Article published in:Argumentation in Journalism: Professional practices and the public sphere
Edited by Corina Andone and Andrea Rocci
[Journal of Argumentation in Context 5:1] 2016
► pp. 74–87
Delimiting the burden of proof in political interviews
This paper aims to contribute to an understanding of the politicians’ burden of proof in political interviews by explaining how politicians attempt to delimit the burden of proof which they acquire for their standpoints in response to criticism. As politicians always want to give a positive evaluation of their activities, they respond to the critics by delimiting their burden of proof in such a way that their standpoints are easy to defend. The research question to be answered is: How do politicians expediently delimit their burden of proof in political interviews in response to criticism? First, the author characterizes political interviews as accountability practices which by virtue of their institutional traits impose limits on the politicians’ burden of proof. Second, the author explains some of the possibilities for delimiting the burden of proof in the communicative practices at issue by analyzing in detail several fragments from a political interview.
Published online: 24 March 2016
Clayman, S., and J. Heritage
Eemeren, F.H. van
Eemeren, F.H. van and P. Houtlosser
Cited by 2 other publications
Alimdjanov, A. A. & T. P. Tretyakova
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 april 2022. 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.