The political interview differs from other types of live broadcast in that it can have wide reaching implications: the way people vote, the way a country is run, the way people’s lives are lived. For this reason, it should be both carefully prepared, reflective of the gravity of the situation, but also unprepared, so that the true nature of the politicians can be revealed, and audiences are treated to more than just pre-prepared speeches. Lundell’s The design and scripting of ‘unscripted’ talk: liveness versus control in a TV broadcast interview (2009) points out many of these apparent contradictions inherent in the broadcasting of a live political interview.
In the Swedish political interview show The Inquiry, everything that can be planned in advance has been planned in advance. This includes the studio design, choice of interviewers, segmenting of the show and camera work. The way each of these elements has been set up ensures the show will run as smoothly as possible, but also convey a “live” feel. For example, the rigidly structured ‘quick answers’ segment features a barrage of short and simple questions and answers, in a lighter tone than the average live interview, and with the participants both standing up at a regular conversational distance from each other. This is to deliver the “[desired] liveness” to the audience, while simultaneously conveying “politically relevant information” (p. 275).
Interestingly, the questions to be posed to the interviewees are planned significantly in advance, with Lundell repeatedly suggesting that most of the questions are the “animations of collective discussions and ideas that started as far as six months previously” (with a few exceptions). I find this strange, because the topics deemed relevant at that earlier date may not relate to the most poignant issues of the day of the broadcast. I think the programme would come across as more “live”, as is the purpose of this format, if the questions were created closer to the interview date. However, in preparing questions far in advance, the questions are more likely to be the most important, overarching issues facing the country than simply the “fad” topic of the moment. In this way, the show can maintain a sense of “impartiality, objectivity, balance and versatility” (p. 271).
Lundell also suggests that a “neutral” tone is conveyed by the conventional camera angles used. These are generally medium shots on the person talking, presenting the subjects as if they are sitting next to the audience – nothing particularly artistic or suggestive. This neutral approach to presenting the politicians is seen as a way for the broadcaster to demonstrate their impartiality and trustworthiness to audiences at home.
Another interesting aspect of The Inquiry is it’s live studio audience, largely consisting of members of the party who is being interviewed that night. This partisan audience is a rogue element in the production, something that can’t be completely tamed. This in turn creates a sense of a “live event” for audiences at home, who get to see how the live audience interacts with what is going on in the interview. However, the creators of The Inquiry have put a number of measures in place to control this live studio audience. Firstly, by inviting members of the party being interviewed that night, the audience is expected to agree almost entirely with what is being said, avoiding potential flow-breaking conflicts. Secondly, the party membership of the audience is stated at the start of the show, so that any unruliness on their behalf would reflect poorly on the image of their party. Finally, and quite significantly, a staff member directs the audience on how to act throughout the show. This includes instructing them not to applaud too enthusiastically or often, and cues to be quiet if the audience is overstepping this rule. Despite their desire to support their representative, the studio audience “willingly [participates] in the scripted liveness” (p. 279), contributing to the show’s accessible and engaging nature.
References
Kroon Lundell, A. (2009). The design and scripting of `unscripted’ talk: Liveness versus control in a TV broadcast interview. Media, Culture & Society, 31(2), 271-288.
Leave a Reply