Cover not available
Part of
Participation, Engagement and Collaboration in Newsmaking: A postfoundational perspective
Edited by Jana Declercq, Geert Jacobs, Felicitas Macgilchrist and Astrid Vandendaele
[Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture 94] 2021
► pp. 43–66

Chapter 3
“It is, perhaps more than ever before, a matter of participation”

Ontological tension and boundary work in a free trade blog

| Ghent University
| Ghent University
This chapter presents a discourse-analytical approach to a series of blogposts uploaded to the website of Brussels-based libertarian think tank between 2015 and 2018 in reaction to the controversy over the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). In these blogposts, economic experts and professionals reflect about how to successfully persuade the public of the case for free trade. We argue that these blogposts rest on two ultimately incompatible ontologies – one founded in economic science, the other based on a rudimentarily constructionist understanding of media and the public debate. The tension generated by the clash of these ontologies turns the blogposts into an interesting example of the negotiation of professional identities at a time when participation, collaboration and engagement are increasingly getting sedimented as the baseline for newsmaking practices.
Keywords: free trade, political economy, Discourse Theory, postfoundationalism, ontology, discourse, media, pragmatics, newsmaking, participation
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Research design
  • The politics of free trade, the European centre for international political economy and their blog
  • Evidence of conflicting ontologies in a free trade blog
    • Communication, campaigning, and language
    • Post-truth
    • Post-truth strategies
    • Legacy to new media
  • Implications for the public debate on free trade
  • Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 10 November 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.94.c3
References (40)
References
Arnoldi, Jakob. 2007. “Universities and the Public Recognition of Expertise.” Minerva 45 (1): 49-61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cotter, Colleen, and Daniel Perrin (eds). 2017. The Routledge Handbook of Language and Media. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Della Giusta, Marina. 2018. “Economists, unlike Scientists, Do a Poor Job of Communicating via Twitter.” LSE Business Review. Accessed January 6, 2020. [URL].Google Scholar
Della Giusta, Marina, Danica Vukadinovic-Greetham, and Sylvia Jaworska. 2018. “Tweeting Economists: Antisocial in the Socials?” University of Reading. Working Paper.Google Scholar
ECIPE. 2015. “The Spiral of Silence – How Anti-TTIP Groups Dominate German Online Media and Set the Tone for TTIP Opinion.” Accessed January 6, 2020. [URL].Google Scholar
. 2018a. “How to Make Trade Policy Cool Again on Social Media.” Accessed January 6, 2020. [URL].Google Scholar
. 2018b. “Trade is Here to Stay.” Accessed January 6, 2020. [URL].Google Scholar
. 2018c. “Why Trade-NOW.” Accessed January 6, 2020. [URL].Google Scholar
. 2018d. “How to Prepare for the next Anti-Free Trade Campaign.” Accessed January 6, 2020. [URL].Google Scholar
. 2018e. “‘This is Not a Love Song’.” Accessed January 6, 2020. [URL].Google Scholar
. 2018f. “Fake News and How to Use Twitter in a Meaningful Way for Policy Debates: Lessons from the European Commission’s “Digital Tax” Campaign.” Accessed January 6, 2020. [URL].Google Scholar
. 2019. “About Us.” Accessed January 6, 2020. [URL].Google Scholar
Franklin, Bob. 2014. “The Future of Journalism.” Journalism Studies 15 (5): 481-499. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gheyle, Niels. 2019. Trade Policy with the Lights on: the Origins, Dynamics, and Consequences of the Politicization of TTIP. PhD diss., Ghent University.Google Scholar
Gheyle, Niels, and Ferdi De Ville. 2017. “How Much is Enough? Explaining the Continuous Transparency Conflict in TTIP.” Politics and Governance 5 (3): 16-28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glynos, Jason, and David J. Howarth. 2007. Logics of Critical Explanation in Social and Political Theory. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gstöhl, Sieglinde, and Dirk De Bièvre. 2017. The Trade Policy of the European Union. Basingstoke: Macmillan International Higher Education.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Geert. 1999. Preformulating the News: An Analysis of the Metapragmatics of Press Releases. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018a. “Organizations and Corporate Communication.” In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Media, ed. by Colleen Cotter and Daniel Perrin. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Thomas. 2018b. “Poststructuralist Discourse Theory as an Independent Paradigm for Studying Institutions: Towards a New Definition of ‘Discursive Construction’ in Institutional Analysis.” Contemporary Political Theory 18 (3): 379-401. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019a. “The Strategic Turn in Post-Marxist Discourse Theory.” Global Discourse 9 (2). [URL].Google Scholar
. 2019b. “The Dislocated Universe of Laclau and Mouffe: An Introduction to Post-Structuralist Discourse Theory.” Critical Review 30 (3–4): 294-315. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jørgensen, Marianne, and Louise Phillips. 2002. Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. London: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laclau, Ernesto, and Chantal Mouffe. 2001. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London: Verso Trade.Google Scholar
Laclau, Ernesto. 1990. New Reflections on the Revolution of our Time. London: Verso.Google Scholar
. 2005. On Populist Reason. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Macgilchrist, Felicitas. 2016. “Fissures in the Discourse-scape: Critique, Rationality and Validity in Post-Foundational Approaches to CDS.” Discourse & Society 27 (3): 262–277. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Macgilchrist, Felicitas, and Inse Böhmig. 2012. “Blogs, Genes and Immigration: Online Media and Minimal Politics.” Media, Culture & Society 34 (1): 83-100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Macgilchrist, Felicitas. 2007. “Positive Discourse Analysis: Contesting Dominant Discourses by Reframing the Issues.” Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis Across Disciplines 1 (1): 74-94.Google Scholar
Nonhoff, Martin. 2019. “Hegemony Analysis: Theory, Methodology and Research Practice.” In Discourse, Culture and Organization, ed. by Tomas Marttila, 63-104. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peterson, M. A. 2015. “Speaking of news: Press, democracy, and metapragmatics in a changing India.” American Ethnologist 42 (4): 673–687. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Phelan, Sean, and Lincoln Dahlberg (eds). 2011. Discourse Theory and Critical Media Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Leeuwen, Theo. 2007. “Legitimation in Discourse and Communication.” Discourse & Communication 1 (1): 91-112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verschueren, J. 1985. “International news reporting. Metapragmatic metaphors and the U-2”. In Pragmatics & beyond, ed. by Herman Parret & Jeff Verschueren (5th ed., Vol. 6, Issue VI:5). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verschueren, Jef. 1999. Understanding Pragmatics. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
. 2004. “Notes on the Role of Metapragmatic Awareness in Language Use. Jef Verschueren.” In Metalanguage: Social and Ideological Perspectives, ed. by Adam Jaworski, Nikolas Coupland, and Dariusz Galasinski, 53-74. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verschueren, Jef, and Jan-Ola Östman (eds). 2009. Key Notions for Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zienkowski, Jan. 2017. Articulations of Self and Politics in Activist Discourse. Berlin: Springer International Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zienkowski, Jan, Jan-Ola Östman, and Jan Verschueren (eds). 2011. Discursive Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar