The spiral of ‘anti-other rhetoric’

The spiral of ‘anti-other rhetoric’: Discourses of identity and the international media echo. By Elisabeth Le. (Discourse approaches to politics, society and culture 22.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2006. Pp. xii, 280. ISBN 9789027227126. $173 (Hb).

Reviewed by Richard W. Hallett, Northeastern Illinois University

In Ch. 1, ‘Media, international relations, collective memories, and Critical Discourse Analysis’ (1–16), which essentially serves as the introduction to the book, Elisabeth Le begins to present a case study of elite newspapers in three nations: France, the United States, and Russia. Her study employs a critical discourse analysis (CDA) of the editorials in these newspapers to determine the effect of the ‘international media echo’ (6). According to Howard Frederick (Global communication and international relations, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing, 1993), this effect can occur ‘when the content of one nation’s media becomes news in the media of another country’ (228).

Using the interacting cascading networks model (9), L presents overviews of Russian, French, and American societies in Ch. 2, ‘National and international contexts for the international media echo’ (17–52). Following these overviews is a discussion of the print elite media in these three countries, which includes histories of the French newspaper Le Monde, the American newspaper The New York Times, and the Russian newspapers Izvestija, Nezavisimaja Gazeta, and Segodnija.

The linguistic analysis in Ch. 3, ‘Russia in Le Monde and The New York Times’ (53–105), shows how seventy-four editorials about Russia in the French and American elite newspapers, which appeared from August 1999 to July 2001, differ in terms of argumentation, debate construction, and the presentation and positioning of ‘us’ and ‘them’. In Ch. 4, ‘Le Monde’s and The New York Times’ editorials in their national societies’ (107–28), these editorials are shown to be a reflection of the world conceptions of France and America that, in part, form their respective national identities.

Claiming to leave a linguistic analysis of Russian media to ‘those who possess more than [her] fluent reading abilities of Russian’ (129), L utilizes the interacting cascading networks model to analyze the Russian socio-political organization in Ch. 5, ‘Russian reactions to the West’ (129–60). To this end, she discusses the three Russian elite newspapers, the Russian official position, Russian public opinion, and Russia’s position in the world vis-à-vis the West from 1999 until 2001.

The conclusion, Ch. 6, ‘Crossing cultural and disciplinary boundaries’ (161–81), summarizes L’s analyses of the interactions among the national elite print media on the textual, ideational, and interactional levels. This chapter also discusses the ‘anti-other rhetoric’ spiral, which L declares ‘the most negative manifestation of the international media echo’ (162), and calls for the necessity of cross-cultural and cross-disciplinary research. Following this chapter are five extensive appendices that contain a wealth of information: ‘Editorials’ (183–85), ‘Chronology’ (187–96), ‘Coherence analysis’ (197–209), ‘Content coding’ (211–35), and ‘Negative representation of Russia’ (237–43).

This book is a welcome addition to the growing number of CDA studies. It could be used as supplemental reading material in discourse studies as well as international relations and media studies.