Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Vem har rätt till våldet? : En komparativ diskursanalys av rapporteringen om det syriska inbördeskriget

Padoan, Jakob LU (2013) ARAK01 20131
Arabic Studies
Abstract
This essay examines the different ways in which the Syrian newspaper al-Waṭan and BBC Arabic report and describe the events of the Syrian civil war, specifically which side in the conflict is described as being what I call the righteous perpetrator and the unrighteous perpetrator respectively. Furthermore I compared to which degree the two media sources were one-sided in their respective accounts of the perpetrators. The theoretical bases of the analysis are primarily Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffes’ idea of discursive struggle, and a method for discourse analysis partly derived from Samia Bazzi, who proposes the use Lévi-Strauss’ idea of myths and mythemes for analytical purposes.
I found that al-Waṭan’s account was the most... (More)
This essay examines the different ways in which the Syrian newspaper al-Waṭan and BBC Arabic report and describe the events of the Syrian civil war, specifically which side in the conflict is described as being what I call the righteous perpetrator and the unrighteous perpetrator respectively. Furthermore I compared to which degree the two media sources were one-sided in their respective accounts of the perpetrators. The theoretical bases of the analysis are primarily Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffes’ idea of discursive struggle, and a method for discourse analysis partly derived from Samia Bazzi, who proposes the use Lévi-Strauss’ idea of myths and mythemes for analytical purposes.
I found that al-Waṭan’s account was the most one-sided, since they consistently described the actions of the regime as being the righteous, and the ones of the anti-regime (the term I used for all groups fighting against the regime) as unrighteous. BBC’s account was a bit more nuanced, but still tended to favor the opposite account, i.e. to describe the anti-regime’s actions as righteous and the regime’s actions as unrighteous, since most unrighteous acts were described as being committed by the regime. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Padoan, Jakob LU
supervisor
organization
course
ARAK01 20131
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Newspapers, Arabic language, Syria
language
Swedish
id
3810205
date added to LUP
2013-06-12 15:19:33
date last changed
2013-06-12 15:19:33
@misc{3810205,
  abstract     = {This essay examines the different ways in which the Syrian newspaper al-Waṭan and BBC Arabic report and describe the events of the Syrian civil war, specifically which side in the conflict is described as being what I call the righteous perpetrator and the unrighteous perpetrator respectively. Furthermore I compared to which degree the two media sources were one-sided in their respective accounts of the perpetrators. The theoretical bases of the analysis are primarily Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffes’ idea of discursive struggle, and a method for discourse analysis partly derived from Samia Bazzi, who proposes the use Lévi-Strauss’ idea of myths and mythemes for analytical purposes.
I found that al-Waṭan’s account was the most one-sided, since they consistently described the actions of the regime as being the righteous, and the ones of the anti-regime (the term I used for all groups fighting against the regime) as unrighteous. BBC’s account was a bit more nuanced, but still tended to favor the opposite account, i.e. to describe the anti-regime’s actions as righteous and the regime’s actions as unrighteous, since most unrighteous acts were described as being committed by the regime.},
  author       = {Padoan, Jakob},
  keyword      = {Newspapers,Arabic language,Syria},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Vem har rätt till våldet? : En komparativ diskursanalys av rapporteringen om det syriska inbördeskriget},
  year         = {2013},
}