Discourse Studies

Discourse Studies http://dis.sagepub.com/

From problematic object to routine `add-on': dealing with e-mails in radio phone-ins Joanna Thornborrow and Richard Fitzgerald Discourse Studies 2002 4: 201 DOI: 10.1177/14614456020040020501 The online version of this article can be found at: http://dis.sagepub.com/content/4/2/201

Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Discourse Studies can be found at: Email Alerts: http://dis.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://dis.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://dis.sagepub.com/content/4/2/201.refs.html

>> Version of Record - May 1, 2002 What is This?

Downloaded from dis.sagepub.com at UQ Library on April 8, 2013

A RT I C L E

201

From problematic object to routine ‘add-on’: dealing with e-mails in radio phone-ins

J OA N NA T H O R N B O R RO W A N D RICHARD FITZGERALD CARDIFF UNIVERSITY

Discourse Studies Copyright © 2002 SAGE Publications. (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi) Vol 4(2): 201–223. [1461-4456 (200205) 4:2; 201–223; 022925]

This article investigates the new phenomenon of e-mailed questions to a radio phone-in programme, BBC Radio 4’s ‘Election Call’. Our interest in this phenomenon arose for several reasons. First, as a new form, e-mails were singled out at the beginning of each broadcast for special instructions to listeners, although there was evidence that as the series progressed, dealing with e-mail became more of a routine event in each subsequent programme. Second, on listening to the Election Call broadcasts, the sequential introduction of an e-mail question appeared to be problematic for the host (Peter Sissons). First mentions of e-mailed questions were often subject to a noticeable amount of disfluency and repair work, in contrast to the well-rehearsed and highly routine introduction of callers’ questions. Third, we are interested in the function of e-mail questions in terms of how they are handled by the host and guest. Are they given the same status as a ‘call’, and if not, where do the differences lie? In our analysis we show how the introduction of this new media form into a well-established context opens up new structural possibilities for both host as interviewer and politician as interviewee, in terms of how questions get framed, and how they get responded to.

A B S T R AC T

KEY WORDS:

e-mail, political discourse, questions, radio phone-ins

Introduction In the run-up to the British general election in June 2001, BBC Radio 4 broadcast its usual morning series of phone-in programmes, ‘Election Call’, where members of the public are invited to call in and put their questions to a key political figure. This year, for the first time, listeners to the programme were also invited to e-mail their questions to the programme. This article examines the use of e-mail questions within the ‘Election Call’ programme in order to explore the way new technology is adapted to and incorporated into the routine format of a radio phone-in. By examining the use of e-mail questions within the traditional phone-in format we hope to give


202 Discourse Studies 4(2)

some flavour of the rich resource this area provides for the continuing analysis of interaction in the arena of political discourse and public access media. In order to explore this interface between the traditional format of calls and the innovative introduction of e-mails, our initial focus is on the way e-mail contributions are flagged up in the opening sequences of the series; in particular, on the way the host presents this ‘new media’ aspect of the programme, and on what information should accompany any e-mail sent in. This then gives way to an examination of how e-mail contributors are introduced onto the programme, and the similarities and differences that emerge between these contributors and telephone callers. From this, our analysis moves to the way the host handles the e-mailed contributions to the programme. In this section, the focus is upon how the host develops a role for e-mails over the course of the 12 broadcasts, from one of introducing a new topic to that of support or supplementary question, developing the topic of the previous call. In the final section of the article, our focus shifts to the way the guests on each of the programmes address e-mail questions. Our concern here is to explore the organization of the response by the guest to e-mail contributions in comparison to the way telephone callers are responded to. In e-mailed questions, greetings and personal reference are bound up with authorship in such a way as to produce a possible blurring in relation to who is ‘speaking’, and the types of response such blurring may engender.

