Journal of Academic and Applied Studies
Vol. 1(5) December 2011, pp. 56-70
Available online @ www.academians.org
ISSN1925-931X
Critical Analysis of Evasion Techniques in
American Political News Interviews
Fezzeh Mehdipour1, Nesa Nabifar2
1
Department of English, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz Branch,Tabriz, Iran
2
Department of English, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz Branch,Tabriz, Iran
Abstract
The present study focuses on the application of evasion techniques - initially introduced by Bavelas (1990)
and then developed by Bull (2003) - by American Foreign Ministers within the last decade. Three main
news were selected (CNN-BBC-NBC) and 20 interviews were randomly selected .The analysis of data was
conducted through a detailed description of the questions and answers .The techniques were examined and
also the dimensions of resistance were analyzed to see if there is a relationship between the kind of
resistance and the type of evasion techniques. Finally ,the interviewees for each minister were compared to
clarify the frequency of the used techniques and differences in application of each technique, while
indicating significant differences between these two sets of interviews ,the study proves that there are
similarities in application of techniques . It also proves that different politicians often use the same
dimension of resistance. The way the politicians resist is different from person to person. Some choose to
resist positively and some negatively but this study proves that the main dimension of resistance is
“positive dimension and topic shift ‟‟.
Keywords: Question, Answer, Evasion, Evasion techniques, Dimensions of resistance.
I.
Introduction
Studying news interviews, according to Clayman and Heritage (2002), requires a distinctive
mode of analysis appropriate to its distinctive character. The news interview is, first and for
most, a course of interaction to which the participants contribute on a turn-by turn basis, mainly
by asking and answering questions. Of course, particular themes are expressed within each
successive contribution, but these contributions are not merely understood in terms of their
thematic content. They are also understood in terms of how they bear on the unfolding
interactional “game” being played by interviewer and interviewee.
According to Chilton (2003,cited in Woods,2006) , political interviewing is a highly regarded
journalistic art .Pragmatic analysis , which focuses on the way we produce and understand
language in the context of a speech situation , reveals , for example , that interviewers construct
their questions carefully to place politicians in particular positions . Their questions are rarely
neutral, and are often leading. In responding to tough questions, politicians will often be obliged
to use evasive strategies, providing vague responses or contriving not to give straight answers.
Claims and counter claims follow one after another in quick succession, and argument will
typically develop over what has or has not been said or meant.
56
Journal of Academic and Applied Studies
Vol. 1(5) December 2011, pp. 56-70
Available online @ www.academians.org
ISSN1925-931X
Woods (2006) suggested that specific discourse strategies characterize media interview and
debates. Such political discussions are marked by confrontation and conflict: the political
interview is the site of a power struggle between politicians, interviewers and members of the
public. Questions do not function simply as information-seeking devices , but are constructed
specifically to place politicians „on the spot‟ , particularly with regard to what has been said
before ,either in the present context or elsewhere – great emphasis is placed on „truth‟ and
consistency. Interviewers intervene and interrupt in order to control both content of the
interaction and the organizational flow of the discourse .In response; politicians may evade
questions or attempt to turn them to their own advantage.
According to Fairclough(1995) ,one of the ground rules of interviewing is that interviewees
should confine themselves to answering questions ,they don‟t always do so : sometimes they
answer the question and then introduce topics of their own , sometimes they introduce topics of
their own first and then answer the question , sometimes they don‟t answer the question at all.
How politicians evade answering? Evasion according to Clayman (2001) is a way to satisfy both the
obligations of telling the truth and of keeping secrets from those not entitled to know the truth.
Clayman &Heritage (2002) in considering news interview as a genre notify that the prototypical
news interview involves a distinctive constellation of participants, subject matter, and
interactional form .The interviewer is known as a professional journalist rather than a partisan
advocate or celebrity entertainer. Interviewees have some connection to recent news events,
either as primary actors (e.g., government officials) or as informed commentators (e.g., certified
experts).The audience plays no active role in the interaction. The discussion normally focuses on
matters related to recent news events, is highly formal in character, and is managed through
questions and answers.
Bull (2003) has identified the following evasion techniques for answering questions. The
different ways in which politicians evade an answer is presented in the typology below. It is
organized in terms of both superordinate and subordinate categories, identifying in total 35
different forms of evasion.
1. Ignoring the Question: the politician simply ignores the question without making any attempt
to answer it or even to acknowledge that the interviewer has asked a question.
