes have finished (.).h so the first caller (.) is on theline (.)

[10] EC4/PS/MB/1PS. [—] phone lines

are open now call us on 08700 100 444 (.) and you’ll knowby now you can e-mail us at vote 2001 at bbc dot co dot uk.hh telling us please where you’re e-mailing from..hh we’realso on the bbc news online website at >www dot bbc dotco dot uk< slash news..hh the first (.) election caller is onthe line (.) mister Frank Owen from Doncaster you’re throughto Margaret Beckett.

[11] EC5/PS/LF/1PS: [—] call us on 09700 100 444 (.) and you’ll know by now

you can e-mail us at (.) vote 2001 at bbc dot co (.) dot uk.telling us please (.) where you’re e-mailing from..hh we’realso on the bbc news online website at www dot bbc.co dotuk slash news..hh the first election caller is in fact on the line.mister Darshan Brambad from London you’re through toLiam Fox

[12] EC6/PS/SW/1PS: [–] call us on 08700 100 444

and you’ll know by now you can e-mail us as well at vote 2001 >atbbc dot co dot uk< telling us please where (.) you’re e-mailing (.)from..hh we’re also on the bbc news online website at >www dotbbc dot co dot< (.) u: k slash news..hhh and indeed the first electioncaller is on the line already mister Peter Wells from London you’rethrough to Shirley Williams

In the first two programmes the host flags up the newness of e-mail contribu-tions to the programme by declaring that this is the first time in the programme’shistory that this method is available. The reference to the programme as anestablished ‘fixture in British election campaigns since the nineteen seventies’ inthe first extract together with the announcement of this new way of contactingthe programme can be seen to invoke both a notion of tradition, of establishedand reputable history, together with a willingness to embrace new technology. Inthe second and third extract, a similar announcement is given by the host high-lighting the point that it is the first time that e-mail can be used to contact theprogramme. By the time the fourth programme is introduced, and indeed in allsubsequent introductions of the programme, a noticeable shift occurs in whichthe host now suggests that the audience ‘will know by now’ that they can e-mailthe programme.

This shift from novelty to ‘known in common’ suggests that there is a taken-


for-granted (by the host) audience, that is more or less the same for each pro-gramme. That this is an oriented-to membership collection (Sacks, 1995) is evi-dent through the change of status of e-mail contributions from one of newnessto one of routine. Our characterization of e-mail questions as ‘routine’ is appar-ent through the host’s standard use of the phrase ‘as you will know by now’. Thisphrase addresses a membership collection and refers to predicated knowledgethat is assumed, known-in-common knowledge of the audience as a membershipgroup (Fitzgerald, 1999; Housley and Fitzgerald, 2001).

The unimportance of place

Within the introduction sequence a further noticeable feature is the appeal forcontributors by e-mail to give the location from which they are e-mailing. Theuse of location when introducing callers onto radio phone-in programmes is alsowell documented (Fitzgerald, 1999; Thornborrow, 2001a). However the locationof the e-mailer seems to take on a significance within the introduction that isabsent from the introduction of callers. Whilst giving out the phone numberremains the same in each of the programmes, after the first programme thehost’s e-mail flag is suffixed with the request that those who e-mail the pro-gramme provide the location from which they are e-mailing (although in thesecond programme the request is for where they are ‘calling’ from). This maysuggest that the location of contributors is a production feature of this pro-gramme, and possibly public access programmes in general, oriented to by thoseproducing the programme but not necessarily the audience. This highlightedproblem of place does not seem to occur with telephone calls; as research hasdemonstrated, the place a caller is calling from is given as part of the routineintroduction onto the programme.1 The telephone is of course a live two-waymedium with a researcher gathering information from the caller before being puton air, and it is at this time that callers may be asked where they are calling from.Moreover, as this part occurs before the caller is put on air the responsibility forthis information resides with the researcher who takes the call, not the caller.Thus, the mechanism for gathering this information is the responsibility of theprogramme and as such it is not relevant for the host to request that callers givethis information within the introduction. E-mail however is not a live two-waymedium and so is not subject to the questioning process telephone interactionallows. As this part of the researcher’s role is circumvented by e-mail, theresponsibility for providing the location of the e-mailer is shifted to those doingthe e-mailing. A feature of the new technology is therefore the shift in respon-sibility for providing routine information to members of the public who partici-pate in this programme. Because of this shift then, location and place are madean issue by the host, who in every programme after the first requests that thosewho e-mail provide the location from which they are e-mailing.

Within the introduction sequence it is apparent that the host approaches e-mail contributions in the same way as telephone contributions; with a stand-


ard content for introducing callers which includes the place from which the callis being made. It is perhaps also worth noting that the programme never beginswith an e-mail, but always with a telephone caller on the line. The request in theintroduction sequence for the location of e-mailers would seem a concession tothe medium of e-mail, and that only in relation to standard information obtain-able with phone calls. However as the programmes continue, although therequest for e-mailer location information becomes a routine feature of the open-ing sequence, in the practice of the main body of the programme the introduc-tion of e-mails evolves in a different way to telephone calls.

