Manipulating truth in media discourse

Main Article Content

Zorica Trajkova

Abstract

Тhis paper aims to investigate the language journalists use to present news from a certain perspective and thus create public opinion. More precisely, it offers a critical discourse analysis of Macedonian and American journalistic texts reporting on one and the same political event. The main goal is to compare and contrast the specific language tools (lexical-semantic, pragmatic and stylistic) employed in the journalistic texts with different political affiliation.


The analysis reveals that there is interrelatedness between textual form and content. Journalists make a careful selection of persuasive strategies to frame the news and present it from certain, often ‘personal’, perspective. The intentionally and cautiously chosen lexical units, pragmatic markers and rhetorical tropes help journalists manipulate the news and present it in such a way that it supports a specific political cause. In this way, they tend to influence the opinions of the people and indirectly impact the political and social situation in the country.

Keywords:
newspaper articles, pragmatic markers, lexical-semantic analysis, rhetorical tropes, persuasion

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

Section
Linguistics

References

Bednarek, M. (2006). Evaluation in media discourse: Analysis of a newspaper corpus. London: Continuum.
Boas, F. (1938). Language. In F. Boas (ed.). General anthropology, 124–145. Boston, New York: D.C. Heath.
Corbett, P. J. E. (1990). Classical rhetoric for the modern student (3rd edn.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Entman, M. R. (2007). Framing bias: Media in the distribution of power. Journal of Communication, 57 (1): 163–173. [Online] Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00336.x
Fairclough, N. (1995). Media discourse. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Fowler, R. (1991). Language in the news: Discourse and ideology in the press. London: Routledge.
Gibbs, W. R. Jr. (2000). Irony in talk among friends. Metaphor and Symbol, 15 (1/2): 5–27. [Online] Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2000.9678862
Goffman, E. (1974/1986). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper and Row.
Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30 (4): 437–455. [Online] Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00009-5
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse:Exploring interaction in writing. Bodmin, Cornwall: MPG Books.
Lakoff, G. (2004). Don’t think of an elephant! Know your values and frame the debate. White River Junction, Vt.: Chelsea Green.
Leech, G. (1983). The principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
Martin, R. (1992). Irony and universe of belief. Lingua, 87: 77–90. [Online] Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(92)90026-F
Musolff, A. (2017). Metaphor, irony and sarcasm in public discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 109: 95–104. [Online] Available from:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.12.010
Neškovska, S. (2014). Types of verbal irony. Journal of Process Management – New Technologies International, special edition: 658–662. [Online] Available from:
http://www.japmnt.com/images/SpecialEdition2014/121.%20TYPES%20OF%20VERBAL%20IRONY.pdf
O’Keeffe, A. (2011). Media and discourse analysis. In J. Gee and M. Handford (eds.). The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis, 441–454. London: Routledge. Available from: https://dspace.mic.ul.ie/bitstream/handle/10395/1681/O%20?sequence=2
Richardson, J. (2007). Analysing newspapers: An approach from Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Reah, D. (2002). The language of newspapers. London: Routledge.
Reisigl, M. and Wodak, R. (2001). Discourse and discrimination: Rhetorics of racism and antisemitism. London: Routlege.
Shenli, S. (2011). Metaphor and metonymy – A tentative research into modern Cognitive Linguistics. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(1): 68–73.
DOI: 10.4304/tpls.1.1.68-73
Simpson, P. (1993). Language, ideology and point of view. London: Routledge.
Talbot, M. (2007). Media discourse: Representation and interaction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Van Dijk, A. T. (1991). Racism and the press. London: Routledge.
Van Dijk, A. T. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse and Society, 17(2): 359–383. [Online] Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926506060250
Van Dijk, T. A. (2009). Critical discourse studies: A sociocognitive approach. In R. Wodak and M. Meyer (eds.). Methods of critical discourse analysis, 62–86. London: Sage. Available from:
http://www.discourses.org/OldArticles/Critical%20discourse%20studies.pdf.
Wadi, S. I and Ahmed, A.A. (2015). Language manipulation in media. International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature (IJSELL), 3 (7): 16–26. [Online] Available from: https://www.arcjournals.org/pdfs/ijsell/v3-i7/3.pdf
Wheeldon, J. and Faubert, J. (2009). Framing experience: Concept maps, mind maps and data collection in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8 (3): 68–83. [Online] Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690900800307

Тофоска, С. (2011). Verba dicendi како лесички показатели на евиденцијалноста и нивниот сооднос со граматичките показатели за евиденцијалност во македонскиот јазик. Перифрастични конструкции со ESSE и HABERE во словенските и балканските јазици, 41–53. Скопје : МАНУ.