Voice of the Press: On the Subject of Media Techniques & The Question-Answer Exchange
The questioning stylings advanced by the journalist (questioner) is approached as a linguistic strategy. From the political standpoint, one reason why press like to state questions in varied forms has less to do with the avoidance of monotony or the lack of spirit, but so as to come at a closer chance of fishing out more valid details from the podium. There are four forms that may be employed, all of which are intended as transitionals or a formula for introducing a new subject.
The C-SPAN spoof on the Prince Charles’ Press Conference presented by Saturday Night Live best exemplifies the nature of press exchange. This is taken from Saturday Night Live: The Best of Alec Baldwin.
[09:24] Announcer: We go now to a live press conference with Prince Charles’ private secretary – Sir Anthony McCollum.
[Dissolve to the press conference]
[09:34] Sir Anthony McCollum: Right. As you all know, there’s been a lot of talk recently about an alleged event that may or may not have taken place, with or without a senior member of the Royal Family, who may or may not have been engaged in certain unspecified acts of a highly indeterminate nature. As you know, I cannot address the matters specifically, but I will entertain a few brief queries.
[Dissolve to the press conference]
[09:34] Sir Anthony McCollum: Right. As you all know, there’s been a lot of talk recently about an alleged event that may or may not have taken place, with or without a senior member of the Royal Family, who may or may not have been engaged in certain unspecified acts of a highly indeterminate nature. As you know, I cannot address the matters specifically, but I will entertain a few brief queries.
S.A.M. clearly assumes the position of the podium as a representative. This question of identity has been resolved through the introduction on the part of the announcer. The podium begins with the background of the topic, and as illustrated, ambiguity is a classic move. Though the Questioners initially have the upper hand or greater power in this situation since it is their action to pose questions, the podium still has the option of limiting the asking power. This is exemplified in the last line which avoids the specific address of matters. This is the permitted type of interaction.
It must also be reminded that the objective of the podium is to create the illusion of complete and true information.
The code begins with a formal register with slightly rhetorical tones. The channel is mainly spontaneous as the podium does not appear to glance at his cards. Topics for discussion also range widely.
1. Question-Answer Adjacency Pair
[09:52] Reporter #1: Cynthia Watson, London Times. Can you comment at all on these rumors, concerning the Prince’s sexuality?
In terms of the format of the question, it is direct despite the identification of the position of S.A.M. by the announcer as representative of the main podium – Prince Charles, S.A.M. had still been faced with the trick which invoked a sense of free will. The fragment ‘Can you comment at all’ brings into question who is exactly meant by ‘you’ --- it invokes the dichotomy between being the representative who must stick to whatever has been told or as an independent informant. It seems to imply the latter considering how ‘you’ is paired with the action ‘comment’. Comment is also a trick-based word as it eliminates one possible answer on the part of the Podium almost automatically. The speaker cannot feign not knowing the answer to the query posed as the nature of the question is that it does not require a precise answer.
‘Can you comment’ is therefore used as a fishing tool, best to begin a set of questions, as the answer may necessitate follow-ups.
Questions related to the ‘Can you comment’ strand may begin with the fragment ‘do you feel’, ‘do you expect’, or the ‘do you think’ variety.
Sir Anthony McCollum: Madam, as you well know, legally, I cannot do that. British slander laws expressly forbid any specific mention of the matter.
This is a clear setting of permitted interaction. It also provides an indirect clue to the questioner to restate the query. Through saying it in this fashion, it is observed that the setting of limitations does not interfere with the right of the participant to information.
2. Background of Topic --> Question
[10:05] Reporter #1: So sorry. Allow me to rephrase. Could one say that the Prince took.. a “holiday”.. from his “usual interests”? And, on this “holiday”, did the Prince perhaps, “pitch a tent on the Isle of Man”?
In this format, there are details provided which may be stated in the rhetorical question form for the purpose of description and clarity before the statement of the actual question.
Sir Anthony McCollum : …[mulls the sound of it in his head] Yes, I suppose, legally, one could say that. Next?
3. Tripartite Structure: Shift of Topic --> Account --> Question
[10:26] Reporter #2: Uh, hello, thank you – if I may try a different vein. I know the Prince has!
[chuckles] Say the Prince were to have a “keyboard recital” at his home.
The first fragment of Reporter #2’s turn exemplifies this form. Turn taking illustrated by this reporter is begun with courtesy. This is deemed the obligation of the participant, to remain diplomatic.
Sir Anthony McCollum: Yes?
Reporter #2: And he were to invite a certain unnamed gentleman.. this fellow would undoubtedly bring a gift – say.. flowers.
Sir Anthony McCollum: Granted.
Reporter #2: So upon arrival, would this gent be more inclined to place “roses on the piano”.. or “tu-lips on his organ”?
Sir Anthony McCollum: [frowns] Sadly, the latter. [points to next reporter] Yes, you?
[10:56] Reporter #3: Say that the Prince recently purchased a country home?
Sir Anthony McCollum: Alright?
Reporter #3: Down “Cadbury Lane”
Sir Anthony McCollum: I know of no such address, but I’ll allow it.
Reporter #3: In the county of “Dingleberry”.
Sir Anthony McCollum: Indeed.
Reporter #3: And, say there was a problem with the insulation in his residence, a terrible draft coming in through his windows.
Sir Anthony McCollum: Where are you going with this?
