Masking the Critic: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Newspaper Editorials

Newspaper editorials are revealed through Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) to be a site of complex criticism. A finding of this study is that the direct criticism/or direct support of a position can be mitigated by strategies at the level of discourse—and that the writer of the editorial is an agent of persuasion and solidarity, who may enact this function in a way that is conscious or unconscious indicated by possible genre conventions; needs of the argument (i.e., what might be essential, or additional support), and assumed societal pressures. Qualitative analysis of the media discourse shows how obfuscation can occur—distancing the critic from the criticised (the journalist from the criticised Prime Minister); and suggests a frame for considering how a writer might be conscious of persuasion, as opposed to unconsciously following genre conventions of persuasion. From an analysis of editorials about a row in 2008 between Trinidad & Tobago (T&T) Prime Minister Patrick Manning and the Trade Minister Dr Keith Rowley; and semi-structured interviews with societal elites—experts of politics and journalism—the novel discursive practice ‘pivoting’ is theorised in which a criticism is levelled, and then from which a writer pivots away using a particular manoeuvre. This delineation of power of a social actor might occur through a modal auxiliary, nominal, adverbial etc. such that what appears critical is actually a complex negotiation of power in personal, media and societal domains. Grounded theory produced a distinct method by which editorials could be interrogated to reveal types of obfuscation of criticism, providing a potential approach for future analysis of discourse.