A discourse analysis of audience deliberation in online forums on race-relevant news

Abstract

In a post-cyber-utopian world, scholars are aware that online discussions emanating from newspaper articles do not automatically exhibit democratic discourse. Against this background, we aim to delineate some of the main attributes of deliberative discourse in an online news site for the South African Mail & Guardian. We are particularly interested in determining how interlocutors justify conclusions through warrants. Warrants are discourse moves that link conclusions with evidence, and we examine their role in contesting the ideological productiveness of opposing arguments. Focusing on race-sensitive discussions, we combine a content-and discourse-analytic framework to identify the deliberative dynamics of warrants in online debates hosted by the Mail & Guardian. We argue that warrants, as a conceptual tool, offer a fruitful purchase on the enactment of deliberation in naturally-occurring settings. Moreover, they seem cardinal for the contestation of ideology, notably when deliberation is suffused with the analysis of power relations in highly-charged topics.

Analisis Wacana Media Terhadap Pemberitaan Rencana Kebijakan Pajak E-Commerce

“…Dalam pemberitaan media daring, analisis wacana sulit untuk dinilai secara tepat mengingat adanya beberapa kelemahan, seperti minimnya standar penggunaan bahasa yang digunakan, kurangnya validitas data dan informasi yang diperoleh dari narasumber, serta kurangnya pemilihan media yang relevan. Informasi yang disampaikan di dalam jaringan banyak yang memberikan data dan informasi yang kurang tepat, diskriminatif, palsu, ataupun mengandung unsur kejahatan yang dapat menimbulkan perdebatan (Conradie & Brokensha, 2018) dan mengaburkan hasil analisa yang akan dibuat.…”