Constructing and challenging a conspiracy theory through narrative

This first section demonstrates how Brownlee used the sequential organisation and causal logic of storytelling to construct talk that was subsequently interpreted and challenged as a conspiracy theory. The first two extracts come from a press conference that was held on the day Parliament was due to dissolve for the general election. However, new cases of Covid-19 were announced the previous day, the city of Auckland entered lockdown, and the opposition party called for the election to be delayed. Extract (1) occurs nineteen minutes into the press conference. Party leader Judith Collins (JC) is at the podium, but a reporter (RP) directs the next question to deputy leader Gerry Brownlee (GB) by referencing his comments in the earlier press release. The analysis highlights how Brownlee's answer is constructed in a rhetorical style characteristic of conspiracy theories (Byford Reference Byford2011).

The reporter's first turn displays an understanding that Brownlee's earlier press release was concerned with the government's knowledge. The suggestion that the government should “come forward< on what they actually knew” (lines 3–4) suggests the government is holding back information and knows more than what they have claimed. Brownlee's comments in the press release are thus animated here by the reporter, providing Brownlee with an on-the-record slot to respond to them in the interactional context of the press conference. The reporter suggests Brownlee may feel “vindicated” (line 11) by the recent outbreak, drawing a connection between Brownlee's earlier statements and the current situation.

Brownlee resists the description “vindicated” but takes the opportunity to respond to the topic of his earlier statement. He describes what he was doing as “having a look” at “some pretty obvious signs” (lines 15–16), characterising his actions in innocuous and reasonable terms. Byford (Reference Byford2011) identified that concerns with foreknowledge and the rhetoric of just asking questions are recognisable features of conspiracy theories. Here Brownlee questions why the government was concerned in the previous week and describes himself and others as “wondering what do the health authorities know that they're not-not fully explaining” (lines 33–34), while criticising the withholding of information by describing it as being “dribbled out” (line 24) in official briefings.

Yet the actions of questioning and criticising the government are not solely the preserve of conspiracy theorists. These actions are also a fundamental part of the role of an opposition politician (not least in an election period!). Thus, although Brownlee's turn makes inferences available that have resonances of conspiracy theory, there is no evidence at this point that participants understood his talk in that way. The next question is asked by another reporter who raises the topic of masks and the press conference moves on.

However, two minutes later, Brownlee returns to the question and expands his answer. These remarks were interpreted as a conspiracy theory in subsequent media coverage (e.g. Grieve Reference Grieve2020; Rindelaub Reference Rindelaub2020). The analysis attends to the sequential unfolding of his turn and his recipients’ responses in the turns which follow.

The press conference is characterised by a turn allocation scheme where participants orient to journalists’ rights to ask questions and politicians’ obligations to respond to them (Clayman Reference Clayman, Sidnell and Stivers2013). Thus, Brownlee's request to “make a< comment” (line 1) about the earlier question treats his action as a deviation from normative speaking arrangements and marks his turn as noteworthy. He begins his comment with the assessment “I just think it was interesting,” (line 2). Initial assessments tell listeners how to evaluate the talk that follows (Mandelbaum Reference Mandelbaum, Sidnell and Stivers2013). Before explaining what he found interesting, Brownlee begins an if-then construction that ends incomplete, “if you think about what was said” (lines 2–3). The second pronoun “you” works here to address both the reporter and the overhearing audience. The unstated upshot is that those listening will draw similar conclusions. Likewise, the shift from the first person singular “I” to the plural pronoun “we” in “what we've observed” (line 3) attributes the observations (and possible inferences) to a collective rather than to Brownlee alone.

Brownlee uses the sequential machinery of listing and storytelling to link six events. Starting with “one” (line 4) indicates a list of events which, by virtue of being grouped together, can be understood as members of the same category (Jefferson Reference Jefferson1991). The first event is messaging about a possible resurgence of Covid-19. Brownlee marks the timing of this event as relevant, pausing the progressivity of talk to replace “a couple of weeks ago” with “about ten days ago in fact” (lines 5–6). Changing the unit of measurement from weeks to days increases the temporal proximity between the event and the current moment (C. Raymond & White Reference Raymond and White2017).

