Search

The coverage of female athletes in sports media has been claimed to exhibit prejudice in favor of male athletes. Therefore, they promote the dominance of traditional masculine hegemony. Accordingly, the present study examines Al-Jazeera's coverage of Arab female athletes participating in the Rio Olympics. The study, therefore, aims to identify Al-Jazeera's strategies for covering Arab female athletes in selected online stories and their ideological perspectives in terms of "Self" or public and "Other" or private dichotomy. Furthermore, it aims to examine the feminist critical discourse analysis perspective in the gendered social practices of the Eastern world. This study analyses two Al-Jazeera news stories using feminist critical discourse analysis. Feminist critical discourse analysis challenges social practices related to gender stereotypes. Occasionally, gender inequalities are manifested explicitly as well as implicitly. Patriarchy persists in many social institutions and among women (and men) globally. The researchers implement Lazar's (2018) Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis. Thus, sports news ideological methods are analyzed using positive "in-group" and negative "out-group" dichotomy. The current research findings indicate that the patriarchal society has been transformed with respect to women's empowerment. Arab female athletes take place in public life as their male counterparts. However, the analyzed data demonstrated Arab women's gender resistance to the stereotypical gender norms. However, the current research is essential for revealing the progress of gender-based hierarchal social norms. Deconstructing conventional unequal gender roles is a key component of this research project's contribution to developing and promoting gender equality in Arabic culture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this study, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) was utilised to examine the Al Jazeera Arabic news website with respect to its reports on the social actors in the Yemen war, particularly the KSA, UAE, Egypt and Bahrain coalition and the opposing Houthis, both before and after the Gulf crisis that occurred on 5 June 2017. The analysed data included a total of 32 news articles related to the war in Yemen, with 16 articles covering the period prior to the Crisis, from 2015 to 2017, and 16 covering the period following the onset of the crisis, from 2017 to 2019. The overall aim was to uncover the ideological implications of various linguistic elements, such as lexical choices, news headline creation, and de-legitimisation strategies, and the results revealed identifiable, distinct, and non-random changes in tone and angle of representation relating to the various social actors and their actions. Before the crisis, the coalition was represented positively while Houthis was presented negatively, while after the crisis, the tone towards these social actors was completely reversed. The various discursive strategies used in the articles across both periods thus show that the coverage of the Yemen crisis was intended to ideologically and politically guide readers' understanding of the crisis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyzes all the articles and corresponding comments of Al-Jazeera Arabic's coverage of the Syrian war from 2011 to 2017. I propose a multilayered Critical Discourse Analysis Guided Topic Modeling method that includes context of social structures and processes in the analysis of topics. This article shows that the employment of topic modeling without Critical Discourse Analysis does not unravel the power relations embedded within the platform. Two different applications of this method are used to demonstrate how a guided topic modeling method can lead to more nuanced results that can unravel important social dynamics which would have remained unperceived if applying traditional computational methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article uses critical discourse analysis (CDA) in order to analyse the discussion of the Muslim dress code (commonly referred to as the hijab) on Al Jazeera’s religious talk show A-Shari’a wal Hayat. Between 1998 and 2003, several episodes dealt with the Turkish and French ban and the ‘issue’ of the headscarf, most of them hosting prominent religious scholar Youssef Qaradawi. Drawing mostly on Fairclough’s critical analytical approach to the media, I will examine, at the micro- or local level, key linguistic strategies and rhetorical arguments deployed by participants (mostly Qaradawi, and to a lesser extent, hosts and viewers) in order to justify their position concerning the nature of the Muslim dress code. This in depth textual/local analysis will be supplemented with a brief analysis at the macro- or global level, which will look at the overall structure of these episodes in order to see the extent to which dominant positions privileged by participants at the micro level are also reinforced by the superstructure of the episodes themselves. Throughout, an intertextual analysis will be used in order to study which religious discourses from the larger socio-cultural context are drawn upon in Al-Jazeera’s discussion of the hijab. The purpose of this multi-levelled analysis is to answer the following questions: Which religious discourses on the hijab are privileged by those talk shows? Are there any differences in the range of opinions covered by the various episodes dealing with the same issue? How are the various positions, when they exist, manifested at the local/global levels of analysis? Most importantly, what do these discussions on the hijab tell us about Al-Jazeera’s self-confessed editorial line (‘the opinion and the other-opinion’) concerning one of the most controversial religious topics for Muslims?

One of the events that have characterized the human cost of the Gaza Conflict of 2008-2009 is the mortar shelling of a United Nations (UN) run School, sheltering more than 1300 Palestinian civilians seeking refuge from the fighting. This paper offers a multi-modal approach to Critical Discourse Analysis by examining how the English and the Arabic language services of British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and Al-Jazeera approached the event. It details the visual and textual depiction of the proportionality of casualties, the humanitarian situation, and the extent to which the actions of the protagonists are presented as justified, rationalized, or legitimized. The paper finds that all the channels recognized that the deaths of civilians are regrettable and tragic, but differed in their judgements about whether the attacks were deliberately targeting civilians, or were the collateral consequences of conducting intensive military action in highly populated urban environments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To understand the language of journalism in relation to the moments of why and how news is differently structured and patterned, English online stories tackling the Israeli--Palestinian conflict, issued by the BBC, CNN and Al-Jazeera, were critically analysed following Fowler and Fairclough's seminal texts. The results of the findings were discussed in interviews with the editors of the three international networks in order to see what links these linguistic features have with the interviewees' social assumptions, ideologies and economic conditions. The article finds first that the discourse within the news pyramid is composed of four major layers: quoting, paraphrasing, background and comment. Second, it demonstrates that there are marked differences in the discourse structures and layers that the three networks employ in the production of the news stories they issue in English. Third, Al-Jazeera English exhibits marked differences in the discursive features and their social implications at the four layers of discourse to report the conflict when compared with both the BBC and CNN. Fourth, the article shows that the differences in linguistic patterns largely reflect and respond to each network's social and political assumptions and practices as well as economic conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article uses critical discourse analysis (CDA) in order to analyse the discussion of the Muslim dress code (commonly referred to as hijab) on Al Jazeera's religious talk show A-Shari'a wal Hayat. Between 1998 and 2003, several episodes dealt with the ban and the ‘issue’ of the headscarf, most of them hosting prominent religious scholar Youssef Qaradawi. Drawing mostly on Fairclough's critical analytical approach to the media, I will examine, at the micro- or local level, key linguistic strategies and rhetorical arguments deployed by participants (mostly Qaradawi, and to a lesser extent, hosts and viewers) in order to justify their position concerning the nature of the Muslim dress code. This in depth textual/local analysis will be supplemented with a brief analysis at the macro- or global level, which will look at the overall structure of these episodes in order to see the extent to which dominant positions privileged by participants at the micro level are also reinforced by the superstructure of the episodes themselves. Throughout, an intertextual analysis will be used in order to study which religious discourses from the larger socio-cultural context are drawn upon in Al-Jazeera's discussion of the hijab. The purpose of this multi-levelled analysis is to answer the following questions: Which religious discourses on the hijab are privileged by those talk shows? Are there any differences in the range of opinions covered by the various episodes dealing with the same issue? How are the various positions, when they exist, manifested at the local/global levels of analysis? Most importantly, what do these discussions on the hijab tell us about Al-Jazeera's self-confessed editorial line (‘the opinion and the counter-opinion’) concerning one of the most controversial religious topics for Muslims? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]