No abstract

This paper looks at the privatisation of Bórd Gáis Éireann (BGÉ) in 2014 and the treatment of this issue by the mainstream print media in Ireland. From a contextual perspective, this privatisation came in the wake of the global economic recession and its longer-term implications for Ireland. The media's coverage of the sale was not found to be impartial: both the volume and thrust of the articles were inclined to portray privatisation in a favourable, noncritical light. The majority of content was presented within Neoliberal frames, with a competitive frame being dominant; in other words, the topic was treated from a market or business perspective rather than the perspective of the public good or wider society. A consistent source bias was also found favouring business or market interests with almost no representation of workers or civil society. Theoretically the paper argues that the framing of privatisation as a business and consumer issue, rather than a political one or that of the public good, acts to detract from the political aspects of the appropriation of public assets by international capital, including the implications for infrastructure, economic development and accountability to democratic structures, none of which receive sufficient journalistic attention.

This paper argues that the state’s capacity to tax corporations in order to fund itself is reaching crisis proportions. Following decades of trade liberalization, deregulation, and globalization, large multinational companies have been able to take advantage of tax competition between states in order to avoid taxation and offset their obligations. This crisis, arguably, has been facilitated by state actors and exacerbated by non-state actors: we explore the ways in which multi-national corporations (MNCs) manipulate their capital, assets, and supply chains to minimize their tax burdens; and we further consider the ways in which media narratives construct this issue and whether they challenge the practice or intensify it. Discourse surrounding taxation plays a huge part in what is considered acceptable. While the old adage that “death and taxes” cannot be avoided, it has become clear that large companies, helped by a tax avoidance industry do indeed manage to do just that. Discourse analysis reveals the ways in which ideology can be used to manage consensus around this potentially controversial subject and this paper seeks to explicate that by examining the frames, presuppositions and discursive formations present within the discourse structure. The argument is developed through a comparative case study research design demonstrating the different policy-based, economic and historical contexts of the two jurisdictions which offer some insight and explanation of the distinctive ideological discursive formations that are present within the discourses.

No abstract