1

The media, war and public relations:

A Critical Discourse Analysis of the discursive

construction of Operation Moshtarak in UK newspapers

Full name: Leon Alick Salter

First degree: BA (Hons) Media, Culture and Society

OU Personal ID: Y8542090

Dissertation degree: MSc Social Research Methods

Date of submission: March 2011

2

Abstract

National newspapers remain a primary site whereby the events of foreign wars are

conveyed to the public sphere in the UK. Operation Moshtarak, launched on 13th

February 2010 in Afghanistan was widely represented in the British media, including

newspapers.

Located within the discipline of Critical Discourse Analysis, and in particular drawing

on Norman Fairclough (1995; 2001; 2003; 2009), this research examines the effects

of ideology, national identity, historical discourses and evolving institutional network

practices on that representation, with a focus on genres, discourses, and styles.

These are semiotic organizing nodes that govern the dialectic link between textual

language and broader society. Utilising a Critical Realist epistemology, this research

perceives language as simultaneously constituted by and constructive of social

reality (Wetherell, 2001b).

While opinion polls at the launch of Operation Moshtarak indicated growing public

opposition to the continued presence of British forces in Afghanistan, this study

locates little reflection of that view within the newspapers in the sample. What it

instead concludes, is that evolving genre conventions systematically reproduce

evaluations of elite groups, such as the government and military command, historical

discourses and ideologies are drawn upon in order to represent the Afghan people

as inferior and backward, and dominant styles and identities interact with and

reinforce, deeply held notions of national identity in order to reproduce an „Us‟ versus

„Them‟ dichotomy.

This research aims to demonstrate that through such frameworks, national

newspapers worked to constrain the discourse around Operation Moshtarak,

creating a closed paradigm (Richardson, 2007), leading alternative discourses that

may address the concerns of the public are marginalized, in favour of the discourses

and ideologies of elite groups.

3

Authorship Statement

I declare that:

No part of this dissertation has previously been submitted for a

degree or other qualification of the Open University or any other

university or institution

I have no other work that has been previously published that is

relevant to this dissertation

The entire work of this dissertation has been prepared

independently by myself

4

Table of contents

Abstract ………………………………………………………………… 2

Authorship statement ………………………………………………….. 3

Introduction ……………………………………………………………… 5

Literature Review ………………………………………………………. 7

Methodology ……………………………………………………………. 14

Analysis ………………………………………………………………… 22

Conclusion ……………………………………………………………... 38

Extended Methodological Discussion ……………………………….. 41 Bibliography …………………………………………………………….

46

APPENDIX 1 …………………………………………………………….

50

APPENDIX 2 ……………………………………………………………. 52

APPENDIX 3 ……………………………………………………………. 54

APPENDIX 4 …………………………………………………………… 56

5

Introduction

„Operation Moshtarak‟, meaning „together‟, or „Joint‟ in the Dari (Eastern Persian)

language, was a military offensive launched by NATO, or ISAF (International

Security Assistance Force) on 13th February 2010 on the Helmand area of Southern

Afghanistan. Coined „together‟, because around 60% of the 15,000 troops deployed

were Afghan (www.wikipedia.org), the largest single operation since 2001 was the

centrepiece of a broader surge of 30,000 extra US troops posted to Afghanistan,

announced by President Obama in December 2009.

The British military contributed around 1,200 soldiers to the operation. Opinion polls

around the time confirmed that 56% of the population opposed continued UK military

presence in Afghanistan, and 64% regarding the war, then into its ninth year, as

unwinnable (bbc.co.uk). One of the central questions of this research is to enquire

whether that public opinion influences, or is reflected in, the representation of

„Operation Moshtarak‟ in UK national daily newspapers, or whether such

representations would instead be framed by the opinions, perspectives, and

discourses of certain elite groups.

British national daily newspapers have historically played a key role in the public

sphere in the UK (Fowler, 1991; Billig, 1995). Bromsky and Cushion (2002) found

evidence that this influence remained in 2002, with “almost 60 percent of the UK

population” still reading a national daily (Bromsky and Cushion, 2002:160). They

also highlighted that London-based national newspapers, although relatively few in

number when compared to local newspapers, have dominated daily circulation in

Britain since the 1920s. Few other nations in the Western world possess a

newspaper circulation that is so centralized and concentrated, a process which is

continuing, placing ownership “increasingly in the hands of large conglomerates”

(Fairclough, 1995:43).

The genre of „news‟ maintains a high status within the media, being widely perceived

as carrying high ethical standards of professionalism, balance, objectivity and

independence (Richardson, 2007; Thomson, White et al., 2008; Dodson, 2010).

Critical Discourse Analysis refutes this perception, maintaining that the production of

news is a social practice which necessarily generates ideologically positioned

discourse (Fowler, 1991; Caldas-Coulthard, 1997). While public awareness of the

questionable neutrality of news has grown in recent years, it remains the primary

prism through which we perceive, and thus recontextualize, events in foreign nations

into our lives and institutions (Fairclough, 2003). By reinforcing deeply held values

and identities, newspaper articles interact with their audiences in ways which can be

revealed only by an iterative, deductive, critical analysis, from an outlook that

perceives language use as highly powerful (Fairclough, 1995; Richardson, 2007).

CDA is therefore a discipline of the social sciences which assumes the

epistemological position that the mass media, including the news, is structured to

6

systematically (re)produce and prioritize the perspectives of rich and powerful elite

groups, and in the process sidelining those of the wider public. Those perspectives

actively shape, and are shaped by, wider society, through a „dialectic‟ link

(Fairclough & Wodak, 1997).

The broad aim of this study is to utilise concepts and methodological techniques

drawn from the discipline of CDA, in order to highlight the central discourses and

ideologies through which Operation Moshtarak was represented in the UK national

press, and what these can then inform us about the rapidly evolving social practice

of war representation.

By means of analysis of a sample of 31 newspaper texts from a 3 week period, I aim

to highlight, with the application of Fairclough‟s (1995; 2001; 2003; 2009) analytical

framework; key genres, discourses and styles which enable the national press to

interact with society and retain a powerful hegemonic influence on framing the

Afghan conflict in the UK public sphere.

7

Literature Review

Researchers have utilised a variety of methodologies in recent years to explore the

relationship between governments, the media and audience perception during wars.

There have also been a number of recent studies that have focused on UK print

media representation of Muslims, immigrants and refugees. There has been little

recent research however, that has focused on the unique UK print media landscape

in relation to representations of wars in the Middle East.

Framing and agenda-setting are two related theoretical models that have worked to

conceptualise, from a primarily positivist epistemology, the relationship between the

three interlinked social fields of government, media and „public opinion‟. They posit

that government attempts to create a dominant agenda or frame around events such

as a war or diplomatic crisis, can then be recontextualized by the media to affect

public opinion. Entman (2004) describes framing as creating a narrative out of an

event or situation through shared cultural values and symbols, bringing together

often disparate strands and leaving out others that may conflict with the preferred

meaning and story being told.

While there is much to be said for this theoretical base, the methods that are utilised

in order to prove hypotheses do not fit the conceptual model. Attempting to bind

together a mixture of quantitative and qualitative methods, in order to highlight often

disparate connections between „mass media‟, the government, and „public opinion‟,

Christie (2006) over-simplifies the highly complex relationships between these social

fields. From a positivist epistemological position, the assumption is that highly

subjective concepts, such as narrative frames and public opinion, can be

quantitatively measured and then “manipulated in order to identify relationships

among them” (Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007:6). While the implicit political

motivation behind the study is to explore how the US population had their attitudes

manipulated by a media all too willing to reproduce elite discourse, this influence is

backgrounded and sited as irrelevant, as the researcher attempts to position

themselves as „objective scientist‟ who is able to situate themselves outside of their

own data.

Although complexity in the conceptual model is allowed for, with „agenda-opinion

congruence‟ referring that public can affect the agenda in a dialectic relation the

methodology employed is inherently homogenising, and leaves no room for detailed

analysis. Sources as diverse as ABC TV news transcripts and New York Times

articles are grouped together for data collection as „mass media agendas‟, and data

sourced from two surveys describes a homogenized „public-support‟ for the invasion

of Iraq.

Christie claims to have found “significant relationships between the US public policy

and leading mass media agendas during a period of high public support” (Christie,

2006:529). For this claim numerical data directly compares the number of times a

8

frame occurs in White House briefing to „mass-media‟ frames. Yet for this

comparison 28 White House Briefings are analysed, 58 ABC TV news transcripts,

compared to over 500 newspaper articles. Direct causal effects are assumed

between the government and media, without any detailed examination of the extent,

for example, the White House briefings were directly quoted in the media. Instead

the evidence is derived from abstract coding rationales for the frames, for which we

are given no explanation of how they are derived.

More qualitative approaches have been employed in order to explore the relationship

between newspapers and western societies during times of war. Altheide (2007)

employs excerpts of newspaper articles in order to demonstrate that historical

discourses of fear, crime and anti-Arab racism have evolved together into the „War

on Terror‟ frame for events. For Altheide, the „War on Terror‟ frame became so

pervasive in the US after September 11th that it actually “defined reality and became

an incorrigible proposition that could not be questioned, challenged or falsified”

(Altheide, 2007:299). Although many of the claims Altheide makes seem plausible,

the focus of his analysis, American culture, is very broad, and the points he makes

generalised, with a lack of empirical data to back them. Various newspaper excerpts

over a large temporal span are cited as indicating cultural trends, however the texts

are not analysed linguistically in any depth, neither are any sampling methods

discussed which may demonstrate their representativeness.

Dodson (2010), with a more focused study, examines the effect of Australian print

journalism‟s ethical frameworks of professionalism and objectivity on the production

of war news. Employing a Foucauldian epistemology, power is conceptualised as a

field deriving entirely from discourse (Hall, 2001). Dodson‟s key concept,

„Professionalism‟ deriving from Foucault‟s „discursive formation‟, is a disciplining

principle which normalises and regulates codes of „objectivity‟ in the journalist‟s

behaviour, and thus the texts produced. „Professionalism‟ maintains that „trusted‟

official sources are given priority, that evaluation or analysis involving historical

context are not employed by the author, and that „hard news‟ war journalism must

contain „hard facts‟ on the conflict, e.g. number of deaths, which regiments were

involved, etc. The result for Dodson is “an Australian journalism that is

unnecessarily patriotic, uncritical and disproportionate” (Dodson, 2010:111).

Dodson‟s cites disparities between interviews with individual journalists and their

published articles, to show that while they are aware of the constraining influence of

their situation as embedded journalists, this does not materialise into balanced

articles. The professional identity of „journalist‟ negates any reflection on the

inadequacy of a source pool dominated by the military.

The Foucauldian focus on the power of discourse excludes from Dodson‟s

theoretical model any consideration of outside influences on journalistic discourse

from broader social structures. The Critical Realist epistemology by contrast, the

base for Critical Discourse Analysis, would view discourse, or semiosis, as only one

9

aspect of social practice, which is rooted in physical reality (Fairclough, 2003; 2009).

Dodson‟s resulting analysis is overly narrow, focusing on the internal disciplining

effects of „Professionalism‟ on individual journalists, which is perceived as a field of

power acting by its own discoursal logic, rather than deriving its power through

dialectic links to real physical structure and human agency.

What is ignored is that modern war news discourse is rarely a product of a single

journalist, but a series of recontextualizations of events, given meaning through their

interaction with established semiotic structures, rooted in social networks, which act

as gatekeepers between the event and the written text. A more nuanced model

would situate the discourse of „Professionalism‟ into a broader context with powerful

structural influences beyond the control of the individual, such as newspaper

hierarchy, genre convention and national and international institutions.

One of the key strengths of Critical Discourse Analysis, in comparison to the

approaches discussed above, is that it brings wider social context into the analysis

through evidencing semiotic structure, such as genres, discourses and styles, which

function as nodes between the social event and their recontextualization as text

(Fairclough, 1995:76-7). Specifically, it is able to bring an analysis of power

relations into the discourse, by investigating occurrences of semiotic structure that

(re)produce unequal power relations through the dialectic relationship between

language, social practice, and institutional structure.

This ability to bring broader socio/political meaning to textual analysis of newspapers

has attracted researchers to attempt a synergy between CDA theory and quantitative

techniques such as Corpus Linguistics. Briefly, Corpus Linguistics is a

methodological approach whereby large volumes of newspaper texts are collated

into a „corpus‟ of textual data. The corpus is then fed into a computer program, a

„Concordancer‟, and statistical data produced on how regular certain words collocate

(for example occur within five words) with key words, either selected by the

researcher, or identified as the most common collocates.

A researcher, through the application of the data to CDA theory, may therefore

identify the most regular lexical collocates with „Islam‟, or „Muslim‟, in order to go

some way towards identifying how these groups are positioned ideologically within

the social practice of newspapers (Richardson, 2001; Richardson, 2009), and by

implication, linked elite institutions.

Orpin (2005), in her research on the ideology around the word „sleaze‟, produced

lists of significant collocates of not only the word „sleaze‟, but also its relations in the

English language; „bribery‟, „corruption‟, „cronyism‟, etc. Through identifying their top

50 collocates, she was able to infer their slightly different meanings and

connotations. Once these connotations were identified she was able to apply this

data to a large corpus of over 800 newspaper texts. Orpin could then demonstrate

that „corruption‟, with slightly more serious connotations than „sleaze‟, is used more

10

regularly in articles about foreign governments, such as China or Pakistan, and

„sleaze‟ most often used in newspaper discourse concerning the British government.

She then deduced from this discrepancy, and the application of CDA theory, that

ideological frameworks are being applied whereby it is deemed as acceptable to

discuss Chinese „corruption‟, but only British „sleaze ‟.

