Argumentation in Political Interviews

2016

JAIC

Self Cite

This paper aims to contribute to an understanding of the politicians’ burden of proof in political interviews by explaining how politicians attempt to delimit the burden of proof which they acquire for their standpoints in response to criticism. As politicians always want to give a positive evaluation of their activities, they respond to the critics by delimiting their burden of proof in such a way that their standpoints are easy to defend. The research question to be answered is: How do politicians expediently delimit their burden of proof in political interviews in response to criticism? First, the author characterizes political interviews as accountability practices which by virtue of their institutional traits impose limits on the politicians’ burden of proof. Second, the author explains some of the possibilities for delimiting the burden of proof in the communicative practices at issue by analyzing in detail several fragments from a political interview.

Section: Account-giving In Political Interviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Delimiting the burden of proof in political interviews

2016

JAIC

Self Cite

“…Crisis responses will be analyzed as an argumentative activity (van Eemeren, 2010) in which reasons are communicated to the public to justify and obtain acceptance for policies. This approach builds on previous work demonstrating that political interviews are not merely informative, but develop as accountability practices in which an interviewer advances critical questions to hold a political figure to account, with the politician responding by defending political actions and decisions (Andone, 2013). The main implication of this institutional characteristic is that crisis responses are a persuasive activity in which reasons are communicated to justify and obtain acceptance for policies and in which argumentation plays a crucial role in (re)legitimizing reputation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Crisis Response Strategies in Political Interviews: A European Union Perspective

Adversarial Political Interviewing

2022

Self Cite

This chapter contributes to the study of crisis communication by investigating the argumentative dimension of crisis response strategies in political interviews. As political interviews are accountability practices, crisis responses by political actors are seen as persuasive attempts at (re)enacting reputation and creating citizen trust. In addition to explaining the argumentative nature of political interviews, and how it constrains crisis responses, this chapter analyzes how two European Union political leaders respond to critical questions during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis. Understanding the EU's response strategies is of special significance, due to its broad role as a crisis management institution. The first case study illustrates the use of potentially effective accommodating strategies, in which mistakes are admitted and lessons are drawn from them. The second case study discusses how defensive strategies employed to avoid blame and deny mistakes is a potentially less effective choice.

“…The European Parliament constitutes the account-holder of these institutions. Informally, political accountability is understood broadly as a practice in which the executive actors account to the electorate, for example through journalists-as in political interviews (Andone 2013)-and various forms of political communication-such as governmental reports (Mulgan 2003). 5 Irrespective of their more or less formalized nature, the institutional point 6 of all prospective practices of political accountability is to offer those with political responsibility-such as parliamentarians, Members of the European Commission, representatives of the European Council-an opportunity to discuss the quality of their intended actions, decisions and policies as well as the reasons for proposing to carry out these actions, decisions or policies in a certain way (Mulgan 2003).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Pragmatic Argumentation in European Practices of Political Accountability

2014

Argumentation

Self Cite

In this paper, the author examines the use of pragmatic argumentation in European practices of political accountability in which the politicians explain and justify a future course of action which they plan to undertake in order to solve an existing problem. The author explains some vital institutional characteristics of the practices under discussion and demonstrates how these institutional characteristics constrain the use of pragmatic argumentation. In addition, the author shows which criteria arguers commonly invoke in practices of political accountability to make their pragmatic arguments acceptable to critics.