The interview between Jeremy Paxman and Micheal Howard aired on Newsnight on May 13th 1997. This interview became the programme's most notorious interview. During the interview Howard was confronted with a question he thought was evasive - "Did you threaten to overrule him?". Paxman proceeded to ask Howard this twelve times in a row.
Is there any evidence of Formulation/Conversationalisation present?
Both parties involved in the interview have plain easy to understand accents that would be easily tolerated by people from different parts of the country. The delivery of the piece is also easy to follow and understand as the use of simple words allows for people who may not be familiar with political terms would be able to understand what was being discussed.
Is the Interviewer maintaining a stance of 'formal neutrality'? Or can we see some form of bias?
From viewing the piece several times it appears that Paxman is maintaining a stance of neutrality throughout the interview and is avoiding a biased approach when asking questions especially when Howard starts to avoid questions through out the interview, particularly the overrule question.
How are the questions being answered by the interviewee?
Howard starts the interview by answering the questions that are put to him in a straight forward manner but then develops a tendency to elaborate where a simple straight to the point answer would suffice. There are also several points where he becomes defensive in his answers again this is seen when Paxman is asking about the threats of overruling another politician.
Has the interviewee answered the specific question that has been asked?
The majority of questions are answered when asked however when the question "Did you threaten to overrule him?" is put forward, Howard dodges the question at least 12 times by maintaining that he has already answered this question when already and does not supply an appropriate answer for Paxman.
What approach is the interviewee using, if any, to avoid providing an answer to a specific question?
When quizzed about the overruling, Howard carries on as if the question has not been asked by and not referencing to the question in any way.
Is the interviewer allowing this to happen or are they pushing for an answer to a question?
Paxman continues to push this matter with Howard for almost two minutes, repeating the question about 12 times and clearly stating that he wanted a simple yes or no answer but still gets no response to the question therefore leaving it unanswered.
Can we see the use of language within the interview being influenced by the perceived social context of the 'targeted audience'?
The language that is used throughout the interview is simple and easy to understand. As it is looking at an incident that involves a member of the conservative political party, the intended target audience would be people who have a keen interest in politics and the conservatives in particular.
Kay Burley vs. James O' Brien
This interview Kay Burley and James O' Brien took place in 2004 following O' Brien's discussion on his radio show about Frank Lampard's separation from his wife, and the phone call from Frank to the show. The radio broadcast took place on the anniversary of Frank's mothers death.
Is there any evidence of Formulation/Conversationalisation present?
The language used throughout the interview is delivered in an easy to follow and understandable manner. Neither Burley nor O' Brien use any over complicated words that would confuse a viewer therefore making it accessible to all.
Is the Interviewer maintaining a stance of 'formal neutrality'? Or can we see some form of bias?
Throughout the interview Burley maintains a bias attitude against O' Brien. This is most present in several points, firstly at the start of the interview when O' Brien explains what happened during his radio broadcast Burley appears to contradict him by explaining what she knows or thinks she knows. We can also see her biased attitude when the topic of Frank Lampard's mother's anniversary is brought up. She appears to take a very personal attitude towards it when she says that she does have the anniversary on her calender. There is also the biased sense throughout the entire interview, especially when she is trying to make O' Brien apologise for the comments he made.
How are the questions being answered by the interviewee?
When answering questions put to him O' Brien answers them by using simple to understand phrases which can be understood by any viewer watching, phrases like "millionaire footballer", "poor soul" help the viewer put the context of the interview into perspective.
Has the interviewee answered the specific question that has been asked?
O' Brien answers every question that is asked of him, elaborating his answers when necessary in order to clarify the point he is trying to make.
Is the interviewer allowing this to happen or are they pushing for an answer to a question?
Burley is constantly asking O' Brien if he is sorry which he did say he was sorry to Frank's sister for the timing of t=the radio broadcast. This again shows Burley's biased approach towards O' Brien.
Can we see the use of language within the interview being influenced by the perceived social context of the 'targeted audience'?
As the target audience for a news piece like this would be the everyday person who enjoys gossip stories, the language used simple and easy to understand allow people of all walks of life to understand it and not be overwhelmed by complicated words or phrases.
No comments:
Post a Comment