Orpin‟s approach, from a Corpus Linguistics background, applies a CDA theoretical

framework to explain her quantitative results, without any attempt at a synergy of

techniques. This means her results, although no doubt impressive in their

representativeness, lack depth or detail. Because, there is no analysis of individual

texts, there is no investigation into how the ideological frameworks she discusses

manifest in naturally occurring language. It is not always what is said that is

important, but who is saying it and where it is being said that gives language its

ideological and social force (Richardson, 2007:17). Orpin‟s analysis, for instance,

could not deduce whether it is government sources, members of the public, or

journalists who are framing British political corruption as „sleaze‟.

Richardson (2009) aims at a direct synergy of techniques between the two

disciplines. In an overly ambitious study, he links a tenfold increase in the number of

newspaper articles containing a reference to British Muslims over the last three

general elections, with the terrorist attacks on New York and London and the wars in

the Middle East.

Approaching the research from a CDA background with a „critical‟ perspective,

Richardson aims to demonstrate that this increase is largely due to negative

representation. He perceives his role as researcher as primarily to confront a „social

problem with a semiotic aspect‟; the depiction of British Muslims in newspapers. The

British press is therefore conceptualized as an elite social practice, which aims to

ideologically position British Muslims as a threat to the stability of the established

social order.

Richardson‟s central concept is „neo-Orientalism‟, a discourse which associates

“Islamic politics exclusively with violence, authoritarianism, terrorism,

fundamentalism, clerical domination and hostility to modern, „„western‟‟, secular

democratic government” (Richardson, 2009:357). Via this representation, Muslim

terrorists can be ideologically positioned as „very Muslim‟, not as extraordinary and

troubled individuals.

Whereas quantitative tables are successful in Richardson‟s analysis in

demonstrating the increase in the number of newspaper articles containing

references to „Islam‟ or „Muslim‟, they are not so adept at exploring why this may be.

Style of newspaper coverage remains a subjective issue not easily quantified. While

he states that his analysis is primarily quantitative, based on Corpus Linguistics, and

merely „enriched‟ by a qualitative CDA analysis, it is the latter that provides the most

convincing evidence for his assertions.

11

Richardson‟s analytical claims become problematic when he applies abstract,

subjective concepts such as „Negativization‟ to a quantitative analysis.

„Negativizations‟ are words which are „collocated‟, or occur in close proximity to,

„Islam‟ or „Muslim‟ in a text, which “assign a negative quality to Muslim individuals

and/or institutions” (Richardson 2009:361). To measure this concept, among others,

Richardson has devised a more complex form of collocation analysis, „ideational

collocation‟, which not only includes words that are immediately adjacent, but also

attributive words and predicates which can occur within a non-specified range of the

word in question.

Perhaps demonstrating the difficulties inherent in synergising the two techniques, the

problem with devising abstract concepts such as „Negativization‟, the researcher

draws into the coding system their own political perspective, which conflicts with the

positivist epistemological perspective that the researcher should be able to „stand

outside‟ their data, from an objective viewpoint. Richardson makes claims to be able

to define and measure „Negativizations‟, and manipulate the concept as a variable in

tables displaying developing trends over the three general elections, without

sufficient data and without clearly demonstrating his coding procedure.

Richardson is more successful in demonstrating the concept of „neo-Orientalism‟ at

work in the qualitative analysis of broadsheet articles covering the most recent 2005

election, with excerpts skilfully included in order to illustrate argumentative points.

He is able to explore, through a detailed Critical Discourse Analysis, how the „Hard

News‟ genre of broadsheet newspapers, while purporting to be „objective‟, in fact

(re)produces ideological frameworks of British Muslims as „Other ‟. Even in the

„liberal‟ newspapers, such as The Guardian, and The Independent, differences

between „them‟ and „us‟ are presupposed in the texts, which group „them‟ together in

a homogenous „Muslim vote‟ with essentialist characteristics.

Another recent study into the discursive construction of „Other‟ in British newspapers

through comparison over time, but one relies solely on a qualitative CDA approach,

is Khosravinik (2009). Part of a larger study by Lancaster University on

representations of RASIM (refugees, asylum seekers and immigrants), Khosravinik

makes comparisons of questionable value between the Balkan conflict in 1999,

which caused the exodus of Kosovan refugees, and the British general election of

2005, where RASIM were a major part of the political campaign agenda. For

Khosravinik, in 1999 the RASIM were innocent victims of an „evil‟ dictatorship, in

contrast in 2005 they were positioned as part of an immigration „problem‟, portrayed

as „out of control‟.

The central concept, a useful analytical tool, is „Extensivization‟, which Khosravinik

demonstrates at work in order to show disparities in representational techniques

between the two temporal locations. In 1999 „Extensivized‟ representations of

refugees were “describing the actions and situations of refugees in detail and adding

as much subsidiary information as possible” (Khosravinik, 2009:485). In contrast in

12

2005, RASIM were being dehumanized and homogenized by the press as

„immigration stats‟.

Khosravinik concludes from the qualitatively presented evidence that while „liberal‟

and „conservative‟ newspapers may have different strategies and semiotic styles, “in

some important ways they all contribute to a similar construction of these people”

(Khosravinik, 2009:477). This is a helpful conceptual point, but what is lacking is a

detailed discussion of why this may be, such as the ideological frameworks which

underpin all of the representations, and their associated networks of social practices.

The usefulness of the comparison between Kosovo 1999 and UK General Election

2005 is also far from clear. For Khosravinik, the representational differences

between the two events is down to the latter‟s proximity to the UK only. Other

factors which may have had an impact, such the emergence of a powerful discourse

of War on Terror over the last decade, are not discussed.

Khosravinik also overlooks that the social group playing the role of „Other‟ in 1999

was the Serb „aggressors‟, not the Kosovan refugees, who were identified with as

victims of evil. The comparison only demonstrates that the meaning of the word

„refugee‟ has changed over time. A contrast of the Serbs with recent Muslim

representations may have provided a more constructive comparison in highlighting

the discursive construction of „Other‟ in British newspapers.

Saft and Ohara (2006) and Erjavec and Volcic (2007) explore, through qualitative

CDA analysis of newspapers, how the powerful symbolic event of 9/11 allowed for

the global recontextualization of the discourse of the „War on Terror‟, which

functioned to marginalize social groups in nations as culturally diverse as Japan and

Serbia respectively. Conceptualizing media texts through Bakhtin and Fairclough‟s

theoretical frameworks, they locate them as highly „intertextual‟, arising out of

specific sociocultural conditions, and comprised from heterogeneous elements,

rather than one specific author.

Li (2009) taking a similar theoretical approach, but in a more structured and empirical

format, operationalizes Fairclough‟s conceptual model for the analysis of printed

media texts in terms of discourse, style and genre, outlining separate chapters in the

analysis for each of these concepts. Fairclough‟s (2003) conceptual model, although

as nuanced and complex as the interaction between the semiotic realm and wider

society undoubtedly is, has been noted as a macro-scale „Grand Theory‟ (Wodak,

2009). Li‟s research works to reveal how discourses, genres and styles function as

nodal points between language and the social, regulating language in use, by

demonstrating it in action in every-day language, through close analysis of

newspaper texts.

Comparing the discursive construction of national identity in newspaper discourse in

the USA and China, Li contrasts newspaper representations of two key events that

created crises of diplomacy between them. While integrating both qualitative and

13

quantitative techniques, where a quantitative measure could not demonstrate an

aspect, such as style or genre, it is not employed. The analysis of style in news

reports is shown by Li to rely on the detailed explication of evaluative statements,

which could not easily be gauged through a quantitative analysis. Li is able to show

that although „hard-news‟ articles purport to be „objective‟, they often involve the

author subtly switching styles between „detached observer‟, „expert‟ and „official‟; at

times merging his/her own identities, and therefore that of the audience, with all

three.

Although accusations could be levelled at Li of only selecting data that match his

theoretical model, he never professes that he is being fully representative in his

sample. The research could also be critiqued for making easy comparisons between

two very different nation‟s media. However the strengths of Li‟s analysis lies in the

highlighting of linguistic techniques, by which journalists perpetuate an „imagined

community‟ of nationhood, in both the US and China, demonstrating many

similarities, as well as differences.

This well structured yet reflexive and flexible methodological approach, which

locates “text as being inherently linked to the social and physical world in which it is

produced, to the events happening in the world, and to people involved in the

events” is one which I take forward to my own research (Li, 2009:114).

As discussed there has been recent research on this interaction between the media,

text and society in the representation of „Us‟ and „Them‟, in the Othering of refugees

and asylum seekers (Baker, Gabrielatos et al., 2008; Khosravinik, 2009; Richardson,

2009). However, there has been surprisingly little work on the interaction between

the social practice of national identity, national print media representations of war,

and the discursive construction of Other in the unique UK print media. The following

research intends to address this gap.

14

Methodology

Epistemology – Critical Realism

Critical Discourse Analysis employs a Critical Realist epistemology derived from

Critical Theory and Marxist traditions. Critical Realism posits that our knowledge of

reality is contingent on the social practices and structures which frame the

development of that knowledge (Fairclough 2003:14).

Similarly to a Foucauldian perspective, but unlike Positivism, in Critical Realism there

is no possibility of attaining „truth‟, only „regimes of truth‟, or „discourse practices‟,

e.g. socio/historically located semiotic systems which interact dialectically with wider

social structure and power, and “which enable one to distinguish true and false

statements” (Foucault in Hall, 2001:77). Through the application of power over time

such structures of sign-making establish a certain authority and become implicit;

„assumed meaning‟, rarely discussed, taken for granted claims which assume the

influence of „truth‟ (Fairclough, 2003:11).

Positivism in contrast assumes that „truth‟ about human society can be attained

through the application of methodological techniques derived in the physical

sciences, where the social scientist is able to assume an objective position outside

their data, in order to identify causal relationships between distinct and static

categories and variables (Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007:6). As discussed briefly

in the Literature Review, a Critical Realist would maintain that this approach fails to

acknowledge the influence of the researcher‟s own socio-historical position on their

data, and that human society is too complex and too dynamic to be able to be

reduced to simplifying inactive variables.

Where it differs from Foucauldian research however, which assumes a relativist

position, in Fairclough‟s Critical Realism, with a direct lineage from Marx, a distinct

physical reality exists outside of the semiotic, or discourse realms. Physical social

practice is dialectically linked to the semiotic, internalizing it, but it cannot be reduced

to it (Fairclough, 2009:163). For a CDA analyst physical reality exists outside human

understanding, but impacts on it in a dominant way, with the discursive being

determined by the material (Wetherell, 2001a:392).

This difference has important implications for the understanding of power in CDA.

For Foucault power was conceptualised as a productive web of energy that travels in

all directions, not only from the top of society, as it derives entirely from discourse

(Hall, 2001). For Fairclough and the CDA tradition in contrast, influenced by Marxism

and Critical Theory, power emanates predominantly from the physical reality of elite

dominance over the means of production in capitalist society. However that

domination facilitates command over discourse practice, a form of production, which

15

enables the consolidation of physical power, through governance of the semiotic

realm of ideologies and discourses.

There is therefore more human agency inherent in the Critical Realist epistemology

than within the Foucauldian approach. Power is not merely an ephemeral field

outside of human control, it is used in strategic ways by certain groups to exert

control over other groups, and it is the clarification of this physical reality, often made

opaque by language, which is central to CDA research (Fairclough, 2009).

Combined with a rejection of the possibility of the production of neutral knowledge, it

creates an inherently political or „critical‟ stance, focused on the idea of addressing a

“social wrong in its semiotic aspect” (Fairclough, 2009:168). Because there is no

possibility of attaining the role of neutral observer, or powerless subject-position, the

analyst either influences society in a way that (re)produces inequality through their

language, or challenges it.

This stance that power is held in language, but can be used to influence an external

social reality, creates the centrality of context within CDA. As it perceives texts as

simultaneously influenced by and shaping of the physical world, as a methodology it

is “open to a broad range of factors exerting influence” on those texts (Wodak and

Meyer, 2009:21). Critical Realist CDA is therefore preferred by researchers who

believe that power can be challenged through discourse, and that discourse analysis

should be linked to “political debates that are important to the researcher” (Mulvihill,

2008:25).

Analytical Framework: Genres, Discourses and Styles

Fairclough‟s (1995; 2001; 2003; 2009) analytical framework is a qualitative approach

to the analysis of newspapers which “brings a social perspective into the heart and

fine detail of the text” (Fairclough, 2003:27). Via an iterative, and deductively-

orientated approach (Wodak and Meyer, 2009), the researcher focuses “analysis of

texts on the interplay of Action, Representation and Identification” with a rigorous

and empirical method (Fairclough, 2003:27-8). Action, Representation and

Identification are distinct, but dialectically linked, means that social practice relates to

the semiotic realm. They become manifested within texts through genres, discourses

and styles (Fairclough, 2009:164).

As the CDA researcher is concerned primarily with the dialectic link between the

discursive and the broader social, Genres, Discourses and Styles are an important

framework for conceptualizing the association. With the framework, the researcher

is able to „build a bridge‟ (Fairclough, 1995) between a fine-grained linguistic analysis

at the level of the clause, and a broader social analysis of structure, by immediately

interpreting texts not as closed units, but through the ways they are “embedded

within, and relate to social conditions of production and consumption” (Richardson,

2007:39).

16

Genres within the framework link discourses to the social in fixed social practice (Li,

2009). They allow for the organisation of written language and other forms of

semiotic communication, establishing relatively stable norms which allow for the

performance of certain social interactions.

