Cover not available
Part of
Doing Politics: Discursivity, performativity and mediation in political discourse
Edited by Michael Kranert and Geraldine Horan
[Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture 80] 2018
► pp. 259–280

Chapter 11
Hybridity and antagonism in broadcast election campaign interviews

editor

The present chapter contributes to existing research on hybridity in broadcast news interviews (Ekström 2011; Hutchby 2011a, 2011b, 2013, 2017; Baym 2005, 2013) both at a micro and a macro level. Employing Conversation Analysis on a micro level, it explores how, through their hybrid antagonistic practices, Greek politicians and journalists transform the broadcast election campaign news interview into an antagonistic arena where the winner is the one who shows that s/he plays the game of the news interview in a fair way. On a macro level, it examines how the antagonistic practices identified shape the knowledge produced for the overhearing audience (the epistemology of TV journalism in Ekström’s 2002 and Roth’s 2002 terms) in relation both to the politicians’ public portrayal and the resulting antagonistic politics foregrounded.

Keywords: hybridity, antagonism, conversation analysis, Greek election campaign interviews, epistemology of TV journalism, micro-macro, politicians’ public portrayal, antagonistic politics
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Hybridity in broadcast news interviews
  • Data and analytic approach
  • Hybridity in journalists’ questioning
    • Extract 1
    • Extract 2
  • Hybridity in politicians’ responses and reactions sustaining “normality”
    • Extract 3
    • Extract 4
  • Hybridity in politicians’ responses and reactions that sustain the argumentative framework established
    • Extract 5
  • Discussion
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix (transcription glossary)
Published online: 12 December 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.80.11kan
References
Adone, Corina
2013 Argumentation in Political Interviews. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baym, Geoffrey
2005 “The Daily Show: Discursive Integration and the Reinvention of Political Journalism.” Political Communication 22: 259–276.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 “Transformations in Hybrid TV Talk: Extended Interviews on The Daily Show (.com).” In Media Talk and Political Elections in Europe and America, ed. by Mats Ekström, and Andrew Tolson, 63–85. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brian, D. Joseph
1994 “On Weak Subjects and Pro-Drop in Greek.” In Themes in Greek Linguistics (Papers from the First International Conference on Greek Linguistics, Reading, September 1993), ed. by Irene Philippaki-Warburton, Katerina Nicolaidis, and Maria Sifianou, 21–32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bull, Peter E.
2003 The Microanalysis of Political Communication. London and New York: Routledge.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clayman, Steven E., and Jack Whalen
1988/89 “When the Medium Becomes the mMssage: the Case of the Rather-Bush Encounter.” Research on Language and Social Interaction, 22: 241–272.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clayman, Steven E., and John Heritage
2002a The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002b “Questioning Presidents: Journalistic Deference and Adversarialness in the Press Conferences of U.S. Presidents Einsenhower and Reagan.” Journal of Communication 52(4): 749–775.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clayman, Steven E., and Tanya Romaniuk
2011 “Questioning Candidates.” In Talking Politics in Broadcast Media: Cross Cultural Perspectives on Political Interviewing, Journalism and Accountability, ed. by Ekström, Mats, and Marianna Patrona, 15–32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ekström, Mats
2002 “Epistemologies of TV Journalism: A Theoretical Framework.” Journalism 3(3): 259–282.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 “Hybridity as a Resource and Challenge in a Talk Show Political Interview.” In Talking Politics in Broadcast Media: Cross Cultural Perspectives on Political Interviewing, Journalism and Accountability, ed. by Ekstrom, Mats and Marianna Patrona. 135–155. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ekström, Mats, and Richard Fitzgerald
2014 “Groundhog Day.” Journalism Studies 15(1): 82–97.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eriksson, Göran
2011 “Follow-up Questions in Political Press Conferences.” Journal of Pragmatics 42: 3331–3344.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glenn, Phillip
2003 Laughter in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Ervin
1974 Frame Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
1981 Forms of Talk. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Greatbatch, David
1986 “Some Standard Uses of Supplementary Questions in News Interviews.” In Belfast Working Papers in Language and Linguistics, Vol. 8., ed. by John Wilson, and Bryan Crow, 86–123. University of Ulster: Jordanstown.Google Scholar
