DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Ideological Discrepancies in News Media: Focusing on the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election

뉴스미디어에서의 이데올로기 차이: 2016년 미국 대선을 중심으로

  • 노보경 (서울외국어대학원대학교 한영통번역학과) ;
  • 반현 (인천대학교 신문방송학과)
  • Received : 2017.09.20
  • Accepted : 2017.10.23
  • Published : 2017.11.30

Abstract

This paper investigates how news media frame news editorials to deliver their subjective ideological stance through news discourse related with two candidates in 2016 U.S presidential election. For this purpose, 13 editorials were chosen and analyzed which appeared on the New York Time for the period from Sept. 1 to Sept. 30, almost two months prior to the election, giving special attention to the headlines of those editorials and the expressive linguistic forms in the selected two articles, based on the two theoretical frameworks-van Dijk' (1996)'s ideological square and Martin and White (2005)'s Appraisal Theory. The results are as follows: (1) editorials clearly supported Hillary Clinton; (2) following the appraisal theory, the category of 'feeling' was applied in expressing the preference for Hillary, whereas the strategy of judgment for Trump, where the strategy of 'emphasis' from the ideological framework were used for both candidates.

본 논문은 2016년 미국의 대통령 선거에서 두 대통령 후보들에 관한 뉴스담화를 통해 어떻게 언론 사설들은 뉴스담화를 프레임시켜 자신들의 주관적인 이데올로기적 성향을 전달하는 가를 살펴보는 데 그 목적이 있다. 이를 위해 미국 대선을 두 달여 앞둔 2016년 9월 1일부터 2016년 9월 30일까지 뉴욕타임즈에 실린 사설들 13개를 선택하여 첫째로 각 사설의 헤드라인들, 그리고 둘째로 13개 사설 중에서 특정 사설 두 개에 명시된 평가어들을 분석하여 이데올로기적 성향을 파악하였다. 이 분석에는 반다이크(1996)의 비판적 담화분석의 도구인 '이념적 틀'과 마틴과 화이트(2005)의 평가이론을 적용하였다. 그 결과, 첫째 뉴욕타임즈의 사설들은 힐러리 클린턴에 대한 지지를 드러내놓고 표명하고 있다는 점과 둘째, 그 중에서 선정된 두 사설들은 반다이크의 이념적 틀의 '강조' 전략 체계에서, 힐러리에게는 '감정'요소를, 반면에 트럼프에게는 평가이론의 '판단'요소를 활용하여 각자의 이념적 관점을 전달하고 있다는 것을 밝혀냈다.

Keywords

References

  1. Hall, S. "Culture, society, and the media," The rediscovery of 'ideology': Return of the repressed in media studies, Methuen & Co., 1982.
  2. Van Dijk, T.A. "Discourse, Power and Access", in C.R. Caldas-Coulthard and M. Coulthard (eds) Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis, pp. 84-104. London: Routledge, 1996.
  3. Herman, S. & Chmsky, N. Manufacturing consent: The political economy of mass media. (2nd ed.) New York: Patheon Books, 2002.
  4. Tuchman, G. Making News: A Study in the Construction of Reality. New York: Free Press, 1978.
  5. Jang, K. S. & Lee, S. M., Analysis of digital video with a focus on the documentary , The Journal of the Convergence on Culture Technology, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 9-15, May, 2016.
  6. Martin, J. & White, P. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.
  7. Haney, F. & Tator, C.. Discourse of dominaton: racial bias in the Canadian English-language press. Toroto: University of Toronto Press, 2002.
  8. Fairclough, N. Language and Power. Harlow: Lomgman, 2001.
  9. Sykes, M. Discrimination in discourse. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis (Vol. 4, pp. 83-101). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press, 1985.
  10. Noh, B. K. & Ban, H. "Deciphering ideological representations in editorials of two quality newspapers." The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea. Vol. 22 No, 2, 2004.
  11. Kim, B. K. A Critical discourse analysis of newspaper editorials and columns on progressivism, The Sociolinguistic Jurnal of Korea, Vol. 24, No. 1, Spring 2016.
  12. NYT The Editorial Board, "Hillary Clinton for President," https://www.nytimes.com/2016.09.25opinion/sunday/hillary-clinton-for-president.html.
  13. NYT The Editorial Board, "Why Donald Trump Should Not Be President," https: //www.nytimes.com/2016/09/26/opinion/why-donald-trump-should-not-be-president.html.
  14. Kim, J, A, "the relationship between critical thinking desposition and basic nursing science," The Journal of the Convergence on Culture Technology, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 9-15, May, 2016. https://doi.org/10.17703/JCCT.2016.2.2.9