Abstract
ABSTRACT Using discourse analysis to examine newspaper Op-Eds during the Hill-Thomas and Ford-Kavanaugh hearings, this study explores how media can function as an arbiter of public opinion during controversial events. This analysis highlights the importance of Op-Eds in defining whose voices matter in shaping national mediated discourses, examining the role media play in critical public debates surrounding issues of gender, race, power, and sexual violence. Against a backdrop of increasing numbers of women in the Senate chambers, the growing numbers of women and people of color across American newsrooms, and the impact of the #MeToo movement in the national conversation about sexual violence, this study examines changes in opinion authorship and media discourses surrounding these two hearings set 27 years apart. Findings show a shift in Op-Ed contributors, from mostly men in 1991 to predominantly women in 2018. Support for women and sexual assault accusers was largely absent in Op-Eds from 1991, replaced by vague debates about fairness and justice; while in 2018, Op-Ed authors offered tangible support for accusers. This study considers both the promise and limitations of these shifting media discourses to address structural and institutional power relations.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.