A critical analysis of media discourseon information technol.docx

A critical analysis of media discourse
on information technology: preliminary
results of a proposed method for critical
discourse analysis
Wendy Cukier*, Ojelanki Ngwenyama*†, Robert Bauer‡ &
Catherine Middleton*
*Ted Rogers School of Management, Ryerson University,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada,
email: [email protected], [email protected], †Aarhus School of
Business, University of Aarhus, Aarhus, Denmark, email:
[email protected], and
‡Institute for Organizational Studies, Johannes Kepler
University, Linz, Austria,
email: [email protected]
Abstract. Since the 1980s, there has been a growing body of
critical theory in
information systems research. A central theoretical foundation
of this research is
Habermas’ theory of communicative action, which focuses on
implications of
speech and proposes general normative standards for
communication. Habermas
also places particular emphasis on the importance of the public
sphere in a
democratic society, critiquing the role of the media and other
actors in shaping
public discourse. While there has been growing emphasis on
critical discourse
analysis (CDA), there has been limited effort to systematically
apply Habermas’
validity claims to empirical research. Moreover, while critical
research in informa-

tion systems has examined communication within the
organizational context,
public discourse on information technology has received little
attention. The paper
makes three primary contributions: (1) it responds to Habermas’
call for empirical
research to ground and extend his theory of communication in
every day critical
practice; (2) it proposes an approach to applying Habermas’
theory of communi-
cation to CDA; and (3) it extends the reach of critical research
in information
systems beyond micro-level organizational concerns and opens
up to critical
reflection and debate on the impact of systematically distorted
communication
about technology in the public sphere.
Keywords: critical discourse analysis, critical theory,
Habermas, communicative
rationality, information systems research methodology
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2575.2008.00296.x
Info Systems J (2009) 19, 175–196 175
© 2008 The Authors
Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
mailto:[email protected]
I N T R O D U C T I O N

Since the early 1980s, there has been a tradition of critical
theory research in information
systems (IS) (Mingers, 1980; Lyytinen & Klein, 1985). Much of
this research draws its theoretical
foundations from Habermas’ theory of communicative action
(TCA), which focuses on implica-
tions of speech and proposes general normative standards for
communication (Habermas,
1981/1984; Dahlberg, 2004). While Habermas’ own work places
emphasis on the macro-level,
particularly the public sphere, much of the critical IS research
has focused on micro-level
analysis of organizational communication and IS development
(Hirschheim and Klein, 1994;
Ngwenyama & Lee, 1997; Cecez-Kecmanovic & Janson, 2001).
Habermas’ theory of commu-
nication and his analysis are concerned with the role of
institutional actors (media, lobby groups,
corporations, etc.) in shaping the public sphere and discourses
in a democratic society. His work
draws our attention to ‘the power of these institutions to select,
and shape the presentation of
messages’ and to ‘strategic uses of political and social power to
influence the agendas as well
as the triggering and framing of public issues’ (Habermas,
2006). While scholars have explored
how industrial, technical and financial institutions mobilize
resources to shape public opinion
through the media (Hackett & Uzelman, 2003; Dahlberg, 2004),
little critical analysis has focused
on how technology companies shape our individual and
collective decision-making. Critical
analysis can inform the reproduction of public discourses on
information technologies and
the societal implications of such discourses, yet media

discourses on information technology
have received little attention from IS researchers (Myers, 1994;
Wynn et al., 2003). Although
many critical IS researchers cite Habermas as inspiration for
their research, much of the criti-
cal empirical IS research is framed by the theories of Foucault
and Latour (Doolin & Lowe,
2002). This lack of Habermasian critical empirical IS research
has been criticized (Klein 1999;
Richardson et al. 2006), and most recently, Habermas (2006)
himself has highlighted the
importance of conducting empirical work to build on his
theories.
This paper responds to the call for more critical IS research and
has two main objectives: (1)
to propose an approach to applying Habermas’ theory of
communication to critical discourse
analysis (CDA) of IS phenomena; and (2) to extend the reach of
critical IS research beyond the
organizational sphere into the public sphere and society. The
challenges of operationalizing
critical theory for discourse analysis have been discussed by
Wodak & Meyer (2001). We offer
an approach to CDA that explicitly relies on applying
Habermas’ validity claims, the cen-
trepiece of his TCA, as a normative framework for textual
analysis. Our approach builds on the
work of Forester (1983; 1989) and Ngwenyama & Lee (1997),
who suggest a set of speech
elements and questions as categories for interrogating and
revealing potential violations of the
validity claims in communications. To illustrate our approach to
CDA, we present an analysis
of media discourses concerning a Canadian technology project –
the Acadia Advantage (AA).

