The Polarisation of US Society and its Representation in the Media: A Linguistic Analysis of Selected Editorials on the 2020 Presidential Election Campaign (BestMasters) 3658429615, 9783658429614

Table of contents :
Abstract
Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
1 Introduction
1.1 Scope of the Study
1.2 Previous Research
1.2.1 Previous Research on Polarisation
1.2.2 Previous Research on Presidential Elections
1.2.3 Previous Research on Newspaper Editorials
1.3 Research Gap and Research Questions
1.4 Organisation of the Study
2 Theoretical Framework
2.1 Forces of Polarisation in a Split Society
2.1.1 Institutional Split—Polity-induced Split
2.1.2 Social Split—Politics- and Policy-induced Split
2.2 Analysing Discourse
2.2.1 Analysing Discourse and its Constituents
2.2.2 Analysing Political Discourse
2.2.3 Analysing Newspaper Discourse
3 Methodology
3.1 Data Selection Process
3.1.1 Steps of Data Selection
3.1.2 Specification of Newspapers/ Magazines
3.1.3 Specification of Timescale and Data Reduction
3.2 Analytical Categories
4 Findings
4.1 Evaluation Analysis
4.1.1 Lexis
4.1.2 Rhetorical Language
4.1.3 Argumentative Language—Allusion and Comment
4.2 Topoi Analysis
4.2.1 Democracy
4.2.2 Election
4.2.3 Leadership
4.2.4 Constitution
4.2.5 Partisanship
4.2.6 Rule of Law
4.2.7 Nation
4.2.8 Misinformation
4.2.9 Racial Inequality
4.2.10 Pandemic Omnipresence
4.2.11 Beliefs and Values
4.2.12 Ideology
4.2.13 Threat/ Crisis/ Defeat
4.2.14 Division
4.2.15 Choice
4.2.16 Abortion
4.2.17 Scepticism
4.3 News Value Analysis
5 Conclusion and Outlook
5.1 Summary
5.1.1 Results
5.1.2 Implications
5.2 Limitations and Further Research
References

Citation preview

Best Masters

Christopher Berning

The Polarisation of US Society and its Representation in the Media A Linguistic Analysis of Selected Editorials on the 2020 Presidential Election Campaign

BestMasters

Mit „BestMasters“ zeichnet Springer die besten Masterarbeiten aus, die an renommierten Hochschulen in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz entstanden sind. Die mit Höchstnote ausgezeichneten Arbeiten wurden durch Gutachter zur Veröffentlichung empfohlen und behandeln aktuelle Themen aus unterschiedlichen Fachgebieten der Naturwissenschaften, Psychologie, Technik und Wirtschaftswissenschaften. Die Reihe wendet sich an Praktiker und Wissenschaftler gleichermaßen und soll insbesondere auch Nachwuchswissenschaftlern Orientierung geben. Springer awards “BestMasters” to the best master’s theses which have been completed at renowned Universities in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. The studies received highest marks and were recommended for publication by supervisors. They address current issues from various fields of research in natural sciences, psychology, technology, and economics. The series addresses practitioners as well as scientists and, in particular, offers guidance for early stage researchers.

Christopher Berning

The Polarisation of US Society and its Representation in the Media A Linguistic Analysis of Selected Editorials on the 2020 Presidential Election Campaign

Christopher Berning Lingen, Germany

ISSN 2625-3577 ISSN 2625-3615 (electronic) BestMasters ISBN 978-3-658-42961-4 ISBN 978-3-658-42962-1 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-42962-1 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer VS imprint is published by the registered company Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature. The registered company address is: Abraham-Lincoln-Str. 46, 65189 Wiesbaden, Germany Paper in this product is recyclable.

Abstract

This thesis is concerned with the polarisation of US society as represented in 27 editorial articles on the presidential election campaign 2020, taken from the New York Times, the Financial Times and the National Review. The aim of the study is to develop an integrated framework for the linguistic analysis of societal polarisation, which combines findings from the political sciences and sociology with critical linguistic concepts from political discourse analysis and newspaper discourse analysis. In that respect, this framework suggests examining polarising discourse in terms of three levels of linguistic analysis: (a) evaluative language analysis (Hunston & Thompson, 2001) concerning lexis (adjectives, nouns, verbs), rhetorics (schemes, tropes) and argumentation (allusions, commenting language), (b) topoi analysis (Wengeler, 2003; 2017) and (c) news value analysis (Bednarek, 2006). The main finding is that all three newspapers, irrespective of their political orientation, make use of polarising discourse around the presidential election 2020 and thus partially contribute to a split US society. They utilise linguistic means, either covertly or overtly, to guide the reader towards an opinion, preferably compliant with their own view. And even though all three media organisations’ editorials exhibit language indicative of their political orientation, especially the New York Times but most overtly the National Review argued for their respective opinions. This explicit presentation of the media company’s stance as well as the distinct rejection and the explicit portrayal of aversion towards opposing positions can be detected as main factors in creating a polarising environment. Equally interesting appeared the prevalence of

v

vi

Abstract

the topos Threat/ Crisis/ Defeat in all three newspapers, indicating a focus on negativity. De-polarising elements are only rarely found and do not seem to be contributing to the easing of tensions in society. Finally, the approach in this thesis can be used as starting point for the creation of a linguistic framework aiming to systematically investigate the polarisation of society through media discourse (and potentially other kinds of discourse).

Contents

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Scope of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Previous Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.1 Previous Research on Polarisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.2 Previous Research on Presidential Elections . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.3 Previous Research on Newspaper Editorials . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Research Gap and Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 Organisation of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 2 3 4 6 8 11 12

2 Theoretical Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Forces of Polarisation in a Split Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.1 Institutional Split—Polity-induced Split . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.1.1 The Party System in the US . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.1.2 The Electoral System in the US . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.1.3 The Media System in the US . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.2 Social Split—Politics- and Policy-induced Split . . . . . . . 2.1.2.1 Demographic and Socio-Political Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.2.2 Values, Beliefs and Ethnic Background . . . . . . 2.2 Analysing Discourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 Analysing Discourse and its Constituents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2 Analysing Political Discourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17 18 22 22 25 28 32 32 35 40 41 45

vii

viii

Contents

2.2.2.1 Evaluation Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2.1.1 Bednarek’s Approach to Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2.1.2 Hunston & Thompson’s Approach to Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2.2 Analysis of Topoi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2.2.1 Wodak’s Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2.2.2 Wengeler’s Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysing Newspaper Discourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.3.1 Newsworthiness and News Values . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.3.2 Media Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.3.3 Media Polarisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

47 48 48 50 51 52 55 56

3 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Data Selection Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.1 Steps of Data Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.2 Specification of Newspapers/ Magazines . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.2.1 The New York Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.2.2 Financial Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.2.3 National Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.3 Specification of Timescale and Data Reduction . . . . . . . 3.2 Analytical Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

59 59 61 63 64 66 68 69 70

4 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Evaluation Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.1 Lexis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.1.1 Adjectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.1.2 Nouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.1.3 Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.2 Rhetorical Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.2.1 Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.2.2 Tropes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.2.2.1 Metaphorical Tropes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.2.2.2 Further Tropes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.3 Argumentative Language—Allusion and Comment . . . . 4.2 Topoi Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1 Democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2 Election . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.3 Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.4 Constitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

73 74 74 74 79 83 86 86 89 89 94 97 102 104 105 107 110

2.2.3

46 46

Contents

ix

4.2.5 Partisanship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.6 Rule of Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.7 Nation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.8 Misinformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.9 Racial Inequality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.10 Pandemic Omnipresence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.11 Beliefs and Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.12 Ideology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.13 Threat/ Crisis/ Defeat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.14 Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.15 Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.16 Abortion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.17 Scepticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 News Value Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

112 114 115 116 117 119 121 124 129 131 132 133 134 135

5 Conclusion and Outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.1 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.2 Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Limitations and Further Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

139 140 140 144 148

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

151

List of Figures

Figure 1.1 Figure 1.2 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.3

Figure 2.4

Figure 2.5

Figure 2.6 Figure 2.7 Figure 2.8 Figure 5.1

Components of the Theoretical Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cycle of Data Selection Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Three-Dimensional Concept (Rohe, 1994) and Six-Dimensional Concept (Wodak, 2009) of Politics . . . Social and Political Polarising Forces in US Society . . . . . . Racial Profile of US Population in 2045, William H. Frey Analysis of US Census Population Projections from 2018 (cf. Johnson, 2020) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Question of Responsibility for Health Care Coverage in the US between 2000 and 2018 (Pew Research Center (Think Tank), 2018) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Question of Importance: Nobody in Need or Freedom to Pursue Goals? (Pew Research Center (Think Tank), 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Three-Dimensional Model of Discourse Analysis . . . . . . . . . Exemplary Classification of Political Discourse . . . . . . . . . . . Bednarek (2006): Decision-Making Process for the Publishing of a Story & News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Linguistic Polarising Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13 14 19 21

33

34

35 42 46 53 143

xi

List of Tables

Table 2.1

Table 2.2 Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Table 3.4 Table 3.5 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 4.4 Table 5.1

List of Topoi Suggested by Ruth Wodak in the Context of Social Exclusion and Discrimination (Wodak, 2001, p. 74) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . News Values according to Bednarek (2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Description of Steps prior to Data Selection and in Data Selection in CDA (very loosely based upon Jäger, 2015) . . . . List of Selected New York Times Editorials (in chronological order) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . List of Selected Financial Times Editorials (in chronological order) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . List of Selected National Review Editorials (in chronological order) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Linguistic Categories applied in the Course of Analysis . . . . Findings: Evaluative Adjectives (including modifying adverbs) in the NYT, FT and NR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Findings: Evaluative Nouns in the NYT, FT and NR . . . . . . . Findings Evaluative Verbs (including verb-idioms) in the NYT, FT and NR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Findings: Topoi in NYT, FT and NR Newspaper Editorials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fairclough’s Three-Dimensional Model Applied to the Linguistic Analysis of Polarising Forces in Society . . .

49 54 62 65 67 68 72 75 80 84 103 147

xiii

1

Introduction

Examining issues concerning polarisation and split society is an intricate matter as these abstract concepts seem more concrete than ever before. Western democracies are struggling with polarisation to an unprecedented extent. In times where a few characters on Twitter can cause severe political and societal distortions, keeping a relatively neutral perspective on subjects that themselves are polarising is the major challenge of this thesis. I inserted the adverb relatively to emphasise that Critical Discourse Analyses (henceforth CDA) is not a neutral approach, but it demands for the inclusion of the author’s knowledge and experience in analysing the discourse at hand. Van Dijk (1993), for example, clarifies that “critical discourse analysts (should) take an explicit socio-political stance: they spell out their point of view, perspective, principles and aims, both within their discipline and within society at large” (p. 252). Therefore, one of the objectives of this thesis is to investigate the polarising power of political newspaper discourse while reflecting about one’s own position on certain issues. Only few research has so far been conducted on polarising language in the news and no framework for the investigation of polarising language from a linguistic perspective has thus far been suggested. Therefore, this study closely examines newspaper editorials on the presidential election campaign 2020 to contribute to a possible framework on how to analyse and discover polarising newspaper discourse which might also be transferable to other types of discourse. What exactly the term polarisation refers to and why the presidential election campaign commends itself as object of investigation will be explained in the chapters to follow.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 C. Berning, The Polarisation of US Society and its Representation in the Media, BestMasters, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-42962-1_1

1

2

1

Introduction

Before elaborating on the scope of the study, the research questions and the study’s structure, I would like to conclude this introductory paragraph by quoting Barack Obama both as a form of summary and outlook. He states that the American democracy seems to be teetering on the brink of a crisis—a crisis rooted in a fundamental contest between two opposing visions of what America is and what it should be; a crisis that has left the body politic divided, angry, and mistrustful, and has allowed for an ongoing breach of institutional norms, procedural safeguards, and the adherence to basic facts that both Republicans and Democrats once took for granted (Obama, 2020, p. xv).

Obama then goes on to conclude that this phenomenon is not new and in many ways “has defined the American experience […]” (ibid.) and that “[at] the heart of this long-running battle is a simple question: Do we care to match the reality of America to its ideals?” (ibid.). This has not been the case in the course of history, from the time when the founding documents proclaimed all men equal and still only saw slaves as three-fifths of a man to the protests of the Black Lives Matter movement in 2020 due to the significant over-representation of Black people when it comes to police killings (cf. Sinyangwe, 2020). This fundamental question about American ideals should guide the following investigation as only few aspects are more polarising and divisive, in both politics and society, than ideals, beliefs and values.

1.1

Scope of the Study

Addressing the significance of the subject investigated in this thesis, Klein (2020) attempts to explain the unprecedented amount of polarisation and its omnipresence in contemporary society by asserting that “the polarization we see around us is the logical outcome of a complex system of incentives, technologies, identities, and political institutions” (p. 250). He argues that “[it] implicates capitalism and geography, politicians and political institutions, human psychology and America’s changing demography” (ibid.). All these factors combined with the insight that nowadays parties are weak but partisanship in general is strong (cf. ibid., p. 176) can be viewed as reasons for a political figure like Donald Trump conquering the highest office in the United States. This development has been predictable, as over “the past fifty years, our partisan identities have merged with our racial, religious, geographic, ideological, and cultural identities. Those merged identities have attained a weight that is breaking our institutions and tearing at the

1.2 Previous Research

3

bonds that hold the country together” (Klein, 2020, p. xxii f.). As we are locked into those identities, one may conclude, there is “virtually no candidate, no information, no condition, that can force us to change our minds” (ibid., p. xiv). This is precisely why the case at hand, the presidential election campaign 2020, is well-worth investigating. After Donald Trump’s election victory in 2016 over Hillary Clinton, even the most neutral observer will admit that the tone, behaviour, and attitude in Washington had changed. Donald Trump, as President of the United States, has done and said things which many would not have had considered imaginable to hear by the presumably most powerful man in the world. Therefore, not surprisingly, his language has already been extensively investigated in various linguistics studies (e.g. Wang & Liu, 2018; Sclafani, 2019; McIntosh & Mendoza-Denton, 2020). Even though his supporters may evaluate his presidency differently in retrospect, it can be concluded that it was characterised by verbal and digital confrontations with domestic institutions, the free press, federal judiciary, the electoral process, allies and enemies both nationally and internationally as well as an obvious tendency towards the spread of misinformation. This is best underlined by an analysis presented in the Washington Post which states that “Trump made 30,573 false or misleading claims as President. Nearly half came in his final year” (Kessler, 2021). This controversy around Trump is what makes the case particularly interesting and worthy to investigate. His tendency to clash with media institutions and public figures as well as the US media’s habit of side-taking during presidential election campaigns made it seem advisable to examine media discourse in this thesis. This is why three popular and politically differing news organisations were selected, namely the New York Times (henceforth NYT), the Financial Times (henceforth FT), and the National Review (henceforth NR). Additionally, they all frequently published editorials directed towards certain events or actions during the presidential election campaign 2020. The style of writing and the application of rhetorical, lexical and argumentative means to argue, either implicitly or explicitly, for their opinion aim at influencing the reader. The attempt to convince one’s readership of a certain world view could already be described as a polarising act.

1.2

Previous Research

The following chapters present an overview of linguistic studies which have been previously conducted to investigate polarisation, presidential elections and newspaper editorials. The majority of studies on societal polarisation has so far been conducted from a political, historical and sociological point of view. However,

4

1

Introduction

linguistics and particularly the field of discourse studies have mostly neglected this subject matter in the past, and discourse analyses of news discourse on a possible split US society are practically not existent. To be able to determine aspects of split society and forces of polarisation in the United States, the concept of polarisation needs to be specified. To begin with, polarisation triggers split societies. It is generally defined as follows: Any general move of political actors from centrist to extreme political positions. Some factors that may lead to polarization include: ethnic or religious violence and counterviolence; political leaders taking up ‘expressive’ positions expressing ideology rather than ‘instrumental’ positions aiming to win the next election; and changes in the electoral system such that it becomes more profitable to woo one’s core supporters than aim for the median voter (McLean & McMillan, 2009).

Thus, polarisation first and foremost concerns political actors and actions. At the same time, any part of society is affected and any participant in societal actions, be it citizen, politician or journalist, can be polarised or may polarise others. In nowadays’ political system, the media represent a vital part of politics which makes them political actors in return. This might then lead to social upheavals and consequently to a split society. In this context, the introduction of the ‘feedback cycle of polarisation’ is considered useful. It describes the phenomenon that, “[to] appeal to a more polarized public, political institutions and political actors behave in more polarized ways. As political institutions and actors become more polarized, they further polarize the public” (Klein E., 2020, p. xix). This is how the feedback cycle is set off and how the public is further polarised by both politicians and the media. Klein (2020) further describes another phenomenon which is called the ‘echo chamber theory of polarisation’. People are cocooning themselves into hearing information that only enforce their believes and views (cf. ibid.). The opposite position is never or hardly adequately represented in partisan news media, which is why views, stances and ideological beliefs might become more extreme and undifferentiated. How this might be reflected in language will be indicated in the following chapter.

1.2.1

Previous Research on Polarisation

Despite the earlier mentioned absence of linguistic studies about polarisation, in a wider sense, two examples of investigation in this field exist. Baum & Groeling (2008) study five online news sources, such as wire services, cable news and political blog sites, to compare their news judgement in the months prior to, and immediately following, the 2006 midterm election. They investigated the relative

1.2 Previous Research

5

prevalence of story characteristics across stories which were or were not featured on Web sites, logic analyses of correlates of featuring news stories on Web sites related to anti-democratic or anti-republican views, probabilities of featuring on Web site and the probability of featuring stories with costly or cheap talk. Some findings suggest that claims of partisans on both sides, the left and right, concerning ideological bias in the media are partially correct. Additionally, those findings revealed that to a certain extent political discourse in the US is heavily influenced by news media. Evidence was found for both, greater partisan filtering of some media outlets on the one hand and reliance on traditional newsworthiness criteria of different organisations on the other hand. Furthermore, Abbas (2020) investigated the politicisation of the COVID-19 pandemic by use of a schemata analysis of news in two selected newspapers, namely the New York Times (US) and the Global Times (China). The study is based upon van Dijk’s (1991) assumption that discourse is divided into three structures, namely macro-, super- and microstructures. The macrostructure is thematic, describing the main subject. The superstructure instead is schematic. It shows the main parts of a news story and how it is arranged and organised. Finally, the microstructure is concerned with semantic, syntactic, stylistic and rhetorical aspects. By applying these schematic structures, Abbas found out that the news of COVID-19 has been politicised and used for ideological interests. Both newspapers invested the three discourse structures ideologically in their reports and deepened the split between the two countries by means of their coverage. The focus was set on negativity. Finally, the article recommends that pandemics should not be politicised but international cooperation and peace should be foregrounded, especially in challenging times like the coronavirus pandemic. It becomes obvious that the issue of split society and media-induced division as well as polarisation appear to be relatively blank sheets from a linguistic point of view. Those two studies above are only related to the topic and do not really focus on the subject of polarisation linguistically. This is why it is recommended to approach it from various different perspectives. Therefore, in the following two subchapters, previous research on US elections is presented. Then, analyses investigating newspaper discourse are discussed. In all studies presented, the authors applied a discourse-analytical or CDA lens to investigate the texts in question, similar to the approach adopted in this thesis. For each study, a possible connection with the topic of split society is addressed and the relevance for my investigation emphasised.

6

1.2.2

1

Introduction

Previous Research on Presidential Elections

The unique character of the electoral system in the United States has led to the establishment of a wide-ranging and interdisciplinary field of study. Especially discourse linguistic investigations have contributed to meaningful findings on this subject. As already indicated, the 2016 presidential election in the US, resulting in the presidency of Donald Trump, has been subject to various linguistic analyses, especially on his style of language. For instance, Wang and Liu (2018) analyse stylistic features of Trump’s utterances from a diachronic evolution perspective to investigate how it differs from other politicians’ communicating style. They looked into the provocative—also represented in the article’s title—question whether Trump was rambling like a fourth-grade student. So far, previous research had looked into Trump’s style of communication at the time of certain events and compared it to specific contrasting political figures. Schumacher and Eskenazi (2018) instead looked into the evolution of speech over time across five candidates in the 2016 election, including Trump and Clinton, and investigate a relatively small corpus only while applying a rather strict linguistic perspective. A small corpus size and the temporal proximity of most compared political figures’ speeches are considered insufficient. For the comparative diachronic perspective, their study chooses Clinton’s and Obama’s language style as subject of investigation, thus allowing for a more comprehensive approach. The stylistic features selected for investigation conform with those selected by former research in this field of study: They investigated three features related to lexical, syntactic and content level, namely vocabulary richness (e.g. elaborateness), readability tests (e.g. difficulty degree of speeches and debates) and thematic concentration (e.g. focus on a certain topic). The corpus consists of 180 texts which were collected from the American Presidency Project. Looking at the results, the aim of including context into analysis only succeeded superficially. The analysis relies mainly on quantitative results. These show that Trump’s lexical diversity is smaller than that of the other two candidates during debates, while greater than others in campaign speeches. Furthermore, the level of thematic concentration of most of Trump’s campaign speeches is higher than those of Clinton and Obama, while the debates are close to those of the other two. Finally, statistical tests conducted on three indicators show that Trump’s communicative style is significantly different from the other two. The study itself does not specifically address the issue of split society in the United States, yet it does prove useful for this thesis’ investigation as it represents an analysis of a certain type of political discourse. Similarly, Khajavi & Rasti (2020) examined Obama’s and Romney’s discursive strategies and possible differences in their linguistic behaviour. Their

1.2 Previous Research

7

presidential election campaigns in 2012 saw different approaches to capturing the audience’s attention. The overall aim of the study was to show how language was used for political meaning-making at a specific significant period in contemporary US-history using a corpus of 30 speeches. To begin with, the study addresses former research on elections in general and on presidential elections, both with and without a CDA approach. Lakoff (2004), for example, analysed the framesetting during the 2004 presidential campaigns of Bush and Kerry, while Wodak (2006) instead focused on the importance of values during the 2004 campaigns and how both sides presented them to the public. The research gap Khajavi’s and Rasti’s study aims to fill is the investigation of strategies used by Romney and Obama in 2012 and the revelation of possible differences between them in terms of discourse devices used. Their study proceeds in two steps applying a CDA approach. The first one being an investigation of ten percent of the data by applying Van Leeuwen’s extensive framework of actor analysis and his, as well as Reyes’, (de-)legitimation discursive strategies. The results of this pre-study function as analytical categories for the remaining data in step two. Particular focus is set on social actor representation (e.g. “Hello, Parma! Hello Ohio!”) and positive self-representation (e.g. “our campaign is about big things”) and negative other-representation (e.g. “When it comes to economy, it’s bad enough that our opponents want to take us back to the failed policies of the last decade”). The results show that Obama mostly focused on utilising the myth of the American Dream. Romney instead mostly used the strategy of presenting others negatively. What both candidates had in common was the reference to the US as an exceptional country with exceptional citizens. Furthermore, traces of populist language in regard to national identity and the place of the US in the world were discovered for both politicians and the extensive use of rhetorical devices, particularly metaphors, was identified. The issue of society is discussed in this study whereas an actual split of society was not addressed as electoral speeches seek to foreground positive aspects, except for the negative peculiarities of one’s opponent. Polarisation as a concept to influence one’s audience was not mentioned at all. The United States, as the global leader that they are and their domestic affairs have always influenced economies, politics, and cultures around the world. Therefore, the election of a controversial figure, such as Donald Trump, has been subject to a lot of debate. Linguistic research on this topic, especially in the field of pragmatics, was conducted by Sibarani & Marlina (2018). They examined how politeness strategies were used by Trump in the Republican debate. Previous studies have also investigated different world leaders (cf. Hussein & Hussein, 2020; Khaled, 2020), but little attention was drawn to Donald Trump’s strategies in the first presidential debate on 26 September 2016. Therefore, the questions addressed by Nguyen & Sawalmeh (2020) are what strategies Trump

8

1

Introduction

used in his presidential debates and whether Trump used strategies which were different from those of other conventional politicians. The theoretical groundwork for this article begins with the discussion of CDA approaches and discourse in general. Then, it specifies the analysis of political discourse and political debate, especially presidential debates. According to the authors, Trump’s “unique persona” (Sibarani & Marlina, 2018, p. 71) demands for several additional models of investigation, like Van Dijk’s (1990) social cognition approach and Fairclough’s (1995) three dimensional model, to be able to conduct a detailed critical analysis of the discourse at hand. Mainly, four strategies used in presidential debates are examined more closely in their study, e.g. self-acclamation (e.g. “And by the way, my tax cut is the biggest since Ronald Reagan. I’m very proud of it”), describing opposing candidates through the verbal attack (e.g. “Your regulations are a disaster, and you’re going to increase regulations all over the place”), self-rectification or image-enhancement through the defence against opposing candidates’ blaming argument (e.g. Clinton: “Donald was one of the people who rooted for the housing crisis”, Trump: “That’s called business, by the way”), and extra-vocalisation (e.g. “And look at her website. You know what? It’s no difference than this. She’s telling us how to fight ISIS”). Results show that Trump was able to establish his image as an ‘atypical‘ candidate and to create fear among the public, causing them to vote for him. In general, he used traditional strategies of argumentation with a more business-oriented approach. Similar to the first two studies discussed in this subchapter, the issue of polarising forces in a split society was not considered. This study still proves relevant to my research as political discourse and particularly argumentation strategies were investigated.

1.2.3

Previous Research on Newspaper Editorials

The media landscape offers opportunities for scientific research ad infinitum. For this thesis, particularly those studies investigating newspaper editorials are of importance as this text type can be considered a representation of a section of the societies’ opinion. A selection of investigations will be presented in the chapters to follow. Political crises have always been of special interest for journalists across the world. The gulf war and especially its coverage represent a popular research subject until today. But instead of focusing on news coverage during the crisis itself, Hackett & Zhao (1994) examined press treatment of anti-war protests in the United States. It looks into the application of interpretative frames which journalists implicitly applied to anti-war protest in the US press. Furthermore, the study investigates how different voices within the protest movement were treated and

1.2 Previous Research

9

connects the analysis of interpretative frames to culturally embedded ideological assumptions, thus arguably composing a master narrative. Previous research had so far been concerned, for example, with media coverage during the student protests in the late 60s (cf. Gitlin, 1980). Additionally, further research on the student protests in the 60s found that even though most reporting considered the protests as legal and peaceful, the expectation of violence shaped at least some of the coverage (cf. Halloran, Murdock, & Elliot, 1970). Building on this for the present crisis under investigation, three particular interpretative frames were chosen to examine the coverage on the gulf war protests, namely the ‘Enemy Within’-frame, the ‘Marginal Oddity’-frame and the ‘Legitimate Controversy’frame. Methodologically, the study is based upon an archive of press clippings at New York University’s Centre for War, Peace and the News Media. After initially conducting a content analysis of all headlines in the archive and of 70 news articles, a close textual analysis then looks at salient linguistic characteristics of each frame, as manifested in selected examples from the archive’s 312 opinion/ editorial articles. Their discussion includes typical themes and arguments (e.g. different definitions of protest), equations and oppositions, historical and other metaphors (e.g. Hitler comparisons), implicit reality judgements, overall tone and selected lexical and syntactic choices (e.g. referring to protesters as criminals or traitors and describing them as un-American or disloyal). The results show that the selected frames are predominant in the majority of articles. The analysis of different voices demonstrates that some perspectives tend to be relatively privileged over others. Further, the movement as a whole was placed on defensive in press discourse, compelled to defend its own legitimacy. Therefore, the authors conclude that these patterns of press discourse are related to America’s ‘master narrative’ of war which was threatened by the traumatising experiences of the Vietnam war. The bias suggested displayed by the media can be addressed as a hint towards possible societal divisions in the US. Next, the study of Izadi & Saghaye-Biria (2007) focuses on the representation of US policies toward Iran’s nuclear program in editorials of three elite US newspapers (NYT, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post). It addresses the question whether these representations contribute to the formation of in- and out-group identities based on Orientalist images of Islam and Muslims. In particular, a first question addresses how events, players and policies about the Iranian nuclear program are portrayed in these three US elite newspapers, and a second question discusses whether Orientalist arguments were used as premises for advancing policy recommendations. The research gap describes the underrepresentation of studies using CDA to study Orientalism in the news media (e.g. Karim, 1997). The theoretical background comprises three main concepts: Media, Ideology and

10

1

Introduction

Orientalism. The media are described as, far from being neutral agents, performing a function that is ideological and political. Moreover, the dominant ideology of Western relations with the Islamic world is described as Orientalism. Background is provided on the case of Iran as relevant element for Orientalism and on Iran’s nuclear program to determine a political state of the art. Moreover, the method of analysis oriented towards the approach of the ideological square and additional methods from the field of CDA. Firstly, they look at two linguistic elements: naming choices and lexical choices. Secondly, the authors consider whether and which of the eight Orientalist themes (cf. Alatom, 1997) serve as the premises for the assumptions made in the three editorials. Therefore, the authors analysed, as mentioned, the naming choices, lexical choices, and argumentative features of each paragraph of the editorials that may have been used for the construction of Orientalist descriptions such as us versus them. These individual paragraphs are considered the unit of analysis. The authors finally conclude that today’s descriptions of Muslims support the claim that Islam and everything around it is depicted as a source of threat. The newspapers did not challenge the underlying assumption that Iran has a clandestine nuclear weapons program, that the Islamic nature of its government was a threat and that it should not be trusted with such technology. Thus the authors conclude that the issue of trusting their own government was more relevant than actual evidence and that the addressing of other nuclear powers is very different from the addressing of Iranian nuclear technologies. Again, societal divisions are of minor importance for this study, but the features of its approach (CDA) prove relevant for this thesis. Finally, newspaper editorials are characterised as a genre of news discourse which is openly persuasive and subjective. They are expected to express opinions and make ideological presuppositions. Thus, Hardman (2008) looks at the ways in which identities of political leaders have been constructed in British newspaper editorials over the last 35 years. Of particular interest is the difference in construction between different tabloid and broadsheet newspapers across the political spectrum and how such constructed identities serve and reflect the ideological goals of the newspapers concerned. Linguistically, strategies adopted when appraising political leadership and when constructing a particular view of reality for their readers are examined. Hardman’s (2008) literature review is very detailed and looks at different discourse kinds and concepts in various studies, such as CDA and media discourse, CDA and social change, identity and ideology, and stance in discourse. The research gap resulting from this extensive overview concerns the identities of political figures in the media as an expression of media ideology. The British newspapers selected for the analysis are The Guardian, The Telegraph, the Daily Mail and the Mirror. The time period for the data collection ranges from 1973 until 1998. For each newspaper, sample editorials were selected

1.3 Research Gap and Research Questions

11

on the first Wednesday (randomly chosen) of the months September to March at two points per decade, from the 1970s onward. The two points were 1973–1974 and 1978–1979, and the same points were used for each decade. The author then selected one day from these samples on which each editorial was written about the same political figure or issue. Methodologically, the thesis applies a modified approach of CDA by incorporating theories of performed identities and metaphor with a Discourse Historical Approach to CDA. The results of this study exhibit that the creation of identities, alongside the stance adopted towards individuals and political issues, are found to both help create an ideological identity for the newspaper itself while simultaneously encouraging readers to conceptualise events in a way that serves the ideology in question. It further shows that newspapers applied different strategies to evaluate political figures in a way serving the newspaper’s ideology. Differences in those strategies are an expression of differences in the political stance. This expression of stance will also be investigated in my thesis, hence making the newspapers function as a reflection of society.

1.3

Research Gap and Research Questions

As the state of the art report in the previous subchapters has shown, to date the linguistic nature of societal polarisation as represented in newspaper language remains unclear. This is why the overarching aim of this thesis is to provide a framework for the analysis of polarisation in US society and apply if to selected editorials from the NYT, the FT and the NR. This thesis aims to contribute to the wider field of CDA analyses on US politics, split society and polarising language use and will, more precisely, address the influence of different areas of society as well as how polarising language is utilised in newspaper editorials from all parts of the political spectrum, be it deliberately or not. The following three research questions each describe one part of the analysis. Evaluative language and topoi are analysed as well as the consideration of news values which leads to the following three questions: (1) What are the main polarising (and possibly de-polarising) evaluative patterns used in the editorials and in what way do substantial differences exist between the newspapers with regard to evaluative language? (2) What are the main polarising (and possibly de-polarising) topoi applied by the newspapers and how do the used topoi differ between the newspapers? (3) In what way is the newspapers’ orientation towards certain news values and the concept of newsworthiness detectable?

12

1

Introduction

Finally, as this thesis suggests a framework in which various levels of linguistic analysis, such as evaluation, topoi and news value analysis, are included, it becomes necessary to consider how this approach might be applicable to differing contexts and types of media in further research. Therefore, in addition to the three research questions presented above which relate to the subject matter of polarising elements so to speak, this thesis also investigates the following methodological research question: (4) How may the approach in this thesis contribute to a general linguistic framework for approaching the polarisation of society, particularly induced by the media? As indicated earlier, polarising language in the media is a relatively blank sheet in linguistic analysis. Thus, the suggested framework in this thesis might be taken as starting point for an even more comprehensive approach for the analysis of polarising political media discourse.

1.4

Organisation of the Study

Having characterised the main aims of the analysis, the research gaps as well as the research questions, this chapter briefly describes the structure of this thesis. To begin with, chapter 2 introduces the theoretical framework (see Figure 1.1) which consists of a two-part introduction, firstly into the phenomenon of forces of polarisation in a split society (Section 2.1) and secondly into discourse analysis (Section 2.2). Section 2.1, is further divided into an institutional and social split, thus meeting the needs of different spheres of society. Section 2.1.1 addresses reasons which are traceable in the institutional sphere of society and might contribute to an explanation of societal polarisation. This includes the party system (Section 2.1.1.1) as well as the electoral (Section 2.1.1.2) and media system (Section 2.1.1.3). The party system, especially its history and uniqueness, is considered one of the major factors for recent political developments. Adding up to this effect, the electoral system is considered with respect to partisanship, its general structure, the voting system, peculiarities and obstacles to voting. Finally, the media system is viewed as the third determining factor for the institutional split, addressing current developments in the media sphere as well as aspects of trustworthiness and media selection. In contrast, Section 2.1.2 discusses issues of demography and socio-political background as well as certain values, beliefs and

1.4 Organisation of the Study

13

ethnic backgrounds prevalent in the US, added by current developments contributing to polarising environments. The socio-political background (Section 2.1.2.1) includes general demographic information about the United States with regard to age, race and ethnicity as well as considerations of aspects such as poverty and inequality. Values, beliefs and the ethnic background (Section 2.1.2.2) covers vital beliefs and values, racial inequality and racial stratification as well as historical reasons for racial inequality in the US. Additionally, aspects of climate and environment, social movements, pandemic influences and religious affinities are elaborated on.

The Party System

Instuonal Split

The Electoral System

The Media System

Forces of Polarisaon in a Split Society

Demographic and Socio-Polical Background Social Split Values, Beliefs and Ethnic Background

Theorecal Framework

Analysing Discourse and its Constuents Evaluaon Analysing Polical Discourse Topos Analysis Analysing Discourse Newsworthiness and News Values Analysing Newspaper Discourse

Media Funcons

Media Polarisaon

Figure 1.1 Components of the Theoretical Framework. (Own illustration)

14

1

Introduction

Section 2.2, as the second part of the integrated framework, first provides insights into basic notions of discourse analysis, discourse structure and important constituents (Section 2.2.1). Second, it addresses the analysis of political discourse (Section 2.2.2) in terms of Bednarek’s (2006) as well as Hunston & Thompson’s (2001) approach to evaluation (Section 2.2.2.1) and also in terms of Wodak’s (2009) and Wengeler’s (2003; 2017) approach to topos analysis (Section 2.2.2.2). Finally, particularities of newspaper discourse, such as newsworthiness and news values, functions of the media as well as aspects of media polarisation are discussed in Section 2.2.3. Chapter 3 describes the methodology of this thesis. It is divided into the description of the data selection process (Section 3.1) and the presentation of applied analytical categories (Section 3.2). Section 3.1.1 describes guidelines on how to approach sets of data in CDA which need to be examined and narrowed down. This kind of pattern was not explicitly described in previous studies adopting CDA so far and aided in limiting the amount of editorials on the presidential election campaign for the analysis (see Figure 1.2). Another important aspect

Outset

Final Criteria for Data Reducon

Research Queson

Timescale Specificaon

Discourse Type

Media Organisaon Selecon

Media Type Selecon

Figure 1.2 Cycle of Data Selection Procedure. (Own illustration)

1.4 Organisation of the Study

15

are the newspapers’ characteristics as well as an assessment of their respective political orientation or leaning (Section 3.1.2). Additionally, the timescale for the data selection is justified by referring to distinct events relevant for the data at hand (Section 3.1.3). Section 3.2 presents the linguistic categories applied in the analysis, such as evaluative language, topoi and news values. Chapter 4 presents and discusses the findings of the analysis in terms of the three research questions mentioned earlier in this chapter. The evaluation analysis (Section 4.1) discusses different aspects of language, including lexis (Section 4.1.1.), rhetorical language (Section 4.1.2) and argumentative language (Section 4.1.2). The topoi analysis (Section 4.2) considers 17 different topoi which were predominantly discovered in the editorials. Section 4.3 then presents the results of a brief news value analysis. Finally, Chapter 5 summarises the results of this thesis and their implications. Furthermore, possible limitations and opportunities for further research in this research area are suggested. The data set, 27 editorials taken from the New York Times (10 editorials), the Financial Times (10 editorials) and the National Review (7 editorials), can be provided. These newspaper editorials are numbered with regard to the newspaper they were published in and their respective day of publication (e.g. NYT.1 refers to the first editorial from the New York Times, NR.3 to the third editorial from the National Review, etc). In addition, the appendix presents more detailed tables on the topoi discovered in the newspaper editorials.

2

Theoretical Framework

This section describes the theoretical background of this study. It cannot be stressed enough how vital a multi-facetted analysis for critical discourse investigations is. This is also why the theoretical framework discusses not only linguistic aspects but also socio-scientific considerations and historical facts and figures. To begin with, this thesis will therefore discuss the three main political dimensions, namely polity, policy and politics, and argues for taking these as a foundation for the considerations in the chapters to follow. Therefore, first the institutional split will be examined closely, looking at the party and the electoral system as well as the media landscape. Historically, the development of the political system and resulting institutional realities, such as the electoral or the party system, have at least partially provided the breeding ground for social dislocations and disunity. In the course of time and building on this institutional ground, social, political and economic developments have on the one hand translated into more wealth, improved living conditions and at least judicial equality among the US-population. On the other hand, those advancements and changes resulted in ever-deepening trenches within the society and the political system itself. This is why secondly the social split will be discussed, elucidating the demographic and socio-political background as well as values, beliefs and ethnic factors in the US. Impacts from the past and present equally play a decisive role in leading to this division among the US-population. Not only do current events allow for conclusions about the condition of a society, but they function as additional insights for later interpretations and analysis, thus providing background knowledge relevant for the comprehension of references and utterances in some of the newspaper editorials.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 C. Berning, The Polarisation of US Society and its Representation in the Media, BestMasters, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-42962-1_2

17

18

2 Theoretical Framework

In Section 2.2, the concept of discourse analysis will be introduced as a framework for the analysis. Firstly, discourse and text are differentiated and characterised as relevant concepts for CDA. Fairclough’s (1995) three-dimensional model of discourse is introduced and connected to this thesis as well as relevant terms for CDA. Secondly, the analysis of political discourse as a specific field of discourse analysis is made the subject of discussion. Different approaches to the concept and linguistic category of evaluation, for example by Bednarek (2006) or Hunston and Thompson (2000), are discussed. Additionally, approaches to topoi analysis, according to Wodak (2001) or Wengeler (2003; 2017), are examined and their advantages and disadvantages balanced against each other. Thirdly, aspects of newspaper discourse analysis will be emphasised. Newsworthiness and news values will be considered as important as general media functions and research on media polarisation.

2.1

Forces of Polarisation in a Split Society

To begin with, a closer look at the term politics in general seems advisable. Rohe (1994) describes three well-established and commonly applied dimensions of politics, namely policy, politics and polity (cf. p. 61 ff.). Policy refers to the content-related dimension, addressing the political program or legislative proposals of governments or parties. Politics instead specifies actual political actions. This includes procedural and decision-making processes expressed as a conflictual fight for power and influence and as a dispute for shares of power between different groups and individuals. Summed up, politics concerns the constant collection of consent and agreement for certain action programs, for policies. Both dimensions cannot be separated completely, neither in fact nor in time. And both find their bases in polity which characterises the framework for politics and policy. This political framework determines conditions under which political actions take place. It includes institutions, constitutions, separation of powers, independent courts, etc. (cf. Rohe, 1994.; Figure 2.1). An attempt to define politics more precisely and to relate it to discourse analysis was undertaken by Wodak (2009). Compared to Rohe, she added three more dimensions of politics. The six dimensions include the performance of politics, the everyday life of politics and politicians, the impact of politicians’ personality on performance, the massproduction of politics, for example the inclusion of spin-doctors or advisors, the

2.1 Forces of Polarisation in a Split Society

19

recontextualization of politics in the media and the participation in politics (cf. ibid, p. 24; Figure 2.1). The latter two portray the outer sphere of politics, beyond institutions and full-time politicians. Nevertheless, for the following explanations on split society in the US, only Rohe’s three-dimensional model of politics will be considered due to the applicability to the different fields of division within the United States of America. Furthermore, its narrower view on politics allows for a reasonable limitation of aspects taken into account. Wodak’s approach still allows for invaluable considerations in the course of research. It offers an additional perspective on the three dimensions and helps to comprehend external influences on politics.

