прагматика и медиа дискурс / Teun A van Dijk - News Analysis

We see that whereas a Tamil movement is categorized as "terrorist" the actions of the Sri Lankan government are rhetorically mitigated by a much softer qualification ("not entirely beyond criticism"). In that case, the expression "excesses of the army" is placed between quotes, unlike the term "terrorist." As usual, the news report strategy in this case is not to provide direct information about this context, but rather indirectly, through attribution to the minister of Foreign Affairs.

In some cases, Comments (Evaluations or Expectations) of the journalist are assigned a prominent position in Headline or Lead, as we saw in the examples of the Telegraaf. Here the allegations of welfare profiting are no longer a marginal conclusion by the reponer from ongoing events but instead receive Main Event-status in both Summary (Headline and Lead) and the text itself. Thus, prejudiced suspicion is transformed into a threatening social fact, whereas the actual Main Event (the police sending back refugees) is downgraded to a local detail or to context information.

Another typical schematic transformation is the upgrading of the Verbal Reactions category. This important category, which often organizes large parts of the news story, normally features the declarations of authorities or other important news actors about the recent events. Sometimes these reactions are made more relevant than the Main Event itself. The headline examples show how doubts or suspicions of the authorities about the refugee status of Tamils are promoted to Main Event-status or simply given special relevance by headlining. We also witnessed that the verbal reactions of the opposition, of refugee organizations, and especially of the refugees themselves seldom undergo this form of transformation.

A final example of schematic and thematic transformation may be found in Telegraaf in a story that bears the following prominent headline:

Help of German authorities suspected

NATIONAL POLICE INVESTIGATES TAMIL-INVASION (TG, 3/2/85)

The story itself, however, is about a government decision to organize the reception of Tamils and only secondarily about the investigation of possible German complicity in "illegal border crossings" of the Tamils. Indeed, Parool headlines the same story as follows:

CABINET WANTS SHELTERS FOR TAMILS (PA, 3/2/85)

Telegraaf apparently pays more attention to suspected fraud, illegal border crossing, and the actions of the police than to the less-juicy decísion of the government to house the Tamils. More generally, however, the first few months of the Tamil coverage show repeated contextual descriptions of exactly how the Tamils flew to Moscow and East Berlín (literally a suspect

while communist connection in its own right), and from there through West Berlin to the Dutch green borders. Just as with the alleged actions of dubious travel agencies, the whole context of the flight and immigration of the Tamils remains associated with negative concepts such as human traffic, fraud, deceit, illegal border crossing, and organized crime. In this case, backgrounds are not so much given to provide more understanding of the motives for immigration of Tamils but rather to support the assumption that something is wrong with these refugees: They come in jets, are able to buy expensive tickets, come through Eastem Europe, cross unpoliced borders illegally, hire,expensive taxis for long-distance transportation, and are said to be unable to tell horror stories about personal persecution.

We see that selective History, biased Contexts, negative Verbal Reactions of the authorities, and negative Comments of the reporter may get special attention, made more prominent in headlines, and may even undergo transformation as Main Events, i.e., become recent news facts.

LOCAL SEMANTICS AND STYLE

Although the global structures of news reports, such as their dominant topics, undoubtedly have a major role in news processing by the readers, the local structures may also contribute to the oyeran portrayal of Tamils. Here, stylistic phenomena, such as lexical choice and syntactic formulation of underlying actor roles, and a number of special semantic properties, such as presuppositions, implications, or associations, play a strategic role in the description and evaluation of the new citizens. Obviously, it makes a vast difference whether the Tamil refugees are pictured as persecuted victims of an oppressive government, as people fleeing a civil war, or generally as people who deserve our sympathy or pity; or as terrorists who are to blame themselves for the situation in Sri Lanka, as kids of rich parents, as people who illegally enter the country, or as refugees who merely come here to live off our pocket. We have seen that, thematically, the stories tend to favor the latter category. How are such categorizations—and their obvious possible consequences for ethnic-attitude formation and ideological transformation and legitimation—ultimately grounded in the meaning production and the stylistic expressions of the reports themselves? What inferences can be drawn from such local semantic and stylistic formulations about the attitudes or ideologies of the reporters or their newspapers?

Since it is not yet practically feasible to analyze the detailed local structures of some 400 news reports, we must again limit ourselves to a few important dimensions of the local typification of Tamils in the press, namely, those elements that may eminently contribute to the formation of negative attitudes. To focus on the initial definitions, which have a rather de-

these illegals. To fully understand the implications of this initial typification, it should be added that extant minority groups in the Netherlands, especially Turkish and Moroccan guest workers, are regularly associated with the same kind of illegality and that this condition is always used as the official reason for expulsion. Whereas racist organizations and parties in the Netherlands could hardly say in their propaganda that foreigners should be sent back—a proposition that is implied, however, by their statementsthey could legally emphasize that illegal foreigners should be sent back. In other words, by defining Tamils as illegals from the outset, the press already formulates a crucial reason for their expulsion and at least one negative point of view in the decision procedure about their applications for refugee status.