Tradition . . . Past research on broadcast talk, and on radio phone-in programmes in particular, has shown that the introduction of callers onto a phone-in programme is a highly routinized event (Fitzgerald, 1999; Hester and Fitzgerald, 1999; Hutchby, 1996, 1999; Liddicoate et al., 1992; Thornborrow, 2001a, 2001b). Across a range of programmes within this broad generic form, from independent talk radio stations to the BBC, hosts and callers can be heard producing specific orientations to the institutional goal of getting on air, and saying whatever it is they have to say. For example, taking one particularly well-researched feature of phone-in shows, the introduction of a caller by the host routinely includes some aspects of the caller’s personal identity. The permutations of the information given by the host can range from first name only (Liddicoate et al., 1992) to first name and geographical location (Hutchby, 1996), to first and second name together with town and county and sometimes country from where the call is coming from (Hester and Fitzgerald, 1999; Thornborrow, 2001a). The following four openings illustrate these permutations (see Appendix for a transcription key): [1] First name only: H: Ida’s on the line. Hello Ida. C: good morning. (Liddicoate et al., 1992: 543)


Thornborrow and Fitzgerald: E-mails in radio phone-ins 203 [2] First name and town: H. 23 January 1989 1.H. John is calling from Ilford good morning 2.J. .h good morning Brian (Hutchby, 1991: 120) [3] First and second name and town: EC18//03/06/87 SB: Sally Allen from Newham in London hello Caller: yes hello (Thornborrow, 2001a: 123) [4] NR[FE:15:94(9)] 01N: Michael Mason from London what do you make of this 02M: um..well Sir Ian has touched on the point I wanted to (Fitzgerald, 1999: 57)

The opening sequences of calls may only take a few seconds. Within this sequence the transition from host to caller is accomplished typically through a host’s first turn in which the caller’s name and location is given. After this there may be a greeting sequence between host and caller before the caller takes up their turn to say whatever it is that they have called in to the programme to say. [5] NR[FE:15:94(4)] 01N: Naomi Lonfordwood from Wincham in Surrey 02Na: um I’ve got a number of gay friends..I’ve I’ve()in 03 theatre in the literary world. I’ve got a number of gay 04 friends and as far as I can see [6] NR[FE:15:94(9)] 01N: Michael Mason from London what do you make of this 02M: um..well Sir Ian has touched on the point that I wanted 03 to make..I’ve..been a gay journalist for twenty one years 04 or more on gay news and now more recently on capital 05 gay..um so I’ve seen the act in operation (Fitzgerald, 1999: 57)

These extracts are more or less typical of caller induction sequences found in radio phone-in broadcasts. The sequential structure is organized in such a way that once the host has finished introducing the next caller he or she embarks upon the point they called in to make.

. . . and innovation Whilst discourse and conversation analytic research into phone calls to radio programmes continues to offer a valuable source of knowledge about domains of public participation and interaction in the public sphere, the advent and accessibility of new technologies such as the Internet and e-mail are seen to offer a new dimension to public access broadcasting. The media has been quick to utilize various Internet resources such as news web-sites and bulletin boards, as well as e-mail correspondence to newspapers and letters sections on radio magazine



programmes, and now, as evidenced by the 2001 ‘Election Call’, live radio phonein programmes. As noted earlier, the programmes we examine in this article are a series of live radio phone-in programmes broadcast simultaneously on radio, TV and the Internet. For three-quarters of an hour (or 75% of the programme) the programme is broadcast through all three media whilst the final 15 minutes of the programme is only available through the Internet. Contributions from the listening audience are invited through the phone lines and also through e-mail (great play is made in the early editions of this programme about this new way of contributing to the programme). Because of this, the programme provides an interesting combination of a live broadcast medium in which ‘live’ e-mail contributions are incorporated with live telephone callers. Our aim, then, is to investigate the status of e-mailed questions and how they are brought into the interactional space of the phone-in programme, in relation to the well-established, normative procedure for introducing callers outlined earlier. Within the programme, the newness of e-mail contributions to the live phone-in is a feature explicitly oriented to by the host within the introduction sequence. Although it may be standard practice in radio phone-in programmes (Hester and Fitzgerald, 1999) to let listeners know how they may take part in the programme via the telephone, in this series of programmes the host also includes the means of contributing to the programme via e-mail. [7] EC1/PS/GB/1 PS: [—] call us on 08700100444 .hh election call has been a fixture in British election campaigns since the nineteen seventies but this year for the first time you can contact us by e mail hh. (on vote) two thousand and one at bbc dot co dot uk. .hh we’re also being (.) web cast live? (.) on the bbc news on line web-site at www dot bbc dot co dot uk (.) slash, news. and the internet programme (.) will continue after the radio 4 and bbc 2 programmes have finished. (.) (hope) that’s clear. [8] EC2/PS/AW/1 PS: [—] you can still call us on 08700100 4(.)4(.)4(.)..h this year fuh the first time you can contact election call by e-mail as well at vote two thousand and one? at bbc dot co dot uk, .hh and please remember on your e-mail to say where you’re calling from ..hh we’re also being (.) web cast (.) live? on the bbc news online website at www dot bbc dot co dot (0.7) uk. (.) slash news (.) and the internet programme will continue after the radio 4 and bbc 2 programmes have finished. .hhh well (.) the first election caller is on the line. uh Jason R(oll) from Salisbury in Wilsh- in Wiltshire you’re through to Anne Widdecombe [9] EC3/PS/SH/1 PS: (.) and you can still call us on 08700 100 4(.)4(.)4(.). (0.8) .hh this year for the first time you can contact election call by e-mail