In the first programme which, as we have already observed, does not containa location request from e-mail contributors, the first e-mail contribution is notsuffixed with a place location whilst the second e-mail contributor is so placed.

[13] EC1/PS/GB/2PS: thank you Patricia (.) got an e-mail here chancellor from

Rex Last (.) why did you stick to conservative spendingplans in the first two years of your government.h I gatherthat even Kenneth Clarke and John Major are now sayingthat they wouldn’t have stuck to those plans=

[14] EC1/PS/GB/3PS [—] [the’s the’s also an e-mail on this chancellor

is there an agreement between you and mister Blair to handover the keys to number ten Downing Street says Kalis (.) Chandfrom Ashton.=

In the introduction of the second programme in the series the host makes theexplicit request for location from e-mail contributors:

[15] EC2/PS/AW/1..h this yearfuh the first time you can contact election call by e-mailas well at vote two thousand and one at bbc dot co dot uk.hh and please remember on your e-mail to say where you’recalling from.

Subsequent to this request within the introduction to the programme, the host,when introducing e-mail contributions, highlights the seemingly inadequate ref-erence to the location of the e-mailer. We can also note in extract 16 the guest’samusement and shared orientation to the inadequacy of ‘the UK’ as a location inthis context:

[16] EC2/PS/AW/1PS: we have an e-mail here from Colin Wi- Williamson um (0.8) puts

his address down as the UK. um (.) [why do the] Tories (.)AW: [ °hu hu hu° ]

[17] EC2/PS/AW/2PS: [—] and uh (.) Alan Churchill (0.8) whose u:h e-mail address is down

as the UK (0.6) uh has e-mailed saying as a retired (0.7) police sergeant


I remember the tories failed the police. (0.5) why should we trust themnow.

In the third programme the host again emphasizes the request that e-mail con-tributors give their location.

[18] EC3/PS/SH/1PS: (.) and please remember on your e-mail (.) to say (.) where you’re

from.

However, in the only e-mail contribution used in this programme, no reference tothe location of the e-mailer is given when they are introduced:

[19] EC3/PS/SH/2PS: [—] thank you very much Joyce (.) uh there’s an e-mail here

Simon um (.) from someone who clearly um (.) doesn’t (.)want the euro (.) Frank Marsden (.) he says why not have (.)dual currencies (.) people who trade or holiday a lot in Europe(.) can have a separate euro account.

By the fourth programme the request for the location of e-mailers has lost itsemphasis and becomes almost a rote request:

[20] EC4/PS/MB/1PS: and you’ll know by now you can e-mail us at vote 2001 at bbc dot co

dot uk.hh telling us please where you’re e-mailing from.

Whilst again only one e-mail is used in this programme, it is introduced with aplace location:

[21] EC4/PS/MB/1PS: uh I’ve got an e-mail here er (.) Margaret (.) uh Beckett

from Dave Bevan in Devon (.).hh he asks can youexplain why railtrack should receive massive gratuitouspayments from the taxpayer.

In subsequent programmes, and although the by now standard request for thelocation of e-mails is made in each introduction to the programme, when intro-ducing particular e-mail contributions the host either does not give a location orprovides one where the location is of similar type to contributors by phone(extract 24).

[22] EC5/PS/LF/2PS: here’s an e-mail um (.) uh Liam (.) uh (.) from Christine Pike (.)

who asks to what extent are nhs waiting lists due toconsultants spending a good deal of time in privateclinics.

[23] EC5/PS/LF/3PS: here’s an e-mail from Keith StPier (.) who asks you (.)

how will we ever have a first class health system (.) when


[24] EC5/PS/LF/4PS: mister Fox uh doctor Fox (.) just briefly could- you’ve got

twenty seconds to answer this e-mail doc- are you man enoughto admit that the tories are at least partially responsible for thebed shortages in the n- nhs that’s from Harold Richardson inShropshire

[25] EC6/PS/SW/2Caller: [—] the extra expertise they’ve acquired.hhPS: well let me slip [an e-mail] in at this stage uh=Caller: [(but) ]PS: =from (.) Doreen Clark who asks will the lib dems (.) bring nurses’

wages up to the same level as the police

It would seem then that there is an initial attempt to get e-mail contributorsto provide the same information as phone callers, and for e-mail to be treated inthe same way as telephone calls. After the repeat of the request in the early intro-ductions fails to elicit the information requested, and although the host contin-ues to repeat the request in the introduction of the programme, it would seemthat he begins to adapt the introduction sequence of each contributor to the par-ticular medium they are using. So whilst continuing to provide place locationsfor phone callers and occasionally for e-mail contributors, in the later pro-grammes the lack of place is not made a ‘noticeable absence’ as it was in the ear-lier programmes in the series. What becomes apparent then is that through thesequence of programmes the host’s initial attempt to treat e-mail questions in the same way as phone calls proves unworkable, and that after these attempts failthe host adapts the routine phone call introduction when dealing with the newtechnology.

