This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: s of metaphorical or intertextually informed phrases seem to perform a solely ornamental function.
Such expressions are presented in (125):
(125) But however meticulously US and British special forces draw
squares on Ordnance Survey maps and comb them mile by mile, his
enemies within may in the end be his [bin Laden’s] nemesis…
Apocalypse now?; Reportage; War on terror (headline)
In either case, the possible analogy pointed at by the underlined words is
not elaborated. It seems to work like a witty bon mot with no consequences for article structure or line of argumentation.
3. A summary of the qualitative analysis of war reports
The analysis of the war reports from the 1980s and from 2001 published
in Trybuna Ludu, Rzeczpospolita, and The Times show that the concepts
of ‘politics’, ‘diplomacy’ and ‘war’ remain in an intricate relationship.
40 Robin Oakley: “Conflicts rage in covering the war 24 hours a day”, The Times Oct
th A qualitative analysis of war news 189 Both in the Polish and British press articles, two perspectives on the
meaning of ‘politics’ are most commonly adopted. First, politics is considered as a superordinate, general term covering both diplomacy and
war. Second, it is used as a synonym of diplomacy and antonym of war.
This dual nature of the concept contributes to its rhetorical exploitation.
That is, in some texts, its reference is vague and wavers between politics=diplomacy at the subordinate (basic) level, and politics as an instantiation of the superordinate level. In such cases, when uttered by politicians, these words can be interpreted either as a warning of imminent
military action or as sustaining the proposal for a diplomatic solution.
Such indeterminacy does not contribute to efficient communication.
In war reporting, or to be more exact in war propaganda, narrative
construal of identity and massive analogising, metaphor and non-metaphor
motivated, flourishes in a necessary step in persuading the public to war,
that is in an enemy vilification routine. There is a common set of negatively
evaluated labels that are used to refer to the enemy in order to disparage
them. The reservoir of these abuse terms consists of a set of metaphors
mapping the enemy onto discredited categories or categories considered inappropriate for the participants of the political process (THE ENEMY IS AN
ANIMAL, THE ENEMY IS A PIRATE, THE ENEMY IS THE NAZI). Much of the vilification is achieved through the use of emotionally loaded attributive terms,
such as emotional,41 deceitful, criminal, brutal. These attributes often form
dichotomous42 series with the attributes predicated of the self, such as rational, honest, lawful etc. This repertoire is used by the British about the
Argentines in the Falklands War; by the Poles about the Americans in the
air raids on Libya and during the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan; by
the British (and Americans, as reported in The Times) about the Libyans;
by the British about the Soviets withdrawing from Afghanistan; and by the
Polish and the British about the Taliban in 2001. This observation places
Sandikcioglu’s (2000) article in a wider perspective. That is, the rhetorical
View Full Document