Types of Argumentation in Editorials
https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2024-13-1-159-176
Abstract
This article explores argumentation in the genre of editorials. The objective was to determine the frequency of different types of argumentation used in this genre, which can shed light on the balance between objective and subjective elements. It was found that editorials exhibit a balance between strong and weak argumentation, with 41% and 55.6% respectively (3.4% accounted for insufficient argumentation). The dominance of weak argumentation can be attributed to the specific nature of editorials, which aim to present the editorial board’s opinion and influence readers. The genre under study is a powerful tool in media warfare and shaping societal beliefs and values. The minimal percentage of insufficient argumentation indicates a desire to refrain from overt manipulation. The relatively high percentage of strong argumentation in a genre categorized as ‘opinion’ is also explained by the functional aspect of editorials: since the genre transmits institutional opinions with the intention of influencing public views, it is necessary to maintain authority and a high level of credibility in the information provided. Strong arguments in this genre include references to facts, data from authoritative sources including statistics, experimental results, references to public opinion, and common sense. Weak arguments include personal opinions, speculations, predictions, intuition, references to sources that are not definitive authorities in the field, conclusions based on incomplete statistical data and facts with no obvious connection.
About the Author
E. A. Nikonova
Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Ekaterina A. Nikonova - PhD in Philology, Associate Professor, Department of English No. 3
Moscow
References
1. Blair, J. A., Johnson, R. H. (1987). Argumentation as Dialectical. Argumentation, 1 (1): 41—56.
2. Chivers, T., Chivers, D. (2022). The numbers don't lie. How to not let statistics fool you. Mos-cow: Individuum. 224 p. (In Russ.).
3. Efremov, V. A. (2020). Business rhetoric. Speech culture and business communication. Mos-cow: KnoRus. 217 p. (In Russ.).
4. Firmstone, J. (2019). Editorial Journalism and Newspapers’ Editorial Opinions. In: Oxford re-search encyclopedia, communication. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339886788_Editorial_journalism_and_newspapers%27_editorial_opinions (accessed 21.10.2023). DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.803.
5. Firmstone, J. (2008). The editorial Production Process and editorial Values as Influences on the Opinions of the British Press Towards Europe. Journalism Practice, 2: 212—229.
6. Gudkova, K. V. (2009). Cognitive-pragmatic analysis of argumentation in an analytical news-paper article (based on the material of the British press): PhD Diss. St. Petersburg. 184 p. (In Russ.).
7. Hallock, S. M. (2007). Editorial and opinion: The dwindling marketplace of ideas in today’s news. Westport, CT: Praeger. 256 p. ISBN: 0275993302, 9780275993306.
8. Ivin, A. A. (2022). Theory and practice of argumentation. Moscow: Yurayt. 300 p. (In Russ.).
9. Kahn, K. F., Kenney, P. J. (2002). The slant of the news: How editorial endorsements influ-ence campaign coverage and citizens’ views of candidates. American Political Science Review, 96 (2): 381—394.
10. Kara-Murza, S. G. (2005). Mind manipulation. Moscow: Eksmo. 832 p. ISBN: 978-5-699-10826-8. (In Russ.).
11. Katajamäki, H. (2009). An Editorial and its Intertextual Links: Case Study of a Finnish Busi-ness Newspaper. Käännösteoria, ammattikielet ja monikielisyys, 36: 204−215.
12. Melville, A. Yu., Illin, M. V., Meleshkina, E. Yu. et al. (2008). How to measure and compare levels of democratic development in different countries? (Based on materials from the research project “Political Atlas of Modernity”). Moscow: MGIMO-University. 135 p. (In Russ.).
13. Shaveko, N. A. (2022). Public opinion and justice. Law: history and modernity, 6(1): 35—45. (In Russ.).
14. Zhelyabovskaya, M. V. (2021). Development of China’s national economy: a look into the future. In: Scientific notes of young researchers, 3: 14—21. (In Russ.).
15. Zolotukhina-Abolina, E. V. (2016). Common sense and the irrational. Epistemology & Philos-ophy of Science, 2 (48). 176—192. (In Russ.).
Review
For citations:
Nikonova E.A. Types of Argumentation in Editorials. Nauchnyi dialog. 2024;13(1):159-176. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2024-13-1-159-176
Views:
190
Email this article 