Content uploaded by Steven E. Clayman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Steven E. Clayman on Oct 21, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Disagreements and third parties:
dilemmas of neutralism in panel news interviews
Steven E. Clayman
Department of Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA
Abstract
Broadcast news interviewers in both Britain and the United States are obliged to maintain a
formally neutral or neutralistic posture. Previous research has documented the language
practices through which this is achieved in singular actions directed toward particular inter-
viewees. Maintaining neutralism becomes more complex within panel interviews where inter-
viewers ask questions of different interviewees in succession. In this environment, conduct
toward successive interviewees can be compared and contrasted for evidence of partiality or
favoritism. This paper analyzes in detail one particular panel interview in which the norm of
neutralism appears to have been breached. This interview is examined in the spirit of deviant
case analysis, with the main objective being to elucidate by reference to a counterexample how
a neutralistic posture normally is maintained. #2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights
reserved.
Keywords: Disagreement; Neutrality; Bias; Alignment; News interviews; Journalism
1. Introduction
Disagreement is an activity framework and an environment for language use that
consists, in its most elementary form, of an oppositional transaction between two
primary participants. This basic form—and the options for participation that it
implicates—is elaborated when a third party is present who may choose either to
align with one of the disputants or to maintain a formally neutral or neutralistic
posture (cf. Simmel, 1950).
Numerous factors can encourage third parties to choose a stance of formal neu-
trality over partisan involvement. In some institutional contexts, neutrality is man-
dated either by formal rules or informal norms—this is so for the judge in trial
Journal of Pragmatics 34 (2002) 1385–1401
www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma
0378-2166/02/$ - see front matter #2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S0378-2166(02)00070-X
E-mail address: clayman@soc.ucla.edu (S.E. Clayman).
proceedings (Atkinson, 1992) and the professional mediator in mediation sessions
(Garcia, 1991). In other settings, where the third party has the power to impose a
solution on the participants—e.g., professional arbitrators and adults who act as
arbitrators in disputes between children—the third party may still be obliged to
remain neutral when initially investigating the facts of the case. Even in ‘casual’
contexts involving friends and family members, where neutrality is in no way man-
dated, the third party to an ongoing dispute may choose to avoid taking sides in an
effort to maintain harmonious relations with both disputants (cf. Maynard, 1986).
Professional journalists who conduct interviews for broadcast represent a case in
point. Contemporary news interviews frequently involve a panel of participants who
represent distinct and often conflicting perspectives on the issue under discussion
(Greatbatch, 1992; Olsher, forthcoming). When disagreement emerges among the
panelists, the interviewer is obliged to remain formally neutral in accordance with
deep-seated norms of the journalistic profession in Anglo-American society
(Schudson, 1978; Gans, 1979). Absolute neutrality may be an unattainable ideal, but
previous research has documented some of the ways in which both American and
British interviewers attend to this ideal through the design of the actions they pro-
duce (Clayman, 1988, 1992b; Heritage, 1985; Heritage and Greatbatch, 1991; Heri-
tage and Roth, 1995). Interviewers generally restrict themselves to asking questions,
avoid making unvarnished assertions except as prefaces to questions or as attributed
to third parties, and avoid various responsive actions indicating approval or dis-
approval with what the interviewee has said. In all of these ways, interviewers
maintain a formally neutral or neutralistic stance in the course of their work.
The practices examined thus far are clearly a prerequisite for neutralism, but they
do not by themselves ensure its accountable achievement. The analysis of journalistic
neutralism has thus far been restricted to singular actions directed toward particular
interviewees. Maintaining neutralism becomes considerably more complicated within
panel interviews involving multiple participants, where interviewers are seen asking
questions of different interviewees in succession. In this environment, conduct
toward, and treatment of, successive interviewees can be compared, contrasted, and
scrutinized for evidence of partiality or favoritism.
This paper focuses on the news interview as a strategic site for investigating the
problem of third-party neutralism and its maintenance. It begins with a discussion
of the rise of the panel interview as a format for news and public affairs program-
ming, dissects the problem of neutralism in this context, and analyzes in detail one
particular panel interview in which the norm of neutralism appears—at least to the
casual observer—to have been breached. This interview is examined in the spirit of
deviant case analysis, with the main objective being to elucidate by reference to a
counterexample how a neutralistic posture normally is maintained.
1.1. Background on panel news interviews
Panel news interviews can involve varying numbers of participants, but they often
consist of two interviewees who represent opposing ideological positions and poli-
tical interests. Compared to single-interviewee interviews, panel interviews tend to
1386 S.E. Clayman / Journal of Pragmatics 34 (2002) 1385–1401
attract a less distinguished cadre of participants. While presidents, prime ministers,
and senior cabinet officials are periodically interviewed solo, they rarely participate
in panel discussions or debates. Legislators, certified experts of various stripes, and
representatives of advocacy groups are the mainstay of the panel interview, making
it a somewhat less prestigious variant of the news interview genre.
This variant has grown steadily over the years. Panel interviews were rare in the
1950s and 1960s, occasional in the 1970s, and have become commonplace from the
1980s onward. In the US, they have been most ubiquitous since the advent of Ted
Koppel’s Nightline program, which was initially promoted under the auspices of the
slogan, ‘‘Bringing people together who are worlds apart’’. They remain a common
format for news interviews featured on programs such as Nightline (ABC), The
NewsHour (PBS), Meet the Press (NBC), Face the Nation (CBS), and This Week
(ABC).
