Telling-it-like-it-is : the delegitimation of the second Palestinian Intifada in Thomas Friedman's discourse

M. Mosheer Amer

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    20 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    The concept of legitimation is essentially social and political (Martin Rojo and Van Dijk, 1997). That is, what or who is legitimized depends to a large extent on who speaks and in what capacity, social status and role he/she speaks from. Legitimation, in this sense, is linked to power, with which comes the authority to `define the situation' (Parsons, 1986), and consequently the authority to determine what is right and wrong, and what is legitimate and justifiable and what is not. This paper examines the delegitimation of the second Palestinian Intifada in Thomas Friedman's discourse by analysing how the Intifada is discursively constructed in a column which Friedman contributed to the op-ed page of the New York Times. It aims to do this by (1) analysing the column's argumentative structure and moves employed in Friedman's delegitimizing construction of the Intifada, and (2) showing how the legitimation of political actors, including self-legitimation, is closely linked to Friedman's argumentation. I also report on the results of a critical discourse analysis of a corpus of Friedman's columns which support the analysis findings of the main text.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)5-31
    Number of pages27
    JournalDiscourse and Society
    Volume20
    Issue number1
    Publication statusPublished - 2009

    Keywords

    • Al-Aqsa Intifada, 2000-
    • Arab-Israeli conflict
    • Friedman, Thomas L.
    • Palestinians in mass media
    • critical discourse analysis
    • press coverage
    • war

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Telling-it-like-it-is : the delegitimation of the second Palestinian Intifada in Thomas Friedman's discourse'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this