1043719

research-article2021
DCM0010.1177/17504813211043719Discourse & CommunicationJenks

Article

Discourse & Communication

Mock News: On the discourse 2022, Vol. 16(1) 58­–75

© The Author(s) 2021

of mocking in U.S. televised

Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/17504813211043719
https://doi.org/10.1177/17504813211043719
political discussions journals.sagepub.com/home/dcm

Christopher Jenks
Aalborg University, Denmark

Abstract
American televised political shows are under tremendous pressure to succeed within an economic
model that requires maximizing viewership. In response to this growing financial pressure, political
shows invite contentious guests to discuss current events and issues. Such discussions are often
confrontational, making a mockery of the responsibility the news industry has in disseminating
information in an impartial and insightful way. Although outrage is a common discourse feature
of televised political shows, little is known about what this language looks like and how it is
used to argue ideological positions. To this end, drawing from critical discourse analysis, this
study investigates the multidimensional and multifunctional aspects of mocking, which is a type
of outrage discourse. The findings show that mocking is an important argumentative tool for
panel members, which occurs in the turn following an opposing viewpoint and is used to carry
out a range of actions, including expressing disagreement, establishing a competing ideological
position, and refuting an idea based on an opponent’s political identity, to name a few. These
findings contribute to a better understanding of how mocking and mock news feed into partisan
ideologies, creating both tribalism and skepticism within society.

Keywords
Arguments, incivility, mockery, outrage, political news, verbal aggression

Introduction
The news industry in democratic countries is responsible for several important societal
functions, such as disseminating current events and providing an impartial account of
political decisions. Indeed, in the United States and many other European countries, the

Corresponding author:
Christopher Jenks, Aalborg University, Kroghstræde 3, 2-215, Aalborg Ø 9220, Denmark.
Email: [email protected]
Jenks 59

news industry is often colloquially characterized as a branch of government, determining

what information will be circulated within society so as to inform members of the public
about important social issues. To this end, the news industry has an important role in
shaping how individuals come to an understanding of themselves and the world around
them. What media outlets decide to report, and how this is accomplished, is central to the
ways in which ideological commitments are shaped and contested within and across
communities, including the political elite (Callaghan and Schnell, 2001).
Private news organizations are, however, under tremendous pressure to succeed
within an economic model that requires maximizing profit margins. The result is market-
driven journalism (McManus, 1992), which transforms ordinary members of society into
consumers and news into a commodity. What is reported on by media outlets is not just
a matter of information dissemination, but also an imperative to sell a story. Within this
economic model, media outlets, and in particular profit-driven news organizations, may
feel the pressure to color factual accounts of current events with commentary that gener-
ates emotional and psychological responses from readers and viewers, such as the fear
and anger that comes when reading reports on terrorism (Bhatia, 2009). Such pressures
are less relevant in public news organizations, though such entities must at times com-
pete with private news organizations for viewership. In both private and public contexts,
the news industry is a powerful institution that can influence how members of society
feel and behave.
Although this psychological influence is contingent upon the assumption that media
outlets possess journalistic integrity, in recent years, trust in journalism is diminishing.
The public has become increasingly skeptical of media outlets (Strömbäck et al., 2020),
in part, because of the neoliberalization of news: in an open market, anyone with an abil-
ity to write can report on, and provide observations of, current events and issues.
Advances in technology and growth in social media use have constricted the market from
which mainstream media outlets, as well as blogs, Facebook posts, and other forms of
information published by individuals, compete for the same consumers of news. For
private news organizations in particular, economic survival can be achieved by creating
content that is conspicuous, if not sensational, making it difficult to distinguish between
facts, opinions, and falsehoods.
Credibility and accuracy are of course not contemporary issues, having been a persis-
tent (though not as prevalent) topic of discussion for some time (e.g. Kiousis, 2001).
With that said, the political landscape during the months preceding and following the
inauguration of Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States has accelerated
this culture of skepticism (Bakir and McStay, 2018). For instance, allegations of Russian
collusion and interference put forward by both major political parties in the United States
during this time contributed to a tribal culture of competing ideologies and a toxic envi-
ronment for political news reporting and discussion. The culture of rejecting news reports
on the basis of political ideology was cultivated, it has been argued, most efficaciously
with the liberal use of the term ‘fake news’ by President Trump, including in his widely-
circulated tweets (cf. Ott, 2017).
Recent scholarship has provided many compelling accounts of how this culture of
distrust is eroding the ability of news media outlets to accomplish its basic societal func-
tions (Fletcher and Park, 2017). Researchers have also attended to why society is
60 Discourse & Communication 16(1)

becoming more skeptical when consuming news reports (Van Duyn and Collier, 2019),
including recent scholarship pointing to President Trump as a catalyst for this new tribal
culture of competing ideologies (Meeks, 2020). While President Trump indeed com-
monly uses the term fake news in his public discourse, this paper argues that there are
other salient, less banal, and perhaps even more stimulating examples to examine when
attempting to understand the ways in which skepticism of the news industry is con-
structed and circulated within society. For example, private media outlets frequently
participate in a culture of skepticism by having multiple individuals of different ideologi-
cal positions discuss, rather than report on, current events and issues. In these televised
configurations, what becomes paramount is not the actual event or issue being discussed,
but rather the predictable (and perhaps even desired) outrage that ensues.
Inviting contentious guests to argue politics is a common approach used by private
news programs, yet there remains many empirical opportunities to better understand
outrage in political discourse. To this end, the current study examines one type of outrage
discourse that manifests in such encounters. Specifically, the analysis uncovers the mul-
tidimensional and multifunctional aspects of mockery, showing how mocking accom-
plishes specific argumentative goals. The findings contribute to a better understanding of
how mock news feeds into partisan ideologies, creating both tribalism and skepticism
within society.