The proliferation of the panel format stems from its utility to broadcast journal-
ists: it helps to solve certain fundamental problems associated with interviewing as a
journalistic activity. Consider the divergent and often conflicting norms that jour-
nalists are expected to uphold when questioning a public figure. On the one hand,
interviewers (henceforth IRs) are supposed to be suitably adversarial in their treat-
ment of interviewees (henceforth IEs). That is, they should not allow the IE to make
untrue, misleading, or purely self-serving remarks, but should subject such remarks
to criticism and challenge. Being adversarial ensures that the IE will be held
accountable before the viewing public, and it also helps to generate lively discussions
with maximum audience appeal. However, adversarialness can conflict with the
equally venerated ideal of journalistic neutrality, in that an IR who is persistently
adversarial can be seen as having an ideological axe to grind.
1
Thus, when Dan
Rather aggressively interrogated Vice President George Bush regarding his involve-
ment in the Iran-Contra scandal, he was widely criticized for abandoning the role of
journalist in favor of that of prosecutor (Clayman and Whalen, 1988/1989). A
similar fate befell David Frost following a particularly contentious interview with
insurance man Emil Savundra, an event that was later denounced as ‘trial by tele-
vision’. In extreme form, adversarialness can also inflict damage on the broader
professional relationship between IR and IE. In retaliation for excessively zealous
interrogations, public figures may refuse to participate in future interviews and
withhold other forms of cooperation—as the BBC’s Jeremy Paxman knows all too
well. On rare occasions, public figures have even been known to physically attack
offending IRs.
2
Against this backdrop, the attractions of the panel format should be obvious. Not
only do such interviews promise liveliness and dramatic conflict, but they create a
1
The norm of neutrality applies only to the prototypical news interview programs that form the basis
for this study: those involving a professional journalist, one or more newsworthy public figures, and
content pertaining to recent news events. It does not necessarily apply to the various talk show formats on
24-h cable news channels, some of which are hosted not by journalists but by commentators who make no
claims of impartiality.
2
A recent Australian telecast documented a series of such attacks against IRs by angry politicians,
sports figures, and others.
S.E. Clayman / Journal of Pragmatics 34 (2002) 1385–1401 1387
division of labor that reconciles—at least in principle—the divergent ideals of
neutralism and adversarialness. With partisan IEs playing the role of adversary vis a
`
vis one another, the interviewer is insulated from the heat of battle and is free to act
as a disinterested moderator and catalyst.
However, this role has pitfalls of its own. The problem of neutralism re-emerges
here in a different form—namely, balanced treatment of the panelists. Since the IR is
seen questioning different IEs who represent divergent interests and ideologies, treat-
ment of one panelist can be compared and contrasted with treatment of another, and
variations can make the IR vulnerable to charges of partiality or favoritism. Of
course, IRs can always be monitored for their conduct toward different IEs, but in
one-on-one interviews any such monitoring must extend across separate and tem-
porally distant events. Preferential treatment is clearly much easier to detect when
multiple IEs are co-present and are being questioned in close proximity.
How prevalent is this phenomenon? It is difficult to say. There is as yet no sys-
tematic analysis of the extent to which IRs are unbalanced in their conduct toward
panelists.
3
The lack of comparative research undoubtedly stems from the formidable
methodological difficulties that surround this issue. Consider, for example, that a
pattern of differential treatment is not necessarily indicative of favoritism or parti-
ality. If IE1 receives tougher questions than IE2, this may be because IE10s remarks
contain more factual errors, are more evasive, or are otherwise faulty and hence
deserving of adversarial treatment.
4
There may, in other words, be good reasons for
an IR to treat the panelists differently, and these reasons must be ruled out in order
to demonstrate convincingly that ideological favoritism is at work. Further compli-
cating matters is the fact that endogenous journalistic norms may require neutralism
only within certain broad ideological boundaries, permitting more unabashedly
hostile treatment of those who are regarded as ‘‘beyond the pale’’ (Hall, 1973).
Nevertheless, any pattern of differential treatment may be significant from a pub-
lic relations point of view. To the casual observer, it can make an IR appear to be
‘playing favorites’ in a manner that is decidedly nonneutral.
Several years ago an interview came to my attention in which differential treat-
ment of this sort was massive and highly conspicuous. This case was striking because
it was so different from most of the panel news interviews I had seen. Whatever
considerations may have contributed to this asymmetry, and however it may be
justified in retrospect, it can be taken by the casual observer to be a manifestation of
unprofessional favoritism. Accordingly, this interview will be examined in some
detail. In the spirit of deviant case analysis, a close look at this extraordinary case
will reveal how neutralism can be compromised, and by implication, how under
normal circumstances it is maintained.
3
Several researchers have compared the treatment of different IEs across different interviews. For
quantitative analyses, see Bull and Mayer (1988), Bull and Elliott (1998), Elliott and Bull (1996), and
Clayman and Heritage (2002b). For qualitative analyses, see Hall (1973), Schlesinger et al. (1983), and
Jucker (1986).
4
This is a variant of what Schegloff (1993) terms ‘‘the denominator problem’’ in quantitative analyses
of interaction. It has also been discussed, in an entirely different disciplinary context, in writings on the
methodological difficulties surrounding studies of objectivity and bias in journalism (e.g., Hackett, 1984).