Thornborrow and Fitzgerald: E-mails in radio phone-ins 205 at vote (.) two thousand and one at bbc dot co dot uk (.) and please remember on your e-mail (.) to say (.) where you’re from. we’re also being web cast live (.) on the bbc news online website (.) at www dot (.) bbc dot (.) co dot (.) uk (.) slash news (.) and the internet programme will continue after the radio 4 and bbc 2 programmes have finished (.).h so the first caller (.) is on the line (.) [10] EC4/PS/MB/1 PS. [—] phone lines are open now call us on 08700 100 444 (.) and you’ll know by now you can e-mail us at vote 2001 at bbc dot co dot uk .hh telling us please where you’re e-mailing from ..hh we’re also on the bbc news online website at >www dot bbc dot co dot uk< slash news..hh the first (.) election caller is on the line (.) mister Frank Owen from Doncaster you’re through to Margaret Beckett. [11] EC5/PS/LF/1 PS: [—] call us on 09700 100 444 (.) and you’ll know by now you can e-mail us at (.) vote 2001 at bbc dot co (.) dot uk. telling us please (.) where you’re e-mailing from ..hh we’re also on the bbc news online website at www dot bbc.co dot uk slash news..hh the first election caller is in fact on the line. mister Darshan Brambad from London you’re through to Liam Fox [12] EC6/PS/SW/1 PS: [–] call us on 08700 100 444 and you’ll know by now you can e-mail us as well at vote 2001 >at bbc dot co dot uk< telling us please where (.) you’re e-mailing (.) from ..hh we’re also on the bbc news online website at >www dot bbc dot co dot< (.) u: k slash news ..hhh and indeed the first election caller is on the line already mister Peter Wells from London you’re through to Shirley Williams

In the first two programmes the host flags up the newness of e-mail contributions to the programme by declaring that this is the first time in the programme’s history that this method is available. The reference to the programme as an established ‘fixture in British election campaigns since the nineteen seventies’ in the first extract together with the announcement of this new way of contacting the programme can be seen to invoke both a notion of tradition, of established and reputable history, together with a willingness to embrace new technology. In the second and third extract, a similar announcement is given by the host highlighting the point that it is the first time that e-mail can be used to contact the programme. By the time the fourth programme is introduced, and indeed in all subsequent introductions of the programme, a noticeable shift occurs in which the host now suggests that the audience ‘will know by now’ that they can e-mail the programme. This shift from novelty to ‘known in common’ suggests that there is a taken-



for-granted (by the host) audience, that is more or less the same for each programme. That this is an oriented-to membership collection (Sacks, 1995) is evident through the change of status of e-mail contributions from one of newness to one of routine. Our characterization of e-mail questions as ‘routine’ is apparent through the host’s standard use of the phrase ‘as you will know by now’. This phrase addresses a membership collection and refers to predicated knowledge that is assumed, known-in-common knowledge of the audience as a membership group (Fitzgerald, 1999; Housley and Fitzgerald, 2001).