Mock news
Mock news simulates traditional news programs by covering, reporting on, and discuss-
ing important issues. However, unlike traditional news programs, mock news is config-
ured to entertain rather than inform. In other words, presenting news items accurately
and comprehensively is less important in mock news than captivating viewers and
increasing viewership. Cable News Network (CNN) is a prime example, televising
crossfire debates between outspoken political insiders with the intention of creating
heated arguments and contentious encounters. Mock news programs create a platform
for outrage by inviting and re-inviting guests with contentious histories.
Comedy news programs, such as The Daily Show and The Late Show with Stephen
Colbert, popularized mocks news for its comedic takes on political issues. Although
explicitly designed to entertain by lampooning political issues, many viewers treat
comedy news programs as a source of legitimate news (Pew Research Center, 2004).
Similarly, mock news programs can be treated as a legitimate source of news informa-
tion because political insiders discuss timely issues. However, unlike comedy news
programs, mock news is not presented to the public as a form of entertainment but
rather as a fair and balanced take on a news event. Mock news strategically under-
mines the journalistic role of disseminating information by exploiting ‘the legitimacy
that comes from purveying useful and important facts’, while maximizing ‘the enter-
tainment value of the events reported and the theatricality of their presentation’
Osburn (1998: 141).
Luginbühl (2007) uses the term ‘confrontainment’ to refer to televised encounters
between political opponents that devolve into arguments. Mock news in general, and
confrontainment in particular, capitalize on the tribalism that exists in society by
Jenks 61

presenting political issues in emotionally evocative ways, helping viewers confirm

already sedimented ideological positions. That is to say, outrage is both a form of enter-
tainment and a means through which to delivery news information. The production of
outrage in mock news – whether strategically planned or not – transmutes what would
otherwise be a mundane news report into a tantalizing spectacle. Heated arguments, dis-
plays of anger, exasperated guests, and even moments of rage, are some common dis-
course features that can be found in mock news.
In the same study, Luginbühl (2007) refers to such discourse features as ‘conversa-
tional violence’. In his study of a Swiss political TV show, Luginbühl (2007) shows that
politicians conceal their ‘violent’ intentions through performed cooperative behavior.
The study uncovers several features of conversational violence that intersect with out-
rage discourse, including the use of dominance and defamation to promote a particular
opinion. Some overlap exists between conversational violence and outrage discourse
(e.g. the outrage that is displayed when defaming a political opponent); however, within
the context of mock news, outrage discourse encompasses a wider range of discursive
actions and practices.
For instance, Berry and Sobieraj (2014) uncover 13 subcategories of outrage: insult-
ing language, name calling, emotional display, emotional language, verbal fighting/spar-
ring, character assassination, misrepresentative exaggeration, mockery, conflagration,
ideologically extremizing language, slippery slope, belittling, and obscene language. In
an earlier study of U.S. political discourse, Sobieraj and Berry (2011) show that outrage
discourse is integral to how politics are discussed, the specific types of outrage expressed
do not vary according to political affiliation, and mockery is the most common form of
outrage.
While Sobieraj and Berry (2011) map out the different types of outrage that exists
in political discourse, their quantitative research does not uncover the highly complex
ways this language is organized and used within argumentative exchanges. For exam-
ple, some of the categories identified by Sobieraj and Berry (2011), such as emotional
language and verbal fighting, overlap and could be used to perform similar social
actions.
The current study builds on these important quantitative investigations by providing
a more nuanced description of outrage in general, and mockery in particular. To this end,
the current paper answers the following research question. How is mockery discursively
organized and used as a resource to engage in televised political discussions?

The study
Dictionary definitions suggest that outrage is related to viciousness, anger, and violence,
and occurs when standards of decency or morality are breached. According to this under-
standing, outrage is closely related to incivility (cf. Stryker et al., 2016); the latter term
has been taken up in the discourse literature more than the former, though incivility as an
analytic construct does not adequately capture the culture of tribalism in the United
States, nor does it sufficiently reflect the type of discourse examined in this study.
Berry and Sobieraj (2014) conceptualize outrage news as both a genre and a dis-
course. It is a genre in that there are specific ways of using outrage to disseminate
62 Discourse & Communication 16(1)

news information, including inviting political opponents to debate politics, evoking