An example is the genre of the „News‟ article in newspapers. „News‟ has established

certain normative genre conventions over time, acting on the producers of the text by

limiting some and enabling other linguistic forms, and by shaping the ways in which

information is collected and organised. Recently, it has evolved to coordinate the

actions of news-gatherers, news-writers, editors, photographers and others over

large expanses of time and space. The information is collected, reinterpreted and

reorganised on numerous occasions in a chain of social action, a „genre chain‟

(Fairclough, 2003:30).

These chains of production and organizing conventions allow for the analysis of the

wider social structures that they are embedded in, and the linguistic strategies they

represent. For example, as I demonstrate in my analysis, a „News‟ story which

contains a large amount of direct or indirect quotations from military and government

sources, could indicate that a military or government press release has been a major

link in the genre chain. If military successes are highlighted in the headline and lead,

that inform about the textual strategies involved and the social action that is being

constructed through the text.

Discourses are established means of representing social events and social groups

“which are inherently positioned” (Fairclough, 2001:235). When linked to strategies

to change the world in certain directions and/or categorize social groups, they

become ideological. In this way they are „nodal points‟ in the dialectic relationship

between the semiotic realm and the ideational.

Ideological discourse, or discourse which does ideological work (Fairclough and

Wodak, 1997), is identified in the analysis through highlighting specific linguistic

features, outlined in table 1.1 below. As can be seen from the table, it is not

necessarily the individual words used which characterize ideological discourse, but

often the semantic relations between words and clauses (Fairclough, 2003:124-133).

17

Table 1.1 – Linguistic means of identifying ideological discourse in the

analysis

Linguistic Concept Description Presupposition & assumed meaning

The intertextual links to other texts – what ideologies are assumed and presupposed?

Evaluation What evaluations are explicitly or implicitly forwarded?

Legitimation Are elite social structures and value systems being legitimized through linguistic strategy?

Hyponymy Relations of meaning inclusion between words & clauses in a text e.g. „Taliban‟ & „Terrorist‟

Metaphor Combinations of metaphors characterize discourses

Labelling & Predication Categorizing social actors and framing voices with adjectives

Transitive verb structures Activating, passivating or backgrounding social actors when representing events

Nominalization & Metonym Replacing transitive verb structures with noun-like terms to remove social action and agency

Styles in textual analysis are “identities, or „ways of being‟, in their semiotic aspect”

(Fairclough, 2009:164). They symbolize who the author is, what they stand for, in

other words, their identity in their writing. That identity can be analysed and

contextualized by looking at what they commit themselves to in the text; their truth

claims, their evaluations and their modality choices (Fairclough, 2003:165-6).

The style(s) and associated identity(s) in a newspaper text will be socially

embedded, allowing the researcher to bridge the link to wider social practice. They

will also often be highly ideological, as characteristics seen as desirable and

undesirable, to both the author, and by implication, the desired readership, will be

identified with, and against. In the case of war discourse, such identifications will

often be associated with nation states and therefore touch on themes of national

identity. Here I draw on Billig‟s (1995) concept of the „deixis of homeland‟, where the

social practice of nationhood is built into the very fabric of national newspapers in

presupposed forms.

As I will describe in more detail below, Styles, or explicit author identification with

ideologies and discourses, tend to emerge within the genres of Analysis, Editorial,

Opinion or Comment in newspaper discourse, which is why I have decided to centre

my analysis of Style on these genres.

Genres and genre chains, representing social action, are most suitably

demonstrated at work through the analysis of the „News‟ category. It is the news

genre conventions which allow the shaping of a diverse range of voices and events

into a narrative, „inverted pyramid‟ structure, which is able to be instantly recognised

18

as a news article (Fairclough, 1995; Thomson, White et al., 2008). These

conventions bring with them their social relations of production, such as their

propensity to favour established elite sources, which then shape and structure the

genre. I aim to demonstrate by reference to Martin and White (2005), that the

generic conventions of the news genre work to background the author voice, and

restrict “unmediated (authorially-sourced) judgment”, and therefore the possibility of

discourse that is overtly critical of government and military evaluation and/or action

(Martin and White, 2005:168).

Linked to this I aim to demonstrate in statistical terms that evaluation is dominated by

a few „reliable‟, „authoritative‟ sources; known generators of news (Fowler, 1991;

Fairclough, 1995; Caldas-Coulthard, 1997). Although there are limitations to

quantitative analysis when applied to a CDA framework, as discussed in the

literature review, when demonstrated in simple terms and not linked to abstract

subjective categories, it can be useful to construct a strong narrative argument.

While the interweaving of sources in journalism is undoubtedly complex, and cannot

easily be reduced to numerical data, I anticipated that it would provide a useful

starting point to guide the reader into the qualitative close, more interpretive,

linguistic analysis.

Discourses, although they manifest themselves within the AEOC category, can

reveal more about the relations of production when analysed within the „News‟

category. Drawing on van Leeuwen (2008), van Dijk (1993; 1998), and Said (1981),

I aim to demonstrate discourses and ideologies of the powerful shaping texts through

the grammatical, lexical and narrative choices described in table 1.1.

Selection of texts and analysis strategy

Once I had decided that my analysis would be of British national daily newspaper

representation of „Operation Moshtarak‟, I needed to decide which texts would be

included in the sample. My aim was to include a selection of texts from what I

perceived as the „main‟, or best-selling dailies: The Express, The Guardian, The

Independent, Daily Mail, The Mirror, The Sun, The Telegraph and The Times. On

reflection these were selected purely on my own ideas, and not on any sales or

online readership data, however, I have found that these titles have been commonly

utilised elsewhere in the literature (Billig, 1995; Fairclough, 1995; Caldas-Coulthard,

1997; Bromsky and Cushion, 2002; Martin and White, 2005; Khosravinik, 2009;

Richardson, 2009). I also wanted to retain a balance in my sample, and I made a

decision that the eight titles were a good cross section of the national dailies.

When it came to selecting specific texts, I decided against using the Nexus/Lexis

database in order to create an entirely representative sample. I also wished to

include layout, images and diagrams in order to analyse each text as a unit of

semiosis, rather than merely written language (Fairclough, 1995; 2009). As CDA is

19

an analysis of „language in use‟, i.e. situated in a societal context, I wanted to

analyse the texts in the form that they would be consumed by the intended audience.

With the time restrictions of a Masters dissertation in mind, I aimed my sample at

approximately 30 texts. I therefore navigated onto each of the eight newspaper‟s

websites, and searched for „Afghanistan‟ and „Moshtarak‟ on 17th February, then

again on the 23rd February. I sampled articles using my own subjective criteria; the

articles should be discussing the war in Afghanistan as their main topic, and

preferably specifically mention Operation Moshtarak.

Appendix 1 lists the 31 texts included which fulfilled the criteria over a 17 day period

(5/02/10 – 22/02/10). The number of texts from each newspaper approximately

reflects the number of articles that matched the search, however a certain amount of

filtering was conducted in order to restrict the number of articles from one newspaper

to a maximum of six, in order to retain balance and representativeness.

Only two articles were sampled from before Operation Moshtarak was launched on

the 13th February, reflecting the number of articles published before it turned into a

„major news event‟. The number of articles available declined sharply around 1

week after the 13th, which is reflected in the sample frame ending nine days after the

launch.

The two categories of „News‟ and „Analysis/Editorial/Opinion/Comment‟ (AEOC)

were based on Martin and White (2005), who identify two modes, or styles, in

operation among journalists. Whereas „News‟ will rarely contain explicit author

attributed evaluation, in contrast „AEOC‟ will on a regular basis. Also Fowler (1991)

found that the „AEOC‟ category has specific syntactic characteristics, such as strong

modal truth claims, emotive vocabulary, and overtly argumentative rhetoric. This

makes it most useful for the analysis of the texts in terms of Style, one of the three

organizing semiotic systems by which I structure my analysis.

To obtain a mix of the two categories for my analysis, the second search on the 23rd

February was to obtain „AEOC‟ texts. As can be seen in Appendix 1, this category

appears frequently only after there has been a number of „News‟ articles on an

event.

My decision to structure my analysis around Genres, Discourses and Styles derived

both from Li (2009), who demonstrated that the approach allows the researcher to

explicate to the reader each aspect in turn at work in the texts, and also from my own

preliminary analysis. While I anticipate that the structure may give an incorrect

impression that Genres, Discourses and Styles are not simultaneously at work in all

texts, but only relate to certain genres, I found that certain texts best demonstrate

one particular concept at work (Fairclough 2003:27). To attempt to demonstrate all

three concepts and their associated linguistic forms simultaneously would have

ended in a confused and unstructured analysis. The structure also allows for variety

20

of focus, and the flexibility to draw on theories from outside CDA that were most

relevant to each section, such as Martin and White (2005) to analysis of genre, and

Billig (1995) to analysis of Style.

Ethical concerns

The epistemological position adopted in my research, where I have begun my

enquiry from the perspective of a social problem in its semiotic aspect, necessarily

entails applying my own etic frame of reference on their data, rather than that of the

marginalised group(s) whose dominance my research is intended to challenge. This

is also a risk associated with a research study based solely on textual analysis,

where no participants have been asked for their views on the social problem

addressed.

Schegloff, has warned that “The world is already known and is pre-interpreted in

light of the analyst‟s concerns” (Wetherell, 2001a: 385). Hammersley and Atkinson

(2007), similarly warn against the overt politics of the researcher distorting findings.

In an analysis of newspaper texts such as this, where I have selected texts for

qualitative analysis in a subjective manner, to fit Fairclough‟s closed theoretical

framework, Schegloff‟s critique is especially relevant. My own “socio-historical

location” (Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007), as a white, middle-class male, socialist,

anti-war activist, will have had effect on both my focusing on this social problem,

and the texts I have selected. Although the aims of CDA research are primarily

towards attaining socio-political goals (Wetherell, 2001a), this should not mean I

cannot go some way towards reflecting on the impact my own subject position will

have on the data.

One of the ways that this effect may be minimised in CDA is triangulation, i.e.

incorporation of different methods (Taylor, 2001a). Baker (2005) recommends a

„corpus-based‟ approach in order to triangulate the findings from the qualitative

analysis with quantitative data taken from a broader range of texts. Unfortunately a

fully „corpus-based‟ approach including hundreds of texts is outside the scope of this

study. However I hoped that the quantitative quotation pattern analysis would

perform a certain degree of triangulation, and would go some way to address this

concern.

Another related concern was that my research would have the opposite effect than

desired. Rather than challenging dominance my research could actually reproduce

representations that reinforce the status quo, much like the newspaper articles I set

out to critique. As Bourgois (2002) warned against, there is a danger in the act of

producing knowledge, this kind of research that is designed to challenge dominance

can instead result in reinforcing it. Because the aim of my research is to analyse

representations of people and perhaps offer alternative representations of my own, I

21

must be wary of relying too heavily on socially constructed categories in my analysis,

such as class, sex and race (Sapsford, 2007).

My privileged position as an academic researcher with the power to create

representations of my own, and reproduce those of powerful elites, must also be

recognised in a reflective approach. However, because all academic writing is in

some way a construction, where I am attempting to assemble a coherent narrative,

there are limits to the degree with which this can be addressed. These particular

concerns have been addressed in more detail in the Extended Methodological

Discussion.

22

Analysis

Analysis structure

As outlined in the methodology, the below analysis is structured into four main

sections:

1) A quantitative quotation pattern analysis which highlights both the

unrepresentative quantity of and salience afforded to UK military and

government sources in the sample.

2) A genre-focused qualitative analysis aiming to highlight how the primacy given

to certain sources is structured by and structures „News‟ texts, regulating and

filtering the discourse. I also chart the development of a „boundary genre‟,

mapping out the chain relations involved in its production.

3) A qualitative discourse analysis is then employed on two „News‟ texts in order

to explicate how grammatical and lexical selections can frame representations

of events in terms of „Them‟ versus „Us‟, drawing on historical discourses

intertextually.

4) A qualitative analysis of the „AEOC‟ category is utilized in order to

demonstrate how deeply embedded ideological conceptions of national

identity underpin that construction of „Them‟ versus „Us‟.

Quantitative quotation pattern analysis of the ‘News’ category

Table 2.2 displays a count of the number of words attributed to group categories,

either as direct or indirect quotations. Indirect quotations identify a person or

organization within the paragraph, and refer to them with for example „said…‟.

The categories developed from the data as I was coding, so were not pre-decided.

Demonstrated by Table 2.2 is that the group category „UK military high ranking

official‟ accounts for over 50% of the total attributed words in the sample, with nearly

75% of those words coming in the form of direct quotations, rather than indirect (not

marked with quotation marks).

Almost 80% (78.74%) of the attributed words in the sample draw from 4 elite group

categories; British or other Nato alliance military, or US or UK Governments.

Notably absent from the table are sources from any other Middle Eastern country,

including those that border Afghanistan, such as Pakistan and Iran, or those that are

influential in the region, such as Israel, Egypt or Saudi Arabia.

Afghan voices, excluding the Taliban, make up a combined total of 11.6% of

attributed words. Less than 20% of that total (2.27% of the total attributed words) is

23

from non-government or military sources, „Afghan civilian‟; the category most

affected by „Operation Moshtarak‟, but permitted little evaluative space to define

events.

Allowed even less space is the group category „UK military low ranking soldier‟,

accounting for less than one percent (0.88%) of the total attributed words, the lowest

of any of the categories. As I intend to explore in more detail further into the

analysis, those at the front line are much referenced in order to pursue certain

linguistic aims, but remain almost voiceless.

Table 2.3 indicates the average first paragraph that words attributed to a source

category appear, either directly or indirectly, in the 23 text sample. UK military high

ranking personnel‟s words appear on average, in paragraph five. With this average

it can be reliably inferred that on a number of occasions in their words appear in the

lead, and/or the first two paragraphs. The combined mean for UK high ranking

military and UK government is 5.87, with the mean value for the entire sample at

10.6.

Afghan voices, excluding the Taliban, first appeared on average in paragraph 15.16.

Again it could be reliably inferred that words from Afghan sources would not appear

frequently in the lead or first two or three paragraphs of texts in the sample.

This provides evidence that not only are elite voices privileged in terms of the

quantity of words reproduced, but they are also reproduced near to the beginning of

the „News‟ genre in a way that gives them salience and allows them to offer

interpretation on represented events, defining the themes and discourses of the text

(Fairclough, 2003; Thomson, White et al., 2008). When alternative voices do

appear, such as the Afghan people, they tend to be employed to provide elaboration

and comment on a Western elite representation.

24

Table 2.1 – Key for Tables 2.2 and 2.3

Table 2.2 – Number of words attributed to each source category in the sample

Table 2.3 – Average first paragraph of source category attributed words

UK Mty H Rank

Nato UK Govt

US Govt

Afg Govt

UK Mty L Rank

US Mty L Rank

Afg Mty

Afg Civ

Taliban

Other J

Family

5.00 7.33 6.75 7.50 11.00 6.00 14.33 16.00 18.50 17.00 11.33 6.5

Abbreviation Key

UK Mty H Rank UK military high ranking official

Nato High ranking military – not UK

UK Govt Source attributed to a branch of UK government US Govt Source attributed to a branch of US government

Afg Govt Source attributed to a branch of Afghan government

UK Mty L Rank UK military low ranking soldier

US Mty L Rank US military low ranking soldier Afg Mty Afghan military

Afg Civ Afghan civilian (not government, military or Taliban)

Taliban Attribution contained „Taliban‟

Other J Other journalist – not the author Family Family of UK soldier

UK Mty H Rank

Nato UK

Govt US

Govt Afg

Govt UK Mty L Rank

US Mty L Rank

Afg Mty Afg Civ Taliban Other J Family

Words Direct

1916 78 659 27 94 44 151 89 114 28 56

Words Indirect

657 300 261 58 83 54 203 59 76 17

Total Words

2573 378 920 85 177 44 205 292 114 87 76 73

% of Total

Words 51.21 7.52 18.31 1.69 3.52 0.88 4.08 5.81 2.27 1.73 1.51 1.45

25

Genres and social action

Sources and genre structure in The Guardian

It is a proposal of this research that the genre structure of the „News‟ article fixes the

social practice of producing news into a configuration whereby elite discourses are

systematically (re)produced, and alternative discourses, delimited and constrained.

The above quantitative analysis, while providing useful evidence for the dominance

of a small section of elite sources within the sample, cannot demonstrate how

alternative discourses are constrained from developing, or even entirely „filtered out‟

by genre chains and other normative conventions within naturally occurring

language. Elite discourses, in contrast, are systematically and routinely drawn upon

through the ascendancy of quoted source evaluation, and the subtle merging of

author/source identity (Fairclough, 1995; Caldas-Coulthard, 1997; Fairclough, 2003).

This can only be successfully demonstrated in a close qualitative analysis at the

level of the individual text.

The following article appeared in The Observer, the Sunday edition of The Guardian,

on 14th February 2010, the day after the launch of Operation Moshtarak. The below

extract is the Headline, then Subheadline, followed by the Lead:

Coalition troops force Taliban retreat from key stronghold

Meticulous operation achieves its military objectives with minimal casualties – but what are

the implications for President Barack Obama's aim to establish Afghan democracy?

Hundreds of American Marines and British soldiers claimed early successes last night against

light resistance as they advanced into key Taliban strongholds in southern Afghanistan in the

biggest operation against insurgents since 2001. (The Observer, 14th

February 2010)

The Headline/Subheadline/Lead subtly, and to differing degrees, weave in the voice

of a so far unnamed military source. Although there is no official quotation or source

identification, the language used is tinged with military „jargon‟, with words and

phrases such as „stronghold‟ „meticulous operation‟, „minimal casualties‟ and „light

resistance‟. What this indicates is that the linguistic style of the military

spokesperson, which carries with it ways of representing events (discourses), is so

pervasive in the genre of war „News‟ articles, that it permeates into paragraphs of

text where there is no military source named (Fowler, 1991).

While the extract would not have been coded in the quotation pattern analysis as

attributed to a source, as there is none named, the „military spokesperson‟ still

dominates the language, blurring lines between author and military source.

Evaluations inserted, such as „Meticulous operation achieves its military objectives

with minimal casualties’ can appear naturally emanating from the merged identity,

while an explicit author voice would be constrained from doing so.

26

The explicit authors voice‟s only contribution in the extract is a rhetorical question,

which functions ideologically, in that it presupposes a shared familiarity with a value

system that frames the aim of „Operation Moshtarak‟ as part of an historical

endeavour to establish Afghan democracy (Fairclough 2003: 173). In reality it is

evaluation masqueraded as a question to mask its function as such.

By way of such evaluative devices the merged author/source voice is able to define

the representation of events as an outstanding „success‟ for the Coalition, having not

only achieved their military aims, but in a meticulous way, minimising casualties.

This representation dominates not only in the Headline/Subheadline/Lead above, but

because the „body‟ of the „News‟ category acts as satellite to this section, the

narrative of the remainder of the text, as demonstrated below (Thomson, White et

al., 2008).

When British casualties are discussed, events are enfolded within the discourse

frame of the „fallen hero‟. The following extract is from paragraph one, directly

following the lead, from the same article:

One soldier from 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards was killed by an explosion while on vehicle

patrol in Operation Moshtarak in the Nad-e-Ali area. Gordon Brown last night paid tribute to

the fallen soldier. The prime minister said: "I want to pass on my condolences to the family

and friends of one of our soldiers, very brave, very courageous, lost in this assault, making

the ultimate sacrifice for our country.” (The Observer, 14th

February 2010)

The author voice is again backgrounded, as almost the entire paragraph is

composed of a direct quote from the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Instead

of the authors themselves evaluating the death of another British soldier, the

insertion of this quote permits the government source to pass evaluation, which acts

as an entrance point to the historical discourses of courageous, patriotic sacrifice,

which are themselves heavily ideologically loaded with notions of national identity.

The author voice emerges from the background only to give the „facts‟ of the death of

the soldier, and then to predicate Gordon Brown‟s speech with “paid tribute to the

fallen soldier”, facilitating the temporary transition to the genre of eulogy, which is

textured by his preferred identity of „statesman‟.

Explicit author evaluation emerges in paragraph 6, the voice now demarcated from

the military source by the predicate “in reality” (bold emphasis added):

In reality, British sources on the ground last night reported that most Taliban fighters had

"melted away" in the face of the offensive. (The Observer, 14th

February 2010)

However, rather than this leading to a full critique of the military and government‟s

frame for events established in the Headline/Subheadline/Lead, genre conventions

reassert themselves in the next paragraph, and the author voice is once again

backgrounded as further „authoritative‟ military sources are inserted. These

quotations are often preceded by predicates which reinforce the source evaluation

27

by blurring the boundaries between author and military voice, such as paragraph 8

below:

…British commanders had wanted to avoid collateral damage at all costs. Hours before the

offensive, the commander of British forces in Helmand, Brigadier James Cowan, had briefed

UK troops to avoid shooting even if it meant putting their lives in danger. He said: "Hold

your fire if there is a risk to the innocent, even if this puts you in greater danger. Restraint

requires courage.” (The Observer, 14th

February 2010)

The British commander in this extract has his voice pre-framed in the discourse of

humanitarianism by the author voice positive predicate „British commanders had

wanted to avoid collateral damage at all costs‟. The predicate also adds authority

and therefore evaluative weight to the quotation, further embellished with details of

his military rank; combined they form an identity able to pass evaluative judgement

on events (Smirnova, 2009),

The following extract is the Headline/Subheadline/Lead from The Guardian on 16th

February:

Coalition continues to advance in Afghanistan as civilian death toll reaches 20

Roadside bombs and teams of snipers slow progress of troops in Operation Moshtarak

Coalition forces continued to advance into Taliban-held areas in the violent southern Afghan

province of Helmand yesterday on the third day of a major offensive aimed at breaking the

insurgents' control over hundreds of thousands of local people. (The Guardian, 16th

February

2010)

The positive frame of meticulous success established in the previous article is

absent here, as news of civilian deaths permeates the Headline. However, the

military linguistic style is further evidenced in the lead with „advance into Taliban

areas‟ and „major offensive‟. The operation is then legitimized by a strong moral

evaluation form the author/military source identity, referencing the discourse of

humanitarian emancipation. The discourse frames the civilian deaths as

unfortunate, but a necessary evil and part of the long-term greater good of removing

the Taliban.

In paragraph 4, when it comes to providing human detail on the civilian deaths, or

„Extensivization‟ (Khosravinik, 2009), there is instead little more than explication of

the „facts‟, although some pathos is created through adding that the casualties

include six children:

Twelve people, including six children, died in an artillery strike on Sunday. Use of the

weapons systems responsible for the error had been suspended, coalition commanders in

Afghanistan said. (The Guardian, 16th

February 2010)

28

The detail of six child deaths creates a potential space for the author to discuss

possible social sanction for responsible individuals, but instead the military voice is

foregrounded, permitting the deflection of blame, via a neat nominalization that

removes human agency, to faulty „weapons systems‟, and away from military

personnel.

As demonstrated, explicit author evaluation on events is never permitted to develop,

as the genre conventions of the „News‟ category dictate that evaluation should

largely be deferred to the sources. When those sources are dominated by military

and government elites, their evaluations, which transmit discourses and ideologies,

provide the focus or angle for the entire text. When the author voice does emerge, it

is often written in the style of military jargon or political rhetoric, from a style or

identity merged with the dominant sources, or it acts merely as background facilitator

for source evaluation.

Alternative discourses that may emerge to set events into the historical context of

nine years of occupation in Afghanistan are therefore not permitted to develop,

constrained and filtered out by the conventions of the genre chain of news discourse

production, which prioritise the „official‟ voices of the British elite, and concentrate on

the immediate events of Operation Moshtarak only.

The emergence of the press release ‘boundary genre’ in The Mirror and The Express

I identified two „news‟ articles in the sample which are precisely the same text,

verbatim. The texts appeared in two different newspapers; The Express and The

Mirror, both published on the 16th February 2010 (Nato chief hails Afghan offensive).

Neither publication named an author.

I suspected that the texts may have originated as a press release, and felt that this

warranted further investigation into the genre chain(s) behind the articles, with a view

towards identifying some of the textual strategies and communicative events shaping

the production and publication of the text (Fairclough, 1995; 2001; 2003).

A Google search on the headline established that the text also appeared in „The

Helmand blog‟, a website “run by PJHQ and the team from UK Forces Media Ops”.

While there remained no named author, it did identify at conclusion „UK Press

Association‟, which when Google searched provides “Tailored News Feeds: Bespoke

online content written to your brief by Press Association journalists.”

The text is therefore a component part of a genre chain that closely interlinks “the

fields of government and media”, recontextualizing social practices of

government/military into a generic form easily reproduced in newspapers,

Fairclough‟s (2001:255) definition of a „boundary genre‟.

29

I have mapped the genre chain below:

Major General Carter (commander of UK forces in Afghanistan) delivers a press

release speech to a camera in Afghanistan

The speech is broadcast via video link to a press release briefing at the Ministry of

Defence in London

The speech is recontextualized as „News‟ genre article by unnamed journalist(s)

from UK Press Association

„News‟ genre article sent to Ministry of Defence for approval

After approval by Ministry of Defence, UK Press Association forwards article to

editors at UK newspapers

Editors at The Mirror and The Express decide to run the article without changes - the

text Nato chief hails Afghan offensive is (re)produced

The text, therefore, is essentially a reproduced press release, but one that does not

obviously originate from a press agency. Apart from the lack of attributed author, its

generic structure is very much the same as other „News‟ articles; it has a headline, a

lead, a body which includes direct and indirect quotes from the Major General with

predicates explicating his authority, spatial contextualisation, before concluding with

the coda; a eulogy for a fallen British soldier and a combined death toll in

Afghanistan since 2001 (Caldas-Coulthard, 1997; Thomson, White et al., 2008).

The generic structure and syntactic form of the article may be similar to the „News‟

texts that routinely rely heavily on military sources, as described in the previous

section, but the mapped genre chain reflects a highly developed integration and

networking of the semiotic practices of government and media, once separate

realms. Changes in genres reflect changes in wider society, and this increased

integration can be viewed as a “part of the transformations of new capitalism”

(Fairclough, 2003:66). Market discourses of efficiency have an ability to cause genre

chains to merge and create new „Boundary genres‟, which then allow for the more

30

efficient (re)production of elite discourses, reinforcing their dominant position over

alternative modes of representation.

Discourses and representations – defining and positioning social actors and

groups

Transitive verb structures in The Times

Fairclough defines a discourse as representing a part or aspect of the world from a

particular perspective (Fairclough, 2003:130). Discourses, acting as nodal points

between the social and the semiotic realms, linguistically manifest such perspectives

within media texts as lexical selection, choices of grammar, or narrative structuring.

Through such language choices made when assembling the newspaper article,

social events can be thus framed to “include or exclude social actors to suit their

interests and purposes in relation to the readers for whom they are intended” (van

Leeuwen, 2008:28).

An example of a grammatical selection which can be employed by author(s) is the

employment of transitive or intransitive verb structures. These can serve to activate,

passivate, or background social actors in a represented event. The basic form of a

transitive verb structure is: Subject + Verb + Object, with the actor (subject) doing

something (verb) to the patient (object) (Fairclough, 1995:111). The below headline

from The Sunday Times on 14th February 2010 gives an example:

British spearhead allied offensive in Afghanistan

British(subject) spearhead(verb) allied offensive in Afghanistan(object)

Here, „British‟ is the activated subject, „doing something‟ (spearhead) to the „object‟

or „patient‟ (Afghanistan).

Below I have extracted the transitive verb structures from paragraphs 2-9 of the

article which represent the actions of the „Allied forces‟. The full text of the article

can be found at Appendix 2:

“Thousands of troops(subject) took part in an American-led air and ground assault to

seize(verb) control of the Taliban stronghold of Marjah(object).”

“British soldiers(subject) landing in waves of helicopters joined forces with other troops on

the ground to take(verb) Taliban territory(object) near Nad-e-Ali, to the northeast”

“the marines(subject) appeared to control(verb) much of Marjah(object)”

“The British(subject) also launched(verb) a missile at an insurgent(object) seen planting a

home-made bomb on a track”

“the Royal Welsh(subject) secured(verb) compounds, roads and canals(objects).”

31

(The Sunday Times 14th

February 2010)

The „Allied forces‟, with a particular slant towards the British, are represented

through the employment of transitive verb structures as the dominant social actor in

the text. They have the power and agency, acting on and in control of the objects

(The Taliban and their territory) in the event represented (the launch of Operation

Moshtarak). Active verbs such as „seize‟, „take‟, „control‟, „launched‟ and „secured‟,

combined with detailing nouns such as „helicopters‟ and „missiles‟, are lexical

selections which add detail to the grammatical structure.

Intertextual discourses (re)produced at the broader syntactic level are those of the

domination and power of the West, who through technical and military superiority

over the „primitive‟ East, are able to gain control over both Marjah as a

territory/object and the Afghan/Taliban social actor.

In contrast there is the only one transitive verb structure in the extract which

represents the actions of opposition forces:

“and some foreign fighters(subject) were said to be among those exchanging(verb) fire with

the Americans(subject)”

This transitive verb structure represents the actions of „foreign fighters‟ (presumably

not the Taliban who are Afghans). It is a passive verb structure, as „exchange‟ is not

an active verb such as „launch‟ or „seize‟. The action is also consigned to the

„subordinate‟ clause, with the „main‟ clause of the sentence (before the „and‟)

represents an allied action. Such syntax serves to pacify the „enemy‟ action to an

afterthought (Fairclough, 2001). The clause could alternatively be termed: “Taliban

forces combined with foreign volunteer fighters fired on the Americans”. Textual

absence, what is not said, has important effects on syntactic structure, facilitating the

reproduction of certain perspectives (Richardson, 2007).

There is also one intransitive verb structure in the extract, describing actions of

opposition forces, with no patient or object:

“although the Taliban(subject) claimed(verb) they were still in command”

Again the verb is a passive one (claimed), again the action appears in the

subordinate clause, with the main clause describing actions of the allies, and the

object for the subject to act on via the verb is absent. The Taliban social actor here,

while not completely excluded, is backgrounded, or „passivated‟ (Fairclough, 2003;

van Leeuwen, 2008). Taliban action is framed as of little consequence to those of

the dominant social actor in the event, the Western „Allies‟.

In the following three extracts the Taliban as social actor is excluded completely from

events. The „subject‟ actor is replaced by a noun (nominalization). Those actions

are further pacified with the use of modifying adjectives:

32

“Alliance forces(subject) met(verb) only sporadic(modifying adjective) resistance(noun)”

The Taliban actor here is deleted from the process and replaced by the noun

„resistance‟, with any agency further pacified by the modifying adjective „sporadic‟.

“The US marine(subject) died(verb) from small arms fire(noun phrase).”

The actor here that killed the US marine is replaced by the noun-phrase „small-arms

fire‟.

“Bombs and booby traps(noun) slowed(verb) the advance of the troops(object)”

Again the actor, or the „subject‟ in the verb structure is absent, replaced by the noun

phrase „Bombs and booby traps‟. The above nominalizations therefore allow for the

exclusion of the Taliban as social actor from events, deemphasizing their agency in

the text at a micro grammatical level, but also at a broader syntactical level; the

relationship between clauses and sentences.

There are further grammatical and lexical means by which the Allies are represented

as powerful and in control, and the Taliban contrasted as primitive and backward

within this article. The use of the adjective „overwhelming‟ in “an overwhelming

display of firepower” evokes a metaphor of unstoppable force and technological

prowess. Similarly “waves of helicopters” evokes a metaphor of the natural,

relentless force of the sea. Both of these contribute to a discourse of Western

domination.

The Taliban, by contrast, are labelled through adjective as disorganised; “confused

and disjointed”, and only able to offer “sporadic resistance”, through the use of

“home-made” explosives, in the face of the „overwhelming‟ technological superiority

of the Allies.

The above text is simultaneously representing and (re)producing, by reference to

intertextual discourses, the unequal power relation between the Western military and

the Afghan Taliban (Fairclough and Wodak, 1997). Western governments and

military are demonstrably exercising their social power and dominance over the

Afghan people through text (van Dijk, 1993).

Legitimization strategies, the ideological square, and blame shifting in The Mirror

In Van Dijk‟s „Ideological Square‟ model, “dominance is semantically signalled by

positive self-presentation and negative other-presentation or derogation” (van Dijk,

1993:312). When writing about an „out-group‟ in relation to their own „in-group‟ the

author‟s underlying ideological frameworks can be demonstrated through analysis of

linguistic emphasis (Oktar, 2001). They will tend to emphasize positive aspects

“about the group of the speaker, and negative about opponents or Others” (van Dijk,

1998:41)

33

Whereas in The Sunday Times text above, transitive verb structures and lexical

selection were employed for „positive self-presentation‟ of the „in-group‟ as powerful

and dominant, in the below extract from The Mirror on the 18th February 2010

(Taliban using kids as human shields in Afghanistan) by contrast, they are employed

for „negative other-presentation‟; shifting agency, and therefore blame, onto the

Taliban for the deaths of civilians, and in the process legitimizing the actions of the

Allies/Nato.

The following extract is the article‟s first 2 paragraphs, following the headline and

lead, coded in terms of transitive verb structures (the full text can be found in

Appendix 3):

“Ruthless(modifying adjective) insurgents(subject) are using(verb) civilians(object) as

shields(noun) to hamper(verb) Nato attacks”

“Diehards(subject) holed up in Marjah have been hiding(verb) behind women, children and

old people(object) before firing(verb) on assault teams(object).” (The Mirror, 18th

February

2010)

Transitive verb structures are utilised here to „activate‟ the Taliban as agent, and

„background‟ the Allies/Nato. However, instead of the positive representation of

power and control as in The Times article, here a negative frame is created; one of

scant morality towards innocents and cowardly behaviour. The object/patient, are

„women, children and old people‟ (innocent by implication), who are forced to act as

„human shields‟ by the „Diehards‟. This extensivized degree of human detail was

notably absent from representations of civilian deaths attributed to the Allies/Nato in

The Guardian article in the previous section.

The adjective „Ruthless‟ and descriptive noun „Diehards‟ add to the „negative-other

presentation‟ of irrational, uncivilised, barbaric men depicted in the headline and

photo (see Appendix 3).

The next paragraph „positively presents‟ the Allies/Nato, allowing the Allied

commander to take a position of moral evaluation, signified by the adjective

„disgusted‟, and contrast „Us‟ to „Them‟ the „rebel‟ savages:

One disgusted commander said rebels actually want the helpless townsfolk gunned down as it

would be a propaganda disaster for government forces. (The Mirror, 18th

February 2010)

The Nato occupation of Afghanistan is therefore legitimized through both moral

evaluation and through „Mythopoesis‟ (narrative) (Fairclough, 2003). Without

intertextual meaning association it would be difficult to represent a social group as

simultaneously „ruthless‟ and „cowardly‟, but via reference to historical discourses of

Middle Eastern low morality (the infamous „symbolic villain Saddam Hussein also

used human shields), in comparison to „Our‟ own (western) high moral standards,

the narrative structure of the article is able to conjoin the two disparate meanings

34

together, and a relation of meaning inclusion is reproduced (a hyponymy in

linguistics).

Only once agency and blame is established through this moral derogation, the death

of civilians, previously the responsibility of the Allies/Nato, can be shifted to the

Taliban, in paragraphs 6 below:

On Tuesday the UK's top commander in southern Afghanistan, Maj Gen Nick Carter, said a

rocket salvo which killed 12 civilians "did not miss its target". (The Mirror, 18th February

2010)

If the above paragraph was placed at the beginning of the text, its semantic meaning

would vary from that which is established in placing it lower down, in the „body‟,

where it functions as contextualization to the headline, the lead, and the first two

paragraphs (Thomson, White et al., 2008). This is a narrative structure that has

been selected for ideological effect.

Because of the narrative structure, the two paragraphs function as „enthymeme‟; an

argument where the logic is omitted as obvious, relying on both syntactic links to the

headline/lead/photo, and intertextual links to historical discourses on the Taliban and

the Middle East, negating any requirement to explicitly state that the civilian deaths

were the fault of the Taliban. Thus the text recontextualizes and reduces a “complex

series of events” into a coherent narrative, which rests “upon assumptions which are

discourse-specific and discourse-relative” (Fairclough, 2003: 84 & 132).

The text can therefore be observed as doing „ideological work‟ (Fairclough and

Wodak, 1997), in that it can be demonstrated to help maintain social relations of

power and domination of the West over the Afghan people. By drawing on

discourses and ideological frameworks which „negatively-present‟ a cruel, barbarous

„Other‟, it allows semantic room for a positive self-presentation‟ of „Us‟ in contrast. I

discuss the „in-group‟ identity of „Us‟ versus „Them‟ in further detail in the next

section.

Styles, Modality and National Identity in ‘AEOC’

In „News‟ category analysis above, genre conventions restrain author evaluation and

judgment. In contrast, according to Fowler (1991) and Martin and White (2005), texts

in the sample belonging to the genres; „Analysis/Editorial/Opinion/Comment‟ could

be expected to contain more explicit “authorially-sourced inscribed judgement”

(Martin and White, 2005:167). In other words, evaluation and judgment on

represented events in the author voice, should not be contained within, or directly

influenced by, a direct or indirect quotation. Freed from the genre constraints of

„Hard News‟, it may be anticipated that alternative discourses may emerge within the

35

„AEOC‟ category which may represent the events of Operation Moshtarak through

discourses not dominated by elite source evaluation.

However, as I demonstrate in the analysis below, authorship of the genre category

„AEOC‟ is regularly populated by military or former military sources, and therefore

deeply permeated by military language. When it isn‟t dominated in such a way, there

are deeply embedded ideological frameworks which implicitly position the

identity/voice of the author as the British national identity, identifying against that of

the Other, the Afghan people.

Firstly I examine an „AEOC‟ text that appeared in The Telegraph on 15th February

2010 (The brave and honourable spirit of Britain's soldiers will benefit us all). The full

text is at Appendix 4. The article has the below subheadline:

The daily exercise in Afghanistan of will-power and leadership serves the best human

instincts, says Crispin Black. (The Telegraph, 15th

February 2010)

The Headline/Subheadline are accompanied by a photo (see Appendix 4) where

there is a close-up of a rugged, gritty, determined-looking soldier. The helicopter

behind looks as if it has just landed, and the soldiers appear ready for action. The

British soldier uniforms act as „flags‟ of British national identity (Billig, 1995; Li, 2009).

The multisemiotic meaning derived, combined with substantive adjectives in the

Headline/Subheadline; „brave‟ & „honourable‟, „will-power and leadership‟, is that

British soldiers will „get on with the job in hand, against the odds‟. Audiences are

intended to identify with this representation of British national identity via intertextual

links to historical discourses.

In paragraph three below, I have highlighted in bold, pronominal plurals which

position the identity („we‟), not as the military (referred to as „they‟), but as the

national identity, although the author himself was a commander in the Falklands war,

and „served three tours in Northern Ireland‟. The purpose of the paragraph,

however, is to facilitate a narrative which will “align the reader in a community of

shared value” (Martin and White, 2005:217). That readership will probably include

those without a military background.

In the main, though, the images being sent home are reassuring: the generals seem confident

at last that they(military) have a plan that will actually work and they(military) have the

American resources to implement it. We(nation) see the purposeful grace of young soldiers

striding towards a helicopter; the curiously domestic and very British touch of an explosives

sniffer-dog being stroked by his handler; the extreme coolness of a bomb-disposal expert

moving forward on a clearance. (The Telegraph, 15th

February 2010)

The author here speaks for „Us‟, the Nation, with „We see‟, i.e. observer of events

through the prism of the media. Personal soldier detail is then employed in order to

embellish the reader with supposedly implicit characteristics of the British national

36

identity, syntactically linked to the Headline/Subheadline and photo, referring to „Our‟

love of animals and „extreme coolness‟ under pressure.

Only once the „we‟ national identity has been established, the personal pronoun „I‟

can emerge, and we learn the author‟s life-narrative as „military hero‟, which would

otherwise conflict with the „we‟ of outside observer. The below is an extract from

paragraph 6:

More than a quarter of a century ago I(author) was embarked with my(author) Welsh Guards

platoon on the RFA Sir Galahad when she was attacked by Argentine naval aircraft.

…I(author) suspect Afghanistan can be more demanding. The outstanding characteristic of

this campaign is that it is(truth claim) more gruelling than most recent experience. (The

Telegraph, 15th

February 2010)

Via narrative structure and subtle identity shift, the author establishes for themselves

a dual identity, one that is simultaneously „we‟ the detached observer who only

experiences war through the mass-media, and so able to speak on „our‟ behalf, and

„I‟ the military hero, an expert on the trials of war. Only once this second identity, or

character, is established is the author able to insert the strong truth claim signified by

the modal marker „it is‟ (Fairclough, 2003: 164-171).

This identity of „military hero‟ is then further embellished in paragraph 8 below, where

the author makes an explicit evaluative statement on the characteristics:

Abstract notions which some sneer at are realities in times of danger: discipline, duty,

honour, obedience, loyalty, love of Queen and country, humility, humour and cooperation –

which in a military sense means sharing the burdens and dangers of war fairly among men

and among units. (The Telegraph, 15th

February 2010)

Whereas in the paragraph 6 the statement contained an epistemic (truth) modality,

here it is deontic (obligational) (Fairclough, 2003: 173). The subjugated power

relation inherent for the low-ranking British soldier, which the narrative earlier made

opaque by the interweaving of ideological representations of national identity,

momentarily surfaces; they must show „obedience‟ and „loyalty‟ to the apparatus of

the state, disguised by the homeland flag „Queen and country‟.

This „deixis of homeland‟, which “invokes the national „we‟ and places „us‟ within „our‟

homeland.” (Billig, 1995:107) appears elsewhere in the „AEOC‟ category, not only in

newspapers traditionally seen as politically „right of centre‟ such as The Telegraph or

The Times.

The below extract appeared in The Independent (Leading article: Let this operation

be the last) on 14th February 2010. I have marked in bold where there are

pronominal plurals marking identity:

We(paper) concluded, on Remembrance Sunday last year, that it was time to scale back

our(nation) ambitions in Afghanistan and to begin to bring British troops home. We(paper)

37

argued that the best way of fulfilling our(nation) obligations to the Afghan people(them)

was to promote political dialogue and economic reconstruction. Plainly security is important,

but our(nation) role should be focused on training and supporting Afghan forces while

reducing our(nation) soldiers' front-line role in their(them) policing. (The Independent, 14th

February 2010)

The genre of „Editorial‟, with no named author, means the author automatically

assumes the identity of the Newspaper, signalled by the opening „We‟. However, the

homeland flag of Remembrance Sunday, a collective memory marker (Li, 2009),

then enables the author identity to merge with the British national identity, signalled

by „our‟. Once merged it can be identified against the „Afghan people‟, who signal

the Other. Although references are made to training „their policing‟, the deixis of

homeland centres concern on the safety of „our soldiers‟.

This concern for „our soldiers‟ is similarly made explicit in The Guardian „comment‟

genre (Why is our anti-war outrage muted at this Afghan folly?) from 16th February

2010:

How can a war that has taken the lives of more UK service personnel than any other in half a

century be met with such ambivalence? Or to put it another way: why are we(nation) not

responding to Afghanistan(they) in the way we did to Iraq? (The Guardian, 16th

February

2010)

Although the explicit meanings of both texts, signalled by their headlines, are against

the war, the motivation to end the conflict is not a humanitarian one for „them‟ the

Afghan people, but concern for „our soldiers‟. The pronominal plural „we‟ assumes

the national identity of Britain, automatically excluding the Afghan people, and

thereby (re)producing relations of dominance and exploitation between the two

nation states. While not necessarily a deliberate strategy, it is an inherent social-

action of the discourse practice of national newspapers, in particular the „AEOC‟

category, “to stand in the eye of the country” (Billig, 1995:114), to assume the

identity of the nation, and thereby systematically exclude others.

38

Conclusion

The central conclusion of the evidence presented above is that UK national

newspaper production functions as a network of elite social practices. Through

dialectic links to the organizing nodes of long established, but evolving, genres,

discourses and styles, the network semiotically represented „Operation Moshtarak‟ in

such a way as to legitimate the status quo, and to marginalize alternative means of

representing events. Such genres, discourses and styles have been demonstrated

to be, in turn, the semiotic aspects of the social actions, social relations and social

identities of those networks of elite power.

Demonstrated by the genre chain analysis, media practice networks are becoming

increasingly integrated with government and military practice networks, forming a

coherent, highly powerful, and hegemonic „order of discourse‟, with the capacity to

strategically recontextualize global events seamlessly for elite purposes (Fairclough,

1995; 2003). Fairclough has highlighted “the growing importance of semiotic

processes (political „communication‟) in government” (Fairclough 2009:177). Further

research is required into these evolving military/government/media genre chains,

which moves beyond solely text-based methods, into an integrated approach

incorporating institution analysis of the three organizational domains.

This research has highlighted the role of normative newspaper generic conventions,

especially source conventions, in constraining and filtering discourse in „Hard News‟

representation of Operation Moshtarak. While work such as Smirnova (2009)

demonstrated how British newspapers require authoritative sources in order to

compose a coherent argument, this could be combined with Martin and White‟s

(2005) „evaluative keys‟; voices or roles that journalists take on which constrain their

ability to explicitly evaluate, increasing their need to heavily rely on such sources.

Further research could explore the specific genre and discourse practices of war

reporting which further limit access to alternative sources, and which may provide

alternative evaluations and allow alternative discourses to emerge.

One of the implications of this study for further research on UK National newspaper

representation of war must be that the traditional dichotomies between „liberal‟ and

„conservative‟ newspapers, or „broadsheets‟ and „tabloids‟, are becoming

increasingly irrelevant. I have therefore attempted to refrain from using such easy

categorizations as much as possible. Concurring with Khosravinik (2009), I found

that while differences in presentation and linguistic style undoubtedly remain, deeply

held and presupposed ideologies of national identity are the primary prisms through

which representations of conflict are refracted in all newspaper titles in the sample.

Such ideological frameworks are so pervasive in the analysed texts, that they have

become deeply embedded within the very “familiar habits of language”; terms such

as „us‟, „we‟ and „this‟ which flag the homeland daily (Billig, 1995:94). The texts are

„doing ideological work‟, as they can be seen as weaving “together particular

39

representations of reality, and particular constructions of identity, especially of the

collective identities of groups and communities” (Fairclough and Wodak, 1997:61).

British nationhood is a social practice, and the analysed texts are that practice‟s

semiotic aspect, mediated by the discourse practices of the media, in the two-way

dialectic relationship (Billig, 1995; Fairclough, 1995; Fairclough, 2009). As any other

social practice, nationhood must be enacted on a daily basis, until it becomes

habitual, and daily national newspapers are the perfect semiotic vehicle,

simultaneously defining and being defined by it (Billig, 1995).

Of greater concern to the CDA researcher focused on domination and unequal

power relations, are the function of deeply embedded ideological frameworks of

nationhood in not only perpetuating constructions of the identity of „Britishness‟, but

by implication, discursive constructions of identity which are conceived as „Un-

British‟. As was highlighted in The Telegraph „AEOC‟ article above, such

constructions, through their familiarity to the reader, are assumed to an extent where

„Britishness‟ is (re)produced as an essentialist assumption, textually realised in

substantive adjectives such as „brave‟ and „honourable‟, and embodied by the

identity of the „British military hero‟. Such essentialist assumptions were shown to

contrast against what is constructed as essentially „Eastern‟; irrational, anti-civilized,

fundamentalist, etc (Said, 1981).

Said (1981) saw that an essentialist „Islam‟, or „Arab world‟ is a necessary Western

construction, in order “that numerous manipulative aims can be realized”, including

invasion and/or economic and cultural domination (Said, 1981:xviii). „Orientalism‟ for

Said, has historically performed the ideological work of justifying Western domination

over the East, and today is no different. Representations that routinely construct „us‟

versus „them‟, although routine, systemic, and embedded within our very language,

are required to be challenged by CDA research, in order to move public discourse

beyond ideological frameworks that routinely (re)produce unequal power relations.

Texts in the sample which pertained to in opposition to the war, such as The

Independent editorial or The Guardian comment, (re)produce such ideological

frameworks to equal degrees to those that less subtly champion the Nato occupation

of Afghanistan. Discussion is framed by ideas of „our role‟ in the situation/crisis,

which is justified by reference to Orientalist preconstructed meanings that the Afghan

people are incapable of forming their own stable democracy. Discourses which may

represent the conflict as a continuation of over 150 years of Western domination,

which has actively prevented rule by the people, are excluded by the dominant style

of „our national interests‟.

A running theme throughout the analysed texts has been the discursive construction

of the „Military Hero‟ identity, the manufacture of an unblemished character of almost

Greek mythical dimensions. Whereas the lower-ranked British soldier was almost

completely excluded from commenting on, let alone evaluating on, events (less than

1% of attributed words in the quotation pattern analysis), there has certainly not been

40

a shortage of elites referencing them, in order to perpetuate ideologies of inherent

British „traits‟, legitimize the presence of British troops and/or demonize the Taliban,

or position the newspaper as „patriotic‟.

While there is regular concern for „our soldiers‟, they are given minimal grammatical

agency; passivated & subjected as the object in the process (van Leeuwen,

2008:33), with the grammatical role of the possessive noun. „Our soldiers‟ are

possessed by „us‟, the nation, but have no agency of their own to actively shape

events, and little voice.

Further research could explore the intertextual development of this hero myth, and

its links to discourse practice formations such as „Help for Heroes‟. The Sun‟s „Tears

for Heroes‟ campaign, which I have not had the capacity to include here, may be

particularly useful to analyse as a separate study. The primary means that British

lower rank soldiers attain representation in newspaper discourse is through death,

where they die as „heroes‟. Altheide‟s (2007) work on the textual construction of the

hero myth in US newspaper discourse, and its role in the obscuration of the realities

of life and death on the front line, could be useful here.

41

Extended Methodological Discussion

I intend to divide this discussion into three sections. I begin with a discussion of two

different lines of critique of CDA, and Fairclough‟s model in particular, centred on

papers from eminent scholars in the fields of media and discourse studies

respectively; Philo (2007) and Billig (2008). I then conclude by reflecting on the

strengths and merits of the discourse tradition and what it can offer us going forward.

The limits of a discourse analysis

I have held concerns throughout my research project that my analysis of the social

practice of print journalism may be limited by the reliance on a sole data source;

texts. This has been informed by awareness of two additional domains of print

journalism which textual analysis does not provide direct evidence for the workings

of; production and consumption.

Philo‟s (2007) critique of CDA centres on the claim that a discipline that focuses

solely on the analysis of text will be “limited in the conclusions which can be drawn,

since their approach does not include the study of key production factors in

journalism or the analysis of audience understanding” (Philo, 2007:175).

In other words, for Philo, there are three distinct domains of print journalism; (i) the

discourse practices of production, (ii) its concrete material form in texts, and (iii)

audience reception, consumption and understanding. Whereas CDA does not

usually draw conclusions on the complexities of audience understanding, one of the

discipline‟s central epistemological tenets is that it is able to gain an understanding of

the field of media production, from studying the texts that the social activity

produces, acting as a „bridge‟ between the two domains (Fairclough, 1995:76)

Philo challenges this assumption by positing that there are outside forces, or

contextual factors, which cannot always be made explicit through textual analysis

alone, and which shape the discursive practices of production and therefore the

texts.

One such outside force is the human agency of individual journalists, who may have

their own ethical agendas, which move them to work against the interests of the

newspaper editors/owners. I had considered incorporating interviews of journalists

into my methodology, in order to provide more external context and consideration of

the broad range of factors influencing texts that is so central to CDA epistemology.

However, my textual analysis revealed little evidence of ethical agendas reaching the

published article. What it instead concluded was that print media chains of

production function in such a way that individual work, which may contain alternative

and ethical discourse, is filtered out by normative genre conventions, before it can

reach the textual domain. The ethics of individual journalists are made irrelevant by

42

recontextualizing modes of production, as the modern journalistic text is less the

work of a single ethical journalist than “a series of transformations across…a chain of

communicative events” (Fairclough, 1995:49).

On reflection, CDA could move further towards an understanding of audience

perception of media texts. CDA methodologies, being inherently flexible, could

usefully be integrated with ethnographic data collection in order to create a robust

argument. Much of what Fairclough (2003:34) notes about the recontextualization of

media texts into our everyday lives remains speculation without direct evidence. I

had at one time considered integrating focus groups into my research, in order to

explore British Muslims‟ reactions to the representation of Islam in newspapers

during Operation Moshtarak, and whether they impacted on their identities as British

or Muslim. This I realised, would make a whole separate study, but could however

be an avenue for further research.

Philo also criticises CDA for analysing articles in terms of „textual absence‟, i.e.

representing events by including only those facets which support the elite discourse,

but not providing any evidence for the counter-argument. He uses the example of

his work in the 1970s with the Glasgow school, where they utilised statistics in order

to counter the prevailing ideology that trade unions were responsible for the

economic recession. Similarly I could have provided statistical data such as civilian

deaths caused by Taliban and Nato in Afghanistan since 2001 to refute elite source

evaluation.

However, I feel that Philo missed the point slightly by positing such statistics as

„truths‟. The critical realist epistemology of CDA would regard such statistical data

as merely ideologically positioned discourse, with the design of CDA research not to

contribute to the (re)production of any unattainable „truth‟, but to deconstruct elite

discourses and ideologies which are presented as „truths‟ as socio/historical

discursive constructions.

The danger of producing technical jargon and elitist language

Billig (2008) posits a useful reflective warning for the emergent analyst such as

myself, when he illustrates that I must be vigilant in order to avoid reproducing elitist

linguistic forms that I myself critique. By the application of concepts and technical

terms from linguistics in the criticism of the language of the powerful, there is a

danger that my research will contribute to the perpetuation of an exclusivist

academic „ivory tower‟, which works to exclude others and precludes engagement

from those unversed in its technical aspects.

The ultimate aim of a CDA is to affect social change by addressing a social wrong in

its semiotic aspect (Fairclough, 2001; 2009). With this in mind, I have attempted to

tailor my writing style so that it would not be completely inaccessible to those from

43

outside of discourse analysis, with the anticipation that it may make a contribution to

wider debates on the media outside academia. Billig contests that the use of the key

concepts of CDA derived from linguistics can work against this aim, becoming

„jargon‟ which then become markers of status within an exclusive field. For Billig

such „jargon‟, is inherently elitist, in that it emerges within and sustains “social

conditions of inequality” (Billig, 2008:795). As CDA grows to become an established

discipline within the social sciences, the danger is that academics will use „jargon‟ in

order to justify their social position.

