Interview Analysis Burley & O’Brien

Burley & O’Brien
1. Are we seeing examples of anything that we have discussed with regard to what has been mentioned in the last session: (Formulation/Conversationalisation etc…)
The overall tone of the interview seems to be in a very formal style although aspects of Conversationalisation do appear at some points. Kay at one point does say, “Oh go on, indulge me”, which shows that she is starting to let her own sense of bias creep in. She also says “Shocking timing”, which lends a more descriptive nature to the conversation rather than an informative one. James does use phrases which are more conversational rather than informative, but his overall tone and language throughout helps him stand behind his opinion in an articulate and informative manner.
2. Is the interviewer maintaining a stance of ‘formal neutrality’? Or can we see some form of bias?
Kay Burley seems to be very much pushing the defence of Frank Lampard in this clip. Although it would appear that she is a neutral, fighting for the truth, she is in fact trying to push her stance onto James O’Brien by saying to him that Frank is providing a house for his former partner and the children in close vicinity, so that they can split up the custody fairly. While O’Brien takes this point on and is about to tell her that this was only brought up in his show earlier in the morning, Kay during his answer says that it’s quite a big point in fact. This is both pushing her stance but it is also showing that she is biased towards the story.
3. How are the questions being answered by the interviewee (regarding language being used etc … conversational)?
I think that although the language being used leads the interview to be conversational, the interview is trying to be very formal and informative.
4. Has the interviewee answered the specific question that has been asked?
I think throughout the interview O’Brien takes a very strong stance, stood his ground and is debating coherently and accurately. He answers the question loosely but ties it all into his point, thus addressing the question but not letting Burley lead the interview towards where she wants it to be. Throughout, O’Brien seems to be in control and makes sure he gets his message across strongly but adequately.
5. What approach is the interviewee using, if any, to avoid providing an answer to a specific question?
When asked if he was ‘Sorry’, O’Brien maintains his stance but uses the situation to say that he was apologetic towards the family for causing any upset but not for what he said. He maintains that he feels his point is just and he should be allowed to convey his point as it is part of his job. When it comes to the point of whether Lampard should stay in the house that his kids are moving out of, he remains strong in stance and doesn’t back down from the point.
6. Is the interviewer allowing this to happen (Violation) or are they pushing for an answer to a question?
In this interview Kay is really trying to push for an answer from James about whether he is sorry for his comments. This seems to be the main theme or reason for this interview, is to get O’Brien to admit that he was wrong. Repeatedly throughout, Kay refers to this and it seems like her agenda is not the story but simply getting O’Brien to say ‘Sorry’.
7. Can we see the use of language within the interview being influenced by the perceived social context of the ‘target audience’?
The target audience for this is viewers of Sky, which is more of a target to revenue/entertain rather than news, in my opinion, so therefore the language is more common formal. It is perceived as informative but underneath it the underlying tone can be made out. This interview is more about the “controversy” rather than the story, which falls into the Sky News category.