| Résumé: | This study examines the journalistic discursive strategies of stance taking with references to selected voices in the reporting of the Arab-Israeli conflict in two international newspapers: Washington Post (WP) and Al Jazeera (English) (AJE). The study employs a Discourse Analysis framework by integrating the Faircloughian critical discourse perspective (Fairclough, 2010) and Martin and White's (2005) appraisal framework. This conceptual framework informs the analysis of the evaluative and affective dimensions of language, shedding light on underlying values, standpoints, power dynamics and attitudes. A total of 117 news texts were collected from AJE, and 113 news texts were sourced from WP. The findings unveil variabilities and resemblances in the patterns of how (inter)personal emotions (i.e., affect) and judgements (i.e., social sanction and social esteem) are operated and disseminated by AJE and WP. The findings also disclose that manners of engagement i.e., ‘endorse,’ ‘attest’ and ‘acknowledge’ in both newspapers are primarily included in noteworthy methods through which the writers can construct their evaluative language. The writers have subjectively adopted some external voices to potentially meet their own assessments and narrow down the possibility of (including dialogic voices) dissenting their assumptions or challenging their views. Both medias have alternative or multiple voices acknowledge the epistemic sources in a way that can intersubjectively ensures/foregrounds the writers’ attitude and stance. This indicates that both newspapers construct conflict discourse according to certain dimensions where they can elevate their feelings, commitments, attitudes, and judgements concerning selected themes or events. The journalists emphasize establishing hard news based on emotional dimensions i.e., negativity/positivity (over accuracy and objectivity) that can attract the attention of the audience consciously or subconsciously towards certain awareness, beliefs and reactions. AJE and WP constitute newsworthiness based on undertaken socio-cultural practices, ideologies and political implications that may restrict standards of fairness, objectivity and nuanced reporting in conflict discourse, and thus produce ideologically-driven reporting. This can lead to a polarization of public opinion, escalation of the conflict and creation of further divisions between communities. AJE often takes a critical stance towards bias and double standards of the US administration in their approach to the conflict. So, AJE prioritizes the Arab voices that adopt Muslim perspectives or Arab identity and struggle against the Israeli occupation and US prejudice. WP, on the other hand, tends to frame the conflict in terms of US commitments, policies or/and interests in the region which may express why the WP ignores Arab/Palestinian grievances. In this view, language of conflict reporting plays a multi-function task especially in the key issues of a conflict. Journalists and news institutions should acknowledge that their emotional evaluation can affect their reporting and may indirectly consequent in more hostility and collective violence, and thus hinder the prospects of peaceful resolution.
|
|---|
