The T.V. Walk-off: A Critical Study of Micro Interactions

Uploaded by Original1001BG on 17th August 2011

            People are hardwired to seek out interactions, to communicate with others in as many ways as possible. We are social beings. In the technological era of the 21^st century this comes easy, with television, phones and the internet. Technology has opened up new avenues of communication. Social networking and sharing sites as well as text messaging and e-mail are all new ways people can interact with each other. Each of these devices for communicating has their own codes and forms that shape our interactions. To understand these devices and the codes that shape them it is important to study the micro interactions that occur. Although social networking is a good place to study digital and text based interactions, this essay will look at a more structured interaction, the television interview, by examining the micro interactions between the host, the guest and the audience as well as the scripts and codes that govern T.V. interviews. This essay will look at one interview in particular where these scripts are broken, an interview between Christine O’Donnell (guest) and Piers Morgan (host).

            The interview between Piers Morgan and Christine O’Donnell is an interesting study as the guest, Christine, leaves the interview and set on air before the interview is finished. This breaks social and moral codes and scripts that govern how a T.V. interview should go. Throughout the essay this interview will be broken down and the micro interactions will be examined as well as the impact these interactions have on the guest and host as well as the audience.

            The video begins with Piers Morgan asking about Christine O’Donnell’s views on gay marriage and whether she supports it. This question immediately opens up a controversial issue in this current society. The question about gay marriage is a hotly debated topic in many T.V. shows particularly interviews and it is usually ‘handled with care’ by the guests who offer their opinion. Christine is unwilling during this interview to discuss her views as she is religious and fears her opinion may be seen as controversial or biased. She attempts to deflect the question and show her discomfort with the topic of gay marriage by stated that Peirs is “borderline being a bit rude” [0:00–0:06]. With this sentence Christine alerts Peirs that he is ‘pushing’ the question and should change topic. By her use of phrasing she attempts to save face by not directly stating that she doesn’t want to discuss that topic.

[0:07-0:24]

Christine: I obviously want to talk about the issue I choose to talk about in the       book. Um…

Peirs: Do you answer that question in the book?

Christine: I talk about my religious beliefs, yeah. I absolutely do.

Piers: Do you talk about gay marriage in the book?

Christine: What relevance is that right now?...

In this part Christine tries to move the conversation away from this topic and back to her newly released book, trying to direct the interview. Peirs continues to focus on the topic of gay marriage. This part of the conversation shows an imbalance in the power that each person has in the interview and the expectations that the audience holds about how interviews should function. T.V. interviews follow a script generated by the expectations of the audience, this isn’t a physical script rather it is a set of obligations that both the host and guest have to uphold this expectation. Goffman (1967), discussed how when these obligations aren’t met then the audiences’ expectations lower. He discussed how obligation and expectation are linked in this way. In the interview the audience have the expectation that Peirs will respect his guest and maintain a positive relationship them. The audience also expect that Christine as the guest should be willing to answer the host’s questions to maintain the positive flow of conversation. Both Peirs and Christine are obligated to act out these expectations.

[1:30-1:50]

Peirs: Why are you being so weird about this?

Christine: I am not being weird about this Peirs, um..

…

Christine: …I am not being weird, your being a little rude!.

Peirs: I am baffled as to why you think I’m being, I think I being rather charming and respectful.

At this period in the interview the relationship between host and guest has taken on a negative connotation. This is reflected in the ‘face threatening’ statements used by both Peirs (“why are you being weird about this”) and Christine (“your being a little rude”). In normal conversations these statements would generally not be threatening to a person as it does little damage to a person’s social self. The fact that there is an audience changes this as it now becomes a public statement against that person which damages their social self (Ross, 2007.) Peirs then ‘talks himself up’ as a humorous attempt to save face and maintain his social self, this is less to Christine and more to the audience as a way of rebuilding their view of him.

[2:00-2:12]

Christine: Well don’t you think as a host, um, if this is what I say I want to talk about, that’s what we should address?

Peirs: Well, uh, not really, No. You’re a politician.