1388 S.E. Clayman / Journal of Pragmatics 34 (2002) 1385–1401
2. A case study
The interview in question was conducted in 1985 by Lesley Stahl for the Sunday
morning public affairs program Face the Nation (CBS). The interview concerned the
topic of genetic engineering, and it was set up as a debate between two panelists, one
a supporter of genetic engineering and the other an opponent. The interview
appeared as the final segment of a program devoted entirely to genetic engineering,
and prior program segments were broadly favorable to this new technology. The
program began with news about a promising new medical application of genetic
engineering—namely the creation of an anti-cancer drug called ‘interluken two’.
This good news was discussed in a taped segment and in an initial interview with two
medical doctors with expertise in that area of research. By documenting the life-
saving potential of one application of genetic engineering, this first part of the pro-
gram is at least implicitly supportive of its continued development. This attitude can
also be discerned in the conduct of the interview that closes the program, the parti-
culars of which we will examine in roughly chronological order.
2.1. The introductions
When the focal interview itself begins, the participants are introduced in divergent
ways that can be taken as favoring the supporter of genetic engineering (Alexander
Capron) over the opponent (Jeremy Rifkin).
(1) [US Face the Nation 8 December 1985: Genetic Engineering]
1 IR: Joining us now::, Jeremy Rifkin. author, (.) an’
2 opponent of genetic engineering, .hh
3 An’ on the other si:de, Alexander Capron, former
4 Director of the President’s Commission on Bioethics.
Notice that the introduction of Rifkin (lines 1 and 2) makes no mention of his
relevant credentials or institutional affiliations; he is characterized only as an
‘‘author and opponent of genetic engineering’’.
5
By contrast, Capron’s introduction
(lines 3 and 4) highlights an institutional affiliation (‘‘former director of the Pre-
sident’s Commission on bioethics’’) despite the fact that he no longer holds that
position. Moreover, Capron’s attitude toward genetic engineering is never asserted
outright (although it is implied by the lead-in to his introduction: ‘‘on the other
side...’’). Thus, Rifkin is portrayed as a free-floating political activist who is com-
mitted to a particular point of view, whereas Capron is portrayed as a bioethics
expert with an institutionally legitimated track record of service in his specialty.
5
In fact, Rifkin has degrees from the Wharton School of Finance and the Fletcher School of Law and
Diplomacy at Tufts University, and he established the Foundation on Economic Trends. This back-
ground information was culled from the Biography Online Database (www.biography.com), which itself
incorporates the Cambridge Encyclopedia Database.
S.E. Clayman / Journal of Pragmatics 34 (2002) 1385–1401 1389
2.2. The first round of questioning
This pattern of apparent favoritism toward Capron over Rifkin continues as the
questioning begins. Consider how the IEs’ initial contributions to the interview are
subsequently dealt with by the IR.
The very first question (lines 1–4 below) is directed toward Rifkin; it asks whether
he is opposed to genetic engineering for medical purposes as discussed previously in
the program. Rifkin, in response, denies that he is flatly opposed to such research
(lines 6–8), but he then goes on to argue for careful consideration of the long-range
ethical implications of genetic engineering (lines 9–27).
(2) [US Face the Nation 8 December 1985: Genetic Engineering]
1 IR: Mister Rifkin you are an opponent=h of genetic >engineering,=
2 =.hhh<D’you oppo:se h the kind of work that Doctor
3 Rosenberg is doing with interluken two <which is
4 de[veloped through genetic engineering,=
5 JR: [.hh
6 JR: =No I don’t.=I- I think that=uh: (.) that work is
7 very exciting, there are some (0.4) obvious:=uh
8 breakthroughs happening: wit’ genetic engineering
9 technology. .hh (Ya know) like: with every technology: ih-
10 there are benefits an’ cost(s). .h And=uh- wit’ genetic
11 engineering we have the ultimate technology. .hh (we’
12 beginning) a process where we learn ho:w to: .h
13 cha:nge the genetic co:de for living thi:ngs. for
14 plants, animals an’ humans. .hh And certainly
15 there are long range ethical implications=uh when we
16 began to embark on a course where we become (.) the
17 enginee:rs. .h of parts of our own code. .hh I
18 should he- hasten t’ say th’t- (.) #uh# we’re only at
19 the crude beginnings of this technological
20 revolution. There’s very little that can be done now:.
21 .hh But I think we owe it to ourselves >as a species. <
22 to begi:n to look at some o’ the lo:ng term
23 questions. .h uh- (0.2) What ge:nes are permissable
24 to engineer. (.) Which genes are no:t. (0.2) Who should
25 make the decisions of- as to which ki:nd of:
26 genetic engineering should be: (0.4) #-# taken an’ what
27 should no:t.
28 IR: (Well) let me stop you >for one minute. <
29 Didn’t=you:: #uh:- e#=sponsor, .hh #uh: uh# program
30 duh s:top all of this research?
31 <I mean it isn’t just that you think we oughta (f- think)
32 it you want it stopped.
