Persuasive attack strategies in media discourse: A case study

Abstract

Abstract This study explores the persuasive attack strategies used by participants in the ‘Opposite Direction’ program to attack actions and characters. In particular, the study examines the differences (if any) between the attack strategies directed at actions and those at characters. To this end, 299 utterances which were taken from 30 episodes were analyzed quantitatively using SPSS Base and qualitatively by adopting Benoit’s and Dorries’ (1996), Legge et al.’s (2012), and Benoit’s and Glantz’s (2017) frameworks. The analysis shows that the participants attacked actions more than characters and that these attacks were accomplished by means of two main strategies: 1) increasing the perceived responsibility for the act and 2) increasing negative perceptions of the act. The former was enhanced by using three sub-strategies and the latter by seven sub-strategies. Furthermore, the study found that the participants attacked characters by utilizing two main strategies: 1) enhancing perception that the target possesses a trait and 2) enhancing perception that the trait is offensive. The former was enhanced by means of four sub-strategies and the latter by two sub-strategies. The study provides implications for media and political discourse analysts and researchers of how persuasive attacks are conducted in interactive programs.