In this final stage of the interview Christine subtly insults Peirs’ ability as a host, explaining in her opinion what how he should act, the statement is made as a question to damper its impact on the audience expectations. Peirs rebuttals with the line “you’re a politician” inferring multiple negative connotations. At this time Christine is also looking of screen signalling her desire to end the interview. This is met by a stage hand coming to remove the lapelle microphone. Peirs asks “where are you going?” as a means to point out that her behaviour is not appropriate for an interview setting.

At this point Christine is no longer playing her role as T.V. interview guest. This can be viewed as showing her backstage self (Goffman, 1971.) this threatens her ‘face’ and in turn damages her social self. Due to the fact that television has a large audience there is a requirement that the host and guest need to put on a front stage self. This is similar to acting due to the fact that both host and guest must depict themselves as the audience expects them to be, as mention earlier. Front stage performances for television interviews require teamwork from those involved, this is a way of building and protecting each other’s face (social view of themselves), maintaining the audiences expectations and also maintaining the moral codes of an interview.

Weider (1974) explained moral codes as a set of unspoken rules within an ‘in-group’ these codes are shaped and created by the groups conduct and in turn the codes inform and maintain a certain conduct. The unspoken rules of a T.V. interview are largely shaped by the audience in a similar way to the actors obligations to the audience referred to earlier, but it also involves the people and the show itself. In explanation; an interview is structured in a ‘question-response’ format, with the host leading the conversation. The behaviour of the host and guest may vary largely depending on what format the interview is, if it is a more light-hearted, comedic show then the interview has more leeway when it comes to banter and even insults. If it is a serious news interview on the other hand it is more strictly structured.

[2:34-2:40]

Christine: …yeah, not to endure a rude talk show host, but to talk to you about my book…

[3:08-4:12]

Peirs: …It’s a good book, it’s called trouble maker, we now know why it’s called troublemaker…

This interview is a more serious interview so Christine’s departure was unexpected and broke the moral codes of the interview, this resulted in Christine suffering social death, but it could also be argued that Peirs, the host also suffered social death in the process for not maintaining his interview. This is reinforced by one last more direct insult from both people, causing even greater loss of face.

Uploaded by monkeynews000 on 18th May 2009

This Second clip is a good comparison as it is a comedic game show setting in which one of the guests walk off after the host insults him. Due to the genre and setting of this second clip, there is more leeway for insults without loss of face. But when the guest, Preston, walks out both he and the host, Simon Amstell, lose face. It is interesting to note that in this clip there is one of the other guests steps in to save face for the host, removing any negative view of the host through the use of humour. Due to the more light-natured genre there is no social death for the host and show continues without too much issue.

By studying the micro interactions in society it creates a better understanding of how people communicate at a deeper level. This interview went wrong and ended abruptly due to both the host and guest not upholding the expectations of the audience, this resulted in the loss of face for both people and their social death. The moral codes that govern how an interview should happen, were also violated which was detrimental to the functioning of the show. And finally, the teamwork and frontstage performance of both Peirs and Christine were damaged when they began to insult each other. This all combined and lead to what is commonly known as the T.V. walk-off. Many other T.V. walk-offs (which can be found on YouTube) show similar faults in the micro interactions which underlie our everyday interactions.

References:

Goffman, E. 1967. Interaction Ritual: essays on face-to-face behaviour. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. 301.11/32

Goffman, E. 1971. The Presentation of self in Everyday life. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 301.113/3

Ross, D. 2007. “Backstage with the Knowledge Boys and Girls: Goffman and Distributed Agency in an Organic Online Community.” Organization Studies vol. 28, no. 03: pp. 307–325.

Wieder, D. L. 1974. “Telling the Code.” Pp. 144-172 in Ethnomethodology, edited by Roy Turner. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Data Discussion!!!!

This week is data discussion... OMG! 

...did i really just right that :(

...Oh well

Anyway here are the links (yes there are two of them, hate me all you like)

The first is an interview with Christine O'Donnell
--> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOYhkXrRAdc

The second is An English show Called Nevermind the Buzzcocks
--> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHJgFJTEHLI

Australian is a language!

It is quite obvious to a lot of us that accents aren't the only thing that makes aussie language unique, rather our culture shapes our language and the way we speak. It is interesting to consider that what we find natural in a lot of our day to day conversations is not quite as normal as we make it out to be.

