Journalists’ moves in political press conferences and their implications for accountability
Political press conferences are important spaces for public accountability because they give journalists the opportunity to scrutinize politicians’ decisions. However, the structure of press conferences poses specific constraints to journalists because their role is limited to ask questions. This situation is not problematic if their goal is to ask informative or critical questions, but it becomes problematic if journalists want to advance standpoints, arguments, or criticisms. In the latter case, journalists have to perform their argumentative moves through façade questions in order to comply with the protocol of press conferences. For this reason, it is not easy to distinguish the argumentative function of journalists’ questions, and consequently, their value for accountability. This paper draws on the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation to give an argumentative account of political press conferences. Furthermore, the implications of journalists’ questions for accountability purposes are discussed.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Political press conferences: Initial situation and starting points for the discussion
- 2.1The initial situation of political press conferences
- 2.2Starting points of political press conferences
- 3.Argumentative means in political press conferences
- 4.Journalists’ questions as functional speech acts
- 5.The importance of journalists’ questions for accountability purposes
- 6.Conclusion
- Note
-
References
References (35)
References
Aakhus, M. and Marcin Lewiński. 2017. “Advancing polylogical analysis of large-scale argumentation: Disagreement management in the fracking controversy.” Argumentation 31(1): 179–207. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Andone, C. 2015b. “Pragmatic Argumentation in European Practices of Political Accountability.” Argumentation 291: 1–18. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bovens, M. 2006. “Analysing and Assessing Public Accountability. A Conceptual Framework.” European Governance Papers (EUROGOV) No. C-06-01.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bovens, M. 2007. “Public accountability.” In The Oxford Handbook of Public Management, ed. by Ferlie, E., Lynn, L. E., & Pollitt, C. New York: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bush, G. W. 2003. President George Bush discusses Iraq in national press conference. The White House. President Gorge W. Bush. Retrieved June 17, 2020, from [URL]
Clayman, S. 2001. “Answers and evasions.” Language in Society 30(3): 403–442. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Clayman, Steven E., and John Heritage. 2002. The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cornwell, E. 1960. “The Presidential Press Conference: A Study in Institutionalization.” Midwest Journal of Political Science 4(4): 370–389. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Grice, H. P. 1991. “Logic and conversation.” In Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Harcup, T. 2014. “Press conference” A dictionary of Journalism. New York: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ingram, D. and Peter Henshall. 2008. “Press and media conferences” The News Manual. A Professional Resource for Journalists and the Media. Volume 1: Basic Techniques. Retrieved June 17, 2020, from [URL]
Kumar, M. J. 2003. “’Does This Constitute a Press Conference’ Defining and Tabulating Modern Presidential Press Conferences.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 33(1): 221–237. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Leal, F. 2020. “On the Importance of Questioning Within the Ideal Model of Critical Discussion.” Argumentation. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lewiński, M. and Mark Aakhus. 2014. “Argumentative polylogues in a dialectical framework: A methodological inquiry.” Argumentation 28(2): 161–185. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mulgan, R. 2003. Holding Power to Account. Accountability in Modern Democracies. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Raz, J. 1980. The concept of a legal system. An introduction to the theory of legal system. Second edition. New York: Oxford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rocci, A. and C. Raimondo. 2018. “Dialogical Argumentation in Financial Conference Calls: the Request of Confirmation of Inference (ROCOI).” In Argumentation and Inference: Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Argumentation (Vol. II1, 699–715) ed. by Oswald, S. & Maillat, D. London: College Publications.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Searle, J. 1979. Expression and meaning. Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Searle, J. and D. Vanderveken. 1985. Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. 1992. Analysing Complex Argumentation. The Reconstruction of Multiple and Coordinatively Compound Argumentation in a Critical Discussion. Amsterdam: Sicsat.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stinga, L. 2008. Political Accountability as a Radial Concept. EUI Working Papers SPS 2008/08.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Van Eemeren, F. and R. Grootendorst. 1984. Speech acts in argumentative discussions. A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Dordretch: Foris Publications. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Van Eemeren, F. and R. Grootendorst. 2004. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Van Eemeren, F., P. Houtlosser, and A. F. Snoeck Henkemans. 2007. Argumentative indicators in discourse. A pragma-dialectical study. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Van Eemeren, F. 2018. Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Hernández, Alfonso
2023.
Disentangling Critical Questions from Argument Schemes.
Argumentation 37:3
► pp. 377 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 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.