The CDA analyst such as myself, when using terminology such as nominalization in

their critiques of the language of the powerful, is also in danger of “instantiating in

their own writings the same linguistic forms that they criticize in the language of

others” (Billig, 2008:784). When I illustrated nominalization in The Guardian article, I

highlighted the deflection of blame for civilian deaths from human agents onto „faulty

weapons systems‟. I was thereby describing a process by which human agency is

deleted from a clause, through the employment of a noun phrase in place of a

transitive verb structure which would have a subject and actor, and therefore human

cause and effect.

Billig however, warns that nominalization is itself a noun phrase that removes human

agency. Rarely referred to as „he nominalised the verb‟, nominalization is instead

most often presented as a systemic/linguistic entity, like an adjective or pronoun,

with the human actor, the author that has chosen to replace the verb with the noun,

deleted. CDA analysts who illustrate nominalizations are often “vague about the

ways speakers/writers accomplish this transformation” (Billig, 2008:792). For Billig,

this has the political impact of making the reality of social relations more opaque, in

contrast to the desired effect, by masking the actions of powerful elites as an

obscure, abstract system, rather than a collection of individuals who should be held

responsible for their actions.

In defence of my work, abstract concepts such as „nominalization‟ have always been

required in the social sciences, in order to move beyond Machiavellian ideas that we

are all merely a collection of individuals, working only for our own gain. Fundamental

concepts of critical social theory such as Gramsci‟s Hegemony or Foucault‟s

Power/Knowledge have allowed theorists to move beyond such simplistic portrayals,

to a more nuanced and complex understanding of society, where individuals are

influenced and constrained by the institutions, discourses and ideologies that frame

their social practices. Unless we do this the danger is that individuals will be

sacrificed as scapegoats and the necessity for fundamental social change will be

papered over.

Although the technical „jargon‟ of CDA can work to exclude, this must be weighed

against the demystifying work it does in highlighting the power of elite language.

And as Fairclough (2008) points out in his reply to Billig, the analyst‟s written

language can be tailored for different audiences, in order to maximise the potential to

44

interact with those outside the discipline of CDA, without reducing theoretical depth

of academic writing. However, Billig‟s critique remains a useful reminder that writen

style should work to include rather than exclude.

Why we need Critical Discourse Analysis

I intend to complete this extended methodological discussion by highlighting the role

CDA can play in a world increasingly influenced by its dialectic links to the semiotic

realm. As Fairclough & Wodak (1997) and Fairclough (2001) illustrated, elites have

been increasingly implementing technical means of exploiting the dialectic since the

1980s. They coined the rise of Public Relations, spin-doctors, media relations, and

other institutionalized practices as the „technologization of discourse‟ and

conceptualise it as “the systematic institutional integration of research on language;

design and redesign of language practices; and training of institutional personnel in

these practices” (Fairclough, 2001:232). Plainly, elites are fully aware of the power

of semiosis and its ability to actively shape wider social practice, and they have been

actively shaping institutional practice networks around this knowledge at an

increased pace since the 1980s.

As I have described in my analysis, changes in social practice result in changes in

genres, which in turn enable elite networks to develop new forms of integrated social

action, which feeds back to increase the pace of social change (Fairclough,

2003:65). Critical Discourse Analysis is the primary means by which we can

conceptualise and theorize such complex, but powerful, discourse practice

formations. Although many accept that something is wrong with the media, CDA

allows for the structured analysis of how it interacts with social practice, though

relatively stable semiotic systems (genres, discourses and styles). The cumulative

effect that the media has on us in our busy daily lives is often subtle, and works at

the fundamental level of our identities; who and what we identify with or against.

CDA allows us to question these deeply presupposed assumptions in texts.

As I have demonstrated, the mass media can work to envelop an issue within a

closed paradigm, outside of which it is often difficult to construct an alternative

argument (Richardson, 2007). The internet is becoming the primary space by which

alternative discourses are (re)produced. Further research which builds on my

findings could explore whether such discourses that derive from internet texts

become sufficiently powerful to challenge elite representations of events, such as

Operation Moshtarak. One of the main criticisms of the internet however, is that as a

format it does not encourage in-depth theoretical discussion or debate, although

there is no doubt how useful it is for the organization of resistance.

Critical analysis writing such as this research has the capacity to create a breathing

space, from which alternative ways of representing events can be generated, which

are not necessarily permitted within the established genres, discourses and styles of

45

the print media, nor the fragmented and fluid world of the internet. CDA‟s

transdisciplinary tendencies and methodological flexibility can allow it to continue to

analyse social change and elite power formations in a rapidly changing world.

46

Bibliography

Alexander, C. E. (2002). 'One of the boys': black masculinity and the peer group. Ethnographic Research. A reader. S. Taylor. London, Sage Publications Ltd.

Altheide, D. L. (2004). "Consuming Terrorism." Symbolic Interaction 27(3): 289-308. Altheide, D. L. (2007). "The mass media and terrorism." Discourse & Communication

1(3): 287-308. Back, L. (2001). "Audio interview - D844 Ethnography ". Baker, P. (2006). Using Corpora in Discourse Analysis. London, Continuum. Baker, P., C. Gabrielatos, et al. (2008). "A useful methodological synergy?

Combining critical discourse analysis and corpus linguistics to examine discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK press." Discourse & Society 19(3): 273-306.

BBC.co.uk (2009). “Most 'remain against Afghan war'.” from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8292771.stm

BBC.co.uk (2010). "Newsnight poll: Most think Afghan war 'unwinnable'." from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8530761.stm.

Billig, M. (1995). Banal Nationalism. London, Sage Publications. Billig, M. (1997). Discursive, Rhetorical and Ideological Messages. The Message of

Social Psychology. C. M. a. A. Haslam. Oxford, Blackwell. Billig, M. (2008). "The language of critical discourse analysis: the case of

nominalization." Discourse & Society 19(6): 783-800. Bourgois, P. (2002). Respect at work: „Going legit‟. Ethnographic Research. A

reader. S. Taylor. London, Sage Publications Ltd. Bromsky, M. and S. Cushion (2002). Media Fundamentalism: The immediate

response of the UK national press to September 11. Journalism After Semptember 11. B. Z. a. S. Allan. London, Routledge.

Bryman, A. (2008). Social Research Methods, Oxford University Press. Caldas-Coulthard, C. R. (1997). News as social practice: a study in critical discourse

analysis, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. Christie, T. B. (2006). "Framing Rationale for the Iraq War: The Interaction of Public

Support with Mass Media and Public Policy Agendas." International Communication Gazette 68(5-6): 519-532.

Dodson, G. (2010). "AUSTRALIAN JOURNALISM AND WAR." Journalism Studies 11(1): 99-114.

Edy, J. A. and P. C. Meirick (2007). "Wanted, Dead or Alive: Media Frames, Frame Adoption, and Support for the War in Afghanistan." Journal of Communication 57: 119-141.

Entman, R. M. (2004). Projections of power: framing news, public opinion and U.S. foreign policy. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press Ltd.

Erjavec, K. and Z. Volcic (2007). "'War on terrorism' as a discursive battleground: Serbian recontextualization of G.W. Bush's discourse." Discourse & Society 18(2): 123-137.

Fairclough, N. (1995). Media Discourse. London, Edward Arnold. Fairclough, N. (1998). Political Discourse in the Media: An Analytical Framework.

Approaches to Media Discourse. A. B. a. P. Garrett. Oxford, Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Fairclough, N. (2001). The Discourse of New Labour: Critical Discourse Analysis Discourse as data: a guide for analysis. M. Wetherell, S. Taylor and S. J. Yates.

47

Milton Keynes, The Open University. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research.

London, Routledge. Fairclough, N. (2008). "The language of critical discourse analysis: reply to Michael

Billig." Discourse & Society 19(6): 811-819. Fairclough, N. (2009). A Dialectical-Relational Approach to Critical Discourse

Analysis in Social Research. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. R. Wodak and M. Meyer. London, Sage.

Fairclough, N. and R. Wodak (1997). Critical discourse analysis. Discourse as Social Interaction. T. A. v. Dijk. London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi, Sage Publications: 258-84.

Flanagan, E. (2010). "Death penalty discourses, the printed media, and the UK public sphere: a critical analysis." Critical Discourse Studies 7(3): 177 - 190.

Fowler, R. (1991). LANGUAGE IN THE NEWS: Discourse and Ideology in the Press. London, Routledge.

Garcia, M. O. (2005). Corpus-based critical discourse analysis. The case of the internet pro and con homosexual marriage. School of Humanities, University of Birmingham. MPhil(B) in Corpus Linguistics.

Garrett, P. and A. Bell (1998). Media and Discourse: A Critical Overview. Approaches to Media Discourse. A. B. a. P. Garrett. Oxford, Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Hall, S. (2001). Foucault: Power, Knowledge and Discourse. Discourse Theory and Practice. M. Wetherell, S. Taylor and S. J. Yates. Milton Keynes, The Open University.

Hammersley, M. and P. Atkinson (2007). Ethnography. Principles in Practice. Abingdon, Routledge.

Herman, E. S. and N. Chomsky (1988). Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. London, The Bodley Head.

Hey, V. (2002). „Not as nice as she was supposed to be‟: schoolgirls‟ friendships. Ethnographic Research. A reader. S. Taylor. London, Sage Publications Ltd.

Khosravinik, M. (2009). "The representation of refugees, asylum seekers and immigrants in British newspapers during the Balkan conflict (1999) and the British general election (2005)." Discourse & Society 20(4): 477-498.

Kress, G. (2001). From Saussure to Critical Sociolinguistics: The Turn Towards a Social View of Language. Discourse Theory and Practice. M. Wetherell, S. Taylor and S. J. Yates. Milton Keynes, The Open University.

Kumar, D. (2006). "Media, War, and Propaganda:Strategies of Information Management During the 2003 Iraq War." Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies 3(1): 48-69.

Li, J. (2009). "Intertextuality and national identity: discourse of national conflicts in daily newspapers in the United States and China." Discourse & Society 20(1): 85-121.

Martin, J. R. and P. R. R. White (2005). The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Houndmills, Palgrave MacMillan.

Mellor, N. (2009). "War as a Moral Discourse." International Communication Gazette 71(5): 409-427.

Mulvihill, N. (2008). Street prostitution: a critical analysis of recent British government discourses and the implications for public policy, Open University. MA Social Policy and Criminology.

Oktar, L. (2001). "The Ideological Organization of Representational Processes in the

48

Presentation of us and them." Discourse & Society 12(3): 313-346. O'Regan, M. (2010). "The Irish press and the Iraq War: Real world cues, news

values and the political calibration effect." International Communication Gazette 72(6): 443-464.

Orpin, D. (2005). "Corpus Linguistics and Critical Discourse Analysis: Examining the ideology of sleaze." International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 10: 37-61.

Philo, G. (2007). "CAN DISCOURSE ANALYSIS SUCCESSFULLY EXPLAIN THE CONTENT OF MEDIA AND JOURNALISTIC PRACTICE?" Journalism Studies 8(2): 175-196.

Porpora, D. V. and A. Nikolaev (2008). "Moral muting in US newspaper op-eds debating the attack on Iraq." Discourse & Communication 2: 165-184.

Potter, J. (2001). Wittgenstein and Austin. Discourse Theory and Practice. M. Wetherell, S. Taylor and S. J. Yates. Milton Keynes, The Open University.

Pounds, G. (2010). "Attitude and subjectivity in Italian and British hard-news reporting: The construction of a culture-specific 'reporter' voice." Discourse Studies 12(1): 106-137.

Richardson, J. E. (2001). "British Muslims in the Broadsheet Press: a challenge to cultural hegemony?" Journalism Studies 2(2): 221-242.

Richardson, J. E. (2004). (Mis) Representing Islam. The racism and rhetoric of British broadsheet newspapers. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Richardson, J. E. (2007). Analysing Newspapers: An approach from Critical Discourse Analysis

Houndmills, Palgrave MacMillan. Richardson, J. E. (2009). "'Get shot of the lot of them': election reporting of Muslims

in British newspapers." Patterns of Prejudice 43(3): 355 - 377. Saft, S. and Y. Ohara (2006). "The media and the pursuit of militarism in Japan:

Newspaper editorials in the aftermath of 9/11." Critical Discourse Studies 3: 81-101.

Said, E. W. (1981). Covering Islam: How the Media and the Experts Determine How We See the Rest of the World. London, Routledge.

Sapsford, R. (2007). Survey Research. London, Sage Publications Ltd. Simons, G. (2006). "The Use of Rhetoric and the Mass Media in Russia's War on

Terror." Demokratizatsiya 14(4): 579-600. Smirnova, A. V. (2009). "Reported speech as an element of argumentative

newspaper discourse." Discourse & Communication 3(1): 79-103. stopwar.org.uk (2010). "War as public relations: the media falls into line." from

http://stopwar.org.uk/content/view/1762/1/. Taylor, S. (2001a). Evaluating and Applying Discourse Analytic Research. Discourse

as Data: A Guide for Analysis. M. Wetherell, S. Taylor and S. J. Yates. London, Sage Publications Ltd.

Taylor, S. (2001b). Locating and Conducting Discourse Analytic Research. Discourse as Data: A Guide for Analysis. M. Wetherell, S. Taylor and S. J. Yates. London, Sage Publications Ltd.

Teo, P. (2000). "Racism in the news: a Critical Discourse Analysis of news reporting in two Australian newspapers." Discourse & Society 11(1): 7-49.

