4.2 Evaluative key in journalistic discourse – the ‘voices’ of news, analysis and commentary
4.2.2 Journalistic key – clinal distinctions
The patternings, then, with respect to inscribed authorial judgement and authorial assessments of obligation are re-settings of the language’s global evaluative meaning making potential which operate with a high degree of probability in our data. Additionally, as we indicated above, there are patterns which, while they are associated with these three journalistic roles of ‘reporter’, ‘correspondent’ and ‘commentator’, operate as clinal tendencies rather than clearly-bounded distinctions. One such patterning – that associated with values of appreciation– was exemplified in the earlier discussion.
Our analysis identified several other similarly clinal and probabilistic patternings involving sub-types of both graduationandengagement.
For reasons of space we provide only a brief outline of these below. (For a fuller account of journalistic voice see White 1998.)
● ‘grammatical’, ‘isolating’ intensification(egsomewhat, slightly, quite, rather, very, fairly, extremelyandgreatly) was less frequent in unattributed contexts in reporter voice texts than in correspondent voice and commentator voice texts.
● ‘infused’ intensification of processes (eg the ski lift plunged,the Marine EA-6B Prowler swooped, prices sky-rocketed) was more frequent in reporter voice texts than in the writer voice texts.
● Attribution (typically acknowledge, but also distance) occurs regularly across the three voices (in association with the journalis- tic function of mediating other voices and discourses) but at the highest frequency in reporter voice and at the lowest frequency in commentator voice.
● Values of entertain(egmay, perhaps, it seems, arguably, evidently)occur with a significantly lower frequency in reporter voice than in writer voice (in unattributed contexts).
● Denials (in unattributed contexts): less frequent in reporter voice (only 14 of the 42 reporter voice texts contained instances, with rates of from 0.6 to 1.2 instances per 500 words) than in writer voice (eg in commentator voice rates of from 4.5 to 9.8 instances per 500 words.)
● No significant patterns were found with respect to values of counter when the meaning was realised as a logical connection between clauses (for example, by conjunctions such as however, although, yet, 182 The Language of Evaluation
Figure 4.4 Journalistic voices and authorial sanction non sanctioning:
reporter voice and correspondent voice
sanctioning:
commentator voice sanction
– authorial social sanction – authorial directives (proposals)
+ authorial social sanction + authorial directives (proposals)
but, etc.). A significant pattern did emerge when we considered counter-expectational particles such as only, still, just, even. Instances were found in only three of the reporter voice texts, where they occurred at a low rate (no more than .9 per 500 words). In contrast, they occurred in almost half of our correspondent voice texts and all but two of our commentator voice texts. In the writer voice texts the rate per 500 words was significantly higher than for the reporter voice texts.
● No instances of pronouncein unattributed contexts occurred in the reporter voice texts (eg the truth of the matter, I contend …etc.). Here there was a clear contrast with both the writer voices, although val- ues of pronounce occurred significantly more frequently in com- mentator than in correspondent voice texts. We also found no instance of values of concur(of course, naturally, predictably) in the reporter-voice grouping, and once again there was a clear contrast with the writer voice texts where these values occur at roughly equal rates across the two voices.
● Values of endorse (‘they demonstrated that…’ etc.) occur across the three voices.
By this analysis, then, we are able to describe with some specificity the linguistic regularities and tendencies which constitute the evaluative styles or keys of journalistic discourse. We have found that the voices involve particular reconfigurations of the system’s meaning-making potential, with these reconfigurations establishing clearly different prob- abilities for the occurrence of the different types of attitude,graduation andengagement. It is possible to relate these different configurations to different authorial presences and different potential rhetorical effects.
Reporter voice, for example, can be seen as a regime of strategic imper- sonalisation by which the author’s subjective role is backgrounded. We note with interest that, while this regime operates with a virtual prohi- bition on inscribed authorial judgementand assessments of obligation, it strongly favours intensificationvia infusion, and permits instances of inscribed authorial appreciation, the reporting of the affectualresponses of third parties, assessments of counter-expectation construed as an inter clausal relationship, and the distancing and the endorsement of the viewpoints of external sources. As well, it makes frequent use of tokens of judgement. It thus operates ideologically by presenting itself as ‘factual’ and ‘neutral’ via this avoidance of socially sanctioning and esteeming meanings while simultaneously positioning the reader via its selective use of values of engagement,graduation, the other types of
attitude andjudgement tokens. Evidence for the effectiveness of this ideology is to be found in the persistence of the commonsense view that
‘quality’ journalism is ‘objective’ and evaluatively impartial. The corre- spondent versus commentator voice distinction acts to naturalise a power hierarchy within mainstream media organisations by which a distinction is made between the discursive role in which the writer is authorised to employ the full range of evaluative meanings, including those which pass moral judgement, and a discursive role in which the writer, while still authorised to be explicitly evaluative, is significantly more constrained attitudinally.
4.3 Evaluative key and the discourses of