Author
Abstract
This study looks at the discursive construction of power and resistance in the coverage of the 2025 Global Sumud Flotilla by Al Jazeera and The New York Times. The study examines how the linguistic, pragmatic, and visual components correlate to create ideological narratives using a qualitative methodology based on Critical Discourse Analysis (Fairclough, 1995, 2003), Speech Act Theory (Austin, 1962; Searle, 1969), and Multimodal Discourse Analysis (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006). Twelve articles, half from each news organisation, that were published between June and October 2025, when the flotilla was receiving the most international media attention, make up the corpus. The study explores how each media organisation establishes legitimacy, accountability, and humanitarian identity in conflicting geopolitical contexts by looking at lexical selection, modality, evidentiality, and illocutionary act. The findings show that Al Jazeera regularly uses emotive lexis, expressive and commissive speech acts, and solidarity framing to humanise activists and highlight moral agency in opposition to structural violence. On the other hand, The New York Times favours aggressive and investigative actions, hedging strategies, and procedural methods that maintain the appearance of journalistic objectivity while subtly endorsing state power. Visual framing also reinforces these discursive tendencies: The New York Times favours procedural, distant images that emphasise institutional order, while Al Jazeera uses emotive images of suffering and resistance. According to the comparative reading, empathy and neutrality are two different but ideologically influenced types of journalistic discourse. Lastly, by demonstrating how international news media mediate humanitarian discourse and reconstruct or subvert power relations through linguistic and multimodal selection, this study contributes to critical media and discourse studies. The study confirms that to obtain a comprehensive understanding of media representation in geopolitical conflict, it is essential to combine CDA and pragmatics.
Suggested Citation
Handle:
RePEc:alk:jpds00:v:4:y:2025:i:2:id:11108
DOI: 10.32996/jpda.2025.4.2.5
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:alk:jpds00:v:4:y:2025:i:2:id:11108. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Al-Kindi Center for Research and Development (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://al-kindipublisher.com/index.php/jpds .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.