Taking a conversation-analytic approach, this article examines potentially shifting norms of political interviewing against the surge of authoritarian populism and increasingly legitimated forms of political and discursive bias on affiliated partisan TV outlets. Based on four political interviews of Donald Trump and Steve Bannon on Fox News and GB News, the analysis documents changes in interviewing practices away from the conventions of accountability interviewing. These changes involve the design of IR questions, the interpersonal dynamics between IR and IE, and the interactional work performed by questions and political interviewing at large. It is demonstrated that, in the aftermath of organizational and ideological disruptions affecting partisan right-wing media such as Fox News, political interviewing enacts a congenial type of questioning, with attendant transformations in the negotiation of accountability. The analysis documents two variations of congenial interviewing practices, one in the absence of adversarial questioning, and the other in the presence of ostensibly accountability questions, that are nevertheless deployed as interviewer resources for doing strategic image-repair work in the benefit of the interviewee. The attested questioning practices have implications for the normalization of authoritarian populist discourses and agendas, and, also, for the future of journalism as watchdog and safeguard of democratic institutions in liberal democracies.
AkkermanTde LangeSRooduijnM (2016) Into the mainstream? A comparative analysis of the programmatic profiles of radical right-wing populist in Western Europe over time. In: AkkermanTde LangeSRooduijnM (eds) Radical Right-Wing Parties in Western Europe: Into the Mainstream?London: Routledge, 31–52.
2.
BauerAJNadlerANelsonJL (2022) What is fox news? Partisan journalism, misinformation, and the problem of classification. Electronic News16(1): 18–29. DOI: 10.1177/19312431211060426.
3.
BellAMDeSanteCDGiftT, et al. (2022) Entering the “foxhole”: partisan media priming and the application of racial justice in America. Research & Politics9(4): 1–9. DOI: 10.1177/20531680221137136.
4.
CarlsonMRobinsonSLewisSC (2021) News after Trump. Journalism’s Crisis of Relevance in a Changed Media Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5.
ClaymanSE (2002) Tribune of the people: maintaining the legitimacy of aggressive journalism. Media, Culture & Society24(2): 197–216. DOI: 10.1177/016344370202400203.
6.
ClaymanSE (2017) The micropolitics of legitimacy: political positioning and journalistic scrutiny at the boundary of the mainstream. Social Psychological Quarterly80(1): 41–64.
7.
ClaymanSEFoxM (2017) Hardballs and softballs: modulating adversarialness in journalistic questioning. Journal of Language and Politics16(1): 19–39.
8.
ClaymanSEHeritageJ (2002) The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
9.
ClaymanSEHeritageJ (2021) Conversation analysis and the study of sociohistorical change. In: Pekarek DoehlerSDeppermannA (eds) Longitudinal CA: How Interactional Practices Change Over Time. Special issue of Research on Language and Social Interaction 54(2): 225–240.
10.
ClaymanSEHeritageJ (2023) Pressuring the president: changing language practices and the growth political accountability. Journal of Pragmatics207: 62–74. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2023.01.014.
11.
ClaymanSELoebL (2018) Polar questions, response preference, and the tasks of political positioning in journalism. Research on Language and Social Interaction51(2): 127–144.
12.
ClaymanSERomaniukT (2011) Questioning candidates. In: EkstromMPatronaM (eds) Talking Politics in Broadcast Media: Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 15–32.
13.
ClaymanSEHeritageJElliottMN, et al. (2007) When does the watchdog bark? Conditions of aggressive questioning in presidential news conferences. American Sociological Review72(1): 23–41. DOI: 10.1177/000312240707200102.
14.
DahlgrenPM (2020) Media Echo Chambers: Selective Exposure and Confirmation Bias in Media Use, and its Consequences for Political Polarization. Göteborg: University of Gothenburg.
15.
de VreeseCHReinemannCStanyerJ (2019) Adapting to the different shades of populism. In: ReinemannCStanyerJde VreeseCH (eds) Communicating Populism. Comparing Actor Perceptions, Media Coverage, and Effects on Citizens in Europe. New York: Routledge, 235–252.
16.
EkströmM (2002) Epistemologies of TV journalism: a theoretical framework. Journalism3(3): 259–282.
17.
EkströmMTolsonA (2017) Political interviews: pushing the boundaries of ‘neutralism. In: EkströmMFirmstoneJ (eds) The Mediated Politics of Europe: A Comparative Study of Discourse. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
18.
EkströmMPatronaMThornborrowJ (2020) The normalization of the populist radical right in news interviews: a study of journalistic reporting on the Swedish democrats. Social Semiotics30(4): 466–484. doi: 10.1080/10350330.2020.1762984.
