Political interviews in public television and commercial broadcasters: A comparison

D�� 0(0) 1 –25

© The Author(s) 2013

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1750481313507154

dcm.sagepub.com

P ��

television and commercial broadcasters: A comparison

Carles Roca-CuberesUniversitat Pompeu Fabra, Spain

AbstractIn this article I examine the differences between broadcast political interviews in commercial

and public service broadcasters in Spain. The study focuses in particular on political interviews

broadcast on ‘morning show’ type programmes. The analysis distinguishes the characteristics

that make up the news interview turn-taking system in order to explore the degree to which

information and entertainment come together in political interviews broadcast on morning

shows. The results show, primarily, that political interviews shown on public service broadcasters’

morning shows adhere to the journalistic standards of neutralism and adversarialness. This is

precisely how they strive to make the politician publicly accountable. In political interviews

broadcast by commercial broadcasters, however, these rules are followed intermittently. The

aim of these interviews appears to be different: to penetrate politicians’ personal sphere with the

discernible purpose of entertaining. These differences reflect different interview styles which, in

turn, reveal different conceptions of journalism, politics and society. This investigation utilizes the

research tools developed in conversation analysis (CA).

KeywordsBroadcast political interviews, commercial broadcasting, conversation analysis, morning show,

news interview, public service broadcasting

Introduction

In this article I examine the differences between broadcast political interviews in com-

mercial and public service broadcasters in Spain. The broadcast political interview, the

Corresponding author:

Carles Roca-Cuberes, Department of Communication, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Facultat de Comunicació,

Campus de la Comunicació, Roc Boronat 138, 08018 Barcelona, Spain.

Email: [email protected]

507154 DCM0010.1177/1750481313507154Discourse & CommunicationRoca-Cuberesresearch-article2013

A�� !

"# $%&'%(#)*" +) '" ,-%.)/0%#"# 1(23)4 5"&/" (- 6(.)2&)/ 789 :;7<dcm.sagepub.com=(>-'("+)+ ?/(2

@ Discourse & Communication 0(0)

aim of which is to inform, has become a formidable tool for public political learning and

educating. Bearing in mind that television remains the predominant medium, interviews

with politicians on television provide the perfect opportunity for people to find out first-

hand about activities or proposals by the figures that have taken on leadership of their

society. Given their importance in political communication, can various degrees of ‘qual-

ity’ be established with regards to the messages they convey? Does ownership (public or

private) of the broadcasting channel matter?

Political interviews are broadcast on different kinds of television shows, such as the

news, current political affairs programmes, morning shows and even talk shows. This

analysis focuses on interviews on morning shows, programmes that abundantly populate

morning television listings in Spain.1 The ‘morning show’ is a kind of infotainment pro-

gramme originating from the United States (where it is also known as ‘early morning

news show’; in the UK it is called ‘breakfast television’) that reached European televi-

sion towards the end of the 1980s after deregulation in the broadcasting sector. Initially

popular on private television channels, public service broadcasters ended up adopting it

too, as its informative content could be pitched as a reflection of its public service mis-

sion (Wieten and Pantti, 2005). Given this dual objective of informing and entertaining,

do morning shows manage to keep the two concepts separate? Or does the combination

impregnate the whole programme? With this question in mind, do differences exist

between morning shows on public and private channels? To what extent are the political

interviews they show affected?

The morning show is a programme that is broadcast live and that starts when people

are waking up, having breakfast and getting ready to go to work or school; however, due

to its length (it can last several hours) its target audience also encompasses an adult

demographic sector that mainly constitutes female homemakers. The content and style is

a result of this combination of target audiences – adults, children, men and women –

making the morning show a hybrid ‘container’ of other genres. As a result, the first part

of the programme (when workers and students are still at home) generally tends to focus

on the more serious content (politics, economy, etc.) along with news briefs and practical

information (e.g. traffic, weather, etc.) in preparation for the move from the private to the

public sphere. The second part of the programme usually has more entertaining content:

soft news, showbusiness, fashion, health advice, lifestyle, consumer service and care of

the home in general.

Politicians are interviewed with relative frequency on morning shows. In fact, some

have made the political interview a characteristic feature. Interviewing politicians during

the programme enables it to comply with its most serious task of providing news and

information. It also adds a touch of prestige to the programme and the interviewer/pre-

senter/journalist. Being interviewed on these programmes affords politicians an excel-

lent opportunity to reach potential voters in a more (a priori) informal environment,

which might lead to favourable reception of his/her messages. As a result of this mutual

convenience, it is therefore quite common to see politicians – especially during election

campaigns – hit the talk show circuit (Baum, 2005).

In the rest of this article I first describe the broadcast political interview and the news

interview turn-taking system. I then detail the data and method employed for the analysis.

Finally, I look at fragments of political interviews on public service broadcasters and

BC EFGHFICJKB LJ HB MNFOJQRFCBC SITUJV WBGQB IN XIOJTGJQ YZ[ \]Y^dcm.sagepub.com_I`NHIBLJL aQIT

bcdefghijkjl 3

commercial broadcasters. The result of this analysis enables me to reach some conclusions

about the status of political interviews in contrasting ownership channels.

The broadcast political interview

The broadcast political interview is a kind of formal interview with (usually) high-ranking

political representatives as part of a programme aimed at informing. It is produced in a stu-

dio or official office and might have a live audience. There are basically two roles in the

political interview, interviewer (IR) and interviewee (IE), which characteristically are

assumed by a journalist and a politician respectively by virtue of their professional roles.

The political interview is not a spontaneous meeting between journalist and politician.

On the contrary, it has specific institutional and well-defined objectives. First, politicians

are accountable to the general public and attend the interview to account for and defend

their political activities. The IR, meanwhile, sets her/himself up as a representative/inter-

mediary of the public/audience. Questions put to the IE are of public interest and purport-

edly originate from a social interest mandate granted by the general public. The IR aims

to find out firsthand the details and inconsistencies of policies carried out (or to be imple-

mented) by the IE or the party/government s/he represents. As a result of this disparity of

interests, it is therefore not unusual to see the occasional conflict between IR and IE.

The audience deserves special mention. We must not forget that the broadcast politi-

cal interview is a specially staged audience event. Despite being technically absent

(except in cases in which there is an audience in the studio) the audience is the main

recipient of the event. However, it is constituted as massive, and, as Heritage puts it, an

‘overhearing audience’ (Heritage, 1985).

The forerunner of the broadcast political interview is one of the preeminent journalis-

tic genres: the journalistic interview. The journalistic interview has a relatively extensive

historical background. Its origin is generally considered to date back to the first half of

the 19th century in the United States, pioneered by James Gordon Bennett (Martínez

Vallvey, 1995: 71–72). The first interviews in Europe (including Spain) were published

in 1880, and in 1895 the first proper question–answer political interview came out in a

Spanish newspaper (Cantavella, 2002: 27). The historical background to the broadcast

political interview in Spain is relatively brief. Bearing in mind that the public broadcast-

ers (radio and television) in Spain were under the control of a dictatorship, the first

broadcast political interviews in Spain were not aired until several years after the end of

the regime. The first televised political interviews were actually broadcast during the

electoral campaign of the second general election in the new democratic period in 1982,

when candidates from the various political parties were interviewed. News and current

affairs programmes developed slowly in Spain: the effects of Franco’s regime, the lack

of competence and stringent budgets made newscast development in public channels

challenging, hampering it as a means of dynamic and competent information dissemina-

tion (Mateos-Pérez, 2009). Interviewing politicians did not become common practice

until the appearance of private television channels in 1990. In order to diverge from the

rigidity of broadcast practices by the Spanish public television channel (TVE), right from

the start private channels included an interview with a topical person, often a politician

(Medina and Ojer, 2010).

mn opqrpsntum vt rm wxpytz{pnmn |s}~t� �mqzm sx �syt}qtz �� dcm.sagepub.com�s�xrsmvtv �zs}

� Discourse & Communication 0(0)

To understand the practice of broadcast political interviewing in Spain, reference

must be made to the legal framework in which the profession of broadcast journalism

develops as well as the journalistic culture and media system in Spain. Unlike the United

Kingdom’s BBC, where IRs are legally required to maintain the stance of formal neutral-

ity, in Spain (and the United States), IRs’ conduct is only subject to codes of professional

ethics – in Spain, the main code is that of the Spanish Federation of Journalists’

Associations; in the United States, references used are those from the Radio Television

News Directors Association and the Society of Professional Journalists – or style manu-

als belonging to the channels themselves. Nevertheless, it is important to remember that

codes of professional ethics or style manuals are only a set of recommendations for good

practice, and are never legally binding. This means Spanish or American television chan-

nels, or private British channels, are not subject to restrictions beyond those set by the

journalists themselves and the content arising from their work: the legal framework of

each country, which usually emanates from its Constitution. Out of the channels ana-

lysed in this study, only the two public channels have a style manual: Televisión Española

and Televisió de Catalunya.2 In both cases, their style manual contains recommendations

on how to perform the interviews. In the style manual for Televisión Española, one of the

recommendations is to convey ‘to the spectator a sense of balance, cadence, profession-

alism, or in other words, independence and credibility’ (Corporación de Radio y

Televisión Española, S.A. (RTVE), n.d.). In that of Televisió de Catalunya, which is

similar, other pertinent points are added: for example, not broaching ‘facts related to the

interviewee’s personal life if this intimacy has no public relevance’, or ‘do not force out

responses’ and ‘not being overly familiar with the people being interviewed nor unjusti-

fiably distant’ (Corporació Catalana de Mitjans Audiovisuals (CCMA), n.d.). It can gen-

erally be noted that the practices of both broadcast journalism and political interviewing

are subject – in Spain and the United States, although not in British public television – to

self-regulation by the channels themselves.