fear by over-extrapolating, or treating conspiracy theories as legitimate news items.
As a discourse, ‘outrage is distinctly emotional, partial, antagonistic, and opinion-
based’ (Berry and Sobieraj, 2014: 19). The authors define mockery as ‘making fun
of the behaviors, planned behaviors, policies, or views of a person, group of people,
branch of government, political party, or other organization in such a way as to make
the subject look bad or to rally others in criticism of the subject’ (Sobieraj and Berry,
2011: 29). Similarly, mock news is a genre and a discourse in that viewers can expect
to find guests with conflicting ideological positions, hear language that is argumen-
tative and confrontational, see visible signs of embodied frustration by the panel
members, and experience frustration and outrage themselves during and after the
news program.
The analysis builds on this definition of mockery by detailing how it is interwoven
into argumentative exchanges. The analysis uncovers the multidimensional and multi-
functional aspects of mockery, showing how mocking accomplishes specific argumenta-
tive goals, while feeding into a larger culture of tribalism in U.S. political discussions.
Although the observations are based on U.S. television programs, the findings of this
study may help researchers concerned with other regions, such as Europe, where private
news organizations play a key role in information dissemination.
The framework adopted to accomplish this analytic task is critical discourse analysis.
Critical discourse analysis provides an analytic framework for understanding the human
experience as a history of narratives, such as how economic policies in the past shape the
ideological positions of the present (Fairclough, 2010); it is in the business of demon-
strating how discourse – in this case mockery – feeds into, and is constrained by, social
structures, such as the expectation to talk politics in a particular way within a given
geopolitical space. Critical discourse analysis is theoretically pluralistic (Wodak and
Chilton, 2005), and is thus not defined by a single perspective or a specific methodologi-
cal protocol. Accordingly, the analysis of mockery draws from the following two
perspectives.

1. Local speech events – human communication is a speech event made up of discourse

actions and practices. Looking at these actions and practices, such as responses to
alternative political viewpoints, reveals the ways in which human communication, such as
political discourse, is an interpretive process (Garfinkel, 1967) accomplished locally or in
situ (Gumperz and Hymes, 1986).

2. Historicity – meaning-making in human communication is accomplished locally. However,

the local production of speech events is also structured (or framed) according to a history
of narratives. Human communication is, in other words, an attempt to make sense of the
here-and-now using past experiences (Bhatia, 2015).

These two perspectives are operationalized in the following way. First, the analysis
examines mockery as a speech event made up of discourse actions and practices, such as
establishing ideological positions and disagreeing with other panel members. Second,
after identifying the discursive features of mocking and what is accomplished through
Jenks 63

such discourse, the analysis views the speech event through a critical lens, attending to
issues such as the ostensible need to sensationalize political discussions and engage in
political tribalism.
The corpus is made up of 60 videos of televised political discussions. All of the politi-
cal discussions were televised on CNN during the time shortly before and after, as well
as during, the 2016 and 2020 U.S. presidential elections (30 examples for each election
cycle were collected and analyzed). These time periods were selected because political
discourse is more prominent and consequential during presidential elections, offering a
window into the culture of debate in the United States. Furthermore, CNN current event
shows, such as Anderson Cooper 360° and Prime Time by Chris Cuomo, are viewed by
millions of people and even more when the network later uploads show segments onto
YouTube. Future research should, however, examine to what extent political discussions
are different across mainstream news channels within the U.S., as well as across different
regions around the world.
The transcripts of data present mocking as a discourse that is accomplished primarily
in the spoken medium, as each transcript only includes a few screenshots of the televised
event despite it being a complex multimodal encounter. The decision to create text-cen-
tric transcripts is based on two representational issues: space and readability. Transcribing
embodied actions and nonverbal communication requires creating numerous screen-
shots, which must then be aligned with the talk of mockery. Although there are methods
for transcribing such embodied actions (cf. Mondada, 2018), initial attempts to include
more screenshots of the television shows created long and difficult to comprehend tran-
scripts. With that said, some screenshots are included in the transcripts, which provide
important visual information regarding how mockery unfolds and is a multifaceted dis-
course practice.
The five excerpts included in this paper represent some of the common mocking fea-
tures and themes found in the larger corpus of data. Mocking was used a resource to
debate issues ranging from the words uttered by a presidential candidate to a specific
policy, such as the southern border wall. Contributors of both major political parties
engaged in mocking; at times, these panel members (as opposed to substantive issues)
were the target of the mockery.

Observations
The first example is from the Anderson Cooper 360° show hosted by Anderson Cooper.
The mockery occurs in a response to a set of observations made by Scottie Nell Hughes
about the language used by Donald Trump during a secret recording that was leaked
before the 2016 presidential election. Scottie Nell Hughes was a regular CNN contribu-
tor and outspoken Trump supporter at the time. The secret recording in question is an
Access Hollywood tape of Donald Trump talking about groping women. The other panel
member is Anna Navarro; she is a self-described moderate Republican, prominent Trump
critic, and a regular CNN contributor.
The clip begins with Anderson Cooper asking Scottie Nell Hughes to comment on the
language used by Donald Trump during the secret recording. Each transcript should be
read from left to right, following the time stamps sequentially.
64 Discourse & Communication 16(1)

