Volume 17, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1569-2159
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9862
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


The new dialogic, conversational nature of television broadcast news ( Hamo, 2009 ) poses a challenge to traditional commentators, who are forced to move from an authoritative monologue to a confrontational dialogue that requires additional flexibility and conversational skills. The paper focuses on an Israeli case study which presents a confrontational dialogue in which one of the discussants is an experienced military correspondent and commentator. We demonstrate the various resources he uses in order to cope with a complex discursive challenge by using multimodal tools, both verbal and visual ( Kress 2010 ; Kress and Van Leeuwen 2001 ; Jewitt and Oyama 2001 ).

Besides interrupting his interlocutor’s eloquent discourse in any possible way, demonstrating his well-known direct and involved television persona, the military correspondent employs institutional discursive resources such as using authoritative voice and taking the role of the mediator. Concession structures ( Anscombre 1985 ) reflect his inner moral conflict toward the issue ( Livnat 2012 ).


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Anscombre, Jean-Claude
    1985 “Grammaire Traditionelle et Grammaire Argumentative de la Concession.” Revue Internationale de Philosophie39 (4): 333–349.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Azar, Moshe
    1997 “Concession relations as argumentation.” Text17 (3): 301–316. doi: 10.1515/text.1.1997.17.3.301
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1997.17.3.301 [Google Scholar]
  3. Baym, Geoffrey
    2000 “Constructing Moral Authority: We in the Discourse of Television News.” Western Journal of Communication64: 92–111. doi: 10.1080/10570310009374665
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10570310009374665 [Google Scholar]
  4. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Menachem Blondheim, and Gonen Hacohen
    2002 “Traditions of Dispute: From Negotiations of Talmudic Texts to the Arena of Political Discourse in the Media.” Journal of Pragmatics34: 1569–1594. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00076‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00076-0 [Google Scholar]
  5. Brants, Kees
    1998 “Who’s Afraid of Infotainment?” European Journal of Communication13 (3): 315–335. doi: 10.1177/0267323198013003002
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323198013003002 [Google Scholar]
  6. Crevels, Mily
    2000Concession: A Typological Study. PhD Diss., Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Davies, Bronwyn and Rom Harré
    1990 “Positioning: The Discursive Production of Selves.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviours20 (1): 43–63. doi: 10.1111/j.1468‑5914.1990.tb00174.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.1990.tb00174.x [Google Scholar]
  8. Delli Carpini, Michael and Bruce Williams
    2001 “Let us Infotain You: Politics in the New Media Environment.” InMediated Politics: Communication in the Future of Democracy, edited byW. Lance Bennett and Robert M. Entman, 160–181. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Dori-Hacohen, Gonen
    2012 “Thank You our Reporter: Interactional Aspects of the Story Delivery in Television News.” InMedia, Utterances, Meaning, a Book in Honor of Shoshana Blum-Kulka, edited byMichal Hamo, Tamar Liebes, and Menachem Blondheim, 320–350. Jerusalem: Magnes, The Hebrew University Press [Hebrew].
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Goffman, Erving
    1967Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior, Anchor Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Hallin, Daniel C.
    1986The Uncensored War: The Media and Vietnam. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Hamo, Michal
    2009 “Style, Form and Function in Conversational Formats on Television News: The Case of Ulpan Shishi.” Hebrew Linguistics62–63: 323–346 [Hebrew].
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 2015 “I Cannot but Agree: Affiliative Meta-Discursive Follow-ups as a Resource for the Reciprocal Positioning of Journalists, Experts and Politicians-as-experts in Television News.” InFollow-ups in Political Discourse: Explorations across Contexts and Discourse Domains, edited byElda Weizman and Anita Fetzer, 57–80. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.60.03ham
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.60.03ham [Google Scholar]
  14. 2016 “I think one Needs to Say: Patterns of Positioning in the Meta-Media Discourse in Television News in Israel.” Israel Studies in Language and Society9 (1–2): 98–115 [Hebrew].
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Hippala, Tuomo
    2013 “The Interface between Rhetoric and Layout in Multimodal Artifacts.” Literary and Linguistic Computing28 (3): 461–472. doi: 10.1093/llc/fqs064
    https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqs064 [Google Scholar]
  16. Huxford, John
    2001 “Beyond the Referential: Uses of Visual Symbolism in the Press.” Journalism2 (1): 45–71. doi: 10.1177/146488490100200102
    https://doi.org/10.1177/146488490100200102 [Google Scholar]
  17. Jewitt, Carey and Rumiko Oyama
