Using formulations to maximize differences of opinion during televised climate change panel interviews

This paper discusses climate journalistic issues of polarization and ‘false balance’ based upon a study of Danish public service television panel interviews in which participants debate climate change politics. More specifically, the study uses Conversation Analysis to examine the host’s use of formulations. Formulations refer to utterances designed to give the gist (or its ‘natural’ upshots) of a co-participant’s preceding account. Analysis reveals that the host recurrently formulates a panelist’s assertion a bit stronger (e.g. more controversial), and subsequently makes an opposing participant comment upon this augmented version. The host, thus, actively solicits disagreement and rhetorically maximizes participants’ (latent) differences of opinion. This finding adds a new perspective to our understanding of the rise of the panel interview format, which is sometimes said to marginalize the host’s substantive journalistic role into a launcher of topics. It also offers points to ponder in a time where climate change communication researchers warn us that polarization is highly counter-productive in achieving shared understanding about the climate crisis, which we need to promote conversion.