1390 S.E. Clayman / Journal of Pragmatics 34 (2002) 1385–1401
The IR responds to Rifkin’s opening statement by forcefully challenging its vera-
city. She proposes that, contrary to his denial, he is indeed seeking to stop genetic
engineering research altogether. Although her initial proposal to that effect (lines 29
and 30) is built as an interrogative and thus might be thought to be epistemically
cautious, it uses a linguistic form that is, in fact, highly assertive—the interrogative
is negatively formulated (‘‘Didn’t you sponsor a program to stop all of this
research’’). Heritage (2002) has demonstrated that negative interrogatives are highly
assertive and are in effect tilted in favor of a ‘yes’ answer, so much so that recipients
regularly treat them as if they were asserting a position rather than merely asking a
question. Furthermore, after completing this interrogatively formatted proposal
about Rifkin’s intentions, the IR goes on to make the same point once again via an
unvarnished declarative assertion (lines 31 and 32). In all of these ways, she counters
the position Rifkin has taken.
Capron’s first contribution to the interview is treated very differently by the IR.
Capron launches an unmediated disagreement with Rifkin (the last part of which is
reproduced below), arguing that the groups with which Rifkin has been associated
had previously taken a stronger anti-research position, and he concludes (lines 1–5)
by pointing out that cancer-fighting benefits of interluken two would be impossible
without genetic engineering.
(3) [US Face the Nation: 8 December 1985: Genetic Engineering]
1 AC: ...after all the interluken two that’s being used here is a
2 result of genetic engineering. (.) Without genetic
3 engineering, (.) this wouldn’t be possible. <It was a
4 very ra:re .h protein to have,=it can now be
5 produced easily.
6 IR: .h Yeah (b- #ehI-#) I- that’s what I wanna ask you.=If you
7 stop the research- #uh-# in any phase of this_
8 aren’t=you cutting us o:ff?, from finding cu:res, <not
9 only for cancer, but for these .h horrible genetic
10 diseases th’t- people are born with, ‘n: die young
11 from or .h sickle cell anemia, some o’these other-
12 (0.5) horrible dis[eases.]
13 JR: [.hh ] Well I think >this is
14 something (that’s)<been brought up quite a few ti:mes
15 at the National Institute of He:alth....
In response, the IR first acknowledges Capron’s final point via a token: ‘‘Yeah’’ in
line 6. In general, IRs very rarely use acknowledgement tokens of any kind (Great-
batch, 1988; Heritage, 1985; Heritage and Greatbatch, 1991), in part because such
tokens can be taken as expressing at least a modicum of support or agreement with
the IE and are thus threatening to the IR’s neutralistic posture. The supportive
import of this particular token foreshadows what immediately follows (lines 6–12)—
IR subsequently takes up and uses Capron’s argument as the basis for yet another
S.E. Clayman / Journal of Pragmatics 34 (2002) 1385–1401 1391
challenging question directed toward Rifkin, one that portrays Rifkin as unreason-
ably hindering the progress of medical research that might otherwise find cures for
various ‘‘horrible genetic diseases’’. As she launches the question, she explicitly
indicates that it is touched off by Capron’s remarks (‘‘that’s what I wanna ask you’’,
in line 6). Moreover, this question is again negatively formulated (‘‘aren’t you cut-
ting us off...’’, in line 8) and thus highly assertive in its unflattering portrayal of
Rifkin.
In short, the panelists’ initial contributions are subject to very different interac-
tional fates. Whereas Rifkin’s remarks are challenged and countered, Capron’s
remarks are accepted and used as a resource with which to challenge Rifkin once
again.
2.3. Inviting interplay between panelists
Consider next how subsequent questioning is organized. The IR structures the
next four question–answer sequences in accordance with a consistent pattern—she
begins each line of inquiry by asking a question of Rifkin, after which she solicits a
reaction from Capron, and then shifts to a new topic with the next question put to
Rifkin. Thus, Rifkin is repeatedly placed in the position of going first with his
argument, has his argument refuted by Capron, but is not given an opportunity to
respond. This sequential arrangement can be seen to benefit Capron over Rifkin,
although recognizing that fact requires that observers track lengthy stretches of talk
involving many interactional sequences.
The tilt toward Capron is more immediately apparent in the design of the ques-
tions that solicit his responses to Rifkin—questions that Olsher (forthcoming) has
aptly characterized as inviting interplay between IEs. Questions of this sort can, in
principle, take a variety of forms, including simple address terms with rising into-
nation (e.g., ‘‘Senator Dole?’’), open invitations to respond (e.g., ‘‘How do you
respond to the Ambassador’s point?’’), invitations to agree or disagree (e.g., ‘‘Do
you accept that?’’), and invitations that solicit disagreement in particular (e.g., ‘‘You
don’t agree with the Senator, do you?’’).
6
However, these alternatives do not all
figure in the present context. The IR’s inviting-interplay questions most closely
resemble the fourth category, albeit a markedly stronger variant thereof. Rather
than merely invite Capron to disagree with Rifkin’s point, these questions invite a
response that undercuts the relevance of Rifkin’s point. Moreover, by virtue of their
design, these questions provide resources for Capron to mount just such a rebuttal,
and in that way they can be seen collaborating with his side in the dispute.
The first instance of this sort occurred immediately after Rifkin answered the IR’s
challenge in excerpt (3) above. Rifkin argues that although some forms of genetic
engineering may be less hazardous (i.e., somatic gene therapy, which does not affect
offspring), nevertheless ‘‘we owe it to ourselves to begin the process of studying the
6
A much fuller discussion of alternative forms of inviting-interplay questions can be found in Olsher
(forthcoming). For a discussion of inviting-interplay questions that solicit disagreement in particular, see
Clayman and Heritage (2002a: Chapter 8).
