SOCS 250: People Creepin': November 2012

Everywhere interactions occur in a number of different formats. In this naturally occurring piece of data, the interaction between three people demonstrates an obvious difference of opinion and an increasing power struggle. Although we refer to this data as ‘naturally occurring’, most interaction – including the interaction of this analysis – are partially predetermined, whether it be intentional or not. As discussed in Randall Collins, ‘ Interaction Ritual Chains’, “Under certain circumstances, individuals may plan ahead, deliberately thinking through possible interactions” (2004, p. 158). In this interview situation it is clear that Fox News, and the reporters, have preconceived ideas of Shirley Phelps Roper, member of the Westboro Baptist Church, and how they will approach the interview.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yES1izpdf0

This particular interaction for analysis exists in the format of a YouTube clip, presenting the interaction between the interviewer, Fox News, and an interviewee, Shirley Phelps Roper. The first indication of a dispute stems from the initial intentions for having the interview. It is clear that Fox News has preconceived intentions for interviewing Roper, as the bias opinions of the interview are made known within the introduction. The interview has not been set up as a traditional interview, where the interviewer asks questions and allows the interviewee to answer. Instead, this interview has been set up as an opportunity for Fox News to criticize Roper for her considerably outrageous beliefs and behaviours. These intentions of the Fox News station are shown in how the reporter sets up the interview with Roper, introducing the story as thought Roper and her church are the cause of confrontation.

This interaction, as do most (Mouzelis 1992), presents both a micro and macro perspective. From a macro perspective, Fox News is a station viewed by millions of people all over the world; therefore, a number of people are likely to view this video. Also, with new forms of online media, such as YouTube, coverage is shared across time and space more easily, with an extended shelf life. The ability to share and spread information online broadens the audience, and the number of times one video is viewed over time increases the number of overall views. Although some remained online, the controversy seen in this video led to the removal of most videos from YouTube indicating the potential impact this video had. This particular clip titled, “A very mad pissed off Fox news reporter! Interview with the Westboro Baptist church”, has had 1, 245, 900 views, showing the number of people who have become not only informed, but also personally involved. As demonstrated in Appendix C, a number of people have chosen to post their personal opinions after viewing the clip. This shows how YouTube is provided a platform for viewers to engage in the news they are watching. From a micro perspective, this interaction has taken place between three people, two interviewers and one interviewee. The interaction is intended to take place in a question/answer formant; however, has developed into an attack on the interviewee and her beliefs, behaviours, and opinions. Discussion of a controversial topic, religious beliefs, has led to a dispute, and an obvious power struggle between those involved. All members of the interaction are attempting to get their point across, but with differing opinions and overt disagreement, discussion leads results quickly in arguing.

As mentioned above, the traditional format for an interview is question/answer. The interviewer is supposed to have the intention of gaining information and insight into the interviewee’s story or situation. In the case of this interaction the interviewers intentions are clearly past merely gaining information. Instead, the interview appears to be set up to interrogate Roper, and to criticize her beliefs and actions, sharing them with the world. As discussed by Sarangi and Roberts, “institutional rules and procedures partly derive their legitimacy through clients’ recognition of and willingness to abide by a set of institutional routines” (1999, p.4). A live news interview, broadcasted for the world to view, would be considered a ‘frontstage’ setting with certain rules and expected behaviour. The general rules for a news interview could include: speak when spoken to, ask questions and answer questions, respect the other person, no swearing, no interrupting, remain calm and collected, etc… In the case of this interaction, the rules of a professional news interview are broken. Both the reporters and Roper demonstrate ‘backstage’ behaviour, such as, raised voices, disrespectful language, disrespectful hand gestures, and interrupting as demonstrated in Appendix B. At the very beginning of the interview the reporters change the rules of a traditional interview style. At first Roper maintains composure and only speaks when she is spoken too; she doesn’t interrupt, and listens to the reporters even when they interrupt her. Her manner is calm, and not aggressive. It is clear that Roper has a preconceived notion of what a traditional interview is meant to look like, she has an idea of what is socially acceptable whilst being interviewed on live television. As discussed in the article, ‘Ritual Communication’, “these formulaic practices of everyday life claim to be based on a specific moral poetics in representing value judgments that control and legitimate social behaviour in present-day contexts, offering strategies for dealing with recurrent situations” (Senft & Basso 2009, p. 11). On the other hand, the reporter begins the interview showing his obvious bias against the beliefs of Roper, and introduces Roper and the story as though she is the ‘bad guy’. In breaking the rules of an interview, the reporters give Roper permission to act differently than what is normally expected; therefore, as the interaction continues, Roper stoops to the reporters level and begins to interrupt in self-defense. Emotional energy, derived from certain interaction rituals, is the central motivating force for individual behaviour (Collins 2004). When the interaction rules are broken, the emotional energy changes and so does the interview. In a ‘frontstage’ setting, on live news, insulting the guest is not considered appropriate behaviour. As demonstrated below, the reporter outright insults Roper in this particular interaction.