Events within the structure of a story are designed to be heard as logically (or causally) linked to one another (Mandelbaum Reference Mandelbaum, Sidnell and Stivers2013). Thus, directions to purchase masks, the prime minister's visit to a mask factory, and Dr. Bloomfield's choice to get tested are not presented as discrete events, but as connected to one another. One aspect of connection is their relative timing. Bloomfield's test is marked as noteworthy given it occurs “after a hundred and (.) three days” of no Covid-19 cases in the community (lines 16–18). Formulating the length of time in this way treats Bloomfield's action as inapposite and remarkable, inferentially raising the question: why now? At the same time, Brownlee's embodied conduct—a slight headshake, raised eyebrows, and smile (see extract (2), images 2a–2d)—provide a non-verbal assessment of the events he describes. The description of the final event—a return to lockdown—occurring “a matter of hours” later (line 21) highlights that it is the close temporal relationship between events that is the relevant—and questionable—aspect of Brownlee's narrative. More explicitly than extract (1) then, Brownlee builds a narrative that suggests a hidden truth needs to be uncovered in a recognisably conspiratorial style (Byford Reference Byford2011).

In the next turn, the reporter's question displays an understanding of the hidden truth hinted at in Brownlee's narrative. The question begins with “so” (line 24), targeting the upshot of Brownlee's turn and seeks clarification about “what are you saying there then?” (line 24). No answer is forthcoming as Brownlee leaves the podium and the reporter pursues an answer by reformulating the question (line 27). The reporter's questions contain the presupposition that Brownlee was saying something more than what is self-evident. Participants orient to some turns as containing multiple actions, which Sidnell (Reference Sidnell2017) distinguished as vehicular and derived actions. Here, the reporter treats Brownlee's turn as a vehicle for an as-yet-unspecified action and asks him to make it explicit.

Brownlee's response challenges the presuppositions of the reporter's question. He begins his response with “oh” (line 31), a practice that treats the question as unexpected and inapposite (Heritage Reference Heritage1998). He then describes his conduct as “just outlining facts” (line 31). This description asserts the vehicular action and challenges the presupposition that there was any derived action to be specified (cf. Sidnell Reference Sidnell2017).

The reporter does not accept Brownlee's description of his action, pursuing an alternative explanation with “but but what do you mean by that?” (line 32). Asking ‘what do you mean’ can target a moral dimension of a problem with a prior turn (G. Raymond & Sidnell Reference Raymond and Sidnell2019), and here the reporter pursues the derived action—or hidden meaning—of his turn. As evidence of this derived action, the reporter formulates a possible upshot for Brownlee to confirm or deny. That the reporter can suggest he is “saying it's not a coincidence that they knew” (line 33) is evidence that these inferences were available from Brownlee's talk. Here, possible foreknowledge of Covid-19 in the community is a logic that connects the description of events as a causal narrative. Foreknowledge is a characteristic of conspiracy theories (Byford Reference Byford2011) and renders Ardern's and Bloomfield's actions morally culpable.

Brownlee neither confirms nor denies this interpretation, instead repeating the evaluation “interesting” (lines 35–36). As we examine further in the final extract, Brownlee distances himself from explicitly asserting the conspiracy theory, while nonetheless pursuing it in a tacit way. Party leader Judith Collins (who has now taken the podium) challenges the basis of the reporter's questions, asserting the media's responsibility to ask questions but redirecting responsibility to answer them. We pick up on the issues of responsibility and examine Collins’ response further in the extracts which follow.

Ascribing and denying ‘conspiracy theory’ through categorisation

Brownlee's comments were widely interpreted as a conspiracy theory in print media in the days that followed the press conference (e.g. Grieve Reference Grieve2020; Rindelaub Reference Rindelaub2020). This section examines two radio interviews where hosts used the categories ‘conspiracy theories’ and ‘conspiracy theorists’. The analyses track how interviewers and interviewees negotiated how to categorise and interpret Brownlee's actions.

The day after the press conference, Judith Collins was interviewed by Kim Hill (KH) on Radio New Zealand. The interview largely concerned the party's calls for the election to be delayed given the recent outbreak. Yet, a recurrent line of questioning from Hill concerned the intelligibility and accountability of Brownlee's conduct the previous day. Across the four extracts from the interview, we examine how Hill and Collins negotiated how to make sense of what had happened and who was responsible.

Extract (3) comes from the start of the broadcast.

Hill's description of the previous day provides context to the audience and sets the scene for her discussion with Collins. Hill describes Brownlee's actions as “obliquely” (line 2) suggesting Ardern and Bloomfield “held back information” (line 4) about the outbreak. Much like the reporter's question in extract(2), Hill's description displays an understanding that Brownlee's turn made inferences available without stating them directly. By characterising the day's events as “political” (line 1) and using the categories “deputy leader” (line 1) and “National party leader” (line 5), Hill invokes Brownlee and Collins’ stake as politicians. Invoking someone's stake or interest is one way to undermine their actions (Potter, Edwards, & Wetherell Reference Potter, Edwards and Wetherell1993). Thus, Hill suggests that their actions were motivated by political interest.