The next section outlines key concepts and principles from
Habermas’ critical theory of
communication upon which our method is based. Then, the
critical discourse method is
described, and we illustrate our approach with empirical
analysis of a corpus of documents.
Finally, we discuss the theoretical contributions of the work and
outline some directions for
future research.
176 W Cukier et al.
© 2008 The Authors
Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd,
Information Systems Journal 19, 175–196
F R A M E W O R K F O R C R I T I C A L D I S C O U R S E
A N A L Y S I S
Habermas elucidates the concept of the public sphere as
essential to the maintenance and
evolution of democratic society. As a conceptual category, the
public sphere encompasses
political parties, politicians, lobbyists and pressure groups,
mass media professionals and the
vast networks of electronic and print media that focus on
informing and transforming public
opinion (Habermas, 1962/1999; 1979; 1981/1984). In
Habermas’ (1962/1999) view, the insti-
tutions of the public sphere, in the absence of critique, represent
a danger to democratic
society as they have the power to select, shape and present
messages and to strategically use
political and social power to influence agendas and frame public

issues without deliberation of
citizenry. In this regard, Habermas has devoted considerable
attention to critical analysis of the
public sphere and the power of the mass media. He argues:
‘Those who work in the politically
relevant sectors of the media system . . . cannot but exert
power, because they select and
process politically relevant content, and thus intervene both in
the formation of public opinions
and the distribution of power interests’ (Habermas, 2006).
While the media is structurally
independent, representatives of functional systems (government
and corporations) and special
interest groups enjoy privileged access to the media and are in a
position to use professional
techniques that often make them stronger than civil society
actors. Habermas has also drawn
attention to the power of corporate elites in colonizing the
public sphere for their market
imperatives.
A key objective of Habermas’ work and TCA is to provide a
theoretical framework for
the critical analysis of both the structures for and reproduction
of discourses of the
public sphere. The interrogation of how the media and their
relationships with powerful
economic and political interests shape public opinion, decision-
making and choice in demo-
cratic societies is central to Habermas’ programme. Seen from
this perspective, the critical
interrogation of public discourses about information technology,
as reflected in the media, is
important to critical information systems research as it has
implications for democratic
society. Further, a well-established tradition of critical theory is

exposing how discourses
promulgating the idea of the technological imperative, and
representing technological
change as unstoppable and unavoidable are shaped (Ellul, 1980;
Winner, 1986) Habermas’
conceptual framework for critical analysis of communication
has been adopted by
Ngwenyama & Lee (1997) and others as the basis for critical
interrogation of relevant IS
phenomena. In the following, we outline the key concepts and
principles relevant to this
research (for detailed discussions, see Ngwenyama & Lee, 1997;
Klein & Huynh, 2004;
Ulrich, 2001) adapted to CDA. A variety of theoretical
perspectives can inform discourse
analysis (Heracleous & Barrett, 2001; Slembrouck, 2001), but
CDA interrogates texts in
order to expose deep structures, systematic communicative
distortions and power relations
that underlie discourse (Fairclough, 1995). Its explicit
objectives are to effect change – the
emancipation of participants in the discourse and the
improvement of social affairs and
relations (Wodak & Meyer, 2001; Brooke, 2002). Following
Forester (1983) and Ngwenyama
& Lee (1997), we use Habermas’ universal pragmatics as the
conceptual framework in our
approach to CDA.
A critical analysis of media discourse on information
technology 177
© 2008 The Authors

Principles of Habermasian CDA
In two of his major works, Habermas (1981/1984; 2000)
outlines a set of principles of ideal
communication (or universal pragmatics) upon which discourses
oriented to mutual under-
standing could be based. However, it would be erroneous to
assume that Habermas is only
concerned with the preconditions of ‘ideal speech’, or that
which could lead to mutual under-
standing; as he has made clear, he is concerned with explicating
conditions of conscious and
unconscious deception in communication (Habermas,
1976/2001; 1981/1984). From Haber-
mas’ perspective, public speech can be communicative and
oriented to achieving understand-
ing between the speaker and the listener, or strategic and
oriented to achieving success for the
speaker. When public speech is communicative, it has the
potential to obtain cooperation
among the participants; but when it is strategic, it can result in
a range of outcomes some of
which are antithetical to democratic discourse (cf. Table 1). But
how exactly can a listener
decipher the orientation of a speaker and understand the
communication? For Habermas,
every communication implies a set of validity claims, namely
the truthfulness, legitimacy and
comprehensibility of the utterance and sincerity of the speaker
(discussed later). These validity
claims are necessary conditions for understanding but also
provide a general basis for critically
interrogating speech. An engaged listener (or reader) will
interrogate the speech (or text) to

test the implied validity claims. When any of the validity claims
are contested or found wanting,
such speech (i.e. strategic communication) can be viewed as
deviating from achieving mutual
understanding and may be oriented towards open or concealed
strategic action on the part of
the speaker.
Often overlooked in Habermas’ TCA is his underlying strategy
for critically interrogating
discourses. Many have criticized Habermas for not giving
programmatic advice on using his
‘universal pragmatics’ for empirical analysis. However, the
strategy for empirically applying his
conceptual framework is embedded in the theory itself, namely
identifying deviations from
the universal standard for communication by contesting the
underlying validity claims and
exposing the resulting communication distortions. The
fundamental principles for applying
universal pragmatics to analysis of discourses are:
1 The hearer or reader assumes that all speech is oriented to
achieving mutual understanding,
but tests veracity of the validity claims. This requires that every
discourse is taken to be
communicative and redeemable when its implicit validity claims
are contested.
Table 1. Communicative and strategic action and distorted
communication
Social action Action sub-type Orientation Potential outcome
Communicative None Achieving understanding Cooperation

