Difference between revisions of "Clayman2002b"
(Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Steven E. Clayman; |Title=Disagreements and third parties: Dilemmas of neutralism in panel news interviews |Tag(s)=EMCA; Disagreement;...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
| − | |Author(s)=Steven E. Clayman; | + | |Author(s)=Steven E. Clayman; |
| − | |Title=Disagreements and third parties: | + | |Title=Disagreements and third parties: dilemmas of neutralism in panel news interviews |
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Disagreement; Neutrality; Bias; Alignment; News interviews; Journalism; | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Disagreement; Neutrality; Bias; Alignment; News interviews; Journalism; |
|Key=Clayman2002b | |Key=Clayman2002b | ||
|Year=2002 | |Year=2002 | ||
|Journal=Journal of Pragmatics | |Journal=Journal of Pragmatics | ||
|Volume=34 | |Volume=34 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Number=10-11 |
| + | |Pages=1385–1401 | ||
|URL=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037821660200070X | |URL=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037821660200070X | ||
|DOI=10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00070-X | |DOI=10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00070-X | ||
|Abstract=Broadcast news interviewers in both Britain and the United States are obliged to maintain a formally neutral or neutralistic posture. Previous research has documented the language practices through which this is achieved in singular actions directed toward particular interviewees. Maintaining neutralism becomes more complex within panel interviews where interviewers ask questions of different interviewees in succession. In this environment, conduct toward successive interviewees can be compared and contrasted for evidence of partiality or favoritism. This paper analyzes in detail one particular panel interview in which the norm of neutralism appears to have been breached. This interview is examined in the spirit of deviant case analysis, with the main objective being to elucidate by reference to a counterexample how a neutralistic posture normally is maintained. | |Abstract=Broadcast news interviewers in both Britain and the United States are obliged to maintain a formally neutral or neutralistic posture. Previous research has documented the language practices through which this is achieved in singular actions directed toward particular interviewees. Maintaining neutralism becomes more complex within panel interviews where interviewers ask questions of different interviewees in succession. In this environment, conduct toward successive interviewees can be compared and contrasted for evidence of partiality or favoritism. This paper analyzes in detail one particular panel interview in which the norm of neutralism appears to have been breached. This interview is examined in the spirit of deviant case analysis, with the main objective being to elucidate by reference to a counterexample how a neutralistic posture normally is maintained. | ||
| − | |||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 02:51, 30 October 2019
| Clayman2002b | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Clayman2002b |
| Author(s) | Steven E. Clayman |
| Title | Disagreements and third parties: dilemmas of neutralism in panel news interviews |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Disagreement, Neutrality, Bias, Alignment, News interviews, Journalism |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2002 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Journal of Pragmatics |
| Volume | 34 |
| Number | 10-11 |
| Pages | 1385–1401 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00070-X |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Broadcast news interviewers in both Britain and the United States are obliged to maintain a formally neutral or neutralistic posture. Previous research has documented the language practices through which this is achieved in singular actions directed toward particular interviewees. Maintaining neutralism becomes more complex within panel interviews where interviewers ask questions of different interviewees in succession. In this environment, conduct toward successive interviewees can be compared and contrasted for evidence of partiality or favoritism. This paper analyzes in detail one particular panel interview in which the norm of neutralism appears to have been breached. This interview is examined in the spirit of deviant case analysis, with the main objective being to elucidate by reference to a counterexample how a neutralistic posture normally is maintained.
Notes