Parcipaon in Polics

Polics Recontextualizaon of Polics in the Media;

Six Dimensions of Polics (Wodak)

Three Dimensions of Polics (Rohe)

Polity

Performance of Polics

Everyday Life of Polics and Policians

MassProducon of Polics

Policy Impact of Policians' Personality on Performance

Figure 2.1 Three-Dimensional Concept (Rohe, 1994) and Six-Dimensional Concept (Wodak, 2009) of Politics. (Own illustration)

For a better understanding of polarisation as defined in Section 1.2, the following explanations attempt to establish a connection between the three dimensions of politics and the phenomenon of societal division. The institutional reality in the US, in other words the polity-dimension, is one of three influencing factors for the split of society as it represents the reasons for existing fundamental conflicts

20

2 Theoretical Framework

and cleavages. Nowadays, one can conclude that it sets the base for every following conflict and division. Historically, it would be arguable, in accordance with Lipset and Rokkan’s (1967) Cleavage Theory, that institutionally existing splits were the result of social upheavals and cleavages. These included the ownerworker-, church-state-, urban-rural- and centre-periphery-cleavage. In times of nation building and societal reorganisation, these cleavages were pivotal. And this theory can still contribute valuable insights for the explanation of current societal cleavages, even though today, different cleavages are of importance. These, for example, allow for parties to be allocated within a certain political spectrum. These are socio-cultural (vertical) and socio-economic cleavage (horizontal). A possible explanation would be that these have their roots in Lipset and Rokkan’s cleavages. Thus, at the same time, the from these cleavages emerged institutional reality also represents the starting point for all present cleavages and divisions. Further factors are actions in politics which induce the presented developments, problems and cleavages. The politics-dimension addresses how political decisions lead to socio-political and ethnic-religious realities. Finally, referring to the policy-dimension, political content, such as legislative guidelines or programs, induces the split even further and reinforces cleavages. This is why this branch of politics regularly triggers protests and social events. But even though policies are oftentimes main causes for demonstrations, also the politics- and even the polity-dimension can induce social unrest and generate social power, resulting in movements or protests. Figure 2.2 depicts the manifoldness of polarising forces within the United States which are going to be discussed in more detail in the chapters to come. The figure addresses media as a separate force, not connected to the institutional forces of polarisation. This was done to exemplify the power media holds when it comes to possibilities of polarisation. As nowadays the media are considered part of the institutional system, the media system will be discussed in Section 2.1.1, in addition to the electoral and party system in the United States.

Figure 2.2 Social and Political Polarising Forces in US Society. (Own illustration)

2.1 Forces of Polarisation in a Split Society 21

22

2 Theoretical Framework

2.1.1

Institutional Split—Polity-induced Split

As explained in Section 2.1, polity refers to the institutional political framework. The most important parts of this framework will be discussed in the following chapters. This includes institutions, like parties and the Congress, general institutional and constitutional events, namely elections, as well as a possible new kind of institution in the US, namely the media and its coverage. The institutional reality in the US is one of two influencing factors for the split of society as it represents the reason for existing fundamental conflicts.

2.1.1.1 The Party System in the US For a long time, scholars have viewed parties as centralisers and as the solution to basic problems of governance and accountability resulting from the system of separated powers and checks and balances (cf. Lee, 2014, p. 40 f.). They aim to balance the power in the United States and more precisely, the checks and balances of US government involve both the separation of powers among the executive (the Presidency), the legislature (the two houses of Congress, themselves arranged to check and balance one another), and the judiciary (the federal courts), and separation between the federal government and the states (McLean & McMillan, 2009).

Unlike official officeholders, parties can be in full control of the national government. Thus, they can govern and at the same time be held accountable for it. Congressmembers, senators and even Presidents need to compromise and overthink decisions time and again for reasons of responsibility and accountability. This is why parties can be addressed as the key to aligning power with responsibility in American government (cf. Lee, 2014, p. 40 f.). Accordingly, if the majority of party members orients towards party discipline, then voters can use elections as choices between alternative policy programs. This allows for a form of collective responsibility (cf. Fiorina, 1980, p. 26). All these considerations were made in times of profound internal division within the parties. Both the Democratic and the Republican party encompassed liberals, conservatives and moderates. In fact, the Democratic party was led by the most conservative southern Democrats (Dixiecrats) at least until 1953. They were responsible for heaviest racial discrimination and blockades of civil rights movements (cf. Klein E., 2020, p. 24 ff.). But the decision of President Johnson to ignore southern Democrats’ rejection of the civil rights act in 1964, at the same time as the Republican Barry Goldwater publicly opposed it in the presidential election campaign, supported by

2.1 Forces of Polarisation in a Split Society

23

several powerful Republicans, opened the south up for the Republican party. This moment can be viewed as the start of the sorting movement: southern conservatives, formerly Democrats, started joining the Republican party and vice versa (cf. ibid., p. 29 ff.). In general, the organisation of the two major political US parties is worth considering as it differs from the organisation in other countries. An official party membership is practically not existent. People can register to be a voter of one of the two parties, but they usually do not become official members (cf. Oldopp, 2013, p. 114). Additionally, activities of the parties are mainly election-related and only happen during times of elections. Furthermore, they do not really rely on paid staff or management and are federally organised with less organisational cohesion and more autonomy. Their program is non-binding and they hardly have any influence on the recruitment of political staff (cf. ibid.). Nonetheless, the most striking difference compared to other countries is the number of relevant parties in the political process. For instance, the German federal parliament currently consists of members of six different parties. No party holds the absolute majority. The party with the relative majority is responsible for the formation of government. Those parties are thus forced to coalesce and compromise to form a stable government. On the contrary, the United States represent a two-partysystem. This majority voting system only knows a winning and a losing side which is deemed unfair and undemocratic by some (see e.g. Weld & Levinson, 2019). The majority voting system (see Section 2.1.1.2) is one of the main reasons for the practical non-existence of third parties. Beside the Democratic and the Republican party, hardly any candidates from third parties or independents stand a chance of winning any election, be it on local, state or federal level. Oftentimes, independents or candidates from third parties take up subjects neglected by the two major parties. If they were successful in doing so, during the next election, one or both major parties appropriate the idea and absorb his or her share of voters. This usually does not constitute a problem as Democrats and Republicans do not exhibit strict ideological directions or generally binding political aims (cf. Oldopp, 2013, p. 116 ff.). Therefore, the so-called primaries or caucuses, elections to determine the major party’s candidates, allow for permeability which is another reason why third parties struggle. Nevertheless, the running of additional candidates for public offices, besides the Republican and Democratic ones, can alter the outcome of a democratic election significantly. The losses of President George H. W. Bush in 1992 or Al Gore in 2000 are only two prominent examples where independents and third party candidates have decisively influenced the outcome of an election (cf. ibid, p. 119 f.). Given these points and despite a majority

24

2 Theoretical Framework

of Americans, 57%, stating that there is a need for a third major political party, none could overcome the dominant position of the two existing major parties so far (cf. Reinhart, 2018). In the course of history, several party systems have existed within the United States. For each time period, these systems are characterised by the respective existing parties and inner-party competition. Scholars are disagreeing whether the current party system should already be addressed as the sixth one, or whether it can still be referred to as the fifth party system. The fifth one uncontestably began with Franklin D Roosevelt’s win in 1932, introducing decades of Democratic predominance (cf. Oldopp, 2013, p. 129 f.). But whether an actual transition has been carried out is contested. Some scholars argue the win of Richard Nixon in the 1968 presidential election can be viewed as the beginning of the sixth party system (see Bibby & Maisel, 2003; Beck & Hershey, 2001). But since then, the Republican party has not indisputably become the dominating power, even though some signs of realignment towards them are observable. What seems obvious is the executed dealignment since the times of the New Deal in 1932. Old loyalties have been dissolved, but the realignment of those loyalties appears to be an ongoing process until today. The cleavage between liberalism and conservatism ever-deepens. As indicated above, progressivism grew into liberalism in the midst of the 20th century. Issues of importance for liberals included race, women’s rights, the role of religion in public life and foreign policy (cf. Noel, 2014, p. 62). Their concern is associated with economic, political and social inequality, whereas “conservatives sought to prevent redistributive economic policies, but they have also sought to protect traditional social arrangements” (ibid). Liberalism and conservatism as such describe two different forms of government. The former appreciates an active government when used to protect disadvantaged or excluded groups, while the latter one approves it when used to protect traditional values, not when it prevents businesses from thriving due to social considerations. May in the 20th century members of both parties be attributed to both sides of the ideological spectrum, the 21st century and especially the last decade see the parties ideologically sorted. The Democratic party represents liberalism and the Republican party clearly represents conservatism (cf. ibid., p. 63). Finally, as the fundamental cross-cutting of party cleavages has sorted out itself, people are left with two ideologically opposing parties. Rae (2018) suggests that this indicates some kind of stability but at the same time clears the way for polarisation (cf. p. 87 f.). The rising homogeneity within parties and the increasing party discipline are two of the reasons why the development and existence of the current party system has fostered polarisation. An indicator of this development is the trend in split-ticket voting. While between 1956 and 1996

2.1 Forces of Polarisation in a Split Society

25

an average of 32% of US House districts had split partisan outcomes between presidential and congressional elections, in 2012 this was the case in only 6% of house districts (cf. ibid.). Further information on the electoral system will be provided in the following chapter. The mentioned sorting process is ongoing. The emigration of conservative members of the Democratic party, initiated by the civil rights movement in 1964 as described above, continues until today by further opening up to subjects such as homosexuality, climate change or further more liberal perspectives. These particularities of the party system and developments of the past 50 years are summarised by Klein (2020): “we became more consistent in the party we vote for not because we came to like our party more—indeed, we’ve come to like the parties we vote for less—but because we came to dislike the opposing party more. Even as hope and change sputter, fear and loathing proceed” (p. 10). This can serve as a starting observation for the investigation of split society. Polarisation itself can be divided into issue-based polarisation and identity-based polarisation. The former hereby leads to the latter, as more intense disagreement about certain policies leads to people wanting their political representatives to fight for their beliefs, making the parties polarise around the issue as well (cf. ibid., p. 32 f.). And this is why the earlier mentioned six dimensions of politics by Wodak (see Section 2.1) included the politician’s personality and everyday life. Politics is not only about policies, but it is also about deeply rooted antipathy and sympathy for parties and politicians. All these developments emerge, among other reasons, from the existent institutions, systems and circumstances within the US, as the following chapters shall clarify.

2.1.1.2 The Electoral System in the US Another important system providing a basis for polarisation is the electoral one. A concept directly connected to the electoral system in the United States is ‘partisanship’. As political elites “have polarised, research shows that partisanship has come to matter much more to ordinary Americans as well” (Hetherington, 2014, p. 239). The term refers to “an intense psychological attachment to a group, namely a political party” and describes partisanship as “something that people feel rather than something people do. […] [It] should not be confused with registering with or voting for a specific political party” (ibid). Furthermore, it is important not to equate partisanship with ideology. People can be liberals but at the same time Republicans and vice versa (cf. ibid). In 2021, such combinations of ideology and partisanship are rarely found but sometimes still

26

2 Theoretical Framework

existent, as indicated in the previous chapter. Another vital aspect includes the direction and strength of partisanship. Is a person Republican or Democrat and how strongly does this person identify as such one? Nowadays, a number of Americans describe themselves as independents, only for mentioning with the same breath towards which party they are leaning (cf. ibid.). This kind of party identification affects electoral choices. The resulting effect varies from election to election and especially presidential elections produce a lot of turnover which makes it hard to identify the influence of partisanship (cf. Norpoth, 2014, p. 282). The reason these influences are so important lies in the structure of the electoral system. The earlier mentioned majority voting system works according to the principle ‘the winner takes it all’. The most common types of majorities are called ‘absolute’ and ‘relative’. The first one demands for a majority of all eligible voters who have casted their vote (50% + 1 vote). The second one refers to majorities existing by simply having reached more votes than everyone else. Most elections in the United States, on national, state or local level, apply the relative majority rule. Taylor (2018) argues that the separation of power in the United States results in one of the most complicated election processes for choice of chief executive worldwide (cf. p. 730). The “executive is chosen separately from the legislature for a fixed term, and the President does not have to maintain the confidence of majority of the legislature [Congress] to remain in power” (ibid.). Removing a sitting President from office is only possible by initiating an impeachment and, after the unsuccessful impeachment trial against Donald Trump at the end of 2019 and at the beginning of 2021, nowadays apparently harder to implement than ever. As this thesis is interested in presidential elections, the following remarks will only touch upon the proceedings and potential drawbacks of this specific kind of election. Congressional elections work in a similar way (see Carson & Roberts, 2013). The presidential election includes four distinct steps. To win a presidency, a candidate needs to complete all steps. Nomination by either party requires (1) competing in state-level contests to try and win a majority of party delegates who (2) assemble in the summer of election years to nominate the major party candidates. Once nominated, (3) voters register their preferences for the candidate of their choice (but are really voting for slates of electors) in November at the state level to win claim to each state’s electoral votes (plus the District of Columbia). This leads to (4) the electors assembling in the state capitals in December to cast the official vote for the presidency (which are counted in Congress in January) (Taylor, 2018, p. 730).

2.1 Forces of Polarisation in a Split Society

27

Step one refers to primaries and caucuses. The reason for those primaries and caucuses is the informal nomination of the respective party’s presidential candidate. The candidate who has won most states is then officially and formally elected the party’s presidential candidate in a national party convention in step two. In the general presidential election, voters do not directly vote for their favourite candidate. As third step of the electoral process, they decide for electors representing the respective candidate. These votes are then counted and, apart from Nebraska and Maine, all remaining states assign the electors according to the ‘winnertakes-it-all‘-principle. This means no matter how overwhelming the portion of the popular vote that one candidate receives is, it is redundant as long as not enough electors have been assigned to him or her. This circumstance has resulted in close and troubling election results. The presidential elections between George W. Bush and Al Gore in 2000 or Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in 2016 are only two prominent examples where the President Elect could not win the popular vote and still won the election (cf. Filzmaier & Plasser, 2001, p. 53 ff.; Begley, 2016). This demonstrates why many public actors consider the electoral college and the overall electoral practice as at least unfair, if not undemocratic (see Wegman, 2020; van den Heuvel, 2020; Robertson, Kirk, & Hulley-Jones, 2020). Finally, step four describes the assembling of electors in state capitals to cast the official presidential vote in December. These are counted on 6 January and the inauguration of the elected (or re-elected) President takes place on 20 January. This electoral system provides the platform for further polarisation, not only between supporters of different parties but also between states. Clear disparities are existing between different states when it comes to the representation of their citizens in the electoral college. Prominent examples are the states of California and Wyoming. While in Wyoming one electoral college vote only represents 193.000 voters, Californian electoral college votes represent 718.000 people (cf. Robertson, Kirk, & Hulley-Jones, 2020). This discrepancy, as well as the ‘winner-takes-it-all’-principle, can be considered the main problem of the system and reason for further polarisation and deeper societal division. Thus, people are sorting themselves more distinctly into partisan groups. Additionally, this sorting has not happened completely voluntarily as citizens have been sorted intentionally through redistricting into increasingly homogenous districts. Gerrymandering—the act of drawing political boundaries to create advantages for some candidates or parties over others—has created many legislative districts that are predominantly comprised of Republican voters or predominantly made up of Democratic voters (Carsey, 2014, p. 298).

28

2 Theoretical Framework

Due to this practice, the result in many districts is oftentimes final before any votes have been counted. Every ten years after the decennial census the state parliaments have the chance to redistrict their states and thus gain political advantage from it. Consequently, the party with the majority in the respective state parliament is in charge of redistricting processes. The task was further professionalised and automatized by use of sophisticated tools such as Geographic Information Systems (cf. ibid). The possibility of political interference and party-political manoeuvres leads to even more tension between parties and their followers. This is why a growing proportion of the population favours an amendment which would replace the college with a direct national popular vote as the fairest solution (cf. ibid.). Additional obstacles are intentionally installed to keep certain groups away from the ballots. In 2018, the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law investigated the state of voting in its project Protect the Vote. The issues discussed and criticised are foreign election interference and election security, restrictive voting laws in several states, litigation which could impact voting access, expansive voting laws, voter roll purges, ballot security operations and redistricting cases pending at the Supreme Court (cf. Weiser & Feldman, 2018). Furthermore, the practice of mail-balloting was widely criticised by President Trump and many Republicans either before or in the aftermath of the election 2020. These claims were still kept up despite high-ranking officials from the department of Homeland Security, the FBI and the office of the director of National Intelligence clearly stating that no evidence of any coordinated fraud schemes related to voting by mail exists (cf. Parks, 2020). Quite the opposite, the existence of widespread mail-balloting as addition to traditional ways of voting, is viewed as the only possibility to hold a fair and secure election in times of the Covid-19 pandemic.

2.1.1.3 The Media System in the US The third important system in the US concerns the media. James Fallows (1996) concluded once that “Americans have never been truly fond of their press [and that during] the last decade, however, their disdain for the media establishment has reached new levels” (p. 3). This stems partially from the media’s growing power and influence as becomes evident in the assumption that the media are considered the ‘fourth power of state’ (see Section 2.2.3). But the “United States media system has entered a period of frequent change: the number of TV channels, and thus of competitors, is multiplying; the boundaries between media sectors are blurring; economic resources and power over the flow of information are shifting into the hands of the tech giants” (Hallin, 2020).

2.1 Forces of Polarisation in a Split Society

29

Hallin (2020) elaborates on this by stating that the media system of the 20th century in the United States had established itself as a professional, stable, objective, autonomous, influencing and highly profitable institution. Identification with political parties or sides was avoided and the flag of importance of journalistic ethics was held high (cf. ibid.). In contrast to other countries, US media have always been relatively independent from state authorities and public service broadcasting has only been marginal. Economic, technological and political developments in recent years have dramatically changed this state. The new status quo is influenced by digital convergence, deregulation, cross-media conglomerates, such as Google or Facebook, and resulting from these conglomerates, new flows of information and public discourse. Newspapers, broadcast networks and magazines, usually home for journalism, have faced economic crises which gave way to new competitors, mainly in the online market. This has led to the proliferation of hybrid forms of information and comments that blur the boundaries of journalism, politics, entertainment and public relations which might also be viewed as a potentially dangerous development (cf. ibid.). Moreover, this blur could also be reflected in the way American citizens obtain their news. A report by Mitchel et al. (2016) showed that 57% of surveyed American adults often obtained their news from TV sources such as cable, local or network nightly. This was followed by 38% who receive news from online sources such as social media, websites and apps, 25% obtaining news from radio and 20% regularly informing themselves by reading print newspapers. Compared to, for example, Germany, this TV-attachment appears surprising. German public broadcast services offer a variety of news sources that are very reliable and objective as they are publicly funded and relatively independent of pressure related to success and ratings (cf. Schulz, Held, & Dreyer, 2008, p. 11 f.). All law- and rights-respecting opinions should thus be regularly represented (cf. Berg, 2020). The United States media landscape, by contrast, is relatively independent from state-funding and thus state influence (cf. Hallin, 2020). This opens up opportunities and limitations. On the one hand, the media institutions are completely free from any state-interference and guidelines (except for the binding law). On the other hand, the pressure of ratings, the greed for profit and the claim and distribution of particular selected views might lead to biased news reporting, dependence on revenues and subconscious ideology-conveying. These dangers and effects directly affect the public, inter alia by means of polarisation. Consequently, politicised media have multiplied and deviated from the traditional way of non-aligned and centrist stances.

30

2 Theoretical Framework

The sheer unmanageable number of media outlets as well as their politicisation are some of the reasons why trust in media institutions has declined in recent decades and why the dependence on political partisanship (see Section 2.1.1.2) has increased, even though the highest-circulation media still try to avoid strong partisanship. Eventually, politicisation leads to measurable negative consequences: A study by Ahler & Sood (2018) observed that the intensity of partisan feeling is increasing as the parties become demographically more different from each other while the level of animosity seems to far outpace the level of difference. Furthermore, the results showed that “the more interested in politics people were, the more political media they consumed, the more mistaken they were about the other party.” This is described as “a damning result: the more political media you consume, the more warped your perspective of the other side becomes” (Klein E., 2020, p. 149). This is also related to the earlier introduced ‘echo chamber theory of polarisation’. Even purposely engaging with politically neutral or even the-political-opponent-supporting media does not change people’s minds, once they have created an image of the opposition. It might even further exacerbate political polarisation and societal division (cf. ibid., p. 160). This politicisation of media allows for a classification as audience-driven media. The majority of American media could be deemed audience-driven because private companies produce content for a certain kind of audience and orient towards their values, beliefs and political views. One could conclude that those media outlets orient towards certain identities (cf. Klein E., 2020, p. 150). A prominent example is the American multinational conservative cable news television channel Fox News. Even though the “long love affair between Fox News and Trump may be over” (Ellison & Dawsey, 2020), as they did not continue to support the unproven accusations of voter fraught by President Trump in the aftermath of the election, their purely conservative stance, political bias and potentially dangerous orientation towards unproven accusations and unendorsed reports represent one of the most striking examples of media partisanship. However, only because media outlets offer certain information, citizens are not forced to solely follow their news reporting. Nevertheless, studies found that, despite not all citizens acting this way, evidence clearly suggests that people turn to media outlets matching their political predispositions (cf. Stroud & Muddiman, 2013, p. 8). Furthermore, the correlation between political beliefs and the selection of news outlets is astonishing (cf. ibid.). This phenomenon is called ‘partisan selective exposure’ and the development is equally noticeable with regard to the

2.1 Forces of Polarisation in a Split Society

31

internet and social media. Again, one of the consequences of these developments is further polarisation and division in society. Because when people use likeminded media, “their partisan identities become strengthened and they are likely to be highly involved in politics. […] Perhaps most troubling, it is likely that they will strengthen their partisan attitudes toward political figures and think that different issues are most important for the United States to address” (ibid. p. 16). Further reasons for media selection, interacting with the partisan reasons, are negativity, incivility and issue preferences (cf. ibid., p. 17 f.). Disenchantment with media is also interpretable as distrust, general uncertainty and rejection of traditional media outlets. Newman and Fletcher (2017) investigated audience perspectives on low trust in the media. For news media, reasons given for distrust were bias, exaggeration, sensationalism and low standards. For social media, reasons for distrust were low quality, unreliability, missing fact checks and agenda driven and opinionated reporting (cf. Newman & Fletcher, 2017, p. 4). A longitudinal study by the Pew Center for the People and the Press (2011) supports this claim. They asked a random national sample of 1501 Americans by telephone whether they thought news organisations would get the facts straight and whether their stories and reports were often inaccurate. The results show that from 1985 until 2011, the percentage of Americans thinking that news organisations get the facts straight declined from 55% to 25%. In contrast, the percentage of those saying that stories and reports are often inaccurate rose from 34% to 66%. This proves that the public has become less trusting. As a result of distrust, people choose their news sources more specifically according to their political orientation, thus fostering polarisation and consequently societal division (cf. Ladd, 2013, p. 30 ff.). Misinformation and fake news distributed via alternative news websites or Twitter accounts can be considered as the main contributors to media distrust and partisan polarisation. As already indicated in the introduction of this thesis, Donald Trump made, as sitting President of the United States of America, 30,573 false or misleading claims, nearly half of them in his final year as chief executive. This constant conveyance of untruths has contributed to further scepticism and side-taking, climaxing in permanent baseless allegations of voter fraud until Joe Biden’s inauguration day (Kessler, 2021).

32

2.1.2

2 Theoretical Framework

Social Split—Politics- and Policy-induced Split

The institutional split within the United States (described in the previous subchapter) can be addressed as the root of a split society. ‘Symptoms’ of this split of society, of these induced fundamental conflicts, are observable in different areas. Socio-political distortions include economic issues, for example divisions between the poor and the rich, as well as other cleavages between, for example differences between urban and rural areas. These discrepancies are steadily extending. The second symptom describes the ethnic-religious polarisation in the Unites States. This is why information about demography, population composition, the value of religion and the issue of immigration will be discussed, as well as specific events, current developments and movements.

2.1.2.1 Demographic and Socio-Political Background The demographic background of the American population provides further insights into societal division. To be able to dive deeper into the subject, some basic facts are required. A middle estimation for the 2020 census saw an overall population of 332.6 million US citizens. A slightly larger share of this population is female. Data taken from the latest census release estimate that 60.1 percent of the population were non-Hispanic White in 2020. 18.5 percent had an Hispanic background whereas 12.5 percent were non-Hispanic Black. 5.8 percent of the population had an Asian background and 2.2 percent of the population were nonHispanic of two or more races (the term race is only used in this thesis because it still remains a classification category in the US in contrast to other countries). The share of Native Americans amounted approximately 0.9 percent (cf. Johnson, 2020). The growth of the minority population combined with a population decline among non-Hispanic Whites increases the diversity of the population. At this rate of population growth and diversification, an estimation by Frey (see Figure 2.3) predicts a shift towards a ‘minority White’ US population by 2045. This would mean that compared to a majority of 60.1 percent of non-Hispanic Whites in 2020, in 2045 the share of non-Hispanic Whites would have decreased to less than 50 percent. This alone is sometimes considered a controversial and potentially polarising topic, as a majority non-White population is regarded by some right-wing extremists and others as a dangerous status quo. Another polarising force in US politics, apart from ethnicity and colour, is social policy. A real antipathy is existent “to anything but limited and selective social benefits” (McKay, 2018, p. 373). The roots of it lie in strong orientations towards self-reliance and autonomy. ‘Freedom’ is the concept which is overwhelmingly prevalent. Despite the last decades seeing an increasing acceptance

2.1 Forces of Polarisation in a Split Society

33

Figure 2.3 Racial Profile of US Population in 2045, William H. Frey Analysis of US Census Population Projections from 2018 (cf. Johnson, 2020)

for some areas of social policy, such as earnings-related social benefits for widows, widowers, the disabled, the blind, veterans of war and the old, a substantial but not majoritarian share of the US population still rejects the government’s responsibility for social welfare in 2012 (cf. Stokes, 2013, p. 9). “Public ambivalence about the social safety net suggests the United States will never provide its citizens with support comparable to that provided to citizens of Germany or Scandinavia”. Nonetheless, “Americans value the social safety net that exists and do not want it changed” (ibid. p. 12). Even though the current system creates inequality and leaves uninsured citizens with not repayable debts after exemplarily having had life-saving surgery. Particularly this issue of health care is highly divisive, extremely political and provides room for polarisation. Approaching this survey from the other end of the spectrum, it can be concluded that agreement with the question whether it is the government’s responsibility to guarantee health care for all is on the highest level as compared to the last ten years, stagnating at nearly 60 percent (see Figure 2.4). Additionally, it should be mentioned that the “US health care system is a complex mix of costly public and private schemes that do not cover the entire population. The health care system is the most expensive

34

2 Theoretical Framework

in the world” (Waddan & Béland, 2018, p. 221). In this context, Obama introduced the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) in 2010 which aimed at providing affordable health care for wider parts of the population. Polarisation in politics, particularly by the Republican party, misinformation and the general attitude of Americans towards governmental interferences led to an aversion towards Obamacare. While 47 percent refused to repeal it in 2016, 20 percent voted to repeal it immediately and 28 percent wanted to wait with the repeal until the details of replacement plans have been announced (cf. Kirzinger, Wu, & Brodie, 2017). As could be seen, the demography and the socio-political background of the United States provides further breeding ground for polarisation and social division. Some of the presented developments are deliberately utilised by political actors to deepen this division even further.

Figure 2.4 Question of Responsibility for Health Care Coverage in the US between 2000 and 2018 (Pew Research Center (Think Tank), 2018)

2.1 Forces of Polarisation in a Split Society

35

2.1.2.2 Values, Beliefs and Ethnic Background For the majority of the American population the most important values and attitudes can be summarised as follows: liberty, equality of opportunity, individualism, democracy and the rule of law (cf. McKay, 2018, p. 39). This set of beliefs and values sets the basis for a number of tensions and disbalances. How polarising this subject can be is exemplified by Figure 2.5. When asked which of both options would be more important, that nobody should be in need or freedom to pursue life’s goals, the United States were the only country that showed a clear majority for freedom to pursue goals. In contrast, the UK, Germany, France and Spain undeniably argued for the importance of nobody being in need. This indicates an unambiguous difference in attitude. These results correspond with the study in Section 2.1.2.1 that saw a significant share of the US-population at least partially rejecting a more active welfare state. This seems paradox because usually the US is one of the countries where equal rights are heavily promoted while the reality oftentimes look different. This is where the issue of race and ethnicity becomes relevant. Figure 2.5 Question of Importance: Nobody in Need or Freedom to Pursue Goals? (Pew Research Center (Think Tank), 2012)

36

2 Theoretical Framework

Indeed, aspects of race, ethnicity and origin still represent a massive factor when it comes to the distribution of wealth. In 2017, a report found that the richest one percent of the world’s population own approximately 50% of total global wealth (cf. Neate, 2017). A similar trend is observable in the United States of America. Saez & Zucman (2014) discovered that the wealth inequality had exploded over the last four decades. The share of wealth held by the top 0.1% of the US-population equalled more than 22% of the overall populations’ wealth (cf. ibid.). At the same time, the poverty rate equals 12%, stagnating on a relatively high level since 1990. The term poor is obviously applied to American conditions. This does not mean “poor in the sense of living below subsistence level, but certainly poor in the sense of having little hope of full-time, secure employment and access to good housing and an acceptable living environment” (McKay, 2018, p. 30). Of course, this kind of poverty can be found throughout all parts of the country and society. And yet, poverty rates exhibit clear tendencies towards regions and ethnicities which stand out. Poverty rates by place of residence (see ibid.) display a tendency that central city inhabitants as well as inhabitants of small town or rural areas are most likely to live in poverty conditions, as in both areas nearly 20% of the population is considered poor, as evaluated from a US-perspective. Contrastingly, only 10% of the suburban population can be called poor. Equally overwhelming and even more severe appears the discrepancy when it comes to races and ethnicities. In 2012, 27.2% of the overall Black and 25.6% of the overall Hispanic US-population were classified as poor, compared to only 9.7% of the Non-Hispanic White population share. Interestingly, the in different countries regularly applied concept of ‘class’ does not present a major social cleavage in American society. Even though the presidency of Donald Trump might have altered this fact to a certain extent, national working-class or populist movements do still not appear to be on the rise (cf. McKay, 2018, p. 31). The existence of specific institutional arrangements, such as federalism and the electoral system in general, impede the success of minorities and radical political parties. Equally important for the non-existence of classes in the US seems, according to McKay (2018), the absence of a feudal and aristocratic past and the dominance of an ideology of equality, liberty and social mobility (cf. p. 31 f.). Nevertheless, it can be concluded that rapid urbanisation and industrialisation also expressed severe social and economic costs in the US as they did in other countries, too. These statistics demonstrate that inequality still exists in the US, not only when it comes to each ethnic group’s share of the poor population, but also in various different fields of life. Two key concepts explaining those differences are ‘racial inequality’ and ‘racial stratification’. The former is systemic and is

2.1 Forces of Polarisation in a Split Society

37

not explicable by individual actions and attitudes while the latter describes a hierarchical arrangement in society that is distributing resources unequally (cf. Andersen, 2017, p. 127). This includes economic as well as social and cultural resources. Further key notions to keep in mind when discussing this subject are that the “past matters in shaping the present” (ibid. p. 128), that racial “inequality is anchored in the macro structures of society, but experienced at the micro level of society” (ibid.) and that racial stratification “overlaps and intersects with other systems of inequality, particularly class and gender” (ibid). To exemplify the dimension of inequality, I will briefly look into five key areas where discrepancies in statistics demonstrate aspects of racial inequality, including education, income, employment, insurance and imprisonment. For statements about education, the educational attainment by race and ethnicity of people aged 25 or older in 2013 is consulted. While for example approximately 10 percent of White Americans had less than a high school completion, nearly 19 percent of African-Americans and even nearly 40 percent of Hispanic Americans answered the same way. Similar tendencies are discoverable for the completion of higher degrees (cf. Andersen, 2017, p. 216). The issue of income is similarly astonishing. While the median income of African-Americans in 2015 amounted to $36,898 and of Hispanic Americans to $45,148, the median income of White Americans amounted to $62,850 (cf. ibid. p. 217). Interestingly, both in education and income, Americans of Asian origin perform similarly or better than White Americans, despite this ethnic group also having to struggle with racial inequality or discrimination in different areas (cf. ibid., p. 148). Moreover, the unemployment rate in 2015 saw African-American citizens more than two times more likely to be unemployed compared to White Americans. The gap to Hispanic-Americans is less distinct but still remarkable (cf. ibid., p. 157). The topic of insurance has already been addressed in the previous chapter but equally represents an adequate example for inequality. The rate of people without health insurance in 2013 is more than twice as high with African-Americans than with White Americans. The discrepancy appears even more significant as compared to Hispanic-Americans. While “only” 14 percent of White Americans between 18 and 64 are without health insurance, more than 50 percent of Hispanic-Americans foreign-born and more than 27 percent of US-born Hispanic-Americans were uninsured (cf. ibid., p. 233). Finally, the imprisonment rate depicts a similar picture. The African-American imprisonment rate in the US is still nearly six times higher than the rate of White Americans or two times higher than the rate of Hispanic Americans (cf. Gramlich, 2020). All these numbers and tendencies indicate clear signs of systemic racial inequality and open uo more opportunities for polarisation in media and politics.

38

2 Theoretical Framework

Reasons for these tendencies are manifold and include aspects overly existent in the past, such as slavery, apartheid, discrimination as well as present developments. Slavery and apartheid have gladly been overcome in the United States, but discrimination is still omnipresent. Immigration, especially the views on it by politics and the public, still plays a decisive role. Relevant in this context is the overall population growth per decade accumulating to more than 10%, which is remarkably high for an advanced industrial country (cf. McKay, 2018, p. 17). The two main reasons are high natural increase and extensive immigration. Originally, the United States were founded as a country of immigrants, seeing European settlers arriving on their search for the promised freedom and opportunity. In the course of history, the lawmakers passed acts of limitation for immigration and loosened these acts time and again. What is left nowadays are more than 1 million immigrants arriving in the US each year, the majority stemming in descending order from China, India, Mexico and the Philippines (cf. Budiman, 2020). The most polarising issue is illegal immigration, especially from Mexico and other Latin-American countries. Generally spoken, Republicans take a hard stance against illegal immigrants while Democrats, even though they are not appreciating illegal immigration in general, do at least intend to support families of illegal immigrants and especially their children (cf. McKay, 2018, p. 21). Donald Trump issued this during his presidential election campaign in 2016, highlighting his intentions of building a wall to Mexico and of deporting illegal immigrants. Thus, illegal immigration and the rights of so-called ‘Dreamers’ (people having come to the US as undocumented immigrant child and having had education in the US ever since) have become a divisive object of discussion. Another polarising issue, having especially raised more attention during the last 3 years, is the environment and the climate. Both have established as a new attitude and value of ever-more importance, not only for the US-population, but for an increasing number of human beings worldwide. Environment protection, including the protection of endangered species of animals and plants, the resource-conserving handling of fossil fuels or the change of lifestyle by consuming less meat and avoiding plastic waste, have become central issues for millions of people. McKay states that more “than in any other issue area, environmental questions represent a fundamental challenge to America’s long love affair with cheap fuel and unbridled economic development”. He further adds that “[serious] constraints on either in the name of environmental protection are bound to inspire conflict” (McKay, 2018, p. 417) and foster polarisation within the country. Climate change and environmental protection thus becomes a question of value and belief for the United States of America.

2.1 Forces of Polarisation in a Split Society

39

In addition to climate protests, the year 2020 experienced more unprecedented movements and social engagement. On the one hand, the brutal death of George Floyd and other African-Americans through police violence triggered countrywide, to some extent violent, protests which quickly spread to various countries and cities around the globe. The Black-Lives-Matter initiative (BLM) has developed into the mouthpiece of these social upheavals. The earlier presented statistics of African-American imprisonments add up to devastating numbers of fatal police violence in the United States. Even though the use of fatal violence in cases of emergency and self-protection for police officers is generally reasonable, the overrepresentation of African-American casualties among these overall deaths, in numbers approximately 1000 a year since 2013, is troubling. They have constituted 28 percent of those killed by police in 2020 despite representing only 13 percent of the population which has led to severe civil unrest and outrage among the US population (cf. Sinyangwe, 2020). In response to these protests and as a result of Donald Trump’s condemnation of these protests and their participants (cf. Dewan, 2020), a mixture of far-right activists and strongly conservative Republicans started counter-protests, emphasising the hashtag #alllivesmatter. By even introducing this hashtag, these people expressed their misunderstanding and wrongfulness of the actual message of the protests which is why one protester clarified: “Stop preventing me from exercising my rights. I’m not asking you to give me my rights; I’m asking you to stop preventing me from exercising my rights” (Lucero, 2020). All these protests happened during a worldwide pandemic. The Covid-19 outbreak at the end of 2019 made the world, and especially the United States, face unprecedented challenges. The presidential election campaigns incorporated this topic. The handling of the pandemic regularly appears as point of criticism towards Donald Trump. Accusations include a late reaction towards reports of rising case numbers, trivialisation of the virus and thus deception of the public, consequent not-wearing of a facemask even within hospitals, the suggestion of injecting disinfectant into human bodies as remedy or holding election campaigns with huge audiences and little to no social distance or face masks (cf. Murray, Goller, & Heinrich, 2020). Despite being the country with the most disastrous and devastating course of the pandemic with regard to infection and death numbers, the support for him seemed unbroken during the campaign and during election night. Until 30 March 2021, more than 550,000 US-citizens have died in connection with a Covid-19 contraction and more than 30,300,000 Americans have already been through an infection (cf. WHO, 2021). In addition to the above mentioned overrepresentation of fatalities among the Black population, they are

40

2 Theoretical Framework

also overly represented with regard to deaths resulting from a Covid-19 infection (cf. Keating, Eunjung Cha, & Florit, 2020). Another important aspect of American society is the value of religion which is also highly politicised during election campaigns but does only play minor roles in polarising the country. In contrast to other countries, religion has not induced a major social cleavage (cf. McKay, 2018, p. 35). Religious “differences are important in the United States, but they have, more often than not, been subsumed under a dominant set of peculiarly American beliefs, values and institutions” (McKay, 2018, p. 36, original emphasis). Thus, abortion or same-sex marriage are rather considered public affairs of decency than affairs of deep religious conviction (cf. ibid.). But ever since the events of 9 November 2001, islamophobia has increased in the United States (cf. Pew Research Center (Think Tank), 2017). Again, it can be considered as the Islam being subsumed under the term terrorism. People have created a causal connection between those terms. In 2017, 75 percent of questioned Muslims were concerned about the amount of discrimination against the Islamic community in the US (cf. Pew Research Center (Think Tank), 2017). In sum, despite religious or spiritual beliefs occupying an important part in most people’s lives, the impact on polarisation of the society is low compared to other topics.

2.2

Analysing Discourse

Having introduced aspects of socio-scientific, historical and political origin, this chapter will intensively focus on linguistic aspects of the linguistic framework suggested for the analysis. After providing a brief overview of the term ‘discourse’, the following subchapters will discuss different constituents of discourse analysis, notions on how to analyse political discourse as well as notions on how to analyse newspaper discourse. To begin with, it becomes obvious that nowadays, the terms discourse and discourse analysis are hard to define. This results from the variety of approaches in several disciplines and theoretical traditions that have evolved up until today. To begin with, I will attempt to narrow in a definition of discourse fitting for this analysis. Thus, a more profound understanding of how to approach political media discourse as well as polarising discourse can be gained. The diversity this concept offers becomes tangible when looking at considerations of Backer & Ellece (2011). Their work summarises different views on the term ‘discourse’ as any form of language in use, as language above the sentence or clause, as useable to refer to particular contexts of language use, as related to particular topics and as practices which systematically form the objects

2.2 Analysing Discourse

41

of which they speak (cf. ibid., p. 30 f.). This general description of discourse can be considered a starting point for this chapter. One of the first thinkers referring to the concept of discourse was Michel Foucault (1980). He described several definitions of discourse which is why some scientists tried to narrow down his definitions. Stuart Hall, for example, summarises Michel Foucault’s notion of a ‘discourse’ as a group of statements which provide a language for talking about—a way of representing the knowledge about—a particular topic a particular historical moment … Discourse is about the production of knowledge through language. But… since all social practices entail meaning, and meanings shape and influence what we do— our conduct—all practices have a discursive aspect (Hall, 1992, p. 291, emphasis in original).

Fairclough on the other hand applies a more wide-ranging lens. For him, various aspects of social practice have to be considered. He describes discourse as commonly used in various senses including (a) meaning-making as an element of the social process, (b) the language associated with a particular social field or practice (e.g. ‘political discourse’), and (c) a way of construing aspects of the world associated with a particular social perspective (e.g. a ‘neo-liberal discourse of globalisation’) (Fairclough, 2009, p. 162 f.).

This definitional variety shows the complexity and controversy of the concept and emphasises how important one clear-cut definition is. As expressed above, especially Fairclough’s definition explicitly includes a social dimension. It recognises the omnipresent and encompassing character of discourse and its ability to influence human beings and whole societies (at the same time being influenced by human beings and societies). Hence, the following chapters propose ways on how to approach discourse, its constituents and the sheer myriad of types existing.

2.2.1

Analysing Discourse and its Constituents

To begin with, an attempt to define the term discourse also demands for a delimitation of the concept of ‘text’. As pertaining for the concept of discourse, the term ‘text’ is also used in various ways by different researchers across disciplines. The most prevailing definition of it traces back to De Beaugrande and Dressler (1981). They define text as a communicative occurrence satisfying the seven criteria of ‘textuality’. The first two criteria, coherence and cohesion, can be described as

42

2 Theoretical Framework

text-internal and the latter five, intentionality, acceptability, informativity, situationality and intertextuality, are considered text-external criteria (cf. ibid., p. 3 ff.). In everyday use and earlier scientific debates, the term was restricted to written language whereas the term ‘discourse’ referred to every type of spoken language (cf. Alba-Juez, 2009, p. 6). In temporary linguistics, various different types of utterances are considered discourse. Their concept of text includes every type of utterance, such as magazine articles, a television interview, a conversation or online communication (ibid.), no matter whether written or spoken. Other authors describe text as a “continuous process of semantic choices” (Halliday, 1978, p. 139), indicating that it refers to everything meaningful in a particular situation. Whereas purely text linguistic approaches only focus on the actual text itself, omitting or subordinating the context surrounding it. ‘Contexts’ can be defined as either local—as such describing “properties of the immediate interactional situation in which a communicative event takes place” (van Dijk, 2001, p. 108)—or as global—as such being defined by “social, political, cultural and historical structures in which a communicative event takes place” (ibid.). This is why many linguists determine context to be a significant part of any textual analysis.

Figure 2.6 Three-Dimensional Model of Discourse Analysis. (Adopted from Fairclough 1995: 98)

2.2 Analysing Discourse

43

Therefore, a summary of those descriptions concluding that text linguistics only studies the pure text and discourse linguistics involves the text and the context, hence indicating that discourse analysis is more complete, appears inappropriate and inexpedient. This is because definitions of both disciplines, presented by some of the leading scholars, show incontestable conformity. Brown and Yule (1983) specify that the “analysis of discourse is, necessarily, the analysis of language in use. As such, it cannot be restricted to the description of linguistic forms independent of the purposes or functions which these forms are designed to serve in human affairs” (p. 1). This exemplifies that text linguistics can be viewed as an inherent part of discourse analysis. Nevertheless, text linguistics on its own still constitutes an important part of linguistics in general as some investigations simply depend on a purely text linguistic approach for reasons of understanding of communication, detached from any social, economic or political influences. Fairclough’s three-dimensional approach to discourse analysis also illustrates how text linguistics and discourse linguistics are closely connected (see Figure 2.6). This thesis can be considered as roughly following his model’s suggestions for a discourse analysis while at the same time applying a critical lens. Scholars engaged in this critical approach to discourse analysis include, Wodak (2009), Jäger (2015), van Dijk (1993), Fowler (1991), Chilton (2002) and Fairclough (1995) himself, among others. As this thesis is oriented towards a variety of the presented scholars’ approaches, Section 4.1 is, for example, comparable to Fairclough’s Description (text analysis) part, which for him is the linguistic description of the language in terms of rhetorical devices, concepts and word choice. Similarly, the topoi analysis in Section 4.2 is comparable to Fairclough’s Interpretation (processing analysis) which focuses on discourse practice. More precisely, it is concerned with how the use of words and rhetorical devices can be explained with the context and how patterns and conspicuous features can be interpreted. Finally, his Explanation (social analysis) part is concerned with the analysis of social practice and aims at explaining the relationship between the discursive process and social processes. Therefore, it also aims at analysing the discourse within a wider social practice and at identifying the social effects of the discourse (cf. Qiu, 2013). This thesis conducts the social analysis extensively within the first part of the theoretical framework (see Chapter 2), thus thoroughly investigating the interrelation of discourse and sociocultural practice, as suggested by Fairclough (1995). The later introduced list of analytical categories (Section 3.2) is additionally loosely based upon a list presented by Jäger (2015) which was taken as starting point for the compilation of categories. In addition to the considerations on Fairclough’s three-dimensional model, the concept of ‘multi-discursiveness’ seems like a useful tool to try and grasp the

44

2 Theoretical Framework

interaction between different kinds of discourse and to understand their classification as a certain type of discourse. This exemplifies the complexity of discourses in general and particularly of the discourse at hand. It will become apparent that the political media discourse of polarisation and split society is influenced by infinitely appearing themes. Within her discourse-historical approach to CDA, Wodak (2001) already introduced a similar but complex concept, aiming to explain interdiscursive and intertextual relationships between discourses, discourse topics, genres and texts (cf. p. 69). The application of the term multidiscursiveness allows for a deeper understanding of how discourses and their blending and overlapping can be analysed in a more profound way. For the sake of convenience, this thesis introduces the term to clarify that discourses can indeed merge and not only overlap. The complexity and the overlapping of, in this case, political discourse with other discourses call for a method of classification that allows for the combination of several discourses into a new type of discourse. Consequently, multi-discursiveness describes the result of a process by which two or more different kinds of discourse have, in the course of time, merged into a new one. How and why discourses actually merge is subject for further research. For now, the concept describes a process that allows us to examine discourses as thoroughly as possible. One way of classifying political discourse, for example, is by only referring to it as such if it involves references to or includes “formal/informal political contexts and political actors” (Wilson, 2003, p. 398), and if it tries to achieve some sort of political goal, either within the public or the private sphere. In the case of newspaper editorials, this requirement is fulfilled. In different cases, definitional difficulties might appear because of the multi-disciplinarity underlying politics and political discourse. For example, Liebes and Ribak (1991) analysed family discussions on political events. On the first glance, this discourse could be assigned to both, family or political discourse. But according to the definition above, this discourse should be classified as political discourse. In those situations, the use of the concept of multi-discursiveness is advisable to further specify the vague term of political discourse as, in this case for example, political family discourse. According to this, political discourse could be further divided into subtypes.

2.2 Analysing Discourse

2.2.2

45

Analysing Political Discourse

The attempt of defining ‘political discourse’ in a simple and easily understandable way is a strenuous undertaking, as shown in Section 2.2.1. What political discourse is concerned with is best illustrated by again considering definitions of politics in general because its definition is always context-dependent. This is why the differentiation between a broad and narrow conception of politics has been introduced. The narrow conception only views politicians as involved in politics. This includes the machinery of government and refers to politics as an essentially state-bound activity involving decision-making processes. The equivalent to this view is the broad conception of politics. It argues that politics exists “within and outside the institutional boundaries of the modern state” (Modebadze, 2010, p. 44). From this perspective, politics “takes place in every corner of human existence” (ibid.). As the range of potential political discourse is so comprehensive, it can be concluded that the majority of political discourse “heavily relies on persuasive and manipulative functions of language” (Khajavi & Rasti, 2020, p. 2) and thus offers a huge potential for polarisation and debate. It is noteworthy that the struggle of definition of political discourse increases with the informality of the context. The classification of certain types of political discourse exhibits various subdiscourses (see Figure 2.7). Sub-categories of political discourse can be political media discourse or political environment discourse. These different possibilities of categorisation stem from the earlier introduced concept of multi-discursiveness (see Section 2.2.1). Logically, some would argue that political media discourse can also address environmental or other subjects. While this is certainly true, this way of classification represents a possibility and suggestion, rather than an actual manual on how to classify political discourse correctly. It becomes obvious, that the classification of political discourse can at times be clear-cut—but in some situations definitional challenges occur. This is because of the classification process itself being a purely subjective undertaking. But the more specifically one aims to determine the kind of discourse at stake, the more substantiated the findings will be. As approaches for the analysis of political discourse, the following chapters will review the concepts evaluation and stance as suggested by various authors as well as approaches to topoi analysis.

46

2 Theoretical Framework

Polical Discourse

Polical Media Discourse Polical Newspaper Discourse

Polical Family Discourse

Polical Environment Discourse

Etc.

Polical Polics Discourse

Polical Religion Discourse

Polical Feminist Discourse

Polical Parliament Discourse

Polical Talkshow Discourse

Polical Campaign Discourse

Etc.

Etc.

Figure 2.7 Exemplary Classification of Political Discourse. (Own illustration)

2.2.2.1 Evaluation Analysis Evaluation is commonly articulated by speakers and writers to express personal feelings, attitudes, value judgements or assessments. This can be done in many ways, including grammatical devices, word choice, and paralinguistic devices (cf. Biber et al., 2000, p. 966). Major grammatical devices used to express stance are stance adverbials, stance complement clauses, modals and semi-modals, stance nouns or stance adverbs (cf. ibid., p. 969). The variety of applied terms with regard to evaluation analysis ranges from connotation, appraisal and affect to stance, evaluation or attitude (cf. Thompson & Hunston, 2001, p. 2). For this thesis, evaluation refers to any evaluative discursive act, whether conducted intentionally or unintentionally. This kind of evaluation can occur on different textual levels, ranging from words to phrases or even whole sentences. In contrast to some scholars (e.g. Biber & Finegan, 1988), this thesis will additionally apply the term stance to solely refer to people’s political orientation.

2.2.2.1.1 Bednarek’s Approach to Evaluation Bednarek’s explanations (2006) are mainly targeted at news discourse. Nevertheless, they offer valuable insight into the expression of evaluation in editorial newspaper discourse which can also be classified as political discourse. To begin with, particular aspects can be evaluated along certain evaluative parameters such as emotivity (good or bad), importance (important or unimportant), expectedness

2.2 Analysing Discourse

47

(expected or unexpected), comprehensibility (comprehensible or incomprehensible), possibility/necessity ((not) possible or (not) necessary), reliability (genuine or fake) and additionally style, mental state and evidentiality (cf. Bednarek, 2006, p. 3 f.). Evaluation is regarded as “device for interpreting the world and offering this evaluation to others, it pervades human behaviour: when we interact with the world around us, we perceive, categorize and evaluate” (ibid., p. 4). And these evaluations may turn into actual values in the long run. To understand the phenomenon of evaluation accurately, the context has to be considered. Linguistic “means of evaluation are highly context-dependent” (ibid., p. 8), and there “is no clearly defined list of linguistic means of evaluation […] that could be looked for in a large-scale corpus with the help of a computer” (ibid.). Evaluation thus also occurs along the lines of news values which will be discussed in Section 2.2.3. In her work, Bednarek (2006) establishes a new framework of evaluation which focuses on the above presented evaluative parameters while also testing her framework by investigating political newspaper discourse. Along these nine parameters, speakers can evaluate aspects of the world. The focus here is the categorisation into different kinds (parameters) of evaluation (e.g. the kind of evaluation in the sentence “Diana explained in the plainest possible way” is Comprehensibility (cf. Bednarek, 2006, p. 45)). This kind of evaluation along a variety of parameters is not considered further. The thesis will therefore mostly focus on the following discussion of evaluation by Hunston & Thompson (2001) and consider evaluations as either negative or positive.

2.2.2.1.2 Hunston & Thompson’s Approach to Evaluation For Hunston & Thompson (2001) “the expression of the writer’s or speaker’s opinion is an important feature of language” (p. 2). Additionally, “evaluation is the broad cover term for the expression of the speaker or writer’s attitude or stance towards, viewpoint on, or feelings about the entities or propositions that he or she is talking about” (ibid., p. 5). Evaluation from their point of view fulfils three main functions: (1) to express the speaker’s or writer’s opinion, and in doing so to reflect the value system of that person and their community; (2) to construct and maintain relations between the speaker or writer and hearer or reader; (3) to organize discourse (ibid., p. 6). But how can evaluation be recognised? Answers to this question are of both conceptual and linguistic nature. “Conceptually, evaluation has been noted to

48

2 Theoretical Framework

be comparative, subjective and value-laden” (ibid., p. 13). Firstly, evaluation is anything contrasting with or being compared to the norm. Secondly, evaluation is someone subjectively reacting to a certain event. And thirdly, evaluation is valueladen with regard to goal-achievements (cf. ibid, p. 13 f.). Linguistically, the main aspects are considered to be lexis, grammar and text. Therefore, it can be concluded that context-dependent evaluation can be found on various linguistic levels, from a single word (such as noun, adjective, verb, etc.) to whole parts of a text (rhetorical devices, grammatical particularities, etc.). The latter one is exemplified by the clarification that “evaluation tends to be found throughout a text rather than being confined to one particular part of it” (ibid, p. 19) and that “evaluation is identified in some cases because of its position in a text and the role that it pays because of that position” (ibid.). Identified parameters along which evaluation can happen include good-bad, certainty, expectedness, and importance (cf. ibid., p. 25).

2.2.2.2 Analysis of Topoi Topos (topoi in plural) is one of the most widely-used concepts from argumentation theory, finding its way into various different disciplines. Considering various previous definitional attempts for the concept of topos, Römer (2018) ascertains: a topos is a line of thought referring to a certain subject matter or discourse which allows for the formation of argumentation (cf. p. 120). Its coherence is dependent on premises. They are plausible because of habitual ways of thinking and collective beliefs. The following two chapters will exemplify that this general description is not shared by every researcher in this field of study and that each researcher defines topoi individually (cf. ibid.)

2.2.2.2.1 Wodak’s Approach Ruth Wodak (2009), in her discourse-historical approach (henceforth DHA), describes topoi in accordance with Kienpointer (1992; 1996) as “parts of argumentation which belong to the obligatory, either explicit or inferable premises”. He further views them as “the content-related warrants or ‘conclusion rules’ which connect the argument or arguments with the conclusion, […] [and as such] they justify the transition from the argument or arguments to the conclusion” (p. 42, original emphasis). Richardson (2004) adds that they represent “reservoirs of generalised key ideas from which specific statements or arguments can be generated” (p. 230). In other words, contrary to the rhetoric and argumentation theory of the ancient times, topoi are not defined as places that hide arguments, but as very general premises that help us build values and hierarchies (cf. Perelman &

2.2 Analysing Discourse

49

Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1983). This broad view on topoi allows to “characterize societies, not only in relation to their preferences of certain values, but according to the intensity of adherence to one or another member” (ibid. p. 22), and it allows to suggest specific topoi for every subject of investigation. For Žagar, the insinuated broad view on topoi is the first point of criticism. The second one addresses the suggestion that the analysis should be “carried out against the background of the list of topoi [suggested by them], though incomplete and not always disjunctive” (Wodak, 2001, p. 74). Žagar (2010) indicates that if its actual aim is to “find out what views and values are dominant in different societies, and characterize these societies by reconstructing the topoi that underlie their discourses” (p. 22, original emphasis), they should “dismiss the list of prefabricated topoi that facilitates and legitimizes its argumentative endeavour somehow beforehand […] and start digging for the topoi in concrete texts and discourses” (ibid.). Their usage of topoi reminds of the literary topoi, developed by Curtius (1990). It describes literary aspects which appear time and again in every kind of literature ever existent. They can also be labelled recurrent and repetitive motifs or leitmotifs (cf. ibid., p. 62 ff.), the latter one being a term explicitly referred to by Wodak (cf. 2009, p. 119) for her view on topoi. Her suggested list includes the following topoi (see Table 2.1): Table 2.1 List of Topoi Suggested by Ruth Wodak in the Context of Social Exclusion and Discrimination (Wodak, 2001, p. 74)

1. Usefulness, advantage

9. Finances

2. Uselessness, disadvantage

10. Reality

3. Definition, name-interpretation

11. Numbers

4. Danger and threat

12. Law and right

5. Humanitarianism

13. History

6. Justice

14. Culture

7. Responsibility

15. Abuse

8. Burdening, weighting

Žagar (2010) views these lists of topoi (cf. Krzyzanowsky, 2009; Wodak, 2009) critically due to the fact that no explanations were given on how these lists were compiled and why these kind of topoi were selected (cf. p. 8). The authors only indicated for what kind of discourse these topoi would be applicable. This approach can be considered in accordance with Klein’s (1995; 2000) stable constellation of abstract basic topoi, with a sole focus on structure-related topoi analysis (Diskursstrukturbezogene Toposanalyse) which seems like a very challenging undertaking (cf. Römer, 2018, p. 124).

50

2 Theoretical Framework

2.2.2.2.2 Wengeler’s Approach A more comprehensive approach was introduced by Wengeler. He focused on a content-related analysis of topoi (Diskursinhaltsbezogene Toposanalyse) which allows him to capture patterns of explicit or implicit argumentation in various texts discussing a certain topic (cf. Römer, 2018, p. 125). For Wengeler, the investigation of topoi helps to answer question of dominance when it comes to certain argumentation patterns or figures of thought in specific timeframes and media. Here, topoi describe habitual argumentative knowledge which was created by the entanglement of contentual and formal aspects of speech within a certain discourse (cf. Wengeler, 2010). As such, topoi can be considered to be part of knowledge frames which are evoked and invoked by emitter and recipient of a verbal utterance. In general, this part of linguistic analysis concerns discourse-oriented argumentation analysis which aims to find repetitive arguments, argumentations and argumentative patterns within the boundaries of a multitude of texts. First and foremost, this is about argumentations which are characteristic for politics, which are preferred by certain political or social groups and cultures or which have or have not changed over time (cf. Wengeler, 2017, p. 262). The overall objective includes gaining information about the respective dominating societal consciousness, collective thinking and arguing of a certain time or a specific group at a certain time (cf. ibid.). Building on Wengeler’s explanations, Hamp (2015) suggests topoi analysis as a method to show how and by which means something is—either implicitly or explicitly, intentionally or unintentionally—justified and how these results indicate practical knowledge of the arguing person (cf. p. 110). The fact that topos analysis has not yet found its place in sociological discourse research is confronted by Hamp’s suggestion to combine topos analysis with the established and accepted proceeding of qualitative content analysis (henceforth QCA) according to Mayring (2008). QCA’s advantages are its explicitly formulated procedural rules and principals which offer a controlled and transparent proceeding as well as its providing of an in advance developed and determined model of procedure for analysis (cf. Mayring, 2008, p. 53 ff.). This systematisation is transferred to topoi analysis to gain a model of procedure for it, too. Both methods take texts or parts of texts as an examination unit, both investigate latent and manifest semantic contents of utterances and both can be described as text-reductive (cf. Hamp, 2015, p. 125 ff.). Furthermore, the extraction of categories in QCA occurs inductively as well as deductively. The material should be the main source for categories, and these can be altered throughout the whole process of analysis. This is also why previous knowledge of researchers is part

2.2 Analysing Discourse

51

of the process. Wengeler shares this view (cf. 2003, p. 69), whereas the application of categories can only be conducted deductively. Certain elements of the text should be assigned to the categories while at the same time adhering to quality criteria such as objectivity, validity and reliability (cf. Hamp, 2015, p. 129). The role which QCA could play in critically analysing political media discourse will be elaborated on in the consideration of further research and limitations (see Section 5.2).

2.2.3

Analysing Newspaper Discourse

The unique role of the media with regard to polarisation has already been emphasised. To investigate this more closely, media discourse in general should be examined first. It can be defined as “a recontextualising principle for appropriating other discourses and bringing them into a special relation with each other for the purposes of their dissemination and mass consumption” (Bernstein, 1990, p. 183 f.). This approach views media discourse as expedient tool for the presentation of other discourses instead of a discourse type itself. Different authors assign media discourse a more active role. For Cotter (2003) “the discourse of the news media encapsulates two key components: the news story, or spoken or written text; and the process involved in producing the texts” (p. 416). O’Keeffe (2012) elaborates on this by stating that media discourse “refers to interactions that take place through a broadcast platform, whether spoken or written, in which the discourse is oriented to a non-present reader, listener or viewer” (p. 441). Those definitions highlight the interactional character of media discourse in both production and dissemination. “[Media] discourse is a public, manufactured, onrecord, form of interaction” (ibid.) which is why it can be of so much interest for not only linguistics but also all different kinds of research fields, like psychology, sociology, etc. The power of media discourse seems eternal. On the one hand, it can shape different orders of discourse and can be shaped by them, making it a maximal flexible type of discourse (cf. Fairclough, 1995, p. 64). It “also influences private domain discourse practices” (ibid.), exemplifying its unique ability to convey meaning, messages and ideologies and consequently being able to alter a person’s discourse practice. In particular, newspaper discourse is described as institutional discourse because “it puts constraints on the process of production, transmission and consumption of newspapers by imposing a particular set of conventions and norms” (Trˇcková, 2014, p. 31), thus also exercising power in a certain way. These definitions of media discourse already indicate their relevance

52

2 Theoretical Framework

for issues of polarisation and societal division. The mentioned power media discourse possesses authorises the media to do both, calm the polarisation or enforce it even more. Another conceptualisation of the media, from which one can draw conclusions about how media discourse functions, is “to see it as an institutional context which appropriates, organizes and constructs certain representations of the world according to its own logic and purposes” (Chouliaraki, 2000, p. 297 f.). This context represents one of various situations where media discourse and political discourse overlap. Chouliaraki (2000), in accordance with Fairclough (1995, p. 197), terms this fusion of discourses “mediatized political discourse” (p. 295). Relying on approaches of classification for, particularly, political discourse, this thesis will refer to such discourse as ‘political media discourse’. The question remaining is: what makes media discourses merge into political media discourse? Of course, the answer to this question is always subject to definitional differences. But in general, one can conclude that the appearance or involvement of certain actors, specific actions, the intention of the media organisation and the process of production play a decisive role in the determination of political media discourse. For example, a political speech screened live on television can as well be viewed as political media discourse as an editorial commenting on the presidential election, a commentary of a broadcast company’s editor, interviews on the streets with regard to a political subject or a talk show debating the most current legislation. After all, summarising that a significant amount of media’s output has political character seems justifiable. For a more profound understanding of media discourse, a few theoretical notions on concepts such as ‘newsworthiness’, ‘news values’ or ‘media functions’ will be considered.

2.2.3.1 Newsworthiness and News Values The concept of newsworthiness aims to answer the question when and why a news story is deemed worthy of being published by news media. Even though no exact formula exists determining newsworthiness, authors regularly suggest similar lists of characteristics (Hough, 1988, p. 3; Cotter, 2010, p. 69 f.; Bell, 1991). Those news values provide a hierarchy of importance and can be viewed as “key elements constituting journalistic discourse and the relation of practitioners to the news, as defined by the news community. They constitute newsworthiness or what is news” (Cotter, 2010, p. 87). On this basic level of news production, editors and authors orienting towards these values are presented as inheriting craft competences and journalistic skills. But not only the application of those news values influences the decision whether a story is published or not. On the one hand, some factors relate to the quality of news text and are of great importance

2.2 Analysing Discourse

53

in the process of news editing. On the other hand, decisions within the story meeting, the daily conference in news agencies to discuss relevant issues, finally determine what is published or not. Figure 2.8 illustrates this decision-making process, presenting Bednarek’s (2006) list of news values which adds up to her explanations on evaluation (see Section 2.2.2.1.1). She divides them into three main classes for news values: values in news actors and events, values in the news process and values in the news text (cf. p. 16 ff.; Table 2.2). Two principles mainly guide the decision whether something is deemed newsworthy. Firstly, news stories are more newsworthy if they focus on more than one news value and secondly, the lack of one news value can be compensated for by another (cf. ibid., p. 18 f.). Bednarek’s list of values in news actors and events only will be utilised for this thesis’ analysis for reasons of conciseness and clarity.

Is the story newsworthy enough?

Values in news actors and events

Negavity, Recency, Proximity, Consonance, Unambiguity, Unexpectedness, Superlaveness, Relevance, Personalizaon, Eliteness, Aribuon, Facvity

Values in the news process

Connuity, Compeon, Coopon, Composion, Predicability, Prefabricaon

Values in news text

Clarity, Brevity, Colour

Figure 2.8 Bednarek (2006): Decision-Making Process for the Publishing of a Story & News. (Own illustration)

Bednarek (2006) further uses these news values to explain why particular evaluations occur in news stories, noting how linguistic means contribute to, express, enhance, or are related to particular news values (cf. p. 71 ff.). “For instance, the use of words such as reveal, revelation and disclose enhances the news value of Unexpectedness (Novelty) by implying that there is new information that has been uncovered and evaluations of importance can make the Eliteness of a source explicit (e.g. top psychologist Dr. Peter Kindermann)” (Caple & Bednarek, 2013, p. 13, original emphasis).

54

2 Theoretical Framework

Table 2.2 News Values according to Bednarek (2006) Values in news actors and events

Definition

Negativity

Basic news value—the negative makes the news

Recency

News concerns things that have only just happened; the more recent the more newsworthy

Proximity

Concerns the geographical closeness of events

Consonance

Relates to the extent to which a story fits in with stereotypes about events and people portrayed in it

Unambiguity

The more clear-cut a story is, the more likely it is covered

Unexpectedness

The rare and unexpected news are covered

Superlativeness

The bigger, the faster, the more destructive news are covered

Relevance

Importance of story for respective news audience

Personalization

Personalised news stories attract the audience more

Eliteness

Reference to elite persons or nations are considered more newsworthy

Attribution

Sources that are backed by affiliation with some institution/ organisation are socially validated authorities → better than individuals

Factivity

Degree to which a news story contains facts and figures

Furthermore, Bednarek and Caple (2013) discuss the possibility of a discursive approach to newsworthiness which is interested in “examining systematically the role that language, image and other semiotic resources play in the construction of newsworthiness” (p. 13). For them, “news values can be seen as discursively constructed, and newsworthiness becomes a quality of texts. News values are thus defined as ‘newsworthy’ aspects of actors, happenings and issues as existing in and constructed through discourse” (ibid., original emphasis). This approach intends to provide insights into “what kind of news values are emphasized on different platforms […] and in different types of news discourse” (ibid., p. 14) which make a valuable addition for the later analysis.

2.2 Analysing Discourse

55

2.2.3.2 Media Functions One of the main functions of the media, among others which will be exemplified later in this chapter, is the gatekeeper function. In fact, gatekeeping is the process of “crafting countless bits of information into the limited number of messages that reach people each day, and it is the centre of the media’s role in modern public life”. It presupposes that people “rely on mediators to transform information about billions of events into a manageable subset of media messages” (Shoemaker & Vos, 2009, p. 1). For a reason, politics oftentimes declare that the media have adopted their position as fourth power in the state, as mentioned in Section 2.1.1.3. The separation of power into legislative, executive and judicative actually represents the three powers of state. Media’s influence on the public opinion and their functioning as ‘gatekeeper’ show the importance that is bestowed on them by naming them the fourth power of state or fourth estate (cf. Schultz, 1998). The gatekeeper-function, in accordance with the agenda-setting ability, describes the power of the media to determine which news reach the public and which do not. The news values which each news media enterprise has outlined for themselves decide, in accordance with aspects of subjectivity, stance, ideology and goal, about the publication of certain news reports. In that sense, the media also function as extension of the judicative, filtering the majority of antidemocratic or anti-constitutional utterances. This decision is met within the story meeting rooms and editor’s offices of news media enterprises. And even though nowadays the internet allows for everyone and especially more radical new media outlets to publish anything, as long as it somehow appears to be within the scope of legal provisions, the media’s significance regarding their function within the political system is still massive. The advance of the internet has led to a softening of the gatekeeper function. Nonetheless, the story meeting of a newspaper still represents the daily decision-moment of power, serving “as a place to negotiate and reinforce journalistic identity through discussion of news stories and their placement” (Cotter, 2010, p. 88). Internally, the editors here invoke news values and support or reject those with regard to a certain story, thus invisibly for the public acting as a gatekeeper. At this point, economic motives may also have decisive influence. Externally, the editorial pages function as exemplification of the newspaper’s stance and opinion aiming to justify their publication-decisions indirectly. Despite the other mentioned functions of media being subject to discussion, the definition of Chandler & Munday (2011) offers several other crossdisciplinary functions, like the surveillance, the consensus, the socialisation and in today’s times the entertainment function. These are also addressed as macro-level functions (cf. ibid.). Micro-level functions include a diversion, a social-utility, a

56

2 Theoretical Framework

personal-identity and an information function. The information and consensus functions serve, despite all neutrality attempts, the formation of public opinion (cf. ibid.). The most extreme form of opinion-making in public media is polarisation. This leads to a dilemma, because polarising newspapers could be evaluated as having failed their innermost reason for existence: independent reporting. Section 3.2.2 exemplifies that this is still an important value for most newspapers. Nonetheless, it is also arguable that meaning-making, to an extent where it does not equal sheer populism, is one of the most sacred functions of news media as well. To understand this dispute, polarisation will be more closely examined in relation to the media.

2.2.3.3 Media Polarisation Before the second world war and partially still afterwards, polarisation in the media still occurred very explicitly. “For much of American history, most newspapers were explicitly partisan, often including ‘Democrat’ or ‘Republican’ in the name to signal their lean” (Klein E., 2020, p. 145). Back then as well as today, local reporting often followed the motto ‘if it bleeds, it leads’, and political reporting followed the motto ‘if it outrages, it leads’ (cf. ibid., p. 149). Outrage occurs when one’s own group is threatened, as such indicating a membershippolarisation. Differences are what polarises—not commonalities. Nowadays, news media enterprises do not explicitly refer to their political bias, let alone their favourite political party. Nonetheless, one can note that journalists today are as likely to be influenced by polarising forces as journalists back then. A polarised environment, like the world of news media, inevitably leads to polarised and polarising journalists (cf. ibid., p. 163). Congruent with the presented motto for political reporting, one might conclude that the “political media is biased, but not toward the Left or the Right so much as toward loud, outrageous, colourful, inspirational, confrontational. It is biased toward the political stories and figures who activate our identities” (ibid., p. 170). This hypothesis is partially supported by Baum & Groeling’s (2008) earlier mentioned study on five online news sources and their news judgement prior to and following a midterm election in 2006 (see Section 1.2.1). Maybe the media orient or have oriented towards outrage and other news values in the beginning. Nonetheless, the result of this orientation process will always lead to partisan news coverage. The study finds that especially in the online sphere of blogs, one-sided coverage of politics is omnipresent on both sides of the political spectrum (cf. ibid, p. 359). This is best concluded with Obama’s words who once stated that “the point is that technology which brings the world to us also allows us to narrow our point of view” (quoted in Klein E., 2020, p. 159). Newspapers and particularly their online outlets oftentimes appear more

2.2 Analysing Discourse

57

moderate than other online news sources, also aiming to represent the opposite view more adequately. But even longstanding institutions exhibit signs of partisan news reporting and commenting. This is why opinion sections nowadays have become central for newspapers. Thus, they can explicitly, but separately from the usual news reporting, state their opinion and thereby keep journalistic distance and objectivity. Nonetheless, these newspaper opinion sections contribute heavily to political media discourse and enable the newspapers to be assigned a political orientation (see Section 3.2.2). All in all, the “capacity of newspapers to provide representations of reality, which are transmitted to hundreds of thousands of people, gives the press immense social power” (Trˇcková, 2014, p. 34). Social power includes the persuasive and symbolic capacity needed to influence and direct recipients’ minds. The way newspaper discourse is presented determines the way readers alter mental models, sets of knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, norms, values and ideologies (cf. ibid.). This is not conducted by simply reproducing perspectives of those in power, but newspapers “have the potential to challenge, criticize and subvert the world views of the dominant bloc” (ibid). Despite this conclusion, as indicated earlier, Lippmann (1994) emphasises the importance of considering that journalists rather point a flashlight at the world than a mirror (cf. p. 37), thus highlighting that reality is tainted and that news are always a selection made by human beings. In particular, this description is probably the most adequate symbolic definition of the agenda-setting function.

3

Methodology

The analysis of discourse confronts the linguistic world with some challenges. One of the reasons is the omnipresence and everyone’s participation in discourse, making it a mutual effort: The individual does not make the discourse but the opposite tends to be the case. The discourse is super-individual. Though everybody ‘knits along’ at producing discourse, no individual and no single group determines the discourse or has precisely intended what turns out to be the final result. As a rule discourses have evolved and become independent as the result of historical processes. They convey more knowledge than the individual subjects are aware of (Jäger, 2001).

This is why discourse analysis cannot be characterised as broad description of superficial aspects of a text. Moreover, discourse analysts immerse into a discourse and its context to discover hidden meanings, statements, stances and implied evaluations. This investigation can be conducted in various ways, depending on the respective type of discourse. Both following chapters explain the approach utilised for the analysis. First, the data selection process is illustrated in detail to describe the applied analytical categories afterwards.

3.1

Data Selection Process

Meyer (2001) describes the struggle in data selection for CDA as originating in the fact “that CDA does not constitute a well-defined empirical method but rather a cluster of approaches with a similar theoretical base and similar research questions [which] becomes most obvious here: there is no typical CDA way of collecting data” (p. 23). Within this research field, only vague suggestions have © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 C. Berning, The Polarisation of US Society and its Representation in the Media, BestMasters, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-42962-1_3

59

60

3

Methodology

been made concerning appropriate data selection proceedings. Jäger (2015), for example, emphasises that one can only attempt to examine and criticise specific controversial issues and subjects, at certain times and places. This reduction of data demands for well-founded selections with regard to particular themes and the respective timescale for the analysis (cf. ibid, p. 92 ff.). It is important to keep in mind that “every choice about what to count as text for analysis is a choice not only about what to include but also about what to exclude” (Johnstone, 2018, p. 17). This stresses again how difficult and vital this part of the analysis is. Daniel Wrana (2014) stays equally vague by stating that one of the three practices of data selection is the search for data within the field (cf. p. 635). To narrow in a possible data selection process, this thesis will firstly examine the genre at hand and its peculiarities, namely newspaper editorials. As the genre selection is one of the first steps in data selection, it seemed advisable to include theoretical notions about editorials in this methodology part rather than in the theoretical framework. To begin with, referring back to Section 2.2.3.3 seems advisable as it can be considered a justification for the media selection. The discussed polarising aspects especially apply to newspaper discourse and thus contribute to newspaper polarisation. This is why newspaper editorials were chosen as main data source for this investigation. Henry and Tator (2002) emphasise that “it’s important to analyse editorials because they are not merely idle statements of senior writers’ opinions; often they express the broader ideological stance of the newspaper’s owners and managers. They are evidence of the interlocking power structures of any given society” (p. 93). This view is contested but appears still applicable today. Van Dijk (1991) describes editorials as classifiable according to the following elements: Definitions, Explanations or Evaluations, and Moral (cf. p. 133). Morals include predictions and recommendations. They aim at influencing the reader and therefore need to be supported by evidence to make an argumentative position defensible and acceptable. Thus, like other discourse types, “editorials exhibit argumentative structures and strategies” (ibid., p. 134). “The possible effect on the readers of the persuasive goals of editorials can be speculated about only on terms of assumed shared interpretative frameworks of the reading public” (ibid.) of the respective time. This is why a sound argumentative analysis also demands the embedment into a broadly diversified framework to be able to understand presented topics and cleavages to the best of one’s abilities. “Positions defended by the Press are not personal opinions, but manifestations of more complex, socially shared, and dominant ideological frameworks that embody institutional relationships and power” (ibid.). Their structure is further described as impersonal, focusing on general public events, and supporting general social, economic, cultural or political opinions (cf. van Dijk, 1996). “Also

3.1 Data Selection Process

61

other elements of style will mark these institutional, public, more or less formal properties of the context, e.g., in the selection of lexical items, syntactic structures and modes of argumentation” (ibid.). And yet, newspapers will exhibit vast stylistic and argumentative differences, depending on their respective self-conception and journalistic aspirations. Vestergaard (2000) calls editorials Leading Articles and describes them as “the canonical type of comment text” (p. 102). He summarises van Dijk’s descriptions by stating that it is “a text that describes a non-trivial problem, typically political, suggests one or more possible solutions, and weighs their relative merits in the light of their possible consequence […] [and] will be persuasive or expository” (ibid.). Structurally, Reynolds (2000) adds that editorials are “prominently marked off from other textual materials such as letters and feature articles, and usually headed by the paper’s logo and the day’s date” (p. 27) – attributions that today apply to both online editorials as well as printed versions. The most significant feature for him is that an editorial usually is unsigned and that parts of its function is to “address and confirm reader’s interests, concerns and points of view” (ibid.), making them highly ideological. The following chapters describe the steps in data selection and more closely describe the specification of the selected newspapers as well as the specification of the timescale and resulting possible steps for data reduction.

3.1.1

Steps of Data Selection

Having expounded the peculiarities of editorials, Table 3.1 will be briefly addressed. It describes this thesis’ suggested steps in discourse-analytical studies regarding the data selection process. Not all suggested steps are explained in this subchapter as steps 1–4 were already discussed in the introduction, but here the focus will be on steps 5–7. As the explanation above has shown, CDA as well as discourse studies in general do not provide distinct manuals on how to approach the data selection process. Very loosely based upon Jäger (2015), this paper suggests those seven steps for a comprehensible and reasonable data selection process. For the NYT and the NR, the respective website provided a search engine allowing to filter the editorials by insertion of the keywords Presidential Election. The FT does not offer this feature which is why the filtering process had to be conducted manually for each editorial in the respective timeframe.

62

3

Methodology

Table 3.1 Description of Steps prior to Data Selection and in Data Selection in CDA (very loosely based upon Jäger, 2015) Step

Task

Application in this study

Steps prior to Data Collection (Steps 1–4) 1. Establishing a research • The scope of the study What are the given topic determines the amount of prerequisites: Deadlines, time and work scope limits, addressees, • CDA attempts to (selectively) analyse and criticise specific events and topics • Aim: Give profound reasons for case-specific selection 2. Specifying the Research Question

• Needs to be selected carefully • Consider aspects of media, politics and discourse mutually • Phenomena of media (inter-)actions

Coverage of the presidential election campaign 2020 as an expression of Split Society in the United States?

3. Specification of Discourse Type

• The research question defines the type of discourse under investigation (political media discourse, sports media discourse, social media discourse, etc.)

Polarising political media discourse (particularly newspaper discourse)

4. Specification of Media Type

• Select the type of media: Newspaper article, TV interview, Inauguration Speech, Social Media Posts, etc.

Polarising political media discourse presented in newspaper editorials

(continued)

3.1 Data Selection Process

63

Table 3.1 (continued) Step

Task

Application in this study

Steps in Data Collection (Steps 5–7) 5. Specification of Media Organisation

• Select specific media organisation/ newspaper/ magazine • Selection depends on dimension and orientation of research question (political focus = consider political biases; social focus = consider different backgrounds and focus groups)

The NYT, the NR and the FT

6. Specification of Timescale

• Avoid randomly selected timeframes and dates • Search for related events, specific points in time that are of importance for the research question • Is the data collection finished or ongoing?

Finished Data Collection; Beginning, for example, on day of Democratic nomination

7. Data Reduction

• In case the Data sample retrieved in the time interval is too large for the scope of the study • Examples: Relevant keywords as filter in respective search engines; headlines • After the final selection of material, once again refer to the first step and review your selection based on those prerequisites

Only editorials appearing when inserting the keywords “US Election Campaign” are included in the data sample, as long as they agree with the other steps of data collection (if a search engine is available)

3.1.2

Specification of Newspapers/ Magazines

The first step in the actual data selection process (step 5 in Table 3.1), i.e. the selection of newspapers for the data selection, represents a critical point of the investigation. As this thesis approaches political media discourse and the polarisation of the American society, the newspapers needed to represent, to a certain

64

3

Methodology

extent, a cross-section of American political orientations and values. Hence, three newspapers generally characterised with a certain political bias were chosen due to their prominence and large readership. The Public Profit Corporation (PBC) Ad Fontes Media classifies media outlets according to transparent and comprehensible guidelines. The stated public benefit and mission of the organisation is “to make news consumers smarter and news media better” (Ad Fontes Media, 2021). By use of content analyses, a team of human analysts from across the political spectrum classifies the media content on a regular basis, thus regularly restructuring the distribution on the chart. The interactive media bias chart allows for selected newspapers to be compared concerning their reliability and bias. The results show that the FT exhibits a neutral or balanced bias while being focused on fact reporting and complex analysis or mix of fact reporting and analysis. The focus of the NYT is comparable, but their bias is classified as skews left. Both sources are considered to be reliable. In contrast, the NR focuses on opinions and shows a high variation in reliability. Its bias is classified between skews right and highly-partisan right. The classification by Ad Fontes was also referenced in publications by Spinde et al. (2021) or Turk (2020).

3.1.2.1 The New York Times Having been established in 1851 as a penny paper, the NYT devoted itself to avoiding sensationalism and to reporting news in a restrained and objective fashion. This guideline has not changed ever since. The newspaper describes its mission as follows: “We seek the truth and help people understand the world” (New York Times, Mission and Values, n.d.). By following this maxim, the newspaper holds up their most important values: independence, integrity, curiosity, respect, collaboration and excellence (cf. ibid.). Furthermore, the NYT fights for diversity and inclusion, promoting these universal values beginning at the workplace of their editors and staff. Having started in 1980 with Jimmy Carter, the NYT has quadrennially endorsed the Democratic candidate in presidential elections. Thus, in the days leading up to the presidential election 2020, they endorsed Joe Biden as future President of the United States (cf. NYT.6). Interestingly, the handbook of values and practices for the news and editorial departments created guidelines for ethical journalism. The part about voting, campaigns and public issues states that journalists have no place on the playing fields of politics. Staff members are entitled to vote, but they must do nothing that might raise questions about their professional neutrality or that of The Times. In particular, they may not campaign for, demonstrate for,

3.1 Data Selection Process

65

or endorse candidates, ballot causes or efforts to enact legislation (New York Times, Ethical Journalism, n.d.).

This means that their employees as individuals are not allowed to publicly endorse a candidate, keeping up the appearance of neutrality, whereas the newspaper as an entity takes part in the American tradition of public media candidate endorsement. The 2020 endorsement is part of the selection of 10 campaign-related editorials by the NYT used for this investigation (see Table 3.2).

Table 3.2 List of Selected New York Times Editorials (in chronological order) The New York Times (NYT) N°

Date

Title

Word Count

NYT.1

9 July

The Supreme Court Lets Trump Run Out the Clock

1070

The justices reiterated that no president is above the law, but voters still won’t see his taxes before November. NYT.2

1 August

Voting by Mail Is Crucial for Democracy

1620

Especially amid the pandemic, it’s the surest path to a more inclusive, more accurate and more secure election. NYT.3

27 September

What’s the Plan if Trump Tweets That He’s Won Re-election?

1086

Social media platforms must not tolerate voter disinformation. NYT.4 NYT.5

30 September

A Debate That Can’t be ignored

2 October

Get Well, Mr. President

1005

Americans need to face the man who is their president. 689

The health of the country’s top leader is a matter of concern for all Americans. NYT.6

6 October

Elect Joe Biden, America

1481

The former vice president is the leader our nation needs now. (continued)

66

3

Methodology

Table 3.2 (continued) The New York Times (NYT) N°

Date

Title

Word Count

NYT.7

24 October

R.I.P., G.O.P.

1514

The Party of Lincoln had a good run. Then came Mr. Trump. NYT.8

NYT.9

1 November

Why Are Republicans so Afraid of Voters?

2 November

You’re Not Just Voting for President. You’re Voting to Start Over.

1613

There is no “both sides do it” when it comes to intentionally keeping Americans away from the polls. 863

The American experiment has taken a beating, but there’s a chance to renew our democracy. NYT.10

3 November

Feel Inspired, America

1155

There is much to celebrate about our democracy, from record voter turnout to creative volunteerism.

3.1.2.2 Financial Times Originating in the 1884 founded Financial News and the 1888 founded FT in London, the present newspaper was only established in 1945 by mergence of the two. The US edition of the FT was launched in 1997. The editorial code of practice emphasises accuracy, truthfulness, honesty and authority as main values, at the same time underlining their responsibility to set the highest standards of practice in financial journalism (Financial Times, FT Editorial Code, n.d.). Additionally, the FT highlights its social responsibility as one of the world’s leading news organisations. This includes a seasonal appeal, the promotion of financial literacy and inclusion, the promise of excellence and diversity in journalism, community engagement, the promise of sustainability and the care for human rights (Financial Times, Social Responsibility, n.d.). Since Barack Obama’s election in 2008, the FT has continued the practice of endorsement for the Democratic candidate in presidential elections. David Kynaston (2018) describes the newspaper today, whether delivered through hard-copy or online, remaining “in its underlying ethos recognisably the paper that Gordon Newton did so much to create half a century earlier: sober, detached and with an obstinate, unyielding separation between fact and comment” (p. 6) (see Table 3.3).

3.1 Data Selection Process

67

Table 3.3 List of Selected Financial Times Editorials (in chronological order) The Financial Times (FT) N°

Date

Title

Word Count

FT.1

9 August

The risks of a broken American election

632

Trump’s assault on absentee voting amid coronavirus is a dark omen FT.2

28 August

A tale of two very different US conventions

612

It would be hard to imagine a greater contrast between Biden and Trump FT.3 FT.4

FT.5

FT.6

7 September

Americans confront their momentous choice

15 September

US wildfires reveal partisan divide on climate

30 September

A tawdry debate shows the risks of US democracy

2 October

Trump’s virus poses new risks in US election

648

The presidential election could tighten yet further 608

It is in the Republican party’s interests to embrace a green agenda 637

Donald Trump sounds like a man preparing to contest election result 644

America’s institutions and constitution remain robust enough to cope FT.7

6 October

Donald Trump’s irresponsible words put others at risk

613

The US president has drawn the wrong messages from his brush with coronavirus FT.8

8 October

Substance stars in the debate of the deputies

627

Mike Pence and Kamala Harris expose the policy gap in the US FT.9

22 October

Bidenomics can preserve support for capitalism

616

No radical, the Democrat wants to save markets by softening them FT.10

26 October

The character of US democracy is on the ballot Between Donald Trump and Joe Biden, the choice should not be hard

1000

68

3

Methodology

3.1.2.3 National Review The NR was founded in 1955 by William F. Buckley Jr. as a magazine of conservative opinion. It is published printed and digitally per fortnight. After having become a wholly owned subsidiary of NR Institute in 2015, which was also founded by Buckley in 1991 as a charitable organisation, the mission of both the institute and the newspaper includes “free speech, free enterprise, personal responsibility, religious liberty, the defense of Western civilization, and a determined opposition to the aggrandized state” (Craig, 2020, p. 1). The website of the magazine does not offer an insight into journalistic practices and key values, except from highlighting the conservative stance. The magazine’s credenda as presented by its founder in 1955 represents an innate belief in decentralisation, both nationally and internationally, the rejection of changes to the social order, the declaration of war to communism, the endorsement of excellence and honest intellectual combat instead of newness and conformity when it comes to education, the defence of the two-party system at all costs and the belief in the competitive price system (cf. Buckley Jr., 1955). As the article these key ideas were taken from is overwritten with ‘our mission statement’, these apparently still are the values and ideas valid for editors and staff of the magazine (see Table 3.4). Table 3.4 List of Selected National Review Editorials (in chronological order) National Review (NR) N°

Date

Title

Word Count

NR.1

30 July

Delaying the Election Would Be Grotesque and Un-American

342

NR.2

31 July

Joe Biden’s Costly, Radical Race and Gender Agenda

NR.3

12 August

Kamala Harris Is No Moderate

NR.4

21 August

The Democratic Convention Skipped over the Biden-Harris Agenda

(no sub-heading) 908

(no sub-heading) 668

(no sub-heading) 432

(no sub-heading) (continued)

3.1 Data Selection Process

69

Table 3.4 (continued) National Review (NR) N°

Date

Title

Word Count

NR.5

28 August

Trump Makes His Case

435

NR.6

24 September

There Will Be a Peaceful Transfer of Power

(no sub-heading) 437

(no sub-heading) NR.7

15 October

The Task Ahead

1041

(no sub-heading)

3.1.3

Specification of Timescale and Data Reduction

Following the specification of newspapers, two further steps in the data selection process, the specification of timescale and the data reduction, need to be conducted. To begin with, one should consider the presidential election process which is a daring time- and money-consuming undertaking. Fulfilling all the requirements for being elected the President of the United States, which includes being a natural born US citizen, being minimum 35 years of age and having resided in the US for at least 14 years, is only the first of many steps on the way to presidency, as indicated in Section 2.1.1.2. The campaigning starts nearly two years before the actual election (cf. US Government, 2020). Thus, the selected timeframe for the investigation of this thesis had to be precisely determined to receive an adequate set of data. For reasons of conciseness and clarity, 9 June 2020 was selected as starting date for data collection. This date represents the moment when Joe Biden unofficially secured his nomination as the Democratic candidate for the presidential election by having rallied enough delegates on his side. Therefore, the actual presidential election campaign race, Republican candidate versus Democratic candidate, can be determined as having started on this day. The official end date of the election campaigns is the date of the general election, thus 3 November 2020. Consequently, the data set covers 21 weeks of editorials about the presidential election campaigns. For each newspaper, more editorials which appear to be connected to the presidential election campaign were published within this timeframe. In the NYT, the editorials Trump is Plotting Against the Census. Here’s Why (New York Times, 2020k), The Trump Campaign Accepted Russian Help to Win in 2016. Case Closed (New York Times, 2020l) and Trump’s Overhaul of Immigration Is Worse Than You Think (New York Times,

70

3

Methodology

2020m) were not considered because they did not explicitly consider the presidential election campaign 2020. The same applies to the FT-article Kamala Harris and the Future of the Democrats (Financial Times, 2020k), as well as to the NRarticles Trump’s Middle East Achievement (National Review, 2020h) and Voters Deserve to Know Where Joe Biden Stands on Court-Packings (National Review, 2020i).

3.2

Analytical Categories

The analytical categories selected for the investigation of the present selection of newspaper editorials (see Table 3.5) are grounded in theoretical notions of evaluation, topoi and news values as presented in Section 2.2. The evaluation analysis (loosely based upon Hunston & Thompson 2001 and Bednarek 2006) begins with the description of linguistic features and investigates which kinds of literal, rhetorical and argumentative language were utilised. She emphasises that there would not be a “clearly defined list of linguistic means of evaluation […]. The list of lexico-grammatical means that can be used for evaluation is endless” (Bednarek, 2006, p. 8). This thesis will firstly look into lexis which inter alia includes the application of adjectives, nouns and verbs. Adverbs will only be considered scarcely in connection with verbs and adjectives. In general, newspapers explicitly or implicitly include certain clause constituents, such as adjectives, to justify their opinion and direct the reader’s attention to particularly important aspects of the story. Adjectives, be they attributive or predicative, are used to modify the meaning of a noun or pronoun. This can be done in an either evaluative or neutral way, depending on the kind of adjective, its position, and reference noun or pronoun. All three selected news media apply evaluative adjectives to express their opinion. The same applies to nouns and verbs. The utilisation of modal verbs within the newspapers could be equally telling. Should and ought to, for instance, usually express an advice, a demand or an obligation and can only be used as auxiliary verb. Whereas need can also be used as a main verb, expressing the want for something. The other two frequently applied modal auxiliaries are must and have to, indicating a necessity or an imperative. Finally, can or can’t/ cannot signify an ability or an inability (cf. Henrichs, 2008, p. 100 ff.). These remarks should be kept in mind for the discussion of results as especially the utilisation of modal verbs allows for distinct interpretations (see Section 4.1.1.3).

3.2 Analytical Categories

71

The description of rhetorical language includes a variety of rhetorical devices, mainly categorised in either schemes or tropes according to Cockcroft & Cockcroft (1992). Within their work, the two authors discuss various rhetorical devices and finally create an extensive finding list. This list was complemented for this thesis’ analysis by Lethbridge & Mildorf’s (2004) overview of schemes and tropes. Despite the distribution of rhetorical devices into tropes and schemes being subject to disagreement within rhetorics, this thesis will apply the following classification because it is expedient and broadly acknowledged. Therefore, a scheme is an “unusual arrangement of words in which their literal sense is not modified” (Harmon & Holman, 2003, p. 459). A trope instead is defined as “a figure of speech involving a ‘turn’ or change of sense – the use of a word in a sense other than the literal” (ibid., p. 518). A conceptual metaphor, as a type of trope, is defined as “understanding one domain of experience (that is typically abstract) in terms of another (that is typically concrete). This definition captures conceptual metaphors both as process and as a product. The cognitive process of understanding a domain is the process aspect of metaphor, while the resulting conceptual pattern can be considered the product aspect” (Kövecses, 2017, p. 13). Argumentative language, in the current case, refers to general comments and allusions which were striking during the analysis of the editorials. Comments, for this thesis’ purposes, will be considered as utterances, bracketed additions and statements personally directed towards the reader, exhibiting commenting and evaluative character and not clearly classifiable as part of the other suggested categories. The same applies to possible allusions which otherwise could have also been investigated in Section 4.1.2.2 as tropes. Afterwards, the presented linguistic features are discussed, and a topos analysis is conducted. Topoi are discovered as general key ideas pervading the majority of editorials, and which exhibit underlying notions of political or polarising themes. Finally, the selection of linguistic features and topoi is justified by referring to the concept of newsworthiness and the consideration of certain news values which might have played a role in editorial decisions.

72

3

Methodology

Table 3.5 Linguistic Categories applied in the Course of Analysis Steps of Analysis

Description

Evaluation Analysis Evaluation by means of lexis (Section 4.1.1)

• Adjectives • Nouns • Verbs

Evaluation by means of rhetorical language (Section 4.1.2)

• Schemes (Parallelism, Antithesis, Repetition, Rhetorical Question, Paradox…) • Tropes (Metaphors, Euphemism, Hyperbole, Irony, Pejorative, Simile, Neologism…) • Idioms, Sayings, Proverbs

Evaluation by means of argumentative language (Section 4.1.3)

• Evaluative Language (Comments, Allusions, Insinuations, etc.))

Topoi Analysis Topoi (Section 4.2)

• Generalised key ideas, Pervading themes • Underlying notion of political or polarising themes

News Value Analysis News Values and Newsworthiness (Section 4.3)

• News Values according to Bednarek (2006) such as Negativity, Recency, Relevance, etc.

4

Findings

Following the historical and theoretical background (Chapter 2) as well as the methodological framework (Chapter 3), this chapter presents the findings of the analysis. Section 4.1 introduces findings of the examination of evaluative language, such as lexis, rhetorical and argumentative language. Similar to the explanations above, one can determine that lexis refers to adjectives, nouns or verbs which either have evaluating character or appear evaluative in combination with their respective context. Section 4.1.2 (Rhetorical Language) emerges deeper into the editorials and discourse to analyse characteristic and noticeable rhetorical devices. These devices include schemes as well as tropes and shed light on the newspapers’ intentions and political orientation. The passage about argumentative language includes general parts of commenting character and allusions which are also classifiable as argumentative comment. Section 4.2 consists of an extensive topoi analysis, also referring to some of the earlier findings to substantiate claims based on the topoi described. Finally, Section 4.3 will briefly identify news values taken into account by the newspapers.

Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-42962-1_4.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 C. Berning, The Polarisation of US Society and its Representation in the Media, BestMasters, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-42962-1_4

73

74

4

4.1

Evaluation Analysis

4.1.1

Lexis

Findings

4.1.1.1 Adjectives To begin with, the NYT, for example, describes the rejection of a subpoena for Donald Trump’s tax returns and the given reason, a distraction from his official duties, as an “amusing gripe” (NYT.1). By doing so, the editorial indirectly indicates some sort of ridiculousness. The adjective amusing suggests the newspaper’s intention not to take the utterances serious because of the President’s excessive use of and time investment in social media. The conclusion could be that if he finds time to send off tweets, he will find time for a subpoena. A more direct assessment of the President’s deeds depict the descriptions presented in the majorities of the selected NYT-editorials. They describe his performance at the presidential debate as a “national disgrace” (NYT.4), himself personally as “incapable of self-control—petulant, self-centered, rageful” (ibid.), and his behaviour as making it “impossible” (ibid.) to have a civil, substantive conversation. By describing the question, whether Trump was willing to condemn the white supremacists and right-wing militants, particularly referring to a group called Proud Boys, as the “slowest, fattest softball a president could be tossed” (ibid.), the editorial seems to exemplify the earlier mentioned ridiculousness that comes with certain utterances and actions by the President. Equally negative appears the assessment of the policy agenda of the Republican party as being whatever Trump wants which is deemed “pathetic” (NYT.7). His immigration agenda is described as “draconian” (ibid.), his talk as “incendiary” (ibid.), his handling of the pandemic as “calamitous” (ibid.) and his influence on the Republican party as “corrosive” (ibid.). The application of these adjectives runs like a common thread through the NYT-editorials. It is apparent that all these adjectives are negatively connoted whereas positively connoted adjectives only appear in the endorsement-editorial for Joe Biden (see NYT.6) (see Table 4.1). Another noticeable feature is the description of Republican and presidential statements. Exemplarily, Trump’s words are characterised as “misleading” (NYT.2) or as “ceaseless” (NYT.4) lies, insults and abuses. Moreover, the newspaper presents his declaration of national emergency for the building of his wall as “phony” (NYT.7), addresses “unsubstantiated” (ibid.) and “vile” (ibid.) claims by Republican legislators and adjudges Trump’s claims to stop the count of votes before every state has been officially called as “premature” (NYT.9).

4.1 Evaluation Analysis

75

All these adjectives express falsehood, danger and lack of evidence, thus potentially insinuating a pattern on the issue of Republican or presidential utterances. This impression of a negative attitude towards the President and Republicans is strengthened by the description of Republican “so-called leaders” (NYT.7). The application of the attributive adjective so-called suggests a rejection of the term leader being attributed to the Republicans in question in the context of Trump’s ignorance and defamation of the sciences and the US’ top virologist. Equally striking is the depiction of the US as a country. Firstly, the election and the situation around it is illustrated as “unprecedented moment” (NYT.2), as the “most extraordinary election” (ibid.) in one’s lifetime and as a “pivotal moment” (NYT.3) for American democracy. This exemplifies the enormity of the decision to be made and points at the newspaper’s current assessment of the country’s status quo. Secondly, the social and political situation in 2020 is mostly portrayed negatively. To begin with, Trump’s handling of his own Covid19 infection in October 2020 is described as having made America “weaker and

Table 4.1 Findings: Evaluative Adjectives (including modifying adverbs) in the NYT, FT and NR Newspaper Evaluative Adjectives and their Referents NYT

Assessment of the President’s and the Republicans’ actions: Amusing (gripe); national (disgrace); incapable (of self-control)—petulant, self-centered, rageful; Impossible; slowest, fattest (softball a president could be tossed); pathetic; draconian (immigration agenda); incendiary; calamitous; corrosive (influence); damning (evidence); troubling (scenario on election night); misguided (attempt); (Republicans have stood by,) slackjawed; anti-democratic (power grabs); Assessment of the President’s and the Republicans’ utterances: Misleading; ceaseless; phony; unsubstantiated (claims); vile; premature; so-called (leaders); (Mr. Trump doesn’t care if you think he’s) corrupt, incompetent and self-centered; self-serving, power-hungry (gang); Depiction of America’s state as a country: Unprecedented (moment); most extraordinary (election); pivotal moment; weaker and more vulnerable; painful (reminder); weaker, angrier, less hopeful and more divided; unrelenting (chaos); anxious, exhausted (nation); disgraceful (reality) Defence of Mail-Balloting: Inclusive; accurate; secure; safe; accessible; handpicked (F.B.I director); fair (election) General Assessments: good (news); bad news; fundamental constitutional (truth); well-publicized (struggles); good (news); (public education efforts will be) critical; strong public (signal); (such vagaries are) worrisome; (is even) more alarming; (the debate was) excruciating; (the fact) is alarming; bold (agenda); long and distinguished (record); rare (gift); (is) bad; excellent news; decrepit, incompetent, self-dealing (board of elections); contentious and scary and possibly violent; (That’s) astonishing and inspiring; nerve-racking (continued)

76

4

Findings

Table 4.1 (continued) Newspaper Evaluative Adjectives and their Referents FT

Assessment of President’s and Republicans’ efforts to exacerbate voting: Willing (accomplices); most worrisome; (deeply) un-American; repugnant (to any one who call themselves conservative); false or badly exaggerated; ruthless (foe); (eerily) ambiguous; odd (behaviour); irresponsible (words); disrespectful; deep (threat); littered (with character attacks and warnings); (are) false or badly exaggerated; Description of the political and social situation in 2020 as threatening scenario: Dark (omen); fraught (times); riven (country); (something) much darker; deteriorating (infrastructure), weak (social protections) and poor (skills training); selfish and high-minded (reasons to step out); oxymoronic; momentous (choice); most turbulent and unpredictable (US election); most serious global (pandemic); greatest (failure) General Assessments: (prove as) bad (as delayed elections); critical (that voters be given an alternative); well-functioning (US postal service); (would be) murky; hot (contest); most potent (rhetoric will fall short); (the advantages of agglomeration are) incalculable; fragmented and nasty (evening); wrong (lessons); unnecessary (risk); (is) disrespectful; vicious (debate); bad (hand)

NR

Assessment of Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and the Democrats: Costly, radical […] and too local; (fully) socialised; eager (to end features of the constitutional order); perilous; never-ending (pull to the left); anti-Catholic (bigot); moderate (monopolist on health care); dishonest (politico); (moderately) corrupt (as an attorney general), (moderately) abusive (as senator), and now (moderately) dangerous (to the rule of law); fragile-seeming and forgetful (old man); too hobbled (by age); erratic (judgement); never-ending (pull to the left); Assessment of the President’s actions: Negative: Grotesque and un-American; incendiary and absurd (idea unworthy of being spoken—or even thought of—by a President of the United States); (extraordinarily) poor (manager of the federal government); indecisive, (too poorly) advised and too uninterested; pointless (controversies); dogged (determination); (his) shameful (rhetoric); (they are) heedless Positive: canny political (instincts); extraordinary (primary victory); (particularly) commendable; hypercritical (media); vicious (pathogen) General Assessments: excruciating (overtime); legitimate (concern); greatest (republic); unpleasant (surprises); inadequate (amount of control); hysterical (objections)

more vulnerable” (NYT.5). The application of the comparative form of the adjectives in this case indicates that the situation of America before the illness had already been bad and assailable and has now worsened. Likewise, the conclusion that Joe Biden’s vow to restore the soul of America would be a “painful reminder” (NYT.6) that the country is “weaker, angrier, less hopeful and more divided” than four years ago expresses the newspaper’s assessment of the status quo as deteriorating and negative. The additional summary of the current situation as “unrelenting chaos” (ibid.) and of the country as an “anxious, exhausted nation” (ibid.) further supports this point. In this context, the NYT describes the

4.1 Evaluation Analysis

77

fact that many Americans will have to wait in long lines for hours to exercise their right to vote as a “disgraceful reality” (NYT.9), thus indirectly criticising voting practices and obstacles to voting. The term disgraceful is used to emphasise that in a developed country like the US, nobody should have to face difficulties with voting in an election that is prepared months and years in advance. Finally, the reference to voting obstructionism can be viewed as a defence of mail-balloting, a practice which has been discredited across the US for apparently being insecure and fraudulent. The NYT clarifies in various different ways that voting by mail is as secure as voting in person, perhaps in times of a pandemic even more secure. Mail-balloting was most explicitly discussed in “Voting by Mail is Crucial for Democracy” (NYT.2). Here, adjectives such as “inclusive”, “secure”, “accurate”, “safe”, and “accessible” are repeatedly applied, conveying the message that mail-balloting should be viewed as an actual alternative to usual in-person voting. By calling the F.B.I. director “handpicked” (NYT.8) and referring to his statements about missing evidence for voter fraud, the editorial hints at the non-existent substance of any negative claims about mail-balloting. In contrast, by describing what a “fair election” (ibid.) would mean, the editorial suggests that existing rules and state laws represent obstacles for what the NYT views as an honest and equal election. The application of evaluative adjectives in the FT is similarly noticeable. The evaluation of Republican and of Trump’s efforts to exacerbate mail-balloting and voting in general is apparent. On the one hand, Republicans are called “willing accomplices” (FT.1) in Trump’s attempts to assault mail-balloting, which is considered “most worrisome” (ibid.). On the other hand, these efforts are even called “deeply un-American”, the adverb deeply putting emphasis on the statement, and it is noted that these efforts should be “repugnant to any who call themselves conservative” (ibid.). This last notion refers to the actual position of conservatives who usually hold up the flag of democracy and law and order as high as they can. Additionally, throughout all investigated editorials, Trump is frequently characterised regarding his personality. His claims would be “false or badly exaggerated” (FT.2), he would be a “ruthless foe” (FT.3), his message to white nationalists was “eerily ambiguous” (FT.5), his behaviour is called “odd” (ibid.) for someone trailing in the polls, his words following his infection are described as “irresponsible” (FT.7) and “disrespectful” (ibid.) to all those having died from Covid-19, and finally his plans to ignore election results are deemed a “deep threat” to US democracy (FT.10). The use of these evaluative adjectives can be read as a rejection of Trump’s deeds and utterances and as an expression of confusion and bewilderment for such a constant deviation from political practices and human decency.

78

4

Findings

Moreover, the social and political situation in 2020 is depicted as a threatening scenario. Talk of a “dark omen” (FT.1), “fraught times” (FT.3), a “riven country” (FT.4), “something much darker” (FT.5) and of a “deteriorating infrastructure, weak social protections and poor skills training” (FT.10) suggests an appalling and alarming prospect of the future. Equally interesting is the editorial’s view on partisan divide on climate being revealed by wildfires across the west coast (see FT.4). After citing a Republican senator describing his partisan colleagues as being “in the closet on climate” (ibid.), the article concludes by answering that there would be both “selfish and high-minded reasons” (ibid.) to step out. In this case, while the adjective selfish is usually used to express negativity, it is utilised here to exemplify the need for Republicans to be more open-minded when it comes to climate change. In this respect, the remark that a green Republican party would strike some as “oxymoronic” (ibid.) is fitting, because the Republicans have so far shown little interest in environmental issues. The analysis of evaluative adjectives in NR-editorials showed a personification of the discourse at hand, in the sense that the majority of adjectives was used to describe Joe Biden and his running mate Kamala Harris, as well as the Democratic party in general. The point of critique expressed by the application of those adjectives addresses both his political objectives as well as Joe Biden as a person and leader. On the one hand, his agenda is addressed as “costly, radical […] and too local” (NR.2). The political agenda of his party is presented as pursuing “fully socialised” (NR.7) Medicare, as being “eager to end features of the constitutional order” (ibid.) and as being “perilous” (ibid.). It is further addressed as unable to resist a “never-ending pull to the left” (NR.4). Another conspicuousness would be his and Kamala Harris’ character descriptions throughout the editorials. Harris is described as “anti-Catholic bigot” (NR.3), as “moderate monopolist on health care” (ibid.), as “dishonest” (ibid.) and “moderately corrupt as an attorney general, moderately abusive as senator, and now moderately dangerous to the rule of law”. This description creates a very negative and pejorative picture of the potential Vice-President. Similarly, Biden is characterised as “fragile seeming and forgetful” (ibid.), as “too hobbled by age” (NR.7) and as having an “erratic” (ibid.) judgement. All these observations suggest an aversion towards Democratic values and characters in general. Interestingly, some adjectives were applied in the NR and appeared to be evaluative with regard to Donald Trump and his behaviour, too. To begin with, his idea to delay the election is labelled as “grotesque and un-American” (NR.1), as an “incendiary and absurd idea unworthy of being spoken—or even thought of—by a President of the United States” (ibid.). Additionally, Trump would be an “extraordinarily poor manager of the federal government” (NR.7), too “indecisive, too poorly advised and too uninterested” (ibid.). In like manner, he has been

4.1 Evaluation Analysis

79

involved in “pointless controversies” (ibid.) with media figures. All this shows that even though the magazine generally rejects Democratic values and politics, they also come out against Trump and his flaws. But despite heavily criticising him and his practices, the NR does not miss out on emphasising some of his achievements and positive characteristics by applying positively connoted adjectives as well. They praise his “canny political instincts” (ibid.), his “extraordinary primary victory” (ibid.) and the reorientation of Mideast alliances as “particularly commendable” (ibid.). In addition, they mention circumstances that might have led to his presidency having turned the way it has in the end, namely the “hypercritical media” (ibid.) and a “vicious pathogen” (ibid.). By doing so, the NR seems to backpaddle in a way. Vicious and hypercritical indicate a graveness which distracts from earlier presented misdeeds. If adverbs were used throughout the editorials to modify adjectives, as in the case of “aggressively encounter” (NYT.2) or “repeatedly condemned” (FT.2), this was predominantly done to underline and highlight the statement’s and especially the adjective’s underlying notion. Additionally, one sentence adverb was striking in the NR. The sentence adverb “obviously” (NR.1; NR.7) was not only used as sentence adverb but also throughout the text and implies logic and obviousness with regard to the statement following.

4.1.1.2 Nouns Another form of clause constituents to express certain views in newspaper editorials are nouns. The utilisation of certain nouns can also trigger positive or negative associations, emotions and reactions. The author’s use of nouns influences the reader and his or her impression of the topic at hand (see Table 4.2). As the selected editorials by the NYT mostly cover Donald Trump, they usually apply a variety of negatively connoted nouns and compound nouns, except for the endorsement article about Joe Biden where most nouns can be described as genuinely positive. The current social and political situation in 2020 is portrayed as chaotic by use of nouns such as “unrest” (NYT.3), “constitutional crisis” (ibid.), “horror” (NYT.4), “turmoil” (NYT.5), “chaos” (ibid.), “times of crisis” (ibid.) or “tragedy” (NYT.7). The current social and political situation in 2020 is thus presented as an apocalyptic scenario. Nouns personally associated with Donald Trump add up to this picture. He is linked with the “tear-gassing of protesters” (NYT.1), a “ruler’s abuse of power” (ibid.), repeatedly also with the terms “misinformation” (NYT.2), “insults” (NYT.4), “disgrace” (ibid.) and “desperation” (ibid.). Beyond that, he is named an “autocrat” (ibid.), a “fool” (NYT.6) and an “intimidator in chief” (NYT.8). This depiction of Donald Trump creates a dangerous image of the President of the United States, resembling a definition

80

4

Findings

Table 4.2 Findings: Evaluative Nouns in the NYT, FT and NR Newspaper

Evaluative Nouns

NYT

Description of social and political situation in 2020 as threatening scenario: Unrest; constitutional crisis; horror; turmoil; chaos; times of crisis; tragedy; misinformation; amok Assessment of the President: Tear-gassing; ruler’s abuse (of power); misinformation; insults; disgrace; desperation; autocrat; fool; intimidator in chief ; (would-be) autocrat; Assessment of Republicans: Paranoia; grievance; populism; obstructionism; betrayal; hypocrisy; degeneracy; Deep State; QAnon; desperation; insults; affair; hush money; accusations of assault and harassment; (gross) boasts of grabbing; Assessment of Joe Biden: Steadiness, experience, decency; rule of law; (public) confidence; (democratic) institutions; respect (for science and expertise); pragmatism; healing division; (shared) values; unity; bipartisanship; reassurance and guidance; Description of American citizens and public core values: Strengths; rule of law; democracy and voter turnout; (creative) volunteerism; (patriotic) volunteerism; (shared) belief ; (communal) willingness; representative democracy; Further negatively connoted nouns: dereliction; white supremacist group; conspiracymongers; ignorance; mockery; voter intimidation; fraud; gamesmanship;

FT

Description of the social and political situation in 2020 as threatening scenario: Risks, assault, defeat; violence; hazard; havoc; threat; menace; crusade (against the ‘administrative state’ at home); (his) fondness (of white nationalists); rudeness; downplaying (of the threat); fear-mongering; disregard (for science); (unforced) errors; looting an violence; stability of the republic; severity; chaos; disease; pandemic; Positive Assessment of rule of law: Justice; due process; reassertion (of government); fairness (of America’s voting system) Description of a leader’s character traits: Vigilance; empathy; prudence Further negatively connoted nouns: backdoor efforts; killjoy public health officials; ugliness; voter fraud; indifference; rudeness; downplaying of the threat; coyness; populist slander; frustrations;

NR

Description of conservative values and topics: (Tribute to our commitment to) self-government; pro-lifer; immigration laws; (Catholic) church; filibuster; pride; tradition Assessment of the President: Rebel troops; unemployment rate; depredations (of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan); drama; misuse (of the setting); Trumpian (bluster); rapport with dictators; debacle of large scale family separations; Assessment of Democratic policies and their candidates’ personalities: (Political) asylum; (illegal) immigrants; abortion fanaticism; bigot; ignoramus; regency; (Obama’s) signature mistake; (left-wing) monopoly; (runaway) leftism; destruction (of American institutions); (open) borders; violation; misuse; drama; (wretched) Iran Deal;

4.1 Evaluation Analysis

81

of an autocrat regime. Equally remarkable is the set of nouns used in “R.I.P., G.O.P.” (NYT.7). Nouns associated with the Republican party are “paranoia”, “grievance”, “populism”, “obstructionism”, “betrayal”, “hypocrisy” and “degeneracy” (ibid.). This characterisation of the party creates a negative image and as the party relentlessly crumbling into pieces. Additionally in this context, the “Deep State” and “QAnon” (ibid.) are mentioned, and one Republican is referred to who apparently follows vile claims being peddled online by “right-wing conspiracymongers”. Deep State refers to a conspiracy theory that assumes the cooperation of bureaucrats, intelligence agencies and the military to control democratically elected officials whereas QANon represents a group, enjoying ever-larger clientele, whose main assumption is that a powerful, world-wide active, satanic group of elites is kidnapping children (cf. Amarasingam & Argentino, 2020). These conspiracies go a lot further but do not deserve room for further explanation. The mentioning of these groups and concepts itself already guides the reader and influences his picture of the Republican party. In contrast to those mainly negatively connoted nouns, the endorsement article about Joe Biden only addresses positively connoted nouns and expressions with regard to him, thus giving the impression of a stark contrast between the two parties and candidates. The sheer amount of associations with Biden highlights the NYT’s endorsement. For instance, the mentioning of terms such as “steadiness, experience and decency”, “rule of law”, “public confidence”, “democratic institutions”, “respect for science and expertise” and “pragmatism” (NYT.6) implies that his personality traits would definitely benefit the country, its people and institutions. This is complemented by referring to the “healing [of] division”, “shared values”, “unity” and “bipartisanship” (ibid.). Biden is represented as the unifying figure and presumably only solution for an improvement of the current social and political situation in 2020. Finally, the editorial “Feel inspired, America” (NYT.10) appeals to American citizens and aims at reminding the public of core values and positive examples of non-partisan involvement around the election. The editorial talks about “strengths”, the “rule of law”, “democracy and voter turnout”, about “creative volunteerism” as well as “patriotic volunteerism” and the “shared belief” in democracy and their “communal willingness” to defend it. The analysis of nouns used in editorials of the FT suggests one central issue, namely threats and potential dangers for the country. Frequently repeated nouns include “risks” (FT.1, FT.3, FT.5, FT.6, FT.7), “assault” (FT.1), “defeat” (FT.1, FT.5), “violence” (FT.2, FT.6), “hazard” (FT.3), “havoc” (FT.4), “threat” (FT.6, FT.10) and “menace” (FT.9). This implies that the newspaper might try to exemplify the importance of the upcoming election. The frequent application of these

82

4

Findings

nouns illustrates what is on the line and what has already happened during the last 4 years. Some of these threats are directly connected to President Trump, such as “his crusade against the ‘administrative state‘ at home [that] has included environmental deregulation” (FT.4), his fondness of “white nationalists” (FT.5), his “rudeness” (ibid.), his “downplaying of the threat” (FT.6), his “fear-mongering” (ibid.), his “disregard for science” (FT.10) and his “unforced errors” (ibid.). These points of critique are expressed in a reporting and seemingly neutral way, but their sheer amount suggests a critical assessment of the President’s politics during his tenure. By contrast, positively connoted nouns are rarely found throughout all editorials. On the one hand, the rule of law and order is emphasised by referring to “justice” (FT.5), “due process” (FT.6), the “reassertion of government” (FT.9) and the “fairness of America’s voting system” (FT.10). On the other hand, character traits which seem desirable for a commander in chief are presented as being “vigilance” (FT.5), “empathy” (FT.7) and “prudence” (ibid.). Equally interesting is the use of blends as a result of the combination of the candidate’s surname and the noun economics, namely Bidenomics (FT.9) and Trumpenomics (FT.10). These can be read as a manifestation of their respective financial plans for the country. Bidenomics, on the one hand, is presented as a reasonable but enormous fiscal stimulus that considers both the current crisis and its effects on the US-economy as well as current pressing questions like the fight against climate change and the reorganisation of the public health care system (cf. FT.9). Trumpenomics, on the other hand, is presented as consisting “of more tax cuts and little else” (FT.10) despite the Trump-appointed head of the Federal Reserve calling for fiscal stimulus on a similar scale to Biden. This shows that in general the FT evaluates Trumpenomics negatively and Bidenomics positively. It can also be read as analogy to Ronald Reagan and his economic plan, called Reaganomics (cf. Komlos & Schubert, 2020). Comparatively more difficult appears the analysis of nouns applied in NR editorials because of possible different connotations. Positively connoted nouns address the “tribute to our commitment to self-government” (NR.1), “pro-lifer” (NR.2), “immigration laws” (ibid.), the “Catholic church” (NR.3), the “filibuster” (NR.4) as element of congressional blockade, as well as the terms “pride” (NR.6) and “tradition” (ibid.). They thus address mainly conservative values and topics. In contrast, negatively connoted nouns are applied to criticise Donald Trump. By mentioning “rebel troops” (NR.1), a high “unemployment rate” (ibid.) and the “depredations of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan” (ibid.) as not having been obstacles for a regular election in the past, the NR declares their rejection of Donald Trump’s plans to postpone the election. Additionally, Trump’s acceptance

4.1 Evaluation Analysis

83

speech in the White House is indirectly criticised by admitting that Trump added “drama” (NR.5) to the convention, transformed the White House lawn into a floor for his speech, being a “misuse” (ibid.) of the setting and the whole week before the Republican convention being filled with “Trumpian bluster” (ibid.). Finally, Democratic policies and their candidates’ personalities are also addressed by using negatively connoted nouns. The idea of “political asylum” (NR.2) on the basis of sexual violence, in this context “illegal immigrants” (NR.3), the approach of open borders (ibid.) and “abortion fanaticism” (ibid.) are only some of the points of critique. Kamala Harris is further addressed as “bigot” (ibid.) and “ignoramus” (ibid.). Biden’s potential presidency is portrayed as possibly evolving into a “regency” (ibid.), thus indicating to the reader that the Democrat might rule in a monarchical way. Furthermore, “Obama’s signature mistake” (NR.7), the Iran deal, is mentioned to signify the possibility of continuation of this kind of politics by Biden. In this context, the article also refers to a potential “left-wing monopoly” (ibid.) on power, “runaway leftism” (ibid.) and consequently the “destruction of American institutions” (ibid.) and hence obviously presents their opposition to any leftist ideology. One can conclude that some nouns in those NR-editorials tend to take on different connotations than they probably would in more moderate news outlets.

4.1.1.3 Verbs Not only do adjectives and nouns allow to draw conclusions based on their effect on a reader and the intention of the author, but verbs do so, too. As part of a clause, their utilisation is oftentimes deliberate and influences the reader’s opinion to a certain extent. Of particular interest for this investigation was the use of idioms and modal auxiliaries (see Table 4.3). The application of modal auxiliaries was especially apparent and seemed excessive throughout all NYT editorials. Compared to the FT and the NR, they were used a lot more frequently. Therefore, the NYT appears to demonstrate an urgency for change which is expressed by a demanding and postulating way of writing. Several alternatives and opportunities for action are suggested such as “Americans need to face the man who is their president” (NYT.4) or “[it’s] also the bare minimum Americans should expect”, thus always taking on a commanding tone. The other two newspapers also utilise modal auxiliaries and their effects but not in such an extensive way. The verb idioms used in the NYT also show striking features. By referring to the Supreme Court disagreeing with Trump on a certain topic and describing it as the judges having “shot him down” (NYT.1), the newspaper exaggerates the act of rejection by the court for Trump. In another case, the newspaper alleges Trump

84

4

Findings

Table 4.3 Findings Evaluative Verbs (including verb-idioms) in the NYT, FT and NR Newspaper Evaluative Verbs (including verb idioms) NYT

Demanding and postulating way of writing: Striking overutilisation of modal auxiliaries such as need to, ought to, have to, should, etc. Description of the President: Shot him down; kept in the dark; brush him off ; take the full measure (of the man); take office; Description of the Republicans: Owning (the libs); letting him run amok; (can be) nursed back to health; Further Verbs/ Idioms: let sb. run out the clock; throwing future debates into limbo;

FT

Description of the President’s actions and intentions: Crowded out (all other news); (will) make hay; throwing someone off his stride; added a new layer of ; bring home (the reality and severity of the pandemic); learned the wrong lessons; playing a bad hand moderately well; bank on (a vaccine); slow to grasp; Further Verbs/ Idioms: survive a zero-sum battle; diffuse that narrative; men are at odds over; feeling anything but queasy; stick to the rules; many lives may yet be at stake; to game the system

NR

Description of the President: Poured scorn on (the idea); playing into his opponents’ hands; carry the extraordinary weight (of that office); (conservatives) will have our work cut out for us; the speech hammered away; chip away a little at the rock; Further Verbs/ Idioms: pity the poor; make one’s case;

of coming up with more arguments about why the American people should be “kept in the dark” (ibid.), assuming that the practice of delaying the publication is deliberate. Furthermore, the article “Voting by mail is crucial for democracy” (NYT.2) admits that it would be easy to “brush him off” (ibid.). Brushing someone off in this case refers to the act of not taking someone’s (here Trump’s) utterances serious. In accordance, the newspaper addresses the nation and suggests that every American should “take the full measure of the man” (NYT.4) that is running for re-election. Moreover, the Republican party is presented as only being focused on obstructionism and “owning the libs” (NYT.7) which means as much as showing somebody or utterly defeating someone. Republicans are further criticised for “letting him run amok” (ibid), thus referring to the President and his way of governing. At the end of the article “R.I.P., G.O.P.” (NYT.7), the authors assume that the party “can be nursed back to health” (ibid.) if the scars left by Trump would only run four years deep. This implies that the current state of the party is unhealthy and ill. Trump’s presidency seems to be compared to a virus

4.1 Evaluation Analysis

85

having infected the Republican party. After he has left, the party might be able to recover from its illness. The FT similarly makes use of verb idioms and verbs in general to convey particular messages. By stating that the virus “crowded out all other news” (FT.3), the article illustrates that the topic was overwhelming and dictating the news in the beginning. But in the course of time and because people simply accustomed to life with it, different problems started dominating the news which led to Donald Trump’s handling of the pandemic being pushed into the background. Accordingly, to keep it that way, Trump “will make hay” (ibid.) with what good news there is. This implies that the President will use any subject to push it into the foreground and bring it to the news, relentless of its importance for the country and its helpfulness during the current situation. These aspects do not matter as long as they profit his cause. The editorial about the presidential debate (see FT.5) also exhibits underlying meanings that only strike the eye on second glance. Throwing someone off his stride (cf. ibid.) suggests that someone is intentionally disrupted to make this person lose his or her train of thought. It implies intentionality. Mentioning that Donald Trump might have done this during a presidential debate as tactics makes him appear in a disgraceful light. Furthermore, stating that Trump’s positive test for coronavirus has “added a new layer of” (FT.6) uncertainty to the elections demonstrates how chaotic and precarious the situation at hand already is. The expressed hope that his infection will “bring home the reality and severity of the pandemic” points at the current situation where the virus is not taken as a serious problem by major parts of the society, especially compared to the rest of the world taking measures to prevent any further damages and infections. This hope was expressed only to admit in the next editorial that Trump has “learned the wrong lessons” (FT.7). He still downplayed the seriousness of an infection. Hence, his lesson learned was that it should not dominate the people’s life, just because his course of infection was mild. Finally, Mike Pence’s performance on the television debate of the deputies is rated as “playing a bad hand moderately well” (FT.8). This indicates that his presented plan, “to bank on a vaccine” (ibid.), could be a bad idea which is nonetheless well perceived by the audience who are impatient to get back their normal life. The majority of idioms utilised in NR editorials concerned President Trump. To start off, the first editorial “Delaying the Election Would Be Grotesque and Un-American” (NR.1) refers to Republican Congressmen that “poured scorn on the idea” that the election should be delayed. To pour scorn on somebody or something means to state that a person or thing is stupid and not worth anything (cf. Cambridge Dictionary, Meaning of pour scorn on sb/sth in English, n. d.).

86

4

Findings

Similarly, the NR criticises Trump’s habit of playing into his opponents hands (cf. NR.6) and thereby weakening the position of conservatives. They further remark that no words but Trump’s “carry the extraordinary weight of that office”, indicating that his words should actually be chosen wisely. In “the task ahead” (NR.7), the editorial concludes by stating that “conservatives will have our work cut out for us” (ibid.). This conclusion implies that no matter the election outcome, the tasks ahead are very demanding. Conservatives will have to reconsider some positions and their public appearances. Seldomly applied adverbs, which modified some verbs and verb-idioms, were not meaningful enough to be included in this analysis, comparable to Section 4.1.1.1. Examples for verb-modifying adverbs used in the editorials are “reluctantly supporting” (NR.2), publicly celebrated (NR.4) or “simply repeated” (FT.2).

4.1.2

Rhetorical Language

4.1.2.1 Schemes The following analysis will examine the most striking schemes found in all three newspapers. To begin with, the NYT uses enumeration to list misdemeanours by President Trump (see example (1)) to

(1) Whether he was breaking fair-housing laws and cheating on taxes as a real estate developer, or interfering with federal investigations into his own abuses of power as an elected official (NYT.1) emphasise the public image that is conveyed by a President who is allowed to stretch the boundaries of prevailing law to the best of his advantage. Equally salient appear two different parallelisms. On the one hand, the addition at the end of their recovery wishes for the President and the first lady, “for

(2) Witness the scramble to fill a Supreme Court seat just weeks before Election Day by many of the same Senate Republicans who denied President Barack Obama his high court pick in 2016, claiming it would be wrong to fill a vacancy eight months out from that election (NYT.7)

4.1 Evaluation Analysis

87

their sake—and for the sake of the nation” (NYT.5), hints at the inevitable interweaving of the fate of the President and of the United States. On the other hand, by stating that the “‘America First’ approach in reality amounts to ‘America alone’” (NYT.6), the newspaper expresses their rejection for Trump’s politics of isolation and international solo actions. In a way, it seems paradox that the newspaper first ascribes the America First approach to him and his policies only to later criticise that “Mr. Trump demands that his interests be placed above those of the nation” (NYT.7). It remains unclear whether criticism refers towards him putting America’s interests above the rest of the world or his own interest above America. Considerably clear instead appears the intention behind the application of the assonance “know-nothing populism” (ibid.). This description can be read as a double-reference, firstly towards the American Party, whose byname was Know-Nothing Party and which flourished in the 1850s in the US by establishing a strong ani-immigrant and anti-Roman Catholic sentiment (cf. Boissoneault, 2017). The Republican party, which is also known for tendencies of xenophobia, is thus presented as connected with the party and its policies from the 19th century. Secondly, if the know-nothing was taken literal, one might assume that the newspaper ironically and indirectly expresses their repudiation of the party’s policies. This also becomes obvious when the newspaper addresses the Supreme Court pick by Donald Trump (see example (2)), just weeks before the election and his party’s reaction juxtaposed with their reaction in 2016 when Obama would have had the right to pick a candidate, too. This instance presents the reader of the editorial with evidence for a supposed duplicity and partisan bias at the expense of a political culture of decency and respect. The FT also exhibits specific schemes that might be of interest for the investigation. The newspaper applies a contradictory style of writing. For instance, they speak of “the usual swirl of presidential scandal (the latest concerning Mr. trump’s views on US war dead)” (FT.3) and imply that this would be a fact. Within the same article, the editorial describes Joe Biden calling for the President to apologise to the “service families he has allegedly insulted”, thus presenting the insult as unproven vagary. This example seems to be unintended. There are more cases of antithesis that appear intentionally included, such as the “Green Republican Party” (FT.4). From their current perspective on climate change and environmental regulation, this description seems contradictory and even ironic. Similarly, the observation that Trump uses a kind of language, when it comes to apparent voter fraud and election betrayal, that is described as dog-whistling and would usually imply subtlety, is summarised by the statement “Mr. Trump was blatant” (FT.5). Here, the editorial juxtaposes two contradictory terms, namely subtlety and blatancy. Subtlety refers to the usual political culture and to longstanding

88

4

Findings

political traditions. Trump instead is associated with blatancy and non-compliance with those traditions and rules. Furthermore, the antithesis that “a vicious debate obscured the gap in substance between the two parties [and a] polite one laid it bare” (FT.8) illustrates how distracting and unrewarding the debate between Biden and Trump was. The debate between the deputies showed how a “structured debate” (ibid.) is more informing, encouraging and helpful in making a decision juxtaposed to a “culture war” (ibid.) which the two main candidates have fought. Moreover, the description of Joe Biden as “New Democrat of yesteryear” (FT.9) indicates that he has undergone fundamental change with regard to his views and policy preferences. Having been relatively strict on welfare and criminals, he now takes on very moderate if not even left-progressive positions in various areas. The antithetic description above might suggest that he kept his positive characteristics, appearance and attitudes supplemented by progressive views and positions. Finally, the last FT-editorial published before the presidential election begins by enumerating Trump’s misdemeanour and misbehaviour as can be seen in example (3). This enumeration again seems like a

(3) the Ukraine pay-for-play schemes that resulted in his impeachment last year; the wrecking ball Mr Trump has taken to US alliances; his stoking of white nationalist militias; his withdrawal from the Paris accord on climate change; his corrupt misuse of the presidential pardon; and his self-harming trade war with China (FT.10). clear-cut listing of Trump’s misdemeanour and appears reproachful. By listing these deeds at the beginning of the article, the newspaper indirectly advises the reader a choice for the election. The NR makes less use of schemes but still exhibits some peculiarities. One striking theme is the rhetorical question after declaring that Joe Biden intends to ban conversion therapy which asks: “did we miss the federal government becoming the primary regulator of therapists” (NR.2). On the one hand, this only appears as a defence of as much liberty as possible and the rejection of evermore federal regulations. On the other hand, as the issues at stake are conversion therapies that aim at turning people’s sexuality around, from homosexual to heterosexual, federal interference seems to be, from an open-minded and liberal position, about time. The rejection of interference by the magazine fits their conservative stance and indirectly represents their refusal of homosexuality. The

4.1 Evaluation Analysis

89

other scheme of interest within the NR-editorials concerns the mentioning of an assumingly normal term. The suggestion of an agenda that “allows the purchase of affordable catastrophic health coverage” (NR.7) at first glance seems like an appropriate idea. But those catastrophic plans include deductibles. These deductibles are the amount you have to pay yourself for most services before the plan starts to pay anything. For 2020, the deductible for all Catastrophic plans was $8,150 (cf. Department of Health and Human Services, n.d.). Thus, the term itself is contradictory and literally catastrophic. Not only are most everyday health issues not covered as their expense is beneath the limit of the deductible, but the insistence on an improvement of these plans instead of a modification of the health care system in general shows that the flag of conservativity and minimal state influence is held high even though it means that actions are unfavourable for the people. Therefore, their situation remains precarious because most medical expenditures still have to be settled by themselves.

4.1.2.2 Tropes 4.1.2.2.1 Metaphorical Tropes As described in Section 3.2, conceptual metaphors include a process and a product aspect. This also becomes apparent in metaphorical language used in editorial writing as can be seen in the high number of metaphors used in the present articles. As a matter of conciseness, only the most significant and striking features are examined. A number of metaphors in the NYT concerns the issue of justice, law and constitutional matters. Trump is, for instance, described as dancing along the edges of the law (cf. NYT.1) and as staking “his survival on the fact that the wheels of justice grind slowly” (ibid.). The first one describes Trump’s habit of working within the legal grey area, not officially breaking the law but also not obeying it. The latter one can be read as criticism towards the slowness of the legal system as well as towards Trump’s obstructionism when it comes to his tax returns. The habit of publicising one’s tax returns was followed by almost every President, except for Donald Trump who keeps putting off those demanding it (cf. Horton, 2020). The newspaper further criticises that he can, as long as he is President, “hide his vast web of finances” (ibid.), indicating he would figuratively be a spider in control of a large web that seems not even remotely comprehensible. Additionally, they predict that the “door to unrest and constitutional crisis swings wide open” (NYT.3) in case Trump tweets about election fraud and a stolen vote during election night. The metaphor the door that swings wide open implies that his tweets might function like fire accelerant and encourage his supporters to take it to the streets. With regard to the Voting Rights

90

4

Findings

Act, which a Supreme Court decision has weakened, the newspaper portrays the courts as having “struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act” (NYT.8) and as having “gutted the heart of the Voting Rights Act in 2013” (ibid.). This makes it seem completely ineffective after the court’s decision, just like a human body would not be working without a beating heart. All attempts to counter this development with amendment bills have been blocked by Republican majorities in the Senate. Many metaphors also aim to criticise Republicans, Trump and the habit of spreading misinformation. To start off, Republicans are accused of having “bent the knee” (NYT.1) with regard to Trump’s obstruction of the publication of his tax records. Bending the knee is either an act that is done by feudal lords in the presence of their king or by an enemy accepting his defeat in front of his opponent. Besides, the headline “R.I.P., G.O.P” (NYT.7) that refers to the short form for Rest in Peace, Grand Old Party, stands for the demise of the Republican party and exemplifies that the NYT views the party as having died already. Along with depictions such as “the rot that has been eating its core for decades” (ibid.) and “leaving it a hollowed-out shell” (ibid.), the newspaper further elaborates on their claim of a dead Republican party. The first metaphor illustrates that the demise has been an ongoing process for decades while the second one specifies the current state of the party as empty and without any substance. Moreover, the party would be usually “fetishizing ‘law and order’” (ibid.) and is therefore hyperbolically presented as on the one hand putting law and order above anything else while on the other hand just standing by during the “president’s assault on checks and balances” (ibid.). Checks and Balances stand for the control of the Congress about presidential actions to avoid a centring of power (see Section 2.1). Their metaphorically expressed critique goes beyond that, calling Republicans “congressional bootlickers” (ibid.), “congressional toadies” (ibid.) and comparing a congressmember with “right-wing conspiracymongers” (ibid.). All this was summarised by declaring that the “scars of Mr. Trump’s presidency will linger long after he leaves office” (ibid.), suggesting that all his actions have cut deeply into the meat that is the country. This also suggests that the country will heal, but scars never fully disappear—thus indicating the same for the legacy of his presidency. Another issue being addressed metaphorically is political decency and the demise of democratic norms. They portray Trump as “vandalizing the principles and integrity of our democracy” (NYT.4). Vandalising would usually refer to things only, in this case it insinuates the demolishing of democracy as core value of the United States. Furthermore, efforts by Republicans, like the early shutdown of the census or extreme gerrymandering, are labelled as “the Republican’s antidemocratic power grabs” (NYT.8), hinting at their attempts of reaching for power

4.1 Evaluation Analysis

91

at any cost. Grabbing for power implies self-allowed action instead of deservedness. What is equally noteworthy is the explanation of the “partisan gridlock crippling Congress” (NYT.6). This metaphor implies that due to partisan blockade and campaigning, the power of Congress is very limited as suggestions of the political opponent are discarded for the sake of him or her being an opponent, seldom because of content-related reasons. Metaphorical language also depicts threatening scenarios. Social media platforms are considered to be “war-gaming election night scenarios” (NYT.3). Presenting those platforms’ discussions of possible scenarios as war-gaming appears deliberately menacingly depicted. Adding up to this war-related metaphor is the portrayal of the situation after the first presidential television debate. “As the dust settled” (NYT.4) is a description usually utilised after a battle or explosion. The dust settled in this case refers to the uproar in the aftermath of one of the most discouraging television debates ever. “The reckoning brought on the republic” (ibid.) is similarly used to allude to the problems he has either not solved or produced. Reckoning in this case figuratively suggests some sort of revenge or backlash. These observations are finalised by the metaphor of “a long nightmare” representing Trump’s four year in office. The FT makes use of metaphors in a similar way. A majority of them is concerned with Trump and Biden personally. Trump is directly criticised for his “efforts to muddy the waters and invalidate absentee ballots” (FT.1). By stating so, the article insinuates that Trump sows doubt, irritates potential voters and makes the path to election as muddy as possible. He not only rejected the Paris Climate Accord but also started “his crusade against the ‘administrative state’ at home [which] has included environmental deregulation” (FT.4). The crusade-metaphor is used to emphasise the seriousness and determination in Trump’s actions. He actually believes in freedom without borders which apparently includes the pollution of planet earth, thus starting a crusade to fight for his belief. Besides, the existence of the term environmental deregulation appears so wrong, contradictory and ambiguous that the application of such a word in an editorial can be read as a message itself. Furthermore, Trump is blamed for not only “stoking the idea” (FT.5) of voter fraud but also for “his stoking of white nationalist militias” (FT.10). Stoking a fire literally means to reinforce the flame and make it burn even brighter. By stating that Trump stoked the idea of voter fraud, the editorial suggests that his words might infuriate his followers and convey the message that voter fraud actually exists in the United States, as most people receive their news from only one kind of news outlet (see Section 2.1.1.3). This is also implied when talking about the stoking of white nationalist militias that might take their fight violently to the streets due to Trump’s utterances and

92

4

Findings

actions. The newspaper further assumes that after his infection Trump would want to “ape his fellow strongman Jair Bolsonaro” (FT.7). The utilisation of the verb ‘to ape’ instead of ‘to imitate’ indicates the pejorative intention behind this comment. The reader directly receives the association between an actual ape’s and Trump’s behaviour. The addition of the strongman reference adds up to the overall ironic tone in this sentence. The newspaper further explicitly disagrees with Trump when it clarifies that whatever “Mr. Trump says, this is not a new Red Menace banging at the door of the private sector” (FT.9). The term Red Menace refers to the cold war and the imminent threat by Russian communists. Finally, the FT criticises the “wrecking ball Mr. Trump has taken to US alliances” (FT.10). His deviation from political traditions and courtesy as well as his dashing manner and shooting ahead habit, especially on Twitter, is meant by wrecking ball. His behaviour has worsened most relationships to allies. Joe Biden instead appears in a more positive light while also being scrutinised and challenged figuratively. For instance, the newspaper suggests that he should “prise the stars and stripes from Mr. Trump’s clutches” (FT.2), meaning that while sticking to his convictions and political beliefs, he needs to put even more emphasis on patriotism and national interests. Thereby, Trump’s rhetoric of praising himself as the only solution to American problems and as the best alternative for patriots and proud Americans would be undermined and the voters would be presented with an alternative. This is why they leave it “up to Mr. Biden to break through the fog of polarising disinformation” (ibid.). It is up to him to debunk and disprove any kind of misinformation in the run-up to the election to offer the clearest view on the choice ahead as possible. Additionally, the newspaper adds that those “in Mr. Biden’s fiscal crosshairs would be forgiven for reaching nervously for their wallets” (FT.9) because it “might also avert a larger reckoning further down the line” (ibid.). The financial crosshair hints at Biden’s plans to increase taxes for wealthier people. But governmental inaction in times of crisis, like the financial one resulting from the pandemic right now, would also be to the disadvantage of the wealthy as social costs would only continue to rise. Biden is finally predicted to find a different world to the one he left as Vice-President and that “he cannot just set the clock back to 2016” (FT.10). This implies that the world he finds as President Elect is worse compared to the one he left, one might assume at least to a certain extent due to Trump’s governance. Some metaphors are more neutral but also allow for conclusions regarding the newspaper’s intention and stance. One which is applied three times is the flatten the curve-metaphor (see FT.2; FT.10). It can be analysed literally and figuratively. In a literal way, it simply refers to the actual flattening of the pandemic curve which is frequently appearing in the media and represents the number of

4.1 Evaluation Analysis

93

Covid-19 infections and the number of occupied ICU-beds for a certain country. If the curve of occupied ICU-beds passes the actual capacity, the health care system is overburdened and emergency measures such as triaging might need to be implemented. In a figurative sense, the expression refers to measures taken by governments and the population to actually reach the goal of flattening the curve. Exemplary measures are social distancing, capacity limits for shops or mask-wearing. Furthermore, the second investigated editorial “A tale of two very different US conventions” (FT.2) implies some sort of judgement. Utilising the word tale to talk about party conventions suggests an underlying ironic tone. A tale can be defined as a story, especially one that might be invented or difficult to believe, and therefore indicates that both conventions’ plot exhibited passages that appeared more story-like than fact-oriented. The NR, as compared to the other two newspapers, applies metaphors and figurative language significantly less frequently, making their use of language appear plainer and more straightforward. The majority of existing metaphors is directed towards the Democrats and Joe Biden. For example, the mask-metaphor directly refers to political stance by stating that “the mask of the Biden campaign is the candidate’s supposed centrism” (NR.2). The NR thus assumes that Biden feels a need to hide his real face and accordingly his real political stance, indicating that he would not be centrist in any way. In addition, this could be read as a reference towards Biden’s caution when it comes to the Covid-19 pandemic, including his frequent wearing of a face mask. Besides, Kamala Harris is also addressed. She “would not actually load up a truck and make a coyote run herself” (NR.3). This refers to the editorial’s assumption that she endorses the decriminalisation of unauthorised entry into the United States. Loading up a truck means loading it up with immigrants as it happens on a regular basis in South American countries to make immigrants enter the US illegally. Make a coyote run herself hints at the former car-company with name Coyote, a car which is apparently frequently used to transport illegal immigrants. Basically, they accuse Harris of being in favour of the decriminalisation of unauthorised entry into the US while not actually being ready to help immigrants cross the border herself. This statement appears contradictory because it somehow suggests that she should be breaking the law before she proposes to change it. The NR further predicts that Biden’s and Harris’ presidency would evolve into “a kind of regency” (ibid.). By doing so, both are compared to monarchs in absolutistic systems. Assumingly, this also suggests that they would use their powers in a similar and potentially selfish way. With regard to the Democratic party, Biden is characterised as “a vessel of an increasingly radical Democratic party” (NR.5). Vessel in this case is a synonym of pot or jar and implies emptiness. Biden is seen as a vessel that is open to be

94

4

Findings

filled with all kinds of policies and political opinions from his party, not representing his own convictions and beliefs. Additionally, when it comes to abortion, the magazine insinuates that “Pro-life Democrats have nearly gone extinct”. The extinction-metaphor lets the Democrats occur as completely opposed to life and births while also clarifying that until now, pro-life Democrats have been an endangered and rarely found exception within their own party that now seems to have fully disappeared. As with the previous analytical categories, the NR also utilises metaphors to criticise Trump’s actions. They remark that “every demurral helps to chip away a little at the rock on which the country has been built” (NR.6) and that the pure existence of fears about a violent transition of power is already damaging America’s democracy and global reputation. The more often this happens and the more is chipped away from the democratic fundament, the weaker becomes democracy and the core values on which the country has been founded. Trump further “has been a glutton for pointless controversies involving media figures” (NR.7). Therefore, he is compared to a never sated person, as being hungry for confrontation and trouble. Eventually, the editorial highlights the importance of retaining Republican control of the Senate as “a bulwark against runaway leftism and the destruction of American institutions” (ibid.). On the one hand, this seems like an admittance of the imminent defeat of Trump and the upcoming change of presidential office. On the other hand, the bulwark indicates war-rhetoric and the urgent need for defence against leftist ideologies.

4.1.2.2.2 Further Tropes Metaphors are only one kind of trope that can be found as rhetorical device in newspaper editorials. The present selection exhibits a variety of them, even though they are not as frequently to be found as schemes. The NYT, for instance, uses the simile “like a stone thrown into a pond” (NYT.5) to elucidate the impact of Donald Trump’s infection with Covid-19. He is compared to a stone setting the waves going and thus the spread of infection within the White House, leading to many important officials having to quarantine and partially being unable to fulfil their duties adequately. He is further heavily criticised because of the destruction of the Republican party which would be very dismaying (cf. NYT.7). The intentional use of such a hyperbole creates the impression for the reader that the sum of all of Trump’s actions might have been so severe that even his own party has suffered irrevocable damage. Irony is another popular way of expressing one’s stance towards something. This can be seen when the editorial claims that the policy agenda of the Republican party would be whatever Trump wants—“which might not be so pathetic if Mr. Trump’s

4.1 Evaluation Analysis

95

interests went beyond ‘Build a wall!’” (ibid.). Ironically, Trump’s stubbornness on certain topics and his exaggeratedly frequent repetition of demands (like ‘build a wall’) are portrayed by this criticism towards the Republicans’ dependence on him and his visions. The naming of Trump as “intimidator in chief” (NYT.8) has a similar effect. Instead of referring to his actual title as commander in chief , he is ironically presented as happily playing the part of intimidator in chief during the election campaign. Not only does this criticise him and his role in the Republican plan of voter intimidation (see ibid.), but it travesties his actual title and himself. The FT does not exhibit many tropes other than metaphors to state their view on specific issues. With regard to the response to the Coronavirus pandemic, the editorial addresses the White House’s plan to bank on a vaccine and adds “if that term applies”. The irony here lies within the naming of the White House’s ideas and actions against Covid-19 as plans. This phrase implies that their decisions appear anything but planned, debated and reasoned. Another trope would be the “skewed US electoral college” (FT.10) which can be read as a pejorative. The attributive adjective pre-modifying the US electoral college clearly highlights the aversion towards this part of the presidential election process. For quite some time, there is a debate about the value added by its existence and inclusion in the process as it actually represents an old tradition from back in the days when telecommunication did not exist and representatives had to be elected. Those electors then all came together to elect the President. This practice is criticised, as explained in Section 2.1.1.2, because of the resulting winner-takes-it-all regulation for a county’s votes. However reluctantly applied in the FT, the NR especially utilises tropes of exaggeration and irony to make its point. One of the most striking examples of irony was the usage of quotation marks with particular words, such as “Science” (NR.2), “Equal Pay” (ibid.), “climate denial” (NR.3) or “moderate” (ibid.). The application of these quotation marks in the respective passages, where no direct speech is presented, aims at indicating the magazine’s attitude towards matters such as science and equal pay or towards the assumption that Kamala Harris is viewed as a moderate. Irony is also apparent when the editorial addresses the speechwriter who wrote the speech for Joe Biden about supporting institutes connected to Native Americans or immigrants. They express their pity for him because of the many abbreviations he needs to consider and because of “how AANAPISIs differ from NASNTIs” (NR.2). By doing so, they state that for them, the Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-serving institutions (AANAPISI) are the same as Native American Serving Non-Tribal Institutions (NASNTI) which gives the impression of indifference and ignorance. In a similar way, the articles use exaggeration or hyperbole to directly influence the reader’s

96

4

Findings

opinion. Kamala Harris is exemplarily depicted as “a moderate autocrat” (NR.3). The definition of autocrat describes such one as “a ruler with unlimited power, or someone who demands that people completely obey them” (Cambridge Dictionary, Meaning of autocrat in English, n.d.), at the same time listing terms like despot or tyrant as synonyms for it. Such severe comparisons with a potential future Vice-President seem extreme and over the top. The same applies to the apparent observation that “when Joe Biden pointed out that the President has no such power and is obliged to follow the Constitution she laughed in his face” (NR.3). To laugh in someone’s face is regarded as an offensive act. To interpret her reaction as such seems very far-reaching and exaggerated. She is further accused of making “a crime out of ‘climate denial’, effectively seeking to criminalize dissent by pretending that it amounts to securities fraud” (ibid., original emphasis). Aiming at making climate change denial punishable is not the same as criminalising dissent. Dissent can exist on subjects that are still scientifically debated. The existence of human-made climate change does not count as such. Further accusations include her promise “to abolish all existing health plans in favour of a single government-administered system” (ibid.) and her apparent plan to “decriminalize unauthorized border crossing” (ibid.). Both accusations are exaggerated and seem to twist her actual words. In 2019, for example, she clarified that “we have to have a secure border. But I am in favour of saying that we’re not going to treat people who are undocumented [and] cross the borders as criminals” (cf. Campisi, 2019). By simply stating that she would decriminalise unauthorised border crossing, the reader might only infer that she welcomes an open-border approach—which she is not. The NR further presents her behaviour during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings and “her treatment of the tawdry— and, it’s worth remembering, false—allegations against Kavanaugh” (NR.3) as “despicable” (ibid.). Firstly, the fact that the magazine originally emphasised the word false by inserting it in italics, four font sizes larger, and in a different font than the rest of the text, exemplifies their determination to clarify that Kavanaugh is innocent and a good choice for the Supreme Court seat he now fills. Secondly, the confirmation hearing took place on 4 September 2018, but new allegations and a NYT article (cf. Pogrebin & Kelly, 2019) have cast doubt on his appointment and exacerbated the already existing allegations of sexual coercion. With those accusations hovering over Kavanaugh, the direct endorsement of him in an editorial seems at least astonishing. Finally, the most striking exaggeration is the repeated use of the adjective moderate or the adverb moderately. Applying these words 23 times in an editorial of one and a half pages length strikes as heavily exaggerated. This overuse underlines the sarcasm that can be detected when

4.1 Evaluation Analysis

97

they refer to Kamala Harris as a moderate, an assessment of her political stance clearly not shared by the magazine.

4.1.3

Argumentative Language—Allusion and Comment

This chapter aims at examining argumentative language within the editorial selection. As described in Section 3.2, the focus will be on commenting passages and allusive language. The NYT frequently utilises allusion and comment to clarify and articulate the newspaper’s opinion and view on certain topics. As a matter of brevity, this analysis will only look into a selection of comments detected within the editorials. Examined comments and evaluations are either expressed overtly or covertly, the latter one being usually signified by allusions. The first editorial (NYT.1) comments a Tweet by Trump, complaining about unfairness with regard to the court’s decision that he would have to answer a subpoena if demanded, by stating: “That’s not true, of course” (ibid.). It does not only disprove and object his claims, but by adding of course at the end, it conveys the impression of naturalness and obviousness when it comes to the wrongness of presidential utterance during Trump’s presidency. The same applies to the response to Trump’s suggestions to delay the election. The reply simply was: “In a word Mr. President: No” (NYT.2). This plain but distinct rejection of his proposal adds up to the earlier mentioned impression with regard to the wrongness of Trump’s statements. This wrongness is also addressed when the newspaper addresses “Mr. Trump’s lies [that] have been echoed by the attorney general, William Barr, who has claimed that mail balloting is associated with ‘substantial fraud’” (NYT.8). The editorial’s answer to this, “[not] remotely true” (ibid.), indicates similar implications as above. Furthermore, the newspaper describes how Trump and his allies claim the dangerousness of voting by mail. This description is followed by an imperative suggestion: “Ignore them” (ibid.). This evaluation is covertly conducted and reveals an impression of annoyance and resignation when it comes to baseless claims and accusations from Republicans or the President. The allusion that the “political parties do not share the same relationship to the truth and democratic norms” (NYT.3) indirectly shows how the NYT views the Republican party as spreader of misinformation and vile claims. Examples of this are claims about election fraud, conspiracies around Barack Obama’s Kenyan heritage or Trump’s utterances during the presidential debate, approached on the subject of White nationalist militias, that left-wing agitators would be the true threat (cf. NYT.4). They comment on this with a bracketed addition: “(False, according to the F.B.I.)”

98

4

Findings

(ibid.). By doing so, they immediately debunk his claims. With reference to election equality and Trump’s and the Republicans’ attempts to exacerbate voting, the editorial points out that throughout “the nation’s history, tens of millions of Americans have been made to feel this way. They never gave up the fight for a fairer and freer democracy. Neither should Americans today” (ibid.). This distinct allusion to slavery and segregation implies how seriously dangerous the newspaper evaluates the existing practices of election obstructionism. Equally distinct is the pejorative comment that “profiles in courage these are not” (NYT.7), addressing those Republicans that, in anticipation of Trump’s imminent defeat, suddenly oppose his policies after having backed him for the majority of his four-year tenure. Their behaviour is evaluated as pusillanimous. Likewise, declaring in the subheading that there would be “no ‘both sides to it’ when it comes to intentionally keeping Americans away from the polls” (NYT.8) indicates a clear-cut evaluation of Republican practices of voter obstructionism, with whatever means available. Another pejorative comment addresses the attacks on those who do not support him. “Even as President Trump has celebrated acts of violence against people who do not support his re-election” (NYT.9) implies a refusal and condemnation of violence towards voters. Equally rejectingly evaluated is the early claim of victory before states finish their counting. There would be “no special magic in saying the words” (ibid.) which evidently rejects and condemns any such attempts. It even creates the impression of ridiculousness as it refers to magic and the nonexistence of its effects in the real world. Equally interesting appears how the newspaper evaluates Trump’s actions by use of allusion to governing practices while actually talking about Biden and their endorsement for him. They illustrate how Biden “would not court foreign autocrats or give comfort to white supremacists” (NYT.6) which can be read as a rejection of both practices while at the same time highlighting matters of decency and responsibility for a head of state. The editorial “Feel inspired, America” (NYT.10), published only one day before the election, concludes that the “2020 election has turned brother against sister and father against son” (ibid.), thus alluding to the divisive power of the election and to political orientation and stance in general. This fact is considered divisive on every level of social life, beginning in the public sphere and ending on the smallest level, namely the family. The only positive comments appear in the explicit endorsement of Joe Biden (cf. NYT.6). “He has the experience, temperament and character to guide the nation through this valley into a brighter, more hopeful future” (ibid.). He is further positively evaluated for speaking “the language of suffering and compassion with a raw intimacy” (ibid.). Both examples exemplify the aspect of humility and

4.1 Evaluation Analysis

99

hope that Biden would potentially bring back to the office. Some of the selected NYT editorials even exhibit efforts to appear less biased and neutral, maybe aiming to contribute towards less division and more unity. It begins with the remark that “no one handled himself perfectly” (NYT.4) during the presidential debate and that “Mr. Biden isn’t a perfect candidate and he wouldn’t be a perfect president” (NYT.6). Both statements can be read as an admission of flaws and the nonexistence of human perfection. With regard to Democrats in general, they admit that “Democrats gerrymander when they can, too” (NYT.8). By doing so, the reader does not receive the impression that the article would just be about ‘Republican-bashing’. Admitting drawbacks of one side to neutrally criticise the other side can be viewed as an argumentative means to make a point appear as unbiased as possible. A final striking aspect of argumentative language applied in all selected NYTeditorials is the fact that evaluations and comments are often supported by quotes, references to experts and evidence, such as statistical figures. Most of the time, when the passages in the editorials can be read as some sort of evaluation, the newspaper also provides references and evidence to support their evaluative claims and criticism. The earlier mentioned clarification “Not remotely true” (NYT.8), which presents an indirect evaluation of the attorney general’s statements, is supported by a reference to Trump’s F.B.I. director who clarified that there was no evidence for substantial voter fraud. Similarly, the plain, indirect and still evaluative answer to Trump’s suggestion of delaying the election, “In a word, Mr. President: No”, is immediately supported by an explanation about federal law. The FT similarly also uses comments and allusions, either directly or indirectly. With regard to election obstructionism, the newspaper articulates their rejection of obstruction practices in mail-balloting by referring to “Mr DeJoy— a generous Trump donor with no experience in the service” (FT.1) who was appointed postmaster general. Therefore, this parenthesis aims at being thoughtprovoking and making the reader scrutinise the process by which DeJoy was appointed. It indirectly evaluates the process as seemingly corrupt (generous Trump donor) and the appointment as only having the intention of making mailballoting as hard as possible (business man in charge with no experience in postal affairs). Another allusion to mismanagement and thus an allusion to Trump’s plan to fight Covid-19 can be discovered when the newspaper addresses “the president, who botched America’s response to it” (FT.3). This clearly assesses his management of the crisis as poorly conducted. Additionally, the comment that “it is at

100

4

Findings

least guided by mainstream science” (FT.7) concerns Boris Johnson’s, the UK Prime Minister’s, fight against the pandemic. The at least signifies to the reader that this would be the least a head of state should do. It further implies that Donald Trump’s approach is not guided by mainstream science. An adequate example for this would be his suggestion to inject disinfectant into people’s bodies (cf. Noor, 2020). Another point of criticism and thus evaluation seems to be the financial allusion to the “Ukrainian pay-for-play schemes” (FT.10). Trump’s misdemeanour is enumerated and the pay-for-play phrase seems to hint at the possible corruption having occurred in this context. Because of this investigation, the first impeachment trial against President Trump was conducted. All this is summed up by the evaluation of his effort for re-election which is considered as “mission improbable” (FT.3), an explicit cultural allusion to the series of films Mission Impossible. The adjective was exchanged to clarify that an election race should never be called before every vote has been counted. Therefore, one can conclude that the newspaper acknowledges the potential re-election of Donald Trump, evaluating it as improbable but not impossible. Furthermore, an evaluation of the vice-presidential debate concludes that what “has opened up between the parties is not just a gap in policy emphasis, but in far-apart conceptions of personal freedom and the proper role of the state” (FT.8). This conclusion ascertains that division between both sides is deeply rooted in completely contrary conceptions of life and society. And finally, the subheading of the editorial “Bidenomics can preserve support for capitalism” (FT.9) explicitly clarifies that Joe Biden, the Democratic presidential candidate, would be no radical. On the one hand, this could be read as an address towards critics who call him a leftist radical. On the other hand, this might be an explicit comment on his political and ideological orientation. The evaluation and commenting in NR-editorials can again be divided into two parts. But to begin with, the magazine generally expresses their patriotism by referring to the US as the “world’s greatest republic” (NR.1). This claim comes at the very end of the first editorial and depicts a distinct evaluation of the US as a country and of its place in the world. It can be read as an explicit expression of patriotism. The other editorials focus on either an evaluation of Donald Trump as President or Joe Biden and Kamala Harris’ characters and political stance. The assumption “that’s presumably on its way toward being a moderate position, too, since they wouldn’t be illegal if she had her way” (NR.3) refers to the claim that Kamala Harris favours providing illegal immigrants with public health care benefits. The underlying judgement of the public sentiment towards

4.1 Evaluation Analysis

101

moderate positions is evident. The last part of the sentence further exemplifies the magazine’s denial of an open borders approach and of the idea of health care insurance for all, including immigrants. Additionally, the magazine declares that the “Biden Democrats are our committed opponents on everything” (NR.7) which seems like an extreme statement for a news media enterprise. The NR is a magazine that clearly articulates its conservative worldview and publicly takes sides and openly expresses criticism. Nonetheless, this very broad, generalising and more than distinct judgement and damnation of the Democratic party seems explicitly utilised. It forecloses even the smallest chance of bipartisan cooperation and compromise, thus creating the image of irreconcilable differences and division. In contrast, the magazine clearly comments on Donald Trump’s presidency in a mostly pejorative way. For instance, they call it a “misuse of that setting” (NR.5) when the President gave his Republican convention speech in the White House, adding in brackets that “A president hadn’t given an acceptance speech at the White House since FDR in 1940” (ibid.). This reference to Franklin D. Roosevelts acceptance speech in 1940, in the midst of the second world war, aims at condemning Trump’s action as unnecessary and unworthy of his position. The message is that the White House is the symbol of the United States government, the President and the people of America. It certainly is not the place for party politics of any kind as its sole purpose should be to serve the people. Further criticism and pejorative evaluation of Trump’s deeds is directed at his behaviour when it comes to the condemnation of far-right groups. “Even small children are capable of saying ‘Yes’ and moving on” illustrates the level of annoyance and lack of understanding resonating with avoidable and unnecessary complications evoked by Trump. The presented allusion to childish behaviour evaluates his behaviour as being childish and ridiculous. This evaluation is shared when the magazine admits that “the personality traits that made […] [them] doubt his suitability for high office in 2016 have undermined his effectiveness, have led him to bad decisions, and now threaten to drag conservatism down to a consequential and avoidable defeat” (NR.7). This summary seems like a reckoning with Trump’s presidency and its consequences for future conservative and aspiring politicians. By stating that the high probability of a Democratic sweep of the election “is to a large degree the responsibility of President Trump” (ibid.), the magazine even more explicitly blames him and his politics for the imminent defeat of the Republicans. This statement already resembles a concession of defeat.

102

4

Findings

And still, despite all the damage he has caused, not only within the country but also within his own party, the magazine still assumes that “most conservatives, for all of that, will still and understandably be in his corner” (ibid.). By adding the adverb understandably, the magazine indicates an evaluation of the voter’s probable decision pro Trump. It occurs that, despite their knowledge about his shortcomings and weaknesses of character, they consider him to be the lesser evil compared to any Democrat who might enter the office. They justify this decision by applying pronouns such as us and our (cf. ibid.) to exemplify the need for unity within the conservative world. This can also be read as another step towards further division and separation from the Democratic and liberal side. In the end, they even explicitly communicate that “no doubts about the President should undermine the urgency of retaining Republican control of the Senate” (ibid.). Therefore, one can assume that the magazine takes the promise of power at any price. In a similar way as earlier, Trump’s misdemeanour and all the problems he has caused in the course of his presidency are assessed as less severe and more bearable than Democratic governance.

4.2

Topoi Analysis

The investigation of the selection of editorials with regard to topoi is insightful and extensive. The newspapers at times exhibited topoi that concern the same issue but take on a different perspective which will become evident in the following results. This means that one and the same topoi can be considered from different stances and positions and be therefore interpreted in opposite ways. Table 4.4 attempts to suggest a comparative perspective. Some topoi are completely similar and appear in every newspaper, some only differ in nuances and others only explicitly occur in one of the three selections. As example to explain my proceeding, we will briefly look at the general topos Leadership as it was named in the NYT. Presenting this topos under the same name would not have regarded the specific direction the topos aims at, which is why it was called Leadership as Obligation to the People for the NYT, Leadership and Presidential Error for the FT and Leadership and Responsibility for the NR.

4.2 Topoi Analysis

103

Table 4.4 Findings: Topoi in NYT, FT and NR Newspaper Editorials Superordinate Topoi

NYT

FT

NR

Democracy

Democracy as Strong Principle

Democracy as Threatened Process

n.a.

Rule of Law

Rule of Law as Universal Guide for Politics and Society

n.a.

Rule of Immigration Law

Threat/Crisis/ Defeat

Threat/Crisis/Defeat

Threat/Crisis/ Defeat

Threat/Crisis/Defeat

Election

Election/ Mail Balloting Election Legitimacy Legitimacy

n.a.

Nation

National Importance

National Pride

Leadership

Leadership as Leadership and Leadership and Obligation to the People Presidential Errors Responsibility

Misinformation

Misinformation

n.a.

n.a.

Racial Inequality

Racial Inequality and Legal Injustice

Racial Inequality and Financial Injustice

n.a.

Pandemic

Pandemic Omnipresence

Pandemic Handling

n.a.

Partisanship

Partisanship and Bias

Partisanship and Contrast

Partisanship and Opposition

Beliefs and Values

Truth/ Trust/ Shared Values

Integrity/ Trust/ Expertise

Tradition/ Religion/ Freedom

Constitution

Importance of Constitution and Institutions

Danger for Constitutional Processes and Institutions

Constitution and State Authority

Ideology

Ideology

Ideology

Ideology

Division

Division

n.a.

n.a.

Choice

n.a.

Choice

n.a.

Abortion

n.a.

n.a.

Abortion

Scepticism

n.a.

n.a.

Scepticism

n.a.

104

4.2.1

4

Findings

Democracy

To begin with, Democracy was discovered as prevalent motive both in the NYT and the FT. Both newspapers display an akin understanding of this concept. The NYT views democracy throughout their editorials as characterised by strength, representativeness and democratic norms. Here, the NYT considers Democracy as Strong Principle. This can be discovered in almost every investigated editorial as either explicit or inferable content-related signifier. All but one of the selected editorials feature the word democracy itself or some version of it, except for the article including the get-well-wishes for President Trump after his infection. The talk is, for example, of “democratic backup” (NYT.1), “endangered democracy” (NYT.2), “democratic norms” (NYT.3) or the “fight for democracy” (NYT.4). The articles also address democracy in less direct but equally frequent ways. For instance, people are assured that “they will have their voices heard” (NYT.2), the idiom here clearly and figuratively referring to the act of voting and making one’s own opinion count. Furthermore, when the endorsement article for Biden clarifies that he “would understand that his first duty, always, is to the American people” (NYT.6), it implies that the fundament of every democracy is its people, their willingness to cooperate and their readiness to contribute to the democratic process in whatever way possible. Additional references towards democracy are detectable every time the articles discuss voter obstructionism. The shutting down of polling places in times of a global pandemic or the addressed fact that Black neighbourhoods would wait 29 percent longer to cast ballots than voters in white neighbourhoods (cf. NYT.8) are some examples. This emphasis on democracy corresponds with the set of values and attitudes most characteristic for the American people which were mentioned in Section 2.1.2.2. In a similar way, the FT also sketches Democracy as Threatened Process and America as the world’s oldest and most powerful democratic state. Here, the term or any related terms are also mentioned in all but the first editorial (cf. FT.1). The idiom that US democracy could not “survive a zero-sum battle” (FT.2), the description of “flesh-pressing and live-speaking that bring democracy to life” (FT.3) or the headline that a “tawdry debate shows the risk to democracy” (FT.5) are only some instances where democracy is particularly referred to. Additionally, some implicit references support the argumentation and function as allusion to democracy. On the one hand, the mentioning of “the nation’s autocratic enemies” as beneficiaries of the upcoming election can be read as an allusion to the threats American democracy and its institutions are facing, not only within the country. On the other hand, aspects of vital significance for a democracy, such as protest

4.2 Topoi Analysis

105

movements (cf. FT.2) or the importance of orderly debate and discussion (cf. FT.5; FT.8), are regularly considered.

