Public participation broadcasting has recently become the focus of attention in media studies, as well as from the social interactional perspectives of discourse and conversation analysis, and it has been argued in particular that the talk show genre has given new and enhanced status to the `authentic' voice of lay members of the public. What remains largely unexplored is how lay participants discursively construct authentic positions for their own knowledgeable participation in such discourse. Expert speakers in public participation broadcasts are (...) typically attributed names, rank, institutional affiliation and status, which legitimizes their position, and in so doing provides their warrant to talk about whatever issue they have been brought in to discuss. Lay participants typically do not have this status attributed to them, but need to establish their own position from which to talk. In this article I examine the public identities that lay speakers build for themselves in these broadcasts, and show how they routinely draw on a range of discursive resources to construct situated, local identities which provide a warrant for what they have to say. (shrink)

This article examines the management of participation in calls to radio phone-in programmes. In the broadcast media, there are increasing occasions for interaction between `professionals' and lay members of the public, particularly within what have come to be known generically as public participation programmes. People call in to phone-in programmes for various reasons; to give opinions, to get advice, and often to ask questions. In the particular phone-ins analysed here, callers are invited to put questions to leading politicians of the (...) day about their election policies. In many institutional contexts for talk the role of questioner has been found to be a more powerful interactional position than the role of answerer. Through an analysis of the organization of the phone-in calls, this article argues that the potentially powerful discourse role of questioner is interactionally `defused' through the participatory framework of the call. The author shows how the mediated interactional structure of these calls limits the range of possible actions available to callers in their institutional position as questioners, and thus produces constraints on what callers can actually achieve in this particular context for institutional talk. (shrink)

In this article I examine how a ‘private’, inside story was constructed through an extended news interview drawing on models of both the experiential and the accountable broadcast interview. The analysis, based on aspects of adjacency sequencing, question/ response design, and narrative organization, explores the ways in which a personal account is elicited about an event that had been highly prominent in the news. However, I also look at how ‘accountability’ emerges as an issue during the interview, and on how (...) the tensions between these two types of interview are played out in its design and subsequent editing. Although the interview displays many of the characteristics identified by Montgomery as ‘experiential’, where the interviewee is positioned as ‘one of us’, with knowledge and experience of an event she is not to be held accountable for as a result of her high profile in the news coverage of the Iranian hostage crisis, Faye Turney had already become a public figure during the time she was held in Iran. Furthermore, she had already been positioned by the media as accountable for some of her actions during her captivity. I show that the personal dimensions of the interview as interaction are framed by the interview as documentary, thus producing a hybrid form in which both the experiential and the accountable can be managed. (shrink)

This article investigates the new phenomenon of e-mailed questions to a radio phone-in programme, BBC Radio 4's `Election Call'. Our interest in this phenomenon arose for several reasons. First, as a new form, e-mails were singled out at the beginning of each broadcast for special instructions to listeners, although there was evidence that as the series progressed, dealing with e-mail became more of a routine event in each subsequent programme. Second, on listening to the Election Call broadcasts, the sequential introduction (...) of an e-mail question appeared to be problematic for the host. First mentions of e-mailed questions were often subject to a noticeable amount of disfluency and repair work, in contrast to the well-rehearsed and highly routine introduction of callers' questions. Third, we are interested in the function of e-mail questions in terms of how they are handled by the host and guest. Are they given the same status as a `call', and if not, where do the differences lie? In our analysis we show how the introduction of this new media form into a well-established context opens up new structural possibilities for both host as interviewer and politician as interviewee, in terms of how questions get framed, and how they get responded to. (shrink)

This paper focuses on the relationship between journalism and right wing populist discourses in the context of broadcast news interviews. We analyse a specific feature of question design in which the public is invoked as a source of opinionated positions in adversarial interviewing. Analysing data from a range of socio-political contexts, we identify a shift in adversarial questioning along a scale of ‘soft’ populism, that is the attribution of views and concerns to a generic public ‘in crisis’, to ‘hard’ populism, (...) where interviewers construct hypothetical scenarios in which populist positions are attributed to ‘some people’. We argue that the democratic role of journalists as public watchdogs, holding politicians and public figures accountable on behalf of the public, is challenged by this normalisation of populist moral order discourses in a routine journalistic practice, both drawing on and contributing to the propagation of populist agendas and anti-democratic populist rhetoric. (shrink)