38
39
accordant to the constraints of the mainstream media to maintain neutrality and impartiality, in the “non-default” interview the same effect is achieved by evading responsibility. Essentially, both ways serve to save face of the interviewers, to not get in trouble and to reduce future liability. Not held accountable so the arguments of the politician serve another goal than de-fending his actions.
The narratives are testimonials of an UN-representant constructed on basis of his ethos, expertise and being an eyewitness to much of the stories and are face-enhancing to the political platform of the host. The narrative testimonial comprises much historical facts, in which the UN-representant was involved. The narratives therefore appear as truthful although they can implicitly contain added elements from which the politician benefits. The narratives allow the politician to provide his discourse in speech form which is a face-enhancing activity. All the qualities of the speaker will be connected to the host also, since from the perspective of the overhearing audience the host is supportive to the narratives of the politician. This proofs from the absence of critical questions and the presence of content supportive interruptions. Also the introduction of the online video shows an enormous image of the face of the politician. So, the political narratives of this important guest benefit the whole political outlet.
The host of the “non-default” interview receives narratives that are constructed in uni-versal language and so are extremely suitable for his online channel that has an international reach. The narratives contain referrals to myths, which speaks to the imagination of citizens worldwide. The narratives contain historical references. The politician is part of his own expe-riences, which reduces the doubt of the audience and avoids counterarguments. The narratives have cinematographic elements recognizable by the audience and also entertaining which raises the motivation to keep listening and watching. Ultimately, the interviewee as knowledge source is presented as a UN representant to the International Court of Justice. In fact, his profession is lawyer in international rights. The semantic word choice for the first profession description provides the politician with a more reliable and trustworthy characterization. Reviewing all the above, clearly stands out the theory of Fisher (1984). Fisher (1984) argues that narratives are the most persuasive form of communication when they comply with being mythic in form, being morals, exhibiting narrative probability and fidelity across time and culture and the teller having knowledge, being reliable or trustworthy, and having knowledge of objects, as in having the quality of veracity. Hereby is proven that the politician possesses the qualities and compe-tences to produce narratives of an exceptional standard as required for “non-default” interviews.
Another advantage for the host thus is that he receives high-level constructed narratives that his political outlet requires to comply with the requirements of an audience that is
40
interactive. The participating audience has high expectations of the discourse. Let us clarify this matter with an analogy of the analysed Video 1 and Video 2. The analogy between the two could be equal as how a television relates to a tablet. The audience in Video 1 watches and listens. They are receivers. Simply, there are or weren’t hardly any possibilities to react or in-fluence the received content. Nowadays, broadcast interviews are so different. The audience of Video 2 watches and listens when they decide that they have time for it and when they feel like it. This could be today or in a future moment. When they feel some sort of emotion, they have the possibility to react to the content, they can express themselves by liking, sharing or com-menting. Reaction creates interaction of other audience and there could emerge a debate be-tween participants and members. They usually divide bebe-tween proponents and opponents. This results in different kinds of feedback on the discourse of the politician. The politician’s task here is to anticipate any possible argument. Narratives have all the properties to serve this goal, although they must be of very high standard. So, eventually the advantage to the host is that he will have disposal over narratives that he probably could not have constructed himself in this exceptional manner and which serve his audience.
The host benefits from the experience that the UN-representant has to popularize with narratives. Narratives are the standard discourse format to popularize knowledge. As appears from his own narratives, UN-representant has been defending his country for decades with in-ternational rights. Since political interviews are combined with news interviews and the media genre, the conclusion can be drawn that he must have also a long experience in popularizing his international law knowledge to a lay audience. The journalist functions as mediator, but to best transmit his story, the best way is if he can tell it in the best way understandable to the audience.
He thus has a long experience in make himself appear reliable, produce the best narratives he can, engage and bond the audience. There are some that contain cinematographic or literary elements. He does apply all tactics to create proximity with the audience. The political outlet of Norton benefits on a short notice from attracting more viewers and since content on the internet remains, the narratives will keep functioning on the long term.
In the process of popularizing, the host will also benefit from the emotions eliciting functions that narratives comprise. The politician has a conflict with the US and to persuade people to believe his discourse about his side of the story, he adds emotion eliciting tactics to the narratives, since his main purpose is to motivate people to act against the US. This serves the host in multiple ways, first the emotions make people actively participate in his platform and discussions. While he creates content for the platform, he also members the audience to it.
Farrel (1998) argued already that to motivate someone, instead of speaking on his abilities,
41
which doesn’t work, there has to be formed a ‘human bond’ (Farrel, 1998). The best way to create and maintain proximity is with narratives (Scotto di Carlo, 2014, p. 593). Another ad-vantage of emotion eliciting narratives is that they benefit the business model of the host that is underlying the political platform. Content generates long term income and people that member, generate more content. The host also benefits from the emotion eliciting narratives as in a tool to convince his audience of the correctness of the content on the website, guiding people into what is “wrong” and what is “right”.
Ultimately, narratives match with all the requirements of the different interview forms that are combined in this “non-default” interview, and also with the constraints imposed by the broadcast medium. For example, for media political interviews (§3.2) is described that the best communication form is natural language. Also, in a narrative interview the used communication is natural language (§3.2). Besides, for political media outlets the best form of communication is with stories (§3.3), so that the protagonist, which is the host, can position himself in the role of the hero (§3.3). Even for background interviews narratives seems the best form to use, since it seems logical that interviewees who relate about backgrounds do this in story form (§3.2).
Thus, narratives match multiple formats of interviews and produce more information than “de-fault” interviews. So, the advantages for the host of the use of narratives in a “non-de“de-fault”
interview are various and overwhelmingly convincing.
42