Reporter #3: I wonder.. if he wouldn’t enjoy having his “crack”.. filled with “cauck”?
Sir Anthony McCollum: Undoubtedly.
[11:30] Reporter #3: Quick follow-up: If His Majesty is elected to become a civil servant.. would one be writing thinking that his occupation of choice would have been.. "manhole Inspector"?
Sir Anthony McCollum: Often, his Majesty speaks of nothing else. [ points to next reporter ] Yes?
4. Question as Simple Appendage
[11:45] Reporter #4: Alright, despite all this talk, the Prince is above, all else, a gentleman.
Sir Anthony McCollum: Absolutely. Always ready to give a fellow a hand.
Reporter #4: And, for a friend, he'd been over backwards - or forwards.
Reporter #4: And, for a friend, he'd been over backwards - or forwards.
Sir Anthony McCollum: Yes.
[11:58] Reporter #4: The kind of guy who would say, "It's better to give than to receive."
Sir Anthony McCollum: The Prince of Wales is generous to a fault. He has been known to give until it hurts. However, I've also heard, that if you were to arrive at the Prince's back door with a sizeable package, you would be received warmly.
The example interview question provided by Reporter #4 is indirect, and one which only needs to be affirmed or negated. This is one variation of the question as appendage itself.
[12:22] Reporter #3: Could we say that the Prince was reared by a queen?
Sir Anthony McCollum: Yes.. of course.
This question raised by Reporter #3 is a straight-forward formatted one in comparison to that of Reporter #4’s. In terms of parameters for answering, it also may either be affirmed or negated.
[12:28] Reporter #1: You're saying that the Prince's favorite actor is Peter O'Toole?
Sir Anthony McCollum: Yes.
Reporter #1’s query is still a variant of the appendage classification, but what makes this particular statement unique is how it seeks the affirmation or negation of a specific statement which had been made by the private secretary himself previously.
[12:33] Reporter #4: Right, right.. and that his favorite meal is a "sack" lunch.
Sir Anthony McCollum: Yes..
[12:37] Reporter #3: And that his favorite bird is the swallow?
Sir Anthony McCollum: Indeed, yes.
3. Tripartite Structure: Shift of Topic --> Account --> Question (Design for Verification)
[12:42] Reporter #2: And, what of the rumor that the Prince can't drive car over.. 68 kilometers an hour?
Sir Anthony McCollum: I haven't heard that rumor.
Reporter #2: Because, at 69, he blows a rod!
Sir Anthony McCollum: I haven't heard that rumor.
Reporter #2: Because, at 69, he blows a rod!
Although this example is a return to the third model, it is a variant where the question raised is for the purpose of verification of unofficial news or on certain instances rumors, as the questioner eventually answers the query himself, so as to have the answer checked for accuracy or fallacy.
Sir Anthony McCollum: Thank you. That's quite enough.. I'm sorry.. that's all the time
we have for today. Thank you, thank you, thank you..
[ Private Secretary exits press conference ]
Aside from considering the forms for the statement of the questions, of complimenting interest is the variety of word structures which are employed by both sets of participants. These are intended as either introducers of new topics or as a speech strategy. When enumerated, these comprise of: Well, [Ellipsis], So, Look/Listen, and self-referential openings such as I think and My understanding is.
Well tends to be anaphoric where the speaker has a problem with the previous speaker’s turn [Partington: 2003]. It usually applies to both the podium and the questioner. In the case of the podium, it is a word which enables him or her some time to pause and reflect without being so noticeable. This is the similar purpose with the usage of the Ellipsis. At this time, the podium would reflect on whether the answer would be coherent to the previous statement. In the case of the interviewer it could be that he or she is trying to determine whether the answer given by the podium does in fact address the question. This would then typically follow a reformulation of the question, and to begin the question with the structure ‘well’. It is therefore both a start to a question and a response.
So functions as the introduction to a whole new type of turn, the reformulation of the previous speaker’s contribution [Partington: 2003]. It summarizes and proceeds to the point. It might be thought that this kind of move is used simply to check the drift of the topic rather than to shift it, but this is not always the case. It performs both functions simultaneously but applies more to question.
So functions as the introduction to a whole new type of turn, the reformulation of the previous speaker’s contribution [Partington: 2003]. It summarizes and proceeds to the point. It might be thought that this kind of move is used simply to check the drift of the topic rather than to shift it, but this is not always the case. It performs both functions simultaneously but applies more to question.
Look/Listen on the other hand seems to imply an annoyed tone. Used to begin the sentence of an answer, it is used for the purpose of clarification [Partington: 2003].
The self-referential openings I think and My understanding is are beginner fragments to the answers posed by Questioners. These are both phrases which are designed to address inquiries where the question cannot be escaped. The first, I think has implied connotations of personal opinion, and is stated by the representative separate from his or her identity as the spokesperson. This move at times may be a saving grace or a curse towards the main podium, depending upon whether it is used correctly or not. As for My understanding is it is grayer compared to I think considering that it requires some re-statement of fact. When used to begin the sentence, it informs the questioners and the audiences of the briefing that the statement may not entirely be true as the podium itself is not fully versed.
Lexical cohesion is also of paramount importance. Repetition has two aspects. It is considered positive if it is done in recognition of the acoustic considerations of the press conference, or if it creates a useful impression that the response is addressing the question properly [Partington: 2003]. It is negative if repetition is taken as an expression of sarcasm, an implication of testiness with the question.
