Questioning Presidents: Journalistic Deference and Adversarialness in the Press Conferences of U.S. Presidents Eisenhower and Reagan

Abstract

This paper develops a new system for analyzing the questions that journalists ask public figures in broadcast news interviews and press conferences. This system is then applied in a comparative study of the forms of questioning that characterized the press conferences of Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan. The comparison focuses on the phenomenon of adversarialness in question design. Ten features of question design are examined that serve as indicators of 4 basic dimensions of adversarialness: (a) initiative, (b) directness, (c) assertiveness, and (d) hostility.The results reveal substantial and significant differences for all indicators, all in the direction of increased adversarialness. This pattern suggests that journalists have become much less deferential and more aggressive in their treatment of the U.S. president. Possible factors contributing to this development, and its broader ramifications for the evolving relationship between journalism and government, are also discussed.

Aggressiveness and deference in Arabic broadcast interviews

“…In news interviews, the system is more complex, since interviewees may not know whether interviewers seek known or unknown information, or whether interviewers are inquiring or testing them (Schudson, 2002). The turn-taking in news interviews is usually based on just three steps: (1) question, (2) answer, (3) then another question (Hutchby, 2006;Clayman and Heritage, 2002a;Schudson, 2002). This means that the system excludes the third step that occurs normally after giving answers in ordinary talk or even in other institutional interactions.…”

“…It has been also claimed that the media in general and journalists in particular have become increasingly adversarial and aggressive (Entman, 2004;Hallin, 1984;Patterson, 1993;Robinson, 1976Robinson, , 1981Sabato, 1991;Schudson, 1982). However, as Clayman and Heritage (2002b) pointed out, most of these studies have focused on the content of news coverage rather than examining journalistic practice per se, and they concluded that in order to analyze the degree to which journalists have become more adversarial, it would be more appropriate to examine this adversarialness by observing their encounters with public figures in interviews and press conferences. Clayman and Heritage, therefore, conducted a comprehensive study that analyzed the use of aggressive questions in American presidential press conferences, employing a quantitative research framework which was designed to measure the extent to which journalists adopted an aggressive approach, mapping this behaviour against four distinct dimensions: Initiative, Directness, Assertiveness, and Adversarialness.…”

“…In recent years, many scholars have contributed significantly to the subject of adversarial questions and the strategies of designing these questions (Clayman and Heritage, 2002a;Heritage, 2002;Heritage and Roth, 1995;Rendle-Short, 2007). It has been also claimed that the media in general and journalists in particular have become increasingly adversarial and aggressive (Entman, 2004;Hallin, 1984;Patterson, 1993;Robinson, 1976Robinson, , 1981Sabato, 1991;Schudson, 1982).…”

What's in the mix? Combining coding and conversation analysis to investigate chat-based problem solving

“…First, we have adopted a top-down approach based on the way that participants themselves organise their activities. This is to be distinguished from the work of Heritage (1985) and Clayman and Heritage (2002) that looks at an activity in which the predominant organisation of interaction involved asking questions and offering responses to those questions. We are doing something different.…”

Fourfold Tables v. Three Dimensional Realities

“…Early on, he tells us he will not review the substantial history of investigations of the social production of accounts in everyday social life and in formally organized settings. This history now covers at least forty years-see almost anything by Goffman or by the conversation analysts-and has grown from early programmatic works (e.g., the "labeling school" of the 1960s) to detailed studies of reason production in various institutional settings (e.g., Presser, 2004;Clayman & Heritage, 2002). Toward the end of the book, Professor Tilly announces that he decided to treat the reader as he treats his undergraduate students, by avoiding technical accounts of reason production in favor of "superior stories" about reasons.…”