The unimportance of place Within the introduction sequence a further noticeable feature is the appeal for contributors by e-mail to give the location from which they are e-mailing. The use of location when introducing callers onto radio phone-in programmes is also well documented (Fitzgerald, 1999; Thornborrow, 2001a). However the location of the e-mailer seems to take on a significance within the introduction that is absent from the introduction of callers. Whilst giving out the phone number remains the same in each of the programmes, after the first programme the host’s e-mail flag is suffixed with the request that those who e-mail the programme provide the location from which they are e-mailing (although in the second programme the request is for where they are ‘calling’ from). This may suggest that the location of contributors is a production feature of this programme, and possibly public access programmes in general, oriented to by those producing the programme but not necessarily the audience. This highlighted problem of place does not seem to occur with telephone calls; as research has demonstrated, the place a caller is calling from is given as part of the routine introduction onto the programme.1 The telephone is of course a live two-way medium with a researcher gathering information from the caller before being put on air, and it is at this time that callers may be asked where they are calling from. Moreover, as this part occurs before the caller is put on air the responsibility for this information resides with the researcher who takes the call, not the caller. Thus, the mechanism for gathering this information is the responsibility of the programme and as such it is not relevant for the host to request that callers give this information within the introduction. E-mail however is not a live two-way medium and so is not subject to the questioning process telephone interaction allows. As this part of the researcher’s role is circumvented by e-mail, the responsibility for providing the location of the e-mailer is shifted to those doing the e-mailing. A feature of the new technology is therefore the shift in responsibility for providing routine information to members of the public who participate in this programme. Because of this shift then, location and place are made an issue by the host, who in every programme after the first requests that those who e-mail provide the location from which they are e-mailing. Within the introduction sequence it is apparent that the host approaches e-mail contributions in the same way as telephone contributions; with a stand-


Thornborrow and Fitzgerald: E-mails in radio phone-ins 207

ard content for introducing callers which includes the place from which the call is being made. It is perhaps also worth noting that the programme never begins with an e-mail, but always with a telephone caller on the line. The request in the introduction sequence for the location of e-mailers would seem a concession to the medium of e-mail, and that only in relation to standard information obtainable with phone calls. However as the programmes continue, although the request for e-mailer location information becomes a routine feature of the opening sequence, in the practice of the main body of the programme the introduction of e-mails evolves in a different way to telephone calls. In the first programme which, as we have already observed, does not contain a location request from e-mail contributors, the first e-mail contribution is not suffixed with a place location whilst the second e-mail contributor is so placed. [13] EC1/PS/GB/2 PS: thank you Patricia (.) got an e-mail here chancellor from Rex Last (.) why did you stick to conservative spending plans in the first two years of your government.h I gather that even Kenneth Clarke and John Major are now saying that they wouldn’t have stuck to those plans= [14] EC1/PS/GB/3 PS [—] [the’s the’s also an e-mail on this chancellor is there an agreement between you and mister Blair to hand over the keys to number ten Downing Street says Kalis (.) Chand from Ashton.=

In the introduction of the second programme in the series the host makes the explicit request for location from e-mail contributors: [15] EC2/PS/AW/1 ..h this year fuh the first time you can contact election call by e-mail as well at vote two thousand and one at bbc dot co dot uk .hh and please remember on your e-mail to say where you’re calling from.

Subsequent to this request within the introduction to the programme, the host, when introducing e-mail contributions, highlights the seemingly inadequate reference to the location of the e-mailer. We can also note in extract 16 the guest’s amusement and shared orientation to the inadequacy of ‘the UK’ as a location in this context: [16] EC2/PS/AW/1 PS: we have an e-mail here from Colin Wi- Williamson um (0.8) puts his address down as the UK. um (.) [why do the] Tories (.) AW: [ °hu hu hu° ] [17] EC2/PS/AW/2 PS: [—] and uh (.) Alan Churchill (0.8) whose u:h e-mail address is down as the UK (0.6) uh has e-mailed saying as a retired (0.7) police sergeant


208 Discourse Studies 4(2) I remember the tories failed the police. (0.5) why should we trust them now.

In the third programme the host again emphasizes the request that e-mail contributors give their location. [18] EC3/PS/SH/1 PS: (.) and please remember on your e-mail (.) to say (.) where you’re from.

However, in the only e-mail contribution used in this programme, no reference to the location of the e-mailer is given when they are introduced: [19] EC3/PS/SH/2 PS: [—] thank you very much Joyce (.) uh there’s an e-mail here Simon um (.) from someone who clearly um (.) doesn’t (.) want the euro (.) Frank Marsden (.) he says why not have (.) dual currencies (.) people who trade or holiday a lot in Europe (.) can have a separate euro account.

