1887
Volume 10, Issue 3
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Political press conferences are important spaces for public accountability because they give journalists the opportunity to scrutinize politicians’ decisions. However, the structure of press conferences poses specific constraints to journalists because their role is limited to ask questions. This situation is not problematic if their goal is to ask informative or critical questions, but it becomes problematic if journalists want to advance standpoints, arguments, or criticisms. In the latter case, journalists have to perform their argumentative moves through façade questions in order to comply with the protocol of press conferences. For this reason, it is not easy to distinguish the argumentative function of journalists’ questions, and consequently, their value for accountability. This paper draws on the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation to give an argumentative account of political press conferences. Furthermore, the implications of journalists’ questions for accountability purposes are discussed.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.20005.her
2021-12-14
2022-12-09
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aakhus, M. and Marcin Lewiński
    2017 “Advancing polylogical analysis of large-scale argumentation: Disagreement management in the fracking controversy.” Argumentation31(1): 179–207. doi:  10.1007/s10503‑016‑9403‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-016-9403-9 [Google Scholar]
  2. Andone, C.
    2013Argumentation in political interviews. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.5
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.5 [Google Scholar]
  3. 2015a “The burden of proof in dealing with political accountability.” InPersuasive Games in Political and Professional Dialogue, ed. bySăftoiu, R., M. Neagu, and S. Măda. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ds.26.02and
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.26.02and [Google Scholar]
  4. 2015b “Pragmatic Argumentation in European Practices of Political Accountability.” Argumentation29: 1–18. doi:  10.1007/s10503‑014‑9334‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-014-9334-2 [Google Scholar]
  5. Andone, C. and Alfonso Hernández
    2019 “Scientific arguments in policy-making.” Journal of Argumentation in Context8(2): 195–213. doi:  10.1075/jaic.18040.and
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18040.and [Google Scholar]
  6. Bovens, M.
    2006 “Analysing and Assessing Public Accountability. A Conceptual Framework.” European Governance Papers (EUROGOV)No. C-06-01.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 2007 “Public accountability.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Public Management, ed. byFerlie, E., Lynn, L. E., & Pollitt, C.New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bush, G. W.
    2003President George Bush discusses Iraq in national press conference. The White House. PresidentGorge W. Bush. RetrievedJune 17, 2020, fromhttps://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.html
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Clayman, S.
    2001 “Answers and evasions.” Language in Society30(3): 403–442. doi:  10.1017/S0047404501003037
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404501003037 [Google Scholar]
  10. Clayman, Steven E., and John Heritage
    2002The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511613623
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613623 [Google Scholar]
  11. Clayman, S. and Matthew P. Fox
    2017 “Hardballs and softballs. Modulating adversarialness in journalistic questioning.” Journal of Language and Politics16(1): 19–39. doi:  10.1075/jlp.16.1.02cla
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.16.1.02cla [Google Scholar]
  12. Cornwell, E.
    1960 “The Presidential Press Conference: A Study in Institutionalization.” Midwest Journal of Political Science4(4): 370–389. doi:  10.2307/2108872
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2108872 [Google Scholar]
  13. Demir, Y.
    2016 “Maneuvering strategically in a press conference to diminish political responsibility for a critical event. The case of the Soma mine disaster.” Journal of Argumentation in Context5(2): 191–217. doi:  10.1075/jaic.5.2.07dem
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.5.2.07dem [Google Scholar]
  14. Grice, H. P.
    1991 “Logic and conversation.” InStudies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Harcup, T.
    2014 “Press conference” A dictionary of Journalism. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Ingram, D. and Peter Henshall
    2008 “Press and media conferences” The News Manual. A Professional Resource for Journalists and the Media. Volume 1: Basic Techniques. RetrievedJune 17, 2020, fromhttps://www.thenewsmanual.net/index.htm
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Kumar, M. J.
    2003 “’Does This Constitute a Press Conference’ Defining and Tabulating Modern Presidential Press Conferences.” Presidential Studies Quarterly33(1): 221–237. doi:  10.1177/0360491802250551
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0360491802250551 [Google Scholar]
  18. Leal, F.
    2020 “On the Importance of Questioning Within the Ideal Model of Critical Discussion.” Argumentation. doi:  10.1007/s10503‑020‑09516‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-020-09516-0 [Google Scholar]
  19. Lewiński, M. and Mark Aakhus
    2014 “Argumentative polylogues in a dialectical framework: A methodological inquiry.” Argumentation28(2): 161–185. doi:  10.1007/s10503‑013‑9307‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-013-9307-x [Google Scholar]
  20. Mulgan, R.
    2003Holding Power to Account. Accountability in Modern Democracies. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781403943835
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403943835 [Google Scholar]
  21. Raz, J.
    1980The concept of a legal system. An introduction to the theory of legal system. Second edition. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198253631.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198253631.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  22. Rocci, A. and C. Raimondo
    2018 “Dialogical Argumentation in Financial Conference Calls: the Request of Confirmation of Inference (ROCOI).” InArgumentation and Inference: Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Argumentation (Vol.II, 699–715) ed. byOswald, S. & Maillat, D.London: College Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Searle, J.
    1979Expression and meaning. Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511609213
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609213 [Google Scholar]
  24. Searle, J. and D. Vanderveken
    1985Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Snoeck Henkemans, A. F.
    1992Analysing Complex Argumentation. The Reconstruction of Multiple and Coordinatively Compound Argumentation in a Critical Discussion. Amsterdam: Sicsat.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Stinga, L.
    2008Political Accountability as a Radial Concept. EUI Working Papers SPS 2008/08.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Van Eemeren, F. and R. Grootendorst
    1984Speech acts in argumentative discussions. A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Dordretch: Foris Publications. 10.1515/9783110846089
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110846089 [Google Scholar]
  28. 2004A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Van Eemeren, F., P. Houtlosser, and A. F. Snoeck Henkemans
    2007Argumentative indicators in discourse. A pragma-dialectical study. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑6244‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6244-5 [Google Scholar]
  30. Van Eemeren, F.
    2010Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.2 [Google Scholar]
  31. 2017a “Argumentative patterns viewed from a pragma-dialectical perspective.” InPrototypical Argumentative Patternsed. byvan Eemeren, F.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.11.02van
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.11.02van [Google Scholar]
  32. 2017b “The dependency of argumentative patterns on institutional context.” InPrototypical Argumentative Patternsed. byvan Eemeren, F.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.11.10van
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.11.10van [Google Scholar]
  33. 2018Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑95381‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95381-6 [Google Scholar]
  34. Wu, Peng
    2017 “Strategic maneuvering by personal attacks in spokespersons’ argumentative replies at diplomatic press conferences.” Journal of Argumentation in Context6(3): 285–314. doi:  10.1075/jaic.17022.wu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.17022.wu [Google Scholar]
  35. Zarefsky, D.
    2014Political argumentation in the United States. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.7
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.7 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.20005.her
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.20005.her
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error