The joint construction of a journalistic expert identity in studio interactions between journalists on TV news

Abstract

The overall aim of this study is to examine how journalistic expert identities are constructed and displayed in the context of intraprofessional journalist-tojournalist interviews on live television news. Previous research has, in detail, explored how journalists orient to the identity of a critical and impartial interrogator, especially in political news interviews. By focusing on journalistic expert identities, this article contributes to a wider perspective on the multiple and changing identities performed in contemporary journalism. The overall argument is that the expert identity is enabled and promoted in collaborative activities on different levels of discourse such as: (i) the media format, (ii) the question-answer based organization of the interaction, (iii) the orientation to liveness, and (iv) how knowledgeability and epistemic stance are constructed and displayed in the actual design of questions and answers. The data consist of interviews from the prime-time news program Aktuellt, broadcast on Swedish public service television in 2008 and 2009.

The Epistemologies of Breaking News

“…In this case, the actual performances of the reporter on site does not fulfill the epistemic claims assumed and promoted. Previous studies on the interaction between news presenters and in-house journalists (commentators or correspondents) show how the knowledgeability and expert identity of the journalist is collaboratively constructed in the design of questions and answers (Ekström and Kroon 2011;Montgomery 2007). This is possible through careful preparation of the questions and answers, delivered in what appears to be spontaneous and non-scripted interaction.…”

Messy interviews: changing conditions for politicians’ visibility on the web

“…The reporter’s phrasing ‘how do you think the debate went’ (lines 1 and 2) invites the interviewee to assess and provide her personal opinion about the quality of the broadcast debate, treating her as an expert who can and will successfully deliver an authoritative reply (cf. Ekström and Kroon Lundell, 2011 ). Romson also fulfills the question’s implied expert projection by clearly stating her views with an ‘I think it went well’; ‘I think’ being an expression that may be used to, in this case, upgrade knowledge claims as it positions the speaker as authoritative and knowledgeable ( Ekström and Kroon Lundell, 2011 : 674; cf.…”

“… Ekström and Kroon Lundell, 2011 ). Romson also fulfills the question’s implied expert projection by clearly stating her views with an ‘I think it went well’; ‘I think’ being an expression that may be used to, in this case, upgrade knowledge claims as it positions the speaker as authoritative and knowledgeable ( Ekström and Kroon Lundell, 2011 : 674; cf. Simon-Vandenbergen (1996 , 2000 ).…”

Mediatization and the Language of Journalism

“…For instance, much of broadcast interviewing today is not produced for an "overhearing audience, " but consists of off-camera conversation and research interviews. In this process, the boundaries between what is on or off the record, informal socializing or professional exchange, are ambiguous (Ekström and Lundell, 2011). In news broadcasts, politicians' quotes are used to support the editors' interpretation of issues.…”

“…In these interactions between a news anchor and a fellow journalist in the role of expert, the interviewer enhances rather than questions the interviewee's authority. This format allows for interactional control and communicative predictability: a fellow journalist can be relied upon to produce efficient, audience-friendly news talk (Ekström and Lundell, 2011). Ironically, the increasingly circumscribed airtime set apart for politicians and other social actors exposes them to the novel risk of "talk scandals" (Ekström and Johansson, 2008): scandals not sparked by disclosures about financial or sexual misconduct, but by verbal transgressions, originating in the media.…”