IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v11y2024i1d10.1057_s41599-024-03372-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The portrayal of Pakistan as whited sepulture against the Taliban: a case study of American media

Author

Listed:
  • Ayisha Khurshid

    (National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST))

Abstract

The changing narratives and portrayal of Taliban in the US media has been a subject of much deliberation among the media connoisseurs ranging from their heroic portrayal during the Afghan-Soviet war to desperados in the post 9/11 world landscape. For this particular reason, the present study is an effort to locate how the proxy actor (Pakistan) has been linked to the Taliban by the US media in the post 9/11 world. This research takes Time magazine as a case study and articles related to Pakistan are selected encompassing the decade following 9/11. The corpus-assisted critical discourse analysis has been applied using Graph Coll and Wordsmith. The analysis has been done on three levels: (i) the time-specific pattern of the node linked with the Pakistani context, (ii) the most significant and strong collocates of the node, and (iii) the semantic categorization of the collocates. The analysis reveals that Pakistan has been linked with Taliban groups throughout the decade in some years more frequently than others. The second level of analysis reveals that the Taliban groups are statistically significantly and strongly connected with Pakistan. The third level of analysis reveals many aspects such as ambiguity pertaining to Taliban and associated groups, their ties with Pakistan, and Pakistan playing a dodging game with Taliban groups as well as the US government. Such media portrayal of Pakistan as being a white sepulture reveals a political world where binaries (Us vs. Them) in the case of Pakistan do not exist.

Suggested Citation

  • Ayisha Khurshid, 2024. "The portrayal of Pakistan as whited sepulture against the Taliban: a case study of American media," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-14, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:11:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-024-03372-z
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-024-03372-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-024-03372-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-024-03372-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Connor Huff & Joshua D. Kertzer, 2018. "How the Public Defines Terrorism," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 62(1), pages 55-71, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lala Muradova & Ross James Gildea, 2021. "Oil wealth and US public support for war," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 38(1), pages 3-19, January.
    2. Sveinung Arnesen & Troy S Broderstad & Mikael P Johannesson & Jonas Linde, 2019. "Conditional legitimacy: How turnout, majority size, and outcome affect perceptions of legitimacy in European Union membership referendums," European Union Politics, , vol. 20(2), pages 176-197, June.
    3. Matthew Amengual & Rita Mota & Alexander Rustler, 2023. "The ‘Court of Public Opinion:’ Public Perceptions of Business Involvement in Human Rights Violations," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 185(1), pages 49-74, June.
    4. Xinsheng Liu & Kent E. Portney & Jeryl L. Mumpower & Arnold Vedlitz, 2019. "Terrorism Risk Assessment, Recollection Bias, and Public Support for Counterterrorism Policy and Spending," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(3), pages 553-570, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:11:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-024-03372-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.