19.
ErikssonGÖstmanJ (2013) Cooperative or adversarial? Journalists’ enactment of the watchdog function in political news production. The International Journal of Press/Politics18(3): 304–324. DOI: 10.1177/1940161213482493.
20.
FletcherRCorniaANielsenRK (2020) How polarized are online and offline news audiences? A comparative analysis of twelve countries. The International Journal of Press/Politics25(2): 169–195. DOI: 10.1177/1940161219892768.
21.
GriceP (1975) Logic and conversation. In: DavidsonDHarmanG (eds) The Logic of Grammar. Encino, CA: Dickenson, 64–75. Reprinted in Grice 1989.
22.
HafezK (2019) The staging trap: right-wing politics as a challenge for journalism. Journalism20(1): 24–26.
23.
HerkmanJ (2018) Old patterns on news clothes? Populism and political scandals in the Nordic countries. Acta Sociologica61(4): 341–355.
24.
HigginsM (2010) The “public inquisitor” as media celebrity. Cultural Politics6(1): 93–110.
25.
HulsEVarwijkJ (2011) Political bias in TV interviews. Discourse & Society22(1): 48–65.
26.
HutchbyI (2021) The Political Interview: Broadcast Talk in the Interactional Combat Zone. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
27.
KampfZDaskalE (2013) Too hostile, too deferential: processes of media answerability following political interviews. Journalism14(4): 522–540. DOI: 10.1177/1464884912448902.
28.
KrzyżanowskiMEkmanMNilssonP-E, et al. (2021) Introduction: uncivility, racism, and populism: discourses and interactive practices in anti- & post-democratic communication. Nordicom Review42(S1): 3–15. DOI: 10.2478/nor-2021-0003.
29.
KrzyżanowskiM (2020) Discursive shifts and the normalization of racism: imaginaries of immigration, moral panics and the discourse of contemporary right-wing populism. Social Semiotics30: 503–527.
30.
KyddAH (2021) Decline, radicalization and the attack on the US Capitol. Violence: An International Journal2(1): 3–23. DOI: 10.1177/26330024211010043.
31.
MarquesFPJ (2023) Populism and critical incidents in journalism: has Bolsonaro disrupted the mainstream press in Brazil?The International Journal of Press/Politics. doi: 10.1177/19401612231153110.
32.
MarquesFPJMiolaEComelN, et al. (2022) Adversarial rhetoric or lapdog journalism? Political interviews during the 2018 Brazilian presidential elections. In: FeldmanO (ed) Adversarial Political Interviewing. The Language of Politics. Singapore: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-19-0576-6_14.
33.
MazzoleniG (2008) Populism and the media. In: AlbertazziDMcConnellD (eds) Twenty-First Century Populism. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 49–66.
34.
McNairB (2000) Journalism and Democracy: An Evaluation of the Political Public Sphere. London: Routledge.
35.
MondonAWinterA (2020) Reactionary Democracy. How Racism and the Far Right Became Mainstream. London: Verso Books.
36.
MontgomeryM (2007) The Discourse of Broadcast News. A Linguistic Approach. London: Routledge.
37.
MontgomeryM (2011) The accountability interview, politics and change in UK public service broadcasting. In: EkströmMPatronaM (eds) Talking Politics in Broadcast Media: Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Political Interviewing, Journalism and Accountability. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 33–55.
38.
MuddeC (2019) The Far Right Today. Cambridge: Polity.
39.
NaveraGS (2022) Sustaining a populist persona: CNN Philippines’ political interview with president Rodrigo Roa Duterte as image restoration. In: FeldmanO (ed) Adversarial Political Interviewing. The Language of Politics. Singapore: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-19-0576-6_16.
40.
PatronaM (2011) Neutralism revisited: when journalists set new rules in political news discourse. In: EkströmMPatronaM (eds) Talking Politics in Broadcast Media: Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Political Interviewing, Journalism and Accountability. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 157–176.
41.
SengulK (2022) The role of political interviews in mainstreaming and normalizing the far-right: a view from Australia. In: FeldmanO (ed) Adversarial Political Interviewing. The Language of Politics. Singapore: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-19-0576-6_18.
42.
StrömbäckJEsserF (2014) Introduction: special issue on mediatization of politics: theoretical and empirical perspectives. Journalism Practice8(3): 245–257.
43.
TannenD (2007) Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
44.
WodakR (2021) The Politics of Fear. The Shameless Normalization of Far-right Discourse. 2nd edition. London: Sage.
