“There Goes that Relationship”: Journalistic Aggression and Political Equivocation in Joint Press Conferences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluates the relationship between the press and political leaders during joint press conferences. Aggressive journalistic questioning in press conferences has increased over time (Clayman & Heritage, 2002; Clayman, Elliott, Heritage, & McDonald, 2004; Clayman, Elliott, Heritage, & McDonald, 2007), but recent scholarships shows that journalists present less aggressive questions when a foreign head of state is present (Banning & Billingsley, 2007). Joint press conferences hosted in the United States by President Donald Trump between Prime Minister Theresa May of the United Kingdom, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, respectively, were analyzed via conversation analysis based on a question analysis framework by Clayman, Elliott, Heritage, and McDonald (2004) and equivocation typologies by Bull and Mayer (1993). First, journalists’ questions were evaluated on five different measures – initiative, directness, assertiveness, adversarialness, and accountability. Next, political leaders’ answers were assessed on three different categories – replies, intermediate replies, and non-replies. Results of the study showed foreign journalists in these joint press conferences aggressively pursued politicians more than their U.S. counterparts. Additionally, political leaders were less likely to respond to journalists’ questions with a reply than with intermediate or non-replies. This study provides perspective on the current state of press-state relations in democratic systems and the way journalists conduct themselves on the international stage with U.S. and foreign leaders.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".