2. Acknowledging the Question without answering it: the politician acknowledges that the
interviewer has asked a question but then fails to give an answer.
3. Questioning the Question: two different ways of questioning the question are distinguished:
requesting clarification and reflecting the question back to the questioner, for example saying
"you tell me"
4. Attacking the Question: the politician attacks or criticizes the question; eight different reasons
for attacking the question are distinguished: "the question fails to address the important issue"
,"the question is hypothetical or speculative" ,"the question is based on a false premise", "the
57
Journal of Academic and Applied Studies
Vol. 1(5) December 2011, pp. 56-70
Available online @ www.academians.org
ISSN1925-931X
question is factually inaccurate" ,"the question includes a misquotation", "the question includes a
quotation taken out of context" ,"the question is objectionable" ,and "the question is based on a
false alternative".
5. Attacking the Questioner: criticizes the interviewer as distinct from attacking the question.
6. Declining to Answer: five different ways of declining to answer a question can be
distinguished: refusing on grounds of inability, being unwilling to answer, saying "I can`t speak
for someone else”, deferring answer, saying “it is not possible to answer the question for the time
being”, and pleading ignorance
7. Making Political Point: eight different ways of making political points are distinguished:
external attack – attacking opposition or other rival groups, presenting policy, justifying policy,
giving reassurance, appealing to nationalism, offering political analysis, self-justification ,and
talking up one‟s own side
8. Giving Incomplete Answer: five different forms of incomplete reply are distinguished: starts
to answer but doesn‟t finish (self-interruption), negative answer, partial reply, half answer, and
fractional reply
9. Repeating Answer to Previous Question
10. Stating that the Question Has Already Been Answered
11. Apologizing
12. Literalism
This study will make a tentative attempt to critically analyze the techniques of evasion proposed
by Peter Bull (2003) in broadcast American news interviews within ten years in three channels
CNN, NBC, and BBC, aiming to show that how interviewers apply questions tactfully to lessen
the chance of evasion from interviewees and how interviewees tacit fully use overt and covert
practices to use evasion without leaving any trace.
II.
Methods
We investigated dimensions of resistance and evasion techniques. The strategies and techniques
used for evasion in the interviews of the selected U.S.Foreign ministers within the last 10 years.
We selected 20 interviews from three main news channels (NBC, BBCandCNN) within the
period of 2001 to 2010.We analyzed the data descriptively. The theoretical framework for the
analysis is Bull`s approach who inspired by Bavelas et al. (1990) divided the evasion techniques
into 12 major categories .We have also taken into account the dimensions of resistance proposed
by Clayman (2001). According to Clayman (2001) resisting a question is, like answering, a
58
Journal of Academic and Applied Studies
Vol. 1(5) December 2011, pp. 56-70
Available online @ www.academians.org
ISSN1925-931X
complex phenomenon, we can begin to dissect this phenomenon by drawing a basis conceptual
distinction between two dimensions or aspects of resistance, negative aspect and positive aspect
,each one divided into strong version and weak version. For each version in each aspect, different
techniques are used. For studying the evasion techniques used in political interviews and
dimensions of resistance being exercised to evade the questions, we test the following
hypotheses:
H1: In all the interviews being analyzed, evasion techniques are used by the politicians.
H2: Incomplete answer and making political points are the most frequent techniques.
H3: Among dimensions of resistance positive dimension is used more frequently by the
American politicians.
A. Hypotheses Testing
a.Testing the techniques used for evasion in the political interviews (H1)
We investigate this hypothesis that in all the interviews evasion techniques are used. Therefore
we applied Bavelas `proposed techniques to evade an answer. There are 12 major categories for
evasion .So we analyzed the questions and answers and then we place them in the table for
investigating the type of evasion.
Evasion techniques:
Evasion techniques
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Ignoring the question
Acknowledging without
answering
Questioning the question
Attacking the question
Attacking the questioner
Declining the answer
Making political point
Incomplete answer
59
Q5
Q6
Q7
Q8
Q9
Q10
Journal of Academic and Applied Studies
Vol. 1(5) December 2011, pp. 56-70
Available online @ www.academians.org
ISSN1925-931X
Repeating answer to previous question
Stating that the question has already
been answered
Apologizing
Literalism
b. Testing the most frequent techniques used for evasion (H2)
The second hypothesis was that the main and most frequent techniques are making political point
and giving incomplete answer. To answer this hypothesis whether to reject the idea or to accept
it, we estimate the frequency of all the techniques used in the interviews and then we investigate
the most frequent ones.
c. Testing the frequent dimension of resistance in the interviewees (H3)
In order to test the third hypothesis, we investigate the questions and answers. Then a division
was made based on the dimensions of resisting an answer, to see how the questions were resisted
either positively or negatively, and also which version (weak or strong) was frequently applied
by the politicians in the interviewees.