1:35

Reporter One: (*interrupting*) Yeah, you’re obviously a nut. Um, alright, now look. You want to make your political and religious point, and you want to inject pain and heartache. I can’t think of. Ma’am I’ve got to be honest, we’ve had a lot of nutty people on the show over the years. You are as mean and as sick and as cruel as anybody that I’ve ever had on this program. And the fact that you use religion to justify your hatred this way it’s frankly, it’s mind-numbing.

3:33

Reporter Two: You are an abomination; you ought to be ashamed of yourself. You are an embarrassment to the nation. The way you behave towards soldiers who risk their lives for this country (*pointing finger*). You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

3:50

Reporter Two: (*interrupting*) You know I’m glad to have you on television, because as (name) said Shirly, sunlight is the best disinfectant, and you need to be disinfected. This is sick the things your doing. How dare you do this (Roper is speaking at the same time) to the families of our soldiers, and to other Americans, how dare you (*pointing finger, raising voice*)

Within this interaction there are a number of societal expectations that are breached. First of all, in the introduction of the story, the reporter discusses the inappropriate behaviour at a funeral. Society has a certain set of rules of behaviour when attending a funeral; Roper and fellow members of the Westboro church break these rules by protesting outside of the funeral ceremony. These actions are what initialize people’s disgust and disagreement with Roper’s behaviours and beliefs. She has broken the rules, and has conducted behaviours that is not socially acceptable. Another case, which demonstrates a breach in what is socially acceptable, is the way both the reporters and the interviewee behave on live television. Society expects that people maintain a certain level of professionalism and composure when video tapped for live television; however, in this video clip the rules of acceptable behaviours are broken. Also, in the case of news broadcasting, an interview is meant to be objective and informative. As Mouzelis discusses, “…although the meanings of particular actions are quite obviously related to social positions and dispositions, they are not molded by them entirely. They take their final shape in the very process of interaction” (Mouzelis 1992, p. 127). This particular interaction steps away from a professional interview and becomes a dispute, discussing subjective opinions of a controversial topic. Finally, the impression the reports make is not professional. Considering this interaction has taken place in their workplace, the reporters are not following the socially expected behaviour of a workplace. Both reporters have allowed their subjective opinions to show, and have made a personal attack on the interview.

REFERENCES

Collins, R 2004, ‘Interaction ritual chains’, Princeton University Press.

Mouzelis, N 1992, ‘The interaction order and the micro-macro distinction’, Sociological Theory, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 122-128.

Sarangi, S., Roberts, C 1999, ‘The dynamics of interactional and institutional orders in work-related settings’, Talk, work and institutional order: discourse in medical, mediation and management settings, viewed 11 September 2012, http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=e_tFXRJXPxgC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=Sarangi+%26+Roberts+&ots=LupItODdhN&sig=LlVOLZNtSn8Qd9uqpyTFifIrfqo#v=onepage&q=Sarangi%20%26%20Roberts&f=false

Senft, G,. Basso, E 2009, ‘ Ritual communication’, Wenner Gren International Symposium.

APPENDIX A

Description of YouTube video clip

APPENDIX B

Partial script of YouTube video clip