By the fourth programme the request for the location of e-mailers has lost its emphasis and becomes almost a rote request: [20] EC4/PS/MB/1 PS: and you’ll know by now you can e-mail us at vote 2001 at bbc dot co dot uk.hh telling us please where you’re e-mailing from.

Whilst again only one e-mail is used in this programme, it is introduced with a place location: [21] EC4/PS/MB/1 PS: uh I’ve got an e-mail here er (.) Margaret (.) uh Beckett from Dave Bevan in Devon (.).hh he asks can you explain why railtrack should receive massive gratuitous payments from the taxpayer.

In subsequent programmes, and although the by now standard request for the location of e-mails is made in each introduction to the programme, when introducing particular e-mail contributions the host either does not give a location or provides one where the location is of similar type to contributors by phone (extract 24). [22] EC5/PS/LF/2 PS: here’s an e-mail um (.) uh Liam (.) uh (.) from Christine Pike (.) who asks to what extent are nhs waiting lists due to consultants spending a good deal of time in private clinics. [23] EC5/PS/LF/3 PS: here’s an e-mail from Keith StPier (.) who asks you (.) how will we ever have a first class health system (.) when


Thornborrow and Fitzgerald: E-mails in radio phone-ins 209 [24] EC5/PS/LF/4 PS: mister Fox uh doctor Fox (.) just briefly could- you’ve got twenty seconds to answer this e-mail doc- are you man enough to admit that the tories are at least partially responsible for the bed shortages in the n- nhs that’s from Harold Richardson in Shropshire [25] EC6/PS/SW/2 Caller: [—] the extra expertise they’ve acquired.hh PS: well let me slip [an e-mail] in at this stage uh= Caller: [(but) ] PS: =from (.) Doreen Clark who asks will the lib dems (.) bring nurses’ wages up to the same level as the police

It would seem then that there is an initial attempt to get e-mail contributors to provide the same information as phone callers, and for e-mail to be treated in the same way as telephone calls. After the repeat of the request in the early introductions fails to elicit the information requested, and although the host continues to repeat the request in the introduction of the programme, it would seem that he begins to adapt the introduction sequence of each contributor to the particular medium they are using. So whilst continuing to provide place locations for phone callers and occasionally for e-mail contributors, in the later programmes the lack of place is not made a ‘noticeable absence’ as it was in the earlier programmes in the series. What becomes apparent then is that through the sequence of programmes the host’s initial attempt to treat e-mail questions in the same way as phone calls proves unworkable, and that after these attempts fail the host adapts the routine phone call introduction when dealing with the new technology.

Frameworks of participation and the status of e-mails The introduction of e-mailed questions in Election Call as a written mode of questioning means that the host has to manage the sequential introduction of these questions into the ongoing talk. In this section, we look at the mechanisms of how the host deals with this new format, compared with the now highly conventional introductions of telephone callers and their questions. Whereas callers to the programme are active, on-line participants in the talk, with e-mailed questions it is the host who is responsible for reading out a written text from a distant participant. There are various ways in which Peter Sissons handles these questions, and this variation in itself is worth exploring in relation to the design and delivery of the e-mailed question to the interviewee as well as to the listening audience. One of the central concerns in research into news interview discourse has been the issue of interviewer neutrality in public service broadcasting; in his analysis of the design of interviewer questions, Clayman (1992) showed how interviewers accomplish a neutral stance in their questions through particular shifts in footing during their question turn. However, as we show here, there are



a number of possibilities for embedding e-mailed questions into the talk which enable the host to take up a position (or not) in relation to the topical content of the e-mail. E - MAIL AS AN OBJECT

A first noticeable feature of the introduction of e-mailed questions is the host’s routine placement of the e-mail as a material object within the physical space of the studio through the repeated use of proximal diectic forms, usually ‘here’. Whether or not these texts are ‘virtual’ (i.e. on screen) or have been printed out on paper is not made clear; either way, they are treated by the host as co-present objects: [26] . . . we have an e-mail here . . . got an e-mail here . . . there’s an e-mail here . . . here’s an e-mail from