4.2.2

Election

In this respect, it also appears useful to examine the topos Election/ Mail Balloting Legitimacy in the NYT. As these editorials all aim at commenting on the presidential election and the respective campaigns, it is not really surprising that this topos is overly present. References towards this topos range from the “the American people, who will be asked to decide in a matter of months whether to give him another term” (NYT.1), over “in a word Mr. President: No” (NYT.2) as plain and evaluative answer to Trump’s suggestion of delaying the election, to the statement that “Trump has celebrated acts of violence against people who do not support his re-election” (NYT.9). But beside general utterances about electoral proceedings and problems some voters face while casting their vote, the focus on mail-balloting and the vehement rejection of claims of voter fraud are particularly interesting. This becomes most evident in the headline “Voting by Mail is Crucial for Democracy” (NYT.2). Within this editorial, they determine that for “a man who votes by mail himself, Donald Trump is strangely obsessed with the idea that it is the most dangerous method of casting a ballot” (ibid.). Furthermore, example (4) suggests that, however ridiculous and misleading, the words of the President are heard by

(4) Mr. Trump says things like this often enough that it can be easy to brush him off. He even claimed that the 2016 election, which he won, was rigged. But the president’s words, however misleading, carry weight. So it is necessary to say it again: Especially in the midst of a raging pandemic, voting by mail is the surest path to a more inclusive, more accurate and more secure election (NYT.2). the majority of the American people, not all equally skilled in evaluating messages for their truthfulness. This more than distinct expression of trust in the voting method, in its security and accurateness, exemplifies how the newspaper, in the light of misinformation and the spread of

106

4

Findings

(5) Mr. Trump used the opportunity to warn of a “fraudulent election,” falsely claiming that mail-in ballots would be corrupted—again, despite his own F.B.I. saying there is no evidence of any fraud in mail ballots. Undeterred, Mr. Trump called on his supporters to “go into the poll and watch very carefully”—in other words, to intimidate voters in areas where Mr. Biden is likely to draw more support (NYT.4). unsubstantiated news, assesses the need for clarifications with respect to issues that, one would assume, are common knowledge. This is probably also why, as determined in Section 4.1.1.1., the newspaper felt the need of repeating the adjectives “accessible, accurate and secure” (ibid.). In a similar way, the newspaper attempts to disarm the President’s claims by, as presented in example (5), frequently referring to examples and experts. Section 2.1.1.2, with reference to the Brennan Center for Justice at the University of New York Law School, already discussed rumours about voter fraud and presented ample evidence for its nonexistence. The example further illustrates how voter intimidation might be resulting from Trump’s words on mail-balloting and election illegitimacy. As a consequence, the NYT especially focuses on mail-balloting and highlights this topic in all selected editorials. It is apparent that the issue of election and mail-balloting legitimacy is of particular importance for the newspaper and their readership. The FT applies a slightly different objective which is why the respective topos in their editorials will only be referred to as Election Legitimacy. They view the election as a matter of importance, of method and of obstruction. The importance is highlighted when the editorial states that a “suppressed turnout could prove as bad as a delayed election” (FT.1), when it addresses “the importance of the choice they [the American people] face” (FT.2) or when it emphasises that “more than pandemic management is at stake next week” (FT.10). In times of crisis, the newspaper evaluates the upcoming election as one of the most important of recent decades. They also distinctly refer to mail-balloting as an actual “alternative to standing in long queues for crowded polling stations” (FT.1) and to Trump’s claims of voter fraud as having “no basis” (FT.10). They, similar to the NYT, view mail-balloting as secure as any other voting method in accordance with conventional wisdom and investigations of experts and

4.2 Topoi Analysis

107

(6) The evidence that voter fraud is rife, and that it disproportionately benefits the Democrats, is thin. But by stoking the idea, Mr Trump readies a pretext to contest any adverse result for him, and encourages his base to take matters into their own hands. “Dog-whistling” is the politico-speak for such language, but it implies subtlety. Mr Trump was blatant (FT.5). officials. Their criticism towards election obstructionism mainly focuses on the exacerbation of mail-balloting and as such Americans’ execution of their right to vote (cf. FT.1). Example (6) illustrates how the newspaper on the one hand tries to invalidate Trump’s mostly vile claims and on the other hand attempts to present the dangers resulting from his rash utterances. This indirect critique of his practices will certainly not appeal to every reader, but it seems like the most neutral way Donald Trump’s actions can be commented on, according to the newspaper’s editorial guidelines.

4.2.3

Leadership

The first kind of ambivalent topos addresses issues of leadership and responsibility. For the NYT, this topos is called Leadership as Obligation to the People and is regarded as sole obligation towards the people which includes aspects of accountability and responsibility. It further demands for particular skills and character traits. Their imagination of leadership is contrasted to the leadership of Donald Trump. His solicitation in “foreign interference in American elections and tear-gassing peaceful protesters for a photo op” (NYT.1) are compared to George III., King of England and Ireland from 1760 until 1820, and his “abuse of power” that lead to the American war of independence. They further emphasise that the people “entrusted him with the highest office in the land” (NYT.4) and that every time “he refused to wear a mask or observe social distancing guidelines, he put not only himself but also all of America at risk” (NYT.5), referring to his infection and the trouble it had caused. The metaphor “like a stone thrown into a pond” (ibid.) highlights the repercussions of his carelessness and suggests everything but leadership. For the NYT, the most important principle is that no one is above the law, not even the leader of the country (cf. NYT.1). Moreover, a leader cannot demand “that his interests be placed above those of the nation” (NYT.7) and he or she cannot prematurely claim early victory in an

108

4

Findings

election before states have finished the counting procedure because it would be “particularly irresponsible in the present climate” (NYT.9.). For them, real leadership would be embodied by Joe Biden. He would not only “have the entire nation’s interests at hearts” (NYT.6), including those of his political opponents, but he would offer an “anxious, exhausted nation something beyond policy or ideology” (ibid.). Not surprisingly, the positively connoted nouns mentioned in Section 4.1.1.2 are related to Joe Biden and the kind of leadership to be expected and appreciated of him. Their imagination of leadership includes the embracing of the rule of law, the restoring of public confidence, respect for science and experts, the healing of divisions and the message of unity and pragmatism. The statement that “Mr. Biden isn’t a perfect candidate and he wouldn’t be a perfect President. But politics is not about perfection. It is about the art of the possible and about encouraging America to embrace its better angels” (ibid.) on the one hand exemplifies that no one expects perfectionism and that even a President can make mistakes. On the other hand, it implies that there are certain requirements the leader of the free world, as the US usually refer to their President, needs to fulfil which during the last term apparently was not the case. The depiction of both candidates is indicative of an understanding of politics according to Wodak’s six dimensions of politics, including the everyday life of politicians and the impact of a politician’s personality (see Section 2.1). The topos Leadership and Presidential Error slightly shifts the focus as the FT noticeably frequently addresses Trump’s misdemeanour and his misbehaviour. This is even more apparent than in NYT editorials, which suggests an even closer orientation towards Wodak’s dimensions of politics. For instance, the editorial criticises that he is “casting doubt on the election—deeming it in advance the most ‘fraudulent’ in US history and a ‘coup’ in the making [and his] efforts to muddy the waters and invalidate absentee ballots are deeply un-American” (FT.1). These utterances do not exhibit one aspect of leadership as they are unsettling and dismaying. Interestingly, the riots and turmoil on 7 January 2021, partially incited by a speech held by Donald Trump not far from the US Capitol, were frequently also referred to as coup in various US media outlets (e.g. Solnit, 2021; Robinson, 2021; Gellman, 2021). Additionally, by claiming that the “stability of the republic may hinge on the skill with which Mr Biden can diffuse that narrative” (FT.2) by which Trump describes the Black Lives Matter protests, for example, as pure looting and rioting, the editorial makes Trump’s utterances and thus his leadership responsible for a possible collapse of the republic as indicated in the storm on the US Capitol. This is also labelled as “the fog of polarising disinformation” (ibid.) being disseminated by the President himself. They further talk

4.2 Topoi Analysis

109

of “the usual swirl of presidential scandal” (FT.3), Trump wavering and dissembling when asked whether he would accept defeat in November (cf. FT.5) and his “irresponsible words [putting] others at risk” (FT.7). The first quote hints at the country being used to this kind of leadership while the second one addresses his ability to put the public into discomfort and insecurity even though his actual task as leader would be to reassure the public of stability. The same applies to the last quote which, admittingly in disbelief, criticises Trump’s statements after having contracted the virus and after having recovered. By declaring that his “behaviour and words—the president on Tuesday compared the virus to seasonal flu—have dismayed political strategists and health officials who hoped his illness would prompt him to display more empathy, and advocate more prudence, over Covid19”, the newspaper addresses one aspect that is usually referred to when it comes to leadership: true decency. His claims about Covid-19 would still be “disrespectful to the memory and families of [at the time the article was published] 210.000 Americans” who have lost their lives. The earlier mentioned enumeration of his misdemeanour only adds up to these descriptions. Finally, the article The character of US democracy is on the ballot (FT.10) blames Trump for various “unforced errors” (ibid.) which could have been avoided. By doing so, the editorial again implies bad leadership and insinuates some sort of incompetence for the office he has hold for the last four years. The NR partly agrees and also exhibits a similar topos, namely Leadership and Responsibility. Their perspective on this exhibits criticism towards Trump as well as Joe Biden. A regularly appearing reference concerns the importance of the office. The frequently mentioned idea of Donald Trump to delay the election is labelled as “an incendiary and absurd idea unworthy of being spoken—or even thought—by a president of the United States” (NR.1). And while remarking that Democrats, like Hillary Clinton or Harry Reid, also utilised the shameful rhetoric of casting doubt on an election, the editorial admits that none of them “issue words that carry the extraordinary weight of that office. None bear the responsibility that Trump does.” (NR.6). This indicates that the President of the United States is expected to choose his words more wisely and that he, as head of state, is not supposed to doubt the election. This is explicitly expressed when the article explains that even though some concerns are legitimate, “it’s no reason for the sitting president of the United States to affirmatively undermine faith in an election” (NR.1). With regard to Biden, criticism towards his ability to lead is connected to “Joe Biden’s age and health […] as fragile-seeming and forgetful man” (NR.3). Furthermore, the list of negatively connoted adjectives directed towards Biden and the Democrats (see Section 4.1.1.1), which for example describes him as “too hobbled by age” (NR.7) and his judgement as “erratic”

110

4

Findings

(ibid.), aims at exemplifying his unfitness to lead. Biden as a person and the Democrats as a party are presented as not prepared to bear the responsibility of all-Democratic rule. As sole responsible for this development and the impending electoral defeat, the newspaper detects Donald Trump and his personality (cf. ibid.). One can finally conclude that the perspectives applied to this topos differ within all three newspapers.

4.2.4

Constitution

Another topos arising in all three news outlets may be generally called Constitutions. For the NYT and the FT, this topos is referring to similar issues. Nonetheless, they were named differently. For the NYT, the topos is called Importance of Constitution and Institutions. Firstly, it seems so prevalent because of the high number of direct references. The NYT refers nine times to the Supreme Court, four times to the Constitution and six times to the White House. The FT refers to the Supreme Court and the Constitution five times and seven times to the White House. Equally interesting are more indirect references that immediately make this topos cross somebody’s mind. For a first instance, the NYT illustrates that “Mr. Trump has governed as though democratic checks and balances are optional” (NYT.1). Checks and Balances define the separation of power in the United States as elucidated in Section 2.1.1.1. By acting as if they were not existent, the President seems to govern against the

(7) For all their talk about revering the Constitution, Republicans have stood by, slack-jawed, in the face of the president’s assault on checks and balances. Mr. Trump has spurned the concept of congressional oversight of his office. After losing a budget fight and shutting down the government in 2018–19, he declared a phony national emergency at the southern border so he could siphon money from the Pentagon for his border wall (NYT.7). constitution. The same is criticised about institutional problems and the “dereliction of Congress’ duty to ensure the functioning of American democracy” (NYT.2). Deliberate obstructionism and unnecessary recurring debate in Congress prevent the funding of states for the faster counting of absentee votes and

4.2 Topoi Analysis

111

other election-related processes which again might be considered unconstitutional. Example (7) demonstrates why the newspaper views the Constitution and Institutions as being under threat and that their view of the Constitution and of democratic institutions apparently differs from Trump’s and the Republican’s opinion on this topic. Similarly, the FT refers to Checks and Balances. Here, the topos is called Danger for Constitutional Processes and Institutions. The article insinuates that the “Republicans have largely failed to act as check on the US President, even when he is traducing the principles they claim to hold dear. One of these is the US constitution’s provision for a presidential election every four years” (FT.1). The second sentence again suggests a violation of the constitution. Additionally, with regard to Trump’s infection with Covid-19, the editorial ensures that “America’s institutions and constitution remain robust enough […] to deal with whatever consequences his infection may bring” (FT.6), emphasising that “due process” (ibid.) should not be derailed and also referring to the 25th amendment as adequate solution, if needed (cf. ibid.). The frequency of references in both newspapers implies that the constitution and institutions play a major role and that both have to be protected. They only mention problems with regard to the recognition of the constitution when it comes to Donald Trump’s presidency. The NR also highlights the importance of the constitution but mainly focuses on potential menaces to the constitutional order, resulting from a Biden presidency. In this case, the topos is called Constitution and State Authority. The focus is not as much on institutions mentioned in the constitution but on matters of state authority and overstepping of constitutional boundaries by Democrats. One of those explicit warnings is: “watch your wallet. And in this case, watch the Constitution, too” (NR.2). The state authority is addressed more than once, for example as the sovereignty of states is questioned by hinting at Biden’s plan to ban conversion therapy and asking: “did we miss the federal government becoming the primary regulator of therapists” (NR.2). Regarding Kamala Harris, the magazine puts on record that she “is a moderate ignoramus on the Constitution, proposing that the states be forced to obtain ‘pre-clearance’ from the federal government before making changes to their abortion policies” (NR.3). This can be read as direct criticism towards this kind of dependence of states on the federal government. The independence of states is also highlighted with respect to Trump’s indications that he might not hand over the reins to power. “The system is set forth in the Constitution, and it is administered not at the President’s will, but by the states and by the people” (NR.6) which again emphasises the importance of state authority for the NR. In conclusion, features that criticise the Democrats are the most striking ones. The magazine also claims that they “are

112

4

Findings

eager to end features of the constitutional order they find inconvenient” (NR.7) which is a very reckless thesis that is not supported by evidence. In the same way, the magazine sees the need, should the Democrats retain control of all three branches of government, to “defend constitutional government, core American rights, and the free market” (ibid.), thus insinuating that the Democrats would work to end all these features of the American constitution. This is particularly interesting as Section 2.1.2.1 suggested that federalism and especially the electoral system are part of the impediment on the way to more equality. In addition, the highly valued free market is part of the problem of wealth disparities and poverty increase.

4.2.5

Partisanship

The next topos is also of particular interest for this investigation. For all three selections, it was generally named Partisanship, including aspects of contrast and opposition. The NYT here includes issues of party politics and bias which is why the topos here is named Partisanship and Bias. It is vital to be reminded of Section 2.1.1.2 and the observation that partisanship is something people feel rather than do and that the differentiation between partisanship and ideology is of utmost importance. On the one hand, the editorials address issues such as the fact that voters of both parties appreciate absentee voting, “which may be the best evidence of all that it has no built-in partisan bias” (NYT.2) or the need for bipartisan unity when it comes to the President’s infection (cf. NYT.5). Biden’s appeal for unity and bipartisanship is also highlighted (cf. NYT.6). In addition, aspects such as “bipartisan support” (NYT.8) and “nonpartisan commissions” (ibid.) are called for and actions resulting in nonpartisan patriotic volunteerism (cf. NYT.10) are praised. On the contrary, partisan obstructionism is vigorously condemned. Mr. Biden, for example, is described as having “intimate experience with the partisan gridlock crippling Congress” (NYT.6). The crippling metaphor, as explained in Section 4.1.2.2.1, implies a disability to govern resulting from blind partisan obstructionism. The main blame for obstructionism is directed towards the Republican party, mainly expressed in the article R.I.P., G.O.P. (NYT.7). The negative sentiment towards Republicans is explicitly presented by figurative language such as “exposing the rot that has been eating its core” (ibid.) or “leaving it a hollowed-out shell” (ibid.). Their government vision would be “reactionary, a cross between obstructionism and owning the libs” (ibid.). Partisanship is also observable when it comes to “egregious” (NYT.8) gerrymandering, intended to keep certain groups away from the polls. This vote suppression is particularly

4.2 Topoi Analysis

113

criticised as, for example, “shameless attempts by Republicans in Texas”. By doing so, the newspaper again distinctly alludes to the idea of partisanship. In the FT, the topos Partisanship and Contrast slightly shifts the focus to particular differences and triggers of the respective partisanships. Contrasts addressed are different nomination conventions and the speeches of Trump and Biden (cf. FT.2), the accentuation of the fight between nationalism versus internationalism (cf. ibid.), different racial narratives that are told by Democrats and Republicans (cf. ibid.), differences with regard to views on climate change and demand for action (cf. FT.4) or also contrasts in the response to the pandemic (cf. FT.8). These contrasts are depicted as reason for partisanship. This becomes apparent when the newspaper talks of either the Republicans who “are blocking a congressional relief bill that would increase funding to the cash-strapped USPS and help to ensure timely ballot deliveries in November” (FT.1) or of the fact “that in a riven country, seven weeks from a presidential election, no subject divides the two candidates like climate change” (FT.4). And despite the two parties setting themselves apart in almost every policy area existent, the newspaper concludes that “brutal partisanship has often coincided with economic consensus”. As this apparently is no longer the case, “the difference in policy now matches the aggression in tone” (FT.8). This implies that meanwhile even the smallest common denominator has disappeared and contributes as a new field of partisan contradiction to partisanship. As the differences between the parties were highlighted even more clearly in the NR, the topos here is named Partisanship and Opposition. Therefore, it indicates not only a contrast in opinion but also an intentional working against each other. All of the presented plans by Joe Biden with regard to gender, race, immigration and abortion seem to be rejected unequivocally. The magazine assumes that “this is more about spreading money around to favored constituencies than about ‘science’” (NR.2). The distribution into two competing and opposing corners becomes most visible when the editorial declares that “Biden and the Democrats left Trump and Republicans an enormous opening by not condemning looting and other violence in the cities at their convention, and the GOP, rightly, exploited the hilt” (NR.5). First, the juxtaposition of Biden and the Democrats and Trump and the Republicans creates a distinct split between the two parties and their supporters. Second, insinuating that the Democrats would not condemn looting and violence is a deliberate exaggeration to cause indignation with the reader and to oppose their position. A Democratic government appears like a worst-case-scenario for the magazine. They assume that “Americans could find themselves living under all-Democratic rule in Washington, D.C., for the first time in a decade” (NR.7), that a “Democratic sweep of the election would be

114

4

Findings

perilous for the country and is well worth resisting” (ibid.) and that “no doubts about the President should undermine the urgency of retaining Republican control of the Senate, which every conservative should now desire as a bulwark against runaway leftism and the destruction of American institutions” (ibid.). The adjective perilous implies that the magazine treats Democratic government as an actual threat for the country as a whole (see Section 4.1.1.1). Additionally, the bulwark-metaphor exemplifies their opposition towards Democratic policies (see Section 4.1.2.2.1) and the mentioning of a possible destruction of American institutions can be read as an extreme exaggeration to further frighten the reader. This is also why the magazine suggests that conservatives should “rally popular opposition to initiatives that would weaken the nation” (ibid.), which in this case would probably be every single Democratic initiative. However, the suggestion itself could be regarded as invitation for even stronger partisanship and opposition. Astonishingly, the NR becomes even more explicit when they state that “Biden Democrats are our committed opponents on everything” (ibid.).

4.2.6

Rule of Law

Another topos in the NYT is the Rule of Law as Universal Guide for Politics and Society, a principle emphasised as one of the most important values and attitudes of the American people (see Section 2.1.2.2). This is why the newspaper regards it as equally important. Evidence for this can be discovered in various passages. Firstly, regarding Trump’s tax returns, it emphasises that no one, “not even the president, is above the law” (NYT.1). And this is the reason why the newspaper further remarks, “while Mr. Trump is not legally immune from investigation, he is effectively immune from it” (ibid.), therefore declaring that the rule of law is not as consequently enforced as expected and that it can be circumnavigated. Secondly, the rule of law is again emphasised by referring to the President’s inability to delay an election, as its “date is set by federal laws” (NYT.2), a fact elucidated in Section 2.1.1.2 of this thesis. Lastly, the newspaper, while already praising Joe Biden in their endorsement editorial, adds that he “would embrace the rule of law and restore public confidence in democratic institutions” (NYT.6). More importantly, the article implies that voting for Biden would mean to “favor the rule of law” (ibid.), thus insinuating that voting for Trump would mean the opposite. The rule of law is utilised to create the impression that Trump, as compared to Biden, is not interested in obeying to it at all. This kind of topos is not in the same way present in the FT. In contrast, the NR also puts particular focus on the rule of law in connection to aspects of

4.2 Topoi Analysis

115

immigration, which is why the topos here is named Rule of Immigration Law. It implies that the decriminalisation of US entry is intended by the Democrats, that an enforcement of immigration laws would be immediately needed and that this particular law should be the main orientation for public action. Among other things, the plan to restore “the Obama-era unilateral executive fiat under which domestic violence and sexual violence are made the basis for political asylum” (NR.2) is criticised for having “no basis in the immigration laws enacted by Congress” (ibid.). Furthermore, Kamala Harris is characterised as a “moderate in the sense that she endorses the decriminalization of unauthorized entry into the United States” (NR.3), and the intention of the Democrats to alter immigration law by executive fiat is denounced (cf. NR.4). They demand for an “immigration enforcement on a more solid footing” (NR.7) as well as for “an agenda […] that reforms immigration to better serve the interests of our citizens—that can command the political support to be implemented” (ibid.). This suggests an actual interest in a reform of the immigration law while only having the country’s needs in mind, regardless of the immigrants’ situations. This thesis has pointed out that illegal immigration is one of the most debated issues in the United States which also makes it one of the most polarising ones (also see Section 2.1.2.2).

4.2.7

Nation

The Nation-topos, called National Importance in the NYT, alludes to the importance of considering the America’s interests as more important than those of a single person and refers to specific weaknesses of America. The newspaper here pleas for someone who “will put the nation’s interests ahead of his own” (NYT.1), who “is the leader our nation needs now” (NYT.6), who has “the entire nation’s interests at heart” (ibid.) and who does not demand “that his interests be placed above those of the nation” (NYT.7). At the same time, the editorials determine certain problems and weaknesses. The presidential debate, for example, “was a national disgrace” (NYT.4), the nation can be portrayed as “unmoored from whatever was left of its civil political traditions” (ibid.) and as “an anxious and exhausted nation” (NYT.6). Additionally, the need becomes apparent for someone who rallies “the nation around shared values” (ibid.) and who guides “the nation through this valley into a brighter, more hopeful future” (ibid.). Therefore, the NYT seems concentrated on the nation’s interests and appears to the reader, despite addressing advantages of internationalism, globalisation and cosmopolitanism, patriotic and equally centred on domestic topics.

116

4

Findings

Furthermore, the NR focuses on National Pride as a topos which was interestingly only prevalent within NR articles and was expressed in various different ways. The most explicit outbursts of national pride are observable when the magazine clarifies that the election “indubitably will take place on its appointed day, as it has throughout the history of the world’s greatest republic” (NR.1) and when they agree with the overall tone of the Republican convention “that America is a great, lovely country that is being run down by a Left that believes it has been rotten to the core since the beginning” (NR.5). The first one intentionally makes use of the superlative greatest to emphasise their pride for this country, its history and citizens (see Section 4.1.3). The second reference initially highlights their view of the country, only to present the supposed view of Democrats immediately afterwards. Furthermore, the magazine prides themselves and the American people as shown in example (8). Despite all

(8) It is a tribute to our commitment to self-government that elections have occurred as scheduled on this day during the worst crises of American history—when federal troops were in the field against rebel troops who sought to destroy the nation, when the unemployment rate was 25 percent, when U.S. forces were engaged in an epic struggle to save the West from the depredations of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan (NR.1) adversities and against all odds, the nation has always managed to hold elections on the same date every four years. This includes the Civil War, the Great Depression and also World War II. This will also be addressed with the topos of Tradition and Religion, but in addition to the simple tradition of holding elections, this unbroken tradition of handing reins to successors without bloodshed is “a source of enormous national pride” (NR.6) for them. This habit and this unwritten law can be considered a fundament of the American self-conception (cf. McKay, 2018).

4.2.8

Misinformation

The Misinformation-topos is striking due to the frequent reference to disinformation, vile claims, the truth and conspiracies. To secure a safe election, the newspaper suggests as first action to “aggressively counter misinformation about

4.2 Topoi Analysis

117

mail voting, which continues to be spread not just by President Trump, but also by top members of his administration” (NYT.2). To be able to do so, a “public transparent effort from the platforms would offer additional accountability for those spreading disinformation” (NYT.3). This would only work if people regained the trust in media institutions which has been lost during the last ten years (see Section 2.1.1.3). These suggestions add up to the remark that “the political parties do not share the same relationship to the truth and democratic norms” (ibid.). The implications from this comment include the observation that one of the two major political parties, assumingly the Republican party, does not respect the truth and democratic norms, thus contributing to the current climate of insecurity and misinformation. This, in the long run, leads to further separation due to the selective choice of the citizens’ news information sources (see Section 2.1.1.3). The country would further be “awash in conspirational disinformation, incapable of agreeing on what is true and what are lies” (NYT.4), Trump would be “falsely claiming that mail-in ballots would be corrupted” (ibid.) and Trump’s suggestion to claim victory before every state has finished counting would be “premature claims” (NYT.9). Accusations are distinctly directed towards the Republican party. From wasting taxpayer money to produce “an 87-page rehash of unsubstantiated claims” (NYT.7) to listening to “vile claims […] being peddled online by right-wing conspiracymongers, including QAnon” (ibid.), the message is that Republicans represent one of the main reasons for the spread of misinformation.

4.2.9

Racial Inequality

The NYT and the FT exhibit similar manifestations of the topos Racial Inequality which addresses issues such as disparities in treatment of white people and people of colour, inequality of the political system in general, and election access and voting rights in particular. This topos also concerns aspects of justice and injustice and some of the issues have already been examined more closely in Section 2.1.1.2. Within the NYT, the topos was determined as Racial Inequality and Legal Injustice and the orientation towards the basic principles that guide the state under the rule of law become obvious as the newspaper regularly refers to court rulings and judicial acts. This is exemplarily apparent when Chief Justice John Roberts is quoted clarifying that “since the earliest days of the Republic, ‘every man’ has included the president of the United States” (NYT.1), when the newspaper finds that “Republican lawmakers there are also suing to throw out more than 100,000 ballots cast by Harris County voters from their cars” (NYT.8),

118

4

Findings

or when it states that the “courts, which will inevitably be called upon by both parties, have a paramount duty to maximize the opportunity to vote and ensure that ballots are counted” (NYT.9). Justice in the sense of equity and fairness is also referred to on a regular basis. The fact that Donald Trump was able to keep hiding his tax returns during his presidency is commented by the proverb “justice delayed is justice denied” (NYT.1). It signifies disappointment and resignation because of the court’s rulings which create the impression that some people, especially if they are the President of the United States and have a conservative majority in the Supreme Court, might be spared, or at least that they were less consequently legally prosecuted than ordinary citizens. Inequality on an enormous scale is denounced as the country is described as “beholden to a political system that doesn’t reflect the majority of the country” (NYT.4). Mounk (2018), for example, suggests that “public policy does not reflect the preferences of the majority of Americans”. He argues that the country would look radically different than it does now, as majorities have, for example, outspoken for the legalisation of Marijuana, the regulation of campaign contributions, paid parental leave or free public colleges (cf. ibid.). The same could be implied by the statement in the NYT-editorial. It might also include a reference towards the practice of gerrymandering and the insignificance of the popular vote. Gerrymandering is described as “redrawing district lines to keep themselves in power even when they lose the majority of the state” (NYT.8) and thus it directly contributes to the political system that, due to its outdated structure, does not reflect the majority of the people. These problems are also addressed more closely in Section 2.1.1.2. Similarly, the newspaper refers to the “blue shift” (NYT.3), the phenomenon describing the tendency that towards the end of an election the Democrats achieve a disproportionate increase of their share of the vote. This phenomenon combined with the fact that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by more than three million in 2016 (cf. ibid.) indicates again that not the majority of the American people have selected the President. Besides, the voter turnout is usually relatively low which is why it would not be the majority of the whole population either way. Moreover, the newspaper emphasises that Joe Biden “would work to address systemic injustices” (NYT.6) on various levels. This matter is often related to racial inequality and colour. More than once, the editorials refer to issues of Whiteness and Blackness, even though not intentionally, automatically creating a cleavage. The talk is of “white supremacists” (cf. NYT.4; NYT.6), “environmental racism” (NYT.6), “racial unrest” (ibid.), “white grievance and authoritarian populism” (NYT.7), “racial discrimination” (NYT.8), frightening “people, particularly Black people” (ibid.), “voters in predominantly Black neighborhoods

4.2 Topoi Analysis

119

[who] wait 29 percent longer to cast ballots than white voters” (ibid.), of efforts of volunteers to “increase voter turnout in Black communities” (NYT.10) and the struggle that the pandemic had disproportionately hurt Black people (cf. ibid.). The direct addressing of systematic racial injustice implies the newspaper’s desire to contribute to more racial justice and equality and that these issues are actual problems rooted within US society. The FT addresses the topos Racial Inequality and Financial Injustice as related to financial support, racial equality and the principle of equal opportunities. Hints at issues of justice are less connected to the judicial system and the courts but more related to inequality, racism and injustice—matters that were also already examined in the theoretical framework (see Section 2.1.2.1 & 2.1.2.2). To begin with, Trump’s statement after his recovery was evaluated as “apparent tonedeafness about the inequities the virus has exposed [that] would damage many other leaders in western democracies” (FT.7). This assessment could be read as clarification that inequalities are visible throughout every layer of society and that the ignorance of those inequities is a characteristic of Donald Trump’s conservative politics. With respect to the Black Lives Matter movement during summer 2020, the newspaper adds that the “danger is that Mr Trump will escalate his racial invective in the remaining 10 weeks” (FT.3) before the election which will inevitably lead to a “battle between competing racial narratives” (ibid.). This can be viewed as clear positioning against any kind of racial discrimination. The articles also mention “white nationalists” (FT.5) as addressed by Trump and his “stoking of white nationalist militias” (FT.10) which are portrayed as extremely problematic due to their xenophobic and radical right-wing political orientation. It seems like an expression of incomprehension as to why a President would connect with these openly racist and violent groups.

4.2.10 Pandemic Omnipresence Another topos prevalent in both newspapers is Pandemic Omnipresence. The NYT mentions the pandemic in almost every single editorial, amounting to the noun pandemic appearing eighteen times. It is used for various purposes. Firstly, the pandemic is used to justify certain actions. For instance, mail-balloting is presented as a secure voting method, “[especially] in the midst of a raging pandemic” (NYT.2). Secondly, it is presented as danger. Stating that the country is “paralyzed by the horror of a pandemic that has killed hundreds of thousands” (NYT.4), that “more than 207,000 American lives [were] already lost to this pandemic” (NYT.5) or that it belongs to a “trifecta of crises—a lethal pandemic, an

120

4

Findings

economic meltdown and racial unrest”—exemplifies how dangerous it is being regarded and how much it directly affects the majority of Americans. It is thirdly utilised to criticise Donald Trump and the Republicans directly, because they “have stood by as the president has lied to the public about a pandemic that has already killed 220,000 Americans” (NYT.7). Furthermore, his handling of the pandemic is described as “calamitous” (ibid.), and the Republican efforts to make voting even harder “in the face of the unprecedented hurdles to voting introduced by the coronavirus pandemic” (NYT.8) are considered unworthy of a party. It becomes evident that Trump’s dealing with the pandemic is detected as being the main reason for a disproportionately higher number of deaths as compared to other countries. The impression of pandemic omnipresence results from the frequent repetition of phrases such as “amid the pandemic” (NYT.1), “in the midst of a raging pandemic” (NYT.2), “in the middle of a global pandemic” (NYT.8), “even as the coronavirus pandemic rages” (NYT.9) or “not feel comfortable doing so amid the pandemic” (NYT.10). These examples, referring to the omnipresence of the pandemic, exemplify that every part of American life is concerned by it. The recurring focus on death numbers might imply that carelessness and incautiousness, especially in the private sphere, lead to more deaths. But the actual cause for the carelessness is detected within the government’s actions and utterances (for death numbers also see Section 2.1.2.2). Comparably, the FT exhibits even more references towards the topos, more precisely twenty-one mentions of the noun itself. A slight difference in focalisation led to the topos being named Pandemic Handling. They also criticise Trump’s handling of it by commenting that it was “clear that Mr Trump is running on a back-to-business platform in a still partly closed economy” (FT.5), that it was “now clear that a large part of the White House’s plan, if that term applies, is to bank on a vaccine” (FT.8), that Joe Biden owed “much, if not all, of his poll lead to Donald Trump’s mishandling of the pandemic” (FT.10), and that Trump’s “disregard for science during this pandemic tops the charge sheet against him” (ibid.). These, in some parts cynically appearing, comments imply a certain aversion towards the President of the United States. Another aspect, with regard to the pandemic, touches upon issues such as control, management and the fight against it. The talk is of flattening the pandemic curve (cf. FT.2), getting the pandemic under control (cf. FT.10) and recognising that “more than pandemic management is at stake” (ibid.). Furthermore, example (9) illustrates how the newspaper attempts to

4.2 Topoi Analysis

121

(9) In a country with a higher degree of scepticism than many others towards the pandemic and preventive measures such as mask-wearing, fuelled in part by the president’s downplaying of the threat, it will bring home the reality and severity of the pandemic (FT.6) raise awareness for the severity and danger that comes with the pandemic. It expresses the hope that the President has learned the right lessons from his infection, the use of the verb phrase bring home indicating that until the moment of his infection, the view on the virus was naïve and not considered American (see Section 4.1.1.3). To underline this severity, the FT applies the adjective lethal (FT.5; FT.7) twice and, similarly to the NYT, addresses the exact number of deaths (cf. FT.7).

4.2.11 Beliefs and Values The next set of topoi is to a certain extent discoverable in all three selected news media as Beliefs and Values. In the NYT, this topos can be described as Truth/Trust/Shared Values. It covers a variety of features, including aspects such as safety, truth, trust in institutions and science, debating culture or shared values. Examples (10)—(12) show the urge with which the newspaper aims at highlighting

(10) But the president’s words, however misleading, carry weight. So it is necessary to say it again: Especially in the midst of a raging pandemic, voting by mail is the surest path to a more inclusive, more accurate and more secure election (NYT.2) (11) Voting by mail—or absentee voting, which Mr. Trump pretends is something different even though it isn’t—has risks like any other method, but overall it is safe and accurate. So safe and accurate, in fact, that in five states most or all voters use it, and in three other states more than half do. In those states, elections go off without a hitch (NYT.2) (12) The American people need to be able to vote in the November election, and they need to be able to trust the outcome of that vote.

122

4

Findings

What can be done over the next three months to make the process as accessible, accurate and secure as possible? Here are three relatively straightforward tasks (NYT.2) these aspects of the election and public life in general. It shows how much the American people presumably care about issues of safety and security and view them as important values. This reassurance of security is calming for the reader, especially because positive examples for successful mail-balloting are presented (see example (11)), and ways are suggested to ensure the accessibility, security and accurateness (see example (12)). The application of many positive adjectives supports this process of reassurance (see Section 4.1.1.1). The value of trust also appears vital which corresponds with the set of values most important for Americans, discussed in Section 2.1.2.2. The newspaper determines that a “handful of unelected entrepreneurs […] are asking a frightened and anxious American public to trust them. To trust that they’ll put the interests of the country over those of their corporations. To trust that they’ll remain politically unbiased. The trust they’re asking for has not yet been earned” (NYT.3). Four repetitions of the noun in four consecutive sentences can evidently be viewed as explicit highlighting. It further clarifies that by doubting the election outcome and integrity in advance, Trump ensures that trust in institutions is further declining. “This threat to the democratic process is no less real because it is a threat made in public” (NYT.4) and it is a threat to democratic institutions as well. In the same way, trust in expertise, experience and science are more than once emphasised and characterised as vital. This is exemplarily done on the one hand by stating that it was “frustrating to watch as Mr. Trump has flouted basic public health guidelines and the advice of his own government’s experts” (NYT.5), on the other hand by addressing the return of “a respect for science and expertise to the government” (NYT.6) which was announced by Joe Biden or by accentuating Biden’s “unusually rich grasp of and experience in foreign policy” (ibid.). Further important aspects on which this thesis will not elaborate further, include fairness, reputation, integrity, acceptance, courage and debating culture. This kind of topos is less apparent in the FT and again sets a different focus which is why it is named Integrity/Trust/Expertise. To begin with, the assertion that the “risk to the integrity of the US presidential election cannot be overstated” (FT.1) might be interpreted as an accentuation of integrity in general and particularly with regard to an election. In a similar way then, the comment mentioned in Section 4.1.3, “it is at least guided by mainstream science” (FT.7), can be read

4.2 Topoi Analysis

123

as distinct aversion towards Donald Trump’s habit of ignoring health experts and as plea for trust in science and expertise. The same applies to the depiction of Kamala Harris “defending experts against populist slander” (FT.8) as well as the reference towards “Mr Trump’s disregard for science” (FT.10). Similar to the NYT, debating culture is indirectly also addressed in the FT, as example (13) suggests. Not only does this

(13) It matters, then, that their televised debate on Wednesday exposed equally large differences in policy. These were sometimes lost in the chaos and acrimony of last week’s showdown between the principals. We are left with an irony of sorts: a vicious debate obscured the gap in substance between the two parties. A relatively polite one laid it bare (FT.8) example express the determination that polite and civil debate lead to actual solutions while chaos and wild discussions only cause confusion, but it also illustrates the importance of civility in an already polarised environment. The manifestation of this topos seems differently accentuated in the NR which is why the topos here is named Tradition/Religion/Freedom. With respect to tradition, several passages are salient. The explanation that the “Constitution gives Congress the power to fix the date of the election, and since 1845, it’s been the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November […] [and that this] is such an ingrained tradition that it is part of the warp and woof of American democracy” (NR.1) exemplifies the newspaper’s concentration on traditional procedures and actions. Calling it figuratively the warp and woof of American democracy shows how central traditions and habits are. The same can be discovered when the NR states that they “prefer in-person voting, as a matter of ballot security and civic ritual” (ibid.). Their conservative basic attitude makes them sceptical towards innovations like absentee voting, fuelled by the President’s accusations, and prevents them from approving this method of voting in times of a pandemic. In example (14), it becomes evident how precious traditions and rituals, such

(14) It should be a source of enormous national pride that, for 223 unbroken years, American presidents have handed the reins to their successors without bloodshed or complaint. Nothing has interrupted this

124

4

Findings

tradition—not war, not economic calamity, not pandemic—nothing (NR.6) as the conduction of an election, seem to be for the magazine and their readership. The handing-over of office without any interference or disruption for such a long time represents a source of pride for them. A more indirect reference towards this topos can be seen when the article declares: “U.S. forces were engaged in an epic struggle to save the West from the depredations of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan” (NR.1). The image of the United States as saviour of the West seems like a political allusion to the traditional view of the United States as world power and leader of the free world. Orientation towards tradition is substantiated by classical characteristics of conservatism, including the protection of traditional social arrangements (see also Section 2.1.1.1.). With regard to religion, Kamala Harris is described as “a moderate anti-Catholic bigot” (NR.3). The negatively connoted noun bigot aims at presenting her as anti-religious fanatic, as indicated in Section 4.1.1.2. Especially for the conservative readership of the magazine, this representation of her incites more rejection and adds to further polarisation. Additionally, the hint at Biden’s plan to “restart the government’s assault on the Little Sisters of the Poor” (NR.2), a Catholic women’s organisation not offering employees health insurance plans that pay for contraceptives, as prescribed by the Affordable Care Act, suggests proximity and endorsement for those organisations. For them, “Democrats want to weaken statutory protections for religious liberty that passed Congress nearly by acclamation in the 1990s” (NR.7). As freedom, and especially the freedom of religion, is one of the most important values of American society, this statement seems slightly exaggerated. It concerns abortion in a wider sense which is widely discussed in the US and which is why the sides arguing for it tend to overstating some politicians’ utterances. The subject of religion is generally more important for conservatives but, as explained in Section 2.1.2.2, still less important than aspects of values or ideology in general.

