As previously mentioned, the topic of war is inherently a negative one, thus it comes as no surprise that most of the attitudes conveyed in the 1967 material are of the negative type. However, looking at the appraised items, we encounter some interesting things. Most of the negatively appraised items were either Arabs (both political leaders as individuals, as well as the various countries) or their forces (example (4.17) and (4.18)).
4.17 There is clearly disappointment among Arabs that the battle has ended so quickly, and a number of political leaders came under scrutiny as a result (TT June 10, 1967_2).
4.18 Without air cover Egypt’s armour would be seriously weakened (TT June 5, 1967). (4.17) not only exemplifies the negative attitudes towards Arabs in general in my material, but also how the journalist speaks on behalf of Arabs, and appraises the Arab leaders negatively. This is further emphasized by the adjective “clearly”, which pronounces this particular view, and thus contracts all of the others that may point to otherwise. This may lead a reader to interpret the rest of the negative appraisal as correct, since even the Arabs are evaluating their leaders negatively. (4.18) demonstrates another topic that seems to be very much so at play throughout most of the newspaper material: the various forces’ capacity to fight/advance in a battle (further discussed in chapter 6). For the most part, Arab armies are depicted negatively, through descriptions of aircraft losses and destruction of machines, whereas the Israeli army mostly receives positive evaluations, through depictions of its military capacity, see for instance (4.19):
4.19 After one day’s fighting the Israel armed forces appear to be jubilant tonight (TT June 5, 1967).
Most of the journalist’s positive appraisal towards the Israeli army is also inscribed,
enhancing the positive attitude even further. The negative attitude towards the Arab armies is invoked.
Arab and Soviet portrayal
The Arab media received some blows as illustrated in (4.20):
4.20 The attempt will not become any easier by the latest anti-British-mood here, encouraged by Egyptian radio propaganda that British and American forces are helping the Israelis (TT June 6, 1967_2).
This indicates a general negative attitude towards Arab and Soviet media, suggesting that most of it is pure propaganda, constructed to keep their morale up and support the current fighting. The rest of the negative appraisal is turned towards the Soviet Union, and its policies, media and communism in general:
4.21 There is no indication of any slackening of the communist campaign, the object of which is apparently to counter the erosion of Russian credit in the Arab world (TT June 12, 1967).
4.22 It may be that the Russians – who will not want to lose influence here – may recoup with a diplomatic display around the negotiation table (TT June 10, 1967_2).
4.23 Many of the photographs from the Middle East and headlines about the crisis which filled the outside world newspapers last week were absent from the Soviet press (TT June 6, 1967_1),
4.24 During the last decade many governments of the emerging nations have turned their anti-colonialist efforts towards nationalism, rather than communist policy (TT June 6, 1967_1).
Examples (4.23) and (4.24) are from the same news article, in which most of the other negative appraisals of the Soviet press and communism appear. Although one article is unlikely to be representative of the entire stack of news articles from TT, it is still noteworthy since the Soviet is considered as an Arab ally (and can thus be seen together with the rest of
the negative appraisals of Arabs). The ongoing Cold War between the Western super powers (the US and the UK) and the Eastern super power (the Soviet Union) seems to also play a part in all this (see further chapter 6).
US and UK portrayal
Since the thesis concerns itself with British and American media, it is interesting to look at how the US and UK are portrayed in the material. Not surprisingly, both of the countries receive a share of positive attitude, mostly sourcing from the various journalists, but also a few with external sources:
4.25 Of the five motions still before the council, the only forward-looking one is that tabled by the United States last Thursday (TT June 12, 1967).
4.26 During the past two days there have been protracted and patient talks in private between the 15 members of the council with Lord Caradon (Britain) and Mr. Arthur Goldberg (United States) doing their utmost to persuade Dr. Fedorenko to see the need for stopping the fighting unconditionally (TT June 7, 1967).
4.27 Mr. George Brown, the Foreign Secretary, told the Commons that Britain’s concern was not to take sides in the conflict, but to work for an early cease-fire (TT June 5, 1967).