Broadcast journalistic culture in Spain is conditioned by the media system to which it

belongs. The Spanish media system would form part, in the three large models –

Mediterranean or Polarized Pluralist Model, North/Central European or Democratic

Corporatist Model and North Atlantic or Liberal Model – of the first (Hallin and Mancini,

2004). This model, in terms of political parallelism, has been characterized as high politi-

cal parallelism; commentary-oriented journalism; parliamentary or government model of

broadcast governance; politics-over-broadcasting system. It has also been characterized

as having weaker professionalization and strong state intervention. The Liberal Model,

to which the United Kingdom and the United States belong, are characterized, amongst

other things, by information-oriented journalism and a professional model of broadcast

governance; strong professionalization and non-institutionalized self-regulation. Overall,

we see that the practice of broadcast political journalism in Spain is linked to the media

system of which it forms part. This, which has also been described as ‘state paternalism’,

calls to mind a non-independent and overpoliticized Spanish public broadcasting system

in which partisan control of radio and television has been the norm (Papatheodorou and

Machin, 2003).3 The introduction of private channels in the 1990s was, however, signifi-

cant. A trend began to be adopted regarding information conception as a spectacle and as

entertainment, with an excess of value judgement within news and current affairs

�� ¡¢£ ¤¥¡¦dcm.sagepub.com§�¨�� ©��

ª«¬®¯°±²³²´ 5

programmes and where information is constructed according to the interest aroused in

the audience (Mateos-Pérez, 2009: 321–322). This process calls to mind the introduction

of private television in other countries. For example, the introduction of ITV (Independent

Television) in the UK in 1955 changed the way in which television engaged audiences

by introducing more populist political discourse; or the start of commercial television in

the Netherlands in 1989, which lead to more political talk shows and a communicative

style combining ‘anti-professional journalism with crude comedy that is seen as anti-intel-

lectual and anti-establishment’ (Stamper and Brants, 2011: 115).

In short: to further understand the practice of broadcast political interviewing in Spain,

reference must be made to its historical development, its legal framework, the journalistic

culture and the media system. Nevertheless, as Becker (2007) indicates in her cross-cul-

tural investigation of interviewing practices in television election night coverage, a causal

relationship cannot be established between these elements and a specific interviewing

style, nor can attempts to establish different national interviewing styles be made, as inter-

viewing practices may depend on the IR’s sociocultural identities (e.g. gender); and vary

more within the same culture than among cultures, according to channel ownership (pub-

lic or private). The latter is precisely part of what this article discusses.

News interview turn-taking system

As observed by Montgomery (2011: 36), the canonical form of the broadcast political

interview – which he describes as ‘accountability interview’ (Montgomery, 2008) – is

perfectly reflected in Heritage and Greatbatch’s description of the news interview

turn-taking system:

turn-taking is organised through a distinctive normative procedure in which – unlike

conversation – the types of turns that may be produced by each speaker are provided in advance.

News interview talk should proceed as sequences of IR questions and IE responses to those

questions. Correspondingly, speakers who act as IRs may not properly engage in actions other

than questions, while those who take part as IEs should refrain from initiating actions (such as

unsolicited comments on prior talk) or sequences (for example, asking questions to which the

IR or other IEs would be obliged to respond). (Heritage and Greatbatch, 1991: 97–98)

In fact, this pervasive correspondence between role and turn type gives the turn-taking

system of the news interview its particular imprint. The news interview, however, cannot

be reduced to a mere succession of questions and answers, as this also characterizes other

turn-taking systems with different structures and objectives such as (e.g.) police inter-

rogations (Watson, 1990). Clayman and Heritage (2002) note, for example, that ques-

tions are usually fairly well-developed, including declarative statements that become

prefaces to the questions themselves. These prefaces contain the necessary information

that must enable the politician and the audience to contextualize and attribute a certain

meaning to the IR’s questions. Despite the fact that the prefaces can be quite long, there

is a tacit agreement according to which the IE does not usually start to produce a response

until a recognizable question has been completely formulated. The IE’s responses, mean-

while, also adhere to another tacit agreement similar to that of the IR, which permits the

production of (frequently) extensive blocks of questions and answers.

µ¶ ·¸¹º¸»¶¼½µ ¾¼ ºµ ¿À¸Á¼ÂÃ¸¶µ¶ Ä»ÅÆ¼Ç Èµ¹Âµ »À É»Á¼Å¹¼Â ÊËÌ ÍÎÊÏdcm.sagepub.comÐ»ÑÀº»µ¾¼¾ ÒÂ»Å

Ó Discourse & Communication 0(0)

The turn-taking system of the news interview involves two basic functions associated

with modern journalism: neutrality – or rather neutralism, as Clayman (1992) suggests

– and adversarialness (Clayman and Heritage, 2002; Heritage and Clayman, 2010).

Despite their standings as public ‘inquisitors’, journalists must follow certain journalistic

ethics that advocate the presenting of facts in a balanced, impartial and personally disin-

terested manner. In fact, to the public eye the appearance of partiality can lead to delegiti-

mizing the journalist’s task. At the same time, and even though it might appear incoherent

with the notion of neutralism, the journalist has the obligation – through a popular man-

date to hold politicians publicly accountable – to challenge the IE when s/he avoids his/

her questions. If this conduct is not applied, the role of the journalist could be reduced,

in the eyes of the public, from co-producer of public interest information to mere col-

laborator in the creating of a propaganda-style political discourse. This conduct also

provides, as noted by Clayman (2002), a higher dose of liveliness to the interview, an

important quality when attempting to connect with the audience (Tolson, 2006).

The neutralism with which the IR should tackle the political interview is expressed in

a series of interactional practices. In fact, it might be more appropriate to first speak of a

lack of certain interactional practices that are very common in ordinary conversation. For

example, significantly, IRs very rarely produce newsmarks and news receipts such as

‘oh’ or ‘really’ that might indicate an acceptance of IEs’ responses, or ‘assessments’

(Pomerantz, 1984) that could denote alignment (or vice versa) with IEs’ positions. Nor is

it common to find ‘acknowledgement tokens’ (Jefferson, 1984) such as ‘yeah’ or ‘mm

hm’, which are habitual in ordinary conversation and that could suggest support or empa-

thy for the IE in the context of the interview (Clayman and Heritage, 2002; Heritage,

1985; Heritage and Clayman, 2010). One frequently used strategy is that of ‘footing

shifts’ (Goffman, 1981), which consists of invoking third parties when the IR makes

risky statements from which s/he wishes to distance himself/herself or make a hostile

challenge to a response from the IE. Using this practice the IR can maintain a delicate

balance between neutralism and adversarialness (Clayman, 1992).

Adversarialness, the other distinctive feature of the political interview, is also reflected

in a plethora of interactional devices used by both the IR and IE. Interruptions, for exam-

ple, are produced somewhat repeatedly by both parties. This gives rise to a high inci-

dence of overlap at the boundaries of turns (Montgomery, 2008). The IR frequently uses

supplementary questions – that might include the disjunct marker ‘but’ – which may

undertake various functions (Greatbatch, 1986): a) probing IEs’ statements or arguments,

either through requiring further details or an account of some aspect of his/her response,

or through putting a hypothetical question to IEs; b) countering IEs’ statements through

questions which cast doubt on their assertions; and c) pursuing a question which IEs have

either covertly or overtly rejected, or not answered on account of insufficient information

about it, of its irrelevance or of the presupposition it contains. One particular case of sup-

plementary questions possibly posed by the IR comprise ‘formulations’ (Garfinkel and

Sacks, 1970; Heritage and Watson, 1979) of the gist or upshot of the IE’s remarks, a

fairly uncommon practice in daily conversation and often employed in institutional inter-

action (Drew, 2003). This practice, which accomplishes several functions in other insti-

tutional contexts,4 is used in the political interview in two contrasting ways (Heritage,

1985): to sum up or gloss what the IE has said – ‘cooperative recyclings’ – or to assess

ÔÕ Ö×ØÙ×ÚÕÛÜÔ ÝÛ ÙÔ Þß×àÛáâ×ÕÔÕ ãÚäåÛæ çÔØáÔ Úß èÚàÛäØÛá éêë ìíéîdcm.sagepub.comïÚðßÙÚÔÝÛÝ ñáÚä

òóôõö÷øùúûúü 7

or criticize the IE’s comments through references to the implications or implicit assump-

tions in these comments – ‘inferentially elaborative probes’. The more adversarial the

interview, the more instances of the second, less benign type, might be found.

Further dimensions of adversarialness can be observed with regards to IRs’ actions.

IRs design their questions, as Clayman and Heritage (2002) remark, to set specific topic

or action agendas limiting the scope of IEs’ answers (e.g. ‘Have you been stealing from

public funds?’). IRs’ questions might also embody presuppositions that influence the

terms from which answers derive (e.g. ‘When did you start stealing from public funds?’).

IRs’ questions are sometimes designed to include preferences that lean towards a certain

response (e.g. ‘Isn’t it true that you have been stealing from public funds?’). Some more

extreme cases of adversarialness by IRs take us to ‘forks’ – the IE is given two unpleas-

ant alternatives from which to choose – or the IR drawing out patent contrasts or incon-

sistencies in the IE’s conduct or actions.

