Article published In:
Pragmatics and Society: Online-First ArticlesContradicting potential climate misinformation during televised debates
Experimental research recommends that climate change debaters actively contradict misinformation. This study
examines discursively how participants do so during prominent televised Danish debates, that is, how they orient towards elements
in other participants’ preceding talk about climate change causes and implications as factually wrong. Three types are considered:
(i) contradictions produced by the interviewer in the next turn; (ii) contradictions produced by a co-participant after being
allocated the turn by the interviewer; and (iii) contradictions produced by a co-participant in a self-selected turn. Analysis
reveals that the contradictions are attuned to and limited by these sequential circumstances. The study overall finds that
sequential context significantly impacts climate change debaters’ possibilities for contradicting misinformation; in particular,
potential misinformation may be ‘smuggled’ into multi-unit turns, which can prove difficult for co-panelists to confront because
of the format’s turn-taking provision.
Keywords: climate change communication, misinformation, debate, conversation analysis, institutional interaction, discourse analysis, climate journalism
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Background
- 3.Data and method
- 4.Analysis
- IR-initiated contradictions in the next turn
- IE-produced contradictions after being allocated the floor by IR
- IE-produced contradictions after self-selection
- 5.Concluding remarks
-
References
Published online: 18 January 2024
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.23011.bec
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.23011.bec
References (39)
Beck Nielsen, Søren. 2023a. “Orchestration
of Perspectives in Televised Climate Change Debates.” Discourse &
Society 34 (2: 175–191.
. 2023b. “”There’s
New Technology here that Can Perform Miracles”: The Discursive Psychology of Technological Optimism in Climate Change Policy
Debates.” Journal of Language and
Politics 22 (6: 826–845.
Burke, Shani, and Mirko A. Demasi. 2019. “Applying
Discursive Psychology to ‘Fact’ Construction in Political Discourse.” Social and Personality
Psychology Compass 13 (5):
Clayman, Steven E. 2002. “Disagreements and Third
Parties: Dilemmas of Neutralism in Panel News Interviews.” Journal of
Pragmatics 391: 1385–1401.
Clayman, Steven E., and John Heritage. 2002. The
News Interview. Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
Clayman, Steven E., and Matthew P. Fox. 2017. “Hardballs
and Softballs: Modulating Adversarialness in Journalistic Questioning.” Journal of Language and
Politics 16 (1: 13–39.
Climate Change. 2022. “Impacts,
Adaptation and Vulnerability.” Working Group II Contribution to the IPCC Sixth Assessment
Report.
Cook, John, Stephan Lewandowsky, and Ullrich K. H. Ecker. 2017. “Neutralizing
Misinformation through Inoculation: Exposing Misleading Argumentation Techniques Reduces their
Influence.” PLoS
ONE, 12(5): e0175799.
Cook, John, Peter Ellerton, and David Kinkhead. 2018. “Deconstructing
Climate Misinformation to Identify Reasoning Errors.” Environ. Res.
Lett. 131: 024018.
Demasi, Mirko A. 2020. “Facts as Social Action in
Political Debates about the European Union.” Political
Psychology 40 (1: 3–20.
2019. “Post-truth Politics and
Discursive Psychology.” Social and Personality Psychology
Compass 14 (3): e12556.
Emmertsen, Sofie. 2007. “Interviewers’
Challenging Questions in British Debate Interviews.” Journal of
Pragmatics 39 (3: 570–591.
Farrell, Justin, Kathryn McConnell, and Robert Brulle. 2019. “Evidence-Based
Strategies to Combat Scientific Misinformation.” Nature Climate
Change 91: 191–195.
Greatbatch, David. 1992. “On
the Management of Disagreement between News Interviewees.” In Talk at
Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, ed. by Paul Drew, and John Heritage, 268–301. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Heinemann, Trine, and Jakob Steensig. 2018. “Justifying
Departures from Progressivity: The Turn-Initial Particle
altså.” In Between Turn and Sequence: Turn-Initial Particles Across
Languages, ed. by John Heritage, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen, 455–476. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Heinemann, Trine, Anna Lindström, and Jakob Steensig. 2011. “Adressing
Epistemic Incongruence in Question-Answer Sequences through the Use of Epistemic
Adverbs.” In The Morality of Knowledge in
Conversation, ed. by Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig, 107–130. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, John, and Steven Clayman. 2010. Talk
in Action: Interaction, Identities, and
Institutions. Hoboken: Wiley.
