28 fall into serious opposition or even wrangle, or presenting different viewpoints and attempting to challenge the caller’s argument in order to make the discussion topic arguable and examine it through more comprehensive discussion when the caller’s and the first host’s opinions are identical or similar. The former pursues a smooth process and a rational environment for the conversation; the latter chases an exhaustive discussion and critical thinking in the program. Overall speaking, second host as a counterweight aiming at achieving balance in conversation echoes with the consistent pursuit of balance in Hong Kong phone-in radio programs, as other structural arrangement introduced in early section. Therefore, the second host’s balance function could be regarded as an institutional setting. It could also be interpreted from an individual and personal perspective. As mentioned previously, most second hosts in Hong Kong phone-in radio programs are veteran journalists. Their own journalist professional values––neutrality, balance reporting, rational discussion––might also contribute to the formation of counterweight role in the triadic interactions. For the situation that the second hosts who are not professional journalists but politicians, academics, or other professions, the second host’s role especially the consideration of achieving balance might vary to some extent. However, it is beyond this paper’s space and capacity to examine how different second hosts perform differently to investigate the role of second hosts’ individual value, identity, and preferences, just to name a few, which needs to be paid attention to in future studies. One implication of establishing the second host is that it might release the first host from the detailed work and being overcautious. The first host could devote to the discussion more without noticing some minor practical problems. Meanwhile, with the existence of the second host as a counterweight, the first host could also express more explicit and relatively radical attitude without worrying about the possible consequence, which might extend the range of discussion significantly. This implication, together with above-mentioned findings of the analysis, remains further investigation.
29 References Clayman, S., & Heritage, J. (2002). The news interview. New York: Cambridge University Press. Drew, P. (1992). Contested evidence in courtroom cross-examination: the case of a trail for rape. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 470–520). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (1992). Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 3–65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic books. Giles, D. C. (2002). Keeping the public in their place: Audience participation in lifestyle television programming. Discourse & Society 13(5), 603–628. Goffman. E. (1983). The interaction order. American Sociological Review, 48(1), 1–17. Goodwin, C., & Heritage, J. (1990). Conversation analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19, 283–307. Herbst, S. (1995). On electronic public space: Talk shows in theoretic perspective. Political communication, 12(3), 263–274. Heritage, J. (2005). Conversation analysis and institutional talk. In K. Fitch & R. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction (pp. 103–147). Mahwah, N.J.: LEA. Hutchby, I. (1996). Confrontation talk. Mahwah, N.J.: LEA. Hutchby, I. (2006). Media talk: Conversation analysis and the study of broadcasting. London: Open University Press. Hutchby, I., & Woffitt, R. (1998). Conversation analysis. Cambridge: Polity Kurpius, D., & Mendelson, A. (2002). A case study of deliberative democracy on television: Civic dialogue on C-SPAN call-in shows. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 79(3), 587– 601. Lee, F. L. F. (2002). Radio phone-in talk shows as politically significant infotainment in Hong Kong. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 7(4), 57–79. Lee, F. L. F. (2007). Talk radio listening, opinion expression and political discussion in a democratizing society. Asian Journal of Communication, 17(1), 78–96.