Search

Televised political debates are highly effective tools for familiarizing prospective voters with the field of candidates during primary campaigns. However, the questions journalists ask in such debates often diminish the degree to which viewers can truly compare one candidate to the next. An analysis of questions asked in two debates at the height of the 2004 primaries finds the standard of comparability repeatedly violated as well as a clear pattern of inequity in the distribution of questions among candidates. Questions asked in these crucial debates imposed labels and domains on the candidates, through a particularly hostile line of questioning directed at the viable contenders. This article provides a tool for identifying question bias and emphasizes the need to address this understudied aspect of debates in light of its importance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Unlike the edited news package, which dominates network and local news in America, the cable news channels recount the day's news predominantly through conversation, a format dubbed here dialogical news. At the center of this article is the concept of internal fragmentation, a consequence of the turn to conversation-based reporting, and its central implications: (1) the authority of the news reporter diminishes; (2) question-asking replaces fact-checking; (3) news organizations relinquish their accountability for news content; and (4) the news audience assumes the role of witness or participant rather than receiver. As dialogical news becomes prominent in the repertoire of viewers, short- and long-term prospects are suggested here. In the short-run, journalists are losing their battle to control their sources and maintain their gatekeeping function. In the long run, journalism might lose its significance as society's reflexive storyteller, reverting instead to its former role as a partisan instrument, a source of entertainment or a bit of both. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]