Dimensions of resistance:
Question
Negative
Strong
Weak
Positive
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
60
Topic shift
Question shift
Journal of Academic and Applied Studies
Vol. 1(5) December 2011, pp. 56-70
Available online @ www.academians.org
ISSN1925-931X
B. Scope of the research
In this study, we investigate American political news interviews within the last 10 years. We
studied the interviews broadcasted in three main news channels (CNN.NBC.BBC) because of
accessibility of the data for analysis. We also chose the interviews done by American Foreign
Ministers because of the strong possibility of variety in topics discussed and also the odds being
high to resist the questions.
C. Data
The data used in this study consists of transcriptions of 20 interviews from three channels from
2001 to 2010.
D. Source of Data
For gathering the data, we used there following internet sites and web addresses.
Clinton
CNN
http://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0012/11/lkl.00.html
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1101/30/sotu.01.html
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0804/21/lkl.01.html
NBC
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/01/135299.htm
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2009a/12/133066.htm#
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/04/139978.htm
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/05/141287.htm
BBC
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2009a/11/132164.htm
61
Journal of Academic and Applied Studies
Vol. 1(5) December 2011, pp. 56-70
Available online @ www.academians.org
ISSN1925-931X
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2011/01/154545.htm
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/03/138678.htm
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2009a/10/130571.htm
Rice
CNN
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0102/04/le.00.html
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0007/30/wv.04.html
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0710/14/le.01.html
NBC
http://2001-2009.state.gov/misc/87529.htm
http://2001-2009.state.gov/misc/60289.htm
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2006/66036.htm
BBC
http://2001-2009.state.gov/secretary/rm/2008/10/111077.htm#
http:// 2001-2009.state.gov/secretary/rm/2007/12/97914.htm#
http://2001-2009.state.gov/secretary/rm/2007/78675.htm#
http://2001-2009.state.gov/secretary/rm/2005/49856.htm#
III.
Results and Analysis
62
Journal of Academic and Applied Studies
Vol. 1(5) December 2011, pp. 56-70
Available online @ www.academians.org
ISSN1925-931X
In this section of paper we present analysis of the results for the hypotheses:
Results of Testing H1
Having analyzed the interviews from various news channels (BBC, CNN, NBC) within the last
decade, the most important finding of the present study is the significant use of techniques by
American Foreign ministers almost in all the interviews and also the noticeable difference in
applying dimensions of resistance to a question.
In order to calculate the frequency of evasion techniques, first the over all use of techniques by
both politicians was calculated. Table 1 represents over all use of techniques. The total number
of questions that were analyzed was 362, out of which 146 questions have been answered
evasively. According to the table “making political” point is the most frequently used technique
which is 40 out of 146 .It means that more than a quarter of the questions were answered
evasively only using this technique. The second most frequent technique is “incomplete answer”
which is 36 out of 146 questions ,that is 24.65% of the total number of questions which were
answered evasively. Surprisingly “attacking the questioner” is the least frequently used technique
that is 1 in 146 evasively answered questions. The technique with no use is “stating that the
question has already been answered”. That is may be because of clear presentation of the
questions following each other.
TABLE1
THE GENERAL FREQUENCY AND PERCENT OF THE USE OF EVASION TECHNIQUES
IN INTERVIEWS WITHIN 2001-2010
Table 2 represents the use of evasion techniques by Secretary Rice. The total number of the
questions being analyzed for this section is 191 that 97 questions have been answered evasively.
63
Journal of Academic and Applied Studies
Vol. 1(5) December 2011, pp. 56-70
Available online @ www.academians.org
ISSN1925-931X
According to the table Secretary Rice has used “Making political point” and “Incomplete
answer” more than the other techniques which is 25 for each technique .Over all 50% of the
evasive answers were related to these two techniques. The least frequently used techniques are
“attacking the questioner” and “apologizing”. That is slightly over 2% of the questions has been
answered using these two techniques. The technique with no use is “stating that the question has
already been answered”.