4.2.12 Ideology Closely related to issues of tradition and religion is the topos Ideology. It includes political orientation or stance as well as ideological inclinations and convictions. Within the NYT, this topos is detectable in various instances. Again, it is vital to consider the remarks in Section 2.1.1.2 which emphasised that ideology can-

4.2 Topoi Analysis

125

not be interchangeably utilised to refer to partisanship. Conservatism is explicitly mentioned three times. First, the assessment that conservatives “in pursuit of long-cherished policy goals can no longer avoid the reality that Mr. Trump is vandalizing the principles and integrity of our democracy” (NYT.4) implies that, even though most conservative opinions do not overlap with the newspaper’s general stance, this fact and the will to defend democracy put them on the same page. It seems like a prompt to confront their conservative idol. Second, the newspaper clarifies that some conservatives, “heartbroken and incensed over what has become of their party” (NYT.7), have already openly complained about the demise and Trump’s share of guilt for it. Lastly, regarding the practice of voting obstructionism, Paul Weyrich, a leader of the modern conservative movement, is quoted in 1980 because he stated that he would not want everybody to vote. He believed that their opponent’s share of votes goes up if the overall number of casted votes decreases (cf. NYT.8). The newspaper blames the Republican party for still sticking to this mantra, which would explain their attempts of “making voting harder, if not impossible” (ibid.). These attempts are supposedly supported by the conservative majority in the Supreme Court that “has greenlit the Republicans’ anti-democratic power grabs” (ibid.). The nomination of Amy Coney Barrett only a few weeks before the election 2020 shows how important these ideological considerations are. The majority of media outlets describe her appointment as “locking in rightwing domination of the nation’s highest court for years to come” (Pilkington & Smith, 2020). Therefore, one can conclude that even the filling of a court seat, which usually would be viewed as independent of any ‘party politics’, is a highly ideological matter in the US. Astonishingly, the NYT even constitutes that strong “center-right parties have long been crucial to the health of modern liberal democracies […] [because] a strong center right can co-opt more palatable aspects of the far right, isolating and draining energy from the more radical elements that threaten to destabilize the system” (NYT.7). This statement is consistent with global developments and the upcoming of farright parties. In the US, the whole of the Republican party seems to have moved further to the right. No new parties could have evolved here due to the existing two-party system (see Section 2.1.1.1). In multiparty systems like Germany or France, the liberalisation of established centre-right parties like the CDU (Christian Democratic Union of Germany) has led to a possibility for far-right forces to fill this position. This is why, for example, the AfD (Alternative for Germany) in Germany or the Front National in France have evolved. The Republican party instead has moved itself ever-further to the right, especially by selecting Trump as their presidential candidate in the first place. The NYT concludes that its “ideology has been reduced to a slurry of paranoia, white grievance and authoritarian

126

4

Findings

populism” (NYT.7), thus openly blasting the Republican party. These negatively connoted nouns underline the newspaper’s aversion (see Section 4.1.1.2). The FT exhibits more references towards both sides of the political spectrum. To start with, the newspaper frequently addresses the ‘left’ and liberal views. For instance, they translate Trump’s utterance that “Democrats see America as a ‘wicked nation that must be punished for its sins’” (FT.2) with the clarification that this “is code for the liberal view that the US suffers from ‘structural racism’” (ibid.). Statements and opinions expressed by the Democrats are often exaggerated in such a way by Republicans. More references are directed towards the “activist left” (FT.3), the “Democrats’ leftward turn” (FT.8), towards Biden stopping short of the “left’s dream—Medicare for all” (FT.9), the “leftward trend of US public opinion in recent years” (ibid.) and Biden’s economic plans which “are to the left of Barack Obama and Bill Clinton” (FT.10). This depicts a distinct classification of politics and society into ideologically opposing spheres. Therefore, it is even more surprising that the newspaper clearly classifies Joe Biden as a “centrist” (FT.10) while at the same time naming most of his ideas and policies oriented to the left. On the contrary, the newspaper equally frequently addresses conservative and rightist aspects. For example, they explicitly appeal to the conservatives’ conscience by stating that Trump’s attempts to raise doubt about the elections “should be repugnant to any who call themselves conservative” (FT.1). By doing so, they do not blame the conservatives, but they try to remind them of their political orientation’s actual core values. Trump is blamed in a more direct way for not using his “opportunity to be plain in his condemnation of the farright” (FT.5) during the TV debate and for being “the second rightwing leader this year to face charges of environmental callousness after a spate of forest fires” (FT.4). The climate issue is usually viewed as uninteresting for the Republican party which makes the statement that “there is no innate conflict between conservatism and climate consciousness” (ibid.) even more peculiar. Furthermore, despite the “social democratic trend in US public opinion” (FT.8), the editorial adds for consideration that the Republicans have won the election “on a certain amount of big-government conservatism in 2016” (ibid.). Example (15) shows the

(15) People are supposed to grow ever more conservative with age. The teenage dreamer becomes the middle-aged pragmatist, who in turn settles into late-life reaction. A curious feature of Joe Biden’s story is that it defies this classical arc. The New Democrat of yesteryear, tough

4.2 Topoi Analysis

127

on welfare and even tougher on criminals, is now the party’s most progressive candidate for the White House since the 1980s (FT.9) importance of ideology for the perception of a politician and it shows that people can ideologically evolve over the course of their life. The description of Joe Biden’s positions in the past seems more fitting for a conservative Republican than for someone who belonged to the Democratic party for his whole life. He “defies this classical arc” (ibid.) of growing more conservative by age and turns the other way around. Finally, it seems noteworthy that throughout all editorials, multiple references towards either one of the parties and its members have been made. These could also be read as ideological references but are not more closely considered because the topos Ideology was differentiated from the topos Partisanship and Contrast. The ideological cleavage that is portrayed in both newspapers was more closely examined in Section 2.1.1.1. In the NR, the topos Ideology seems, compared to the other two newspapers, overly represented and striking. To begin with, the most noticeable point of reference is the already in Section 4.1.2.2.2 addressed exaggerated overuse of the adjective moderate or the adverb moderately (cf. NR.3). The fact that the NR heavily focuses upon the clarification that Kamala Harris would not be a moderate emphasises the importance they attribute to a categorisation into left and right. In general, the topos is represented in a more judging way, particularly with regard to liberal and leftist views. The examples (16)—(20) (below) indicate the magazine’s aversion towards any policy that might be classified as leftist or left of the political spectrum. Examples (19) and (20) again depict exaggerations as no one actually intends to fully socialise medicine or aims at destroying American institutions. Additionally, example (16), (17) and (19) create the impression that the magazine is actually frightened by this leftward-shift of the Democratic party. In a transferred sense, one could also conclude that the magazine is afraid of a leftward move of the whole country, a tendency that is ever-more probable. In contrast, any mentions of conservative ideas and actions are usually referred to in a positive manner. Kamala Harris is denounced for having “abused her investigatory and prosecutorial powers [as attorney general] to harass conservative-leaning policy-groups” (NR.7), and Joe Biden is imputed of pretending to be overly conservative on certain issues (NR.4). Especially the final editorial before the election (cf. NR.7) resembles an inflammatory speech. They suggest to remember that

128

4

Findings

Trump, despite his flaws, has “advanced a great many conservative policy objectives and thwarted liberal ones” (ibid.) and that he compiled “a record better than even some of his supporters on the right expected” (ibid.).

(16) The further one gets into these proposals, the clearer it becomes that the left-wing radicals who were supposedly defeated by Biden in the primary are actually writing them (NR.2) (17) We are squinting to see a definition of “moderate” in the American context that is ‘only slightly to the left of Norway’ (NR.3) (18) But nobody who has followed Biden or Harris should have much faith in their spine for resisting their party’s never-ending pull to the left (NR.4) (19) In the interim, the Democratic Party has moved ever farther left, on issue after issue. Obamacare now represents an inadequate amount of control over health care for the party’s leaders, who split between those who want fully socialized medicine and those who want to move halfway there (NR.7) (20) No doubts about the president should undermine the urgency of retaining Republican control of the Senate, which every conservative should now desire as a bulwark against runaway leftism and the destruction of American institutions (NR.7) His misdemeanour and misbehaviour is excused due to his conservative stance and his opposition to anything resembling liberalism. Admittedly, the magazine believes that he threatens “to drag conservatism down to a consequential and avoidable defeat” (ibid.) only to immediately afterwards add that most “conservatives, for all of that, will still and understandably be in his corner. He sides with us on many things, from taxes to conscience rights to judgeships, while the Biden Democrats are our committed opponents on everything” (ibid.). This statement seems like a confession that no matter what Trump does or says, conservatives should still support him for the sake of conservatism. Their focus on conservative ideologies is also expressed by the number of references including the words conservatism or conservative, which amount to ten in this last editorial alone.

4.2 Topoi Analysis

129

4.2.13 Threat/ Crisis/ Defeat The next topos is called Threat/Crisis/Defeat and is detectable in almost all selected editorials. To create this constant impression of threat or crisis, the editorials either repetitively apply linguistic cues or indirectly imply potential dangers resulting from actions of either one of the parties or candidates. As this topos emerged as one of the most striking, this thesis will only consider a selection of examples for each newspaper. Typical kinds of threats elaborated on or mentioned in the NYT concern the election (e.g. NYT.3; NYT.8; NYT.9; NYT.10), the democracy (e.g. NYT.2; NYT.4; NYT.9) and the economy (e.g. NYT.6; NYT.8). Additionally, several threatening scenarios are considered. First, if Trump tweeted during election night about his win despite some states not having finished counting votes, the “door to unrest and constitutional crisis swings wide open” (NYT.3). Second, the President’s infection and his administration’s handling of it are described as “chaos” (NYT.5), and “conspiracy theorists and disinformation trolls will do their best to maximize the turmoil” (ibid.). In an earlier editorial, this danger was also criticised as being reinforced by the President, especially when it comes to “misinformation about mail voting, which continues to be spread not just by President Trump, but also by top members of his administration” (NYT.2). Third, the present situation and state of the country is depicted as “unrelenting chaos” (NYT.6). Fourth, illustrated as the “fateful threat of climate change” (NYT.6) and the “climate crisis” (ibid.), challenges and potential further threats are addressed which would be caused by global climate change. Finally, Section 4.2.2 has, with regard to the topos Pandemic Omnipresence, impressively indicated how this health crisis is one of the biggest problems of modern times. Interestingly, all these depictions of threats, in accordance with the following depictions in the other two newspapers, at least partially comply with in Section 2.2.3 discussed news values or also with in Section 2.1.1.3 mentioned reasons for media selection, being partisanship, negativity, incivility and issue preference. The FT exhibits a similar number of references towards the topos and certain aspects of it. The list of potential threats and presented crises seems even more encompassing, ranging from a broken election and racial invectives, over climate change and being without a leader, to the pandemic, political chaos and constitutional crises. The first editorial’s headline is “The risks of a broken election” (FT.1) and its subheading states that “Trump’s assault on absentee voting amid coronavirus is a dark omen” (ibid.). These alone leave the reader frightened and with the impression of an imminent threat. The term assault contributes to this imminence and danger by conveying the idea of an attack. Another danger

130

4

Findings

addressed is “that Mr Trump will escalate his racial invective in the remaining 10 weeks” (FT.2) which would destabilise the country and further polarise and divide its citizens. The threat of climate change is distinctly issued in the editorial “US wildfires reveal partisan divide on climate” (FT.4). The wildfires and destructions are named a “havoc” (ibid.) and are considered a potential reason for a “Bay Area exodus” (ibid.). This expression refers to the secondary threat of economic losses resulting from wildfires and climate change. The Silicon Valley and the West Coast are viewed as heart of America’s world-leading technology sector. As they are more and more endangered by wildfires and other climate phenomena, companies might consider leaving the United States for good. In addition, acts like the withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord depict an even greater threat as these global efforts could be regarded as vital for the fight against climate change (cf. FT.10). The headline of the editorial “A tawdry debate shows the risk to US democracy” (FT.5) again explicitly indicates a threat to the one thing that Americans are especially proud of: Being the world’s oldest democracy. This is explained with Trump’s hesitation when asked to clarify if he were to accept election results or not. The same applies to the editorials “Trump’s virus poses new risks in US election” (FT.6) and “Donald trump’s irresponsible word put others at risk” (FT.7). These headlines suggest a distinct connection between the term risk and the President of the United States. Especially the latter editorial underlines this claim by mentioning trigger words such as disease, died, seriousness, risks, contagious, disregard, dangers, inequities, illness, or relapse (cf. ibid.). His words and actions are thus, literally and figuratively, considered an actual threat to the health of the public. Finally, the assertion that a “constitutional crisis triggered by a spurious attempt to stop America’s votes from being counted would only benefit those who wish ill of US democracy” (FT.10) can be read as an adequate assessment and summary of the threats and dangers included in this topos. The topos Threat/Crisis/Defeat, as have been some of the other topoi prevalent in all three selected news media, takes on a different perspective in the NR. To begin with, the newspaper clarifies that crises like wars or economic setbacks have never kept Americans away from the ballots (cf. NR.1), elucidating that no danger for democracy in that sense would be existent. More threatening appears the assault on conservative organisations, such as the Little Sisters of the Poor, as planned by Biden and the Democrats (cf. NR.2). A main cause of risk is additionally viewed in Kamala Harris and her apparent tendency for acting like “a moderate autocrat” (NR.3) as well as in Joe Biden’s “supposed centrism” (NR.2). Due to the public’s opinion and assessment of both as supposed centrists, the magazine seems to fear their appeal to moderate conservatives, independents

4.2 Topoi Analysis

131

and swing voters. The constant referencing to the constitution strikes throughout all editorials, but especially example (21)

(21) The Democratic Party platform pushes D.C. statehood, entirely without regard to the fact that this cannot be done without amending the Constitution, and more immigration law by executive fiat. The Democrats pledge new gun bans in violation of the Second Amendment and are increasingly threatening to eliminate the filibuster if enough Senate Republicans don’t roll over for all of this (NR.4). portrays their worry for the constitution and its strict obedience. They depict the Democrats’ intentions as violating the constitution and the Democratic agenda as aiming at ignoring important constitutional standards. The magazine’s conservative stance seems to make them hostile towards any, by the Democrats suggested, amendment to the constitution, a document that is more than 232 years old. The threats detected include massive state intervention on economic affair, the danger of Washington DC being a state of its own, a ban on guns and the elimination of the filibuster in Congress. The latter one depicts a political procedure where one or more members of Parliament or of Congress debate over a proposition to delay or entirely prevent a decision. This obstruction of legislature thus seems like a mean of politics worthy of being saved by conservatives. In the end, the fear of Democratic power is best summarised by citing the danger of “destruction of American institutions” (NR.7). Therefore, it is arguable that for the magazine Democratic rule is comparable to the end of American politics and its institutions.

4.2.14 Division In one way or another, all three editorial selections address the issue of division. But only the NYT seems to address it as common theme throughout the majority of editorials. This is why the topos Division was defined. The division addressed is found on different levels of society and politics. One division can be detected between those who aim at spreading misinformation and those who are supposed to prevent this from happening. This is why the newspaper demands for a “united front” (NYT.3) of online platforms to avoid misinformation spreading during election night, which would be “a strong public signal of the gravity of the moment” (ibid.). This aspect is considered vital as the opposite would

132

4

Findings

lead to chaos and unrest. This potential for unrest has ever-more increased since the hybridisation of information and comment in the media, making it harder to differentiate between fact and comment (see Section 2.1.1.3). Another division is clearly presented between Trump and Biden. This becomes most obvious as the editorial addresses the presidential TV debate featuring “one politician trying his best to do his job, trying to bring some normalcy to America’s battered public square, and one politician who seemed incapable of self-control—petulant, self-centered, rageful” (NYT.4). This dichotomy of the two candidates is even more explicitly highlighted in the endorsement editorial (NYT.6). It is best observable when looking at Biden’s vow to Restore the Soul of America which is deemed “a painful reminder that the country is weaker, angrier, less hopeful and more divided than it was four years ago” (ibid.). Compared to Donald Trump’s Make America Great Again, this vow focuses on positively connoted traits such as open-mindedness, cooperation, mutual care for each other or fact-based decisions. Trump’s promise sounds selfish and somehow menacing towards other countries. The NYT sincerely believes, agreeing with Biden, that “an ‘America First’ approach in reality amounts to ‘America alone’” (ibid.), and that his “focus would be on healing divisions and rallying the nation around shared values” (ibid.). As explicit as Biden is praised in the endorsement editorial, as tough on Republicans and Trump appears the following editorial “R.I.P., G.O.P.” (NYT.7). This juxtaposition, even though the editorials have been published 18 days apart, adds up to a distinctly created division within the newspaper, between Democrats and Republicans. Another division is detected, caused by the election and polarising campaigns, within families and generations. “The 2020 election has turned brother against sister and father against son. And it has resonated through generations” (NYT.10). The upcoming choice is considered as so decisive that relationships, friendships and families are heavily polarised. The fact that only two major parties are relevant in the US (see Section 2.1.1.1) is a key element in this rapidly increasing polarisation of relations.

4.2.15 Choice One topos solely discovered in the FT is Choice. It draws upon the momentousness and significance of the choice that lies ahead of the society, and it stroke the eye because the word choice is used across the editorial selection to refer to the upcoming election. Mr. Biden has “to break through the fog of polarising disinformation and ensure Americans see the importance of the choice they face” (FT.2), “Americans confront their momentous choice” (FT.3), “the debate did at

4.2 Topoi Analysis

133

least sharpen the choice at hand” (FT.5), “Americans will have left this mostly civil debate […] more conscious than ever of the starkness of the choice ahead” (FT.8), “Between Donald Trump and Joe Biden, the choice should not be hard” (FT.10) and “America’s voters face a momentous enough choice as it is” (ibid.). All these examples can be interpreted as exemplifications of the importance of everything that depends on this election and the public’s choice for America as a nation and society. The concentration on this term seems to emphasise that this election is only about the American people, their will and their decision. They get to choose the next leader and, to a certain extent, they get to choose the kind of country and the kind of society they would like to live in for the next four years, having two deeply opposing possibilities to choose from at hand.

4.2.16 Abortion The topos Abortion was as such only discoverable in the NR and draws attention to issues such as constitutional regulations, contraception and explicit opposition towards it. The magazine blames Biden for having “once posed as a pro-lifer reluctantly supporting legal abortion, while opposing—for four decades—taxpayer-funded abortion” (NR.2). This sentence already demonstrates some of the main points of discussion. The noun pro-lifer indicates that for the NR any kind of abortion is an act against life which allows them to easily divide into two groups, those for and those against it. The attributive compound adjective taxpayer-funded indicates that the funding of abortion is the second point of divergence. It can be read as some sort of concession that if abortion has to be existent, there should at least not be any government funding involved. Biden would in addition “restore U.S. funding for the pro-abortion United Nations Population Fund, and ‘restore the Affordable care Act’s contraception mandate’ to ignore the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision” (ibid., original emphasis). The Hobby Lobby-allusion refers to a court decision which stated that the company Hobby Lobby would not have to apply to regulations requiring health insurance provided by employers to cover emergency contraceptives. It is mentioned to indicate that the reintroduction of the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate would apparently be against the Supreme Court’s decision. Kamala Harris is further insinuated to be forfeiting abortion fanaticism (cf. NR.3), and the Democrats in general of playing down and euphemising “their extremism on abortion all the way to birth” (NR.4). These examples exemplify that the topos abortion is only utilised to put blame upon the Democrats, Biden and Harris, and to highlight more than explicitly what their presidency would mean from a conservative

134

4

Findings

point of view. Abortion constitutes one of the most vehemently discussed topics in the US, being particularly rejected by conservatives, the far-right and specific religious groups. Adding up to this, the NR remarks, “[pro-life] Democrats have nearly gone extinct, and the party backs taxpayer funding for abortion to an unprecedented extent” (NR.7), and that in contrast Trump and his “pro-life policies […] have been particularly commendable” (ibid.). This final example represents a particularly fitting instance where the two competing faction are distinctly separated. An opinion that lies between the two counter-poles appears unimaginable. From a conservative point of view as presented in those editorials, abortion, no matter the circumstances, is depicted as the root of all evil.

4.2.17 Scepticism The topos Scepticism fits into this conservative, sceptical and less progressive worldview. Scepticism is, for example, expressed towards absentee voting, when the magazine states that they “prefer in-person voting as a matter of ballot security” (NR.1). Admittedly, this expression of scepticism is not presented vehemently and only appears in a subordinate clause, but it at least captures the usual point of critique of conservatives. Furthermore, they are sceptical about Biden’s investment plan for clean energy, indicated by their remark that “this is more about spreading money around to favored constituencies than about’science’” (NR.2). The quotation marks, as explained in Section 4.1.2.2.2, can be read as an indication for the magazine’s stance on this issue and, in this instance, as doubt about the truthfulness of Biden’s intentions. They are also wary about “the leftwing radicals who were supposedly defeated by Biden in the primary” (ibid.) and assume that they would actually be writing those proposals. More forms of scepticism and aversion can be discovered with regard to equality, health care, climate or the pandemic. The article Joe Biden’s Costly, Radical Race and Gender Agenda (NR.2) appears like an endless enumeration of Biden proposals which are, to a certain extent, turned into ridicule or at least evaluated as not urgent. For instance, the article declares, “the Biden campaign has announced plans of Castro-esque length aimed at racial equality and women’s equality” (ibid.) and that “no cause is too local to throw dollars at” (ibid.), thus referring to the plans of distributing air conditioners for schools. The first example is an explicit allusion to Fidel Castro, the communist revolutionist and dictator, therefore suggesting that too much governmental interference and proposals would lead to a communist system. It intentionally depicts those suggestions for race and gender as redundant and too far-reaching. The second example supports this point, as air-conditioners

4.3 News Value Analysis

135

for schools are deemed an unworthy topic for a President of the United States. This scheme recurs across the whole selection of NR editorials and also emphasises scepticism towards expertise (cf. NR.7) and civil rights movements such as Black Lives Matter or the 1619 Project (cf. NR.5).

4.3

News Value Analysis

The following brief remarks explain some of the salient features detected in Sections 4.1 and 4.2 by referring to a potential orientation of the newspapers towards some of the news values as categorised and presented by Bednarek (2006). As a matter of conciseness, only a selection of news values and striking examples will be considered, with the focus being on news values in news actors and events. These might support the claim that newspapers or magazines select and structure news stories and editorials according to certain values. Media functions often relevant for the consideration of news values include the entertainment-, agenda-setting and gatekeeper-function (also see Section 2.2.3.2). The NYT ’s use of language is indicative of a variety of news values. With regard to values in news actors and events, especially the news value of Negativity becomes apparent throughout the majority of editorials. Particularly the editorial A Debate That Can’t Be Ignored (NYT.4) exhibits constant references indicating an orientation towards this news value. The presidential debate is depicted as “national disgrace” (ibid.) and compared to a mirror held up to the US showing “a nation unmoored from whatever was left of its civil political traditions, awash in conspirational disinformation, incapable of agreeing on what is true and what are lies, paralyzed by the horror of a pandemic […] and beholden to a political system that doesn’t reflect the majority” (ibid.). Finally, the editorial mentions the situation of thousands of citizens who are kept from exercising their right to vote which some might view as an allusion to slavery (cf. ibid.). Additionally, various negatively connoted adjectives are applied throughout the editorial, e.g. bad news (NYT.1), raging pandemic (NYT.2) or tired frame, be excruciating and petulant, self-centered, rageful (NYT.4). The news values Recency, Relevance and Proximity are considered too, as the editorials mostly comment on current developments during the presidential election campaign in the United States. Furthermore, the NYT clearly orients towards Attribution and Factivity. They frequently refer to sources and figures. For example, to underline the safeness and accurateness when it comes to mail-balloting and the indisputability of the suggestion to delay the election, the editorial addresses the Constitution (cf. NYT.2), “Mr. Trump’s own handpicked F.B.I director” (NYT.8) or also members of the Supreme Court (cf.

136

4

Findings

NYT.1). Factivity is aimed at by regularly including figures such as the number of deaths with regard to Covid-19 (NYT.4; NYT.7), the amount of money Trump withdrew from the Ukraine-aid fund to pay for the construction of his wall (NYT.7) or also the number of pizzas delivered by the nonpartisan project Pizza to the Polls, amounting to more than 53,000 pizzas having been brought to polling places (cf. NYT.10) as a matter of election support. The FT orients towards similar news values. Negativity here again dominates the news coverage. First and foremost, orientation towards this news value becomes obvious as negatively connoted nouns, such as risk, threat, crisis, danger, damage or death are frequently addressed. Additionally, many adjectives utilised throughout the editorial selection are negatively connoted. For instance, the talk is of a “dark omen” (FT.1), things being “most worrisome” (ibid.), Trump’s speech being “littered with character attacks and warning” (FT.2), him being a “ruthless foe” (FT.3), of “something much darker” (FT.5), a “vicious debate” (FT.8) or a “deep threat” (FT.10), among other examples. Not surprisingly and due to the same reasons, one can also conclude that the FT, similarly to the NYT, orients towards Recency, Relevance and Proximity. The significance of the aspects highlighted by the insertion of superlatives makes it reasonable to conclude that Superlativeness, at least to a certain extent, was included in the news selection process. “The most worrisome is Mr Trump’s assault on mail-balloting” (FT.1), “the most potent rhetoric will fall short” (FT.4), by far the “bleakest lesson” (FT.5) of the debate was that fears for the election are warranted, “the most turbulent and unpredictable US election” (FT.6), the “most serious global pandemic” (FT.7) or the “greatest failure in US governance since the Vietnam war” (FT.8)—all these examples relate to the news value of Superlativeness and create a feeling of urgency. One could conclude that it is not overly prevalent but at times definitely detectable. Finally, the FT does not depict the same orientation towards Attribution and Factivity as compared to the NYT. It frequently mentions aspects and reasons for its opinion but does only sporadically bolster them with evidence, as can be seen when it refers to Moody’s Analytics who calculated that “his plans call for ‘an additional $7.3tn in government spending over the next decade’” (FT.9), or when it addresses that “JPMorgan has noted that the 2020 election has seen a ‘historically wide margin of event risk priced across asset classes by option markets’”(FT.6). Both instances indicate that the focus of the newspaper mainly is on financial expertise. These kind of economic facts need to be backed by evidence as compared to other opinions of the newspaper on politics or society, which are usually not their main focus. Finally, the NR also emphasises Negativity as main news value. This negativity is mostly evident due to adjectives related to Trump or Biden and runs

4.3 News Value Analysis

137

through the entire selection. Trump’s ideas are described as “grotesque and un-American” (NR.1), “incendiary and absurd” (ibid.), he is blamed for using “shameful rhetoric” (NR.6) and for being responsible for a “consequential and avoidable defeat” (NR.7). Kamala Harris, as Biden’s Vice-President, is described as “moderately corrupt as an attorney general, moderately abusive as a senator, and now moderately dangerous to the rule of law” (NR.3). Biden and the Democrats are described as “heedless” (NR.7), as “eager to end features of the constitutional order” (ibid.) or as having a “costly, radical agenda” (NR.2). As all these editorials refer to the presidential election campaign, the NR can also be said to follow the news values Recency, Relevance and Proximity. Furthermore, one could claim that the magazine also emphasises the news value of Personalization, as it frequently utilises personal pronouns. For example, the magazine highlights that it “is a tribute to our commitment to self-government” (NR.1), that the “Iran deal […] shook our allies without improving Tehran’s behaviour” (NR.7), that Trump “moved our embassy in Israel to Jerusalem” (ibid.), that “Biden Democrats are our committed opponents on everything” (ibid.), or that “conservatives will have our work cut out for us” (ibid.). Additionally, the NR directly addresses the reader as it warns to “watch your wallet” (NR.2). Attribution cannot really be said to have been regarded for the issuing of the editorials, as the main reference for any fact provided seems to be the constitution. This is why Factivity can also not be detected as overly present. Mostly, piecewise quotes of utterances by Democrats are used to adduce evidence for claims. Generally, all three editorial selection exhibit an orientation towards similar values. Nonetheless, the differences, particularly with regard to the NR compared to the other two newspapers, are not completely surprising. Bednarek (2006) remarks for example that Personalization would be “most striking in the popular press, and works to promote feelings of identification, empathy or disapproval” (p. 17). With regard to earlier findings in Chapter 4, this goal can also be assigned to the NR based on their writing style and rhetorical argumentation strategy.

5

Conclusion and Outlook

The main aim of this thesis was to examine the newspaper representation of polarising forces in US society, as to be seen in a selection of editorials on the presidential election campaign 2020. The introduction (chapter 1) has described the main research area (editorial coverage on the US presidential election campaign) and the scope of the study while also covering the discussion of previous research in this area of study. Furthermore, research questions were presented and the organisation of the study discussed. Chapter 2 concerned the theoretical framework and looked into various different, interacting, and possible forces of polarisation in the US and considered numerous aspects of discourse analysis relevant for this thesis. Then, chapter 3 issued the methodological approach followed in the analysis, including the data selection process as well as the presentation of analytical categories. Finally, chapter 4 presented the results of an extensive critical discourse analysis of the three editorial selections, considering the analysis of evaluative patterns, topoi and news values. The following summary will briefly present the most important findings of the analysis. Afterwards the implication chapter will draw conclusions based on the findings which concern the newspapers’ level of polarisation, the exhibition of political stance, the utilisation of de-polarising linguistic elements and explanations on the consideration of respective news values.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 C. Berning, The Polarisation of US Society and its Representation in the Media, BestMasters, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-42962-1_5

139

140

5

5.1

Summary

5.1.1

Results

Conclusion and Outlook

Regarding the first research question, which relates to the polarising effect of evaluative patterns in the articles, the thesis has shown various striking results. Beginning with the level of lexis, the investigation of adjectives, nouns and verbs was very insightful. Each newspaper’s use of language was noticeably, if intended or not, polarising and as such contributing to the division of society. The NYT applied a whole string of negatively connoted and aversive adjectives towards the Republican party and President Trump. At times, these adjectives expressed ridicule and negativity, focused mostly on wrong statements and misinformation spread by either the party or Trump, and also evaluated the state of the country after four years of Trump-presidency. Additionally, positively connoted adjectives were utilised to comment on the method of mail-balloting and its secureness. The use of nouns and verbs within its editorials adds up to this presentation. Nouns present the situation as overly chaotic (unrest, constitutional crisis, turmoil, horror), link Trump with negative attributes and the explicit mentioning of the Deep State, conspiracymongers, and QAnon further trigger negative associations. More positively connoted nouns were only attributed to Joe Biden, including decency, steadiness and experience. The use of verbs and idioms showed a striking overutilisation of modal auxiliaries, exemplifying the urgency for change by a demanding and postulating writing style as well as the suggestion of alternatives for the current status quo. Most idioms also expressed negativity towards Trump and the Republicans. Similarly, the FT made use of adjectives to express their less distinct but still pejorative attitude towards Donald Trump. They also utilised adjectives to highlight the dangerousness of the current situation and to describe dark prospects for the future. The use of nouns exhibited a focus on threats and dangers as pervading theme. Positively and negatively connoted nouns were mainly used to emphasise the importance of the election and indirectly to establish a connection between those dangers and the Republicans or the President. Moreover, positively connoted nouns were particularly used with regard to law and order and character traits commendable for a President. Verbs and idioms were mostly applied in a neutral way of criticising certain actions or utterances. Compared to those two newspapers, the NR used lexis to criticise some of Trump’s actions as well, but they focused more intently on blaming the Democrats, Joe Biden and his running mate Kamala Harris. Adjectives were used to criticise Biden and Harris on a political and personal level, especially focussing on Democratic and liberal values. Negatively connoted adjectives were

5.1 Summary

141

also used to denounce Donald Trump, sometimes only to trivialise his deeds or utterances in the next passage. Nouns like filibuster, immigration law or pro-Lifer would have been evaluated negatively by the other two newspapers but appear to be positively connoted in the NR, as an emphasis of conservative values. Secondly, the investigation of rhetorical language showed that schemes did not really express evaluation and can thus be considered as less polarising aspects, particularly in the NYT and the FT. For the NR, one could conclude that schemes were used to express their conservative stance which itself cannot be viewed as a polarising linguistic act. In contrast, tropes such as metaphors and other kinds of rhetorical devices were heavily used in the NYT to attack Donald Trump, the Republicans and their practice of misinformation spreading. Many metaphors regarded issues of justice, law and the constitution. Additionally, political decency and the importance of democratic norms was addressed as well as potential threats to these norms. Especially the use of irony and exaggeration appeared to be most polarising as they were mostly applied to ridicule Trump’s actions. The FT ’s use of metaphor was directly addressed towards either Trump or Biden personally. Interestingly, Trump is unexceptionally addressed negatively whereas Biden’s depiction is more positive while not ignoring his wrong decisions in the past. Further tropes were mostly neutral and focused the candidates’ economic plans. Contrastingly, the NR applies less metaphorical language, utilising a plainer and more straightforward style of writing. The few metaphors selected almost exclusively aimed at criticising Trump and the Republicans. Further tropes instead exhibited an excessive use of exaggeration and irony, including the utilisation of quotation marks to emphasise their doubt and disagreement about something as well as the exaggerated repetition of, for example, the adjective moderate and the adverb moderately. Longer argumentative phrases, such as allusions and comments, exhibited similar tendencies. Most astonishing was the NR’s foreclosure of the smallest chance of bipartisan cooperation and compromise by declaring the Democrats their committed opponents on everything, thus creating apparent irreconcilable differences. And despite the editorials heavily criticising Donald Trump at times, the magazine still advises his election and seems to put the promise of power above all else. Democratic rule appears to be a more threatening scenario than Trump’s re-election; a fact they highlight more than once to their readership. With regard to the second research question, the topos analysis produced a list of general topoi in this context as well as lists of newspaper-specific topoi, classifiable as belonging to one of the general topoi. The topos democracy was, for example, detected in the NYT and the FT. The focalisation led to the topos being called Democracy as strong principle in the NYT and Democracy as Threatened Process in the FT. The same applies for the following superordinate topoi: Rule

142

5

Conclusion and Outlook

of Law, Election, Nation, Leadership, Racial Inequality, Pandemic, Partisanship, Beliefs and Values and Constitution. They were either present in only two or all three newspapers and differed in the focus which was set in the text. Interestingly enough, the analysis exemplified more overlaps between topoi in the NYT and the FT. They focused on similar issues and values, included an akin worldview and appeared to have taken the same perspective when it came to the interpretation of topoi. In contrast, the NR exhibits partially similar topoi but takes on a very different, much more conservative perspective in interpreting them. The topoi Division, Choice, Abortion, Scepticism and Misinformation were solely present in one of the editorials. Instead, the topoi Ideology and Threat/Crisis/Defeat are discoverable in all three newspapers and did not significantly differ in their overall orientation and focus which is why they were named similarly for all three selections. The news value analysis finally exhibited expectable results. The main news values that could be assigned to all three news enterprises include Negativity, Recency, Relevance and Proximity. The NYT ’s determination to substantiate their claims with facts and figures was striking. They could thus be evaluated as also orienting towards Factivity and Attribution. Examples for this are the presentation of the number of Covid-deaths in the US or of the amount of money Trump withdrew from the Ukraine-aid fund to pay for the wall at the Mexican border. The FT more or less also considered those news values. Additionally, one might insinuate that the news value Superlativeness was also explicitly considered and used to emphasise certain positions. This becomes apparent when the newspaper states that the “most worrisome is Mr Trump’s assault on mail-balloting” (FT.1) or that by far the “bleakest lesson” (FT.5) of the debate was that fears for the election are warranted. Finally, the NR did not consider Attribution and Factivity, but they oriented towards Personalization and thus aimed at promoting feelings of identification, empathy or disproval. The newspaper, for example, calls the regularity with which elections have been held in the past centuries a “tribute to our commitment to self-government” (NR.1) or remarks that Trump “moved our embassy in Israel to Jerusalem” (NR.7). Figure 5.1 summarises the findings presented in this chapter as linguistic polarising forces and connects these to figure 3.2 (social and political polarising forces in society).

Figure 5.1 Linguistic Polarising Forces. (Own illustration)

5.1 Summary 143

144

5.1.2

5

Conclusion and Outlook

Implications

The findings summarised in the previous subchapter allow for the drawing of substantiated conclusions. Therefore, this chapter will describe possible implications of the newspapers’ use of language, rhetoric and argumentation. It became apparent that different aspects of the editorials, including the word choice, rhetorical devices, certain comments and allusions, the prevalence of particular topoi as well as the general writing style, can be considered as reflecting upon the polarisation of society and its division. Presumably, one could allege that this writing style at least perpetuates forces of polarisation or even reinforces them. This effect was detectable within all three selections, even though the NYT, as explicitly liberal newspaper, and the NR, as explicitly conservative magazine, displayed this more blatantly, which was especially noticeable regarding the use of topoi. The contrary focalisation of one and the same topoi or the exclusive utilisation of certain topoi, for example the use of Abortion and National Pride in the NR, are only two examples of how the addressing of certain topics contributes to the reinforcement of existing cleavages—for instance between those for and those against abortion. The compiled list of general topoi seems to stand in the tradition of other lists of topoi (Wodak, 2009; Krzyzanowsky, 2009; etc.). Nonetheless, as frequently emphasised in chapter 4, this thesis’ list has no claim to universality. It only suggests that after intense investigation and depending on my respective prior knowledge, these topoi were detected as most striking for each newspaper. Interestingly, the majority of topoi found in all three newspapers were similar and could be summarised under a general term. And yet, it is important to keep in mind that even though, for example, the topos Beliefs and Values is detectable in all three newspapers, it differs as the NR takes on a different perspective and sets another focus than the NYT. Therefore, it can be concluded that topoi in the newspapers are mostly variations or manifestations of the suggested superordinate topoi (even though the naming does not always reflect this). Additionally, it might be important to explain that the topoi Ideology and Threat/Crisis/Defeat were realised in all three newspapers in a similar way. Nevertheless, the respective perspective in each newspaper, from which the topoi are presented, can still be contrary. For instance, the newspapers identify different sources of threats and crises. The general presentation of these threats and crises

5.1 Summary

145

still remains the same. Finally, it can be concluded that some of the topoi which were used in the NR, namely Abortion, Scepticism, National Pride and Tradition and Religion, can be categorised as distinct conservative topoi whereas the topoi discovered in the other two newspapers are not as clearly categorisable. Societal division and political stance were overtly exhibited in several passages by use of certain words. Rhetorical means expressed these aspects more covertly. Whether it concerns the application of tropes or schemes, both categories were utilised to criticise or hint at grievances, misdemeanour or simply inadequate behaviour. Only the NR used rhetorical means to criticise the Democrats and their candidates very explicitly, particularly applying heavy exaggeration and irony. In general, it can be concluded that the newspapers differ in the way they argue for their political position. The NYT frequently employed figurative language, presented evidence for their claims and statements and tried to be distinct but not unobjective when it came to criticising the Republican party or Donald Trump. While the FT strives for neutrality and political distance, the NR, in contrast, explicitly states their opinion and stance to emphasise their conservative orientation wherever possible. The earlier mentioned excessive use of exaggeration and irony can be viewed as an addition to their otherwise relatively plain and direct style of writing. In general, one can conclude that the media companies’ stance as well as the distinct rejection and portrayal of aversion towards opposing positions can be detected as main factors in creating a polarising environment and in deepening the societal split even further. The kind of linguistic polarisation found in the newspapers appears to be mainly identity-based (see Section 2.1.1.1). At times, the selections exhibited slight efforts to calm the waves which could be read as attempt for de-polarisation. For instance, the NYT and the FT each published an editorial with regard to Donald Trump’s Covid-infection and expressed their recovery wishes for him (NYT.5; FT.6). This implies that political discrepancies and conflicts should not be above human decency and general rules of etiquette, and that despite those newspapers not agreeing with Donald Trump’s policies and behaviour, they still acknowledged his position as President and leader. In addition, the NYT sometimes appeared to have intentionally admitted flaws of Democrats and particularly Biden to make their criticism towards Trump sound less partisan, biased or unilateral. If for the sake of de-polarisation or simply because of the sake of their own credibility, the relatively frequent

146

5

Conclusion and Outlook

criticism towards some of Trump’s actions and utterances, despite him representing some of their most important values, indicates to the reader that the NR does also acknowledge mistakes of politically like-minded people. They distinctly address his misdemeanour and, even though oftentimes the criticism was followed by even more criticism towards Democrats and their candidates, did not simply ignore Trumpian suggestions of election postponement or the potential not acknowledging of election results. The newspapers’ orientation towards certain news values became apparent in Section 4.3. As most newspapers are also economic enterprises, they are dependent on a paying readership, national and international recognition and advertisements. Therefore, all three media organisations exhibited signs of orientation towards newsworthiness in their coverage. At times, they might have regarded some news values more important than others. In the end, all three selected newspapers utilised the polarising writing style to create newsworthy content. As this investigation focused on values in news actors and events as presented by Bednarek (2006), this thesis suggests to extend this category of news values by the news value of Polarisation. It could be referred to as the degree to which linguistic categories of polarisation, as introduced in the findings chapter, are prevalent in a media text. As polarisation also demands for the consideration of some of the other news values suggested by Bednarek, Polarisation could be considered a superordinate news value. Table 5.1 connects this thesis’ earlier methodological considerations about Fairclough’s (1995) three-dimensional model with the suggested linguistic analysis of polarising forces in society. It can be concluded that his model presents an adequate starting point for the linguistic analysis of polarising forces as it combines a comprehensive textual analysis with considerations about discourse and sociocultural practices.

