Analysis of Text Using CDA - Report Example

Analysis of Text Using CDA Table of Contents Introduction 3 Analysis 3 A. Genre 3 B. Framing 4 C. Foregrounding 5 D. Backgrounding 5 E. Omission 6 F.Discursive Differences 6 G. Intertextuality 6 H. Multimodality 7 I. Presupposition 7 J. Insinuation 8 Conclusion 8 1References 9 Introduction This paper undertakes a critical discourse analysis (CDA) of an opinion text on the war on drugs that appeared on The Daily Telegraph on May 3, 2015 entitled ‘We must show some balls in war on drugs’. This opinion piece is written was written with strong references to the execution of two Australians who were put to death by Indonesia after being convicted of drug charges as part of the so-called Bali Nine. The executions were consummated just a few days prior to the publication of the opinion piece. The opinion piece basically posits the argument that while the human aspects of the executions naturally move Australians to be empathic of the plight of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran, the bigger context of the executions is the wider war on drugs that has the sanction of the Australian people, and one that must be won in order to save society from the great harm and danger posed by illegal drugs on ordinary citizens (Devine 2015). Analysis A. Genre The piece is posted in the opinion section of a reputable newspaper, and as such, carries the weight of authority and of reasoned judgments and thinking on subject matters of great national interest. The writer is not an ordinary citizen sending a letter to the editor, but a reputable columnist who is a pillar of the newspaper, and has a wide reputation of being a conservative on the various causes and issues that she tackles. Here her conservatism shines through, emphasizing the hard facts on the war on drugs as she calls it, and de-emphasizing the human elements of the executions. Yes the two are worthy of empathy, according to her, but they were also hardened drug criminals. The genre thus draws the line between the human and the objective legal implications of the executions (Devine 2015; SourceWatch 2015). B. Framing The discussion on the war on drugs is done in the context of the deliberate efforts of the Australian government to reduce drug trafficking and use in Australia from decades of high rates for both, and the implicit support of the Australian people for the drug war. The success of the drug efforts is the culmination of steps taken by the Australian government from 2000 onwards to win the drug war, and those steps include information sharing with other governments relating to drug criminals and syndicates. Those very same efforts led to the arrest, conviction and execution of Chan and Sukumaran. It is worth noting that this explicit framing of the discussion on drugs in terms of the drug war and the support of the Australian people for the drug war is done with an explicit contrasting reference to the execution, and here the juxtaposition of the war on drugs and the picture of the two drug criminals brings the framing into clear focus. The picture of the two convicts, shown at the top of the opinion piece, also puts forward in dramatic fashion the way the opinion piece frames its arguments in terms of the human empathic elements of the executions versus the lost war on drugs that has equally deadly consequences for those who are victims of drug crimes. The framing’s implicit message is that the drug war is valid, and its validity trumps concerns over the human elements of the conviction and execution of the two Australian drug criminals (Devine 2015). In terms of a perspective where the framing is in terms of the bad guy versus the good guy, here the bad guys are the executed Australians, who are after all drug criminals who were convicted as such in Indonesia. This is a flipping of the popular public sentiment in the years leading to their execution, where they were portrayed as good guys. In that popular portrayal their humanity and their conversion from being drug smugglers into artist and men of God were highlighted. The piece reminded the public that after all these condemned men committed drug crimes that led to people ultimately being killed. On the other hand, the piece implicitly points to the ordinary Australian and the government as the real good guys, who in the past had worked to wage a war on drugs together, with initially good results (Devine 2015). C. Foregrounding The idea of the war on drugs is foregrounded, together with the juxtaposed images of the two executed men in Indonesia. On the other hand, while the war on drugs idea is foregrounded, the opinion piece also posits that this war is lost, and that the victories of the previous administration have been pyrrhic, as those have been largely reversed. The statistics on the toll on lives caused by drugs, as well as the history of the war on drugs, are also given prominent mention (Devine 2015). D. Backgrounding Many things have been put on the background in the piece. Among them are the arguments of those who sided with the two executed Australians, the government and the Australian public in general, who framed the executions in terms of human rights, the barbarity of the death sentence, the obvious conversion of the two condemned men, the political aspects of the executions, and the impact of the executions on the relationship between Australia and Indonesia. The elements that have been explicitly put in the background are the two men themselves, their fate, and the details of their criminal records, especially of Chan (Devine 2015). E. Omission As discussed above, an astute reader will appreciate that many things have been put in the background and were even omitted, with the most glaring omissions relating to the vital issues that surfaced during the trial and before the executions took place. Those relate to human rights issues, the politics of the executions in Indonesia, the worldwide protests relating to the fairness of the trials and the humaneness of the death penalty, and even the sanity of the drug war itself. The omission is made more glaring by the strong emphasis on the history of the drug war and the human toll of the easy proliferation of cheap illegal drugs in Australia historically and at present (Devine 2015). F. Discursive Differences The opinion piece distinguishes between two sets of evidence and two sets of reactions to the executions of the Australians in Indonesia. In reference to the executions and the outpouring of public sympathy and support for the two convicts, the opinion piece highlights the emotional and empathic aspects. This is contrasted with the reference to hard facts and statistics, and to factual historical contexts that show that drugs have ever been a large social problem in Australia, that the same Australian public that is now sympathetic to the executed men also supported the drug war, and that the drug war efforts led to collusion with international bodies to combat the drug trade, which in turn led to the arrest and convictions of the two Australian drug criminals (Devine 2015). G. Intertextuality Vertical intertexuality occurs in several parts of the opinion piece. The photo references to the executed Australians are there on one level, and on another level, the references to facts about the drug war, and the history of decline and progress in the war on drugs in Australia are instances of vertical intertextuality on other levels. References to specific instances of arrests and the jailing of drug criminals in Australia, and the references to the bombing in Bali in 2002, again can be construed as vertical intertextuality being present in the piece on another level. These references to major news stories from history can be treated as separate from general references to major historical trends in drug use and drug crimes from 1996 all the way to the much of the past decade (Devine 2015) H. Multimodality There are fundamentally two media modes that are present in the piece, the text together with photos of the two executed Australians. This serves purposes relating to framing and putting into stark contrast mainstream sympathetic attitudes and arguments for the two men, on the one hand, and the war on drugs on the other (Devine 2015). I. Presupposition The key presupposition is that the war on drugs is valid and more important than the lives of the two men and the fate of drug criminals who may be Australian but are first and foremost hardened criminals who have caused a lot of damage to society. The corollary presupposition is that the Australian public is misguided in being sympathetic to the plight of the two executed men, when the war on drugs is the bigger and more important context with which to view the recent events. By highlighting the word ‘balls’, moreover, the opinion piece is presupposing that to be sympathetic to drug criminals is being soft, and that to side with the war on drugs is to be tough and to be grounded on reality (Devine 2015). J. Insinuation While giving a nod to the emotional aspect of the executions, the opinion piece is generally insinuating that this shows a basic flaw in the way the public has come to accept the framing of the whole affair in terms of the human element, while ignoring that they were criminals in a war that the Australian public is losing, against drugs, and a war that has cost and will cost dearly in terms of lost Australian lives. By emphasizing facts and statistics, as well as the historical details of the war on drugs, the piece is insinuating that the emphasis on the emotional and hum an aspects of the executions is absurd (Devine 2015). Conclusion The preceding analysis shows us the basic stance of the opinion writer relative to the execution of the two Australians, and that stance posits that the drug war is the bigger and more important reality to consider, and that the emphasis on the human side of the executions binds the public to very real dangers and the historical steep toll on human lives and futures from the proliferation of illegal drugs in Australia. The piece argues this via framing the issue of the executions in light of that drug war, marshalling historical facts and statistics, as well as important landmark events, to contrast the war on drugs and its supporters as being fact based and grounded on reality, against those who view the recent events from the human side as being emotional and in essence weak and deluded (Devine 2015). 1 References Devine, M. (2015). We must show some balls in war on drugs. The Daily Telegraph. [online]. Available at: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/we-must-show-some-balls-in-war-on-drugs/story-fni0cwl5-1227331752436 [accessed 5/12/2015]. SourceWatch (2015). Miranda Devine. The Center for Media and Democracy. [online]. Available at: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Miranda_Devine [accessed 5/12/2015]. Read More