Frameworks of participation and the status of e-mails

The introduction of e-mailed questions in Election Call as a written mode ofquestioning means that the host has to manage the sequential introduction ofthese questions into the ongoing talk. In this section, we look at the mechanismsof how the host deals with this new format, compared with the now highly con-ventional introductions of telephone callers and their questions. Whereas callersto the programme are active, on-line participants in the talk, with e-mailed ques-tions it is the host who is responsible for reading out a written text from a distantparticipant. There are various ways in which Peter Sissons handles these ques-tions, and this variation in itself is worth exploring in relation to the design anddelivery of the e-mailed question to the interviewee as well as to the listeningaudience. One of the central concerns in research into news interview discoursehas been the issue of interviewer neutrality in public service broadcasting; in hisanalysis of the design of interviewer questions, Clayman (1992) showed howinterviewers accomplish a neutral stance in their questions through particularshifts in footing during their question turn. However, as we show here, there are


a number of possibilities for embedding e-mailed questions into the talk whichenable the host to take up a position (or not) in relation to the topical content ofthe e-mail.

E-MAIL AS AN OBJECT

A first noticeable feature of the introduction of e-mailed questions is the host’sroutine placement of the e-mail as a material object within the physical space ofthe studio through the repeated use of proximal diectic forms, usually ‘here’.Whether or not these texts are ‘virtual’ (i.e. on screen) or have been printed outon paper is not made clear; either way, they are treated by the host as co-presentobjects:

[26]. . . we have an e-mail here. . . got an e-mail here. . . there’s an e-mail here. . . here’s an e-mail from

On the other hand, e-mail senders are not treated as co-participants in thetalk; they are not the subject of greetings sequences and in most cases (with oneexception as we will see shortly) not directly addressed by either the host or theguest. This can be contrasted with the introduction of callers who are in a differ-ent, distant geographical location, and have to be brought into the participatoryframework of the talk as third parties through a routine greetings sequence. Thenext two extracts illustrate this contrast between the status of caller and that ofe-mailer:

[27] EC7/PS/JS/1PS: [—].hh the first election caller is

indeed on the line now mister Simon O’Brian from Lichfield you’rethrough to Jack Straw.(. . .)

Caller: mister Straw [uhJS: [goodmorningCaller: goodmorning uh I’ve been a serving police officer [—]

[28] EC5/PS/LF/3PS: here’s an e-mail from Keith StPier (..) who asks you (.)

how will we ever have a first-class health system (.) whenso many doctors and nurses are unable to communicatewith English patients that is something which you’ve.hh

Whereas the caller in extract 27 is introduced by the host and greeted by theguest according to the routine pattern, in extract 28 the host simply states ‘here’san e-mail from Keith StPier’, with no further address or greeting which wouldestablish the e-mailer as, at least, a currently listening co-participant in the talk.

TWO- AND THREE- PARTY FRAMEWORKS OF INTERACTION

What occurs then with the introduction of an e-mail question is the shift from a


three-party framework of talk which comprises the telephone caller, guest andhost, to a two-party framework of host and guest, where the person sending thee-mail is absent. The shift into two-party talk has consequences both for the roleof the host in relation to the interactional possibilities this affords him, and forthe guest, who is no longer dealing with a caller as well as the host. A further fea-ture within the context of this shift into two-party talk is that while guests talkdirectly to telephone callers, they rarely address their responses to e-mailed ques-tions to the e-mailer – in fact in the whole corpus of programmes ShirleyWilliams is the only one to do this:

[29] EC6/PS/SW/2PS: =from (.) Doreen Clark who asks will the lib dems (0.5) bring nurses’

wages up to the same level as the police(2.0)

SW: not immediately but I’ve already said what we feel we can do right away.hh we’re trying to be very realistic (.) missis Clark (.) about the (.) what we can afford [—]

Rather, they are much more likely to address their answers to the host PeterSissons as Gordon Brown does here:

[30] EC1/PS/GB/3PS [the’s the’s also an e-mail on this chancellor


GB: =well Peter I never >get into the business abouttalking about these things and I’m not going to start today.<

So the introduction of an e-mail tends to result in further interaction and discus-sion between the host and the guest, while the original provenance of the e-mailed question is rarely mentioned again.

FROM PROBLEMATIC OBJECTS TO ROUTINE ‘ADD-ONS’Although he treats e-mails as co-present objects, the introduction of e-mail ques-tions in the course of the programme often appears to be problematic in variousways for the host. As we have shown, in the early stages at least of this 2001series of ‘Election Call’ broadcasts, the host attempts to give e-mailed questionsthe same status as callers’ questions to the phone-in. In extract 31, the way thathe draws attention to the email address as ‘the UK’ flags this as somehow inap-propriate:2

[31] EC2/PS/AW/2PS: [—] and uh (.) Alan Churchill (0.8) whose u:h e-mail address is down

as the UK (0.6) uh has e-mailed saying as a retired (0.7) police sergeant [—]

This example is taken from the second programme in the series, and the host’sintroduction of the e-mail is characterized by hesitation tokens and pauses


around the delivery of the name and location of this e-mailer (note the intra-turn pause occurring immediately prior to and after the segment dealing withthe address ‘down as the UK’).