On the other hand, e-mail senders are not treated as co-participants in the talk; they are not the subject of greetings sequences and in most cases (with one exception as we will see shortly) not directly addressed by either the host or the guest. This can be contrasted with the introduction of callers who are in a different, distant geographical location, and have to be brought into the participatory framework of the talk as third parties through a routine greetings sequence. The next two extracts illustrate this contrast between the status of caller and that of e-mailer: [27] EC7/PS/JS/1 PS: [—].hh the first election caller is indeed on the line now mister Simon O’Brian from Lichfield you’re through to Jack Straw. (. . .) Caller: mister Straw [uh JS: [goodmorning Caller: goodmorning uh I’ve been a serving police officer [—] [28] EC5/PS/LF/3 PS: here’s an e-mail from Keith StPier (..) who asks you (.) how will we ever have a first-class health system (.) when so many doctors and nurses are unable to communicate with English patients that is something which you’ve.hh

Whereas the caller in extract 27 is introduced by the host and greeted by the guest according to the routine pattern, in extract 28 the host simply states ‘here’s an e-mail from Keith StPier’, with no further address or greeting which would establish the e-mailer as, at least, a currently listening co-participant in the talk. TWO - AND THREE - PARTY FRAMEWORKS OF INTERACTION

What occurs then with the introduction of an e-mail question is the shift from a



three-party framework of talk which comprises the telephone caller, guest and host, to a two-party framework of host and guest, where the person sending the e-mail is absent. The shift into two-party talk has consequences both for the role of the host in relation to the interactional possibilities this affords him, and for the guest, who is no longer dealing with a caller as well as the host. A further feature within the context of this shift into two-party talk is that while guests talk directly to telephone callers, they rarely address their responses to e-mailed questions to the e-mailer – in fact in the whole corpus of programmes Shirley Williams is the only one to do this: [29] EC6/PS/SW/2 PS: =from (.) Doreen Clark who asks will the lib dems (0.5) bring nurses’ wages up to the same level as the police (2.0) SW: not immediately but I’ve already said what we feel we can do right away.hh we’re trying to be very realistic (.) missis Clark (.) about the (.) what we can afford [—]

Rather, they are much more likely to address their answers to the host Peter Sissons as Gordon Brown does here: [30] EC1/PS/GB/3 PS [the’s the’s also an e-mail on this chancellor is there an agreement between you and mister Blair to hand over the keys to number ten Downing Street says Kalis (.) Chand from Ashton.= GB: =well Peter I never >get into the business about talking about these things and I’m not going to start today.
get into the business about talking about these things and I’m not going to start today.< (.) To- Tony Blair’s said all that needs to be said about that and [56] EC4/PS/MB/1 PS: uh I’ve got an e-mail here er (.) Margaret (.) uh Beckett from Dave Bevan in Devon (.).hh he asks can you explain why railtrack should receive massive gratuitous



MB:

payments from the taxpayer. .hh well it’s uh er difficult to get that balance right isn’t it (.) we all need railtrack to make investment we need railtrack to be (.) well run (.) er and part

[57] EC10/PS/WH/3 PS: here’s a related e-mail (. .) uh from John Waghorn in Cheshire isn’t it time to admit that the nhs will never be a success.hh for as long as it can continue to be totally free at the point of entry (. .) WH: [ts- well] PS: [in ]other words there’s got to be some charging in there somewhere. WH: no I don’t agree with that n’ I do agree with a national health service free at the point of use and universally (. .) available (.)

This absence of greetings when dealing with e-mail questions can be seen as a further feature of the reorganization and presentation of such questions in comparison to phone-calls. As we have already noted, phone-calls operate in real time with the host and guest and caller, thus a three-party context is oriented to as all three are present in the live interactional space. This three-way interaction is operationalized through the induction of callers when the host introduces the caller who then addresses the guest. E-mail questions, however, involve only two parties in real time, the host and the guest. The author of the e-mail is involved only through reference by the host as the originator of the question; in other words, the on-air question is disembodied from its author so that, when introducing an e-mail question, the host gives the name of the questioner and then he himself asks the question. This provides an interactional environment in which the host takes on the proxy role of the particular questioner and in which the guest responds to the live proxy. Thus, although the originator of the question shifts from e-mailer to e-mailer, the proxy is constant. As we have also noted, the e-mailer himself or herself is in most cases not treated as a co-present participant, not even in the capacity of a current listener to the programme, albeit in a non-productive role (though see our discussion and earlier exception to this norm). Moreover, and in respect to the previous discussion of the host’s editorializing or clarifying of the content of e-mail questions, the authorship of the question can also become blurred. This blurring of authorship means that the guest may at times orientate to the host as originator of the question when giving a response. [58] PS