1. Trump Grope (2:57 mins)

In response to Anderson Cooper, and at 5 seconds into the clip, Scottie speaks for over
1 minute, blaming popular culture for normalizing sexualized discourses and using Hillary
Clinton’s past to divert the issue of inappropriate language (the bulk of this turn is omitted
to make the transcript legible). After Scottie Nell Hughes ends her turn, Anderson Cooper
gives the floor to Anna Navarro at the 1:27 mark by naming the next speaker (Sacks et al.,
1974). At this point in the clip, the camera pans out and shows all three participants, reveal-
ing Anna Navarro’s smirk. This facial expression performs two important discursive func-
tions: the smirk treats what has just been said as non-serious or even comical, and frames
the mocking that ensues.
Jenks 65

For the next 21 seconds, though Anna Navarro momentarily comments on the issue of
Hillary Clinton’s treatment of women, she uses most of her turn to mock Scottie Nell
Hughes’ reference to 50 Shades of Gray despite being only one of several issues raised
during the previous contribution. The precise content of the mockery is important and
will be discussed in due course.
It must be noted now, however, that Anna Navarro’s mockery occurs in the second,
‘oppositional’ slot (Hutchby, 1996); this is an important sequential position in mock news
because such turns highlight the type of discourse that unfolds in such televised programs.
For example, the oppositional turn beginning at 1:27 allows Anna Navarro to mock another
panelist, establish her own ideological position, explicitly disagree with a competing idea,
and undermine the validity of Scottie Nell Hughes’ argument. Such oppositional turns,
which are prototypical of the data set, are particularly interesting in that while televised news
debates limit what is sequentially and interactionally possible (e.g. talking in overlap for
extended spates of talk without the moderator taking control of the conversational floor),
news contributors like Scottie Nell Hughes and Anna Navarro can accomplish a number of
actions within a single turn and with a limited amount of time.
In addition to accomplishing many social actions, mocking other panel members operates
at multiple discourse levels. For example, while Anna Navarro’s talk drives home the mes-
sage that she disagrees with Scottie Nell Hughes, the visible and magnified facial expresses
that accompany mock discourses, such as the smirk at 1:27, provide a visual spectacle to an
already contentious verbal exchange. Bucy (2010: 195) speaks of the importance of ‘nonver-
bal displays’, being a ‘potent criteria of political evaluation’ that adds emotion to the political
viewing experience. This is true especially of facial expressions that both specialize in con-
veying emotions and are used alongside speech to accomplish important interactional work
(Peräkylä and Ruusuvuori, 2012), such as mocking an opposing viewpoint.
Zooming out momentarily, mockery is particularly noteworthy in televised discus-
sions because such discursive acts provide a prism into the culture of political debate in
the United States. Although oppositional views are the norm in debates, the tribal tenden-
cies that exist in U.S. politics (Young, 2020) mean contributors wish to do more than
promote a particular ideological position. That is, it is often not enough to prove that an
opposing view is wrong, especially when the stage is CNN, YouTube, or other main-
stream media. Political contributors use televised debates as opportunities to deride their
opponents. This is because contributors of opposite viewpoints treat each other as verbal
combatants (cf. Luginbühl, 2007); thus, mockery allows contributors to undermine a
position by treating what has been said by the other person as laughable or ridiculous.
Anna Navarro for example does not simply disagree, but she also calls Scottie Nell
Hughes’ position crazy. Mockery is thus a discursive resourceful that allows contributors
like Anna Navarro to intensify their disagreement, sensationalizing political issues and
ultimately helping increase viewership and reinforcing political discord through emo-
tionally evocative oppositional turns; while such turns make for ‘good’ TV, mockery and
other impolite constructions prevent contributors from reaching a mutual understanding
(Kienpointner, 2008), sedimenting deep ideological positions.
Mocking an opposing viewpoint or a political opponent can be done in other ways,
including laughter.
In the following clip, also taken from the Anderson Cooper 360° show, the contribu-
tors are debating comments made by Donald Trump to African Americans. The
66 Discourse & Communication 16(1)

contributors in this clip are Angela Rye, Kayleigh McEnany, and Bakari Sellers. Angela
Rye and Bakari Sellers are regular CNN contributors and critics of Donald Trump.
Kayleigh McEnany, who at the time of the televised debate was an outspoken supporter
of Donald Trump, was most recently the Press Secretary for the former President. The
transcript below begins 45 seconds into the clip as Kayleigh McEnany defends Donald
Trump and his attempts to reach out to African American voters.

