Difference between revisions of "Roth2002"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Andrew L. Roth; |Title=Social epistemology in broadcast news interviews |Tag(s)=EMCA; Massmedia; epistemology; conversation analysis; ev...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
|Number=3 | |Number=3 | ||
|Pages=355-381 | |Pages=355-381 | ||
| + | |URL=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/language-in-society/article/social-epistemology-in-broadcast-news-interviews/A64EF7A689671CB5DB8784FAF6F3FE11 | ||
|DOI=10.1017.S0047404502020262 | |DOI=10.1017.S0047404502020262 | ||
| − | |Abstract=This article investigates how participants in broadcast news interviews | + | |Abstract=This article investigates how participants in broadcast news interviews display their orientations to a social distribution of knowledge regarding newsworthy events and actors. Interviewers treat the nature, grounds, and limits of interviewees' knowledge as accountable matters. The article employs single-case and quantitative analyses to show that, in and through the design of their questions, interviewers distinguish between (i) interviewees as subject-actors who are responsible for direct, first-hand knowledge of their own conduct; and (ii) interviewees as commentators who, on the basis of indirect, second-hand knowledge, are entitled to opinions about third parties' conduct. This distinction serves as a basis for the production of interviewees' responses as talk that expresses either matters of fact or points of opinion. The article examines how these aspects of question design establish relevancies for interviewees' responses and, ultimately, shape news content. |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | of | ||
| − | single-case and quantitative analyses to show that, in and through the design | ||
| − | of their questions, interviewers distinguish between (i) interviewees as | ||
| − | subject-actors who are responsible for direct, first-hand knowledge of their | ||
| − | own conduct; and (ii) interviewees as commentators who, on the basis of | ||
| − | indirect, second-hand knowledge, are entitled to opinions about third | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | opinion. The article examines how these aspects of question design establish | ||
| − | relevancies for | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 01:47, 30 October 2019
| Roth2002 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Roth2002 |
| Author(s) | Andrew L. Roth |
| Title | Social epistemology in broadcast news interviews |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Massmedia, epistemology, conversation analysis, evidentiality, interaction |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2002 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Language in Society |
| Volume | 31 |
| Number | 3 |
| Pages | 355-381 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1017.S0047404502020262 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This article investigates how participants in broadcast news interviews display their orientations to a social distribution of knowledge regarding newsworthy events and actors. Interviewers treat the nature, grounds, and limits of interviewees' knowledge as accountable matters. The article employs single-case and quantitative analyses to show that, in and through the design of their questions, interviewers distinguish between (i) interviewees as subject-actors who are responsible for direct, first-hand knowledge of their own conduct; and (ii) interviewees as commentators who, on the basis of indirect, second-hand knowledge, are entitled to opinions about third parties' conduct. This distinction serves as a basis for the production of interviewees' responses as talk that expresses either matters of fact or points of opinion. The article examines how these aspects of question design establish relevancies for interviewees' responses and, ultimately, shape news content.
Notes