Thomson, E. A., P. R. R. White, et al. (2008). ""OBJECTIVITY" AND "HARD NEWS" REPORTING ACROSS CULTURES." Journalism Studies 9(2): 212-228.

van Dijk, T. (1992). "Discourse and the denial of racism." Discourse & Society 3(1): 87-118.

49

van Dijk, T. (1993). "Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis." Discourse and Society 4: 249-283.

van Dijk, T. (1998). Opinions and Ideologies in the Press. Approaches to Media Discourse. A. B. a. P. Garrett. Oxford, Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and Practice: New Tools for Critical Discourse Analysis. Oxford Studies in Sociolinguistics, Oxford Scholarship Online.

Wetherell, M. (2001a). Debates in Discourse Research. Discourse Theory and Practice. M. Wetherell, S. Taylor and S. J. Yates. Milton Keynes, The Open University.

Wetherell, M. (2001b). Themes in Discourse Research: The Case of Diana. Discourse Theory and Practice. M. Wetherell, S. Taylor and S. J. Yates. Milton Keynes, The Open University.

Wodak, R. and M. Meyer (2009). Critical Discourse Analsysis: History, Agenda, Theory and Methodology. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. R. Wodak and M. Meyer. London, Sage.

50

APPENDIX 1

Online newspaper articles sampled for analysis

Newspaper Headline Category Date

The Telegraph UK and US to launch offensive against Tailban in

Afghanistan

News 05/02/2010

The Express US army launches Afghan offensive News 09/02/2010

The Times Afghanistan offensive on Taleban in Marjah starts

'without a hitch'

News 13/02/2010

The Sun Tears for heroes News 13/02/2010

The Guardian British soldier killed in assult on key Taliban stronghold News 13/02/2010

The Independent Nato-led troops launch major offensive in Afghanistan News 13/02/2010

The Times British spearhead allied offensive in Afghanistan News 14/02/2010

The Telegraph Civilian deaths overshadow Afghan offensive News 14/02/2010

The Independent Leading article: Let this operation be the last AEOC 14/02/2010

The Telegraph Gen Sir Richard Dannatt: Operation Moshtarak will be

worth the cost

AEOC 14/02/2010

The Telegraph Operation Moshtarak will drive out Taliban vows

Gordon Brown as troops death toll rises

News 15/02/2010

Daily Mail ANALYSIS: It's not about killing... it's about 'hot

stabilisation'

AEOC 15/02/2010

The Telegraph The brave and honourable spirit of Britain's soldiers will

benefit us all

AEOC 15/02/2010

The Sun Booby trap kills bomb hunt hero News 16/02/2010

The Guardian Coalition continues to advance in Afghanistan as

civilian death toll reaches 20

News 16/02/2010

The Express Nato chief hails Afghan offensive News 16/02/2010

The Mirror Nato chief hails Afghan offensive News 16/02/2010

The Guardian Why is our anti-war outrage muted at this Afghan folly? AEOC 16/02/2010

The Telegraph An offensive for hearts and minds AEOC 17/02/2010

The Independent Soldiers capture heart of Taliban stronghold News 17/02/2010

The Sun We've got the murder mullah News 17/02/2010

The Guardian Arrest of Taliban leader: Pakistan holds the key AEOC 17/02/2010

51

Newspaper Headline Category Date

The Mirror Soldiers die in Taliban offensive News 18/02/2010

The Mirror Taliban using kids as human shields in Afghanistan News 18/02/2010

Daily Mail Operation Moshtarak: British Army unleashes latest

weapon in battle with 'dishonourable enamy'

News 18/02/2010

Daily Mail Taliban insurgents step up fight-back against Operation

Moshtarak

News 19/02/2010

The Mirror Marines dropped behind Taliban lines to break

resistance in Marjah

News 20/02/2010

The Sun Our true hero News 20/02/2010

The Mail Ministers face calls for inquiry into Nato airstrike that

killed at least 27 Afghan civilians

News 22/02/2010

The Mail Afghan Taliban leader's brother killed in U_S_ missile

strike

News 22/02/2010

52

APPENDIX 2 From The Sunday Times

February 14, 2010

British spearhead allied offensive in

Afghanistan

Miles Amoore and Marie Colvin in Helmand

A soldier from 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards was killed by an explosion yesterday at the

start of the operation described as the biggest of the eight-year conflict in Afghanistan.

A US marine and 20 Taliban were also reported to have died in Operation Moshtarak, which

is being conducted with Afghan forces. The mission, a test of President Barack Obama’s

troop surge, is aimed at regaining control of towns across central Helmand.

Thousands of troops took part in an American-led air and ground assault to seize control of

the Taliban stronghold of Marjah.

British soldiers landing in waves of helicopters joined forces with other troops on the ground

to take Taliban territory near Nad-e-Ali, to the northeast.

Alliance forces met only sporadic resistance to an overwhelming display of firepower. “The

Taliban have not been able to put up a coherent response and appear confused and

disjointed,” said Major-General Gordon Messenger, a British spokesman.

“There is a real sense that the events have gone as well as could be expected.”

Later, however, it was announced that the first soldier had died in the offensive. The

Grenadier Guard was killed when his Jackal vehicle was blown up. The US marine died from

small arms fire.

By last night, the marines appeared to control much of Marjah, although the Taliban claimed

they were still in command.

Hellfire missiles were fired into tunnels and bunkers habouring insurgents and some foreign

fighters were said to be among those exchanging fire with the Americans.

The British also launched a missile at an insurgent seen planting a home-made bomb on a

track.

Bombs and booby traps slowed the advance of the troops in many areas but soldiers from the

Brigade Reconnaissance Force and the Royal Welsh secured compounds, roads and canals.

53

Gordon Brown paid tribute to their bravery, adding that troops would move quickly to start

buildings hospitals and schools for civilians.

He said that yesterday would be remembered as the start of “a new phase of the campaign to

win the support of the people of Afghanistan”.

Afghan troops and police have been ordered to hold the ground taken during the offensive.

Most Taliban appeared to have scattered before the onslaught, which was strongly signalled

in advance.

However, military commanders expect them to regroup and attack in the weeks ahead to

prevent the alliance from stabilising the area and expanding the control of the Afghan

government under President Hamid Karzai.

54

APPENDIX 3

The Mirror

Taliban using kids as human shields in Afghanistan

By Chris Hughes 18/02/2010

Innocents made to stand in windows

Ruthless insurgents are using civilians as shields to hamper Nato attacks on a key Taliban town.

Diehards holed up in Marjah have been hiding behind women, children and old people before firing

on assault teams.

One disgusted commander said rebels actually want the helpless townsfolk gunned down as it would

be a propaganda disaster for government forces.

Gen Mohiudin Ghori, brigade CO of Afghan troops, said: "The enemy is fighting from compounds

where soldiers can very clearly see women or children on the roof or in a second-floor or third-floor

window.

"They are trying to get us to fire on them and kill the civilians." The cruel tactics mean US Marines

have had to resume painstaking house-to-house clearances before storming target Taliban areas.

55

About 15,000 Nato and Afghan troops are deployed around Marjah on Day Five of Operation

Moshtarak.

The town, with an estimated 80,000 inhabitants, was under Taliban rule. Nato hopes to rush in public

services to win hearts and minds as soon as the town is secure. On Tuesday the UK's top commander

in southern Afghanistan, Maj Gen Nick Carter, said a rocket salvo which killed 12 civilians "did not

miss its target".

He said US Marines fired at the compound deliberately and did not know civilians were there.

Nato, despite the caution of its troops, has confirmed 15 civilian deaths in the operation so far. Troops

are now facing less mortar and RPG fire, suggesting insurgents may be running low on stocks.

But snipers hiding in haystacks have continued to fire at Marines and Afghan troops. Insurgents also

tried but failed to shoot down an attacking Osprey aircraft.

In Kandahar, four Afghan police were killed when their vehicle struck a bomb yesterday.

And in an air strike near the Pakistan border, Nato said it killed more than a dozen insurgents.

56

APPENDIX 4 The Telegraph

The brave and honourable spirit of Britain's soldiers will benefit us all The daily exercise in Afghanistan of will-power and leadership serves the best human

instincts, says Crispin Black.

By Crispin Black

Published: 8:22PM GMT 15 Feb 2010

Comments

Soldiers landing near Musa Qa'la in Afghanistan Photo: PA

"So far, so good." The military spokesman Maj Gen Gordon Messenger's laconic summary of the first stages of

Operation Moshtarak was a masterpiece of English understatement and will surely find its way into the Oxford

Dictionary of Quotations.

There is a lot riding on this offensive, intended to clear the Taliban out of Helmand province and establish a

civilian-led government supported by Afghan soldiers and police. A delicate balance of force and diplomacy must

be struck and the difficulty of conducting such an operation in populated areas was starkly demonstrated on

Sunday when coalition rockets were mistakenly fired at civilians, killing twelve.

In the main, though, the images being sent home are reassuring: the generals seem confident at last that they

have a plan that will actually work and they have the American resources to implement it. We see the purposeful

grace of young soldiers striding towards a helicopter; the curiously domestic and very British touch of an

explosives sniffer-dog being stroked by his handler; the extreme coolness of a bomb-disposal expert moving

forward on a clearance.

In many ways, our soldiers fighting in Afghanistan find themselves on a military continuum dating back many

years. Repeatedly, since the Second World War, British soldiers have had to fight without sufficient equipment.

The Falklands war was hastily improvised and bedevilled by a lack of helicopters after the Argentines sank the

57

ship carrying all but one of the Task Force's Chinooks. Public support at home waxed and waned during the wars

of colonial disengagement such as the Malayan Emergency or the bloody campaign against EOKA terrorists in

Cyprus. British troops, including many national servicemen who fought so gallantly in the Korean war, received

little attention at home.

But, as I compare their experience with my own in the Falklands war and Northern Ireland, it is clear that some of

the rigours and dangers our forces face today are unique to this theatre.

It is true that no single day in Afghanistan has produced the level of dead and wounded sustained in 1979 at

Warrenpoint, County Down. Even the grimmest days of last summer did not approach the numbers killed in the

advance on Port Stanley during the Falklands conflict. More than a quarter of a century ago I was embarked with

my Welsh Guards platoon on the RFA Sir Galahad when she was attacked by Argentine naval aircraft. It was

clear immediately that there were large numbers of killed and wounded. As more and more of the ship blew up or

burst into flames and my radio blared warnings of further Argentine aircraft on their way, the odds of getting off

the ship at all, let alone in one piece, started to look a little tight. It took an effort of will to function. It was a terrible

event, but whatever will-power or courage needed in the Task Force was required, for most, for a comparatively

short time – a few days or at most a few weeks. While the Falklands was dramatic, I suspect Afghanistan can be

more demanding. The outstanding characteristic of this campaign is that it is more gruelling than most recent

experience.

For the front-line troops in Afghanistan, courage and self-control are required every day, all day and night, for six

months. It is this relentless daily exercise of courage, will-power and leadership which is so moving.

Meanwhile, improvements in military medicine mean that some of those wounded find themselves in more

difficult circumstances than their predecessors. British soldiers are never left for dead. But in the past, very often

those with the most serious injuries have died before reaching a field hospital, comforted by morphine, tobacco,

their friends and perhaps a padre. The advances made in first aid now mean that unless a soldier dies instantly,

he has a good chance of surviving the immediate trauma and making it back home. This is, of course, a blessing.

To be in the wounded column is better than in the dead column. But it means for some of the most severely hurt

a long-suffering recovery leading to a permanently challenging quality of life for them and their families.

We should not be disheartened. The modern sensibility tends to view warfare as merely an ordeal. Our imagery,

heavily influenced by both Vietnam and the one-sided view of the Great War propagated in the 1960s, sees

personal experience of war as involving only breakdown and disenchantment. Few care to mention these days

that active service can have a profound and positive effect on the development of an individual's experience and

moral sense. Abstract notions which some sneer at are realities in times of danger: discipline, duty, honour,

obedience, loyalty, love of Queen and country, humility, humour and cooperation – which in a military sense

means sharing the burdens and dangers of war fairly among men and among units.

These things are valued not just for themselves, but because they are the only way to sustain fighting power over

a long period of time. Behaviour is inspired and misbehaviour limited by a strong sense of comradeship and

mutual dependence. There are no profits. The losses are borne by the troops themselves and their families at

home. It is not an old-fashioned world but a world more closely linked to our past history and

the best human instincts.

The outcome in Afghanistan remains a gamble. Our soldiers are confident of victory. Many at home are less

sanguine. But whatever happens, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan mean that for the first time in a generation

large numbers of young men (and women now) have seen active service abroad in the most difficult conditions.

58

Most will enter civilian life in the coming years with experience of leadership, sound administration and a style of

living far removed from that in contemporary Britain. Let us hope their example and standards will spread.

The Romans ran a very clear system of promotion in public life – the Cursus Honorum – which laid down the

administrative and military positions a young man had to undertake to achieve promotion and power in the

Roman world. If he aspired to the highest office, he had to have served in the Roman army. It was a good system

and we can learn from it.

Maybe I am a romantic, but it seems to me that if a man or woman has led a patrol in Afghanistan or taken the

long, lonely walk down a dusty track to defuse a Taliban bomb, they will have an authority and judgment that will

benefit us all when they return to civilian life. It is certainly hard to imagine the veterans of Afghanistan fiddling

their expenses or insisting on extravagant and unearned bonuses. We cannot, like the Romans, insist on military

service for our future leaders, but we can make it once again a national tradition.

Crispin Black commanded No 3 Platoon, The Prince of Wales's Company, 1st Battalion Welsh Guards during the

Falklands war. Subsequently he served three tours in Northern Ireland