    2001 “Visual Meaning: A Social Semiotic Approach.” InHandbook of Visual Analysis, edited byTheo Van Leeuwen and Carey Jewitt, 134–156. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Jewitt, Carey
    2005 “Multimodality, “Reading,” and “Writing” for the 21st Century.” Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education26 (3): 315–331.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Katriel, Tamar
    1986Talking Straight: “Dugri” Speech in Israeli Sabra Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Kishan-Thussu, Daya and Des Freedman
    2003War and the Media. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Kress, Gunther
    2010Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Kress, Gunther and Theo Van Leeuwen
    2001Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Kroon-Lundell, Åsa
    2010 “Dialogues between Journalists on the News: The Intraprofessional “Interview” as a Communicative Genre.” Media, Culture and Society32 (3): 429–450. doi: 10.1177/0163443709361171
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443709361171 [Google Scholar]
  24. Kroon-Lundell, Åsa and Göran Eriksson
    2010 “Interviews as Communicative Resources in News and Current Affairs Broadcasts.” Journalism Studies11: 20–35. doi: 10.1080/14616700903119826
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14616700903119826 [Google Scholar]
  25. Levy, Yagil
    2010Who Governs the Military? Between Control of the Military and Control of Militarism. Jerusalem: Magnes. [Hebrew].
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Livnat, Zohar
    2012Dialogue, Science and Academic Writing, Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/ds.13
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.13 [Google Scholar]
  27. Livnat, Zohar and Gonen Dori-Hacohen
    2013 “The Effect of Irony in Radio Talk-back Programs in Israel.” InThe Pragmatics of Political Discourse: Explorations across Cultures, edited byAnita Fetzer, 193–217. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.228.11liv
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.228.11liv [Google Scholar]
  28. Muntigl, Peter and William Turnbull
    1998 “Conversational Structure and Facework in Arguing.” Journal of Pragmatics29: 225–256. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(97)00048‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(97)00048-9 [Google Scholar]
  29. Neiger, Motti
    2007 “Media Oracles: The Political Import and Cultural Significance of News Referring to the Future.” Journalism: Theory, Practice and Criticism8 (3): 326–338. doi: 10.1177/1464884907076464
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884907076464 [Google Scholar]
  30. Orgad, Shani
    2009 “Watching how Others Watch Us: The Israeli Media’s Treatment of International Coverage of the Gaza War.” Communication review12 (3): 250–261. doi: 10.1080/10714420903124168
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10714420903124168 [Google Scholar]
  31. Patrona, Marianna
    2011 “Neutralism Revisited: When Journalists Set New Rules in Political News Discourse.” InTalking Politics in Broadcast Media, edited byMats Ekström and Marianna Patrona, 157–176. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.42.13pat
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.42.13pat [Google Scholar]
  32. Perry, Yoram
    2007 “Cosmetic Changes or Substantial Changes? Media-Defense Relations in the Beginning of the 21 Century.” Media Frames (Misgarot Media)1: 153–168. [Hebrew].
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Shavit, Nimrod and Katriel, Tamar
    2009 “We Have Decided to Speak out: The Testimonial Project of Breaking the Silence as Counter-Discourse.” Israel Studies in Language and Society2 (2): 56–82.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Sherman, Martin and Shabtai Shavit
    2005 “Media and National Security: The Functioning of the Israeli Press as Viewed by the Israeli Public.” InSecurity and Communication: The Dynamics of Interrelationship, edited byUdi Lebel, 239–260). Beer Sheva: Ben Gurion University of the Negev Press. [Hebrew].
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Simmel Georg
    1955/1908Conflict and the Web of Group Affiliation. Translated byKurt H. Wolff and Reinhard Bendix. New York: Free Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson
    1981 “Irony and the Use-Mention Distinction.” InRadical Pragmatics, edited byPeter Cole, 295–318. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Weizman, Elda
    2008Positioning in Media Dialogue. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/ds.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.3 [Google Scholar]
  38. Wilson, Deirdre and Dan Sperber
    1992 “On Verbal Irony.” Lingua87: 77–90. doi: 10.1016/0024‑3841(92)90025‑E
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(92)90025-E [Google Scholar]
  39. Yuran, Noam
    2001Channel 2: The New Etatism, Tel Aviv: Resling. [Hebrew].
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Zandberg, Eyal and Motti Neiger
    2005 “Between the Nation and the Profession: Journalists as Members of Contradicting Communities.” Media, Culture and Society27 (1): 131–141. doi: 10.1177/0163443705049073
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443705049073 [Google Scholar]

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