CONFLICT TALK

208 views
177 views

Published on

Published in: News & Politics
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
208
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

CONFLICT TALK

  1. 1. CONFLICT TALK AND POLITICS (television discourse) Nuria Lorenzo-Dus Natalia Quintana Morán
  2. 2. <ul><li>We are going to anaylise two television concepts: - Political debates: where politics try to “know out” their opponents dialectically. - Political interviews : where conflict talk of politics follow a question. To meet this demand juornalists and politicians tend to rely on the performance of “formal neutralism”. </li></ul>
  3. 3. CONFLICT TALK IN POLITICAL DEBATES: ‘POLITIC’ ARGUMENTS AND SELF-DISPLAY <ul><li>CONFLICT TALK: developes in political debates through action- oppsition sequences that are arbitrared by an institucional agent: THE MODERATOR of the debate. </li></ul><ul><li>One aspect of occurring in Congress is that disputes amongst politicians are one aspect of politics that television is particularly keen to capture. Conflict talk generally begins, develops and ends in accordance with specific practices with which the politicians involved are fully familiar. </li></ul><ul><li>Self- display: Is the reciprocal opposition and the discrediting of one’s opponent lurks a more pressing goal. </li></ul>
  4. 4. Example
  5. 5. <ul><li>We could see two related aspects: </li></ul><ul><li>1- In political debates face-threat is generally conducted within the parameters os contextual appropiateness, and therefore serves to display politicians’ debating know-how. </li></ul><ul><li>2- Politicians’ face-work in televised debates is often placed within stretches of talk that either cancel its otherwise function or emphasise positive traits of their own face. </li></ul><ul><li>Politicians´ references to closeness and commonality of views, likewise, often occur within utterance contexts that deny their literal meaning. </li></ul>
  6. 6. VENTRILOQUISING <ul><li>It designates a speaker’s playful representation of the discourse of either ‘lovable’ objects or pelinguistic children. </li></ul><ul><li>E.g: ‘Quite honestly (.) I go to Germany now and they say to me (.) I wish we had your unemployment.’ [Here Presscot prepare the ground for his subsequent act of ventriloquising by recalling a quote]. </li></ul>
  7. 7. <ul><li>So, we could reveal in this part that if appropiately performed, conflict talk can facilitate political self-display. Through action-opposition moves in which the public face needs of one´s political opponents are seemingly, and smultaneously, threatened and protected, politicians work first and foremost on constructing appealing political images of themselves. By complying with particular debating rules, they display more their skills as debaters than genuine concern not to impose upon their opponents’ face need. </li></ul><ul><li>Rather than as adversarial boxing rings, televised political debates may be seen as self-promotional platforms from which politicians can sell their images to audiences. </li></ul><ul><li>It is persuasion rather than adversatialness that drives the activity type of debating politics before the cameras. </li></ul>
  8. 8. CONFLICT TALK IN POLITICAL INTERVIEWS: AN ARGUMENTATIVE FEAST FOR ALL <ul><li>Political interviews on British television often reflected the hunter – prey relationship that exists between the media and politicians. </li></ul>
  9. 9. <ul><li>When interviewing politicians, journalists try to hold the latter account, often in a non-deferential, no-nonsense style. </li></ul><ul><li>- They try to get politicians to say something that they may subsquently regert and/or that may reveal their political ‘trickery’. </li></ul><ul><li>Too, they are expected to elicit information from the politicians whom they interview: neither to affiliate with them. </li></ul>
  10. 10. <ul><li>Political interviews on TV  journalists  task: ‘IMPARTIAL AGENT PROVOCATEURS’ = NEUTRALISTIC STANCE (a manner os style of interviewing, it refres to patters of interview conduct which can escape formal chages of bias) </li></ul><ul><li>Strategy : To distance themselves personally from their opinions and/or challenging questions by attributing them to a third party. (cite or evoke an individual, a group…) </li></ul><ul><li>For political part: Politicians risk damaging their politicall image if the interprest questions as personal attacks rather than in the context of journalists’ alleged spirit of advocacy. </li></ul><ul><li>To respond provocations they have hidden agendas that the journalist have succesfully expossed. </li></ul>
  11. 11. CONCLUSION <ul><li>Politics is conflict and we examinated how conflict talk originates and develops in two activities that are adversarial: televised political debates and political interviews . </li></ul><ul><li>Face- threat is intentional in these debates both is also genarally conduced within the parameters of what is contextually appropiate and, politic rather than impolite. And Face-work seeks to convey the impression that the business at hands, debating political issues, can be safeguarded because opposing others’ views is not so important as to override the imperatives of the activity type of debating politics on television. </li></ul><ul><li>They are meant to aid politicians’ self-presentation in debates </li></ul>
  12. 12. <ul><li>Media politics relationship is a hunter and prey interactional affair. Those in the world television and in the world of politics draw upon discourses that have over the years undergone a considerable process os convergence. </li></ul><ul><li>THE TELEVISION-POLITICS RELATIONSHIP IS, A SYNERGETIC ONE IN WHICH BOTH PARTIES BENEFIT FROM THE KNOWING PERFORMANCE OF A NUMBER OF FORMS OF TALK, INCLUDING VARIOUS TYPES OF CONFLICT TALK. </li></ul>

×