A Multi-layered Analysis of The New York Times Op-Ed: A Case Study

Abstract

Newspaper Opposite-Editorial articles (Op-Eds) represent an important form of intellectual debate that communicate views on issues of public policy and help shape public opinion. They are challenging, information rich, and persuasive short media texts imbued with worldviews, arguments, sarcasms, and biases, hence provide saliency cues regarding key national and international affairs. Recent police killings of citizens in the US have attracted massive coverage in the media, predominantly in the Op-Ed section of The New York Times in 2015. Instances of killing unarmed African Americans have come to the forefront of the discussion on race and race relations. Informed by Critical Discourse Analysis, this case study is a multilayered qualitative analysis of the Baltimore unrest media coverage, particularly in one article authored by a guest contributor in The New York Times. To identify how the case of the Baltimore unrest is rhetorically represented in media discourse, the study is premised on an eclectic approach drawing on Appraisal Theory, Conceptual Metaphor Theory, and Systemic Functional Grammar. The paper aims to: first, pinpoint the inherent appraisal resources used by Connolly to frame his argument and dialogically position the intended audiences in (dis)alignment with his worldviews; second, showcase the metaphoric repertoire that serves his ideological stance; third, highlight the overall transitivity profile that frames his argument of the Baltimore unrest. Despite the fact that emotional, ethical, and logical appeals are invested on, the writer makes calculated choices, leaning the most on the last two to promote, persuade, and strengthen his arguments, on the one hand, and to align the intended readers with the ideologically laden messages therein, on the other.