The study aims to provide empirical data on the alleged political bias of Dutch media. It also aims to contribute to the development of an instrument for the measurement of partiality in TV interviews. Its main question is: are TV interviewers biased in putting adversarial questions to politicians with different political backgrounds? The data collection encompasses 12 interviews taken from the late-night talk show Pauw & Witteman during the run-up to the parliamentary elections of 2006. The analysis focuses on five measures of adversarial questioning that were developed by Clayman et al. (2007): initiative, directness , assertiveness, opposition and accountability, as well as on a sixth measure that was developed in the context of this study, persistence. The results show that left-wing politicians are approached less adversarially than right-wing politicians and politicians in the political centre, even when various factors that might offer an alternative explanation are included in the analysis. The conclusion is that interviewers are partial in shaping the way in which politicians can present themselves to the public.
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. ( 1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
2.
Brown, R. and Gilman, A. ( 1989) ‘Politeness Theory and Shakespeare’s Four Major Tragedies’, Language in Society18: 159-212.
3.
Clayman, S.E. ( 2001) ‘Answers and Evasions’, Language in Society30: 403-42.
4.
Clayman, S.E. and Heritage, J. ( 2002a) The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5.
Clayman, S.E. and Heritage, J. ( 2002b) ‘Questioning Presidents: Journalistic Deference and Adversarialness in the Press Conferences of Eisenhower and Reagan’ , Journal of Communication52: 749-75.
6.
Clayman, S.E., Elliott, M.N., Heritage, J. and McDonald, L.L. ( 2007) ‘When Does the Watchdog Bark? Conditions of Aggressive Questioning in Presidential News Conferences’, American Sociological Review72: 23-41.
7.
Cohen, J. ( 1960) ‘A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales’ , Educational and Psychological Measurement20: 37-46.
8.
D’Alessio, D. and Allen, M. ( 2000) ‘Media Bias in Presidential Elections: A Meta-Analysis’ , Journal of Communication50: 133-56.
9.
Ekström, M. ( 2001) ‘Politicians Interviewed on Television News’ , Discourse & Society12(5): 563-84.
10.
Ekström, M. ( 2009) ‘Announced Refusal to Answer: A Study of Norms and Accountability in Broadcast Political Interviews’, Discourse Studies11(6): 681-702.
11.
Elliott, J. and Bull, P. ( 1996) ‘A Question of Threat: Face Threats in Questions Posed during Televised Political Interviews’, Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology6: 49-72.
12.
Greatbatch, D. ( 1988) ‘A Turn-Taking System for British News Interviews’ , Language in Society12(5): 401-30.
13.
Harris, S. ( 1991) ‘Evasive Action: How Politicians Respond to Questions in Political Interviews’, in P. Scannell (ed.) Broadcast Talk, pp. 76-99. London : Sage.
14.
Heritage, J. ( 1985) ‘Analyzing News Interviews: Aspects of the Production of Talk for an Overhearing Audience’, in T.A. van Dijk (ed.) Handbook of Discourse Analysis Vol. 3, pp. 95-119. New York: Academic Press.
15.
Heritage, J. and Clayman, S. ( 2010) Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities, and Institutions . Malden, Oxford, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell .
16.
Huls, E. ( 2008) ‘Haagse Antwoorden: Een Onderzoek naar Genderverschillen in Politieke Interviews’ [Hague Answers: A Study into Gender Differences in Political Interviews], Tijdschrift voor Genderstudies, themanummer Gender en Linguïstiek1: 53-66.
17.
Huls, E. ( 2009) ‘Vraagontwijking: Een Glibberig Fenomeen’ [Evasive Action: A Slippery Phenomenon], in A. Backus, M. Keijzer, I. Vedder and B. Weltens (eds) Artikelen van de Zesde Anéla-Conferentie , pp. 153-62. Delft: Eburon.
18.
Hutchby, I. ( 1992) ‘The Pursuit of Controversy: Routine Skepticism in Talk on "Talk Radio"’, Sociology26(4): 673-94.
19.
Hutchby, I. ( 2006) Media Talk: Conversation Analysis and the Study of Broadcasting . Maidenhead: Open University Press .
20.
Kieskompas (2007) http://tweedekamer-kieskompas-nl/ (accessed 18 January 2010).
21.
Kinnear, P.R. and Gray, C.D. ( 2001) SPSS for Windows Made Simple, Release 10. Hove: Psychology Press.
22.
Kuiper, Y. ( 2006) Vraagontwijking: Verschillen tussen Mannelijke Politici, Vrouwelijke Politici en Niet-Politici [Evasive Action: Differences between Male and Female Politicians and Non-Politicians]. Masters thesis, Tilburg University, Tilburg.
23.
Mediawet (2010) http://wetboek.net/Mw/13c.html (accessed 5 May 2010).
24.
Missie en Strategie [Mission and Strategy] (no date)http://portal.omroep.nl/nossites?nav=eayitCsHjCqBfElCcBV (accessed 20 June 2009).
25.
Montgomery, M. ( 2007) The Discourse of Broadcast News: A Linguistic Approach . London and New York: Routledge.
26.
NPO (2010) http://npo.omroep.nl/page/speerpunten/nieuws_en_actualiteit (accessed 5 May 2010).
27.
NPS Jaarverslag (2006) www.nps.nl/static/download/npsdoc/NPSJaarverslag2006.pdf (accessed 5 May 2010).
28.
Pauw, J. and Witteman, P. ( 2007) http://omroep.vara.nl/Pauw-Witteman.1363.0.html (accessed 13 November 2007).
29.
Pomerantz, A. ( 1984) ‘Pursuing a Response’, in J. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, pp. 152-63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30.
Varwijk, J. ( 2008) Rechts, Links of Rechtschapen: Een Gespreksanalytische Benadering van Neutraliteit in Politieke TV Interviews [A Conversation-Analytical Approach of Neutrality in Political TV Interviews]. Masters thesis, Tilburg University, Tilburg.
31.
Wind, M. ( 2007) ‘Publieke Omroep: Het Blijft Kleven, dat Linkse Imago’ [The National Channel: It Does Not Get Rid of Its Left-Wing Image] , Trouw, 24 November. Available from: www.trouw.nl/krantenarchief/ (accessed 20 June 2009 ).