2. Civil rights and Mar-a-Lago (clip length: 2:54 mins)

Jenks 67

Like the first example, the mockery is not directed at a political figure or issue, but rather
stems from a disagreement between the panel members. The overlapping talk that begins
48 seconds into the clip – after Kayleigh McEnany argues that Donald Trump was on the
cutting edge of civil rights because of his hiring policies at Mar-a-Lago – is integral to
understanding televised political discussions. The 5 seconds of overlapping talk, which
begins when both Angela Rye and Bakari Sellers interject with their opposing views as
Kayleigh McEnany continues to maintain her original position, represents more than several
contributors talking at the same time while attempting to establish their viewpoints.
Specifically, the overlapping talk allows Angela Rye and Bakari Sellers to compete for the
conversational floor (Schegloff, 2000), muffle or drown out the ‘noise’ of an opposing view,
and forthrightly discredit an alternative political observation. Angela Rye and Bakari Sellers
accomplish these actions by not waiting until a transition relevant place (Sacks et al., 1974)
to express their differences – for example, when Kayleigh McEnany ends her turn. This type
of interjection contributes to the political spectacle in that the almost incomprehensible
overlapping talk that unfolds for 5 seconds establishes to the viewers that there is much dis-
cord and contention amongst the panel members. At this point in the exchange, the disagree-
ment features prototypical argumentative features, such as oppositional turns and overlapping
talk (Dersley, 1998), but no instances of mockery.
The mockery occurs later 54 seconds into the clip in the form of laughter. Laughing at
an opposing viewpoint, which is not a prototypical feature of a civil or ‘polite’ debate
(Holtgraves, 1997), upgrades Bakari Sellers’ disagreement from a simple difference in
opinion to an act of ridicule: the belief that Donald Trump is at the cutting-edge of civil
rights is not only the source of disagreement, but it is also treated as a comical position.
Note that without the laughter the utterance ‘civil rights and Mar-a-Lago don’t go
together’ simply expresses a disagreement.
What becomes a source of laughter – for example, whether it is outlandish to associate
civil rights with Donald Trump – is an important empirical issue. In the corpus of data,
there does not seem to be any specific formulations, constructions, or belief systems that
trigger laughter, or indeed other forms of mockery, though further research is needed to
better understand how topics (and topic management) shape or engender particular com-
municative acts, such as ridicule.
However, it is clear that the act of mockery demonstrates a heightened degree of conten-
tion between panel members. Although panel members rarely talk about an act of mockery,
it is commonsense understanding that in institutional settings such acts are highly problem-
atic and face threatening (Pellizzoni, 2001). Indeed, when panel members topicalize acts of
mockery, such exchanges engender much frustration and demonstrable anger.
The next example illustrates this point. Although there are six contributors in this
example, the most contentious exchange occurs between two panel members: Kayleigh
McEnany and Christine Quinn. The latter interactant is a member of the Democratic
Party, and at the time of recording, a regular CNN contributor. The panel members are
discussing the 2016 presidential elections, and why Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton
attract particular supporters. The televised debate occurs on the Anderson Cooper 360°
show, but with relief host John Berman moderating the discussion.
The transcript begins with Kayleigh McEnany asking Christine Quinn why the father of
the 2016 Orlando gunman supports Hillary Clinton. Moments before this question, both
68 Discourse & Communication 16(1)

contributors were arguing about the extent to which they are capable of answering each
other’s questions – what could be characterized as a brief moment of bickering. In other
words, the contributors were already verbally combative leading up the question asked by
Kayleigh McEnany.

3. Stop smiling and smirking (clip length: 3:18 mins)

Jenks 69

The formulation of the question at the 1:37 mark is important to an understanding

of televised political discussions. From a purely linguistic point of view, Kayleigh
McEnany’s utterance merely solicits a response from Christine Quinn: the question of
what attracts a particular supporter to a presidential candidate. The word choice in
this particular utterance, however, suggests that Kayleigh McEnany is not only asking
a question, but also associating terrorism with Hillary Clinton. That is, the construc-
tion ‘Orlando terrorist’ rather than say, ‘Orlando gunman’, could be a strategic deci-
sion that allows Kayleigh McEnany to establish the possibility (within the immediate
exchange but also for the viewers) that Hillary Clinton possesses qualities that are
alluring to a terrorist. Although Kayleigh McEnany does not explicitly accuse Hillary
Clinton of attracting terrorists, the question requires Christine Quinn to address this
possibility.
To this end, Christine Quinn at 1:40 states, with increased voice amplitude and
emphasis, that the father of the Orlando terrorist is mentally ill. While Christine
Quinn’s attempt to distance Hillary Clinton from terrorism by using mental illness
could (and perhaps should) be treated as a serious matter, Kayleigh McEnany in the
next turn at 1:42 responds in a humorous and playful way. Specifically, the display of
surprise (‘oh’), breathy laughter, smiles, and decision to turn Christine Quinn’s argu-
ment on its head (i.e. the notion that someone needs to be mentally ill to support
Hillary Clinton), make it possible for Kayleigh McEnany to mock, as well as possibly
troll, her political opponent.
Trolling, which is defined as an attempt to provoke an emotional response (Hardaker,
2013), can form an important part of mocking by flustering political opponents. This can
be accomplished in many ways, including uttering inflammatory comments, attacking
the characteristics of an individual, or in the example above, turning an argument on its
head.
Christine Quinn responds to the mockery at 1:45 by uttering ‘pardon me’, which in
North America is a polite way of requesting someone to repeat something – the intona-
tion of this utterance, however, could indicate indignation. Kayleigh McEnany then para-
phrases her mockery, which appears to catch Christine Quinn off guard. The speech
perturbation beginning at 1:47, as indicated by the cutoff talk and restarts, suggests that
Christine Quinn is indeed flustered. This moment of stilted speech develops into frustra-
tion when Christine Quinn moments later at 1:50 commands Kayleigh McEnany to stop
smiling and smirking.
At this point in the interaction, it becomes clear that mocking is not just a resource to
engage in political debates, as illustrated in previous excerpts, but it can also create
opportunities to establish what is pragmatically acceptable during a political discussion:
Christine Quinn is treating the discussion seriously whereas Kayleigh McEnany is being
lighthearted if not trolling. This divergence of styles creates discord between the pan-
elists. According to politeness theory, the request to stop smiling and smirking is signifi-
cant because it reveals the important face work that gets negotiated during political
debates (e.g. Harris, 2001). Mocking is a potentially face-threatening act because it can
create an unsymmetrical distribution of power, especially when such discourse under-
mines an argument or position established by a political opponent (Pellizzoni, 2001).
Requests to stop mocking are not common in the data set, including for show hosts who
70 Discourse & Communication 16(1)