TABLE2
FREQUENCY AND PERCENT OF VTHE USE OF EVASION TECHNIQUES IN
INTERVIEWS WITH SECRETARY
30
25
20
15
10
Frequency
5
Stating the question…
Apologizing
Attacking the…
Attacking the question
Questioning the…
Literalism
Repeating answer to…
Ignoring the question
Declining the answer
Incomplete answer
Making political point
Acknowledging…
Percent
0
Table 3 discusses the use of evasion techniques in interviews with Secretary Clinton.
The total number of questions being analyzed for this section was 171 that 49 of these
64
Journal of Academic and Applied Studies
Vol. 1(5) December 2011, pp. 56-70
Available online @ www.academians.org
ISSN1925-931X
As the table illustrates, like table 2n in this part “making political point” has got the first place
.The second most frequent technique was giving incomplete answer.The least favorite
technique was “apologizing”. There are also some technique that haven`t been used at all.
“questioning the question”, “attacking the questioner”, “repeating answer to the previous
question “and “stating the question has already been answered” are the techniques which
haven`t been used at all.
TABLE3
FREQUENCY AND PERCENT OF THE USE OF EVASION TECHNIQUES IN
INTERVIEWS WITH SECRETARY
Results of Testing H2
In order to answer the research question about the difference in using evasion techniques, by
Foreign Ministers (Secretary Rice and Clinton|) a comparison was made. As the table illustrates,
“making political point” and “giving incomplete answer” are the most frequent techniques used
by both. “declining the answer” is the second most frequent technique. Then the third position is
taken by “ignoring the question” and “acknowledging without answering” which is 10% .There
are also techniques that have been applied just by one of the politicians ,techniques such as
“repeating answer to previous question” , “questioning the question”and “attacking the
questioner” which have been used just by Secretary Rice.”stating that the question has already
been answered” has not been used by her.For Secretary Clinton there are some techniques which
65
Journal of Academic and Applied Studies
Vol. 1(5) December 2011, pp. 56-70
Available online @ www.academians.org
ISSN1925-931X
are not used at all. Four techniques are as follows: “repeating answer to previous question” ,
“questioning the question”, “attacking the questioner “and“ stating that the question has already
been answered”. According to the table there is no significant increase in using evasion
techniques within the last ten years .
TABLE 4
COMPARISON OF FREQUENCY AND PERCENT OF THE USE OF EVASION
TECHNIQUES IN THE INTERVIEWS
Results of Testing H3
The results of the analysis of the dimensions of resistance for each politician are as follows:
According to table 5,another analysis of the interviews has been done to see what special
dimensions of resistance the politicians apply and whether they use the same dimension of
resistance or not:As it is illustrated ,Secretary Rice has applied “positive dimension‟‟ more than
“negative dimension “and also “topic shift‟‟ has got the main practicality rather than “question
shift”.85% of the questions which were answered evasively have been resisted positively using
“ topic shift‟‟and only about 15% of them were resisted using “question shift”.
In applying “negative dimension “the weak version” has been used most .That is almost 70% of
the questions which were answered evasively have been resisted negatively using incomplete
answer and providing short answers. The rest 30% was “strong version “that is not providing any
answer.
TABLE 5
66
Journal of Academic and Applied Studies
Vol. 1(5) December 2011, pp. 56-70
Available online @ www.academians.org
ISSN1925-931X
FREQUENCY AND PERCENT OF DIMENSIONS OF RESISTANCE IN INTERVIEWS
WITH SECRETARY RICE
In comparison to table 5, table 6 shows a significant difference in resisting the questions. As the
table illustrates, Secretary Clinton has applied positive dimension of resistance more and all the
positively resisted questions has been answered through “topic shift”. Also about negatively
resisted questions, it should be mentioned that 60% of the questions have been resisted in “weak
version” and 40% of them have been “strong version” of negative resistance. About the
similarities and differences, it should be stated that both of the politicians have resisted questions
positively and mainly through using “topic shift”. “Question shift” has been applied less than the
other versions.
67
Journal of Academic and Applied Studies
Vol. 1(5) December 2011, pp. 56-70
Available online @ www.academians.org
ISSN1925-931X
TABLE 6
FREQUENCY AND PERCENT OF DIMENSIONS OF RESISTANCE IN INTERVIEWS
WITH SECRETARY CLINTON
IV.
