b Video 2 Analysis narratives

34

35

offsetting all the problems”, again anger, concluding that “the reason for this is that Nicaragua is a poor country”, feelings of injustice are now elicited, “The cause for this are the sanctions”

(All in 309-311). The final sentence of this theme is the zenith to a build-up of anger and con-cludes in a call to action.

The next theme of the fabula is “If we (hypothetically) have to bring gasoline from 10,000 kilometres away”, “it’s very obviously that the cost for everything in Nicaragua in-creases enormously”, this could lead to overwhelming fear, “Bringing gasoline from 10,000 kilometres away has an enormous impact”, again a build-up in fear, “The increasing cost for everything in Nicaragua has an enormous impact”, fear again (All in line 345-347). The way to the standpoint is paved by the emotions that are elicited and the standpoint of the difference of opinion between US and Nicaragua is advanced in line 348, “So there are some things that will certainly be causing serious problems in Nicaragua”.

After the launch of the standpoint some follow-up is observable. The UN-representant continues “As I say”, positioning himself as the expert and eyewitness, “the government is trying to distribute as much as possible the goods we have”, pushing the audience into a feeling of “we are all Nicaraguans”. He proceeds “so the population isn’t too affected”, referring to

“we will protect the population” matching with universal themes in myths and stories “we are the good people” or “we are the heroes” (§4.1; Bhattacharyya, 1997, p. 4). Contrasting “the good we” with “But of course the United States can increase” which generates fear and an implicit referral to “we are insecure of their actions” and so to the conclusion “if there is no limit put to what they are doing” then implicitly “we have to limit them” which is another call to action. Also, it pictures the United States as “the enemy” or at least “the bad ones” (§ 4.1;

Bhattacharyya, 1997, p. 4). The fabula of this narrative exceeds the narrative of Thatcher (§5.3b) enormously in in size and construction.

The “event” is comparably complex in construction, it leads from “Nicaragua was fine”,

“the sanctions came”, “multiple enormous problems emerge for Nicaragua”, “Nicaragua cannot manage these problems since they are poor”, “but it can happen again”, to implicitly “so come to action!”. The “people” in this narrative are “I”, “we”, “the government of Nicaragua”, “Nic-aragua” and “the US” and “them”. The “action” of the narrative is “The US imposes sanctions and they can do it again, even worse” which is followed up by “The sanctions cause enormous problems for Nicaragua, you and me, so do something!”. All together these elements implicitly determine the “story” as “Nicaragua must be protected against the US”.

The narrative theme (Smith, 2016) is that the UN-representant calls for the action from the audience to help Nicaragua in protecting them from the US. Since the narrative can thus be

36

considered completely preconstructed, this type used here matches with the description of nar-ratives for online “non-default” political interviews and also to narnar-ratives that are deliberately constructed like mentioned in §4.3. The probability that this narrative has been made up during the interview is almost non-existent, neither do the interviewer’s questions shape the interview, since his interruptions only serve to underline the narratives of the politician. Also, the proba-bility that this interview is a “non-default” is supported by the excessive use of personal pro-nouns.

The “true story” indicator “I mean” shows up 32 times in the interview (§3.3; Fetzer &

Bull, 2013, pp. 92-93). The pronoun “you” 60 times. The solidarity function of “non-defaults”

is reflected by the use of personal pronouns like ‘I’ and ‘you’ according to Fetzer and Bull (2013, p. 95). Hyland (2005) describes the use of personal pronouns as ways to achieve “en-gagement”. The use of “I” serves to “strongly identify oneself with a particular argument and to gain credit for an individual perspective” and so provides further interpretation to a statement, emphasizes one’s own contribution and seeks agreement for it. “We” functions as an engage-ment device with an enormous emphasis on binding speaker and audience together in a way that achieves membership, since it textually constructs them as participants with similar under-standing and goals (Hyland, 2005, p. 181). So, this analysis exposes that a narrative in a “non-default” interview can have completely other purposes than the narratives in a ““non-default”.

Narrative 2

More purposes will be shown from the analysis of Narrative 2, that goes from line 368 to 382.

I selected this narrative because it shows the expertise of the politician.

At least in the international court, this has been my experience. Obviously if you go to certain 368

other — The international court is a principal organ of the United Nations, in the same way that 369

the Security Council is a principal organ of the United Nations. But of course if you go to the 370

Security Council, then that’s a different situation. There, if that was the only multilateral organ-371

ization body, then I would completely agree, I mean what are we doing there?

372

If you have a veto, well Russia would veto something, the United States would veto something 373

else, the Chinese or the British or whatever, so I mean you never get any work done, any real 374

work.

375

But that doesn’t happen in all the institutions. I’m a member for example of the Commission of 376

International Law of the United Nations. There are 34 members from all over the world, law-377

yers. I mean we discuss all types of legal questions. And we reach agreements normally. We 378

reach, normally, everything is by consensus.

379

So it comes out, and the International Law Commission has been doing a lot of work in the 70 380

years of existence. Many things have come from there, the law of treaties, all matters of com-381

merce. There are many institutions, many things, it’s very important.

382

37

This narrative is built up in the same way as Narrative 1, so I also selected this excerpt to demonstrate that a “non-default” interview intents to make it appear as a “default interview”.

After analysing the narrative, the extracted “story” here implicitly is “the International Law Commission is the best for jurisdiction”. The politician again shows his expertise (“I’m a mem-ber” line 376) and being eyewitness to all the important cases (“my experience” line 368). In the part from line 376 to 379, the politician is exposing his ethos with “we”, combining it with the democratic system “legal”, “agreements” and “consensus” which is a common feature of the political interview genre (“I mean we discuss all types of legal questions. And we reach agreements normally. We reach, normally, everything is by consensus”). This excerpt exposes in a short overview all the main reasons for Norton to hold an interview with the UN-repre-sentant: he has ethos, expertise and knows how to popularize legal knowledge to a lay audience.

While the politician is free to lay down an enormous amount of burden of proof to his difference of opinion with the US, the host of the interview benefits from the advantages that the politi-cian’s narratives bring for him to reach his own purposes and that of the political outlet.

38