The adversarialness of this meeting also appears in the IE’s actions. As the IR initiates

prior challenging actions, the subsequent activities of the IE are usually designed to resist

these challenges, whilst likely covert to varying degrees (Clayman and Heritage, 2002;

Heritage and Clayman, 2010). The IE might not overtly address the question, for example,

by showing deference to the IR, implying that the IR is the one who has the right to set the

topic agenda (e.g. ‘can I also point out’) or minimizing the divergence by shifting the topic

set by the question (e.g. ‘very quick’ or ‘just one comment’). The IE’s resistance may also

be more concealed to give the impression that s/he is in fact answering the question. This

can be achieved with furnishing the veneer of an answer – by incorporating specific words

from the question within the answer – or ‘manipulating’ the question in such a way to make

it adapt to the IR’s answer. Certain forms of more severe resistance imply going straight in

for the attack: occasionally, IEs might dispute IRs’ challenges or even remind IRs to adhere

to their role of questioning (Rendle-Short, 2007). The use of address terms by IEs has also

been shown to be indicative of adversarialness (Clayman, 2010; Rendle-Short, 2007). By

employing address terms, IEs can manage disaligning actions such as topic shifts, inap-

propriate responses to questions or disagreements; they might even be used to present

certain opinions as being particularly significant or sincere (Clayman, 2010).

Data and method

Data in this study come from 20 interviews between prominent Spanish broadcast jour-

nalists and politicians recorded in April 2010 on morning shows. The interviews studied

were televised in Spain on morning shows on private channels and public service broad-

casters. During this period all political interviews aired on morning shows were recorded

and then analysed. This period was chosen as it was a chapter of political ‘normality’,

that is, there were no imminent elections that might have altered treatment of information

about political issues on the different channels. The public service broadcasters and their

morning shows in the sample are Televisión Española (Los Desayunos de TVE (‘Breakfast

on TVE’); six interviews) and Televisió de Catalunya (Els Matins (‘The Mornings’);

seven interviews).5 Meanwhile, the private channels and their morning shows are

Telecinco (El Programa de Ana Rosa (‘Ana Rosa’s Programme’); two interviews) and

Antena 3 (Espejo Público (‘A Public Mirror’); five interviews). All these programmes go

ýþ ÿ �� þ��ý �� ý �� þýþ �� ý�ý �� dcm.sagepub.comD��ý��

8 Discourse & Communication 0(0)

on air at the same time in the morning and usually schedule their interviews with politi-

cians at the same time.6

The qualitative method used in this study is that developed by conversation analysis

(CA), which involves a detailed analysis of naturally occurring social interaction. CA pro-

poses recording speech patterns to detect underlying rules that enable orderly communica-

tion. Particular attention is paid to the sequential organization of interactional activities.

Audio-or video-recorded techniques are used preferably to preserve the natural attributes of

the interaction. These distinctive features of CA facilitate the identification of certain dis-

course or interactional practices used in the institutional setting of the political interview on

morning shows. In fact, it has been suggested that the fragments and interactional practices

shown may be considered examples of the two different interview styles of public and com-

mercial channels.7 Specific transcript excerpts (five from public channels and three from

commercial broadcasters) have been reproduced here, therefore, as specimens of distinctive

and recurrent interviewing practices found in the two types of channels.

Political interviews on public service broadcasters

This interview, broadcast as part of the programme Los Desayunos de TVE, was with the

President of the Catalonia Regional Parliament, Mr Benach. Benach is a parliamentarian

of the Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya (ERC) party, a minority party which, along

with another minority party, Iniciativa per Catalunya Verds (ICV), supported the winning

party in the 2006 elections (Partit dels Socialistes de Catalunya (PSC)) to form a left-

wing coalition – popularly known as the ‘tripartite’ – which has governed since then in

the region of Catalonia. Seven months away from another election, polls indicate a vic-

tory for the other major party – conservative – in Catalonia, Convergència i Unió (CiU),

which, it is assumed, will not obtain an absolute majority and could need other parties in

order to govern. At the start of the following fragment, taken from an early part of the

interview, IR begins a new topic and asks IE about his party’s conduct in the scenario

arising after the approaching elections.

Data extract 1 [Des-Benach-48:00]

1 IR: Of course the recession is going to have an effect >precisely because

2 it’s the people’s problems< the coming electio:ns (.)

3 are in Catalonia and I’d like to know whether: >in: light of the polls<

4 you think that: (.) the tripartite is fini:shed as some people say.

5 (0.8)

6 IE: .hhh well polls ((clears his throat)) they’re polls they show

7 publi::c opinion public moods so they shouldn’t be ignored

8 (.) but they should shoul:dn’t be taken peremptorily either (.) .hh mh

9 I think the elections: ar they’re a few months away yet (.) .hh from now

10 until the elections ar a lot can happen (.) huh polls in the

11 Catalonian parliament historically and so mh I think that

12 ar:: (.) well from a more party perspective what’s clear

13 is that we have a complicated situation difficult a:part from the

government

�� !"� #! �� $%�&!'(�� )�*+!, -��'� �% .�&!*�!' /01 23/4dcm.sagepub.com5�6%��#!# 7'�*

R9:;<=>?@A@B 9

14 I think the government huh tripartite or not (.) e:h in Catalonia luckily

15 there a:rent just two possibilities of government (.) either PSOE or PP (.)

16 in Catalonia there are a lot more (0.6) certain coalitions or other coalitions

17 can go:vern and °there can be different combinations° even

18 IR: .hhh but you say there are a lot more possibilities help me to imani-

19 to imagine some if you think government pacts are possible

20 because for me actually (.) to see the Partido Popular

21 with Esquerra seems totally impossible

22 [I don’t know if CIU, who seem to be doing the best=

23 IE: [that, tha::t

24 IR: =that’s not an option is it.hhh

25 IE: Not an option at all

26 IR: I don’t know whether:: if CiU (.) if they win the elections and need

27 someone to be able to govern they wouldn’t choose the PP (.) they’d choose

28 Esque:rra [which also seems complicated (.) it’s a possibility

29 IE: [it’s a possibility look you you’ve suggested two to me already

30 Convergencia choosing the Partido Popular .h[hh Converge ar

31 IR: [Well, one you

32 rejected the one of the Partido Popular with Esquerra=

33 IE: =With Esquerra yes rejected of course (.) but Convergencia

34 with support from the Partido Popular either in the Government or: from

35 outsi:de Convergencia with support from Esquerra:. Convergencia:

36 in the minority pacting with the socialists (.) .h the socia-

37 the tripartite again (.) that means ar: there are are even more

38 combinations that: that wouldn’t be: unimaginable existing

39 in town councils right? ar: (1.8) there there’s another one that maybe

40 could > be considered very seriously by someone in Catalonia<

41 which would be a kind of united government of pro-Catalan powers

42 right? .hh especially depending on the ruling of the Constitutional

43 etcetera mh [that no no

44 IR: [So there’s the possibility tha:t Esquerra could get out of bed

45 if you see what I mean with the PSC and into bed with CIU for exa:mple?

46 IE: But the problem isn’t so much whether Esquerra goes

47 from one bed to another but who it will choose ar::[:

48 IR: [well

49 who it will be holding hands with if we take it as something ac[tive=

50 IE: [Yes ar::

51 IR: =who it will be holding hands with there is that possibi:lity

52 IE: No no (.) but again I don’t know if it’s exactly the: the::: ar:[:=

53 IR: [right way

54 of expressing it

55 IE: =But the one responsible for choosing is the one: >who has

56 the possibility of forming a government< and yes I’d like

57 Esquerra Republicana to be the: main player

58 when it comes to forming govern:ment but that’s not going to ha:ppen:

59 ((continues))

CE FGHIGJEKLC MK IC NOGPKQSGECE TJUVKW XCHQC JO YJPKUHKQ Z[\ ]^Z_dcm.sagepub.com`JaOIJCMKM bQJU

cd Discourse & Communication 0(0)

In a multi-party, parliamentarian system like that of Catalonia (or Spain), it is normal

for no one party to achieve absolute majority. The two major parties that up to now have

managed to win the elections – CiU and PSC – have opted for coalitions, such as the

‘tripartite’ of which the IE party is included at the time of the interview, or specific

agreements with other parties. In the political culture of Catalonia – and Spain – politi-

cal parties’ practice of not showing their cards regarding their intentions of seeking

alliances to create a coalition government – or any other alliance – until after the elec-

tions seems to have become routine procedure. Political parties, legitimately, consider

that they should not have to decide until the results are out and they can make calcula-

tions about possible coalitions. Voters, also legitimately, should be able to have an idea

before the elections of the sway or political colour their vote might hold depending on

potential varying results. It is precisely these kinds of concerns that encourage the pre-

ceding exchange and that turn this fragment of the interview into adversarial: IR stands

as a representative of the interests of potential voters and IE of a political party whose

strategy of not revealing possible future alliances could, however, estrange it from the

interests of these voters.

We see that the question with which IR starts this topic (lines 1–4) sets a specific

agenda for IE’s upcoming answer: 1) it identifies a topical domain as relevant (the inten-

tions of IE’s party, according to information from polls, after the election in terms of

establishing alliances that might enable the ‘tripartite’ coalition to be reinstated); 2) it

identifies actions IE should carry out in response to the question and the scope of the

answer (yes or no as to whether the ‘tripartite’ is over), affording IE little margin.