Fraud

The emphasis on illegality often relates to other negative concepts such as various forms of fraud. Thus, dozens of passages associate Tamils with deceit, trafficking, or other dubious practices related to illegal ently and

residence.

Tamils may be portrayed as real or potential victims of such fraud or trafficking. This is the case in the many stories about travel agencies or frontier runners that make a "fast buck" from their misery by charging many thousands of dollars for a flight to Moscow and/or East Berlin and for the car or train journey through West Germany to the Dutch border. These stories become even more impressive of course when they go beyond the incidental exploitation of a travel agent and are able to construe the events under the label of organized crime:

LUCRATIVE TRAFFIC IN PEOPLE FROM SRI LANKA SUSPECa ED

Although the authorities in the Netherlands do not have hard evidence, indications are increasingly taken more serious that a well-organized travel agency is behind this (VK, 1/17/85).

JET REFUGEES DENY ORGANIZED HUMAN TRAFFICKING (TR, 1/18/85)

CRIMINALS PROFIT OF EXODUS TAMILS

(. . . ) there is increasing suspicion that criminals successfully cash in on the anxieties of the Tamil people . . . Indications are accumulating that the fast growing stream of Tamils has become an easy prey to a slick organization (TG, 1/19/85).

One should not conclude from such passages that the press is primarily concerned about the Tamils themselves. On the contrary, especially during

the first few months, it is the country as a whole and the authorities that are confronted with a new type of crime (see also the usual criminalization in Telegraaf) and, hence, the Dutch who are the primar), victims of such crime: These agents facilitate the Tamil stream to the Netherlands, and cause our actual problems. In other circumstances, no government agency or newspaper would probably bother to investigate or prominently publish fraud by travel agencies or other private enterprises. The interests of the country are involved only when immigration in concerned; therefore it is not surprising when the ministry of Justice instructs a public prosecutor to investigate such activities. A few months later, Telegraaf triumphantly publishes the alleged results of such an investigation under a vast banner headline:

LEADER OF SYNDICATE ARRESTED

THOUSANDS OF TAMILS SMUGGLED INTO THE COUNTRY (TG 4/27/85)

The text itself speaks of a criminal organization that is being tracked by the police (i.e., not yet found). Note that this headline is published at a moment when the immigration of Tamils has virtually stopped. Yet, it suggests that thousands of new Tamils have been smuggled into the country. The empathy with exploited Tamils is nowhere to be found in this and many other stories.

The same prominent focus is given to the first housing problems of the Tamils in Amsterdam. racp. of Surinamese and immigrant workers from Mediaterranean countries a decade or two earlier, "malafide" (the preferred media expression) owners of often decrepit pensions take advantage of Tamils by charging high rents for a single room to be shared by many people. Again, diese stories may be positively read as media denouncement of Tamil exploitation, and indeed the authorities have moved quickly to close down some of diese pensions. However, as is the case with the travel agencies (invariably put between quotes), this empathy with the plight of the Tamils can hardly be seen as more than a form of positive self-presentation.

Again, comparison shows why. First, there is no government or media outcry against high rents in the cities or against other forms of exploitation by house owners or speculators, usually denounced only by the squatter movement. Second, minorities in the Netherlands generally live in the worst houses or apartments in the inner cities, and there is no media or other public indignation against this form of housing. Third, when finally the government itself decides to house the Tamils in its own pensions, there are hardly first-class hotels. At the same time the usual welfare allowance is taken from the Tamils and replaced by the bread, bed, and bath system in addition to some 20 guilders ($10.00) of pocket money per week. The major

reason for that action is to save money (and to deter further refugees from coming to the Netherlands). In this way, millions of guilders have been withheld that legally should be given to people who apply for political asylum. At least initially, no newspaper has denounced that kind of state exploitation and taken the side of the Tamils. Only months later, some political parties and newspapers slowly become convinced that this kind of reception can no longer be tolerated. In other words, the exploiting pension owners are portrayed in terms of criminal deviance from Dutch morals and not primarily as exploiting refugees.

Generally speaking, then, the dominating topic of fraud is presented from the point of view of the receiving society or authorities and not from the point of view of the Tamils. This means that, as part of the whole refugee picture, it further emphasizes that something is wrong, fishy, and indeed fraught with fraud with the whole Tamil immigration.

