Broadcast interview as institutional discourse

Interaction in a public forum – such as a broadcast interview – is always institutional interaction and the involvement of an audience differentiates it from everyday talk (Nuolijärvi and Tiittula, 2000: 13-14). Three central elements of institutional talk are the institutional roles to which the discourse participants discursively orient, the asymmetry in terms of rights, knowledge and routine and, an objective or agenda set by at least one of the participants (Nuolijärvi and Tiittula, 2000: 14-16). First, in institutional discourse there is always a participant who is in the possession of a role or mission provided by the institution s/he represents and, consequently, this representative is also in the possession of a set of certain

conventions which s/he is obliged to take into account as the discussions takes place (Nuolijärvi and Tiittula, 2000: 14). For example, the host of a broadcast interview is a representative of the organization offering the show, for example the broadcasting company.

Because one of the main goals of a broadcast interview is to provide information to the third party - the audience - a relevant method to reach that goal during an interview is questioning.

Consequently, the presence of a third party is also one key feature, which makes institutional talk different from everyday discourse. The discourse is constructed depending on the third party, which may be for example a television audience or a set of rules prepared by an official institution (Nuolijärvi and Tiittula, 2000: 14). In the framework of broadcast interviews, the third party can be referred to as the “overhearing audience” which may not actually be present in the physical set but is regardless considered as the primary audience (Clayman and Heritage, 2002: 120). The achievement of the institutional tasks of providing information to the audience and “constructing the interview as an interactive event” requires that both the interviewer and interviewee adjust to these situation-specific membership categories and participate in the activities of questioning and answering (Koskela, 2011: 20). Similar to the concept of situated identities introduced by Zimmerman (2008: 90-95), the situation-specific membership categories are defined by the situation or the scene in which an interactive event takes place.

A second feature of institutional talk is asymmetry, which is rooted in the institutional roles present in institutional talk. There are three aspects identified as contributing to the emergence of asymmetry (Drew and Heritage, 1992, as cited in Nuolijärvi and Tiittula, 2000: 15). Firstly, the participant in the role of the representative of the institution possesses certain rights, such as the right to ask questions. Therefore, the interviewer in the role of the representative of the host institution has a greater initiative right in discussion than the interviewee (Nuolijärvi and Tiittula, 2000: 15). Secondly, the expertise of the interviewer compared to the expertise of the interviewee may differ greatly (Nuolijärvi and Tiittula, 2000: 15). The interviewer as the institutional representative is an expert regarding the knowledge of the institution whereas the interviewee in the role of a guest is rather an expert of his own field of occupation and life experiences (Drew and Heritage, 1992, as cited in Nuolijärvi and Tiittula, 2000: 15). By asking a question the interviewer displays a lack of knowledge and at the same time acknowledges the interviewee as having more information on the topic (Koskela, 2011: 19).

Consequently, the interviewer may have more power in terms of being able to direct the

interview by questioning but simultaneously he/she consents to the possible epistemic superiority of the interviewee. Thirdly, institutional discourse such as a broadcast interview is most likely a routine task for the interviewer as the representative of the institution in question whereas for the interviewee it might be a first of its kind (Drew and Heritage, 1992, as cited in Nuolijärvi and Tiittula, 2000: 15). There are, however, also people such as celebrities or politicians, who by their profession are probably as accustomed to being interviewed as interviewers are to interviewing (Nuolijärvi and Tiittula, 2000: 15).

Finally, in institutional talk an objective or an agenda set by at least one of the participants is always present, explicitly or implicitly (Nuolijärvi and Tiittula 2000: 16). In television interviews the objective is usually implicit and twofold depending on whether the perspective is that of the producers’ or the guest’s (Nuolijärvi and Tiittula, 2000: 16). For example, in a celebrity interview the interviewer may want to call attention to topics related to the interviewee’s personal life whereas despite the concept of the show the interviewee would like to discuss his/her professional achievements. However, in terms of the unfolding of the interview it is relevant that the objective is realized in a manner appropriate to the institution (Nuolijärvi and Tiittula, 2000: 16). Another relevant factor is that the participants orient to the institutional setting, regardless of what the interviewer’s and the interviewee’s objectives are (Nuolijärvi and Tiittula, 2000: 16). The interviewee may, however, either sustain the agenda set by the interviewer or resist it (Koskela, 2011: 21).

The data of this study demonstrates the aforementioned aspects of institutional discourse. The interviewer Charlie Rose and the interviewee Tim Cook adjust their behavior to match their institutional roles as interview participants. Adhering to the institutional roles leads to an asymmetry in rights, knowledge and routine. In terms of asymmetrical discourse rights, Rose possesses the role of the representative of the broadcast organization and in that role he has the right to ask questions and, therefore, he can control the course of the discussion. Tim Cook as the guest conforms to the interviewee role by refraining from asking question and obeying the responsibility of answering. Even though the right to ask questions provides Rose with control over the course of the interview, asking questions can also be considered to indicate that he has less knowledge of the topics that are discussed about. As a result, there is an asymmetry in the epistemic positions of Cook and Rose. More precisely, Cook can be

regarded as having a more powerful epistemic position in terms of the epistemic domain of being the leader of a prosperous consumer electronics company. In other words, Cook’s knowledge of being a leader grants him the access to that specific epistemic domain whereas for Rose the access is restricted due to his lack of experience within that specific field. In addition, both of the interview participants are experienced public figures and therefore are likely to have good knowledge of the routine of a broadcast interview. All of these aspects of institutional discourse play a part in the unfolding of the interview and contribute to Cook’s identity construction.