Meanwhile, the question also asserts quite a risky proposition about what IE’s party may

do after the election, which is partially mitigated by a footing shift (‘as some people say’,

line 4). The fact that it is only partially mitigated can be seen in IE’s response (lines

6–17), which, with his turn delay (line 5) and the dispreference marker ‘well’ (line 6),

expresses the impropriety of IR’s previous proposition. IE’s response, moreover, does

not adequately address the topic and action agenda – the intentions of IE’s party and a

yes/no type response, respectively – set by IR’s previous question: it focuses on the reli-

ability of polls to predict results that – on the day of the interview – IE believes unpre-

dictable and in the ‘combinations’ (line 17) of possible coalitions, but without specifying

the intentions of his party. IR’s next turn (lines 18–24) constitutes a follow-up question

that presents IE’s response as inadequate by establishing a contrast – with the disjunct

marker ‘but’, in line 18 – between IE’s response and what the question is demanding:

again, the intentions of IE’s party regarding possible future coalitions. This question, and

IR’s subsequent turns, also attempt to prompt IE’s response by providing possible coali-

tion examples, so that in the end IE goes into more detail in his turn in lines 33–43. In

this response IE details possible coalitions – he also mentioned some that would be

impossible previously in line 25 – which occasions IR’s formulation in lines 44–45. This

formulation, an inferentially elaborative probe (Heritage, 1985), performs the three tasks

that Heritage and Watson (1979) described for formulations, in that it:

1) maintains the content of the previous turn as an object for a subsequent and wider

elaboration, preserving the relevant characteristics of this utterance;

ef ghijhkflme nl je ophqlrshfef tkuvlw xeire kp ykqluilr z{| }~z�dcm.sagepub.com�k�pjkenln �rku

�� 11

2) selects an element from the previous turn, which is ‘proposed’ for confirma-

tion. Obviously, the selection of just one element implies the suppression of

others that do not appear in the formulation about the previous turn. In fact,

IE’s long turn (lines 33–43) alludes to various possible coalitions that might

arise after the election, but IR’s formulation appears to focus on one:

‘Convergencia with support from Esquerra’ (line 35). That is, the coalition that

the other majority party should lead (CiU) and that would include IE’s party

(Esquerra or ERC);

3) transforms or modifies, in as much as it paraphrases (in this case an upshot) the

content of the previous turn. Therefore, in the fragment analysed, it might be

observed how a possible future coalition between IE’s party and the likely winner

of the election is transformed in IR’s formulation into an accusation of political

promiscuity – reinforced by the expression going from one party’s bed to anoth-

er’s (lines 44–45) – of IE’s party.

IR’s formulation, as seen in lines 46–47, is rejected by IE. In this rejection, IE is not only

dismissing the accusation of political promiscuity, but is also avoiding the possibility of

revealing the intentions or preferences of his party, hence avoiding answering by ‘manipu-

lating’ the terms of the question to fit his response. Moreover, he transfers the responsibility

and initiative to the winning party of the future election. It must be remembered that formu-

lations imply a normative preference for confirmation over rejection, by which IE’s rejec-

tion initiates a disagreement sequence (Pomerantz, 1984) with a certain degree of conflict,

as reflected on the various occasions in which IR and IE’s talk overlaps (lines 47–48, 49–50

and 52–53) in attempts to secure the floor at the boundaries of turns. Despite the reformulat-

ing of the formulation (lines 48–51) IR does not achieve IE’s anticipated positioning (lines

52, 55–58) and in the end initiates another topic after IE’s last turn in the transcript.

In the next interview, shown by the Catalan public service broadcaster on 21 April

2010, IR interviews the leader of the Catalan Partido Popular, or People’s Party, a

minority party in the Catalonian Parliament but the second party in the Spanish

Parliament. The Partido Popular had lodged an unconstitutionality appeal before the

Constitutional Court regarding the Statute of Autonomy – the basic institutional law of

a Spanish region – of Catalonia. The members of the Constitutional Court are largely

appointed at the request of political parties – through the Parliament, the Government

and the General Council of the Judiciary – which has led to frequent accusations of

politicization. Catalonia had adopted the Statute of Autonomy following a referendum.

In this fragment IR asks IE about the legitimacy of the current Constitutional Court to

rule on the constitutionality of the Catalonian Statute of Autonomy.

Data extract 2 [Mat-Camacho-13:34]

1 IR: Is it normal that the:: current speaker (.) of a motion for judgement

2 about the Statute (.) is a member of a court who should have

3 stepped down two years ago?

4 (0.6)

5 IE: .hh well the thing is: we’re in the same situation Mr Cuní that:

�� ¡�� ¢�� £¤¥ ¦§£¨dcm.sagepub.com©�ª�� «��

¬ Discourse & Communication 0(0)

As in the previous data extract, we see that the question with which IR starts this topic

(lines 1–3) sets a specific agenda for IE’s upcoming answer: 1) it identifies a topical

domain as the relevant one (the legitimacy of the Constitutional Court); 2) it identifies

the actions IE should carry out to respond to the question and the scope of the answer

(yes or no to this legitimacy), constraining IE’s answer. The design of the question is

particularly interesting, as it ‘prefers’ (Clayman and Heritage, 2002; Pomerantz, 1984;

Sacks, 1987) a particular response from IE. In fact, questions that project preferred

responses situate IEs’ possible responses at different levels of appropriateness, which in

the event of opting for the dispreferred option could lead IE to respond defensively.

Thus, the contrast between the preface of the question (‘is it normal that’ (line 1)) and the

description of an abnormal situation – by which the speaker of a proposal for a ruling on

the Statute should continue in his/her position two years after it has expired (lines 1–3)

– invites acceptance with a confirming ‘no’ response. As can be seen in IE’s response

(lines 5–6), this is not IR’s preferred response, and, to mitigate the effects of this action,

IE builds it up defensively to limit possible disagreement that may arise from her

response. This way the response occurs after a pause of 0.6 seconds and an in-breath that

may be used to express hesitation. At the same time, IE marks her response as a non-

conforming one through the use of the contrastive ‘but’ and the address term ‘Mr Cuní’,

which, as shown (Clayman, 2010; Rendle-Short, 2007), may be used in disaligning

actions such as disagreements.

The constructing of questions that incorporate preferences holds a certain risk for IR:

they may be treated as assertions or opinion statements (Heritage, 2002) and be indica-

tive of adversarialness, but also as a reduction of neutralism. As can be seen, IE’s ‘I can

have my opinion’ (line 6) treats IR’s preceding question as ‘any’ other opinion that might

be held about the legitimacy of the Constitutional Court. In fact, this opinion is finally

requested by IR in line 7 and offered by IE in lines 8–10.

Occasionally, an IR’s vocation of adversarialness may lead to a loss of neutralism. In

the next three data extracts we see various examples of how this may occur. About four

minutes after the previous extract IR and IE are still talking about the same topic. After an

‘unsatisfactory’ response from IE and various unsuccessful intervention attempts (lines 4,

6 and 8), IR’s utterance in lines 10–11 starts with a ‘Fine but’, which could be typical of

Action–Opposition sequences (Hutchby, 1996) found in ordinary conversation.


6 I can have my opinion a:bout it [but

7 IR: [And I’m asking you for your opinion=

8 IE: =Okay but my opinion is that these members

9 of the Constitutional Court are >fully competent< and

10 they are ar even members ((continues))

1 IR: But because that’s not how it is [you must understand

2 IE: [So let’s reincorporate it

3 [the Partido Popular has asked for it to be reincorporated=

4 IR: [you-

®¯ °±²³±´¯µ¶® ·µ ³® ¸¹±ºµ»¼±¯®¯ ½´¾¿µÀ Á®²»® ´¹ Â´ºµ¾²µ» ÃÄÅ ÆÇÃÈdcm.sagepub.comÉ´Ê¹³´®·µ· Ë»´¾

ÌÍÎÏÐÑÒÓÔÕÔÖ 13

As explained earlier, one of the fundamental rules governing IRs’ role in news interviews

is the non-production of third-position responses after IEs’ answers. In this case, how-

ever, IR’s sceptical rejoinder in line 10 turns this part of the interview into an argument.

Sceptical rejoinders are relatively common in a kind of political interview that has been

described as the hybrid political interview – in which the IR advocates an unequivocal

political stance – while they are quite rare in more conventional political interviews as

they could be associated with partiality (Hutchby, 2011). From this example we can see

why. IR’s ‘Fine but’ (line 10) serves to 1) express scepticism, disagreement and even

irony regarding IE’s previous response through its evaluation (‘Fine’); and 2) establish a

contrast (with ‘but’) between IE’s response and the framework in which she should have

positioned this response (‘let’s stay where we a:re (0.5) not where we might have been

(0.6) we are where we are’). In short, IR’s utterance in lines 10–11 serves to invoke a

possible better response and therefore to ‘correct’ it, by which IR departs from the neu-

tralism required in a political interview.

In the same interview, IR has asked IE about a corruption case (the ‘Gürtel scandal’,

line 8) in which IE’s party has been involved. IE’s answer, which starts in line 9, relates

various cases with which the governing party in Spain – the Socialist Party, IE’s rival

party – has been associated.