Haakana, Markku
2010 “Laughter and Smiling: Notes on Co-occurrences.” Journal of Pragmatics 42: 1499–1512.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hess-Lüttich, Ernest, W. B.
2007 “(Pseudo-)Argumentation in TV-Debates.” Journal of Pragmatics (39): 1360–1370.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hofstetter, Emily; Stokoe, Elizabeth
(2018): Making “politics” relevant. How constituents and a member of parliament raise political topics at constituency surgeries. In Michael Kranert, Geraldine Horan (Eds.): Doing Politics. Discursivity, performativity and mediation in political discourse. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company (Discourse approaches to politics, society and culture (DAPSAC), 80), pp. 127–150.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hutchby, Ian
1996 Confrontation Talk: Arguments, Asymmetries and Power on Talk Radio. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hutchby, Ian, and Robin Wooffitt
1998 Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Hutchby, Ian
2001 “Confrontation as a Spectacle: The Argumentative Frame of the Ricki Lake Show.” In Television Talk Shows. Discourse, Performance, Spectacle, ed. by Andrew Tolson, 155–172. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Elrbaum.Google Scholar
2006 Media Talk: Conversation Analysis and the Study of Broadcasting. Berkshire: Open University Press.Google Scholar
2011a “Non-neutrality and Argument in the Hybrid Political Interview.” Discourse Studies 13 (3): 349–365.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011b “Doing Non-neutral: Belligerent Interaction in the Hybrid Political Interview.” In Talking Politics in Broadcast Media: Cross Cultural Perspectives on Political Interviewing, Journalism and Accountability, ed. by Ekstrom, Mats and Marianna Patrona, 115–134. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 “Obama in the No Spin Zone.” In Media Talk and Political Elections in Europe and America, ed. by Mats Ekström and Andrew Tolson, 41–62. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 “Hybridisation, Personalisation and Tribuneship in the Political Interview.” Journalism 18 (1): 101–118.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lavin, Danielle, and Douglas W. Maynard
2001 “Standardization vs. Rapport: Respondent Laughter and Interviewer Reaction during Telephone Surveys.” American Sociological Review 66 (3): 453–479.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C.
1992 “Activity Types and Language.” In Talk at Work. ed. by Paul Drew, and John Heritage, 66–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Linell, Per
2011 Samtalskulturer. Kommunikativa verksamhetstyper i samhället [Conversational cultures. Communicative activity types in society] (Vols. 1 and 2). Linköping: Linköping University.Google Scholar
Luginbühl, Martin
2007 “Conversational Violence in Political TV Debates: Forms and Functions.” Journal of Pragmatics 39: 1371–1387.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, Martin
2007 The Discourse of Broadcast News: A Linguistic Approach. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
2011 “The Accountability Interview, Politics and Change in UK Public Service Broadcasting.” In Talking Politics in Broadcast Media: Cross Cultural Perspectives on Political Interviewing, Journalism and Accountability, ed. by Mats Ekström, and Marianna Patrona, 33–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moufee, Chantal
2013 Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically. London, New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Patrona, Marianna
2011 “Neutralism Revisited: When Journalists Set New Rules in Political News Discourse.” In Talking Politics in Broadcast Media: Cross Cultural Perspectives on Political Interviewing, Journalism and Accountability, ed. by Mats Ekström, and Marianna Patrona, 157–176. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Romaniuk, Tanya
2013a “Pursuing Answers to Questions in Broadcast Journalism.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 46:2, 144–164.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013b “Interviewee Laughter and Disaffiliation in Broadcast News Interviews.” In Studies of Laughter in Interaction, ed. by Phillip Glenn, and Elizabeth Holt, 201–220. London and New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Roth, Andrew, L.
2002 “Social Epistemology in Broadcast News Interviews.” Language in Society 31: 355–381.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie
2008 “ ‘Those Are Only Slogans’: A Linguistic Analysis of Argumentation in Debates With Extremist Political Speakers.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 27 (4): 345–358.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Hutchby, Ian
2024. Going meta: Interaction at the normative boundaries of the news interview. Journalism DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 march 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.