When e-mailers do ‘say where they’re e-mailing from’ as instructed at thebeginning of each programme, they can be dealt with in the same way as callers,as in this example where name and location are given unproblematically:

[32] EC11/PS/TB/3PS: [well here’s another one and an from Carolyn McCay

in Rothwell (.) why won’t you give the same financialassistance to university students as you give to pensioners

When they don’t, as we can see again in extract 33, the host’s opening turn ismarked by some noticeable disfluencies around the issues of who this e-mail isfrom and where it comes from:

[33]PS: we have an email here from Colin Wi- Williamson in (...) puts

his address down as the UK. um (.)

Sissons hesitates with a false start over the e-mailer’s name ‘Colin Wi-Williamson’, there is also a long pause before he produces the location compo-nent, which in itself is delivered as problematic if we compare it with the routineintroductions of callers we described earlier. In setting up a requirement for e-mailers to say ‘where they are e-mailing from’ the host then has trouble in deal-ing with ‘the UK’ as an acceptable identification component compared to themore usual localities of Devon or Cheshire or Merseyside which are delivered asfluently as in his introductions of callers to the programme.

However, as we have already indicated, the host’s preoccupation with loca-tion when handling the new medium of e-mailed questions noticeably decreasesin later programmes where he deals with the source of the e-mail in a muchmore fluent way, and there are fewer hesitations, pauses and false starts aroundgiving names and location of e-mailers. As we have shown, in many instancesPeter Sissons does not mention the e-mailer’s location at all in his introduction ofan e-mail question:

[34]here’s an e-mail from (.) Donald Knox Richardshere’s an e-mail from um (.) Diana Gurtz why did you

In the next example he gives neither name nor location of the e-mailer:

[35] EC9/PS/CK/4PS: Charles just in thirty seconds=CK: =sure=PS: =an e-mail if you entered

into a coalition with labour (.) which policies would you not be willingto compromise

So from the host’s initial instruction to e-mailers to say ‘where you are e-mailing


from’, later in the series reference to the location, and, as we have seen in extract35, sometimes even to the name of the person sending the e-mail, is omitted; hesimply introduces the question as ‘an e-mail’.

In sum, we can observe a change in the way that the host is dealing with e-mailed questions. As the series progresses, the familiarity and fluency in hisintroductions of e-mailed questions increases: there is less repair work aroundtheir sequential introduction into the talk, and less attention given to the prob-lematic matter of geographically locating e-mailers found in the early pro-grammes. In the later programmes, the host produces e-mailed questions asroutinized ‘add-ons’ to a topic that is already underway. This change is oftenaccompanied by a more marked position of the host’s agency in relation to the e-mailed question, in other words, he explicitly treats it as something that he is ableto tag on to a preceding question raised by a caller:

[36] EC6/PS/SW/2Caller: [—] the extra expertise they’ve acquired.hhPS: well let me slip [an e-mail] in at this stage uh=Caller: [(but) ]PS: =from (.) Doreen Clark who asks will the lib dems (.) bring nurses’

wages up to the same level as the police

[37] EC7/PS/JS/2JS: [—] victims of these as wellPS: I’d like to drop in an e-mail (.) here (.) u- Jack Straw (.) from

uh Peter- (.) David Peck in Salisbury

In extract 36 the host introduces an e-mail question into the current caller’songoing turn, and in extract 37, as a continuing point to put to guest Jack Straw.Later, this ‘add-on’ status of e-mailed questions becomes even more in evidenceas the host brings them in as a resource for winding up and drawing the pro-gramme to a close:

[38]. . . quick e-mail for you. . . just briefly could- you’ve got twenty seconds to answer this e-mail. . . Charles just in thirty seconds= sure= an e-mail

In one instance towards the end of the series, Peter Sissons also uses the avail-ability of e-mails as a resource for repairing technical hitches when troubleoccurs with lines to callers:

[39] EC11/PS/TB/2PS: David Brackenbury from (0.6) Corby u- is are you on the line to us?

(0.9)no he’s not it’s Linda Pestano from (1.9) well while we’re just waitingto sort that out let me (.) go to er uh an email uh prime minister (.)um (0.5) which one are we gonna take (1.2) I hoped writes (0.6)Owen (0.6) Cole of Chichester (.) I hoped that labour would havehigher ethical standards in office than the tories but clearly I was


wrong:(1.6)

TB: well what I say to people is that

Again the host’s agency in relation to using emails as an additional resource ismade salient here with his use of ‘let me (.) go to er uh an e-mail’, just as is itwhen he refers to his role as selector of the e-mail ‘which one are we gonna take’.

Topicality and relevance

E-mails from listeners can either introduce new topics, or can be specificallylinked to the topic of the preceding call. When the latter is the case, the hostmakes the link explicit; when no mention of a topical relationship to the previouscall is made, the e-mail is new material. So for instance compare:

[40]got an e-mail here chancellor from Rex Lasthere’s an e-mail from Keith StPier

with

[41]the’s also an e-mail on this chancellorhere’s a related e-mail from (.) Don Maclarenhere’s an associated uh e-mail uh Williamhere’s an e-mail that does the same

The availability of e-mails thus provides new resource material for the host topursue a point raised by a caller, and in some cases, for him to take up a positionin relation to the topical content of the e-mail in order to push the guest furtheron a particular issue.