5 IE: = and that the appeal is i:s lodged >again [of unconstitutionality<=

6 IR: [you-

7 IE: =we wouldn’t have lots of these problems [the PSOE still=

8 IR: [Fi-

9 IE: =hasn’t answered it said no

10 IR: Fine but let’s stay where we a:re (0.5) not where

11 we might have↑been (0.6) we are where we are

1 IR: But I’m I’m trying to remem[ber=

2 IE: [Mh hm

3 IR: = and I remember that your party said about Judge Garzón whe::n

4 (0.6) ar:: Judge Garzón was investigating the GAL (0.6) which is

5 completely the opposite of what your party is say:ing about

6 Judge Garzón now that:: he’s doing that and that according

7 to some observe:rs >I don’t know if they’re well-informed< (0.7)

8 that the: Partido Popular is trying to cover up the Gürtel scandal

9 IE: >You know something about the Gür:tel scandal< (.) you know

10 something about the Faisán case (.) which also reaches:

11 Mr Rubalcaba >Mr Garzón you know about a lot of cases ar:<

12 but it seems that here we only know about the cases related

13 to certain ones so ar:: remember I can remember too Mr Cuní

14 ve[ry well and I’d also like to remi:nd=

15 IR: [I know

16 IE: =the statements and deliberations the Socialist Party made

×Ø ÙÚÛÜÚÝØÞß× àÞ Ü× áâÚãÞäåÚØ×Ø æÝçèÞé ê×Ûä× Ýâ ëÝãÞçÛÞä ìíî ïðìñdcm.sagepub.comòÝóâÜÝ×àÞà ôäÝç

õö Discourse & Communication 0(0)

One of the most common ways in which IE orients to the adversarial character of IR’s

prior turn, as indicated by Rendle-Short (2007), consists of challenging or showing disa-

greement with the content of this turn. In fact, the first thing that can be observed in IE’s

response starting in line 9 is that it obviates IR’s question in lines 1–8 to then, in turn,

challenge it. Despite IR’s footing shift (‘according to some observe:rs’, the supposed

source that may not be reliable, as expressed by ‘I don’t know if they are well-informed’,

lines 6–7) to safeguard his question from possible partiality interpretations, we see in

IE’s response starting in line 9 that the desired effect has not ensued. The emphasis IE

places on some words that link the rival political party (the ‘Faisán case’ and ‘Mr

Rubalcaba’, who is the Government’s vice president) with political corruption serves to

highlight the accusation that IR is only focusing on ‘certain ones’ (line 13), and later on

‘you’re only talking about the Partido Popular’ (lines 21–22) when asking about corrup-

tion. IE also reinforces this accusation of selective memory and partiality with the expres-

sion ‘I remember’ (lines 3 and 13) and the use of the address term ‘Mr Cuní’ (line 13), by

which she can convey disagreement and sincerity. Of particular interest is the equally

severe accusation IE launches at IR of not acting in representation of the whole ‘people’,

in ‘so that listeners see it too’ (line 24), but of only those who may be solely interested in

IE’s party’s corruption case.

Data extract 5 [Mat-Pastor-01:24:00]

17 according to the time ar: after signing Mr Garzón and after

18 Mr Garzón .h things didn’t go as they expected so

19 the assess[ment-=

20 IR: [I remember as well

21 IE: =You remember too so as you’re only talking about the

22 Partido Popular [let’s talk about them all:=

23 IR: [Noo

24 IE: =[so that listeners see it too

25 IR: [I’m talk- ↑I’m talking about today

1 IR: Obviously there are corrupters because there are corru:pt people

2 Or there are corrupt people because corrupters get to them mhh

3 how can you stop that (.) in a political group how can someone

4 who’s responsible for making the electoral lists scrutinize it (0.6)

5 to preve:nt these risks (.) .hh if on the other hand you

6 belong to a political party (.) that has shown that at least so far

7 the one >making the electoral lists< ends up being (.) the prime example

8 of corruption?

9 IE: Well bu::t if you’ll allow me I don’t agree with that ar::

10 the Socialist Party I think has been the party ar:: that has demonstrated

11 the most how people saw and see corruption in this country right?

12 ((continues))

÷ø ùúûüúýøþÿ÷ þ ü÷ ��ú�þ��úø÷ø �ý��þ� ÷û�÷ ý� ý�þ�ûþ� �� dcm.sagepub.comDý��üý÷ þ ��ý�

R�� 15

On occasion, such as the one presented in this data extract, IRs’ adversarial questions

may be devoid of any component to guard them against accusations of partiality. Thus,

the attribution of third-party authorship, for example, could convert an opinion statement

into a journalistically acceptable question. This is not the case in this fragment under

analysis. The fact that IE utters ‘if you’ll allow me I don’t agree with that’ (preceded,

also, by the dispreference marker ‘Well’ and the disjunct marker ‘bu::t’, indicating incip-

ient disagreement) (line 9) suggests that in fact he has treated IR’s utterance in lines 1–8

as an opinion statement with which he may or may not agree, implying that IR may have

exceeded the limits of journalistic ethics of neutralism.

Overall, the fragments of political interviews in public service broadcasters analysed

convey an image of interviews that seek to make the politician publicly accountable.

Through the interaction practices identified, it can be seen that both IRs and IEs have

complied with the task attributed to them by the political interview. IRs have acted as

intermediaries for the audience, seeking with their adversarialness (through e.g. setting

specific agendas, asserting propositions, preferences or formulations) to scrutinize the

actions, proposals or inconsistencies of politicians, whilst risking incurring non-neutrality.

The confrontational style sought by IRs appears to be an essential part of modern journal-

ism. If we take formulations as an example of the application of this style, their presence

in political interviews can easily be understood. A simple adherence to the journalistic

style of neutrality would imply, at the interactional level, a mere succession of questions.

Somehow, IRs’ roles would be limited to that of simply providing topic headings that IEs

could respond to comfortably. To avoid the effects of interviews of this kind (that is, flat-

ness in the interview and consequential audience boredom, apart from IEs easily circum-

venting questions), it is not surprising that journalists resort to formulations. Their use

affords IRs certain objectives: clarifying, transforming and proposing alternatives to IEs’

statements, or challenging those statements. In short, they are useful for achieving a more

penetrating, flexible, dynamic and vivid journalistic style that permits a more successful

connection with the ultimate interview target: the audience (Heritage, 1985). Politicians’

capacity to ‘not answer’ questions is well-known. Given the sequential characteristics of

formulations, these appear to undertake another practical purpose: as we have seen in the

fragment transcribed, they can enable the IR to ‘pin down’ the IE and prevent him/her

slipping away from certain questions; the latter may confirm or reject (but in the final

instance must take a stance on) what is being ‘formulated’ to him/her.

IEs, meanwhile, have attempted to defend their points of view before generally adver-

sarial, interview styles, which have led them at times to question evasion through the use

of address terms or to present IRs’ questions as opinions. Challenges to inadequate

responses by the IE or the unguarded assertions by the IR, in any case, attest to the dia-

lectical character of the interviews studied. In general, the discourse emanating from

these interviews may largely be considered a reflection of the divergence and plurality of

the political and social climate from which they derive.

Political interviews in commercial broadcasters

In this interview IE is the Minister for Education in Spain. After being asked about the

lack of authority of teachers in the classroom, the start of the following fragment shows

the final part of his response.

�� !"#!$�%&� '% #� ()!*%+,!�� -$./%0 1�"+� $) 2$*%."%+ 345 6738dcm.sagepub.com9$:)#$�'%' ;+$.

<= Discourse & Communication 0(0)

Data extract 6 [EP-Gabilondo-00:12:52]

1 IE: And I might also point out that there are cases of problems and

2 very important ones and if there is one (.) we have to stop

3 but I have reiterated that there are nine million pupils and

4 eight hundred thousand teachers .hh we can’t well we can’t

5 exaggerate its importance although it is very important so >even if

6 there’s just one case< (0.8) this is very important .hh and I (.) wanted

7 to put it in a more global context (0.6) the issue of authority isn’t

8 just a problem in schools it’s an issue in our whole society

9 IR: Mh hm=

10 IE: =There are also families that have problems

11 [in their environments aren’t there? and we don’t really understand how=

12 IR: [Mhm more and more

13 IE: =to make a concept of authority compatible which perhaps we should

14 consider .hhh with a consistent democratic situation

15 (0.8) this is the challenge we face not going back to authoritarianism (.)

16 and instigating a concept of an active and communicative autho::rity.

As indicated earlier, the IR’s conduct in political interviews must involve two character-

istics linked to the exercising of modern journalism: neutralism and adversarialness. In

this fragment, which is fairly representative of the kind of interaction recorded in this and

other interviews in commercial broadcasters in my data, IR assumes the role of co-

producer of IE’s discourse, abandoning neutralism. At the same time, presumably, nor is

IR exercising the adversarialness that should be attributed to her. Thus, the acknowledge-

ment token uttered by IR in line 9 operates in such a way that IR 1) assumes the role of

recipient of IE’s preceding response (as indicated by Heritage (1985) when referring to

news interviews, one of the reasons why IRs do not use news receipts or acknowledge-

ment tokens is that of converting the audience, and not the IR, into the main recipient of

the IE’s discourse; from this premise, the IR declines to adopt the role of direct recipient

of the IE’s discourse, but maintains that of promoter of this discourse); and 2) she empa-

thizes with IE and the content of his response, thus making it hers too. These effects are

also produced with IR’s acknowledgement token in line 12. This time, moreover, this

acknowledgement token is accompanied by talk that serves not only to emphasize IE’s

preceding response in lines 10–11, but also to embellish it.

In this next interview the invited politician is Esperanza Aguirre. Ms Aguirre is

President of the Region of Madrid and member of the Partido Popular, a party that (at the

time of the interview) is in the opposition in the Spanish Parliament. On this date, Ms

Aguirre had acquired certain notoriety for publicly opposing the VAT increase the

Spanish government intended to apply in a few months to alleviate the effects of the

economic crisis. Ms Aguirre, meanwhile, had tried to dispute the national leadership of

her party with Mr Rajoy after he lost the last election. This, according to the press, had

damaged their relationship.

