Chapter 11
Hybridity and antagonism in broadcast election campaign interviews
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.
Article outline
- Introduction
- Hybridity in broadcast news interviews
- Data and analytic approach
- Hybridity in journalists’ questioning
- Hybridity in politicians’ responses and reactions sustaining “normality”
- Hybridity in politicians’ responses and reactions that sustain the argumentative framework established
- Discussion
-
Notes
-
References
-
Appendix (transcription glossary)
References
Baym, Geoffrey
2005 “
The Daily Show: Discursive Integration and the Reinvention of Political Journalism.”
Political Communication 22: 259–276.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Baym, Geoffrey
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bull, Peter E.
2003 The Microanalysis of Political Communication. London and New York: Routledge.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Clayman, Steven E., and John Heritage
2002a The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Clayman, Steven E., and John Heritage
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ekström, Mats
2002 “
Epistemologies of TV Journalism: A Theoretical Framework.”
Journalism 3(3): 259–282.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ekström, Mats, and Richard Fitzgerald
2014 “
Groundhog Day.”
Journalism Studies 15(1): 82–97.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Eriksson, Göran
2011 “
Follow-up Questions in Political Press Conferences.”
Journal of Pragmatics 42: 3331–3344.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Glenn, Phillip
2003 Laughter in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goffman, Ervin
1974 Frame Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goffman, Ervin
1981 Forms of Talk. Oxford: Blackwell.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Haakana, Markku
2010 “
Laughter and Smiling: Notes on Co-occurrences.”
Journal of Pragmatics 42: 1499–1512.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hess-Lüttich, Ernest, W. B.
2007 “
(Pseudo-)Argumentation in TV-Debates.”
Journal of Pragmatics (39): 1360–1370.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hofstetter, Emily; Stokoe, Elizabeth
Hutchby, Ian
1996 Confrontation Talk: Arguments, Asymmetries and Power on Talk Radio. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hutchby, Ian, and Robin Wooffitt
1998 Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hutchby, Ian
2006 Media Talk: Conversation Analysis and the Study of Broadcasting. Berkshire: Open University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hutchby, Ian
2011a “
Non-neutrality and Argument in the Hybrid Political Interview.”
Discourse Studies 13 (3): 349–365.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hutchby, Ian
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hutchby, Ian
2017 “
Hybridisation, Personalisation and Tribuneship in the Political Interview.”
Journalism 18 (1): 101–118.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Linell, Per
2011 Samtalskulturer. Kommunikativa verksamhetstyper i samhället [
Conversational cultures. Communicative activity types in society] (Vols. 1 and 2). Linköping: Linköping University.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Luginbühl, Martin
2007 “
Conversational Violence in Political TV Debates: Forms and Functions.”
Journal of Pragmatics 39: 1371–1387.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Montgomery, Martin
2007 The Discourse of Broadcast News: A Linguistic Approach. London and New York: Routledge.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Moufee, Chantal
2013 Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically. London, New York: Verso.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Romaniuk, Tanya
2013a “
Pursuing Answers to Questions in Broadcast Journalism.”
Research on Language and Social Interaction 46:2, 144–164.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Romaniuk, Tanya
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Roth, Andrew, L.
2002 “
Social Epistemology in Broadcast News Interviews.”
Language in Society 31: 355–381.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by
Cited by 1 other publications
Hutchby, Ian
2024.
Going meta: Interaction at the normative boundaries of the news interview.
Journalism ![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 june 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.