1392 S.E. Clayman / Journal of Pragmatics 34 (2002) 1385–1401
long term effects’’ and the implications for ‘‘our relationship to our children and
future generations’’ (lines 1–21).
(4) [US Face the Nation 8 Dec 1985: Genetic Engineering]
1 JR: [.hh ] Well I think >this is
2 something (that’s)<been brought up quite a few ti:mes
3 at the National Institute of He:alth. At the:=uh
4 last uh:- uh- (.) meeting at the National Institute
5 on this .hh they were discussing the first gene
6 therapy. somatic gene therapy:, an’ the kind of
7 guidelines that oughta be established. An’ the point
8 I made at that time is .hh even though the ethical
9 considerations for somatic therapy .h are not a:s
10 uh- as profou:nd as the ethical implications for germ
11 line, .hh we owe it to ourse:lves to begin the
12 process of studying the long term effe:cts. of
13 bringing in uh wi::de range of disciplines (th’t) c’n
14 loo:k .h at the: long term eugenics implications.
15 .hh certainly when we talk about engineering changes
16 in the genetic co:de. regardless of the tremendous
17 benefits available_ .hh we’ve gotta a:lso-be aware
18 of (the) responsibility_ (.) that this kind of genetic
19 engineering:=uh: #e-e-# really me:ans, in terms of our
20 relationship to our children. (in)/(an’) future
21 generati[ons .]
22 AC: [Owe-] [I:: see-]
23 IR: ->[Does any]body disagree [with that,
24 AC: [No no one
25 disagrees with=that Jeremy as you know- we’ve been
26 talking about this: .h for fifteen yea:rs....
As Rifkin winds down his argument, the IR invites Capron to respond with the
question ‘‘Does anybody disagree with that’’ (arrowed). Considered as a strictly
grammatical object, this is a yes/no question, and it is formulated in such a way—
with the inclusion of and emphasis on the encompassing pronoun ‘‘anybody’’—as to
prefer a ‘no’ answer. Consistent with this preference, Capron produces just that type
of answer forcefully, and at the first grammatical completion point (line 24). Sub-
stantively, this question is mobilized in the service of an action that treats Rifkin’s
point as banal, something that no one could possibly disagree with and hence of no
consequence to the issue under discussion. It thus provides grounds for a dismissive
response, which Capron subsequently provides—launching his response with almost
the very same terms as were used in the antecedent question.
In the next very next round of questioning, the IR again aligns with Capron as she
invites him to respond to Rifkin. When Rifkin is asked about his effort to block the
S.E. Clayman / Journal of Pragmatics 34 (2002) 1385–1401 1393
use of a genetically engineered microbe in agriculture (lines 1–7), he argues that such
organisms should not be released without first considering the long-term environ-
mental consequences (lines 8–24).
(5) [US Face the Nation 8 Dec 1985: Genetic Engineering]
1 IR: =But we’re getting onto a pha:se where (.)
2 th-uh products of some a this: research .h are
3 now being (.) #uh# allowed to get out into the
4 environment=>an’ I understand <.h Mister=Rifkin you’re
5 going to c(h)ourt this week to try an’ prevent .h-
6 (#h#)one of these microbes from being introduced into the
7 agricultural process. What is that issue.
8 JR: Well that’s the issue of uh- releasing. genetically
9 engineered organisms into the biosphere. .hh and the
10 fact i:s we haven’t taken a look at the long term
11 (.) environmental consequences of introducing: (.)
12 genetically modified for:ms into our environment. .h
13 We need to: take a careful look at this before
14 we pell mell rush into it= >an’ I think there’s an
15 analogy here. .hh Ya know during the nuclear
16 technology revolution. (.) an’ the petrochemical
17 revolution after World War Two. .h we were so
18 transfixed with all the benefits_ .h that we didn’t
19 ask the hard questions about long term consequences.
20 .h This time around with genetic technology, .h
21 <perhaps we: could ask>the hard questions at the
22 beginning_ .h an’ have a more realistic appra:isal
23 (.) of the context in which this technology’s going=
24 =to be introduced.=
25 IR:->=Have we not done that,
26 AC: We have done that.=>I mean <the <scientists themselves >
27 back in nineteen seventy five called a moratorium on
28 their work...
Following this argument, the IR turns to solicit Capron’s response via the ques-
tion, ‘‘Have we not done that’’ (arrowed). Much like the previous example, this
question invites a counter argument from Capron and implicitly aligns with that as-
yet-unexpressed counter argument. How is this accomplished? Notice first that the
question is negatively formulated; as noted earlier, such questions are strongly tilted
in favor of a ‘yes’ answer (Heritage, 2002). Substantively, the question is tilted
toward an answer that would render Rifkin’s point moot, and it anticipatorily for-
mulates what might be the crux of Capron’s rebuttal (‘‘we have done that’’—i.e., we
have already considered the environmental consequences). In effect, the question
assists Capron in making his point, and Capron incorporates much of the wording
1394 S.E. Clayman / Journal of Pragmatics 34 (2002) 1385–1401
of the question into the beginning of his response (line 26), thereby asserting it
‘independently’ while simultaneously borrowing its phraseology.