>? @ABCAE?FG> HF C> IJAKFLMA?>? NEOPFQ S>BL> EJ TEKFOBFL UVW XYUZdcm.sagepub.com[E\JCE>HFH ]LEO

^_`abcdefgfh 17

Data extract 7 [AR-Aguirre-01:01]

1 IR: Hello good morning ((coughs to clear throat)) welcome (.)

2 If there’s anyone who’s at the forefront of politics today i::t’s

3 Esperanza Aguirre (.) thank you Esperanza Aguirre for being here

4 today: wi:th: us (1.0) ye:::sterday ar::: (.) the Preside:::nt of ar your

5 party (.) Mr Rajoy and you were at an act in Leganés (.) you started

6 tha::t ar campaign agains::t the VAT (.) >your relationship with

7 Rajoy has got a lot better then hasn’t it ?<

8 (0.9)

9 IE: Heh heh .hhh I saw in a paper that says that

10 in three months we’ve been to five acts toge:ther an:d

11 it’s true (0.7) tha::t the President was kind enough

12 to come to acts organized by Madrid (.) and yesterday was an

13 important one and why was it important? well because we

14 think (.) that tha:t from the first of July all products are going to

15 increase their VAT but all (.) when I say all that means electricity

16 phone gas (.) ar::: bread .hh all the food products we buy (.)

17 so we think it’s very negative for Spain’s economic situation (.)

18 and so (.) .hh I said that we were going to do a campaign

19 of rebellion (.) but not rebellion in the sen::se that I meant military

20 or of not paying no no (.) what the dictionary calls rebelling is

21 <resisting> and so as we think it is <absurd> to raise VAT (.) .hh

22 as this will also have consequences that are precisely the opposite

23 of those proposed by the Government because they say >not

24 because it is to reduce the ↓deficit< (0.6) the last time they

25 put up VAT (.) when they put it up from twelve to fifteen per cent

26 (.) which is even more than it’s going up now (.) in the end

27 collection went down (0.7) >because half a million jobs were

28 destroyed because the Spanish economy went down< and as

29 the economy started to get worse so- people consumed less and

30 VAT collection went down (.) [so it was a disaster.

31 IR: [.hh

32 IR: And what will this campaign consist of (0.6) [in collecting signature::s i::n?

33 IE: [.hh

As can be seen in this data extract, which starts the interview, IR indicates in the preface

to the first question the concern to interview IE on this particular date: her ‘campaign

agains::t the VAT’ (line 6). The question she puts to IE, however, contrasts with the pref-

ace and addresses another issue that may be minimally implicit in this preface: the per-

sonal relationship with the president of her party (‘your relationship with Rajoy has got a

lot better then hasn’t it?’, lines 6–7). This question could be considered of the type that

Labov and Fanshell (1977: 100) described as a B-event statement. A B-event is a kind of

declarative statement that a speaker formulates about something to which the recipient has

sole and privileged access. These kinds of declarative statements operate interactively to

ij klmnlojpqi rp ni stlupvwljij xoyzp{ |imvi ot }oupympv ~�� ~�dcm.sagepub.com�o�tnoirpr �voy

�� Discourse & Communication 0(0)

solicit the recipient’s confirmation, particularly if they are produced with rising intonation

and include an explicit preference, such as the ‘hasn’t it?’ in IR’s utterance ending in line

7. In news interviews B-events may have a broad variety of references in the form of

mental predicates: emotions, opinions, expertise, experience, intentions, sensations, etc.

(Heritage and Roth, 1995). It has been observed that B-events, however, are frequently

used in other kinds of broadcast interviews with a specific function: in talk shows, to elicit

from celebrity guests testimonies or personal confidences (Blum-Kulka, 1983). The latter

appears to be, in fact, what IR is seeking with her question: not just a confirmation of

whether ‘your relationship with Rajoy has got a lot better then’ (lines 6–7), but the details

of this improvement. This question is received in a disaffiliative manner by IE, as antici-

pated in the delay of her response (line 8), her slight laughter and the in-breath (line 9)

with which she starts her response. Interactionally, with these three devices IE constitutes

IR’s question as inadequate. If we look in particular at the laughter, this could undertake

various functions. Its placement should be heard as referring to something, so hearers

have to identify its referent. Hence, sequential placement provides a relevant indication to

ascertaining laughter’s referent. When laughter can be interpreted as referring to talk, usu-

ally that talk occurs immediately before the laugh (Glenn, 1995). The referent of IE’s

laughter is, therefore, the preceding question and its function, as indicated by Glenn

(2003), appears in this case to be that of resisting IR’s question. In fact, as can be observed

in the start of IE’s response (lines 9–16), she does not confirm IR’s statement and practi-

cally reduces the relationship with the leader of her party to a mere co-presence in institu-

tional political ‘acts’ (line 12). To IR’s personal question, moreover, IE opposes and

identifies the ‘important’ aspect (line 13) of the preface to IR’s question in which she

(perhaps) should have focused this question: the public political act against the VAT raise.

Finally, it can be seen that despite the fact that IE does not address IR’s question in her

utterance in lines 9–30, IR does not produce a follow-up question to somehow challenge it.

On this next occasion IE is Mr Montilla, President of the regional government of

Catalonia. Mr Montilla, born in the region of Andalusia, is the first President of Catalonia

not to have been born in the region over which he governs. This precise issue gives rise

to IR’s question – after discussing current political issues and the future election in which

IE is again running as a candidate – in the following data extract.

Data extract 8 [EP-Montilla-00:12:00]

1 IR: .hhh José Montilla >son of an ↑Andalusian labourer< who arrived in

2 Catalonia at the age of sixteen and ends up being President of the

3 Regional Government (.) it’s: the Catalan dream some people say

4 you’re the Catalan Obama .hhh ar:: would it have been possible for

5 this labourer’s son to have got to The Andalusian Council? (0.6) what

6 do you think

7 IE: .hh (.) I don’t know actually I don’t I don’t know some people say that

8 it would have been more difficult for sure (.) I I don’t think so I think

9 that it depends on circumstances o:n on the personal circumstances

10 of each person on determination (.) .h ar:: fortunately democracy

11 one of its greatest assets is that :: (1.2) mh someone despite their

�� ¡¢�£dcm.sagepub.com¤�¥�� ¦��

§¨©ª«¬®¯°¯± 19

The first thing we may notice in the above data extract is that IR is inviting IE (lines

1–6) to produce a ‘story’. The concept of a story, as a particular kind of a collaboratively

produced narrative in conversation, was first studied by Labov (1972) and developed

within the field of CA by Sacks (1992). Stories can be either ‘volunteered’ or ‘invited’

– that is, initiated by teller or recipient, respectively (Watson, 1990). In invited stories

the recipient of the story provides the preface (or first utterance), whereby the materials

produced by the putative recipient should be integrated into the putative teller’s story

(Watson, 1990: 275). The putative teller, then, after s/he has been invited, might accept

or decline to narrate the story s/he has been requested to produce. As observed, the

invitation of stories is practically an integral part of talk show discourse, in which the

host invites his or her guests to produce stories of personal experience (Thornborrow,

2001). Politicians that go on talk shows are also usually required to produce narratives

about their private or personal life (Eriksson, 2010) at the request of the host. What

appears to be uncommon, though, is to find invited stories of personal experience in

political interviews.

Despite the fact that IR’s invitation to produce a story could be resolved with a ‘yes’

or ‘no’ response (the final question is ‘Would it have been possible for this labourer’s son

to have got to The Andalusian Council? (0.6) what do you think’, lines 4–6), the materi-

als included by IR in the story preface – the contraposition, for example, of opposite

membership categories – project the elaboration of a personal ‘success story’. This is

how IE understands it, in fact, by uttering his response in lines 7–15, but the account he

12 origins ar::: can get wherever:: they might put their mind to

13 can’t they? (0.6) because there are lots of people who don::’t mh

14 usually don’t ask you where you’re from but more where you’re

15 going (1.1) and I think that’s the key [which explains these things a bit

16 IR: [.hhh we’re watching:: (.) pictures

17 right now of: of your origins of: tha::t [boy:: from Córdoba mh hm

18 IE: [That’s a photo of Iznájar

19 and that’s a photo now of of well [I was living in Catalonia

20 IR: [You had hair there eh?

21 [hh heh heh HA HA HA HA

22 IE: [Yes I had hair now I don’t but:[:

23 IR: [In th(h)e p(h)a(h)s(h)t o hhh=

24 IE: =I did and a lo:t ha ha=

25 IR: =You were you were very hippy from what I see at that time right?

26 IE: Well they’re pictures from the [sixties.

27 IR: [Yes that was normal then right? .hh

28 ar well so the thing is tha:t mh I’m wondering what remains of the

29 stereotypical Andalusian because you (.) you don’t like bullfighting

30 you don’t like Sevillanas dancing: you’re more Germanic. I’m not

31 surprised your triplets go to the German school.