Strategic Open strategic Achieving success Influencing
Concealed strategic Conscious deception Achieving success
Manipulation
Unconscious deception Achieving success Systematically
distorted
communication
178 W Cukier et al.
© 2008 The Authors
2 If the discourse fails any of the claims, the analyst must then
make judgements about the
intent of the discourse. This is done by examining the
orientation and objective about the
discourse.
3 The discourse must be interrogated from the perspective of
each of the four validity claims.
From Habermas’ perspective, a discourse is always contestable
and redeemable based on
its orientation. Habermas’ own critical analysis of public
discourses is never on the level of the
sentence or micro-textual level. It is always based on the
orientation of the speaker and the
impact and implications of what is said (Habermas, 2000). As a
critical theorist, Habermas is
interested in the impact and implications of public speech. He
draws the reader’s attention to

the corpus of the argument. While a strategy for understanding
the argument is to parse it, the
final judgment is made on the entire argument. Analogously,
Habermas emphasizes that ‘It is
possible, of course, for individual validity claims to be
thematically emphasized . . . however,
they are universal, that is, they must always be raised
simultaneously, even when they cannot
all be focalized at the same time’ (Habermas, 1976). He also
stated that these validity claims
constitute universal conditions of communicative action and are
applicable for empirical analy-
sis of discourses (Habermas, 1981/1984, pp. 440–441). Thus,
Habermas’ validity claims can
serve as a common standard for analysing communication
distortions across a wide range of
highly diverse discourses.
Categories and principles for analysis
In TCA, Habermas (1981/1984) demonstrated that four validity
claims, truth, legitimacy,
comprehensibility and sincerity, implied in every
communication represent context-
independent, necessary conditions for understanding and critical
analysis of communications.
This analytical framework is general but offers the researcher a
set of theoretical constructs
(validity claims) for analysing empirical observations (speech
elements) in the communication
(speech or text). Validity claims and the criteria for ideal
communication serve as a common
standard for analysing a wide range of highly diverse discourses
and represent the general
framework of our approach (cf. Table 2). As theoretical
constructs, validity claims can help the

researcher to discern whether a communicative act should be
considered true, sincere,
legitimate and clear by direct reference to empirical
observations on the communication. By
systematically analysing speech elements in the empirical
materials against the validity claims,
the researchers can uncover and analyse evidence of
communications distortions. Compre-
hensibility refers to the technical and linguistic clarity of the
communication: Is what is said
audible (or legible) and intelligible? Unlike the first three
claims, which refer to the pragmatics
of language, this claim is the only one that addresses syntax and
semantics as preconditions
for pragmatic analysis. Indicators for comprehensibility are the
completeness of the symbolic
representation, the presence of a shared language and the
utterance’s syntactical and seman-
tic correctness. Violations to comprehensibility may occur not
only from incomplete messages,
but also from information overload and the excessive use of
language the participant cannot
understand. Empirical testing of comprehensibility is guided by
the following questions: Is the
technology 179
© 2008 The Authors
communication complete and without omissions important to its
meaning? Is the amount of

information burdensome for the reader or hearer?
The truth claim is concerned with the propositional content of
the communication. Identifying
potential violations of the truth claim is integral to CDA.
Falsehoods, biased assertions and
incomplete statements against which counterarguments cannot
be formulated can lead to
manipulations (Van Dijk, 2006). The validity test for a truth
claim: Is what is said factual or true,
i.e. does what is said correctly correspond to the ‘objective’
world? This correspondence is not
always directly observable and must sometimes be inferred.
This requires a contextualized
reading of the text and analysis of the argument (Ngwenyama &
Lee, 1997), where each text
is analysed in the context of the entire discourse and general
standards of rational argument
(logical consistency, completeness and defensibility [cf.
Toulmin et al., 1978]). Contextualiza-
tion allows a consolidated understanding of the specific texts
(text element) within the dis-
course context, while the standards of logical consistency,
completeness and defensibility
allow for an analysis of the quality of argumentation.
The sincerity claim concerns the correspondence between an
utterance and the speaker’s
intention: Is what is said consistent with what is meant?
Sincerity must be inferred because
intentions cannot be observed directly (Habermas, 1981/1984).
Violations of this claim may be
detected by examining discrepancies between the speaker’s
speech and actions; specifically,
discrepancies between, what the speaker says, how the speaker
says it and what the speaker