Aussie culture and way of life is often described as laid back, and I think to some degree it is, particularly in our language. For instance we tend to use as little words and even syllables as we can to say what we have to, we often shorten words and names. A common example is "Catch ya" or "See ya" when saying goodbye, or the overused cliché of "barbie" when referring to the outdoor cooking appliance. Another thing Aussies like to do with their language is throw in a few swear words where ever possible. Some words such as Bloody, have become standardised to the point where we no longer see it as offensive but rather as a descriptive word.

The Code

This is a good topic to discuss as it is what I did my group presentation on :D

'So moral codes, what are they?' you may ask, well that is the thing isn't it. Moral codes are not a set of spoken rules, rather they are a set of morals and social norms (guidelines, as captain Barbados would put it!) that is shared by a group of people, not just random people but a particular in-group that all share the same rules. Weider discussed this in the reading using his study of a group of people living at a half-way house as an example. Weider explained how the codes constructed behaviour and how this in turn reinforced the code in a continuous cycle. The convicts at the halfway house even began to use the code as a means to manipulate the staff into allowing them to do what they wanted. They did this by using the code as a moral ground for exemption or exception.

But how does this apply to us?

Well moral codes are all around us and structure our group behaviour. Dress code is a simple example, it is not strictly a spoken rule that we must dress a particular way in certain circumstances, rather we just 'know' that it is acceptable behaviour or dress for that particular occasion.

Blog is Fixed!

After a lengthy delay due to technical issues I am back! everything has been sorted out blog wise. So now to the catch up!

...

Taking the Lead Role - dramaturgy

Here we are again and this week Dramaturgy. 

An interesting topic and similar to a few of the key points from last weeks topic. Dramaturgy is all about how we all put on a mask in a public sphere. Goffman's idea of dramaturgy looks at our interactions with others as similar to that of an actor on a stage performing for their audience. I just love this visual representation because it is an easy one to picture and understand. When we watch a production or more commonly in our society today- Movies- we get absorbed into the story and begin to relate to the characters and reflect their emotions and needs, we do not see the actors for who they really are we only focus on the character they portrait. This is the essence behind dramaturgy, we put on a mask and perform so that the people we interact with -our audience- don't see 'backstage' at the real us. 

I have two smaller examples of this 'mask' that come to mind.

The first is an observation by Comedian Carl Barron; We have all at one stage in our lives forgotten something and we turn around to get it, then decide not to and turn around again, we may then repeat this cycle multiple times, making a fool of ourselves and sort of just rotating around on the spot. When we do this in public, we tend to speak out loud that we have "forgotten something", then on changing our mind stating we "dont actually need it". There is no one nearby who has asked why we turned around and there may be no one nearby at all but we say it anyway to make ourselves look less stupid.

The second example comes from a book I have been reading about a slave/thief girl who inserts herself into the high society to plan a heist. At first she stresses believing they will see her for who she really is, but realises that they only see the fake persona (Lady Valette) who she is pretending to be and not the slave girl hiding underneath the make-up and dress. 

Everybody is an Actor

Ah my first Blog post. At first I will admit I didn't like the idea of blogging, but now that I am here there is something quite satisfying about being able to discuss my opinion on the topics at hand. 

The topic to start it all off is about the 'self' and what this actually looks like. The reading for this topic by Goffman was quite a lengthy and wordy piece to read. As I do not want this post to also become lengthy and wordy I am going to avoid referring to the text too much. What I found to be the most interesting from both the lectures and the readings is the idea that we create a new 'self' for each of the different social environments we find ourselves in.

Each of our different social environments tend to have different social expectations and norms from which we shape an ideal 'self' for that environment. This basically means that we behave in a different way depending on the social environment we are in. To make this a whole lot more understandable consider this: You are going over a fellow students house to work on your group presentation, you do not know them well, you are asked to sit on the lounge. In this circumstance you sit straight with your feet on the floor. How does this differ to how you would sit on your on lounge or a friends.
In this particular instance you have what I will call 'lounge manners' which you probably don't have in your own home, this is not because you were told how to sit by the fellow student but rather because social circumstances govern how you act (a new 'self') 

There are many other circumstances in which we create a new self, you don't have to look far in your own lives to see that you jump into different roles in different social circles just as an actor would on a stage.