32 (1.3)

33 IE: .hh well I a:m but the thing is that I think it’s a stereotype as well

34 tha::t people from Andalusia ((continues))

²³ ´µ¶·µ¸³¹º² »¹ ·² ¼½µ¾¹¿Àµ³²³ Á¸ÂÃ¹Ä Å²¶¿² ¸½ Æ¸¾¹Â¶¹¿ ÇÈÉ ÊËÇÌdcm.sagepub.comÍ¸Î½·¸²»¹» Ï¿¸Â

ÐÑ Discourse & Communication 0(0)

provides is about general success stories in ‘democracy’ (line 10) and not about his per-

sonal ‘success story’. His story therefore diverges from the preface projected by IR; IE

meanwhile manages to give his response a more political or institutional touch and, as a

result, to return the conversation to the domain of public and political affairs.

In invited stories the recipient of the story usually has the right to include ‘response

tokens’ (e.g. ‘mh hm’ in line 17 or ‘Yes’ in line 27) or questions (such as in lines 25 or

27–31) to prompt IE to elaborate the story already underway. In this particular case, more-

over, IR uses something that is not completely alien to television: images on a screen to

which both IR and IE and the studio audience have access. With this simple resource their

interaction is reinstated in the domain of IE’s private sphere. In fact, the three photos of

three different times in the life of Mr Montilla are presented (coinciding, roughly, with

lines 16–18, 19 and 20–22) on the screen and interpreted by IE as a prompt to produce an

account of the personal circumstances in which they were taken. Two of the photos are

accompanied by a request by IR for elaboration by IE (lines 17; 20 and 25), while the

other photo becomes itself a request for the account that IE produces in line 18.

In talk show celebrity interviews hosts exploit the sequential characteristics of these

narratives to take full advantage of them as a performance (Thornborrow, 2001). An

essential element in achieving this is the IR and IE’s joint production of something

amusing or laughable (Montgomery, 2000) initiated usually at the expense of a humor-

ous or unexpected comment by the IR. In the above data extract, the revelation of

images of a much younger IR present in this interview the perfect opportunity to gener-

ate something laughable. In particular, the contrast that IR establishes between the

image of Mr Montilla when he ‘had hair’ (line 20) and that of the politician before her

serves to invoke laughter from IR (lines 21 and 23) as well as IE (line 24). It is assumed,

by extension, that the final aim is that of provoking laughter from the studio audience

and the ‘overhearing audience’ in their homes.

With the use of invited stories or B-events, the IRs in the fragments analysed have

sought to penetrate the private and personal arena of the politicians interviewed; that is,

the one that, given the public function of the politician, is more likely to be the object of

gossip. This, along with a lack of apparent neutralism in some of the IRs’ actions leading

to an alignment with the IEs’ statements, gives us an image of political interviews whose

aim of making the politician publicly accountable can only be secondary. IRs, as a result,

relax their mandate of establishing themselves as intermediaries of a critical audience to

move, instead, to ‘personalize’ politics with the clear aim of entertaining. IEs, mean-

while, may benefit from these kinds of interviews, as they permit them a favourable

self-presentation. However, as noted by Eriksson (2010), participation in these inter-

views is not without risks. In fact, it places politicians in a dilemma: if they do not follow

the IR’s game they may appear impersonal and too formal; however, going too far with

the game could compromise their public image which, traditionally, is associated with

seriousness and sobriety. In this regard, perhaps, Ms Aguirre’s and Mr Montilla’s attempts

to resist IR’s attempts to lead the interviews into personal terrain can be understood. In

terms of the fragments analysed, it can be stated that a certain degree of acquiescence –

unlike the dialectical nature of interviews on public service broadcasters – has character-

ized these interviews, which, in the same vein, may have served to transmit a shared

perspective between IR and IE.

ÒÓ ÔÕÖ×ÕØÓÙÚÒ ÛÙ ×Ò ÜÝÕÞÙßàÕÓÒÓ áØâãÙä åÒÖßÒ ØÝ æØÞÙâÖÙß çèé êëçìdcm.sagepub.comíØîÝ×ØÒÛÙÛ ïßØâ

ðñòóôõö÷øùøú 21

Conclusions

Undoubtedly, in the interviews broadcast on morning shows of commercial broadcasters

we also find some of the ingredients – formulations, follow-up questions, challenges,

preferences, lack of acknowledgement tokens, etc. – usually associated with the classical

genre of the political news interview. Thus, in interviews of both types of broadcasters

we may appreciate a generic observance of the main rules – neutralism and adversarial-

ness – that govern journalists’ conduct. In the commercial broadcaster interviews, how-

ever, a marked tendency can be seen to abandon or relax these rules, which is not detected

in interviews on public television. Despite the fact that the morning show was initially

conceived as an infotainment programme, with a hybrid content of various genres, the

phenomenon of hybridation appears to influence – at least as deduced from the inter-

views studied – in a different manner commercial and public television morning shows.

While on public television morning shows both information and entertainment appear in

a more compartmentalized form, in commercial broadcaster morning shows information

and entertainment appear to be consistently intertwined. Insofar as this is true, and inso-

far as infotainment and misinformation are taken as equivalent phenomena, political

interviews shown on commercial broadcaster morning shows lose a good part of their

potential function. This function is that of facilitating political communication to enable

the public to remain vigilant before political powers.

IRs in public service and commercial broadcasters present two different interviewing

styles. IRs’ style in public service broadcasters, in which their commitment to hold politi-

cians accountable is taken seriously, attempting to maintain the delicate balance between

neutralism and adversarialness, comes close to the ideal of the news interview described

above. This style points to interviews with a well-articulated institutional character

which, consequently, better reflect the balance of powers between the three institutions

involved: media, politics and society. The style of IRs in commercial broadcasters, how-

ever, in which holding politicians accountable is not a priority objective, is half way

between news interview and talk show interview. This style is indicative of interviews

with a weaker institutional nature and in which the balance of powers between the three

institutions leans more towards media and politics, somewhat neglecting society, which

should be its chief goal.

The different interview styles also point to different conceptions of the public. IRs in

public service broadcasters work through an intermediary role with a critical public con-

cerned with grasping the varied faces of politics. IRs in commercial broadcasters, how-

ever, act more as journalists who perform on behalf of a public more interested in personal

than political issues, thus construed as passive observers of the political process.

In my data, political interviewing in commercial broadcasters appears to draw on

practices that are traditionally associated with talk show interviews. This essential differ-

ence between interviewing styles in public and commercial broadcasters has been

observed in this study in Spain, but also in other countries such as the United Kingdom

(see Lauerbach, 2004). The hybridization of genres within political interviews in com-

mercial broadcasters appears to form part of a trend towards conversationalization of

public discourse, a colonization of the public sphere by practices from the private sphere

(Fairclough, 1995), in order to win over the audience or increase it. This, meanwhile,

ûü ýþÿ þ�ü��û �� û ��þ��þüûü �� ûÿ�û �� ÿ�� dcm.sagepub.comD��

22 Discourse & Communication 0(0)

seems to be encompassed within a general and international trend in private broadcasters

to bring entertainment to information in order to popularize news and current affairs

programmes and gain audience. This phenomenon, which consists of delivering informa-

tion that has first been infused with emotion, personalization, populism, gossip or scan-

dal, has been widely studied for a while and has been given names such as tabloidization

(Hallin, 1996).

This study also shows the difficulties involved in linking the legal framework, the

media system and journalistic culture to specific interviewing styles. A priori, and in line

with these factors, infotainment should have colonized in Spain the interviewing prac-

tices in both public and commercial broadcasters. In practice, this is not the case, as far

as the determining factor appears to be channel ownership. This investigation, however,

aspires to have identified discursive practices that help us understand how some political

interviews do not adhere to their mission of holding politicians accountable.

In conclusion, from the two styles of interviews studied, we see that those shown on

morning shows by commercial broadcasters contribute to contaminating the public

sphere. This derives from confusing public political issues with politicians’ personal

affairs, conceiving political information as a spectacle, perceiving the citizen as a mere

consumer. We all know the result of this: a flourishing disinterest in politics leading to a

demobilization of the people.

Funding

This work was supported by Spain’s Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (grant number CS02008-

02589/S0CI).

Notes

1. In fact, a large part of political interviews shown in Spain are broadcast on ‘morning show’

type programmes.

2. Of the British and American channels studied, only the British BBC – ‘Editorial Guidelines’

– and ITV appear to have something resembling style manuals. In ITV’s ‘Code of Conduct’,

the only mention of viewers and customers indicates that they should receive ‘accurate

information on which they can make an informed decision’ (ITV, n.d.).

3. The degree of politicization and independence of Spanish public media has fluctuated accord-

ing to the political party in power. For example, when the socialist government was in power,

a law was passed in 2006 whereby the heads of public corporations had to be elected by

two-thirds of Parliament; that is, through consensus between government and opposition. The

victory of the conservative Popular Party in 2011 promptly led to a change in this law. The

Popular Party approved a decree law that modified the way the board of directors of public

radio and television was elected, and by which an absolute majority was sufficient. While pub-

lic perception during the period 2006–2011 and the various international accolades awarded

to the public media intimated depoliticization and independence, from late 2011 with the new

law and the new board of directors, signs are starting to appear – according to complaints from

journalists in the public media, a drop in viewership for news programmes and a report from

the Council of Europe on political pressure in TVE – of re-politicization and bias.

4. In mental health consultations, for instance, formulations have been shown to be used by ther-

apists to display the psychotherapeutic value of their own interpretations (Schwartz, 1976),

selecting a candidate problem and establishing it as therapeutically relevant (Antaki et al.,

�! "#$%#&!'(� )' %� *+#,'-.#!�! /&01'3 4�$-� &+ 5&,'0$'- 678 9:6;dcm.sagepub.com<&=+%&�)') >-&0

R?@ABCEFGHGI 23

2005; Davis, 1986) or making psychotherapy visible (Roca-Cuberes, 2011).