GB:

[the’s the’s also an e-mail on this chancellor is there an agreement between you and mister Blair to hand over the keys to number ten Downing Street says Kalis (.) Chand from Ashton.= =well Peter I never >get into the business about talking about these things and I’m not going to start today.< (.) To- Tony Blair’s said all that needs to be said about that and


220 Discourse Studies 4(2) [59] PS: JS: PS: JS:

quick e-mail for you [uh ] home secretary from Patrick McBride in London= [yuh] =there are several thousand job vacancies in this country why can’t asylum seekers (.) do these jobs well some do (.) um if if they’re given permission to work as as some of them are after six months.h but (.) what we’ve sought to do (.) Peter is to separate. (.) the issue of the immigration rules from the issue of

Within the response to the e-mail question the guests can be seen directly orienting their answer to the host as primary recipient. We suggest that in the light of our previous discussion, there are at least two possible factors for this seemingly mistaken orientation. First, it may well be that the host is being treated as the author of the question, which because of his frequent interpretation of questions is a possibility, together with his established role as the questioner in other events such as political interviews. Second, it may be that the host is being treated as a kind of proxy referent for the rest of the audience. That is, the e-mail question is being treated as originating from the category membership of the programme (audience and host) and that the host is treated as the omni-present category member available from that membership collection. In this way the lack of greetings to a non co-present e-mailer may be seen more as part of the context of the guest’s on-going debate with the host and audience. As the host voices e-mail questions, with the guest at times directing their response toward the host, a familiar and routine environment of political question and answer programmes may be oriented to. Thus, whilst the technology of e-mail results in a response which is different in its recipient design to responses in a phone-in programme with live on-line callers, this does not necessarily mean that the guest is orienting to this new medium. It may well be the case that the guest is drawing upon their familiar category knowledge of media interviews but where the source of questions shifts between and also blurs the host and members of the public.

Summary discussion In this article we have concentrated on how the host, in the face of e-mail questions to a phone-in format, gradually adapts to the specific features that become apparent through the use of new technology. From failing in his attempt to use email contributions in the same way as telephone calls, the host gradually over the course of the first few programmes develops an introduction sequence which does not make noticeably absent the lack of the type of routine information available from telephone callers. In the second section we explored how the host adapts the use of e-mail questions within the programme, assigning them to a function that acts as support for previous telephone questions. We also discussed the nature of interviewer neutrality with respect to the practical requirement of reading out of e-mail questions by the host. Moving to the analysis of how the



guests handled e-mail questions, it also becomes clear that the medium of e-mail communication engenders a different response to that of phone calls. Although there was no notable difference between how both sources of questions were answered, the absence of greetings was a constant recurrent feature of the response to e-mail correspondence. This we may suggest is not necessarily an adaptation to the technology of e-mail, but rather results from the nature and organization of the delivery of the e-mail question. As we have shown, e-mail questions are read out or markedly ‘voiced’ by the host, who also routinely adds an interpretation or clarification of the meaning of the question. It is reasonable to suggest then that the guests may orient to an e-mail question as a question put forward by an interviewer. Answering questions from professional interviewers is a regular feature of politicians’ work, as is answering phone-in questions. Thus it may be that guests are shifting between routine methods when answering questions rather than orienting to the new technology. So although it would seem that a new medium is being embraced within these programmes, the practices which have emerged surrounding the use of this medium in a phone-in such as ‘Election Call’ seem to produce a familiar cultural context of political interview interaction. NOTES

