Article published In:
Pragmatics and Society: Online-First Articles

Contradicting potential climate misinformation during televised debates

| University of Copenhagen
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
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.23011.bec
References (39)
References
Beck Nielsen, Søren. 2023a. “Orchestration of Perspectives in Televised Climate Change Debates.” Discourse & Society 34 (2: 175–191. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burke, Shani, and Mirko A. Demasi. 2019. “Applying Discursive Psychology to ‘Fact’ Construction in Political Discourse.” Social and Personality Psychology Compass 13 (5): DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clayman, Steven E. 2002. “Disagreements and Third Parties: Dilemmas of Neutralism in Panel News Interviews.” Journal of Pragmatics 391: 1385–1401. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. “Agency in Response: The Role of Prefatory Address Term.” Journal of Pragmatics 571: 290–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clayman, Steven E., and John Heritage. 2002. The News Interview. Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Climate Change. 2022. “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.” Working Group II Contribution to the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cook, John, Peter Ellerton, and David Kinkhead. 2018. “Deconstructing Climate Misinformation to Identify Reasoning Errors.” Environ. Res. Lett. 131: 024018. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Demasi, Mirko A. 2020. “Facts as Social Action in Political Debates about the European Union.” Political Psychology 40 (1: 3–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019. “Post-truth Politics and Discursive Psychology.” Social and Personality Psychology Compass 14 (3): e12556. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Emmertsen, Sofie. 2007. “Interviewers’ Challenging Questions in British Debate Interviews.” Journal of Pragmatics 39 (3: 570–591. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farrell, Justin, Kathryn McConnell, and Robert Brulle. 2019. “Evidence-Based Strategies to Combat Scientific Misinformation.” Nature Climate Change 91: 191–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1983. “Felicity’s Condition.” American Journal of Sociology 89 (1: 1–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, and Steven Clayman. 2010. Talk in Action: Interaction, Identities, and Institutions. Hoboken: Wiley. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kendon, Adam. 2004. Gesture: Visible action as Utterance. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Lewandowsky, Stephan. 2021. “Climate Change Disinformation and How to Combat It.” Annu. Rev. Public Health. 1 (42), 1–21. DOI logo. Epub 2021 Dec 23. PMID: 33355475.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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): DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff Emmanuel, A. 1997. “Whose Text? Whose Context?” Discourse and Society 8 (2: 165–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff. (1988). “From Interview to Confrontation: Observations of the Bush/Rather Encounter.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 22 (1–4): 215–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Treen, Kathie M. d’l., Hywel T. P. Williams, and Saffron J. O’Neill. 2020. “Online Misinformation about Climate Change.” WIREs Climate Change. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van der Linden, Sander, Anthony Leiserowitz, Seth Rosenthal, and Edward Maibach. 2017. “Inoculating the Public against Misinformation about Climate Change.” Global Challenges 11, 1600008. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, Hywel T. P., James R. McMurray, Tim Kurz, and F. Hugo Lambert. 2015. “Network Analysis Reveals Open Forums and Echo Chambers in Social Media Discussions of Climate Change.” Global Environmental Change 321: 126–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar