Discourse Analysis Synoptic

Task I

Bush vs Dukakis - Ben Camille & Dr Lydia Abela

Everyone knows who won the 1988 Presidential Elections in the United States of America (USA). And this is not only because history has proven us so. Governor Michael Dukakis lost the election during the debates that occurred in September 1988.

I believe it is important to note that Vice President George Bush (at the time of the first debate that will be discussed in this essay), alongside President Ronald Reagan had already won the previous two terms at the whitehouse, and this enabled him to have both advantages and disadvantages when it came to voter persuasion. The advantages being that he had already gained popularity, he already had experience during campaigns and as well already had a feel of his work. However the downsides are that whatever bad decisions that their President had made, he was partly responsible for those too, and this was highlighted by Dukakis and in addition to that history was not in his side. The last two Republican Vice Presidents that came before him; Nixon (in 1960) and Humphrey (in 1968) had both lost in their candidature for Presidency.

Pfau and Kang (1991) after studying the initial 1988 debate, hence this one, noted that such debates often reinforce attitudes of partisan voters however, they tend to exert significant influence on non partisan viewers.

Two men, two ideologies.

One cannot compare the two’s reasonings and ideologies. Perhaps during many times in the interview, Dukakis had the upper hand especially when speaking about the drug problem in America, which was very serious at the time. However even if one’s message is clear and concise, it does not automatically mean that it will be well received by the audiences, in this case both live and on TV.

An example of this was in the beginning of the interview when Dukakis made the first move and made a joke (11:00). The audience is visibly amused and laughs. A few minutes later, Vice President Bush does the exact same but the difference is astounding. There was one notable difference between the two, facial movement. One might say that laughter is contagious and I believe that this was the case in this debate as well. Although Dukakis had a smile on his face, there was no laughter whatsoever. It was as if a robot, emotionless, had made a practical joke. On the other hand Bush has interacted with its audience and laughed as well resulting in a bigger reaction by the audience.

Another very good question pushed was: “Governor, the vice president continually refers to your lack of experience, weakness, naivete on foreign policy and national security matters. He says you are prepared to eliminate weapon’s system that will result in the unilateral disarmament of this country. Is that true?” asked by John Mashek of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Benoit’s functional theory of Political campaign Discourse.

William Benoit in his paper: ‘The functional approach to presidential television spots: Acclaiming, attacking, defending 1952 - 2000’ says that “because elections are fundamentally comparative” it is natural for candidates to praise their strengths (acclaim) and criticism on the opponent’s weaknesses (attack). When being under threats for attacks by the opponents, candidates tend to disparage those accusations (defend) to protect themselves.

These three instances occur mostly on policy (issues) and character (their image). In this specific debate Hershey (1989) stated that Dukakis tended to stress domestic issues, whilst Bush focused on policy and defence. Past acts (such as achievements or even failures), future plans (manifesto - campaign promises) and generic goals are the three categories that functional theory divides policy statements into. On the other hand when it comes to character, Benoit subdivides them into three forms: personal attributes (traits), leadership skills (experience in office) and ideals (values and principles).

Since the US is federal, voting is a rather comparative act since the voter had to choose between the two. Candidates must set themselves apart from their rivals.

I believe that one of the best questions asked during this interview was the first one by Jim Lehrer of the McNeil-Lehrer News Hour. The Journalist, maintaining serious eye contact with Bush, asks: The polls say the number one domestic issue to a majority of voters is drugs. What is there about these times that drives or draws so many Americans to use drugs? I believe that this was one of the leading (one of the best) questions asked during the debate.

During the first question of the debate (domestic), Bush shifted the blame of the drug problem on the decreased values and the only solutions he offered was, to “instil values” and offer better education. He was literally beating around the bush and he mentioned values around six times in a span of two minutes. This gave Dukakis an opportunity to attack or criticise his argument. Here is an example of Dukakis' functionalist approach when it came to drugs.

First he attacked:

“It is important that our leaders demonstrate those values from the top. That means those of us who are elected to positions of political leadership have to reflect those values ourselves. Here we are with a government that’s been dealing with a drug-running Panamanian dictator. We’ve been dealing with him; he’s been dealing drugs to our kids.”

Explains his future goals and objectives whilst making himself look good, based on past deeds:

“Governors like me and others have been trying to deal with the consequences.[...] But I want to be a president of the United States who makes sure that we never again do business with a drug-running Panamanian dictator, that we never again funnel aid to the contras through convicted drug dealers. Values begin at the top, in the White House. Those are the values I want to bring to the presidency and to the White House beginning in January of 1989.”

Here Lehrer jumps the gun and asks (again) the best follow question. Asking Dukakis whether he suggests that President Reagan was one of the causes of the drug problem in the country. This led way to him explaining on the “very strong program of enforcement and drug education prevention” highlighting his past acts and the three subdivided categories of image; personal attributes, leadership skills and ideals.

Although this time the argument is more defensive, Bush continues the cycle on Benoit’s functional theory and mentions past achievements, personal values, defence and very slight attacks.

Dukakis’ death penalty.

The final blow to Dukakis’ wish for presidency was when asked by CNN Bernardd Shaw’s about the death penalty. This question was not in this (September) debate, however the reason behind his ‘fall’ can be seen throughout the debate as well.

Although he was well prepared and gave quite a fair response, the problem was not what he had said but how he had conveyed it. Once more, Dukakis showed no emotion not even at the tought of his wife katherine ‘kitty’ being raped and murdered. Many have even criticised him for being too much of a technocrat.

The rhetoric

In an article written by Anthony Arrigo, Associate professor; Writing Rhetoric and Communication in the University of Dartmouth he showcases different rhetoric techniques used by different presidents. He references Reagen as “the great communicator”, Obama’s “soaring oratory” and Donald Trumps “twitter use”.

Rhetoric came from Ancient Greece as it was needed for people to defend their arguments in law courts (Arrigo, 18). Dukakis was strong on two sides of the rhetorical triangle, Logos - logic, and Ethos - ethics. On the other hand, Bush was stronger in Ethos and Pathos.

Dukakis’ body language, although seems very confident, is rather monotone. As mentioned previously he comes across as robotic, very well preserved, very curated. This came across especially when Bush was criticising him and the TV Director shot an over the shoulder shot, and he was still, forcibly, showing a smile. Although this does not necessarily reflect negatively on the audience, people like to see passion and sometimes passion means getting on your toes, getting angry, getting frustrated on topics that the person is passionate about etc.

One thing I would like to note is that Dukakis' voice sounded very similar to a classic radio presenter; very stern, tough and polite.

Have a seat - Ben Camille and Dr. Lydia Abela

This interview is very different from the highly political debate that I have assessed before. However, many elements of discourse are present during this interview, although they are much more subtle especially when it comes to Dr Lydia Abela.

The interview is interrupted by some clips with Dr. Abela and Prime Minister Robert Abela’s daughter Georgia Mae, however it is 5mins 45 seconds long. To begin with, the interview is highly curated, well prepared with one main camera placement, however the producer tends to zoom in and out multiple times. The extensive edits throughout the video was also noted.

‘I wanted to build on what my mother had taught me’

In the beginning of this interview; Lydia Abela characterises herself as three women embodied into one. This is because she serves three roles (importance in descending order):

1. Lydia the mother of Georgia Mae

2. Lydia the lawyer

3. Lydia, the Prime Minister’s wife.

Throughout the six minute interview she continuously switches roles and this can be noted also through her body language.

Abela indicates that her identity is built on the basis of her upbringing. She explains that during her childhood she helped minority children with “less opportunities than I had” , children of parents who had addictions who were facing literacy challenges and helped them through Dar it-Tama. This has obviously been quite impactful as even her sister Alison Zerafa Civelli - now Parliamentary secretary for Local Government - has even mentioned this in her electoral campaign.

“I wanted to build on what my mother had taught me and I wanted to pass it along to my daughter Georgia Mae,” Abela said. This goes to show how both of her roles work together in a complete cycle.

The family, according to Fairclough (1992) is an example of how social structure influences discursive practices. He claims that the relationship between parents and children is partly discursively created, but that the family is also a real institution with pre-existing relationships and identities.

These practices, relationships, and identities were formed through discourse at first, but have since become embedded in institutions and non-discursive practices.

In Fairclough’s book Language and Power (1989) he examines how language plays a vital role with power and society. He also suggests that language can be used to “create, change and maintain power relations in today’s society”.

In his discourse theory Fairclough outlines three stages of synthetic personalisation although he uses in reference to language use for persuasion in advertising these are very relevant in how Abela is selling her image to the public.

These stages are:

1. The use of personal pronouns, informal language and referencing personal cultural instances. This is done to build relationships with the ‘customers’. (In this case Abela does this to engage with the audience)

2. Selecting meticulously the vocabulary and visuals “to manipulate the reader’s worldview to ensure it aligns with the ideology being sold.” (“tfal li ommhom, minhabba vizzji li kellha, ma kinitx tiflah tqum filghodu”)

3. The last stage is to create a consumer willing to receive the ideological message being sold. Hence the video/interview in this case is directed to the voters.

This makes particular sense even more so given the context of the date of publication. This was published on the 28th of March 2022, in the middle of a general election. Abela subtly also wears red.

When it comes to body language, there is no doubt that Abela is very poised and very conscious of being filmed, however she does have three specific body language markers that she consistently maintains throughout the interview.

1. Constant use of hand to accentuate her words,

2. Maintaining eye contact and occasionally looking upwards,

3. Touching a frontal piece of her hair and putting it backwards.

Undoubtedly the hand gestures are essentially part of our mediterranean culture used to draw attention to specific words to emphasise on their importance. According to a study conducted by the University of Chicago, when one moves their hands whilst speaking, it helps the person at the other end of the conversation to better understand.

It was noted that Lydia communicates a lot with her eyes. Jongerius et al. (2020) stated that eye contact is a fundamental of nonverbal communication hence, it is crucial in deciphering human interaction.

Finally, when a person flips their hair out of the way, as done by Abela twice it is said to signal a transition to indicate that a person would like to move on to another topic. However for some this may be just a simple habit.

Reference list

1. Arrigo, A.F. (2019). What Aristotle can teach us about Trump’s rhetoric. [online] The Conversation. Available at: https://theconversation.com/what-aristotle-can-teach-us-about-trumps-rhetoric-107761 [Accessed 8 May 2022].

2. Benoit, W.L. (2009). The functional approach to presidential televisions spots: Acclaiming, attacking, defending 1952-200. Communication Studies, [online] 52(2), pp.109–126. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/10510970109388546.

3. Benoit, W.L. and Brazeal, L.M. (2002). A Functional Analysis of the 1988 Bush-Dukakis Presidential Debates. Argumentation and Advocacy, [online] 38(4), pp.219–233. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2002.11821569.

4. Benoit, W.L. and Sheafer, T. (2006). Functional Theory and Political Discourse: Televised Debates in Israel and the United States. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, [online] 83(2), pp.281–297. doi:10.1177/107769900608300204.

5. khoury, P. (2017). 5 ‘Talking With Your Hands’ Rules Charismatic Leaders Use. [online] Magnetic Speaking. Available at: https://magneticspeaking.com/hand-gestures-and-talking-with-your-hands-presenting/ [Accessed 15 May 2022].

6. Makokha, R. (2020). The Evolution of the Announcer Voice. [online] Bunny Studio Blog. Available at: https://bunnystudio.com/blog/the-evolution-of-the-announcer-voice/ [Accessed 15 May 2022].

7. StudySmarter. (n.d.). Norman Fairclough: Theory & Discourse. [online] Available at: https://www.studysmarter.de/en/explanations/english/key-concepts-in-language-and-linguistics/norman-fairclough/?fbclid=IwAR3kdYGr-OipXP1DCDV7T0B08jsYBgoLymcMX21Qi2Jhhsv7gEyXHzy83_A [Accessed 15 May 2022].

8. thetrustambassador.com. (2019). Body Language 17 Playing With the Hair -. [online] Available at: https://thetrustambassador.com/2019/03/02/body-language-17-playing-with-the-hair/ [Accessed 15 May 2022].

---

Task II p.1

Research and Planning

1. The hero and the Supervillain… Ethics and misinformation

The themes for this particular interview were ethics and misinformation. These two terminologies are very predominant in the journalism industry as they both carry a very heavy load. Being the fourth pillar of democracy, journalists all over the world have a huge responsibility, to inform, to educate and to entertain.

The Australian Journalist Association’s (AJA) code of ethics states that many journalists work in private enterprise, but all have public responsibilities and without trust, journalists do not fulfil their public responsibilities. As part of their code of ethics the AJA tells journalists out there to “report and interpret honestly, striving for accuracy, fairness and disclosure of all essential facts. Do not suppress relevant available facts or give distorting emphasis. Do your utmost to give a fair opportunity for reply.”

Although the Association is very far off from our islands, it is safe to say that these moral guidelines apply to us as well.

1. Fake news but not fake numbers. The rise of misinformation throughout the years…

According to the University of Derby, around 45% of British adults believe that they encounter fake news on a daily basis. In an article published by the same university and an Ofcom study, fake news has increased due to the fact that adults access less news updates through TV and more through social media.

Despite the fact that Oxford English Dictionary have only added the term ‘fake news’ to their prestigious dictionary four years ago, the guardian reported that between 2016 and 2017 the usage of the term increased by 365%.

1. Meet the journalist… Carmen Cachia.

Practising advocacy journalism Carmen Cachia, who works with L-ORIZZONT, it-Torca and Talk.mt, was the journalist that I have decided to interview. Cachia started her journalistic career at the age of 17 years through a course being offered by the General Workers Union.

Despite the fact that she has changed the newsroom once before in her lifetime, and having a few years away from journalism itself, Cachia has been back with Union Print since 2017.

Going through her articles published with the papers, I have noticed that her preferred pieces are human stories, speaking of mental health issues and reporting foreign/international news.

It was bizarre, however, to note that certain articles pushed a type of bias/ agenda. This in particular is the constant reporting of sexual abuse cases in America of priests. Could this be sending the wrong message to the public?

Another obvious bias was the newsroom’s own bias. It is with no doubt that the left-ist newspaper is MLP and now Government’s biggest supporter. This might be due to the fact that the Workers union owned paper also have the same socialist beliefs as the government, supposedly.

1. Questions

There was no specific reason as to why the interview was done in Maltese. It was a mere preference for me.

1. Sa Cachia, ilek ġurnalista għal żmien twil, kien hemm perjodu fejn waqaft iżda erġajt għamilt ir-ritorn tiegħek lura fl-industrija. X’inhi l-etika għalik?

2. Qatt esperjenzajt mument fil-karriera tiegħek li kellek dilemmi morali fuq xi artikli?

3. Taħseb li hija etika li tikteb kontinwament fuq abbużi li jsiru mill-qassisn jew membri tal-kleru? Ma taħsibx li din qed tibgħat messaġġ ħażin?

4. Inti taħdem mal-ORIZZONT u t-Torċa, ġieli kellek mumenti li rrapportajt jew ippublikajt xi artiklu li ma qbiltx miegħu?

5. Ma taħsibx li tmur kontra l-integrita tal-ġurnaliżmu li tirrapporta (fil-maġġor parti) fuq partit wieħed biss?

6. Se ntik xenarju. Li kieku kellek xi ħabiba jew xi membru tal-familja u kien involut f’xi każ partikolari u jrid jidher quddiem il-Qorti. Tippermetti li jiġu ippublikati r-rapporti mill-kamra tal-aħbarjiet tiegħek stess?

7. Taħseb li huwa etiku li kamra tal-aħbarjiet tirrapporta funerali, b’mod speċjali dawk li ma jkunux ta’ nies prominenti? (Bħal ngħidu aħna; xi eks Prim Ministru, President Emeritus jew xi awtur/triċi stabbilit/a)

5. When, Where and How?

Equipment: 2 cameras (1 hand held), 1 tripod and 1 mic only.

Place: Mosta, public area.

Setting: 1 wide shot to show the whole bodies

2 over the shoulder shots on the interviewer and the interviewee

Task II p.2

Video

Click here for the full interview!

Task II p.3

Audio vs Visual - The evaluation

Despite in the last task discourse analysis was more based on the visual, discourse analysis can also be aural. Discourse analysis has taught us to read between the lines, that there are many non-verbal cues between one on one discussions and these are usually seen through body language, tone of voice, use of vocabulary etc.

Hence one of the drawbacks of analysing an interview without the visuals eliminates one of the most crucial steps. One of the most important things one must take note of and/or acknowledge during the interview is the response of the interviewee to challenging questions. Many body language experts pertain that "to create powerful and impactful stories, [one] needs interviewees to not only trust you but also tell you their stories.

Trust is gained by showing confidence and overall being assertive throughout the whole interview. In my case, in this interview this was very clear on both sides, however the audio might prove otherwise. For instance the journalist has made a small mistake in the first question. Whilst this might be interpreted as nervousness, in the footage, it is seen that the journalist is confident even through the constant eye contact.

"As journalists, we interact with people every day, so learning about nonverbal cues was invaluable - to know when there could be more to a story, or worth (the) time to ask another question or push a little harder," said Cami Anthony Assistant News Director at CBS.

On the other hand, tonality and obervation of how the person is speaking might be more heightened when listening to the audio only as one is not distracted from the what is happening during the interview. This is especially beneficial to those who are distracted easily.

Knapp and Daly (2002) argue that in audio recorded interviews, reasons behind pauses in speech are not as identifiable as those in recorded visually. There are many reasons behind pauses;

• A pause between speech because a person is taken aback by the question and hence is stuck/ flustered.

• A pause to try to remember something.

• A pause to take a short break especially during a long interview.

• A pause to smile, smirk or do other physical gestures that do not require words.

In this case, the interviewee often takes breaks. Sometimes it might be attributed to trying to take a break in between conversations and others tyring to formulate sentences. Again, when analysing audio this might be lost in translation, since one might not know the reason why is pausing.

Knapp, M.L. and Daly, J.A. eds., (2002). Handbook of Interpersonal Communication. 3rd ed. [online] Google Books, SAGE, pp.118–125. Available at: https://books.google.com.mt/books?id=t97fuAcjS-YC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false [Accessed 11 May 2022].

https://blancacobb.com/keynote-speaking/journalists/

---

Task III p.1

Presentation

Click here for the presentation

Ethics and Misinformation.pdf

Download PDF • 6.50MB

Task III p.2

Written evaluation

Although this interview was not a heated one, the issues tackled where quite important in the journalism industry and my approach was to challenge whether the journalist understood what is ethics and if she practices what she preaches, hence applies ethics into her everyday worklife.

In addition to that, I have tackled as well different and difficult scenarios the journalist might meet and what would her response to them be. Finally I have also tackled the aspect of misinforming the public with personal bias and/or agenda. In my opinion, this interview was executed well, not in terms of practicality but rather on the journalist aims set on the journey of leaning through discourse analysis.

Just like Benoit's functional theory, whilst I have rather 'attacked' the journalist with difficult question, she acclaimed and defended her decision making in her career. This theory, was proven to be very helpful in planning and executing (as well as analysing, ofcourse) the interview, hence I believe that the techniques learnt in this unit have been acquired well.

Finally, the highlight of the interview was when asking the journalist on the contstant negative reporting on clerical scandals (foreign cases) as well as questioning the integrity of the journalist when always reporting one side of the story, in this case I was refering to the newspapers being highly biased in favour of Labour party. Here the journalist admits that alothough she prefers to report on both cases (even though there are many other parties in the country) she would not offer the same 'space' to the Nationalist party, as they are less relevant to theri readership.

This question was also followed up with another question whether she has written articles or reported on any issues that she has not agreed with.