are responsible for moderating the interaction (e.g. managing overlapping talk and
interruptions).
However, when a political contributor attempts to recalibrate the interaction, it often
occurs in the form of a request (e.g. Harris, 2003), and with at least one of the partici-
pants displaying some type of emotion, such as anger. Such requests are not treated as an
open-ended negotiation between panel memberships, but rather as a one-way directive;
the screenshot below provides an additional example of how such directives unfold in
televised political discussions.
Amanda Carpenter (located on the right in the screenshot), a former communications
director for Republican Ted Cruz, and Symone Sanders (located on the left in the screen-
shot), former press secretary for Democrat Bernie Sanders, are discussing with other
panelists the sexual allegations concerning Brett Kavanaugh. The exchange begins with
Symone Sanders referring to Amanda Carpenter’s observation that Christine Blasey
Ford, one of Brett Kavanaugh’s accusers, should testify publicly to a senate committee,
as doing so would be in the interest of all parties concerned. This argumentative exchange
occurs 4 minutes (4:21–4:23) into the clip, and the screenshot was taken as Amanda
Carpenter completes her utterance.

4. Don’t speak to me like that (clip length: 7:34 mins)

The two-part exchange between Symone Sanders and Amanda Carpenter is brief, yet
possesses discursive features that speak to issues larger than the political topic being dis-
cussed by the panel members. The two utterances – mocking an idea by calling it ‘BS’, and
then responding with a directive to stop talking in such a way – speak to an indignation that
does not exist in a vacuum (Infante and Wigley, 1986), nor should be understood as an
example of panel members interacting in the heat of the moment. Rather, the exchange pro-
vides a lens through which to understand the political discord that exists in the United States.
Although televised debates have normalized mocking discourse, this exchange is rooted in
a history of politics that promotes, and even celebrates, partisan discourse. A space that per-
mits outrage discourse in general, and mocking in particular, suggests that the stakes in
political debates are not limited to competing viewpoints.
Jenks 71

That is, televised debates are used to not only present alternative positions, but to also
attack the very people that espouse different viewpoints (e.g. Christine Quinn calls
Kayleigh McEnany disgusting shortly after the exchange presented in Extract 3 above).
Similarly, while Symone Sanders mocks a competing viewpoint by calling it ‘BS’, her
mockery is a form of verbal aggression (Infante and Wigley, 1986) that indirectly attacks
the person responsible for the message: Amanda Carpenter. In this sense, televised politi-
cal discussions provide opportunities to attack or undermine the character of a party or
party member even when it is not done so explicitly. In this culture of tribal political
discourse, mocking is an instrumental tool for refuting competing ideas.
Indeed, there are instances in the data set where panel members explicitly mock each
other. In the next and final example, Ana Navarro and Steve Cortes are discussing the
border wall that Donald Trump championed for his 2016 bid for election. Steve Cortes is
a political commentator and a member of Trump’s former Hispanic Advisory Council. For
the context of this exchange, it is important to state again that Ana Navarro identifies as a
Republican, but is an outspoken Trump critic. Chris Cuomo, host of Prime Time, is the
moderator of the discussion.
The transcript begins at the 4:20 mark; in the turn leading up this point, Steve Cortes
refers to Ana Navarro’s observations of Trump as belonging to the ‘Left’.

5. I am a Republican (clip length: 10:55 mins)

The exchange here differs from the data presented thus far in that the argument devolves
into a discussion of a contributor’s political identity, whereas the mockery in the examples
above are based on a political issue. The mockery of where Ana Navarro is located on the
72 Discourse & Communication 16(1)

ideological spectrum (‘you’re a very leftist Republican’) is central to how different view-
points are understood, and in this case dismissed, in televised political discussions. In
addition to ridiculing opposing viewpoints, it is not uncommon for panel members to
mock the character or identity of fellow contributors. In other words, both the message
and the messenger are open to mockery in televised political discussions, which feeds into
a culture of debate where opposing viewpoints can be dismissed on the basis of who a
person is (Young, 2020).
As a self-identified Republican, Ana Navarro’s identity is important to how Steve
Cortes wishes viewers to understand the southern border issue. By categorizing Ana
Navarro as Leftist, Steve Cortes is able to undermine the narrative that the Republican
Party does not fully support Donald Trump’s desire to build a border wall. Furthermore,
the construct ‘very leftist’ has a similar, though not as efficacious, effect as the term
‘radical left’. Both labels are frequently used by members and supporters of the
Republican Party to quickly dismiss opposing viewpoints as belonging to the fringes of
American society. In so doing, Steve Cortes simultaneously mocks Ana Navarro and
undermines her position. As with all examples of mocking in the data set, Steve Cortes’
utterance is not just a local accomplishment of mockery; the characterization of Anna
Navarro as very leftist also encourages viewers to use the discourse of the political elite
to understand current events and issues (van Dijk, 1988).