1. Of course, at times place does become an issue within caller induction when the host highlights that the place is topically relevant or when a caller does not wish to give where they are calling from. In these instances (Fitzgerald, 1999) the absence of place becomes noticeably absent and topically relevant. 2. In previous phone-in programmes using land line telephones the audience can largely be assumed to be within a certain geographical area, see for example Hutchby’s (1996) analysis of a radio programme broadcast in the London area and other research carried out using programmes broadcast within the UK. Someone may call from Holland but is unlikely to call from the USA. The assumption can thus be made that people listening will be resident in the UK and have knowledge of different parts and where different towns etc. are located. The internet however has a global environment whereby location may be given by country, in that it is a relevant location reference which often appears in e-mail addresses. Moreover, although the programme is broadcast throughout the UK, putting UK on e-mails can be seen as obvious, but it is not necessarily the fact that those watching or listening are indeed in the UK. Satellite TV and webcast programmes allow almost anyone in any part of the world to access the programme and contribute to the programme from anywhere in the world through e-mail. APPENDIX

[—] (.) (1.3) hello= = hello

previous or subsequent omitted talk in a turn short pause of less than .5 of a second timed pause in seconds latching (no hearable gap) between the end of one turn to the beginning of the next


222 Discourse Studies 4(2) [good evening] [ hello ] (bar) ((laughs)) so in our way .hh . ? ar~now~

overlapping talk best hearing of indistinct talk para-linguistic features marked stress marked intake of breath falling tone rising tone cut-off syllable or word laughing voice

REFERENCES

Clayman, S. (1992) ‘Footing and the Achievement of Neutrality: The Case of News Interview Discourse’, in P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds) Talk at Work, pp. 163–98. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fitzgerald, R. (1999) ‘Method in Media Interaction: An Ethnomethodological Analysis of a Radio Phone-In’, unpublished PhD, University of Wales. Goffman, E. (1981) Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Hester, S. and Fitzgerald R. (1999) ‘Category, Predicate and Contrast: Some Organisational Features in a Radio Talk Show’, in P. Jalbert (ed.) Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis No 5. Media Studies: Ethnomethodological Approaches, pp. 171–94. Oxford, MD: University Press of America Housley, W. and Fitzgerald, R. (2001) ‘Categorisation, Narrative and Devolution in Wales’, Sociological Research Online 6(2): Hutchby, I. (1991) ‘The Organization of Talk on Talk Radio’, in P. Scannell (ed.) Broadcast Talk, pp. 119–37. London: Sage. Hutchby, I. (1996) Confrontation Talk: Arguments, Asymmetries and Power on Talk Radio. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Hutchby, I. (1999) ‘Frame Attunement and Footing in the Organisation of Talk Radio Openings’, Journal of Sociolinguistics 3(1): 41–64. Liddicoate, A., Brown, A., Dopke, S. and Love, K. (1992) ‘The Effect of the Institution: Openings in Talkback Radio’, Text 12(4): 541–62. Sacks, H. (1995) Lectures on Conversation, Vols 1 and II. Oxford: Blackwell. Thornborrow, J. (2001a) ‘Questions, Control and the Organisation of Talk in Calls to a Radio Phone-In’, Discourse Studies 3(1): 119–43. Thornborrow, J. (2001b) ‘Authenticating Talk: Building Public Identities in Audience Participation Broadcasting’, Discourse Studies 3(4): 459–79.

J OA N N A T H O R N B O R RO W is Senior Lecturer in Language and Communication at Cardiff University. Her research falls broadly within the field of discourse and conversation analysis with a focus on institutional interaction and media discourse. Other research interests include children’s talk in institutional settings, and stylistics. Her latest book, Power Talk, has just appeared in the Real Language Series (now with Pearson Education). She has published numerous book chapters and journal articles, guest editing a special issue of Text 17(2), 1997, on broadcast talk, and recently co-editing with Theo van Leeuwen, a special issue of Discourse Studies 3(4), 2001, on authenticity in media discourse.


Thornborrow and Fitzgerald: E-mails in radio phone-ins 223 A D D R E S S : Centre for Language and Communication Research, School of English, Communication and Philosophy, Cardiff University, PO Box 94, Cardiff CF10 3XB, Wales, UK. [email: [email protected]]

is currently Research Associate on a Leverhulme-funded project examining temporality in news media discourse within the Centre for Language and Communication Research, Cardiff University. His research interests and publications are in the area of media interaction, most notably radio discourse, and the application and development of the methodologies of Membership Categorization Analysis and Conversation Analysis for exploring the organization of cultural knowledge oriented to in talk. A D D R E S S : as Joanna Thornborrow [email: [email protected]]

RICHARD FITZGERALD