(4.25), although explicitly evaluating the American proposal for a peace agreement, can also be said to implicitly positively evaluate the US. This is especially evident when seen in connection with the rest of the article, and the way other countries are portrayed. Consider by way of example (4.28):
4.28 Unless the communist countries, headed by Russia, abate their vendetta against Israel, there seems small chance that the American resolution will succeed (TT June 12, 1967).
The negative appraisal of Russia (the Soviet Union) and their allies is put up against a positive appraisal of the US and its motions, thus encouraging a polarity of “good” (the US) versus “bad/evil” (the Soviet Union). (4.26) can be seen as a negative appraisal of the Soviet representative, Dr. Fedorenko, and Soviet in general. However, another reading of the example is an implicit positive appraisal of the US and UK. The journalist emphasizes the fact that the meetings were “protracted” and “patient”, and that the persuasion for a cease-fire was coming from the two countries (the US and the UK).
In general, the fact that a party encourages an “end to fighting” is naturally regarded as positive. Additionally, in this example, the US and UK representatives are seen as “patient” and preserving, further enhancing the positive attitude towards the UK and the US. Example (4.27) is also invoked, and Mr. George Brown is identified as the source of the voice. Britain is portrayed as a neutral party, encouraging an immediate cease-fire. In contrast to the portrayal of the Soviet Union and the Arabs, the readers of TT get a feeling of Britain as a wise and sensible party, a needed presence in what was perceived as a chaotic geographical area in distress. This is especially evident when seen in relation to the news article’s headline (4.29):
4.29 Israel claims Sinai gains, Egypt’s allies send in their planes, British call for cease- fire (TT June 5, 1967).
Israel is here depicted as the claiming party, the Arabs as “warlusting” people, and Britain as the sensible country, encouraging a peaceful solution. The Arabs’ “warlust” is further emphasized in (4.30), by using the expression of “throwing their forces into battle”, indicating the action as being hasty and careless:
4.30 Four nations allied with Egypt-Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq – threw their forces into the struggle (TT June 5, 1967).
The negative appraisal of Britain and the US usually comes from external sources, such as the Arab countries and/or their representatives, as well as the Soviet Union:
4.31 Moscow blames Britain and US (TT June 6, 1967_1).
4.32 Arab states launched an oil war against Britain and the United States today after accusing them of intervening in the military conflict with Israel (TT June 7, 1967). Example (4.32) demonstrates the complexity of newspaper language, where the sentence alone can be understood as the Arabs negatively evaluating Britain and the US, by using negative items such as “oil war”, “accusing” and “intervening”, however, the item “accusing” is especially significant. By using this particular verb the journalist distances himself from the statement, and thus devalues the validity of it, which may leave the reader in a state of suspicion as to why the Arab countries are doing what they are doing. This becomes particularly apparent when seen in relation to the article’s main topic, which is British
economical suffering due to a possible oil boycott:
4.33 Britain most to lose from boycott (TT June 7, 1967).
4.34 Britain’s reputation may not be very high at the moment, but the United States is seen as the real villain of this particular plot (TT June 10, 1967_2).
Another instance exemplifying negative appraisal of the US and the UK can be seen in (4.34): Here, the journalist is “entertaining” the reader with the notion of Britain having a bad reputation in the Arab states. Although the statement is heteroglossic, due to the modal verb “may” and negation “not”, the source of the attitude is not known. It is nevertheless
understood to stem from the Arabs. However tentative the journalist is in the first part of the sentence, he ends it by contracting the statement (signaled by “but”), and carries on in a monoglossic voice, while explaining how the US is the real problem, not the UK. This is of great interest, since the author seems more cautious to criticize the UK, and more straight forward when it comes to criticism of the US. The validity of the Arabs’ notion of British and American intervention is further diminished through examples such as (4.35), where the journalist minimizes the notion of British and American intervention (in the last clause):
4.35 Alternatively there is little doubt that the politicians will make much of “British and American intervention”, although not accepted universally as many believe (TT June 10, 1967_2).