5.1 Summary

147

Table 5.1 Fairclough’s Three-Dimensional Model Applied to the Linguistic Analysis of Polarising Forces in Society Dimension of Discourse (acc. to Fairclough, 1995)

Text (here: newspaper editorials on the US presidential election campaign 2020 published between 9 June and 3 November)

Discourse Practice (here: polarising tendencies in political media discourse during the US presidential election campaign 2020)

Sociocultural Practice (here: polarising forces in society, such as inequities, institutional circumstances, certain beliefs and values)

Dimension of Description (Text Discourse Analysis) Analysis (acc. to Fairclough, 1995)

Interpretation (Processing Analysis)

Explanation (Social Analysis)

Suggested Analytical Categories

Evaluative Patterns (Lexis, Rhetorical Language, Argumentative Language)

Topoi

News Values (Bednarek, 2006)

Explanation in terms of theoretical background knowledge related to the topic at hand

Application to the Research Topic (here: US Presidential Election Campaign 2020)

Evaluative language relating to the polarising power of newspaper editorials (e.g. our committed opponents on everything, conspiracymongers, etc.)

Topoi relating to the polarising nature of US politics (Racial Inequality, Beliefs and Values, Leadership, etc.)

News Values relating to the consideration of polarising topics and news information (Negativity, Recency, etc.)

Explanations on (1) the party, electoral and media system and on (2) the social reality in the US

148

5.2

5

Conclusion and Outlook

Limitations and Further Research

As summarised in the previous subchapters, the empirical findings in this thesis provide a new understanding of how societal polarisation is represented in political newspaper discourse. Still, there are certain limitations to be mentioned here. As polarisation represents a concept which concerns many aspects of human life, human interaction and human identity, it touches upon a variety of different research areas. Therefore, this thesis’ purely linguistic and partially sociological or political view on polarisation should be complemented by considerations of psychological or neurological nature, which can be considered the first aspect of limitation. A cross-disciplinary approach to a theory of polarising language in the media including psychological and linguistic observations as well as theoretical notions would be advisable. Hart (2010) already combined CDA, Evolutionary Psychology and Cognitive Linguistics to investigate aspects of immigration. This approach could be used as starting point to develop a crossdisciplinary approach to polarisation. Another aspect of limitation concerns the analysis of topoi. To receive even more resilient results, one could attempt to consider Mayring’s (2008) and Hamp’s (2015) approximation to empirical research in form of Hamp’s suggestion of a stricter and more rule-following approach. Additionally, the basic characteristics of this study could also be altered and different aspects could be considered. Apart from editorials on the presidential election campaign, which somehow restrict the discourse under investigation to one discourse strand, one could also investigate general newspaper discourse, irrelevant of the topic at hand. Then, general conclusions could be made whether the newspaper’s general writing style and use of language is polarising or whether it only polarises with regard to certain issues. In contrast, one could also investigate editorials about other long-term political topics and thus other discourse strands and potentially compare the results to one selected newspaper. Exemplary topics could be the pandemic and editorial coverage about the Donald Trump’s handling of it as well as editorial coverage about the government’s actions during Joe Biden’s first 100 days as US President. Alternatively, one could alter the kind of medium under investigation. As Section 2.1.1.3 indicated, the United States is a country where television news are overly present and popular which is why news commentaries on television could also be investigated concerning their polarising effect. It is important to keep in mind that statements about polarising effects, no matter the topic, appear more substantiated if they do not only concern single authors and commentators but the news organisation as a whole. This is why the present study utilised newspaper editorials because these could be regarded as representative for the newspaper as a whole and also for certain

5.2 Limitations and Further Research

149

parts of society (see Section 3.1). In contrast, one could also attempt to analyse polarising discourse by consulting different kinds of journalistic written comment, such as general news writing, features or column writing. Some examples, where researches investigated similar aspects, include Mills & Keddie’s (2010) study of three interrelated sets of newspaper articles dealing with youth, schooling and violence and its potential for polarisation or McCluskey & Kim’s (2012) investigation of polarisation in news content. From a cross-disciplinary perspective as already indicated above, it would also be imaginable to investigate not only what kind of polarising language was applied by the newspapers, but also how the exposure with this language psychologically influences levels of polarisation and division. In spite of these limitations, this thesis certainly adds to the understanding of how well-established newspapers represent polarising forces in society. This also concerns the methodological question posed in Section 1.3, which is why I will consider my approach as contributing to a general linguistic framework for investigating the polarisation of society, particularly induced by the media. As preceding remark, my proceeding is not entitled to be the one universal guideline for such analyses, but it depicts a relatively far-reaching pattern for linguistic analyses which in the end enables a justified and substantiated answer on questions of media influence on society. Further research could also be complemented by implementing a corpuslinguistic (henceforth CL) approach. As Corpus-Assisted Discourse Studies usually make use of frequency and keyword lists as well as qualitative analyses of concordances (cf. Close Subtirelu & Baker, 2018, p. 108), this thesis’ results could be substantiated by adding a quantitative approach to its framework without omitting the critical, more subjective perspective of the analysis. A combination of quantitative and qualitative methods could therefore result in even more systematically substantiated findings. For instance, one could investigate less obvious meanings in one of the newspapers by focussing on particular sets of words or phrases. In NR editorials for example, a corpus-based investigation about terms which are usually connected to conservatism, such as immigration, state, power or Republicans, might be revealing. Baker et al. (2008) suggested such a combined approach to examine discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK press. They analysed a newspaper corpus quantitatively and qualitatively and concluded that “each approach can be used to help triangulate the findings of the other, taking into account the coherence, or lack of it, of the findings and the theoretical frameworks informing CDA and CL” (ibid., p. 295). As indicated in the introduction, the aim of a CDA approach is not to remain completely neutral during an analysis. Even though the author’s foreknowledge

150

5

Conclusion and Outlook

and political orientation have indeed influenced the analysis of the polarising discourse at hand, it can still be considered objective, extensive and insightful. A politically uninterested and uninformed researcher would not be able to recognise certain hidden particularities and political implication and would not be able to classify them accordingly. In retrospective, it can be admitted that at times, especially regarding particular passages of the editorials, keeping a relatively neutral and uncommenting perspective has been challenging. Therefore, it could even be concluded that the investigation of polarising discourse is a polarising act itself.

References

Abbas, A. (2020). Politicizing the Pandemic: A Schemata Analysis of COVID-19 News in Two Selected Newspapers. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 6(1), 1–20. Ad Fontes Media. (2021). About Ad Fontes Media. Retrieved January 20, 2021, from adfontesmedia.com: https://www.adfontesmedia.com/about-ad-fontes-media/#_ftn1 Ahler, D., & Sood, G. (2018). The Parties in Our Head: Misperceptions About Party Composition and Their Consequences. The Journal of Politics, 80(3), 964–981. Alatom, B. (1997). Orientalist stereotyping in modern American popular culture. University of Texas at Arlington: Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Alba-Juez, L. (2009). Perspectives on Discourse Analysis. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Amarasingam, A., & Argentino, M.-A. (2020). The QAnon Conspiracy Theory: A Security Threat in the Making. CTC Sentinel, 13(7), 37–43. Andersen, M. (2017). Race in Society—The Enduring American Dilemma. Lanham: The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group. Baker, P., & Ellece, S. (2011). Key Terms in Discourse Analysis. London and New York: Continuum International Publishing. Baker, P., Gabrielatos, C., Khosravinik, M., Krzyzanowski, M., Mcenery, T., & Wodak, R. (2008). A useful methodological synergy? Combining critical discourse analysis and corpus linguistics to examine discourse of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK press. Discourse & Society, 19(3), 273–306. Baum, M., & Groeling, T. (2008). New Media and the Polarization of American Political Discourse. Political Communication, 25(4), 345–365. Beck, P., & Hershey, M. (2001). Party Politics in America. New York: Routledge. Bednarek, M. (2006). Evaluation in Media Discourse: Analysis of Newspaper Corpus. New York & London: Continuum. Begley, S. (2016). Hillary Clinton Leads by 2.8 MIllion in Final Popular Vote Count. Retrieved December 18, 2020, from time.com: https://time.com/4608555/hillary-clinton-popularvote-final/ Bell, A. (1991). The Language of the News Media. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Berg, K. (2020). Diversity is its mandate. Retrieved December 30, 2020, from deutschland.de: https://www.deutschland.de/en/topic/culture/public-service-broadcasting-sha ping-public-opinion © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 C. Berning, The Polarisation of US Society and its Representation in the Media, BestMasters, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-42962-1

151

152

References

Bernstein, B. (1990). Class Codes and Control—The Structuring of Pedagogic Discourse (Vol. 4). London and New York: Routledge. Bibby, J., & Maisel, L. (2003). Two Parties—or More? The American Party System. New York: Avalon Publishing. Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1988). Adverbial stance types in English. Discourse Processes, 11(1), 1.34. Biber, D., Johannsson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (2000). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. Boissoneault, L. (2017). How the 19th-Century Know Nothing Party Reshaped American Politics. Retrieved February 16, 2021, from smithsonianmag.com: https://www.smiths onianmag.com/history/immigrants-conspiracies-and-secret-society-launched-americannativism-180961915/ Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Buckley Jr., W. (1955). Our Mission Statement. Retrieved February 2, 2021, from nationalreview.com: https://www.nationalreview.com/1955/11/our-mission-statement-williamf-buckley-jr/ Budiman, A. (2020). Key findings about U.S. immigrants. Retrieved December 29, 2020, from pewresearch.org: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/08/20/key-findingsabout-u-s-immigrants/ Cambridge Dictionary. (n.d.). Meaning of autocrat in English. Retrieved February 22, 2021, from dictionary.cambridge.org: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/eng lish/autocrat Cambridge Dictionary. (n.d.). Meaning of pour scorn on sb/sth in English. Retrieved February 15, 2021, from dictionary.cambridge.org: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/worter buch/englisch/pour-scorn-on-sb-sth Campisi, J. (2019). Harris, Meghan McCain spar over decriminalization of border crossings. Retrieved February 23, 2021, from thehill.com: https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefingroom/news/452846-harris-meghan-mccain-spar-over-decriminalization-of-border Caple, H., & Bednarek, M. (2013). Delving into the discourse: approaches to news values in journalism studies and beyond. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Carsey, T. (2014). Differing Views on Polarization of the Electorate. In M. Hershey (Ed.), CQ Press Guide to U.S. Political Parties (pp. 295–306). Washington: CQ Press. Carson, J., & Roberts, J. (2013). Ambition, Competition, and Electoral Reform : The Politics of Congressional Elections Across Time. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Chandler, D., & Munday, R. (Eds.). (2011). A Dictionary of Media and Communication (1st ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chilton, P., & Schäffner, C. (2002). Introduction: Themes and principles in the analysis of political discourse. In P. Chilton, & C. Schäffner (Eds.), Politics as Text and Talk: Analytic approaches to political discourse (pp. 1–44). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Chouliaraki, L. (2000). Political discourse in the news: democratizing responsibility or aestheticizing politics? Discourse and Society, 11(3), 293–314. Close Subtirelu, N., & Baker, P. (2018). Corpus-based approaches. In J. Flowerdew, & J. Richardson (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies (pp. 106–119). London & New York: Routledge. Cockcroft, R., & Cockcroft, S. (1992). Persuading People. An Introduction to Rhetoric. London: Palgrave.

References

153

Cotter, C. (2003). Discourse and Media. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. Hamilton (Eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 416–436). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Cotter, C. (2010). News Talk—Investigating the Language of Journalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Craig, L. (2020). 2020 End-of-Year Newsletter. Retrieved February 2, 2021, from nrinstitute.org: https://www.flipsnack.com/NRInst/eoy20-newsletter.html Curtius, R. (1990). European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. De Beaugrande, R.-A., & Dressler, W. (1981). Einführung in die Textlinguistik. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Department of Health and Human Services. (n.d.). Catastrophic health plans. Retrieved February 17, 2021, from healthcare.gov: https://www.healthcare.gov/choose-a-plan/cat astrophic-health-plans Dewan, A. (2020). Trump is calling protesters who disagree with him terrorists. That puts him in the company of the world’s autocrats. Retrieved December 29, 2020, from cnn.com: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/25/politics/us-protests-trump-terrorists-intl/index.html Ellison, S., & Dawsey, J. (2020). The long love affair between Fox News and Trump may be over. Here’s how it all soured last week. Retrieved December 18, 2020, from washingtonpost.com: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/the-long-love-affair-betweenfox-news-and-trump-may-be-over-heres-how-it-ended-last-week/2020/11/09/f4dddb5e2095-11eb-90dd-abd0f7086a91_story.html Fairclough, N. (1995). Media Discourse. London: Arnold. Fairclough, N. (2009). A dialectical-relational approach to critical discourse analysis in social research. In R. Wodak, & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (2nd ed., pp. 162–186). London: SAGE Publications. Fallows, J. (1996). Breaking the News. New York: Pantheon Books. Filzmaier, P., & Plasser, F. (2001). Wahlkampf um das Weiße Haus—Presidential Elections in den USA. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien. Financial Times. (2020a). The risks of a broken American election. Retrieved May 17, 2020, from ft.com: https://www.ft.com/content/b623451f-27f4-4b27-9846-4add3b78a59d Financial Times. (2020b). A tale of two very different US conventions. Retrieved May 17, 2021, from ft.com: https://www.ft.com/content/9d8128f4-4add-4ec9-9584-233e54 60a18d Financial Times. (2020c). Americans confront their momentous choice. Retrieved May 17, 2021, from ft.com: https://www.ft.com/content/e4d8edf2-7553-4de2-95f1-71253e 091552 Financial Times. (2020d). US wildfires reveal partisan divide on climate. Retrieved May 17, 2021, from ft.com: https://www.ft.com/content/6769bb2f-2391-4863-a4c8-707666 67cd2c Financial Times. (2020e). A tawdry debate shows the risk to US democracy. Retrieved May 17, 2021, from ft.com: https://www.ft.com/content/306ce237-19c0-4f36-abec-94f 1ccadb349 Financial Times. (2020f). Trump’s virus poses new risks in US election. Retrieved May 17, 2021, from ft.com: https://www.ft.com/content/05f8c9b2-33a2-49a1-8064-a41 ecda06a0a

154

References

Financial Times. (2020g). Donald Trump’s irresponsible words put others at risk. Retrieved May 17, 2021, from ft.com: https://www.ft.com/content/00de3e1c-280a-4d75-a8ad-b69 0ae2500db Financial Times. (2020h). Substance stars in the debate of the deputies. Retrieved May 17, 2021, from ft.com: https://www.ft.com/content/28ab1102-e009-4a74-a7c9-6086c3 fba8f5 Financial Times. (2020i). Bidenomics can preserve support for capitalism. Retrieved May 17, 2021, from ft.com: https://www.ft.com/content/2f80df99-c47a-44fb-8b95-e4f5901a21b7 Financial Times. (2020j). The character of US democracy is on the ballot. Retrieved May 17, 2021, from ft.com: https://www.ft.com/content/27a42053-48e3-4388-be1a-afd 6c6b87986 Financial Times. (2020k). Kamala Harris and the future of the Democrats. Retrieved May 18, 2021, from ft.com: https://www.ft.com/content/53c20d99-1e43-4525-bd31-4fc 7634e990a Financial Times. (n.d.). FT Editorial Code. Retrieved February 2, 2021, from ft.com: https:// aboutus.ft.com/en-gb/ft-editorial-code/ Financial Times. (n.d.). Social Responsibility. Retrieved February 2, 2021, from ft.com: https://aboutus.ft.com/en-gb/social-responsibility/ Fiorina, M. (1980). The Decline of Collective Responsibility in American Politics. Daedalus: Journal of the American Arts and Sciences, 109(3), 25–45. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/ Knowledge. Brighton: Harvester. Fowler, R. (1991). Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press. London/ New York: Routledge. Gellman, B. (2021). America’s Second-Worst Scenario. Retrieved April 14, 2021, from theatlantic.com: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/01/how-close-did-uscome-successful-coup/617709/ Gitlin, T. (1980). The whole world is watching: Mass media in the making and unmaking of the new left. Berkley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press. Gramlich, J. (2020). Black imprisonment rate in the U.S. has fallen by a third since 2006. Retrieved December 29, 2020, from pewresearch.org: https://www.pewresearch.org/facttank/2020/05/06/share-of-black-white-hispanic-americans-in-prison-2018-vs-2006/ Hackett, R., & Zhao, Y. (1994). Challenging a master narrative: peace protest and opinion/ editorial discourse in the US press during the Gulf War. Discourse & Society, 5(4), 509– 541. Hall, S. (1992). The west and the rest. In B. Gieben, & S. Hall (Eds.), Formations of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press/The Open University. Halliday, M. (1978). Language as Social Semiotic. London: Edward Arnold. Hallin, D. (2020). United States. Retrieved December 19, 2020, from medialanscapes.org: https://medialandscapes.org/country/united-states Halloran, J., Murdock, G., & Elliot, P. (1970). Demonstrations and Communication: A Case Study. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Hamp, A. (2015). Der praktische Sinn in wissenschaftlichen Diskussionen. Toposanalyse einer soziologischen Theoriendebatte. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Hardman, D. (2008). Political ideologies and identity in British newspaper discourse. Nottingham: Nottingham ePrints. Retrieved December 1, 2020, from http://eprints.nottin gham.ac.uk/10601/1/Political_Ideology_and_Identity_in_British_Newspap

References

155

Harmon, W., & Holman, H. (2003). A Handbook to Literature (9th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Hart, C. (2010). Critical Discourse Analysis and Cognitive Science: New Perspectives on Immigration Discourse. Basingstroke: Palgrave Macmillan. Henrichs, E. (2008). Englische Grammatik. München: Bassermann Verlag. Henry, F., & Tator, C. (2002). Discourses of Domination—Racial Bias in the Canadian English-Language Press. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Hetherington, M. (2014). The Nature of Partisan Identification. In M. Hershey (Ed.), CQ Press Guide to U.S. Political Parties (pp. 238–250). Washington: CQ Press. Horton, J. (2020). US 2020 election: Can Trump release his tax returns? Retrieved April 30, 2021, from bbc.com: https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54323383 Hough, G. (1988). News Writing (4th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Hussein, A., & Hussein, M. (2020). Pragma-Linguistic Analysis of Assertion in May’s and Trump’s Inaugural Addresses. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation, 3(2), 78–88. Izadi, F., & Saghaye-Biria, H. (2007). A Discourse Analysis of Elite American Newspaper Editorials: The Case of Iran’s Nuclear Program. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 31(2), 140–165. Jäger, S. (2001). Discourse and knowledge: theoretical and methodological aspects of a critical discourse and dispositive analysis. In R. Wodak, & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (1st ed., pp. 32–62). Sage: London. Jäger, S. (2015). Kritische Diskursanalyse—Eine Einführung (7th ed.). Münster: Unrast Verlag. Johnson, K. (2020). U.S. Population Growth Slows, but Diversity Grows. Retrieved April 30, 2021, from carsey.unh.edu/: https://carsey.unh.edu/publication/US-populationgrowth-slows-diversity-grows Johnstone, B. (2018). Discourse Analysis (3rd ed.). Oxford: John Wiley & Sons. Karim, K. (1997). The historical resilience of primary stereotypes. In S. Riggins (Ed.), The language and politics of exclusion: Others in discourse (pp. 153–182). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Keating, D., Eunjung Cha, A., & Florit, G. (2020). ‘I just pray God will help me’: Racial, ethnic minorities reel from higher covid-19 death rates. Retrieved April 06, 2021, from washingtonpost.com: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/health/covid-race-mor tality-rate/ Kessler, G. (2021). Trump made 30,573 false or misleading claims as president. Nearly half came in his final year. Retrieved March 18, 2021, from washingtonpost.com: https:// www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-fact-checker-tracked-trump-claims/2021/01/23/ ad04b69a-5c1d-11eb-a976-bad6431e03e2_story.html?utm_campaign=wp_post_most& utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most&carta-url=https%3A% 2F%2Fs2.washingtonp Khajavi, Y., & Rasti, A. (2020). A discourse analytic investigation into politicians’ use of rhetorical and persuasive strategies: The case of US election speeches. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 7(1). Retrieved January 6, 2021, from https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983. 2020.1740051

156

References

Khaled, D. (2020). A Critical Discourse Analysis of Benjamin Netanyahu’s Speech at the United Nations General Assembly in 2014. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation, 3(3), 34–47. Kirzinger, A., Wu, B., & Brodie, M. (2017). Kaiser Health Tracking Poll: Health Care Priorities for 2017. Retrieved December 28, 2020, from kff.org: https://www.kff.org/healthcosts/poll-finding/kaiser-health-tracking-poll-health-care-priorities-for-2017/ Klein, E. (2020). Why we’re polarized. London: Profile Books Ltd. Klein, J. (1995). Asyl-Diskurs. In R. Reiher (Ed.), Sprache im Konflikt (pp. 15–71). Berlin/ New York: De Gruyter. Klein, J. (2000). Komplexe topische Muster. Vom Einzeltopos zur diskurstyp-spezifischen Topos Konfiguration. In T. Schirren, & G. Ueding (Eds.), Topik und Rhetorik. Ein interdisziplinäres Symposium (pp. 625–649). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Komlos, J., & Schubert, H. (2020). Reaganomics—Wegbereiter des Trumpismus. Wirtschaftsdienst—Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftspolitik, 100(1), 64–71. Kövecses, Z. (2017). Conceptual metaphor theory. In E. Semino, & Z. Demjén (Eds.), The Routledge Hanbook of Metaphor and Language (pp. 13–27). Milton Park: Routledge. Krzyzanowsky, M. (2009). On the ‘Europeanisation’ of Identity Constructions in Polish Political Discourse after 1989. In A. Galasinska, & M. Krzyzanowsky (Eds.), Discourse and transformation in Central and Eastern Europe (pp. 95–113). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Kynaston, D. (2018). A Brief History of the Financial Times. Retrieved February 2, 2021, from gale.com: https://www.gale.com/binaries/content/assets/gale-us-en/primary-sources/intlgps/intl-gps-essays/full-ghn-contextual-essays/ghn_essay_ftha_kynaston1_website.pdf Ladd, J. (2013). The Era of Media Distrust and Its Consequences for Perceptions of Political Reality. In T. Ridout (Ed.), New Directions in Media and Politics (pp. 24–44). New York: Routledge. Lakoff, G. (2004). Don’t think of an elephant! Know your values and frame the debate. London: Chelsea Green Publishing Co. Lee, F. E. (2014). Parties as Coordinators: Can Parties Unite what the Constitution Divides. In M. Hershey (Ed.), CQ Press Guide to Political Parties (pp. 40–52). Washington: CQ Press. Lethbridge, S., & Mildorf, J. (2004). Basics of English Studies. Retrieved February 16, 2021, from anglistik.uni-freiburg.de: https://www2.anglistik.uni-freiburg.de/intranet/englishba sics/ Liebes, T., & Ribak, R. (1991). A mother’s battle against TV news: a case study of political socialisation. Discourse and Society, 2(2), 202–222. Lippmann, W. (1994). Newspapers. In D. Graber (Ed.), Media power in politics (3rd ed., pp. 37–44). Washington: CQ Press. Lucero, M. (2020, June 26). Meaning behind the movement: Black Lives Matter. Retrieved December 29, 2020, from unm.edu: https://news.unm.edu/news/meaning-behind-themovement-black-lives-matter Mayring, P. (2008). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Weinheim/ Basel: Beltz. McCluskey, M., & Kom, Y. (2012). Moderatism or Polarization? Representation of Advocacy Groups’ Ideology in Newspapers. Journalism & Mass Communication Quaterly, 89(4), 565–584.

References

157

McIntosh, J., & Mendoza-Denton, N. (Eds.). (2020). Language in the Trump Era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McKay, D. (2018). American Politics and Society (9th ed.). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. McLean, I., & McMillan, A. (Eds.). (2009). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Meyer, M. (2001). Between theory, method, and politics: positioning of the approaches to CDA. In R. Wodak, & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (pp. 14– 31). London & Thousand Oaks & New Delhi: Sage Publications. Mills, M., & Keddie, A. (2010). Cultural reductionism and the media: polarising discourses around schools, violence and masculinity in an age of terror. Oxford Review of Education, 36(4), 427–444. Mitchell, A., Gottfried, J., Barthel, M., & Shearer, E. (2016). The Modern News Consumer. News attitudes and practices in the digital era. Washington: Pew Research Center. Retrieved December 19, 2020, from journalism.org: https://www.journalism.org/2016/ 07/07/pathways-to-news/ Modebadze, V. (2010). The term politics reconsidered in the light of recent theoretical developments. IBSU Scientific Journal, 39–44. Mounk, Y. (2018). America Is Not a Democracy. Retrieved March 06, 2021, from theatlantic.com: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/america-is-nota-democracy/550931/ Murray, K., Goller, H., & Heinrich, M. (Eds.). (2020). Timeline—In his own words: Trump and the coronavirus. Retrieved December 29, 2020, from reuters.com: https://www.reu ters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-trump-comments-idUSKBN26N0U5 National Review. (2020a). Delaying the Election Would Be Grotesque and Un-American. Retrieved May 17, 2021, from nationalreview.com: https://www.nationalreview.com/ 2020/07/a-voting-wrong/ National Review. (2020b). Joe Biden’s Costly, Radical Race and Gender Agenda. Retrieved May 17, 2021, from nationalreview.com: https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/07/joebidens-costly-radical-race-and-gender-agenda/ National Review. (2020c). Kamala Harris Is No Moderate. Retrieved May 17, 2021, from nationalreview.com: https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/kamala-harris-is-nomoderate/ National Review. (2020d). The Democratic Convention Skipped over the Biden–Harris Agenda. Retrieved May 17, 2021, from nationalreview.com: https://www.nationalreview. com/2020/08/democratic-convention-skipped-over-the-biden-harris-agenda/ National Review. (2020e). Trump Makes His Case. Retrieved May 17, 2021, from nationalreview.com: https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/trump-makes-his-case/ National Review. (2020f). There Will Be a Peaceful Transfer of Power. Retrieved May 17, 2021, from nationalreview.com: https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/09/there-will-bea-peaceful-transfer-of-power/ National Review. (2020g). The Task Ahead. Retrieved May 17, 2021, from nationalreview.com: https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/10/the-task-ahead/ National Review. (2020h). Trump’s Middle East Achievement. Retrieved May 18, 2021, from nationalreview.com: https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/trump-middle-east-achiev ement/

158

References

National Review. (2020i). Voters Deserve to Know Where Joe Biden Stands on CourtPacking. Retrieved May 18, 2021, from nationalreview.com: https://www.nationalreview. com/2020/09/voters-deserve-to-know-where-joe-biden-stands-on-court-packing/ Neate, R. (2017). Richest 1% own half the world’s wealth, study finds. Retrieved December 28, 2020, from guardian.com: https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/nov/14/wor lds-richest-wealth-credit-suisse New York Times. (2020a). The Supreme Court Lets Trump Run Out the Clock. Retrieved May 17, 2021, from nytimes.com: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/09/opinion/sup reme-court-trump-taxes.html New York Times. (2020b). Voting by Mail Is Crucial for Democracy. Retrieved May 17, 2021, from nytimes.com: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/01/opinion/sunday/mail-vot ing-covid-2020-election.html New York Times. (2020c). What’s the Plan if Trump Tweets That He’s Won Re-election? Retrieved May 17, 2021, from nytimes.com: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/27/opi nion/social-media-trump-election.html New York Times. (2020d). A Debate That Can’t Be Ignored. Retrieved May 17, 2021, from nytimes.com: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/30/opinion/trump-biden-debate2020.html New York Times. (2020e). Get Well, Mr. President. Retrieved May 17, 2021, from nytimes.com: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/02/opinion/trump-covid-positivetest.html New York Times. (2020f). Elect Joe Biden, America. Retrieved May 17, 2021, from nytimes.com: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/06/opinion/joe-biden-2020-nytimesendorsement.html New York Times. (2020g). R.I.P., G.O.P. Retrieved May 17, 2021, from nytimes.com: https:// www.nytimes.com/2020/10/24/opinion/sunday/trump-republican-party.html New York Times. (2020h). Why Are Republicans So Afraid of Voters? Retrieved May 17, 2021, from nytimes.com: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/01/opinion/us-votingrights-republicans.html New York Times. (2020i). You’re Not Just Voting for President. You’re Voting to Start Over. Retrieved May 17, 2020, from nytimes.com: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/02/opi nion/2020-election-voting.html New York Times. (2020j). Feel Inspired, America. Retrieved May 17, 2020, from nytimes.com: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/03/opinion/volunteers-election-2020. html New York Times. (2020k). Trump Is Plotting Against the Census. Here’s Why. Retrieved May 18, 2021, from nytimes.com: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/05/opinion/trumpcensus-2020.html New York Times. (2020l). The Trump Campaign Accepted Russian Help to Win in 2016. Case Closed. Retrieved May 18, 2021, from nytimes.com: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/ 19/opinion/trump-russia-2016-report.html New York Times. (2020m). Trump’s Overhaul of Immigration Is Worse Than You Think. Retrieved May 18, 2021, from nytimes.com: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/10/opi nion/sunday/trump-immigration-child-separations.html New York Times. (n.d.). Ethical Journalism. Retrieved February 2, 2021, from nytimes.com: https://www.nytimes.com/editorial-standards/ethical-journalism.html

References

159

New York Times. (n.d.). Mission and Values. Retrieved February 2, 2021, from nytco.com: https://www.nytco.com/company/mission-and-values/ Newman, N., & Fletcher, R. (2017). Bias, Bullshit and Lies. Oxford: Reuters Institute & Univsersity of Oxford. Nguyen, Q., & Sawalmeh, M. (2020). Trump’s Strategies in the First Presidential Debate: A Critical Discourse Analysis. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation, 3(5), 68–75. Noel, H. (2014). What the Parties Stand for. In M. Hershey (Ed.), GQ Press Guide to U.S. Political Parties (pp. 55–65). Washington: CQ Press. Noor, P. (2020). ‘Please don’t inject bleach’: Trump’s wild coronavirus claims prompt disbelief . Retrieved February 24, 2021, from theguardian.com: https://www.theguardian.com/ us-news/2020/apr/24/trump-disinfectant-bleach-coronavirus-claims-reaction Norpoth, H. (2014). Partisanship in General Elections. In M. Hershey (Ed.), CQ Press Guide to U.S. Political Parties (pp. 282–294). Washington: CQ Press. Obama, B. (2020). A Promised Land. New York: Penguin Random House LLC. O’Keeffe, A. (2012). Media and Discourse Analysis. In J. Gee, & M. Handford (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 441–454). Milton Park: Routledge. Oldopp, B. (2013). Das politische System der USA—Eine Einführung (2nd ed.). Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Parks, M. (2020). There’s No Evidence Supporting Trump’s Mail Ballot Warnings, FBI Says. Retrieved February 3, 2021, from npr.org: https://www.npr.org/2020/08/26/906262 573/theres-no-evidence-supporting-trump-s-mail-ballot-warnings-fbi-says?t=161236 7938046 Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1983). Traité de l’argumentation. La nouvelle rhetorique. Brussels: Edition de l’Université de Bruxelles. Pew Research Center (Think Tank). (2011). Press Widely Criticized, But Trusted More than Other Information Sources. Retrieved from pewresearch.org: https://www.pewresearch. org/politics/2011/09/22/press-widely-criticized-but-trusted-more-than-other-institutions/ Pew Research Center (Think Tank). (2012). The American-Western European Values Gap. Retrieved April 19, 2021, from pewresearch.org: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/ 2011/11/17/the-american-western-european-values-gap/ Pew Research Center (Think Tank). (2017). U.S. Muslims Concerned About Their Place in Society, but Continue to Believe in the American Dream. Retrieved December 29, 2020, from pewforum.org: https://www.pewforum.org/2017/07/26/findings-from-pewresearch-centers-2017-survey-of-us-muslims/#roughly-half-of-muslims-say-they-haveexperienced-recent-discrimination Pew Research Center (Think Tank). (2018). Most continue to say ensuring health care coverage is government’s responsibility. Retrieved December 2020, 2020, from pewresearch.org: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/03/most-continue-to-say-ens uring-health-care-coverage-is-governments-responsibility/ Pilkington, E., & Smith, D. (2020). Amy Coney Barrett confirmed to supreme court in major victory for US conservatives. Retrieved March 08, 2021, from theguardian.com: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/26/amy-coney-barrett-confirmed-sup reme-court-justice-vote

160

References

Pogrebin, R., & Kelly, K. (2019). Brett Kavanaugh Fit In With the Privileged Kids. She Did Not. Retrieved February 23, 2021, from nytimes.com: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/ 09/14/sunday-review/brett-kavanaugh-deborah-ramirez-yale.html Qiu, J. (2013). A Critical Study of English Eco-hotel Profiles—Based on Fairclough’s Threedimensional Model. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(10), 1879–1886. Rae, N. (2018). Political Parties. In G. Peele, C. Bailey, J. Herbert, B. Cain, & B. Peters (Eds.), Developments in American Politics (8th ed., pp. 83–98). London: Palgrave. Reinhart, R. (2018). Majority in U.S. Still Say a Third Party Is Needed. Retrieved December 16, 2020, from gallup.com: https://news.gallup.com/poll/244094/majority-say-thirdparty-needed.aspx Reynolds, M. (2000). The blending of narrative and argument in the generic texture of newspaper editorials. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 25–40. Richardson, J. (2004). (Mis)Representing Islam: the racism and rhetoric of British Broadsheet newspapers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Robertson, H., Kirk, A., & Hulley-Jones, F. (2020). Electoral college explained: how the US election is an uphill battle for Biden. Retrieved December 18, 2020, from theguardian.com: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2020/oct/30/electo ral-college-explained-how-biden-faces-an-uphill-battle-in-the-us-election Robinson, E. (2021). We just saw an attempted coup d’etat. Blame Trump. Blame his Republican enablers. Retrieved April 14, 2021, from washingtonpost.com: https://www.washin gtonpost.com/opinions/trump-has-wounded-this-country-it-will-take-a-long-long-timefor-us-to-heal/2021/01/06/c9f74102-5068-11eb-bda4-615aaefd0555_story.html Rohe, K. (1994). Politik—Begriffe und Wirklichkeiten (2nd ed.). Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer GmbH. Römer, D. (2018). Argumentationstopoi in der Text- und Diskursanalyse—alte Pfade, neue Wege. Tekst i dyskurs—Text und diskurs, 11, 117–135. Saez, E., & Zucman, G. (2014). Exploding wealth inequality in the United States. Retrieved December 28, 2020, from voxeu.org: https://voxeu.org/article/exploding-wealth-inequa lity-united-states Schultz, J. (1998). Reviving the Fourth Estate: Democracy, Accountability and the Media. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schulz, W., Held, T., & Dreyer, S. (2008). Regulation of Broadcasting and Internet Services in Germany—A brief overview. Hamburg: Verlag Hans-Bredow-Institut. Schumacher, E., & Eskenazi, M. (2018). A Readability Analysis of Campaign Speeches from the 2016 US Presidential Campaign. Pittsburgh: Language Technologies Institute— School of Computer Science Carnegie Mellon University. Retrieved November 08, 2020, from https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1603/1603.05739.pdf Sclafani, J. (2019). Talking Donald Trump: A sociolinguistic study of style, metadiscourse, and political identity. Language in Society, 48(1), 156–157. Shoemaker, P., & Vos, T. (2009). Gatekeeping Theory. New York & London: Routledge. Sibarani, J., & Marlina, L. (2018). POLITENESS STRATEGY USED IN REPUBLICAN DEBATE BY DONALD TRUMP. E-Journal of English Language & Literature, 7(4), 531–535. Retrieved from http://ejournal.unp.ac.id/index.php/ell/article/view/ 102007/100769 Sinyangwe, S. (2020). Police have killed 1,066 people in 2020. Retrieved December 29, 2020, from mappingpoliceviolence.org: https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/

References

161

Solnit, R. (2021). The violence at the Capitol was an attempted coup. Call it that. Retrieved April 14, 2021, from theguardian.com: https://www.theguardian.com/commen tisfree/2021/jan/06/trump-mob-storm-capitol-washington-coup-attempt Spinde, T., Rudnitckaia, L., Mitrovic, J., Hamborg, F., Granitzer, M., Gipp, B., & Donnay, K. (2021). Automated identification of bias inducing words in news articles using linguistic and context-oriented features. Information Processing and Management, 58(3), 1–15. Stokes, B. (2013). Public Attitudes Toward the Next Social Contract. Retrieved December 28, 2020, from pewresearch.org: https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/ 2/2013/01/Stokes_Bruce_NAF_Public_Attitudes_1_2013.pdf Stroud, N., & Muddiman, A. (2013). The American Media System Today: Is the Public Fragmenting? In T. Ridout (Ed.), New Directions in Media and Politics (pp. 6–23). New York: Routledge. Taylor, S. (2018). Electoral Systems in Context: United States. In E. Herron, R. Pekkanen, & M. Shugart (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Electoral Systems (pp. 721–740). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Thompson, G., & Hunston, S. (2001). Evaluation: An Introduction. In S. Hunston, & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in Text. Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse (pp. 1–27). Oxford: Oxford University press. Trˇcková, D. (2014). Representations of Natural Catastrophes in Newspaper Discourse. Brünn: Masaryk University Press. Turk, Ž. (2020). Moral Foundations Theory Explains Differences in Appreciation of Slovenian Media. Retrieved March 10, 2021, from SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? abstract_id=3734156 US Government. (2020). Presidential Election Process. Retrieved January 20, 2021, from usa.gov: https://www.usa.gov/election#item-214417 van den Heuvel, K. (2020). No matter who wins, it’s time to get rid of the electoral college. Retrieved December 18, 2020, from washingtonpost.com: https://www.washingtonpost. com/opinions/2020/11/03/no-matter-who-wins-its-time-get-rid-electoral-college/ van Dijk, T. (1990). Social Cognition and Discourse. In H. Giles, & E. Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of Language and Social Psychology (pp. 163–183). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. van Dijk, T. (1991). Racism and the press. London: Routledge. van Dijk, T. (1993). Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 249–283. van Dijk, T. (1996). Opinions and Ideologies in Editorials. Retrieved from discourses.org: http://www.discourses.org/OldArticles/Opinions%20and%20Ideologies%20in%20the% 20Press.pdf van Dijk, T. (2001). Multidisciplinarity CDA: A plea for diversity. In R. Wodak, & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (1st ed., pp. 95–120). London: Sage. Vestergaard, T. (2000). That’s not News: Persuasive and Expository Genres in the Press. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Analysing Professional Genres (pp. 97–119). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Waddan, A., & Béland, D. (2018). The Politics of Social Policy. In G. Peele, C. Bailey, J. Herbert, B. Cain, & B. Peters (Eds.), Developments in American Politics (8th ed., pp. 218– 231). London: Palgrave.

162

References

Wang, Y., & Liu, H. (2018). Is Trump always rambling like a fourth-grade student? An analysis of stylistic features of Donald Trump’s political discourse during the 2016 election. Discourse & Society, 29(3), 299–323. Wegman, J. (2020). The Electoral College Will Destroy America—And no, New York and California would not dominate a popular vote. Retrieved December 18, 2020, from nytimes.com: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/08/opinion/electoral-col lege-trump-biden.html Weiser, W., & Feldman, M. (2018). The State of Voting 2018. New York: Brennan Center for Justice. Weld, W., & Levinson, S. (2019). Winner-take-all presidential elections: Unconstitutional and unfair to voters in 48 states. Retrieved December 16, 2020, from usatoday.com: https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/09/10/winner-take-all-electoral-col lege-votes-unfair-unconstitutional-column/2264012001/ Wengeler, M. (2003). Argumentationstopos als sprachwissenschaftlicher Gegenstand. Für eine Erweiterung linguistischer Methoden bei der Analyse öffentlicher Diskurse. In S. Geideck, & W.-A. Liebert (Eds.), Sinnformeln. Linguistische und soziologische Analysen von Leitbildern, Metaphern und anderen kollektiven Orientierungsmustern (pp. 59–82). Berlin/ New York: De Gruyter. Wengeler, M. (2010). Topos-Analyse: Eine linguistische Methode zur Untersuchung von Online-Diskursen? Retrieved March 14, 2021, from tu-chemnitz.de: https://www.tu-che mnitz.de/phil/imf/mk/online-diskurse/pdf/Abstract_ Wengeler.pdf Wengeler, M. (2017). Diskursorientierte Argumentationsanalyse. In T. Niehr, J. Kilian, & M. Wengeler (Eds.), Handbuch Sprache und Politik (pp. 261–281). Bremen: Hempen Verlag. WHO. (2021). Overview United States. Retrieved March 30, 2021, from coronavirus.jhu.edu: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/region/united-states Wilson, J. (2003). Political Discourse. In D. Schiffrin, H. Hamilton, & D. Tannen (Eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 398–415). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Wodak, R. (2001). The Discourse-Historical Approach. In M. Meyer, & R. Wodak (Eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (1st ed., pp. 63–94). London: Sage Publications. Wodak, R. (2006). Mediation between discourse and society: Assessing cognitive approaches in CDA. Discourse Studies, 8(1), 179–190. Wodak, R. (2009). The Discourse of Politics in Action. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Wrana, D. (2014). Zum Analysieren als diskursive Praxis. In Angermuller et al. (Ed.), Diskursforschung. Ein interdisziplinäres Handbuch (pp. 634–644). Bielefeld: transcript Verlag. Žagar, I. (2010). Topoi in Critical Discourse Analysis. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 6(1), 3–27.