Rhetorical framing…
Jack Shafer offers free advice to guests of Tim Russert’s Meet the Press about how to beat a tough interview. A set of instructions for constructing something also shows how to deconstruct that something. While Shafer’s advice is certainly cogent, the real value may be found in its critical application.
From Shafer’s perspective, Russert, commonly thought to be TV’s toughest interviewer, appears to be just another TV entertainer.
Allow me to add another bit of advice: Don’t allow Russert (or any TV interviewer) to frame a question without clarification; don’t merely accept a question as valid. Shafer touches on this to some extent. I want to emphasize that questions are never innocent or politically neutral (this does not mean questions are always overtly biased). A question frames an issue by emphasizing some aspects of an issue over others. It’s a rather easy matter to elicit the answer you want by framing the question just so, i.e. overt bias.
Constructing “neutral” questions takes real talent. Academics who employ survey instruments struggle to compose questions that do not lead respondents.
But TV interviewers do not need such talent. Or, rather, they need a different talent–well exposed by Shafer’s take-down of Russert. You’ll also notice that a talent for framing makes TV flame wars (a.k.a. TV news-talk) possible. How do you suppose FOX’s Hannity & Colmes would change if Alan Colmes actually challenged Sean Hannity about the framing of a question.
Hmmmm…that might be even more entertaining.
Speaking of Hannity & Colmes (which I’ve never seen) I used to be a fan of the Charlie Rose Show until his interview style and guest selection drove me away. But one of the many things that bugged me about CR was his framing questions in a NYTimes sort of way - you know, “some say”, “it is said that”, etc. I would always wonder who is “some” and who “said”. It makes a world of difference who “they” are- but no one ever challenged him on who “they”are.
Rebecca…keep that up and I’ll ask you to contribute to Rhetorica.
You flatter me!!
BEATING TIM RUSSERT
Slate’s Jack Shafer has an excellent piece on Tim Russert, specifically his interview style which seems to derail many of his guests. Russert frustrates the…
“There are so many cartoons where people, oppressed people are saying, `Is it Vietnam yet?’– hoping it is and wondering if it is,” Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said. NYT 7/2/03
Your point reminded me of how I felt when I read this. How many cartoons? Fifteen? Twenty?
Interestingly, this was used as a quote demonstrating how defensive American officials had grown. Rumsfeld went on to say, “And it isn’t. It’s a different time. It’s a different era. It’s a different place.”
Is this seen as defensive because he was saying it wasn’t true that “this is Vietnam,” or because he was arguing with unspecified hordes of cartoons? Perhaps both. It certainly struck me as a rather fatuous way to state his case.
I just realized that Rumsfeld was probably addressing himself to those who think political cartoons are instruments of liberal thought. So at one stroke he creates a “cartoonish” opposition and demolishes it by stating it is simply wrong.