Difference between revisions of "Clayman-Fox2017"
BurakTekin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Steven E. Clayman; Matthew P. Fox |Title=Hardballs and softballs: Modulating adversarialness in journalistic questioning |Tag(s)=adversa...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|Author(s)=Steven E. Clayman; Matthew P. Fox | |Author(s)=Steven E. Clayman; Matthew P. Fox | ||
|Title=Hardballs and softballs: Modulating adversarialness in journalistic questioning | |Title=Hardballs and softballs: Modulating adversarialness in journalistic questioning | ||
| − | |Tag(s)=adversarialness; journalistic norms; news conferences; journalism; Questions; news interviews; adversarial journalism; press-state relations; Objectivity; | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; adversarialness; journalistic norms; news conferences; journalism; Questions; news interviews; adversarial journalism; press-state relations; Objectivity; |
|Key=Clayman-Fox2017 | |Key=Clayman-Fox2017 | ||
|Year=2017 | |Year=2017 | ||
| + | |Language=English | ||
|Journal=Journal of Language and Politics | |Journal=Journal of Language and Politics | ||
|Volume=16 | |Volume=16 | ||
|Number=1 | |Number=1 | ||
|Pages=19-39 | |Pages=19-39 | ||
| − | | | + | |URL=https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/jlp.16.1.02cla |
| + | |DOI=10.1075/jlp.16.1.02cla | ||
|Abstract=The design of questions in news interviews and news conferences has proven to be an illuminating window into the tenor of press-state relations. Quantitative studies have charted aggregate variations in adversarial questioning, but less is known about variations in the intensity of adversarialness within any particular question. Such variation is captured by the vernacular distinction between “hardball” versus “softball” questions. Hardballs advance an oppositional viewpoint vigorously, while softballs do so at most mildly. In this paper we investigate recurrent language practices through which journalists modulate the oppositionality of a question, thereby either hindering or facilitating response. The objective is to better understand how adversarialness is enacted in direct encounters between politicians and journalists. | |Abstract=The design of questions in news interviews and news conferences has proven to be an illuminating window into the tenor of press-state relations. Quantitative studies have charted aggregate variations in adversarial questioning, but less is known about variations in the intensity of adversarialness within any particular question. Such variation is captured by the vernacular distinction between “hardball” versus “softball” questions. Hardballs advance an oppositional viewpoint vigorously, while softballs do so at most mildly. In this paper we investigate recurrent language practices through which journalists modulate the oppositionality of a question, thereby either hindering or facilitating response. The objective is to better understand how adversarialness is enacted in direct encounters between politicians and journalists. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 03:30, 26 September 2023
| Clayman-Fox2017 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Clayman-Fox2017 |
| Author(s) | Steven E. Clayman, Matthew P. Fox |
| Title | Hardballs and softballs: Modulating adversarialness in journalistic questioning |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, adversarialness, journalistic norms, news conferences, journalism, Questions, news interviews, adversarial journalism, press-state relations, Objectivity |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2017 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Journal of Language and Politics |
| Volume | 16 |
| Number | 1 |
| Pages | 19-39 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1075/jlp.16.1.02cla |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
The design of questions in news interviews and news conferences has proven to be an illuminating window into the tenor of press-state relations. Quantitative studies have charted aggregate variations in adversarial questioning, but less is known about variations in the intensity of adversarialness within any particular question. Such variation is captured by the vernacular distinction between “hardball” versus “softball” questions. Hardballs advance an oppositional viewpoint vigorously, while softballs do so at most mildly. In this paper we investigate recurrent language practices through which journalists modulate the oppositionality of a question, thereby either hindering or facilitating response. The objective is to better understand how adversarialness is enacted in direct encounters between politicians and journalists.
Notes