This may also be seen from those stories where the Tamils themselves are portrayed as active perpetrators of fraud or deceit. Telegraaf reports in its first article (January 10, 1985) that some refugees have false passports, and we have already analyzed an example from the same newspaper claiming that Tamils apply for refugee status in several countries (to get extra welfare). This story meshes well with the crucial topic emanating from a vast number of earlier reports, namely, that Tamils are fake, economic refugees (see the section "Economic Refugees"). NRC-Handelsblad (April 13, 1985) briefly adds that lawyers make fortunes by organizing work and refugee status for Tamils; Parool makes a similar claim in a headline and long story (April 27, 1985) for welfare workers who allegedly welcome these new refugees into their market. Thus, interestingly, instead of directly attacking the Tamils themselves, there is the indirect move of attacking those who, in fact or in fantasy, profit from their presence.

Crime and Drugs

In comes as no surprise that the negative portrayal of Tamils (and their bonafide or malafide helpers) regarding illegality and fraud finally goes all the way to straightforward crime, especially the crime most often associated with minorities—drugs. Obviously, the new Tamils have hardly had the opportunity to plan and commit crime, so the very fears of their likelihood to commit it are repeatedly expressed in the press. Most notably, rumors and allegations of linlcs with the heroin scene—actively as dope smugglers to pay their air fare or passively as potential victims of dope peddlers—soon enter the stories. This association with real or potential criminalization is the closing and most persuasive link in the traditionally negative media portrayal of minorities, both in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, other Western

European countries and the United States (see, e.g., Hall, et á., 1978). This is how the press subtly brings in the crime angle without straightforward accusations:

According to the city of Amsterdam these wandering groups are at great risk to end up in criminal or drug eircles because of lack of money (PA, 2/14/85).

Again, the presentation strategy is one of empathy, showing concern for the Tamils, whereas the real fears amount to the projection of stereotypes and prejudices about the special inclinations, liabilities, and drug-related crimes of minority group people. •

Economic Refugees

Whereas the semantic implications of the topics previously discussed undoubtedly contributed to the negative portrait of the Tamils sketched by the Dutch press, no topic cluster is as explica, unambiguous, and dominant as that of the Tamils being economic and not political refugees.

From the start in January 1985, the authorities did more than make it clear that this group of uninvited, irregular, and even ilegal refugees was not welcome. The officials of the Justice Department repeatedly emphasized that they had reasons to believe that many of the Tamils carne here only to take advantage of our social welfare system, not because they leared persecution in Sri Lanka. The government, therefore, consistently refused to grant political asylum to the Tamils as a group, despite the declarations by the UNHCR, Amnesty International, and other organizations that Tamils in Sri Lanka were collectively real or potential victims of state oppression. Individual examination of each case would allow the authorities to outwardly present itself as fair, while at the same time deciding negatively in most individual cases. This proved to be the case: In the fall of the same year it became obvious that only a few dozen of individual Tamils (of an estimated 3,000) would be recognized as refugees.

The newspapers have faithfully reproduced and legitimated this policy of the politicians, and in their own way helped produce a broad public consensus about this definition of the Tamils as fake refugees. The stories about illegal entry, fraud, and crime are only supporting media strategies to persuasively convey this prominent feature of Tamils being fake refugees. Dozens of headlines and local passages show how this dominant definition is formulated. The routine strategy is to prominently quote the authorities. Representatives of the Department of Justice are repeatedly quoted as saying:

In talles with them there is no question of political motives. In that case we are allowed to think of other motives, economic ones in the broadest sense of the term (NH, 1/17/85).

Trapped Western governments are increasingly convinced that part of the Tamils (. . .) did not leave Sri Lanka because of political reasons. (. . .) From the first interrogations it appears that stories about the persecution they suffered hardly stand up (TR, 1/18/85).

The very choice of the word -trapped- to describe the Western European governments shows that according to the speaker for the Department of Justice, we are the victims of this invasion not the Tamils. After a few weeks of emphasizing the economic nature of the Tamil refugees, the press and the public routinely use this evaluation of the situation. That is, no longer does the press simply report what the authorities think—allegations based on hearsay, wishful thinking, and individual stories, and not on hard evidence about the situation in Sri Lanka—but itself adopts this definition in its own newsgathering routines, interviews, and independent assessment of the Tamil immigration. Repeatedly, both in the Netherlands and Sri Lanka, authorities are being asked the question whether the Tamils should be regarded as real or economic refugees:

One may ask whether these people are really fleeing to Europe out of political motives, or whether they simply come here to profit of our social welfare system (NH, 4/5/85).

