Commentary on Fairclough, N. “Critical Analysis of Media Discourse.” Pgs 227-238.
Discourse has been used in many ways by different types of researchers, and so it’s definition extends to not only what is said, who says it and where, but also how and why, and more specificallly what influences it to be said. After all, words are meaningless without a social structure to frame them. The article shows that discourse is centred around a text, the discourse practice surrounding it consisting of the production and consumption of the text. This in turn is surrounded by sociocultural practice. What this means is that any analysis of a text must take into account the discourse that centres on it, but also must take into account the sociocultural setting that creates the discourse of the person or people who create and consume the text.
Of course, every discourse is different, and this is affected by the genre that the text is and what setting the text is written. The article mentions that ‘media texts are sensitive barometers of cultural change which manifest in their heterogeneity and contradictoriness the often tentative, unfinished and messy nature of change.’ This shows that media discourse can reflect more about culture than the text itself. For example, the way writing for newspapers was in the nineteen-seventies is much different to the writing that is now found in the newspapers today. This is seen in less sensationalist writing and seemingly more objective viewpoints. For example, a flu vaccination advertisement of the seventies insists that without the flu vaccination, you will get sick and it will be catastrophic, whereas in the public heath outbreak of Swine flu, the government has changed its discourse from alarmist propaganda to the insistence on calm that is seen now.
There are public and private discourses, for example, the discourse formed by the audience of a television show is large and can form a template for private discourse. Private discourse is often conversational, and in recent years it has become more common to find public discourses imitating private discourses, especially in cooking, or lifestyle programs. As an example, Dr. Harry the vet conducts all of his shows in a very conversational manner, but is undeniably a public discourse for broadcast. In this, the producers attempt to place the audience in an environment which they are comfortable in.
To sum up, the notion of discourse is wide and always changing and while studies may conventionalise both private and public discourse, the scope of its ever-changing nature makes this near impossible.