[42] EC10/PS/WH/3PS: here’s a related e-mail (0.7) uh from John Waghorn in Cheshire isn’t

it time to admit that the nhs will never be a success.hh for as longas it can continue to be totally free at the point of entry (1.0)

WH: [ts- well]PS: [in ] other words there’s got to be some charging in there

somewhere.WH: no I don’t agree with that

This e-mail is introduced as ‘related’ to the previous topic of funding for theNational Health Service. In this instance, Sissons does not produce the e-mailedquestion in the usual quote format, i.e. embedded in a clause fronted by ‘whoasks’ or ‘who says’, but as a direct question: ‘isn’t it time to admit’. He also pro-vides a gloss of the e-mailed question: ‘in other words there’s got to be somecharging in there somewhere’, which may well be his own interpretation of thequestion and its relevance to the current topic, rather than the actual content ofthe e-mail. Here then, is an example of ambiguity of authorship in relation towhose words these are.


Tied in with the development of the status and function of e-mails, is the ques-tion of how the host manages to maintain interviewer neutrality around theembedding of e-mailed questions into the talk (cf. Clayman, 1992). Callers to theprogramme are, through their live, active participant role, wholly responsible fortheir questions and take up a footing of author, animator and principal in rela-tion to what they have to say (Goffman, 1981). With e-mailed questions, on theother hand, the host has to read out the questions from e-mailed texts, and hemarks out his footing in relation to those questions as animator, but not authoror principal. Clearly the importance accorded to the source of the e-mail plays arole in constructing this footing, as do shifts in intonation and the use of presenttense verbal process clauses:

[43]. . . says Kalis (.) Chands. . . Frank Marsden (.) he says why not have. . . he asks can you explain. . . Christine Pike (.) who asks. . . writes (. . .) Owen (. . .) Cole

By designing his introduction of e-mails in this way, the host produces the ques-tions as bounded units within the context of the surrounding talk, orienting tohis role as animator, but not author, of the questions he poses. However, in somee-mailed questions these boundaries become blurred and it is no longer quite soclear where the host’s role as animator, ‘voicing’ an e-mailer’s question, stops,and his own gloss or interpretation begins, as in the following examples:


Rex Last (.) why did you stick to conservative spendingplans in the first two years of your government.h I gatherthat even Kenneth Clarke and John Major are now sayingthat they wouldn’t have stuck to those plans=

GB: = m- well I I keptto my promise and (.) they’re saying they wouldn’t have

In the last part of this e-mailed question, ‘.h I gather that...’ the first person pro-noun could refer either to the e-mailer as subject, or to Peter Sissons as subject.Similarly unclear are the following two examples:

[45] EC11/PS/TB/3TB: [—] but in the end (.) y’know as I say to people a lot of the

questions I get asked come back to money (..) and (. .) thereis a limit (.) to the amount of money that we can (. . .) (y) payout [( )

PS: [well here’s another one and an from Carolyn McCayin Rothwell (.) why won’t you give the same financialassistance to university students as you give to pensionersthe unemployed (.) and single parents (.) I mean the- theuniversity students are are the future are they not


[46] EC11/PS/TB/4PS: um here’s an e-mail from um (.) Diana Gurtz why did you feel

it necessary (.) to call an election (.) a full year before you had to(.) brackets I could put in (.) uh p’raps you know somethingwe don’t [—]

In these extracts, the same kind of blurring occurs where the use of ‘I’ as subjectpronoun makes the authorship of the utterance ambiguous between the sourceof the e-mail and the host. So in extract 46, it is not clear whether it is the host-as-I or the e-mailer-as-I who extends this question by adding ‘brackets I could putin (.) uh p’raps you know something’. The e-mail question thus becomes moreseamlessly blended into the two-party framework of talk between host and guest,where a closer alignment is constructed between the host and the e-mailed ques-tion he is introducing.

Other host orientations to the content of e-mails are noticeable in his inter-pretative glosses on what the relevance of the e-mail might be, what it is about,and what sort of response might be expected from the guest. The next threeextracts illustrate this interpretative work by the host:

[47] EC2/PS/AW/1PS: we have an e-mail here from Colin Wi- Williamson in (. . .) puts

his address down as the UK. um (.) [why do the] Tories (.)AW: [ °hu hu hu° ]PS: talk so much (.) about saving the pound and so little about other

issues I think that’s a complaint really about.h.h p’rapsgetting a bit bogged down in Europe? at at er (.)

AW: [(fair) ][during ] the campaigning?

[48] EC3/PS/SH/2PS: [—] thank you very much Joyce (.) uh there’s an e-mail here

Simon um (.) from someone who clearly um (.) doesn’t (.)want the Euro (.) Frank Marsden (.) he says why not have (.)dual currencies (.) people who trade or holiday a lot in Europe(.) can have a separate Euro account.

