Webb’s Media

After further reflection, I was unhappy with my last post. I did not focus enough attention on the transcript I posted, focusing instead on the general gist I understood from the communication. The problem with that is that each person experiences the same words and tone and interaction slightly differently, bringing their own experience, personality, culture, and view of society (Lifeworld á la Habermas) to their understanding.

I was incorrect, to some extent, to suggest that anyone on the show Hardball is interested in communicative action. If reaching understanding were the true objective, the show would not be so argumentative and confrontational. In fact, it is a little disingenuous to “feel sorry” for anyone appearing on Chris Mathews’ show– as every exchange is similar–fast, provocative, cutting to the point, and very in-your-face argumentative. As I understand it, Habermas’ theory is so groundbreaking because he suggests that the medium IS the communication…therefore, the setting where this conversation took place is as critical to the conversation as the words themselves.

Looking at how the topic unfolded, Malkin starts by opening up the discussion to create doubt about Kerry’s service in Vietnam:

BROWN: He volunteered twice. He volunteered twice in Vietnam. He literally got shot. There‘s no question about any of those things. So what else is there to discuss? How much he got shot, how deep, how much shrapnel?

MALKIN: Well, yes. Why don‘t people ask him more specific questions about the shrapnel in his leg. They are legitimate questions about whether or not it was a self-inflicted wound.

By starting this line of questioning, Malkin was gearing up to play Hardball. The spin of what happened next is that Chris Mathews “put words in her mouth.” He did ask:

MATTHEWS: What do you mean by self-inflicted? Are you saying he shot himself on purpose? Is that what you‘re saying?

Here, as I understand it, having watching and re-read the transcript, is a request for clarification. In a conversation outside of this context, say at the dinner table with family for example, one would hope that in the mutual interest of shared understanding (Habermas’ ideal speech act), that the respondent would clarify what s/he meant, as was asked. But this game is Hardball, not dinner table conversation. So Malkin does not attempt to clarify in her next response instead saying

MALKIN: Did you read the book…

Now that’s an interesting follow-up. In the context of watching the exchange, I perceived this response to evade answering the question. But having read Malkin’s post on her own blog, I am inclined to think that this response might have even been a sly attack, trying to divert the attention from what she had just alleged, to whether or not Mathews was adequately prepared.

The exchange continues, Mathews stating a blunt statement…”did he shoot himself?” and Malkin evading giving a strong yes or no answer. I appreciated JR’s comment as well that MM was given a chance to respond with a yes or no. We reach the pinnacle of the exhange when Mathews asks explicitly for a “yes” or “no.”

MATTHEWS: I want an answer yes or no, Michelle.

With this, if the interest of the exchange were truly about reaching a shared understanding, Malkin should have answered, “yes, I am saying he shot himself” or “no, of course, I’m not saying he shot himself. I am trying to make your audience aware that there is a big difference between shooting onself and receiving self-inflicted wounds.” In fact, neither of those answers occurred, and as with every time I see an exchange where a pundit refuses to answer simply, yes or no, I get the distinct impression that the person answering is trying to pull a fast one on the audience and create an impression that something is true, when in fact it is not. That is to say, even if I think something is true, if someone is being evasive about an answer, it makes me feel that they are trying to lie…so in fact, responding linguistically in this way has nothing to do with actual truth but perceived truth.

Finally, the dynamic of power on Hardball is essential to understanding the exchange. It is Mathews’ show, and he does fire questions at his guests—there is no doubt about that. This is actually a similar hostile arrangement to many political “talk” shows. However, guests appearing on the show knowingly participate, even though they will not have the upper hand in controlling the soundbytes. This further establishes the communication game that the host and guests play in this environment, and Malkin played her hand a little too carelessly and did not respect the unequal power structure. It is somewhat misleading to call the players in this game, host and guest, since neither tend to act in a very hospitable way, although the language we are using to describe them suggests that they might.

This is a longer follow-up than I intended, but as I mentioned, I wanted to really focus in on the language and less on the “partisan politics” inherent, but more on the political language games that were being fulfilled in this context.