In the Arab media, it has been claimed that independent news channels put more pressure on officials and public figures, compared with the state-owned news channels. This article aims to compare empirically the strategies that Arab interviewers use to restrict or broaden the answers expected from interviewees in two different channels. Adopting contrastive methods, the findings show that the percentage of equivocations is remarkably low in the government-controlled channel. The study suggests that the findings could be understood within the well-studied theory of equivocation “avoidance-avoidance conflict,” which argues that people tend to equivocate when they are expected to reply to a question for which all potential replies have negative consequences. Arab interviewers in the government-controlled channels design their questions in a way that does not constrain their guests, but avoids conflict with them by allowing them to give a wide range of valid answers.
AlfahadA. (2013). A conversation analysis of aggressiveness and deference in Arabic news interviews (Doctoral thesis). Leeds University, Leeds, England.
2.
AminH. (2002). Freedom as a value in Arab media: Perceptions and attitudes among journalists. Political Communication, 19, 125-135.
3.
AyishM. (2002). Political communication on Arab world television: Evolving patterns. Political Communication, 19, 137-154.
4.
BavelasJ.BlackA.BrysonL.MullettJ. (1988). Political equivocation: A situational explanation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 7, 137-145.
BrownP.LevinsonS. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
7.
BullP. (1994). On identifying questions, replies, and non-replies in political interviews. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 13, 115-131.
8.
BullP. (1997). Queen of hearts or queen of the arts of implication? Implicit criticisms and their implications for equivocation theory in the interview between Martin Bashir and Diana, Princess of Wales. Social Psychological Review, 1, 27-36.
9.
BullP. (1998). Equivocation theory and news interviews. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 17, 36-51.
10.
BullP. (2000). Equivocation and the rhetoric of modernization: An analysis of televised interviews with Tony Blair in the 1997 British General Election. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 19, 222-247.
11.
BullP. (2003a). The analysis of equivocation in political interviews. In BreakwellG. (Ed.), Doing social psychology research (pp. 205-228). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
12.
BullP. (2003b). The microanalysis of political communication: Claptrap and ambiguity. London, England: Routledge.
13.
BullP. (2008). “Slipperiness, evasion, and ambiguity”: Equivocation and facework in noncommittal political discourse. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27, 333-344.
14.
BullP.ElliottJ. (1998). Level of threat a means of assessing interviewer toughness and neutrality. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 17, 220-244.
15.
BullP.ElliottJ.PalmerD.WalkerL. (1996). Why politicians are three-faced: The face model of political interviews. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 267-284.
16.
BullP.FetzerA. (2010). Face, facework and political discourse. International Review of Social Psychology, 23, 155-185.
17.
BullP.MayerK. (1993). How not to answer questions in political interviews. Political Psychology, 14, 651-666.
18.
ChiltonP. A. (2004). Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. London, England: Routledge.
19.
ClaymanS. (1993). Reformulating the question: A device for answering/not answering questions in news interviews and press conferences. Text, 13, 159-188.
20.
ClaymanS. (2001). Answers and evasions. Language in Society, 30, 403-442.
ClaymanS.ElliottM.HeritageJ.McDonaldL. (2007). When does the watchdog bark? Conditions of aggressive questioning in presidential news conferences. American Sociological Review, 72, 23-41.
23.
ClaymanS.HeritageJ. (2002). The news interview: Journalists and public figures on the air. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
24.
CohenJ. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37-46.
25.
FeldmanO. (2004). Talking politics in Japan today. Brighton, England: Sussex Academic Press.
26.
GnisciA.BonaiutoM. (2003). Grilling politicians: Politicians’ answers to questions in television interviews and courtroom examinations. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 22, 385-413.
27.
GoffmanE. (1955). On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry, 18, 213-231.
28.
GreatbatchD. (1986). Aspects of topical organization in news interviews: The use of agenda-shifting procedures by interviewees. Media, Culture & Society, 8, 441-455.
29.
HarrisS. (1991). Evasive action: How politicians respond to questions in political interviews. In ScannellP. (Ed.), Broadcast talk (pp. 76-99). London, England: Sage.
30.
HarrisS. (2001). Being politically impolite: Extending politeness theory to adversarial political discourse. Discourse & Society, 12, 451-472.
31.
LewinK. (1938). The conceptual representation and measurement of psychological forces. Contributions to Psychological Theory, 1, 247.
32.
LynchM. (2006). Voices of the new Arab public: Iraq, al-Jazeera, and Middle East politics today. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
33.
MellorN. (2007). Modern Arab journalism: Problems and prospects. Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.
34.
QuirkR.GreenbaumS.LeechG.SvartvikJ.CrystalD. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. New York, NY: Longman.
35.
RughW. (2004). Arab mass media: Newspapers, radio, and television in Arab politics. Westport, CT: Praeger.
36.
SakrN. (2007). Arab television today. London, England: I.B. Tauris.
37.
SeibP. (2007). New media and prospects for democratization. In SeibP. (Ed.), New media and the new Middle East (pp. 1-17). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
38.
SeibP. (2008). The al-Jazeera effect: How the new global media are reshaping world politics. Washington, DC: Potomac Books.
39.
WilsonJ. (1990). Politically speaking: The pragmatic analysis of political change. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
40.
ZayaniM.SahraouiS. (2007). The culture of Al Jazeera: Inside an Arab media giant. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