[49] EC9/PS/CK/2PS: well the previous caller was uh (.) uh highlighting an apparent

contradiction (.) in your stance here’s an e-mail which does thesame (.) from W Buchanan in Leicestershire.hh um how can we

In these examples we can see that the host takes up an evaluative stance inrelation to the e-mailed questions in a way that is not possible with on-linecallers, whose questions are in general not subjected to interpretative activity bythe host, but are responded to directly by the guest.

In tracing the development of the way Peter Sissons handles the new mediumof e-mailed questions to Election Call, we can observe a shift in their status fromnew, different and sometimes problematic objects in the early programmes, tosomething which, as the series progresses, becomes a less marked, more routine


add-on to discussions that are initiated through the old medium of callers’ ques-tions. What we can also see in this progression is a shift in the host’s alignment tothe e-mails. Whereas in the early programmes he tended to give e-mails the samestatus as callers’ questions, in the later programmes he uses them as a resourceto clarify issues and to push certain points, embedding them into the fabric of thetalk in many more varied ways.

Guests’ response to e-mail questions: new technology or routinemethods?

Up till now we have concentrated our analysis on the way the host treats andsubsequently adapts to the use of e-mail questions within a radio phone-informat. In the final section of this article, our attention turns to the way guestsdeal with such questions. Our concern here is to examine and compare the wayguests respond to e-mail questions and telephone questions. This move to focuson the way guests handle questions through e-mail involves a slightly differentcontext to our previous discussion relating to the developments in how e-mailsare dealt with by the host over the series of programmes. Whilst the host remainsthe same throughout, and as we have also suggested, the host assumes thatmany of the audience are regular listeners, the guest is only present for one programme. Thus, whilst the host is able to adapt his approach to e-mail ques-tions over the course of a number of programmes, the guest is not afforded thisopportunity.

Within radio phone-in programmes, a recurrent feature in the transitionfrom caller’s question to the response by the guest is the use of greeting pairs.Whilst this feature is not always sequentially relevant within the transition(Hutchby, 1996; Fitzgerald, 1999) it nonetheless frequently occurs and is fre-quently completed by the addressee. In the following extracts, this feature occursregularly and is oriented to by both caller and guest.

[50] EC1/PS/GB/1PS: in it’s mister

Harry Beresford from Southampton mister Beresford it’syour (.) election call to the chancellor.

Caller: goodmorning (.)GB: [goodmorning]Caller: [good morning] chancellor. my question is this. [–]

[51] EC1/PS/GB/3PS: David Britten from Littlehampton (.) your election call to

Gordon Brown.Caller: good morning.hh [um mister Brown ] I was wondering=GB: [goodmorning ]

[52] EC2/PS/AW/1PS: the first election caller is on the line. uh Jason R(oll)

from Salisbury in Wilsh- in Wiltshire you’re through to Anne


WiddecombeCaller: hello um=AW: =hi=Caller: =Miss Widdecombe. you’re anti abortion (.) and

[53]PS: so the first caller (.) is on the

line (. .) mister David Hardy from Castleford (.) you’re throughto Simon Hughes.(. . .)

Caller: um (. .) uh my question to mister Hughes is (.) in this countryI believe we pay far too much tax we’re one of the highest. . . . .((paper rustling))

SH: mister Hardy good morning (.) thank you for your question it’sa very ~straight question~..hh nobody likes paying tax (.) I meanlets- to education (.) for all the electorate (.) including (.) of course(.) for the politicians [—]

In each of these extracts a greeting sequence is produced and completed by bothparties. Even, as is the case in the last extract, where the caller does not initiate agreeting sequence the guest produces what is sequentially a second pair part ofsuch a sequence. As we have noted, this is concurrent with other research onradio phone-ins. However, when the host introduces an e-mail question for theguest, as in the following extracts, no parts of greeting sequences are used.


Rex Last (.) why did you stick to conservative spendingplans in the first two years of your government.h I gatherthat even Kenneth Clarke and John Major are now sayingthut they wouldn’t have stuck to those plans=

GB: = m- well I I keptto my promise and (.) they’re saying they wouldn’t haveI I I think the important thing was that we had to get theeconomy onto a solid foundation (.) look when we came in(.) there was a thirty billion deficit (.) the national debt had

[55] EC1/PS/GB/3PS [the’s the’s also an e-mail on this chancellor


GB: =well Peter I never >get into the business abouttalking about these things and I’m not going to start today.< (.)To- Tony Blair’s said all that needs to be said about that and

[56] EC4/PS/MB/1PS: uh I’ve got an e-mail here er (.) Margaret (.) uh Beckett

from Dave Bevan in Devon (.).hh he asks can youexplain why railtrack should receive massive gratuitous


payments from the taxpayer.MB: .hh well it’s uh er difficult to get that balance right

isn’t it (.) we all need railtrack to make investmentwe need railtrack to be (.) well run (.) er and part

[57] EC10/PS/WH/3PS: here’s a related e-mail (. .) uh from John Waghorn in Cheshire isn’t

it time to admit that the nhs will never be a success.hh for as longas it can continue to be totally free at the point of entry (. .)

WH: [ts- well]PS: [in ]other words there’s got to be some charging in there

somewhere.WH: no I don’t agree with that n’ I do agree with a national health

service free at the point of use and universally (. .) available (.)

This absence of greetings when dealing with e-mail questions can be seen as afurther feature of the reorganization and presentation of such questions in com-parison to phone-calls. As we have already noted, phone-calls operate in realtime with the host and guest and caller, thus a three-party context is oriented toas all three are present in the live interactional space. This three-way interactionis operationalized through the induction of callers when the host introduces thecaller who then addresses the guest. E-mail questions, however, involve only twoparties in real time, the host and the guest. The author of the e-mail is involvedonly through reference by the host as the originator of the question; in otherwords, the on-air question is disembodied from its author so that, when introduc-ing an e-mail question, the host gives the name of the questioner and then hehimself asks the question. This provides an interactional environment in whichthe host takes on the proxy role of the particular questioner and in which theguest responds to the live proxy. Thus, although the originator of the questionshifts from e-mailer to e-mailer, the proxy is constant. As we have also noted, thee-mailer himself or herself is in most cases not treated as a co-present partici-pant, not even in the capacity of a current listener to the programme, albeit in anon-productive role (though see our discussion and earlier exception to thisnorm). Moreover, and in respect to the previous discussion of the host’s editorial-izing or clarifying of the content of e-mail questions, the authorship of the ques-tion can also become blurred. This blurring of authorship means that the guestmay at times orientate to the host as originator of the question when giving aresponse.

[58]PS [the’s the’s also an e-mail on this chancellor


GB: =well Peter I never >get into the business abouttalking about these things and I’m not going to start today.< (.)To- Tony Blair’s said all that needs to be said about that and


[59]PS: quick e-mail for you [uh ] home secretary from Patrick McBride in London=JS: [yuh]PS: =there are several thousand job vacancies in this country why can’t

asylum seekers (.) do these jobsJS: well some do (.) um if if they’re given permission to work as as some

of them are after six months.h but (.) what we’ve sought to do (.)Peter is to separate. (.) the issue of the immigration rules from theissue of

Within the response to the e-mail question the guests can be seen directly ori-enting their answer to the host as primary recipient. We suggest that in the lightof our previous discussion, there are at least two possible factors for this seem-ingly mistaken orientation. First, it may well be that the host is being treated asthe author of the question, which because of his frequent interpretation of ques-tions is a possibility, together with his established role as the questioner in otherevents such as political interviews. Second, it may be that the host is beingtreated as a kind of proxy referent for the rest of the audience. That is, the e-mailquestion is being treated as originating from the category membership of the pro-gramme (audience and host) and that the host is treated as the omni-present cat-egory member available from that membership collection. In this way the lack ofgreetings to a non co-present e-mailer may be seen more as part of the context ofthe guest’s on-going debate with the host and audience. As the host voices e-mailquestions, with the guest at times directing their response toward the host, afamiliar and routine environment of political question and answer programmesmay be oriented to. Thus, whilst the technology of e-mail results in a responsewhich is different in its recipient design to responses in a phone-in programmewith live on-line callers, this does not necessarily mean that the guest is orientingto this new medium. It may well be the case that the guest is drawing upon theirfamiliar category knowledge of media interviews but where the source of ques-tions shifts between and also blurs the host and members of the public.

Summary discussion

In this article we have concentrated on how the host, in the face of e-mail ques-tions to a phone-in format, gradually adapts to the specific features that becomeapparent through the use of new technology. From failing in his attempt to use e-mail contributions in the same way as telephone calls, the host gradually overthe course of the first few programmes develops an introduction sequence whichdoes not make noticeably absent the lack of the type of routine informationavailable from telephone callers. In the second section we explored how the hostadapts the use of e-mail questions within the programme, assigning them to afunction that acts as support for previous telephone questions. We also discussedthe nature of interviewer neutrality with respect to the practical requirement ofreading out of e-mail questions by the host. Moving to the analysis of how the


guests handled e-mail questions, it also becomes clear that the medium of e-mailcommunication engenders a different response to that of phone calls. Althoughthere was no notable difference between how both sources of questions wereanswered, the absence of greetings was a constant recurrent feature of theresponse to e-mail correspondence. This we may suggest is not necessarily anadaptation to the technology of e-mail, but rather results from the nature andorganization of the delivery of the e-mail question. As we have shown, e-mailquestions are read out or markedly ‘voiced’ by the host, who also routinely addsan interpretation or clarification of the meaning of the question. It is reasonableto suggest then that the guests may orient to an e-mail question as a question putforward by an interviewer. Answering questions from professional interviewers isa regular feature of politicians’ work, as is answering phone-in questions. Thus itmay be that guests are shifting between routine methods when answering ques-tions rather than orienting to the new technology. So although it would seemthat a new medium is being embraced within these programmes, the practiceswhich have emerged surrounding the use of this medium in a phone-in such as‘Election Call’ seem to produce a familiar cultural context of political interviewinteraction.