Even when a correspondent of NRC-Handelsblad interviews a Tamil leader who denies diese allegations, he concludes from the admission that some young Tamils also seek better education that this must be the main motive for their flight to Europe (NH, 4/15/85). A day later, the same newspaper makes the crucial next step in this reasoning:

The point of view of Amnesty International can hardly be maintained (. . .). As far as the Tamils are concerned, we should quickly separate the wheat from the chaff and those who have come to the Netherlands only because of economic reasons should actual be expelled (NH, 4/16/85).

Apparently, both for the authorities and for much of the press, the discussion about the refugee status of the Tamils has only one major goal: formulating the argumenta in such a way that a face-saving case can be made for throwing them out.

The examples discussed in this section also show that the use of the term "economic refugees" by the authorities and in the press should not be seen

European countries and the United States (see, e.g., Hall, et al., 1978). This is how the press subtly brings in the crime angle without straightforward accusations:

According to the city of Amsterdam these wandering groups are at great risk to end up in criminal or drug circles because of lack of money (PA, 2/14/85).

Again, the presentation strategy is one of empathy, showing concern for the Tamils, whereas the real fears amount to the projection of stereotypes and prejudices about the special inclinations, liabilities, and drug-related crimes of minority group people. •

Economic Refugees

Whereas the semantic implications of the topics previously discussed undoubtedly contributed to the negative portrait of the Tamils sketched by the Dutch press, no topic cluster is as explicit, unambiguous, and dominant as that of the Tamils being economic and not political refugees.

From the start in January 1985, the authorities did more than make it clear that this group of uninvited, irregular, and even ilegal refugees was not welcome. The officials of the Justice Department repeatedly emphasized that they had reasons to believe that many of the Tamils carne here only to take advantage of our social welfare system, not because they teared persecution in Sri Lanka. The government, therefore, consistently refused to grant political asylum to the Tamils as a group, despite the declarations by the UNHCR, Amnesty International, and other organizations that Tamils in Sri Lanka were collectively real or potential victims of state oppression. Individual examination of each case would allow the authorities to outwardly present itself as fair, while at the same time deciding negatively in most individual cases. This proved to be the case: In the fall of the same year it became obvious that only a few dozen of individual Tamils (of an estimated 3,000) would be recognized as refugees.

The newspapers have faithfully reproduced and legitimated this policy of the politicians, and in their own way helped produce a broad public consensus about this definition of the Tamils as fake refugees. The stories about illegal entry, fraud, and crime are only supporting media strategies to persuasively convey this prominent feature of Tamils being fake refugees. Dozens of headlines and local passages show how this dominant definition is formulated. The routine strategy is to prominently quote the authorities. Representatives of the Department of Justice are repeatedly quoted as saying:

as a neutral counterpart of "political refugees." Rather, it is a typical example of bureaucratic jargon that dissimulates underlying meanings and implications. In its neutral sense (if there is such a thing as neutral meaning), it implies that refugees have no or fewer means of existence in their own country, that is, that they are poor and take refuge from poverty. However, its underlying and mostly intended meaning is that such refugees come here only to profit from our social welfare system, that is, they come here to live off our pocket. In several news reports and statements by authorities, this implication is explicitly spelled out. The alternative reading, that Tamils come here to work and thus may contribute to our economy, is never even envisaged. The well-known prejudice that minorities often live on welfare is simply applied here to the new group of immigrants. Refugees are hardly responsible for the tale that, pending the decision about their status, they are not allowed to work. Since many Tamils have a good education and professional experience, there is reason to believe that many of them will find a job despite the unemployment rate in the Netherlands. In other words, the term economic is a semantic and rhetorical strategy to convey ethnic prejudices with a technical euphemism.

Welfare

This typification of Tamils as economic refugees is particularly obvious in the passages where the press emphasizes the fact that Tamils will (or will no longer) receive welfare allowances. During the first months, until it was decided they should be put on the BBB-system previously discussed, they received the usual welfare allowance to which political refugees are entitled during their stay in the Netherlands as long as they remain unemployed. Several press reports, especially in Telegraaf, pay special attention to this welfare allowance and what it will cost us (one guilder is about 50 cents):

The Tamils (get) a card that entitles them to a welfare allowance (. . .) With the handling of applications alone tens of thousands of guilders are involved (TG, 1/10/85).

(they come here) to profit of the much higher allowances in the Netherlands (. . .) 600 guilders and welfare, a total of 1,500 guilders, and then the usual monthly welfare allowances (TG, 3/4/85).

The 2,000 Tamils cost the community two million guilders per month (TG, 3/9/85).

116 MILLION

(. . .) 29 million this year, 43.5 million in 1986 and 1987 (TG 3/28/85).