Argumentation in political talk show interviews

Abstract

This paper is about how argumentation theory can aid discourse analysis-not only in describing the types of argumentation found in discourse data, but also in evaluating the soundness of the arguments. Being able to evaluate the quality of argumentation is important for analysing particular types of media interview formats which do not favour dialectical argumentation. A case in point is the political celebrity talk show interview. While in the political news interview, the interviewee is ideally confronted with the whole spectrum of public opinion through the interviewer's questions, in the “soft and feel-good genre” ( Clayman and Heritage, 2002:340) of the celebrity talk show interview, interviewer and interviewee collaboratively produce a consensual point of view. The paper presents an attempt to describe how this is done within the framework of argumentation theory, discourse analysis and Goffman's (1974, 1981) model of frames and footings. The data are two interviews from the American Larry King live-show, broadcast during the US 2000 post-election controversy. The first interview is with an expert, the second one with a politician; the interviews are connected by sharing the same topic. The results show an intertextual argument structure overarching the two interviews: in the expert interview a claim is made, the validity of which depends on the fulfilment of a number of conditions. The second interview represents an attempt to satisfy those conditions. The evaluation of the argumentation shows a number of weaknesses that would be fallacious in the discourse types of rational discussion or political interview. In the genre of the talk show celebrity interview, however, such argumentation has to be considered part of the “feel-good” generic style. Findings show that, even in the context of a political controversy, the genre of the political celebrity talk show interview is a format which disprefers an attitude of critical doubt. It lends itself to exploitation by the politician who is able, through subtle changes of footing, and with the support of the host, to pursue his political agenda. The analysis bears witness to the usefulness of an integrated approach.