Conclusions
The analysis of the political interviews leads us to conclude that as Clayman (2001) proposed,
the application of evasion techniques helps the politicians to escape the various pressures both
from journalists and from the audience, from within the interview and in subsequent media
coverage, which implore the politician to “just answer the question.” But when the question is
adversarial, there are cross-cutting pressures to take precisely the opposite course of action.
The conclusion to be drawn from this study is that it is necessary for the public to be aware of
how politicians use evasion techniques in order not to answer to the questions. It means that the
naturalized practices and social orders should be challenged so that one way of seeing and
interpreting shouldn`t be the only way to accept .In other words when the questions are answered
by politicians, we should bear in mind that since there is no possibility to trust the answers as the
true one, So by knowing the evasion techniques we can easily decide where the answer is
evasive and where the truth is being hidden from the public.
68
Journal of Academic and Applied Studies
Vol. 1(5) December 2011, pp. 56-70
Available online @ www.academians.org
ISSN1925-931X
In this study we have focused on the analysis of the evasion techniques in news interviews used
by American politicians (Foreign ministers) within the last 10 years, and the difference in the
way American politicians (Foreign ministers) use the dimensions of resistance to evade a
question. This study reviewed how and what evasion techniques are used to resist a question.
The following results were obtained:
1. In all of the interviews evasion techniques have been used. But among 12 techniques two main
techniques were used frequently which are „making political point‟ and „incomplete answer‟.
2. Out of 362 questions that is the total number of questions being analyzed, 146 of them were
answered evasively. It means more than 40% of the questions were resisted and were not
adequately answered.
3.‟Apologizing‟and „attacking the questioner‟are the least favorite techniques to be used. It is
possibly due to social adversial impacts that they may result in future.
4. The way the politicians resist the questions is different from person to person. Some choose to
resist positively and some negatively but this study proves that the main dimension of resistance
is „positive dimension and topic shift‟.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to my thesis supervisor ,Dr,Nesa Nabifar and my advisor ,Dr,Yaser Hadidi,who inspired
me to take up this study .
References
Bavelas, J.B., Black, A., Chovil, N. and Mullett, J (1990).Equivocal communication.
Newbury Park: Sage.
Brown, G. &Yule, G (1983) Discourse analysis. Cambridge University Press
Bull, P.E (1994).” On identifying questions, replies and non-replies in political
interviews”. Journal of language and social psychology.
Bull, P.E., 1998a .Equivocation theory and news interviews, Journal of language
psychology (Volume17, pp. 36–51).
and social
Bull, P.E (2003). The microanalysis of political communication. Cambridge University Press.
Chilton, P (2003).Analyzing political discourse: Theory and practice.London: Routledge
Clayman, S (2001).Answers and Evasion. Language in Society, 30,pp.413-42.
UniversityPress.
Cambridge
Clayman, S & Heritage (2002).The news interviews. Cambridge University Press.
69
Journal of Academic and Applied Studies
Vol. 1(5) December 2011, pp. 56-70
Available online @ www.academians.org
ISSN1925-931X
Harris, S (1991).Evasive action: How politicians respond to questions in political interviews.In
P. Scannell (Eds.), Broadcast Talk. (pp.76–99).London: Sage.
Heritage,J(2002).Journalists and public figures on the air. Cambridge University Press.
Jucker, J (1986). News Interviews:A pragmalinguistic Analysis. Amsterdam: Gieben
Fairclough, N (1989). Language and Power. London, UK: Longman.
Fairclough, N (1992a). Discourse and social change. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Fairclough, N (1995a). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London, UK:
Longman.
Fairclough, N (1995b). Critical language awareness and self-identity in education, In D.
Corson(Eds.), Discourse and power in educational organizations.
Fairclough, N (1995c). Media Discourse. London, UK: Edward Arnold.
Van Dijk, T.A (1988).News as discourse. Hillsdale:Lawrence Erlbaum
Van Dijk, T.A(1997). Discourse as structure and process. Discourse studies: A
multidisciplinary introduction. London: Sage.
Verba.,S.,Schlozman,K.L.,Brady,H.,&Nie ,N.H (1993) .Citizen activity;Who participates:What
do they say.American political science review, 87(2),pp.303-318.
Woods, N (2006) .Describing discourse. Oxford University Press
70