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

| University of Amsterdam
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.
Keywords: strategy, political interview, burden of proof
Published online: 24 March 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.5.1.04and
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Alimdjanov, A. A. & T. P. Tretyakova
2020. Speaking of the Genre Types of USA Institutional Political Discourse. Discourse 5:6 ► pp. 144 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 april 2021. 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.

References

References

Andone, C.
2013 Argumentation in Political Interviews. Analyzing and Evaluating Responses to Accusations of Inconsistency. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bovens, M.
2006 “Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework”. European Law Journal 13 (4): 447–468. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clayman, S., and J. Heritage
2002 The News Interview. Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, F.H. van
2010 Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Extending the Pragma-dialectical Theory of Argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, F.H. van and P. Houtlosser
2002 “Strategic Maneuvering with the Burden of Proof”. In Advances in Pragma-dialectics, ed. by F.H. van Eemeren, 13–28. Amsterdam/Newport News, Virginia: Sic Sat/Vale Press.Google Scholar
Fetzer, A.
2007 “Well if that had not been True, that would have been Perfectly Reasonable: Appeals to Reasonableness in Political Interviews”. Journal of Pragmatics 39 (8): 1342–1359. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, N.
1992 “Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy”. Social text 25/26: 56–80.Google Scholar
Houtlosser, P.
2002 “Indicators of a Point of View”. In Advances in Pragma-dialectics, ed. by F.H. van Eemeren, 169–184. Amsterdam/Newport News, Virginia: Sic Sat/Vale Press.Google Scholar
Kauffeld, F.J.
2007 “The Burden of Proof: A Macro or a Micro Level Concept?” In Reason Reclaimed, ed. by H. Hansen and R. Pinto, 65–73. Newport News, Virginia: Vale Press.Google Scholar
Montgomery, M.
2007 The Discourse of Broadcast News. A Linguistic Approach. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mulgan, R.
2003 Holding Power to Account. Accountability in Modern Democracies. Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rescher, N.
1977 Dialectics. A Controversy-oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge. Albany: State Universiy of New York Press.Google Scholar
2006 Presumption and the Practices of Tentative Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Walton, D.N.
1988 “Burden of Proof”. Argumentation 2: 233–254. CrossrefGoogle Scholar