Neutralism and adversarial challenges in the political news interview

Discourse & Communication

Volumn 1, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 387-406

  Rendle Short, Johanna ^a  

^a AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

adversarial challenges; Australian context; conversation analysis; neutralism; political neWs intervieW; unsourced assertions

Indexed keywords

EID: 65249160946     PISSN: 17504813     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1750481307082205     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Adkins, B. (1992) ‘Arguing the Point: The Management and Context of Disputatious Challenges inRadio Current Affairs Interviews’, Australian Journalism Review 14(2): 37—49.
2. Atkinson, J.M. and Heritage, J. (eds) (1984) Structures of Social Action: Studies inConversational Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. Australian Broadcasting Corporation (2002) ‘Editorial Policies’, available online at:http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/edpols.htm], accessed 30 June 2006.
4. Blum-Kulka, S. and Weizman, E. (2003) ‘Misunderstandings in Political Interviews’, in J. House, G. Kasper and S. Ross (eds) Misunderstandings in Social Life, pp.107—128. London: Longman.
5. Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6. Clayman, S. (1988) ‘Displaying Neutrality in Television News Interviews’, Social Problems 35(4): 474—492
7. Clayman, S. (1992) ‘Footing in the Achievement of Neutrality: The Case ofNews Interview Discourse’, in P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds) Talk at Work, pp. 163—198. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8. Clayman, S. (2001) ‘Answers and Evasions’, Language in Society 30: 403—442
9. Clayman, S. (2002) ‘Disagreements and Third Parties: Dilemmas of Neutralism in Panel NewsInterviews’, Journal of Pragmatics 34: 1385—1401.
10. Clayman, S. and Heritage, J. (2002a) The News Interview. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11. Clayman, S. and Heritage, J. (2002b) ‘Questioning Presidents: Journalistic Deference and Adversarialness in thePress Conferences of U.S. Presidents Eisenhower and Reagan’, Journal of Communication 52: 749—775
12. Goffman, E. (1981) ‘Footing’, in E. Goffman (ed.) Forms of Talk, pp. 124—159. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
13. Greatbatch, D. (1988) ‘A Turn-taking System for British News Interviews’, Language in Society 17: 401—430
14. Heritage, J. (1985) ‘Analyzing News Interviews: Aspects of the Productionof Talk for an “Overhearing” Audience’, in T. van Dijk (ed.) Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Vol.3, Discourse andDialogue, pp. 95—119. London: Academic Press.
15. Heritage, J. (2002) ‘The Limits of Questioning: Negative Interrogatives and Hostile QuestionContent’, Journal of Pragmatics 34: 1427—1446.
16. Heritage, J. (2003) ‘Designing Questions and Setting Agenda in the NewsInterview’, in P. Glenn, C. LeBaron and J. Mandelbaum (eds) Studies in Language and Social Interaction: In Honor ofRobert Hopper, pp. 57—90. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
17. Heritage, J. and Greatbatch, D. (1991) ‘On the Institutional Character of Institutional Talk:The Case of News Interviews’, in D. Boden and D. Zimmerman (eds) Talk and Social Structure, pp.93—137. Cambridge: Polity Press.
18. Heritage, J. 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.
19. Hutchby, I. (1992) ‘Confrontation Talk: Aspects of ‘Interruption’ in Argument Sequences onTalk Radio’, Text 12(3): 343—371
20. Jefferson, G. (2004) ‘A Sketch of Some Orderly Aspects of Overlap inNatural Conversation’, in G.H. Lerner (ed.) Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation,pp. 43—59. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
21. Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (2005 ) ‘Code of Ethics’, file name: codeofethics. pdf,available online at:http://www.alliance.org.au/], accessed 29 June 2006.
22. Pomerantz, A. (1984) ‘Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: SomeFeatures of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes’, in J.M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action: Studies in ConversationalAnalysis, pp. 57—101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23. Pomerantz, A. (1988/9) ‘Constructing Skepticism: Four Devices Used to Engender the Audience's Skepticism’, Research on Language and Social Interaction 22: 293—313.
24. Posetti, J. (2001/02) ‘The Politics of Bias at the ABC’, Australian Studies in Journalism 10—11: 3—32.
25. Rendle-Short, J. (in press) ‘“Catherine, You're Wasting Your Time”: AsymmetricalUse of Address Terms within the Australian Political Interview’, Journal of Pragmatics.
26. Sacks, H. (1987) ‘On the Preferences for Agreement and Contiguity inSequences in Conversation’, in G. Button and J.R.E. Lee (eds) Talk and Social Organisation, pp.54—69. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
27. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A. and Jefferson, G. (1974) ‘A Simplest Semantics for the Organization of Turn-taking for Conversation’, Language 50: 696—735.
28. Schegloff, E.A. (1995) ‘Introduction’, in H. Sacks Lectures on Conversation, Vol. 1, pp.ix—lxii. Oxford: Blackwell.
29. Schegloff, E.A. (2000) ‘Overlapping Talk and the Organization of Turn-taking for Conversation’, Language in Society 29: 1—63.
30. Schegloff, E.A. (2002) ‘Accounts of Conduct in Interaction: Interruption,Overlap and Turn-taking’, in J.H. Turner (ed.) Handbook of Sociological Theory, pp.287—321. New York: Plenum.
31. ten Have, P. (1999) Doing Conversation Analysis: A Practical Guide. London: Sage.