N O T E S

1. Of course, at times place does become an issue within caller induction when the hosthighlights that the place is topically relevant or when a caller does not wish to givewhere they are calling from. In these instances (Fitzgerald, 1999) the absence of placebecomes noticeably absent and topically relevant.

2. Whilst in previous phone-in programmes using land line telephones the audience canlargely be assumed to be within a certain geographical area, see for example Hutchby’s(1996) analysis of a radio programme broadcast in the London area and otherresearch carried out using programmes broadcast within the UK. Someone may callfrom Holland but not from the USA. The assumption can thus be made that people lis-tening will be resident in the UK and have knowledge of different parts and where dif-ferent towns etc are located. The Internet however has a global environment wherebylocation may be given by country, in that it is a relevant location reference which oftenappears in e-mail addresses. Moreover although the programme is broadcast through-out the UK, putting UK on e-mails can be seen as obvious, but it is not necessarily thefact that those watching or listening are indeed in the UK. Satellite TV and webcastprogrammes allow almost anyone in any part of the world to access the programmeand contribute to the programme from anywhere in the world through e-mail.

A P P E N D I X

[—] previous or subsequent omitted talk in a turn(.) short pause of less than .5 of a second(1.3) timed pause in secondshello=

= hello latching (no hearable gap) between the end of one turn to the beginningof the next


[good evening][ hello ] overlapping talk(bar) best hearing of indistinct talk((laughs)) para-linguistic featuresso in our way marked stress.hh marked intake of breath. falling tone? rising tonear cut-off syllable or word

R E F E R E N C E S

Clayman, S. (1992) ‘Footing and the Achievement of Neutrality: The Case of NewsInterview Discourse’, in P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds) Talk at Work, pp. 163–98.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fitzgerald, R. (1999) ‘Method in Media Interaction: An Ethnomethodological Analysis ofa Radio Phone-In’, unpublished PhD, University of Wales.

Goffman, E. (1981) Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Hester, S. and Fitzgerald R. (1999) ‘Category, Predicate and Contrast: Some

Organisational Features in a Radio Talk Show’, in P. Jalbert (ed.) Studies inEthnomethodology and Conversation Analysis No 5. Media Studies: EthnomethodologicalApproaches, pp. 171–94. Oxford, MD: University Press of America

Housley, W. and Fitzgerald, R. (2001) ‘Categorisation, Narrative and Devolution in Wales’,Sociological Research Online 6(2): <http://www.socresonline.org.uk/6/2/housley.html>

Hutchby, I. (1991) ‘The Organization of Talk on Talk Radio’, in P. Scannell (ed.) BroadcastTalk, pp. 119–37. London: Sage.

Hutchby, I. (1996) Confrontation Talk: Arguments, Asymmetries and Power on Talk Radio.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hutchby, I. (1999) ‘Frame Attunement and Footing in the Organisation of Talk RadioOpenings’, Journal of Sociolinguistics 3(1): 41–64.

Liddicoate, A., Brown, A., Dopke, S. and Love, K. (1992) ‘The Effect of the Institution:Openings in Talkback Radio’, Text 12(4): 541–62.

Sacks, H. (1995) Lectures on Conversation, Vols 1 and II. Oxford: Blackwell.Thornborrow, J. (2001a) ‘Questions, Control and the Organisation of Talk in Calls to a

Radio Phone-In’, Discourse Studies 3(1): 119–43.Thornborrow, J. (2001b) ‘Authenticating Talk: Building Public Identities in Audience

Participation Broadcasting’, Discourse Studies 3(4): 459–79.

J OA N N A T H O R N B O R RO W is Senior Lecturer in Language and Communication at CardiffUniversity. Her research falls broadly within the field of discourse and conversation analy-sis with a focus on institutional interaction and media discourse. Other research interestsinclude children’s talk in institutional settings, and stylistics. Her latest book, Power Talk,has just appeared in the Longman Real Language Series (now Pearson Education). Shehas published numerous book chapters and journal articles, guest editing a special issueof Text 17(2), 1997, on broadcast talk, and recently co-editing with Theo van Leeuwen, aspecial issue of Discourse Studies 3(4), 2001, on authenticity in media discourse.A D D R E S S : Centre for Language and Communication Research, School of English,


Communication and Philosophy, Cardiff University, PO Box 94, Cardiff CF10 3XB, Wales,UK. [email: [email protected]]

R I C H A R D F I T Z G E R A L D is currently Research Associate on a Leverhulme-funded projectexamining temporality in news media discourse within the Centre for Language andCommunication Research, Cardiff University. His research interests and publications arein the area of media interaction, most notably radio discourse, and the application anddevelopment of the methodologies of Membership Categorization Analysis andConversation Analysis for exploring the organization of cultural knowledge oriented to intalk. A D D R E S S : as Joanna Thornborrow [email: [email protected]]


From problematic object to routine ‘add-on’: dealing with e-mails in radio phone-ins

Documents

Transcript of From problematic object to routine ‘add-on’: dealing with e-mails in radio phone-ins