In summary, both of the IR’s inviting_interplay questions display a preference for
Capron’s side of the debate, and they do so through a common set of design fea-
tures. Both questions are (i) highly assertive in character, (ii) undercut the relevance
of Rifkin’s point, (iii) invite a rebuttal from Capron, and (iv) provide grounds for
rebuttal that are subsequently taken up and used by Capron in his ensuing response.
In all of these ways, the IR can be seen as partial toward and subtly collaborating
with Capron in the debate. Further contributing to the sense of partiality is the fact
that the grounds for rebuttal are not attributed to Capron or to a third party (cf.
‘‘Your position is that we have already done that’’), and are thus offered on the IR’s
own behalf (cf. Clayman, 1992b).
2.4. A note on facial expressions
The IR’s apparent partiality can also be discerned at the nonvocal level. In the
previous exchange (excerpt 5 above), she exhibits clearly different facial expressions
as she delivers questions to Rifkin and Capron respectively. Throughout her ques-
tion to Rifkin (lines 1–7 above), she remains largely expressionless, except for brief
eyebrow flashes at points of emphasis. Fig. 1 shows the first frame of videotape fol-
lowing the completion of her question (in line 7). The relaxed facial muscles are
representative of her appearance throughout the antecedent question.
However, when she turns to Capron to invite an oppositional response (line 25
above), she smiles broadly. This is indicated in Fig. 2, which shows the first frame of
Fig. 1.
S.E. Clayman / Journal of Pragmatics 34 (2002) 1385–1401 1395
videotape following the completion of her question to Capron. The smile’s point of
onset cannot be determined, because the camera does not cut to the IR until the final
word ‘‘that’’ at line 25. At that point, the smile is in full bloom, and it remains—
albeit fading slowly—for about one full second into Capron’s response. Smiles can,
of course, convey a range of meanings, not only when blended with other facial
expressions (Ekman and Friesen, 1975), but also when produced in association with
a particular spate of talk. In the environment of a question that so clearly favors
Capron’s side in the debate (for all of the reasons outlined above), this particular
smile can be taken as a further display of affiliation with that side.
Throughout the body of the interview, the IR is shown smiling broadly at only
one other juncture—during another ‘friendly’ question directed to Capron (in
excerpt 7, discussed in Section 2.6 below). Rifkin never receives such a nonvocal
display of affiliation.
2.5. Cross-examining one panelist
Following the preceding exchange, the IR subsequently shifts gears, so to speak,
in her management of the interview. Instead of inviting Capron to counter Rifkin,
the IR enters the fray and begins challenging Rifkin on her own initiative. By
assuming the role of cross-examiner, she becomes more directly adversarial toward,
and thus more clearly aligned against, Rifkin in the dispute.
The cross-examination phase begins with the IR asking Rifkin to talk about
‘‘what some of these microbes can do’’ (line 1)—she elaborates on this query by
Fig. 2.
1396 S.E. Clayman / Journal of Pragmatics 34 (2002) 1385–1401
noting their ‘‘enormous benefits’’ (lines 2–4) and referring to one microbe that
‘‘prevents frost from forming’’ (lines 6–7). Rifkin begins to respond at this point
(line 8), taking up the issue of the anti-frost microbe and pointing out that it could
negatively affect worldwide rainfall patterns (lines 8–22).
(6) [US Face the Nation 8 Dec 1985: Genetic Engineering]
1 IR: Tell us what some (of) these microbes c’n ^do though.=It-
2 it all=we:(m)- talked about the benefi[ts ] they’re=
3 (JR): [Yes.]
4 IR: =en:ormous.
5 (): .h [h-
6 IR: [You c’n- (w) the one you’re tryin’ ‘to sto:p_ (.)
7 prevents frost from forming,=
8 JR: =Well let’s- let’s take a look at this
9 particular microbe. (.) In nature this
10 genetically engineered microbe also is- (.) plays a
11 major role in rainfall patterns. .h The genetically
12 enginee:red counterpart, (.) uh does not make
13 ice for- uh- rai:n nucleation. .h So: you could
14 have a si [t u a t i o n h e r e-]
15 IR: [Whatever that means .hh] huh [huh
16 JR: [could
17 have a situation here where yo[u(‘re) putting out a=
18 IR: [Mm hm,
19 JR: =bacteria in the environment, .h an’ in the long run
20 it could develop a niche, an’ prevent uh=s- uh:
21 effective rainfall patterns on the planet.
22 .hh an i[t- ]
23 IR: [But]=you don’t know that.
24 JR: .h But you see the other side [doesn’t ] know either until:=
25 IR: [Do you?]
26 JR: =we devel[op (uh s-)]
27 IR: [But they s]ay it won’t.
28 (.)
29 JR: .h Well the interesting thing i:s we’ve never developed
30 a science to judge the risk of placing these
31 experiments in the environment.