5. Televisió de Catalunya is only broadcast in Catalonia. The other channels are shown

nationally.

6. The programme Los Desayunos de TVE, strictly speaking, does not form part of a morn-

ing show. It is described on the TVE website as a ‘current affairs analysis programme, with

interviews and discussion’. The programme that follows it (La Mañana de la 1) is in fact a

morning show which is also presented as a continuation of Los Desayunos de TVE (a live con-

nection occurs between both programmes’ presenters anticipating the content of the morning

show). The programme Els Matins, on the other hand, starts an hour earlier than the others.

7. The fragments presented here have been translated into English from Spanish or Catalan. The

original Spanish and Catalan transcripts are available from the author.

References

Antaki C, Barnes R and Leudar I (2005) Diagnostic formulations in psychotherapy. Discourse

Studies 7(6): 627–647.

Baum MA (2005) Talking the vote: Why presidential candidates hit the talk show circuit. American

Journal of Political Science 49(2): 213–234.

Becker A (2007) Are you saying . . .? A cross-cultural analysis of interviewing practices in TV

election night coverages. In: Fetzer A and Lauerbach GE (eds) Political Discourse in the

Media. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 109–137.

Blum-Kulka S (1983) The dynamics of political interviews. Text 3(2): 131–153.

Cantavella J (2002) Historia de la entrevista en prensa. Madrid: Editorial Universitas.

Clayman SE (1992) Footing in the achievement of neutrality: The case of news interview dis-

course. In: Drew P and Heritage J (eds) Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 163–198.

Clayman SE (2002) Disagreements and third parties: Dilemmas of neutralism in panel news

interviews. Journal of Pragmatics 34(10–11): 1385–1401.

Clayman SE (2010) Address terms in the service of other actions: The case of news interview talk.

Discourse & Communication 4(2): 161–183.

Clayman SE and Heritage J (2002) The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Corporació Catalana de Mitjans Audiovisuals (CCMA) (n.d.) Llibre d’estil de la CCMA. Available

at: http://www.ccma.cat/llibredestil/manuals-destil/entrevistes.

Corporación de Radioy Televisión Española, S.A. (RTVE) (n.d.) Manual de estilo de la Corporación

RTVE. Available at: http://manualdeestilo.rtve.es/tve/2–3-generos-informativos/2–3–1-la-

entrevista/

Davis K (1986) The process of problem (re)formulation in psychotherapy. Sociology of Health &

Illness 8(1): 44–74.

Drew P (2003) Comparative analysis of talk-in-interaction in different institutional settings: A

sketch. In: Glenn P, LeBaron CD and Mandalbaum J (eds) Studies in Language and Social

Interaction: In Honor of Robert Hopper. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 293–308.

Eriksson G (2010) Politicians in celebrity talk show interviews: The narrativization of personal

experiences. Text & Talk 30(5): 529–551.

Fairclough N (1995) Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London:

Longman.

Garfinkel H and Sacks H (1970) On formal structures of practical actions. In: McKinney JC and

Tiryakian EA (eds) Theoretical Sociology: Perspectives and Developments. New York:

Appleton-Century-Crofts, pp. 338–366.

JK LMNOMPKQSJ TQ OJ UVMWQXYMKJK ZP[\Q] ^JNXJ PV _PWQ[NQX `ab cd`edcm.sagepub.comfPgVOPJTQT hXP[

ij Discourse & Communication 0(0)

Glenn PJ (1995) Laughing at and laughing with: Negotiating participant alignments through con-

versational laughter. In: ten Have P and Psathas G (eds) Situated Order: Studies in the Social

Organization of Talk and Embodied Activities. Lanham, MD: University Press of America,

pp. 43–56.

Glenn PJ (2003) Laughter in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Goffman E (1981) Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Greatbatch D (1986) Some standard uses of supplementary questions in news interviews. Belfast

Working Papers in Language & Linguistics 8: 86–123.

Hallin DC (1996) Commercialism and professionalism in the American news media. In: Curran J

and Gurevitch M (eds) Mass Media and Society. London: Arnold, pp. 243–262.

Hallin DC and Mancini P (2004) Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Heritage J (1985) Analyzing news interviews: Aspects of the production of talk for an overhearing

audience. In: van Dijk TA (ed.) Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Volume 3: Discourse and

Dialogue. London: Academic Press, pp. 95–117.

Heritage J (2002) The limits of questioning: Negative interrogatives and hostile question content.

Journal of Pragmatics 34(10–11): 1427–1446.

Heritage J and Clayman S (2010) Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities, and Institutions.

Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

Heritage J and Greatbatch D (1991) On the institutional character of institutional talk: The case of

news interviews. In: Boden D and Zimmerman DH (eds) Talk and Social Structure: Studies in

Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 93–137.

Heritage J and Watson DR (1979) Formulations as conversational objects. In: Psathas G (ed.)

Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington, pp. 123–162.

Heritage JC and Roth A (1995) Grammar and institution: Questions and questioning in the

broadcast news interview. Research on Language and Social Interaction 28(1): 1–60.

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

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hutchby I (2011) Non-neutrality and argument in the hybrid political interview. Discourse Studies

13(3): 349–366.

ITV (n.d.). Code of conduct. Available at: http://responsibility.itvplc.com/media/6484/

ammend%206%20code%20of%20conduct.pdf.

Jefferson G (1984) Notes on a systematic deployment of the acknowledgement tokens ‘Yeah’ and

‘Mm hm’. Papers in Linguistics 17(2): 197–216.

Labov W (1972) Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia:

University of Pennsylvania Press.

Labov W and Fanshell D (1977) Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. New

York: Academic Press.

Lauerbach G (2004) Political interviews as hybrid genre. Text 24(3): 353–397.

Martínez-Vallvey F (1995) La entrevista periodística desde el punto de vista conversacional.

Salamanca: Publicaciones Universidad Pontificia.

Mateos-Pérez J (2009) La información como espectáculo en el nacimiento de la televisión privada

española (1990–1994). Estudios sobre el mensaje periodístico 15: 315–334.

Medina M and Ojer T (2010) El nuevo modelo de la televisión pública española. Comunicación y

Sociedad 23(2): 329–359.

Montgomery M (2000) Televised talk: Face work, politeness and laughter in the Mrs. Merton

show. In: Dialogue Analysis VII: Working with Dialogue. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag,

pp. 121–135.

Montgomery M (2008) The discourse of the broadcast news interview. Journalism Studies 9(2):

260–277.

kl mnopnqlrsk tr pk uvnwrxynlkl zq{|r} ~koxk qv �qwr{orx �� dcm.sagepub.com�q�vpqktrt �xq{

�� 25

Montgomery M (2011) The accountability interview, politics and change in UK public service broad-

casting. In: Ekstrom M and Patrona M (eds) Talking Politics in the Broadcast Media: Evolving

Forms of Journalism and Political Accountability. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 33–56.

Papatheodorou F and Machin D (2003) The umbilical cord that was never cut: The post-dictatorial

intimacy between the political elite and the mass media in Greece and Spain. European Journal

of Communication 18(1): 31–54.

Pomerantz A (1984) Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/

dispreferred turn shapes. In: Atkinson JM and Heritage J (eds) Structures of Social Action:

Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 57–101.

Rendle-Short J (2007) Neutralism and adversarial challenges in the political news interview.

Discourse & Communication 1(4): 387–406.

Roca-Cuberes C (2011) Making psychotherapy visible: A conversation analytic study of some

interactional devices employed in psychiatric interviews. Text & Talk 31(2): 221–245.

Sacks H (1987) On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In:

Button G and Lee JRE (eds) Talk and Social Organization. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters,

pp. 54–69.

Sacks H (1992) Lectures on Conversation, Volumes I and II, ed. Jefferson G. Oxford: Blackwell.

Schwartz H (1976) On recognizing mistakes: A case of practical reasoning in psychotherapy.

Philosophy of the Social Sciences 6(1): 55–73.

Stamper S and Brants K (2011) A changing culture of political television journalism. In: Brants K

and Voltmer K (eds) Political Communication in Postmodern Democracy: Challenging the

Primacy of Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan

Thornborrow J (2001) ‘Has it ever happened to you?’ Talk show stories as mediated perfor-

mance. In: Tolson A (ed.) Discourse, Performance, Spectacle: The Talk Show Phenomenon.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 117–137.

Tolson A (2006) Media Talk: Spoken Discourse on TV and Radio. Edinburgh: Edinburgh

University Press.

Watson DR (1990) Some features of the elicitation of confessions in murder interrogations. In:

Psathas G (ed.) Interaction Competence. New York: Irvington Publishers, pp. 263–295.

Wieten J and Pantti M (2005) Obsessed with the audience: Breakfast television revisited. Media,

Culture & Society 27(1): 21–39.

Author biography

Carles Roca-Cuberes is Lecturer in the Department of Communication, Universitat Pompeu

Fabra, Barcelona, Spain, where he teaches Communication Theory and Social Research Methods.

His research interests are in communication theory, conversation analysis, (mediated) interper-

sonal communication and social interaction in various settings. He is currently investigating, on

the one hand, the broadcast political interview, and the representation of particular subcultures in

the news media, on the other hand.

�� ¡¢�� £�¤¥�¦ §��¡� �� ¨� �¤��¡ ©ª« ¬©®dcm.sagepub.com¯�°�� ±¡�¤

Political interviews in public television and commercial broadcasters: A comparison

Documents

Transcript of Political interviews in public television and commercial broadcasters: A comparison