Contemporary American television news centers pundits as key voices in national political discourse. The most prominent pundits anchor their own programs, often during primetime hours, reaching large audiences . This paper analyzes pundits’ performance of a type of news talk that is designed to appear unscripted and therefore authentic, enhancing parasocial interaction (PSI) with viewers and affirming pundits’ roles as experts. Data collected from two of the most-watched pundit-helmed news shows—Hannity and The Rachel Maddow Show—suggests that pundits use greeting tokens, personal pronouns, repetition, and rhetorical questions during their opening monologues. We discuss the mechanisms through which punditry may contribute to political polarization by creating emphasis frames.
BahadorBEntmanRKnüpferC (2019) Who’s elite and how the answer matters to politics. Political Communication36: 195–202.
3.
BarberáPCasasANaglerJ, et al. (2019) Who leads? Who follows? Measuring issue attention and agenda setting by legislators and the mass public using social media data. The American Political Science Review113(4): 883–901.
4.
BroockmanDEButlerDM (2017) The causal effects of elite position-taking on voter attitudes: field experiments with elite communication. American Journal of Political Science61(1): 208–221.
5.
CacciatoreMAScheufeleDAIyengarS (2016) The End of Framing as We Know it . . . and The Future of Media Effects. Philadelphia, PA: Mass Communication and Society, Vol. 19, 7–23.
ChongDDruckmanJN (2007) A theory of framing and opinion formation in competitive elite environments. Journal of Communication57: 99–118.
8.
DibbleJLHartmannTRosaenSF (2016) Parasocial interaction and parasocial relationship: conceptual clarification and a critical assessment of measures. Human Communication Research42: 21–44.
9.
DruckmanJN (2001) The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political Behavior23(3): 225–256, Special Issue: Citizen competence revisited.
10.
DruckmanJN (2014) Pathologies of studying public opinion, political communication, and democratic responsiveness. Political Communication31(3): 467–492.
11.
EtadACohenJ (2023) Look me in the eyes: how direct address affects viewers’ experience of parasocial interaction and credibility?Journalism0(0): 1–19.
12.
FinkelEJBailCACikaraM, et al. (2020) Political sectarianism in America. Science370(6516): 533–536.
GervaisBT (2014) Following the news? Reception of uncivil partisan media and the use of incivility in political expression. Political Communication31(4): 564–583.
15.
GoffmanE (1981) Forms of Talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
KimELelkesYMcCrainJ (2022) Measuring dynamic media bias. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America119(32): e2202197119.
22.
LetukasL (2014) Primetime Pundits: How Cable News Covers Social Issues. Lanham, Mayland: Lexington Books.
23.
LevyMR (1979) Watching tv news as para-social interaction. Journal of Broadcasting23(1): 69–80.
24.
LotzA (2007) The Television Will Be Revolutionized. New York, NY: NYU Press.
25.
MasonL (2019) Ideologues without issues the polarizing consequences of ideological identities. Public Opinion Quarterly82(Special Issue): 866–887.
26.
McCombsMEShawDL (1972) The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly36(2): 176–187.
WojcieszakMCasasAYuX, et al. (2021) Echo chambers revisited: the (overwhelming) sharing of in-group politicians, pundits and media on twitter. PNAS1–6. Available at: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/xwc79