The IR’s initial reaction to Rifkin’s argument is striking. Midway through his
argument, just after he uses a bit of technical terminology (‘‘rain nucleation’’ in line
13), she makes a dismissive remark (‘‘Whatever that means’’ in line 15) followed by
derisive laughter. This remark does not appear to be directed toward Rifkin. It
begins in overlap with Rifkin’s talk, midway through the turn constructional unit
following the focal term. Moreover, it is delivered sotto voce, and can be interpreted
S.E. Clayman / Journal of Pragmatics 34 (2002) 1385–1401 1397
as an aside aimed at Capron, or the audience, or perhaps both. Correspondingly,
Rifkin does not respond to it overtly, although he does abort (line 14) and then
restart (line 16) the overlapped unit in progress. Substantively, the remark is entirely
out of character in the news interview context. Not only does it depart from the
norm that IRs should restrict themselves to asking questions (Greatbatch, 1988;
Heritage and Greatbatch, 1991), but it is clearly nonneutral in its treatment of the
IE. To be sure, IRs are generally alert to technical terminology that the audience
may not understand, but they normally deal with it by asking the IE to clarify; they
do not dismiss it altogether, nor, as a rule, do they laugh at the IE who produced it!
7
Perhaps even more striking is how the IR deals with Rifkin’s argument once it is
completed. When Rifkin arrives at a possible completion point (at line 21), asserting
that the microbe could ‘‘prevent effective rainfall patterns on the planet’’, the IR
directly and forcefully challenges him (‘‘But you don’t know that’’ at line 23) on the
grounds that he does not know for certain that this dire consequence will follow. A
delayed tag question—’’Do you’’ in line 25—adds a veneer of epistemic caution to
this otherwise assertive challenge, while at the same time disrupting his response-in-
progress (Jefferson, 1981). In contrast, when Rifkin points out that his opponents
cannot be certain that this won’t happen (line 24), the IR counters with ‘‘But they
say it won’t’’ (line 27). Across this exchange, the parties are held to dramatically
different epistemic standards—Rifkin to a standard of absolute certainty (‘‘But you
don’t know that’’ at line 23), but the opposition to a standard of mere assertion
(‘‘But they say it won’t’’ at line 27).
2.6. The closing
The final question of the interview is a fitting coda to what has transpired. Capron
is given the last word when the IR addresses him with this question (arrowed):
(7) [US Face the Nation 8 Dec 1985: Genetic Engineering]
1 IR: Mister Capron one final quick h question.
2 AC: [#Yes,]
3 IR:->[.hh ] Can: we stop this trai:n,
4 AC: .mlh I don’t think we c(h)a::n stop it but I do think_
5 (.) there are mechanisms_ (.) to control it. an’
6 to make sure it’s gonnu- (0.2) go as well as (we) ca:n.
7 IR: Gentlemen, (.) Thank you very much, .hh This is a discussion
8 I’d like to have (.) a[gai:n on Face the Nation.
9 ??: [mm hm,
Stepping back from the details of the preceding discussion, she asks whether it is
possible to halt the progress of genetic engineering. As it is designed, this question is
7
On the distinction between ‘‘laughing at’’ versus ‘‘laughing with’’ see Clayman (1992a) and Glenn
(1995).
1398 S.E. Clayman / Journal of Pragmatics 34 (2002) 1385–1401
far from neutral with respect to the issue that it raises. By metaphorically
characterizing the enterprise as a ‘‘train’’, she evokes the image of something
that would be both difficult and disruptive to stop. Correspondingly, as she
completes this question, she shakes her head laterally. Thus, through both dis-
cursive and gestural resources, she tilts the question strongly in favor of a no
answer—which is just the sort of answer that Capron, who has argued for
genetic engineering throughout this interview, can be expected to give.
Another broad smile caps off and accentuates the affiliative character of this final
question.
3. Conclusion
One consequence of the rise of the panel interview format has been the margin-
alization of the interviewer’s substantive journalistic role. As the interactional center
of gravity shifts toward the interplay between interviewees, the interviewer becomes
a less central player who primarily launches topics of discussion and elicits
statements of disagreement from the panelists. However, within this framework
of diminished involvement, interviewers can continue to exert an influence on
the trajectory of the discussion (Olsher, forthcoming), and can also act in such a
way as to privilege or favor one side in the dispute. Thus, while the panel
interview enables interviewers to distance themselves from the heat of battle, there
remain avenues for continued influence and new bases on which observers can detect
bias.
Within a given panel interview, avenues for the differential treatment of inter-
viewees vary in their conspicuousness. Some can only be detected by monitoring and
comparing the interviewer’s conduct across multiple question–answer sequences; in
other cases, it is more immediately apparent within a single question. Particularly
noteworthy in this regard are inviting-interplay questions, wherein a single action
pivots between the panelists and can be scrutinized for signs that the interviewer is
‘leaning’ this way or that. Such ‘leaning’ questions may be entirely justifiable in the
context of a particular interview and the trajectory of the interaction prior to that
point, but they are vulnerable to being seen as expressing favoritism or bias. The
launching of an inviting-interplay question is thus a distinctly sensitive moment for
the interviewer, a moment when his or her professionalism is perhaps most vulner-
able to critical scrutiny.
In the present case, differential treatment became manifest by virtue of a combi-
nation of design elements. The inviting-interplay questions were highly assertive,
built to invite a dismissive form of rebuttal, and provided unattributed grounds
for rebuttal that were subsequently taken up and used by the interviewee. In panel
interviews more generally, it is extremely rare for inviting-interplay questions
to have this combination of features. In this way, a distinctive participation frame-
work is maintained in which the interviewer appears as a detached moderator and
catalyst for a dispute constructed as taking place between and among the panelists
themselves.
