Browsing by Subject "Evaluation in News Discourse"

This study aims to reveal what kinds of evaluations were given to the novel coronavirus, the pandemic it caused, and COVID-19 by news journalists and their sources in New Zealand written news during the first year of the pandemic. It also pursues an overview of how the framing of the disease changed during the year. The theoretical basis of the study draws from the Critical Discourse Analysis tradition. The analysis of the evaluations is conducted using a linguistic framework of parameters categorizing the evaluative language used in the articles under scrutiny. The analysis is conducted through close reading of the articles to find the relevant evaluative language. The analytical framework consists of ten parameters of evaluation, the presence of which is systematically scanned to classify different expressions. After the articles are scrutinized for evaluations of COVID-19 and related matters, the results from different months are compared with the changing circumstances considered. The main finding in terms of the general nature of the evaluations is that the threat was labeled very serious and strong action needed to be taken to prevent its escalation. The adverse effects of this action, however serious, should be given secondary priority in order to stick to the elimination approach chosen as the country’s COVID strategy. The evaluations changed during the pandemic to include more expressions of the negative aspects of the lockdowns and, later, satisfaction with the success of the chosen approach and the relatively normal life it made possible in March 2021.