Hill offers Collins an opportunity to clarify “what you're accusing Doctor Bloomfield and Jacinda Ardern of?” (lines 9–10), using the second person pronoun “you” to encompass both Collins and Brownlee. But Collins resists the characterisation of her action as an accusation. She flatly denies any accusation against Bloomfield (line 11) and characterises her action towards Ardern as “simply (.) pointing” to a document on pre-election government conduct (line 12). This description of her conduct rejects the derived action of an accusation and asserts the vehicular action. Much like Brownlee's description in extract (2) (“just outlining facts”), the activity of pointing something out is unobjectionable. Thus, Collins resists the moral inferences associated with an accusation by formulating her conduct as reasonable.

In extract (4), Hill asks Collins directly what Brownlee meant. Hill's question displays an understanding that Brownlee's conduct needs explaining, and that Collins is accountable for doing so.

Hill's question is evidence that Brownlee's remarks were recognisable as a conspiracy theory. The plural pronoun “we” (line 1) positions Hill within a collective who witnessed Brownlee's conduct and suggests the understanding of his remarks as conspiratorial is a shared reality. In paraphrasing Brownlee, Hill repurposes the machinery of narrative to link Ardern's visit, the advice to buy masks, and the announcement of Covid-19 in the community. Hill displays an understanding that it was the relative timing of these events that Brownlee found interesting and that his turn was purposefully built to allow his listeners to draw conspiratorial inferences.

Hill directs the question “what did he mean by that?” (lines 7–8) to Collins, displaying an understanding that she can and should answer on his behalf. Categorising Brownlee as “your deputy” (line 1) invokes Collins’ membership as party leader and her category-bound responsibility to account for the actions of party members. Yet Collins challenges the presupposition that she is responsible for Brownlee's actions. Her well-prefaced turn treats the question as inapposite (Schegloff & Lerner Reference Schegloff and Lerner2009) and asserts “you should ask him!” (line 10). Collins marks that Hill's question should properly be addressed to Brownlee, invoking the common-sense position that speakers are individually responsible for their actions (cf. Sacks Reference Sacks, Atkinson and Heritage1984) and that matters of meaning or intention are private internal states owned by individuals (Edwards Reference Edwards1997). Thus, in this question-answer sequence, Collins challenges the suggestion Brownlee was espousing a party line—for which she could be presumed to have knowledge and authority over—and instead positions him as solely responsible for his actions.

Hill picks up on the issue of responsibility in extract (5). The analysis tracks how participants use intentionality to make sense of action and attribute responsibility.

Hill's line of questioning displays an understanding that Collins and Brownlee acted intentionally to advance a conspiracy theory about government cover-up. Describing actions in different ways invokes different forms of accountability, and here Hill's description of “having collaborated” (line 3) is linked directly to a “responsibility for a mood of fear and panic” (line 2). Rather than answer the question, Collins assesses it as “a ridiculous thing to say” and begins to formulate “what we're saying” (line 8). Before Collins finishes speaking however, Hill asks a new question targeting the party's calls for transparency (lines 11–12). As in the previous extracts, asking “what does that me:ean::.” (line 12) targets this action as accountable and in need of explanation (cf. G. Raymond & Sidnell Reference Raymond and Sidnell2019).

Hill provides Collins with an opportunity to confirm or deny the conspiracy theory. One way to make sense of calls for transparency is a belief that “information is being withheld from the public.” (line 18). Collins does not answer the question, instead asserting that “people need to know” how the latest outbreak occurred (line 20). Hill orients to this as topic shift, re-centering the conversation on the conspiracy theory that “they know something .h we don't.” (lines 24–25) and issuing another yes/no interrogative, “are you suggesting that,” (line 25). Rather than a yes/no answer, Collins responds with a multi-unit turn that is recognisable as a complaint about other occasions when government information has been inaccurate.

Thus, across multiple questions, Hill provides Collin with an ‘on the record’ slot to clarify her (and her party's position) with relation to Brownlee's remarks. As is characteristic of political interviews (Clayman Reference Clayman, Sidnell and Stivers2013), Collins avoids directly answering the question in attempts to advance her own topical agenda.

In extract (6), Hill explicitly uses the label ‘conspiracy theory’ Collins resists this categorisation as they negotiate how to make sense of the actions of the previous day.

