Masking the Critic: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Newspaper Editorials

Abstract

Newspaper editorials are revealed through Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) to be a site of complex criticism. A finding of this study is that the direct criticism/or direct support of a position can be mitigated by strategies at the level of discourse—and that the writer of the editorial is an agent of persuasion and solidarity, who may enact this function in a way that is conscious or unconscious indicated by possible genre conventions; needs of the argument (i.e., what might be essential, or additional support), and assumed societal pressures.

Qualitative analysis of the media discourse shows how obfuscation can occur—distancing the critic from the criticised (the journalist from the criticised Prime Minister); and suggests a frame for considering how a writer might be conscious of persuasion, as opposed to unconsciously following genre conventions of persuasion.

From an analysis of editorials about a row in 2008 between Trinidad & Tobago (T&T) Prime Minister Patrick Manning and the Trade Minister Dr Keith Rowley; and semi-structured interviews with societal elites—experts of politics and journalism—the novel discursive practice ‘pivoting’ is theorised in which a criticism is levelled, and then from which a writer pivots away using a particular manoeuvre. This delineation of power of a social actor might occur through a modal auxiliary, nominal, adverbial etc. such that what appears critical is actually a complex negotiation of power in personal, media and societal domains.

Grounded theory produced a distinct method by which editorials could be interrogated to reveal types of obfuscation of criticism, providing a potential approach for future analysis of discourse.

Appendices

Appendix

Fig. 6.2

Pivoting illustrated

Fig. 6.3

The ideological circle model

R bad and M bad are both at the bottom (and good at the top) as they are different points on a ‘line’ rather than opposite sides of the same coin. Therefore R bad doesn’t mean M good. This can be the case because M is less bad relative to society and R less good due to the writer questioning the writer’s own contextual frame, i.e. making an allegation and withdrawing from it.

How Do the Ideological Circle and Ideological Square Fit Together?

The ideological square talks about playing down OUR negatives through mitigation—reducing volume of negatives to erasure and where they do occur to playing them down ideologically (i.e. downplaying their importance).

However, while the square speaks to the point of representation, the ideological circle is about underlying opinions that produce beliefs. The square models the US and THEM, and in news the seeking of ‘balance’ in a story is often cited as a reason for utilising and oppositional voice. In an editorial, however, polarisation of beliefs is expected and perhaps even promoted. A form of balance, however, can appear to occur intellectually with a writer wanting to be frank and fair with the ‘facts’ and ‘opinions.’ Mentioning OUR negatives as a commentator isn’t expected to occur, while THEIR negatives and OUR positives would be expected in the foreground.

The ideological circle highlights the notion of pivoting—a writer who wishes to withdraw from the extreme negative and extreme positive in order to perhaps present the intellectual, fair commentator.

The circle proposes (Table 6.6):

Table 6.6 Operation of the ideological circle

Editorials