Discussion and conclusion

The above observations contribute to the political discourse literature by uncovering the
forms and functions of mocking. The discourse of mocking, which has received very lit-
tle attention in the literature, is an important empirical topic in that it provides a lens
through which to understand political discussions as a public spectacle. These findings
possess several social and political implications that will be discussed below.
The analysis showed that mocking occurs predominately in the second oppositional
slot (Hutchby, 1996). That is, mocking is used to respond to an observation or argument
that was made in a previous turn. The second oppositional slot demonstrates that mock-
ing is reserved for disagreements that develop in situ, as conversational exchanges
unfold. It can be said, to this end, that mocking occurs spontaneously despite topics
being predetermined and given to relevant contributors before the televised show. The
sequential position of mocking is noteworthy, as it suggests that the discord between
panel members is performed if not based on genuine animosity.
In addition to its sequential position, from which mocking can be understood as a
response type, the act of mockery can be divided into smaller discourse tokens. These
tokens cover a range of actions as demonstrated in the analysis of data, including express-
ing disagreement, undermining the validity of an opposing viewpoint, establishing a
competing ideological position, refuting an idea based on a political identity, criticizing
the messenger (rather than the message), creating an unsymmetrical distribution of
power, and amplifying the degree to which one disagrees, such as through laughter.
Using laughter to express disagreement shows that mocking is not just a type of outrage
discourse, as has been suggested in the literature (Sobieraj and Berry, 2011). Mocking in
general, and laughing in particular, channel a range of emotions and psychological states
Jenks 73

from glee to exasperation, and can merely be used to discredit a competing idea by treating
it as non-serious or comical. Although laughing at someone or something said could be
interpreted as extremely rude or treated as highly problematic (Holmes, 2000), laughter in
the context of this study does not typically lead to panel members expressing outrage (e.g.
‘don’t you dare laugh at me!’). Put differently, although laughing is potentially face threat-
ening (Schnurr and Chan, 2011), it appears that panel members expect, or even want,
mocking to occur during televised political discussions. Indeed, the participants themselves
do not frequently treat mocking as a source of, and resource for, outrage. Similarly, for
many viewers, mocking an opposing viewpoint is a form of entertainment (Luginbühl,
2007) that news media outlets exploit by switching camera angles or using split screens so
that angry or exasperated faces are displayed alongside verbal arguments.
Mocking, laughing, ridiculing, or engaging in other forms of uncivil discourse suggests
that televised political discussions are treated by panel members (as well as show produc-
ers) as a space for disagreement and put-downs (cf. Infante and Wigley, 1986) rather than
opportunities to find common ground. While this situation leads to ‘good’ television, tele-
vised political discussions become a public spectacle that transmit to viewers of all ideo-
logical positions that incivility is the means through which opposing viewpoints are
expressed. That is to say, televised political discussions contribute to the tribalism that
exists within and across communities (Young, 2020) by normalizing mocking. This nor-
malization process is partly accomplished by inviting and re-inviting the most outspoken
and partisan contributors to discuss their opinions, transforming televised political discus-
sions from a source of information dissemination to a space for mock news.
The mocking observed in the present study is not unique, and is merely one aspect of
discord found in contemporary U.S. politics as well as possibly other contexts with similar
political dynamics. For example, what is uttered on televised political discussions gets
recycled in online spaces; similarly, panel members on channels such as CNN can be heard
repeating viral memes and popular talking points circulated on social media. In this sense,
televised political discussions are an extension of social media discourse in that panel
members embody online cultural practices in their responses to each other. For instance,
mocking can be used to incite an emotional response (cf. example 3 above), which closely
mirrors the widespread practice of online trolling. In other words, the culture of instigation
and provocation found on social media discourse is also visible in and through the words
and actions of panel members debating political issues on televised shows.
Like the affordances and constraints of communicating on social media, the organiza-
tion of televised political discussions accentuates the discord that exists between panel
members of different ideological positions. On Twitter, for example, political observa-
tions and discussions are packaged into short text messages, increasing the possibility for
miscommunication, unsophisticated observations, and emotional responses. Similarly,
panel members on televised shows are typically given 1 minute or less to express impor-
tant opinions, which encourages memorable but perhaps vacuous soundbites while dis-
couraging mediation, reconciliation, and perhaps more significantly, thoughtful
consideration of important political issues. It can be said, therefore, that the short-form
discussions often adopted on televised political shows, like the character-limit of Twitter,
foster (and even promote) mocking practices, making a mockery of the responsibility the
news industry has in disseminating information in an impartial way. It is in this sense and
context that televised political discussions can be regarded as mock news.
74 Discourse & Communication 16(1)

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/
or publication of this article.

Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

References
Bakir V and McStay A (2018) Fake news and the economy of emotions. Digital Journalism 6(2):
154–175.
Berry JM and Sobieraj S (2014) The Outrage Industry: Political Opinion Media and the New
Incivility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bhatia A (2009) The discourses of terrorism. Journal of Pragmatics 41(2): 279–289.
Bhatia A (2015) Discursive Illusions in Public Discourse: Theory and Practice. London:
Routledge.
Bucy EP (2010) Nonverbal communication, emotion, and political evaluation. In: Döveling K,
von Scheve C and Konijn EA (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Emotions and Mass Media.
London: Routledge, pp.195–220.
Callaghan K and Schnell F (2001) Assessing the democratic debate: How the news media frame
elite policy discourse. Political Communication 18(2): 183–213.
Dersley I (1998) Complaining and arguing in everyday conversation. Unpublished PhD
Dissertation, The University of York, York.
Fairclough N (2010) Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London:
Routledge.
Fletcher R and Park S (2017) The impact of trust in the news media on online news consumption
and participation. Digital Journalism 5(10): 1281–1299.
Garfinkel H (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity.
Gumperz JJ and Hymes D (1986) Directions in Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hardaker C (2013) “Uh. . . . not to be nitpicky, but. . . the past tense of drag is dragged, not drug.”
An overview of trolling strategies. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 1: 58–86.
Harris S (2001) Being politically impolite: Extending politeness theory to adversarial political
discourse. Discourse & Society 12(4): 451–472.
Harris S (2003) Politeness and power: Making and responding to requests in institutional settings.
Text: Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse 23(1): 27–52.
Holmes J (2000) Politeness, power and provocation: How humour functions in the workplace.
Discourse Studies 2: 159–185.
Holtgraves T (1997) Yes, but. . . positive politeness in conversation arguments. Journal of
Language and Social Psychology 16: 222–239.
Hutchby I (1996) Confrontation Talk: Arguments, Asymmetries, and Power on Talk Radio.
London: Routledge.
Infante DA and Wigley CJ (1986) Verbal aggressiveness: An interpersonal model and measure.
Communication Monographs 53: 61–69.
Kienpointner M (2008) Impoliteness and emotional arguments. Journal of Politeness Research
4(2): 243–265.
Kiousis S (2001) Public trust or mistrust? Perceptions of media credibility in the information age.
Mass Communication & Society 4(4): 381–403.
Jenks 75

Luginbühl M (2007) Conversational violence in political TV debates: Forms and functions.

Journal of Pragmatics 39: 1371–1387.
McManus JH (1992) What kind of commodity Is news. Communication Research 19(6): 787–805.
Meeks L (2020) Defining the enemy: How Donald Trump frames the news media. Journalism &
Mass Communication Quarterly 97(1): 211–234.
Mondada L (2018) Multiple temporalities of language and body in interaction: Challenges for
transcribing multimodality. Research on Language and Social Interaction 51(1): 85–106.
Osburn J (1998) What’s mock news? A case study of Dino Times and NYTW News. American
Journalism 15(4): 141–147.
Ott BL (2017) The age of Twitter: Donald J. Trump and the politics of debasement. Critical Studies
in Media Communication 34(1): 59–68.
Pellizzoni L (2001) The myth of the best argument: Power, deliberation and reason. British Journal
of Sociology 52(1): 59–86.
Peräkylä A and Ruusuvuori JE (2012) Facial expression and interactional regulation of emotion.
In: Peräkylä A and Sorjonen M (eds) Emotion in Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, pp.64–91.
Pew Research Center (2004) Cable and Internet Loom Large in Fragmented Political News
Universe. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
Sacks H, Schegloff EA and Jefferson G (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-
taking for conversation. Language 50: 696–735.
Schegloff EA (2000) Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation.
Language in Society 29: 1–63.
Schnurr S and Chan A (2011) When laughter is not enough. Responding to teasing and self-
denigrating humour at work. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 20–35.
Sobieraj S and Berry JM (2011) From incivility to outrage: Political discourse in blogs, talk radio,
and cable news. Political Communication 28: 19–41.
Strömbäck J, Tsfati Y, Boomgaarden H, et al. (2020) News media trust and its impact on media
use: Toward a framework for future research. Annals of the International Communication
Association 44: 139–156.
Stryker R, Conway BA and Danielson JT (2016) What is political incivility? Communication
Monographs 83(4): 535–556.
van Dijk TA (1988) News as Discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Van Duyn E and Collier J (2019) Priming and fake news: The effects of elite discourse on evalua-
tions of news media. Mass Communication & Society 22(1): 29–48.
Wodak R and Chilton P (2005) A New Agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Young DG (2020) Irony and Outrage: The Polarized Landscape of Rage, Fear, and Laughter in
the United States. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Author biography
Christopher Jenks is a discourse analyst presently working in Denmark. He has also worked in the
United States, England, South Korea, and Hong Kong. Christopher specializes in the study of
language in society and is particularly interested in the political and cultural implications of the
global spread of English. His research interests include online communication, intercultural
encounters, political discourse, and identity construction. He is the editor and author of nine books.