1

Mac201

Robert.jewitt@sunderland.ac.uk

CURRENT AFFAIRS BROADCASTING: WHO SPEAKS FOR ‘US’?

2

OVERVIEW

Intro: recap

Crisis of public communication

Celebrity and the public inquisitor

Personality journalism

Jeremy Paxman

3

‘CHAT SHOW CHARLIE’

Charles Kennedy

1999 Liberal Democrat leadership elections

4

‘CRISIS’

Charles Kennedy interview (2002)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2136338.stm

Tabloidisation

Dumbing down

Sound bite culture

5

 THE ‘CRISIS OF PUBLIC COMMUNICATION’

Blumler and Gurevitch (1995: 203)

The media provide an ‘impoverished’ means of serving up issues that matter to the public

Current ways of engaging the public with important issues actually resulted in them knowing less about the issue at stake

6

 THE ‘CRISIS OF PUBLIC COMMUNICATION’

Political elites accused of internalising a media-inspired desire to be both entertaining and appealing the public

(See Postman, 1987; Franklin, 2004)

7

 THE ‘CRISIS OF PUBLIC COMMUNICATION’

Political elites accused of internalising a media-inspired desire to be both entertaining and appealing the public

(See Postman, 1987; Franklin, 2004)

8

 THE ‘CRISIS OF PUBLIC COMMUNICATION’

Gordon’s fake smile

9

 THE ‘CRISIS OF PUBLIC COMMUNICATION’

Political elites accused of internalising a media-inspired desire to be both entertaining and appealing the public

(See Postman, 1987; Franklin, 2004)

OR

Modifying political discourse so it meets the needs of the media might be beneficial as it might bring much needed clarity when dealing with complex political issues and engage the public more widely

(Norris 2000; Jones 2005; Temple 2008).

10

CELEBRITY AND THE PUBLIC INQUISITOR

‘Celebrity culture’ as negative?

Concerns since the 1950s

The construction and maintenance of a celebrity image is central to the marketing of contemporary politicians (P. D. Marshall, 1997)

David Cameron – PR specialist

Head of Communications at

Carlton TV

11

CELEBRITY JOURNALISTS

Brian McNair (2000: 96): ‘star’ interviewers entrusted with high profile events

12

CELEBRITY JOURNALISTS

They inquire on behalf of the public

Empowered by their civil responsibility to engage their quarry in an interrogative mode

The public prefers this over ‘gentle probing’ (see Ross, 2004)

13

PUBLIC INQUISITOR

Higgins (2010: 96) – 1968 Life magazine

David Frost

Sir Robin Day

Ed Murrow

14

PERSONALITY JOURNALISMThe public inquisitor is thought to represent a particularly malign form of personality journalism (at least by politicians!)

“the whole thing has been taken to a quite different level by the hostile, bantering, sneering, cynical performing celebrity interviewers” (Kenneth Clark, above, cited in Cockerell 2003)

“Newszak” (Franklin, 1997: 13)

15

PERSONALITY JOURNALISM

Jeremy Paxman vs Michael Howard (former Home Secretary)

13th May 1997

16

PERSONALITY JOURNALISM

Hostility = trouble

2005: BBC was forced to defend Paxman and Humphreys in front of House of Lords Select Committee

Politicians complained they were ‘not given sufficient respect and are often disparaged’ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4353299.stm

17

THE ROLE

Complex rhetorical strategy

Frequently they ask questions to which they already know the answer so as to further incriminate the respondent at a latter stage

Vs.

viewers

inquisitor interviewee

18

THE ROLE

Shift their ‘footing’ (Clayman, 1992, 2002):

- institutional media representative

- concerned citizen

- oppositional party’s position

19

JEREMY PAXMANLong career at the BBC (since 1977)

Born in Leeds

Currently lives in affluent Oxfordshire and

Earns in excess of £1 million per year from the BBC alone.

One of his sisters is a producer for BBC Radio

One of his brothers is the British Ambassador to Spain

Privately educated at Malvern College

Read English at St Catherine’s, Cambridge (Masters degree)

BBC series Who Do You Think You Are revealed he was descended from 14th C politician Roger Packsman.