does. Empirical examination of the communication is guided by
the following questions: Is what
Table 2. Categories and principles for Habermasian CDA
Validity claim
Criteria for ideal
communication
Potential
distortion Validity test
Speech elements for
empirical analysis
Comprehensibility What is said is audible
(or legible) and
intelligible.
Confusion Is the communication
sufficiently intelligible?
Is the communication
complete?
Is the level of detail too
burdensome for the

reader or hearer?
Completeness of
physical
representation;
Syntactic and
semantic rules
Truth The propositional
content of what is
said is factual or true.
Misrepresentation Is evidence and
reasoning provided
sufficient?
Argumentation
Sincerity The speaker is honest
(or sincere) in what
she says.
False Assurance Is what is said
consistent with how it

is said?
Connotative language;
Hyperbole
Metaphors;
Jargon
Legitimacy What the speaker says
(and hence does) is
right or appropriate in
the light of existing
norms or values.
Illegitimacy Are competing ‘logics’
(e.g. Stakeholders)
equally represented?
Use of ‘experts’ and
‘authorities’
Silences
180 W Cukier et al.
© 2008 The Authors

is assumed or implied consistent with what is stated in the
discourse? Is the text intending to
elicit an emotional response? Is the speaker or writer using
hyperbole or excessive jargon? As
Van Dijk (1991) suggests, ‘Stylistic choices also have clear
social and ideological implications,
because they often signal opinions of the reporter about news
actors and news events as
well as properties of the social and communicative situation’ (p.
116) which are not directly
expressed. Our indicators for sincerity examine gaps between
the explicit (denotative) lan-
guage and the implicit (connotative or figurative) language.
Connotative language, for
example, can influence interpretation or understanding of the
texts in ways that reinforce or
contradict the denotative content, thereby (consciously or not)
promoting a hidden agenda. We
pay particular attention to emotionally charged adjectives and
nouns, to hyperbole, to meta-
phors and to jargon, which can be used to invoke powerful
associations, values and larger
discourses. As Michalos (1986) notes, the fallacy of ‘jargon’ is
committed when instead of
giving accurate and clear descriptions of a product, we are
given technical terms that make the
claim seem stronger, more important or valuable. The
preponderance of technical jargon can
be part of a pervasive technological ‘mystique’ which reinforces
the technological imperative
(Attewell & Rule, 1984).

Legitimacy addresses the need for correspondence between an
utterance and its social
context (Ngwenyama & Lee, 1997). More specifically, does the
communication conform to the
norms of the social context in which it is embedded? According
to Habermas’ discourse ethics,
mutual understanding can only be realized in the context of the
ideal speech situation which
includes representation. A precondition to undistorted
communication is that all arguments
must have an equal chance to be heard. In journalism, a well-
established norm requires
journalists to ensure balance in their reporting. Hence, an
indicator of legitimacy in public
discourse is the degree of representation and silencing of
dissenting voices (Van Dijk, 2002).
Another is the choice of experts and the ways in which they are
used to influence readers to
accept certain arguments. Empirical testing of legitimacy is
guided by the following questions:
Who is allowed to speak? Who is considered an expert, and on
what basis? Once these
questions are answered, it is then possible to consider questions
of absence, including which
groups and viewpoints are marginalized or excluded from the
discourse. What information is
missing or suppressed in the discourse?
Operationalizing of the method
Traditional approaches to discourse analysis use only
qualitative techniques; in our approach
to CDA, we use both critical hermeneutic analysis (Myers,
1994; Ngwenyama & Lee, 1997)
and content analysis techniques. One of the major criticisms

levelled at discourse analysis is
that it is selective and lacks rigour (Phillips & Hardy, 2002).
Combining qualitative and
quantitative approaches to textual analysis is consistent with
Habermas’ critical theory epis-
temology and addresses this problem (Habermas, 1971; 1988).
An illustrative example of
critical mix-method research is Herman & Chomsky (1988). In
TCA, Habermas is clear that an
objectivist epistemology alone cannot inform critical social
analysis. He advocates an episte-
mology for critical theory that embraces multiple methods so
long as they are critically oriented
technology 181
© 2008 The Authors
and self-reflexive (Habermas, 1971, 1991/1993; Ngwenyama,
1991). In this regard, content
analysis software can assist CDA when the volume and
heterogeneity of mass media texts can
overburden any researcher. Such software offers the researcher
the capability to exhaustively
analyse the data and to uncover empirical observations that
would remain unobserved due to
limits of human information processing. Without these tools it
would be difficult to carefully and
systematically analyse extensive bodies of text. The general
procedure for operationalizing our
approach to CDA can be summarized in four steps. However, it

is important to note that Steps
2 and 3 are highly iterative, and empirical observations from
these two steps can trigger further
data collection (Step 1).
1 Defining the corpus of data to be analysed. As Ngwenyama
and Lee (1997) note, the
political context and relationships among the participants are
essential to CDA. As such, the
researcher must carefully identify documents necessary to
explicating the context as well as
the documents of immediate communicative exchange. Further,
the researcher must ensure
that multiple data sources are used to ensure corroboration of
the evidence.
2 Content analysis and coding procedure. Content analysis is
done on the individual articles
as well as the aggregate compilation of the articles. The
objectives of the analysis are to
identify empirical observations pertaining to the validity claims
and to determine frequency of
use of specific arguments. The analysis also attempts to uncover
the use of the rhetorical
strategy of repetition of specific opinions (often unsupported by
evidence) to embed them
into the taken-for-granted lifeworld of listeners and readers as
established fact. Coding for
content analysis is a two-stage procedure. Preliminary coding is
conducted to identify the
speech dimensions that signify each validity claim, as outlined
in Table 2. Given the par-
ticular interest in technology decision-making, we placed
particular emphasis on the report-
ing of perceived costs and benefits or advantages and
disadvantages. Each article was
coded twice for:

• statements regarding the advantages and disadvantages of the
technology;
• terms used to describe the project, adjectives, metaphors and
other associative language;
• experts and spokespeople cited in the discussions of
technology, etc.; and
• specialized language or jargon.
3 Reading and interpreting the empirical observations. The texts
are read to uncover implied
or explicit validity claims. These claims are then tested. The
test involves the search for
empirical observations that negate the validity of claims made
in the texts. This critical
interpretative technique follows Ngwenyama & Lee (1997) in
which the meaning of the text is
explored in the context of the political situation and the
implications of the outcome to the
participants (Kracauer, as cited in Larsen, 1991). This is
supplemented by quantitative analysis
in which counts of specific terms relevant to each argument are
generated. The number of
times an argument or term appears does not provide insight into
the meaning of the texts, but
it does provide some indication of the themes that dominate the
discourse as well as the
omissions that may suppress understanding. Table 3 provides
some examples to illustrate
how we critically examine and test the validity of the claims
made in the media discourse.
182 W Cukier et al.
© 2008 The Authors

T
a
b
le
3
.
Ill
u
st
ra
tio
n
o
f
e
m
p
ir
ic
a
l
a
n

a
ly
si
s
o
f
va
lid
ity
cl
a
im
s
E
xa
m
p
le
o
f
cl
a
im

s
m
a
d
e
in
m
e
d
ia
co
m
m
u
n
ic
a
tio
n
s
S
o
u
rc

e
V
a
lid
ity
cl
a
im
T
e
st
in
g
cr
ite
ri
a
E
vi
d
e
n
ce
o
f

d
is
to
rt
io
n
S
o
u
rc
e
A
A
im
p
ro
ve
d
le
a
rn
in
g

A
A
in
cr
e
a
se
d
in
te
ra
ct
iv
ity
A
A
h
a
s
p
ro
d
u
ce

d
b
e
n
e
fit
s
b
e
yo
n
d
w
h
a
t
w
a
s
e
xp
e
ct
e

d
E
M
2
1
,
E
M
3
0
,
E
M
6
T
C
F
a
ls
e
h
o
o
d

O
ve
r
lo
n
g
te
rm
n
o
e
va
lu
a
tio
n
o
f
p
e
rf
o
rm
a

n
ce
C
o
n
tr
a
d
ic
to
ry
e
vi
d
e
n
ce
,
fo
r
e
xa
m
p

le
,
re
d
u
ce
d
a
tt
e
n
d
a
n
ce
w
h
e
n
in
fo
rm
a
tio

n
is
a
va
ila
b
le
E
M
2
4
E
M
2
8
L
a
p
to
p
s
in
cr
e

a
se
d
g
ra
d
e
s
L
a
p
to
p
s
in
cr
e
a
se
co
lla
b
o
ra

tio
n
a
n
d
d
iv
e
rs
ity
im
p
ro
ve
le
a
rn
in
g
’S
tu
d
e
n

ts
a
re
vo
tin
g
w
ith
th
e
ir
d
o
lla
rs
’
‘Is
u
se
o
f
te
ch
n

o
lo
g
y
m
a
ki
n
g
a
d
iff
e
re
n
ce
in
st
u
d
e
n
t
o

u
tp
u
t,
b
e
ca
u
se
if
n
o
t,
w
h
y
is
th
e
re
a
n
in
ve

st
m
e
n
t’
E
M
2
3
,
E
M
2
9
,
E
M
1
5
,
E
M
2
0

C
o
n
te
n
t
a
n
a
ly
si
s
T
C
L
o
g
ic
a
l
co
n
si
st

e
n
cy
D
iff
e
re
n
ce
s
b
e
tw
e
e
n
co
n
tr
o
l
a
n
d

e
xp
e
ri
m
e
n
ta
l