Hill invites Collins to assess whether she “mispla:yed [her] ca:rds” (line 1), using the metaphor of a card game to formulate her actions as strategic choices. This action is directly tied to her stake when Hill categorises her “as the leader of the national pa:rty” (line 2), invoking her categorical identity and the associated stake in discrediting the government in an election period. Hill claims she “allowed” Brownlee to “dog whistle conspiracy theories” (lines 3–4), suggesting she had prior knowledge and gave permission for his actions. The metaphor of the dog whistle suggests Brownlee's conduct was designed to be understood as a conspiracy theory by members of some groups while appearing innocuous to others. Hill thus positions Collins as knowledge and culpable in using conspiracy theories as a political strategy.

Collins resists the yes/no formulation of the question, instead asserting that Brownlee “was simply stating um some of the: the information” (lines 5–6). This neutral description of action challenges Hill's invocation of stake by asserting the vehicular action and denying a hidden meaning or derived action. Yet Hill challenges this characterisation, pursuing clarification about what information could suggest a government cover-up.

Rather than answer the question, Collins’ well-prefaced turn points out that “he hasn't actually said that has he?” (line 15). Using “actually” highlights the difference between what happened and Hill's characterisation of events. The tag question “has he?” shows that this understanding is mutually available, establishing a shared position about the events that both have witnessed. Accountability is attached to action (Sidnell Reference Sidnell2017), so people cannot reasonably be held accountable for things they have not done. Thus, Collins suggests Hill's line of question is unreasonable as it is based on a spurious characterisation of what happened.

Extract (7) comes from a radio interview the following day on commercial station Newstalk ZB. The extract comes from the beginning of the interview where the host Chris Lynch (CL) invites Brownlee to account for his actions. Both he and Brownlee use the category ‘conspiracy theorists’, but distance Brownlee from this categorisation.

Lynch's opening question to Brownlee presents categorically organised actions and responsibilities. Letters have been sent by “scientists and health professionals” (lines 2–3), two occupational categories with expertise and authority about the pandemic. The act of sending a letter to “all politicians” (line 3) displays an understanding of politicians’ category-bound responsibility to take advice from experts. The letter urges politicians to act against their category-bound stake “to put politics aside” (line 4) and avoid politically motivated actions including scaring the populace or scoring points against their opponents. By asking Brownlee if he received the letter, Lynch categorises him as a member of the group ‘all politicians’ and invites him to account for himself in terms of the descriptions ‘scaremongering’ and ‘point-scoring’.

Brownlee displays an understanding that his conduct in the press conference was understandable as the kind of negative political behaviour referenced in the letter. The indexical reference “the other day?” (line 9) displays an assumption that his listeners know which day and which events he is referring to. Although he takes responsibility for having “got” into a “bad spot” (line 9) the nature of the transgression is not further specified. He displays an understanding of scaremongering as an intentional action. Thus, by denying the intention “to create any fear” (line 10), he denies this description for his actions. Instead, he characterises his action as “simply ah asking questions” (line 14). The word ‘simply’ asserts the vehicular action and denies a derived or hidden meaning (Sidnell Reference Sidnell2017). Asking questions is an entitlement of any reasonable person and asking questions “in the house” (line 12) is a politician's category-bound entitlement.

Lynch's second question mobilises the category ‘conspiracy theorist’. However, in contrast to Hill's description of strategically dog whistling conspiracy theories (extract (6)), Lynch's description aligns with Brownlee's stance on intentionality. The suggestion that Brownlee “played into the hands” (line 22) suggests that Brownlee may have unintentionally supported conspiracy theorists without believing it himself—a key attribute that would categorise him as a conspiracy theorist. Brownlee's answer likewise distances himself from the category of conspiracy theorist. In the course of question-answer sequences like these, journalists and politicians reflexively constitute mainstream and marginal political positions (Clayman Reference Clayman2016). Here, both Lynch and Brownlee constitute conspiracy theories as marginal and illegitimate. Lynch uses the definite article “the” (line 22) to categorise conspiracy theorists as a group of people located “out there” (line 23) who are other to host, guest, and audience. Likewise, Brownlee's assertion “there is no credence in (.) conspiracy theories” (lines 31–32) positions this as an extreme position in the sociopolitical landscape and one he does not endorse (cf. Clayman Reference Clayman2016).

Although Brownlee formulates conspiracy theorists as a problem to be “defeat[ed]” (line 25), his proposed solution bears remarkable similarities to his original comments and reiterates the party's calls for greater transparency. Thus, he balances the dilemma of appealing to centrist voters by disavowing the legitimacy of conspiracy theorists, while appealing to more partisan voters by reiterating his tacit criticism of the government. In this way the issue of potentially withheld information remains live, even as the participants jointly position conspiracy theories as politically illegitimate.