Analysis of BBC News item in perspective of Van Dijk CDA Theory

Analysis of BBC News item in perspective of Van Dijk CDA Theory

Van Dijk Views:

 Van Dijk views ideology as conceptual triangle which connects society, discourse and social cognition. He asserts that semantic macroproposition of any discourse define the information that speaker find most relevant or important. This notion indicates that topicalization or semantic macroproposition may also be subject to ideological manipulation. By employing this method speaker or writer is expected to de-topicalize information which he considers to be inconsistent with his ideological beliefs. On the other hand he may topicalize information, or for that matter certain facts, which underpin his believes or notions.  Vand Dijk is of the opinion that undesirable interpretations (models) of social and political events will, generally, not be topicalized in ingroup discourse. Topic of macrostructure is organized in such a way that they define an argument, a conversation or a news report.

Since schematic categories also define the (canonical) order of

discourse, they may signal importance or relevance. Initial summaries,

such as headlines in the news, for instance, have the crucial function of

expressing the topic highest in the macrostructure hierarchy, and,

therefore, the (subjectively) most important information of a news report. This means that this link between macrostructures and superstructures may be ideologically manipulated. Semantically subordinate topics (that is, topics that organize little local information in the text) may be upgraded and put in the headline, thus assigning more prominence to them, and vice versa. A main topic may be downgraded to a lower level of the schema and realized as a subordinate topic in a background category of the news. In one story the same events may be presented as the circumstances category of the setting, whereas in another story they may constitute the crucial complication of the story. Such possible variations of relevance and importance are, of course, open to ideological control. Information that is inconsistent with the interests of powerful groups may be downgraded, and information about outgroups be given more prominence by assigning it to a more prominent category. Political discourse may also feature specific text schema categories (such as

problem and solution) that highlight ideologically based opinions.

Analysis of News Item:

“Lawyer for doctor in Bin laden case quits over security”

The very topic of this news piece gives the idea that news reporter has tried to detopicalize certain facts to mould the minds of readers according to his ideology. Not using the name of ‘lawyer’ and the ‘doctor’ indicates that this entire news is directed towards western audience who sympathize with Dr Shakil Afridi. More over topicalizing the reason of quitting also indicates that writer wants to create a sympathetic niche in the hearts of readers right from the beginning. Writer puts the reason of quiting of lawyer, which is security, at the highest level of macrostructure hierarchy. This shows the tilt of the writer towards Dr Shakil Afridi. Therefore he wants to make his readers believe the innocence of ‘Bin Laden’s doctor’. The news item would have given more neutral outlook had it  given more emphasis on the ‘lawyer’ than ‘doctor’.

On close scrutiny of this piece of news reveals that infact news is about the lawyer Sami Ullah Afridi but the picture used is of Dr Shakil afridi. This giant contrast between the written text and visual message which writer tries to disseminate, gives clear state of thinking of the writer and the ideology he tries to propogate. The captions under the picture  states ‘Dr Shakil Afridi is serving a 23-year jail term’, here once again the reason for the  jail terms are de-topicalazied just to influence the readers towards the ‘innocence’ of Dr Afridi. Had the picture of lawyer been used instead of Dr Afridi than writer would not have accomplished his purpose i-e to target western masses towards the ‘plight’ of Dr Shakil Afridi. 