S.E. Clayman / Journal of Pragmatics 34 (2002) 1385–1401 1399
References
Atkinson, J. Maxwell, 1992. Displaying neutrality: formal aspects of informal court proceedings. In:
Drew, P., Heritage, J. (Eds.), Talk at Work. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 199–211.
Bull, Peter, Elliott, Judy, 1998. Level of threat: a means of assessing interviewer toughness and neutrality.
Journal of Language and Social Psychology 17 (2), 220–244.
Bull, Peter, Mayer, Kate, 1988. Interruptions in political interviews: a study of Margaret Thatcher and
Neil Kinnock. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 7, 35–45.
Clayman, Steven E., 1988. Displaying neutrality in television news interviews. Social Problems 35, 474–
492.
Clayman, Steven E., 1992a. Caveat orator: audience disaffiliation in the 1988 presidential debates. Quar-
terly Journal of Speech 78, 33–60.
Clayman, Steven E., 1992b. Footing in the achievement of neutrality: the case of news interview discourse.
In: Drew, P., Heritage, J. (Eds.), Talk at Work. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 163–198.
Clayman, Steven E., Heritage, John, 2002a. The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the
air. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Clayman, Steven E., Heritage, J., 2002b. Questioning presidents: journalistic deference and adversarial-
ness in the press conferences of Eisenhower and Reagan. Journal of Communication 15 (in press).
Clayman, Steven E., Whalen, Jack, 1988/1989. When the medium becomes the message: the case of the
Rather–Bush encounter. Research on Language and Social Interaction 22, 241–272.
Eckman, Paul, Friesen, Wallace V., 1975. Unmasking the Face. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto,
CA.
Elliott, Judy, Bull, Peter, 1996. A question of threat: face threats in questions posed during televised
political interviews. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology 6, 49–72.
Gans, Herbert, 1996. Deciding What’s News. Vintage, New York.
Garcia, A., 1991. Dispute resolution without disputing: how the interactional organization of mediation
hearings minimizes argumentative talk. American Sociological Review 56, 818–835.
Glenn, Phillip J., 1995. Laughing at and laughing with: negotiations of participant alignments through
conversational laughter. In: ten Have, P., Psathas, G. (Eds.), Situated Order: Studies in the Organiza-
tion of Talk and Embodied Activities. University Press of America, Washington, DC, pp. 43–56.
Greatbatch, David, 1988. A turn-taking system for British news interviews. Language in Society 17 (3),
401–430.
Greatbatch, David, 1992. The management of disagreement between news interviewees. In: Drew, P.,
Heritage, J. (Eds.), Talk at Work. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 268–301.
Hackett, Robert A., 1984. Decline of a paradigm?: bias and objectivity in news media studies. Critical
Studies in Mass Communication 1, 229–259.
Hall, Stuart, 1973. A world at one with itself. In: Cohen, S., Young, J. (Eds.), The Manufacture of News:
Deviance, Social Problems, and the Mass Media. Constable, London, pp. 147–156.
Heritage, John, 1985. Analyzing news interviews: aspects of the production of talk for an overhearing
audience. In: Dijk, T.A. (Ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis, vol. 3. Academic Press, New York,
pp. 95–119.
Heritage, John, 2002. The limits of questioning: Negative interrogatives and hostile question content.
Journal of Pragmatics (this issue) PII: S0378-2166(02)00072-3.
Heritage, John, Greatbatch, David, 1991. On the institutional character of institutional talk: the case of
news interviews. In: Boden, D., Zimmerman, D.H. (Eds.), Talk and Social Structure. University of
California Press, Berkeley, pp. 93–137.
Heritage, John, Roth, Andrew, 1995. Grammar and institution: questions and questioning in the broad-
cast news interview. Research on Language and Social Interaction 28, 1–60.
Jefferson, Gail, 1981. The abominable ‘‘Ne?’’: a working paper exploring the phenomenon of post-
response pursuit of response. Department of Sociology Occasional Paper No. 6, University of Man-
chester.
Jucker, Andreas, 1986. News Interviews: A Pragmalinguistic Analysis. John Benjamins, University of
Manchester, Amsterdam.
1400 S.E. Clayman / Journal of Pragmatics 34 (2002) 1385–1401
Maynard, Douglas W., 1986. Offering and soliciting collaboration in multi-party disputes among children
(and other humans). Human Studies 9, 261–285.
Olsher, David, forthcoming. Inviting interplay in panel format news interviews.
Schegloff, Emanuel A., 1993. Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation. Research on
Language and Social Interaction 26, 99–128.
Schlesinger, Philip, Murdock, Graham, Elliott, Philip, 1983. Televising ‘‘Terrorism’’: Political Violence in
Popular Culture. Comedia, London.
Schudson, Michael, 1978. Discovering the News. Basic Books, New York.
Simmel, Georg, 1950. The Sociology of Georg Simmel (Translated by Kurt Wolff). Free Press, Glencoe,
IL.
Steven E. Clayman is Associate Professor of Sociology and is affiliated with the Communication Studies
Program at UCLA. His research lies at the intersection of talk, interaction, and mass communication,
with an emphasis on news interviews, press conferences, and other forms of broadcast journalism. He is
the co-author (with John Heritage) of—The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures On the Air,
Cambridge University Press.
S.E. Clayman / Journal of Pragmatics 34 (2002) 1385–1401 1401
