Critical Discourse Analysis of Political TV Talk Show of Pakistani Media Abstract
This paper explores the study of Critical Discourse analysis used by social and electronic media for presenting political views about the parties and their way of governing. In the history Pakistan, first time four different parties governing in four different provinces of Pakistan, in Sindh, Pakistan People’s Party, Punjab PML (N), KPK PTI and Balochistan PMAP and NP. Pakistani and International media giving exclusive coverage to the PTI rigging campaign of 2013 elections against PML (N) government. This also suggested the relationship between ideology and language and how these relationships represented the analysis of speech context, which follows the Van Dijk’s Socio Cognitive Model (2002). The news and current affairs channels presented many political programs, in which many top analyst and party representation also the part of these programs. These political powers shows also suggest the rating point of Pakistan’s electronic media that is why people show their interest to watch this mind effective game. The current study is about the situation created by Arslan Iftikhar son former Chief Justice of Pakistan moves an application against the main stream political Leader and PTI chairman Imran khan. This movement in the current scenario of political disorder changed the strategies of political parties. Analysis of a TV Talk show was presented in this study because most of the time TV Talk shows the disentangled the truth, reality and official matters. These types of political shows some time disfigure the matters.
Keywords: Electronic media, Political Discourse, ideology of media, power, authoritative approach.
Language is the unique possession of man and Allah’s special gift of mankind. Language is the best way of communication and some time is used for different st with such unconventional research, critical discourse analysts take obvious position, and therefore want to understand, expose, and finally resist social difference. Some of the opinions of CDA can previously be found in the critical theory of the Frankfurt School before the Second World War (Agger 1992b; Rasmussen 1996). Its current emphasis on language and discourse was started with the "critical linguistics" that developed (mostly in the UK and Australia) at the end of the 1970s (Fowler et al. 1979; see also Mey 1985). CDA has also corresponding items in "critical" developments in sociolinguistics, psychology, and the social sciences, some already dating back to the early 1970s (Birnbaum 1971; Calhoun 1995; Fay 1987; Fox and Prilleltensky 1997; Hymes 1972; Ibanez and Iniguez 1997; Singh 1996; Thomas 1993; Turkel 1996; Wodak 1996). As is the case in these neighboring disciplines, CDA may be seen as a response against the leading formal (often "asocial" or "uncritical") examples of the 1960s and 1970s.
CDA is not so much a direction, school, or specialization next to the many other "approaches" in discourse studies. To some extent, it aims to offer a different "mode" or "perspective" of hypothesizing, analysis, and application during the course of the whole field. We may find a more or less critical viewpoint in such miscellaneous areas as pragmatics, conversation analysis, narrative analysis, rhetoric, stylistics, sociolinguistics, ethnography, or media analysis, among others. Essential for critical discourse analysts is the obvious awareness of their role in society. Continuing a tradition that rejects the possibility of a "value-free" science, they claim that science, and especially scholarly discourse, are integrally part of and influenced by social structure, and formed in social interaction. As an alternative of refuting or overlooking such a relation between scholarship and society, they implore that such relations be studied and accounted for in their own right, and that scholarly practices be grounded on such visions. Theory formation,...
References:  http://www.ecp.gov.pk/election2013.pk
 http://www. ipra.ua.ac.be
Please join StudyMode to read the full document