Jefferson, Gail. 2004. “Glossary
of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction.” In Conversation
Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, ed. by Gene Lerner, 13–23. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Krange, Olve, Bjørn P. Kaltenborn, and Martin Hultman. 2021. “”Don’t
Confuse me with Facts” – How Right Wing Populism Affects Trust in Agencies Advocating Anthropogenic Change as a
Reality.” Humanities and Social Sciences
Communications 81: 255.
Kurz, Tim, Martha Augoustinos, and Shona Crabb. 2010. “Contesting
the ‘National Interest’ and Maintaining ‘our Lifestyle’: A Discursive Analysis of Political Rhetoric around Climate
Change.” British Journal of Social
Psychology 491: 601–625.
Kurz, Tim, and Annayah M. B. Prosser. 2021. “Understanding
the Social Dynamics of Climate Change through Analyses of Discourse.” Current Opinion of
Psychology 421: 71–75.
Lamb William, F., Giulio Mattoli, Sebastian Levi, J. Timmons Roberts, Stuart Capstick, Felix Creutzig, Jan C. Minx, Finn Müller-Hansen, Trevor Culhane, and Julia, K. Steinberger. 2020. “Discourses of
Climate Delay.” Global
Sustainability 3, e17, 1–5.
Lewandowsky, Stephan. 2021. “Climate
Change Disinformation and How to Combat It.” Annu. Rev. Public
Health. 1 (42), 1–21. . Epub 2021 Dec 23. PMID: 33355475.
Markowitz, Ezra M., and Meaghan, L. Guckian. 2018. “Climate Change
Communication: Challenges, Insights, and
Opportunities.” In Psychology and Climate change: Human perceptions,
impacts, and responses, ed. by Susan Clayton, and Christie Manning, 35–63. Amsterdam: Academic Press.
Painter, James. 2023. “Climate
Change: Multi-Country Media Analysis Shows Scepticism of the Basic Science is Dying Out.” The
Conversation: [URL]
Petersen, Alexander Michael, Emmanuel M. Vincent, and Anthony LeRoy Westerling. 2019. “Discrepancy
in Scientific Authority and Media Visibility of Climate Change Scientists and
Contrarians.” Nature
Communications 101, 3502.
Sacks, Harvey. 1987. “On
Preferences for Agreement and Contiguity in Conversation.” In Talk
and Social Organisation, ed. by Graham Button, and John R. E. Lee, 54–69. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Sacks, Harvey, Emmanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. “A
Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for
Conversation.” Language 50 (4), 696–735.
Sandager Sørensen, Søren. “The
Prosody of Response Tokens in Danish.” PhD diss, Århus University, 2020. [URL]
Schäfer, Mike S., and James Painter. 2021. “Climate
Journalism in a Changing Media Ecosystem: Assessing the Production of Climate Change-Related News around the
World.” WIREs Climate
Change
12
(1):
Schegloff. (1988). “From
Interview to Confrontation: Observations of the Bush/Rather Encounter.” Research on Language
and Social
Interaction 22 (1–4): 215–240.
Treen, Kathie M. d’l., Hywel T. P. Williams, and Saffron J. O’Neill. 2020. “Online
Misinformation about Climate Change.” WIREs Climate Change.
Van der Linden, Sander, Anthony Leiserowitz, Seth Rosenthal, and Edward Maibach. 2017. “Inoculating
the Public against Misinformation about Climate Change.” Global
Challenges 11, 1600008.
Walker, Garreth. 2010. “The
Phonetic Constitution of a Turn-Holding Practice: Rush-Throughs in English
Talk-in-Interaction.” In Prosody in
Interaction, ed. by Dagmar Barth-Weingarten, Elisabeth Reber, and Margret Selting, 51–72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.