Presents University Challenge

Regular on BBC Radio 4

Published widely

20

PAXMAN’S PERSONA

Higgens (2010: 100) claims what is significant is that ‘the form of engagement and mediated persona developed in political programming is the very one that is used in University Challenge’

The ‘public face’ of ‘brand-Paxman’ = highbrow intellectual

Authenticity is crucial to his success and to undermine this ‘front’ is to damage the ‘brand’

21

JEREMY PAXMAN

A man of the people or a man for the people?

4:40

22

PAXMAN’S PERSONA…

… Is to the disadvantage of any politician seeking to dissemble, conceal, or tell outright lies

… Designed to make politicians or the powerful uncomfortable

23

CRITIQUE

Too much emphasis on a confrontational mode of engagement, and provides more a competition of wit and obstinacy than a search for political meaning and consistency (Barnett and Gaber 2001: 144)

Jon Snow has suggested that there is an undue emphasis placed upon “cynicism” over “rigour” (quoted in Thorpe 2005).

24

CRITIQUE

Whom does Paxman really serves in his interrogative role: the public or himself?

25

SUMMARYHow appropriate are public inquisitors for facilitating the public’s right to know?

 

Do they function as a proxy and is this an ideal when they may be compromised by the requirement to build their own ‘brand’

 

Have they descended into shock tactics to solicit results from their guests – our elected representatives?

 

Do they represent the interest of the public, or some notional ‘public opinion’ – a tool they frequently employ or brandish as justification for their trade?

26

REFERENCESBarnett, S. and I. Gaber. 2001. Westminster Tales: The Twenty-First- Century Crisis in Political Journalism. London: Continuum.

Blumler, J.G. and M. Gurevitch. 1995. The Crisis of Public Communication. London: Routledge.

Clayman, S.E. 1992. “Footing in the Achievement of Neutrality: the Case of News-Interview Discourse.” In P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds)

Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, pp. 163–98. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Clayman, S.E. 2002. “Tribune of the People: Maintaining the Legitimacy of Aggressive Journalism.” Media, Culture & Society 24: 197–

216.

Cockerell, M. 2003. “Who is to blame for making us sick of politics?” The Guardian, February 4. Available online at http://

media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,888415,00.html.

Franklin, B. 2004. Packaging Politics: Political Communications in Britain’s Media Democracy, 2nd edition, London: Arnold.

Gnisci, A. and M. Bonaiuto. 2003. “Grilling Politicians: Politicians’ Answers to Questions in Television Interviews and Courtroom

Examinations.” Journal of Language & Social Psychology 22: 385–413.

Habermas, J. 1992. “Further Reflections on the Public Sphere.” In C. Calhoun (ed.) Habermas and the Public Sphere, pp. 421–61.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Jones, J.P. 2005. Entertaining Politics: New Political Television and Civic Culture. Oxford: Rowan and Littlefield.

Louw, E. 2005. The Media and Political Process. London, Sage.

Marshall, P.D. 2005. “Intimately Intertwined in the Most Public Way: Celebrity and Journalism.” In S. Allan (ed.) Journalism: Critical

Issues, pp. 19–29. Maidenhead: Open University Press. 

McNair, B. 2000. Journalism and Democracy: An Evaluation of the Political Public Sphere. Routledge: London.

Montgomery, M. 2007. The Discourse of Broadcast News. Abingdon: Routledge.

Norris, P. 2000. A Virtuous Cycle: Political Communications in Postindustrial Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Postman, N. 1987. Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. London: Methuen 

Ross, K. 2004. “Political Talk Radio and Democratic Participation: Caller Perspectives on Election Call.” Media, Culture & Society 26:

785–801.

Schudson, M. 1995. The Power of News. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Street, J. 2004. “Celebrity Politicians: Popular Culture and Political Representation.” British Journal of Politics & International Relations

6: 435–52.

Temple, M. 2008. The British Press. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Thorpe, V. 2005. “Snow wants Paxman to show respect.” The Observer, April 17, p. 12.