Webbläsaren som du använder stöds inte av denna webbplats. Alla versioner av Internet Explorer stöds inte längre, av oss eller Microsoft (läs mer här: * https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/windows/end-of-ie-support).

Var god och använd en modern webbläsare för att ta del av denna webbplats, som t.ex. nyaste versioner av Edge, Chrome, Firefox eller Safari osv.

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

Författare

  • Jakob Padoan

Summary, in English

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.

Avdelning/ar

Publiceringsår

2013

Språk

Svenska

Dokumenttyp

Examensarbete för kandidatexamen

Ämne

  • Languages and Literatures

Nyckelord

  • Newspapers
  • Arabic language
  • Syria

Handledare

  • Maria Persson