In the beginning of this news item writer once again avoids using the names of Dr Shakil Afrid and lawyer Samiullah Afridi, instead he uses words ‘doctor’ and ‘lawyer’ for both these individuals. By not using the names, writer intentionally robes both these men off their identity and creates an identity of Dr Afridi as ‘Bin laden’s doctor’ and identity of Samiullah Afridi as ‘Lawyer of Bin laden’s doctor.’ By intentionally doing so, writer injects the images of these two characters in the mind of readers which are his own creation. By initial perusing of the news, readers minds are absolutely bent in the favour of these two characters, indeed more towards Dr Afridi than towards main character i-e lawyer Samiullah Afridi. Furthur the writer states Dr Afridi is accused of helping US find Usama Bin Laden which is not true. Dr Shakil Afridi is accused of having links with local islamist warlord Magnal Bagh and he is sentenced to 33 years for same reason. Though underlying intention of the sentence and accusation might be his role in finding Usama Bin laden but technically he is accused of something very different from what the writer has depicted. If one has to believe what is written in news report one comes to conclusion that Dr Afridi is charged with some illogical accusation. These allegations put him in a position where he garners more sympathies from readers. The writer further writes that ‘Pakistan was not informed of the 2011 raid which killed the al-Qaeda leader’. Though this sentence gives only a piece of information to the readers but this is kind of information which changes the entire outlook of the news item. This sentence connects the missing dots in the mind of the readers i-e Pakistan got infuriated with US over covert operation of US to get rid of Usama Bin Laden and therefore it has detained Dr Afridi who cannot get access to a lawyer owing to life threats to him and the person who is willing to take up his case.  The writer has quiet shrewdly put this sentence to make his point stronger. Important thing in this sentence is that writer intentionally presuppose the reason that why was Pakistani authorities kept in dark on this raid. By this writer makes the mind of readers that Pakistan was not informed because it did not want to get Usama Bin Laden killed or captured. By doing this the writer has according to Vand Dijk ‘downgraded main topic to a lower level of the schema and realized as a subordinate topic in a background category of the news.’

Use of certain words in inverted coma’s indicate  that writer wants to highlight the importance of these words or he just wants to put more emphasis on these words. While quoting lawyer Samiullah Afridi writer writes that the militants have given him deadline to chose “right way” by which they meant to leave the case. These inverted coma-words and all other inverted coma-words serve the purpose of writer quite pertinently which is the depiction of Mr Afridi an innocent man trapped in unusual circumstances. He has easily achieved the purpose of foisting his ideology unto the minds of readers and making them believe what he wants them to believe or in case of western readers strengthen their already held beliefs about Dr Shakil Afridi and Pakistan.      

Appendix

Lawyer for doctor in Bin Laden case quits over security

Dr Shakil Afridi is serving a 23-year jail term

The lawyer for a doctor accused of helping the US find Osama Bin Laden has told the BBC that he has quit the case after receiving frequent death threats.

Lawyer Samiullah Afridi also cited US pressure on Pakistan for the release of Dr Shakil Afridi as another reason for his decision.

Dr Afridi is accused of using the cover of a door-to-door vaccination campaign to help the US find Bin Laden.

Pakistan was not informed of the 2011 raid which killed the al-Qaeda leader.

Samiullah Afridi told the BBC that his life had been under threat since he took up the case two years ago.

Mr Afridi - who is not related to Dr Afridi - said he had left the country at one point because of safety fears.

He said that militants had now given him a deadline to choose the "right way", by which they meant to leave the case.

"I took the case on humanitarian grounds, but now I have to look for my own life, it is more important," he said.

He also said US pressure on Pakistan to release the doctor was "inappropriate" and was hindering the case.

In addition, he said Washington's continued refusal to release Dr Aafia Siddiqui - a US citizen of Pakistani origin jailed for alleged links to al-Qaeda - was also "creating hurdles".

Mr Afridi, one of four lawyers representing the doctor, said he had "no option" but to quit the case.

US pressure

Dr Shakil Afridi was convicted of alleged ties to militant groups and sentenced to 33 years in jail by a tribal court in 2012.

The sentence was widely seen as punishment for his alleged role in the Bin Laden raid, which he denies.

His jail term was reduced by 10 years by a court in Peshawar earlier this year, after pressure from the US and the doctor's relatives.

However, he still faces a separate trial in which he is explicitly accused of colluding with the CIA.

US special forces entered Bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad and shot him before flying the body out of Pakistan and burying it at sea.

The raid was acutely embarrassing for Pakistan and the episode plunged relations with Washington to a new low.