g
ro
u
p
C
a
u
sa
l
co
n
n
e
ct
io
n

s
n
o
t
e
st
a
b
lis
h
e
d
S
tu
d
e
n
ts
m
a
y
b
e
w

ro
n
g
T
a
u
to
lo
g
ic
a
l
E
M
1
,
P
ro
g
ra
m
m
e
co

st
s
$
1
2
0
0
a
m
o
n
th
E
M
4
T
C
In
co
m
p
le
te
st

a
te
m
e
n
ts
P
ro
g
ra
m
m
e
co
st
s
$
1
5
–
2
0
m
ill

io
n
in
in
fr
a
st
ru
ct
u
re
co
st
s
A
d
d
iti
o
n
a
l
so
ft
co

st
s
E
M
3 E
M
2
0
A
ca
d
ia
‘A
d
va
n
ta
g
e
’
E
M
1
2

S
C
Is
co
n
n
o
ta
tiv
e
la
n
g
u
a
g
e
co
n
si
st
e
n
t

w
ith
m
e
a
n
in
g
?
T
h
e
a
d
va
n
ta
g
e
s
a
re
su
b

je
ct
to
d
e
b
a
te
E
M
3
A
ca
d
ia
‘lo
g
s
o
n
to
th
e

la
p
to
p
a
g
e
,
p
lu
g
s
in
to
th
e
co
m
p
u
te
r
a
g

e
,
is
g
e
tt
in
g
h
o
o
ke
d
to
th
e
in
fo
rm
a
tio
n
h
ig

h
w
a
y’
E
M
4 E
M
3
,
E
M
5
S
C
D
o
e
s
te
xt
ill
ic
it

a
n
e
m
o
tio
n
a
l
re
sp
o
n
se
?
L
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
a

ss
o
ci
a
te
d
w
ith
te
ch
n
o
lo
g
ic
a
l
im
p
e
ra
tiv
e
st

re
n
g
th
e
n
s
p
o
si
tiv
e
a
ss
o
ci
a
tio
n
s
A
A
is
‘a

re
vo
lu
tio
n
’
E
M
1
9
S
C
H
yp
e
rb
o
le
o
r
ja
rg
o
n

A
d
m
in
is
tr
a
to
rs
,
ve
n
d
o
rs
,
se
le
ct
e
d
p
ro
fe

ss
o
rs
,
st
u
d
e
n
ts
,
fa
cu
lty
a
ss
o
ci
a
tio
n
,
co
n

su
lta
n
ts
C
o
n
te
n
t
a
n
a
ly
si
s
L
C
W
h
o
sp
e
a

ks
?
S
tu
d
e
n
ts
h
a
ve
lim
ite
d
vo
ic
e
C
ri
tic
s
a
re
e

xc
lu
d
e
d
(o
r
m
a
rg
in
a
liz
e
d
)
‘A
ca
d
ia
h
a
s
co

n
si
d
e
ra
b
le
e
xp
e
rt
is
e
in
th
is
a
re
a
’
a
cc
o
rd
in

g
to
IB
M
P
re
si
d
e
n
t
is
‘a
st
ro
n
g
a
n
d
p
ri
n
ci

p
le
d
le
a
d
e
r’
,
a
n
in
n
o
va
to
r,
a
vi
si
o
n
a
ry

E
M
2
5
E
M
2
2
L
C
W
h
o
a
re
th
e
e
xp
e
rt
s
o
r

a
u
th
o
ri
tie
s?
F
a
cu
lty
A
ss
o
ci
a
tio
n
is
‘r
e
si
st

a
n
t
to
ch
a
n
g
e
’
E
M
1
6
L
C
W
h
o
is
m
a
rg
in

a
liz
e
d
o
r
e
xc
lu
d
e
d
?
L
e
g
iti
m
a
te
a
rg
u
m

e
n
ts
a
re
ig
n
o
re
d
o
r
m
a
rg
in
a
liz
e
d
C
o
n
fli

ct
s
w
ith
u
n
io
n
,
in
te
re
st
s
in
p
u
sh
in
g
te
ch
n
o

lo
g
y,
e
tc
.
a
re
n
o
t
d
is
cl
o
se
d
.
P
a
re
n
ts
n

e
ve
r
co
m
m
e
n
t
E
M
2
0
,
E
M
2
9
V
e
n
d
o
rs

,
u
n
iv
e
rs
iti
e
s
a
n
d
m
e
d
ia
re
in
fo
rc
e
e
a
ch

o
th
e
r’
s
a
rg
u
m
e
n
ts
E
M
2
5
E
M
9
L
C
A
re
th

e
re
u
n
d
is
cl
o
se
d
in
te
re
st
s?
V
e
n
d
o
rs
,
u
n

iv
e
rs
iti
e
s
a
n
d
m
e
d
ia
h
a
ve
co
m
p
le
x
in
te
ra

ct
io
n
s
a
n
d
sh
a
re
d
in
te
re
st
s.
A
n
n
u
a
l
re
ve

n
u
e
s
to
IB
M
a
t
A
ca
d
ia
a
re
su
b
st
a
n
tia
l,
A
ca

d
ia
is
a
sh
o
w
ca
se
fo
r
sa
le
s
to
o
th
e
r
in
st
itu
tio
n

s
b
y
ve
n
d
o
rs
E
M
2
5
E
M
2
6
IB
M
2
0
0
3
E
M

1
8
E
M
2
E
M
3
1
L
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
a
n
d
sy
n
ta
x

a
re
g
e
n
e
ra
lly
cl
e
a
r
a
n
d
a
p
p
ro
p
ri
a
te
to

a
u
d
ie
n
ce
C
C
Is
th
e
co
m
m
u
n
ic
a
tio
n
co
m
p
le

te
a
n
d
in
te
lli
g
ib
le
?
C
C
Is
th
e
le
ve
l
o
f
d
e
ta

il
to
o
b
u
rd
e
n
so
m
e
?
U
n
n
e
ce
ss
a
ry
o
r
u
n

e
xp
la
in
e
d
te
ch
n
o
lo
g
y
ja
rg
o
n
ca
n
o
b
sc
u
re

m
e
a
n
in
g
E
M
2
7
technology 183
© 2008 The Authors
4 Explaining the findings. Our explanation of the findings
draws on the broader context of the
textual analysis and explores the deep structures it reflects.
E M P I R I C A L I L L U S T R A T I O N
To illustrate our approach to CDA, we selected a seminal
discourse on learning technology.
The AA dominated public discourse about the implementation
of learning technologies in
Canadian universities from 1995 to 2004. It had a clearly

defined scope and received extensive
coverage in popular media and trade publications with some
coverage in the academic press.
It allowed us to explore the ways in which power relations and
interests shape the production
and reproduction of discourse in the public sphere.
Case background
In 1995, Kelvin Ogilvie, president of Acadia University, a
liberal arts institution of 3500 students
located in Nova Scotia, Canada, entered discussions with a
number of vendors to explore
adopting computer technologies for education. In 1996, the AA
pilot project was launched to
wire classrooms and promote the development of web-based
curricula. Acadia students
leased portable computers for use in their educational activities.
IBM and MT&T (the local
telephone company) contributed over $4 million of the $20
million infrastructure to the project.
The value of the leases to IBM was about $5 million annually.
The AA Programme was the
centrepiece in IBM’s ThinkPad marketing strategy (IBM, 2003).
Trade publications and special
reports on technology, which also featured advertising by the
suppliers, ran a number of
articles on the project as well as on ‘laptop universities’.
Vendors nominated the university for several industry awards
garnering additional media
attention. IBM funded (directly or indirectly) much of the
academic research on Acadia and
laptop computers. Other institutions, IT vendors and the
government used the Acadia example
to promote similar programs. However, internal university

stakeholders (administrators,
instructors, students and unions) were not always aligned, and
in 1998, the faculty refused to
use the technology without compensation and went on strike.
Evaluations of the project are
inconsistent. While students confirmed that the technology was
a factor in their selection of
Acadia and that it offered a range of benefits, most did not
believe it was worth the cost and
were divided on the question of whether or not the programme
fulfilled their expectations
(Acadia University, 2002). No comprehensive evaluation of the
project has been undertaken
although it is still often cited as model for technology in
learning. Assessing whether the project
was the right decision is not the point of this analysis. Rather,
we seek to examine the shape
of the media discourse on the project with a particular focus on
communication distortions.
Empirical materials and analysis
The corpus used for empirical analysis includes media texts and
supplementary materials on
the social and political context of the AA project. Empirical
data were collected by searching
184 W Cukier et al.
© 2008 The Authors
two multidisciplinary full text databases (ProQuest and Factiva)

for the period 1995 to 2004
using the search statement (Acadia University) AND
(technology OR computer) OR (Acadia
Advantage). Table 4 presents details of the types of media
sources and number of articles
used in our study. Each document was given an identification
code EM1 through EM173.
We also supplemented the corpus with government policy
documents, research and con-
ference papers, materials from the Acadia website and the
websites of vendors, and other
printed and electronically published materials. After defining
the corpus, we followed Steps
2–3 of the analysis procedure explained above. We developed a
list of the central validity
claims explicitly stated or implied in the media discourse. Table
3 provides illustrations of
how we tested the validity of these claims (due to space
constraints, we cannot reproduce
Table 4. Sources of empirical materials used in this study
Categories of media Number of articles
Popular discourse
The Halifax Daily News 36
Halifax Chronicle Herald 41
Other local papers 24
The Globe and Mail 23
Macleans 6

The Toronto Star 6
Canadian Business 1
Briarpatch 1
Financial Post Daily 3
Total popular 141
Academic discourse
Communications of the ACM 3
Design Engineering 1
Interactive Learning Environments 3
Total academic 5
Practical discourse
Systems:
Computing Canada 7
Computer-dealer News 2
Canadian Telecom 1
Technology in Government 2
Computer Dealer News 3
Network World Canada 2

Teaching/Administration:
University Affairs 3
Campus Canada 2
Other educational 3
Other 2
Total practical 27
Grand total 173
technology 185
© 2008 The Authors
the entire test here). In the following subsections, we
summarize and explain the findings
from our validity claim analysis (Step 4) of the central
argument of the AA.
Empirical analysis of truth claims
Assessing any technology requires an examination of the costs
and benefits and our analy-
sis of truth claims focuses on these issues in the discourse. The
primary claim made by
proponents of the project is that it was an ‘academic initiative’
that would benefit students by:

improving the quality of learning (EM3); improving access to
information and technology
(EM10); and improving technology skills in preparation for a
high tech world (EM15). Nega-
tive aspects of the project were that tuition was the highest in
the country and faculty
resisted the change. Many articles also mentioned that the
project was a ‘partnership’
between Acadia, IBM, Microsoft and other vendors. On balance,
most of the papers maintain
that the expenditures are a ‘good investment’ and ‘paying
dividends’. To assess these ‘truth
claims’ in the discourse, we examined the evidence (grounds)
and argumentation provided
to support the claims, the logical consistency of arguments
across the corpus and argu-
ments or claims that were omitted in the dominant discourse (cf.
Table 3 for an illustration).
From the earliest stage (EM3), the project is framed as an
initiative that will improve the
learning environment at some cost to students. The focus on
improved learning dominates
the discourse. ‘Higher learning via wired classes: Technology is
getting good grades with
faculty and students’ claims that ‘students in its Acadia
Advantage Programme have shown
up to 20% improvement in grades on common exams’ (EM23).
The improvement in learning
is associated with ‘a highly collaborative relationship between
teachers and students’ and
‘increased interactivity’ tied to the use of the laptop computers
(EM28). Although these
claims of improved learning reappear over and over again, they
are not supported by con-
crete evidence. A single article (EM1), reveals that the students
who performed better on the

tests were not just using laptops but were in a much smaller
class (20 students compared
with 96) and were more likely to be Physics majors (80%
compared with <50%). This rev-
elation raises questions about the claim, and about the logical
consistency of claiming that
the improvement in performance was tied to the use of laptops
rather than other factors,
discussed in Table 3.
Many papers maintain that laptops reduce the need for note
taking, increase interactivity in
the classroom (eight citations), support ‘learner centred’
instruction (13 citations) and practical
and studio oriented work (11 citations) which, they infer,
improve quality. ‘The lecture hall is
passive learning, it’s boring . . . We need students who are
actively involved. They should be
discussing, analysing, problem solving’ (EM21). ‘If we do think
logically, in a computer
enhanced environment there is more collaboration and diversity
in ways to learn, so we can
deduce that there is more learning’ (EM24). Contrary evidence
is generally omitted (1):
students’ active participation in lectures . . . appears to be
decreasing . . . Students can
usually access lecture material and all course information on the
network and don’t feel
186 W Cukier et al.
© 2008 The Authors

compelled to go to lectures to keep in touch . . . their ability to
be connected to the Internet
during class means that students can spend the lecture time
playing computer games,
sending e-mails or maintaining lively contact with others
(possibly in the same room) via chat
facilities’ (EM28).
There are other serious omissions. For example, we are
frequently told that the programme
is a good investment, in spite of the fact that students must pay
$1200 a year to lease the
computers (EM3), making their ‘tuition by far the highest in
Canada’ (EM3). Much less often
(EM7) is there reference to the $16–20 million investment in
infrastructure required to support
the project. To put this in context – the entire university budget
was about $36 million in 1996,
according to the Canadian Association of University Teachers
(CAUT, 2000). Nor is there
discussion of the ‘soft costs’ associated with course
redevelopment or the faculty time needed
to develop the courses.
There is also evidence of logical inconsistencies. IBM
Education
Solution
s Management
Don Aldridge says that ‘students are voting with their dollars

and saying “I want that program.
It offers me additional value” ’ (EM15). ‘Is use of technology
making a difference in student
output because if not why is there an investment?’ asked Ayman
Antoun, General Manager for
the Education Industry at IBM Canada (EM19). The arguments
are sometimes tautological –
the investment in technology must be warranted because it is
being made.
Consider another of the principal claims, that the programme
‘increases accessibility’ (8).
‘For the first time in the history of Acadia’, Bruce Cohoon,
Director of Public Affairs, Acadia
University stated, ‘every person involved in the program has
equal access to information and
technology’ (EM10). This claim is factual on one level – all
students now have access to the
same computers and software, for an additional $1200 per year.
However, there is evidence
of distortion. There are logical inconsistencies linking the
mandatory lease of an IBM com-
puter with increased access as the university could have offered
less costly alternatives
(3 citations) instead of giving IBM a monopoly. Students who

owned laptops were
denied access to AA course material (EM26). The evidence
considered is also in-
complete. Acadia may have created a barrier to accessible
education: ‘The Acadia Advan-
tage may not be worth it if only rich kids from outside Nova
Scotia can afford to attend
university’ (EM3).
We see additional omissions concerning the principal
disadvantage cited – labour unrest
(44). This is framed as ‘resistance to change’. Reasons for
faculty opposition, for
example, the increase in workload without compensation and
added communication with
students, are seldom explained (EM20). Generally, criticisms of
the technology are
downplayed.
The content analysis shows that these patterns in argumentation
extend through the entire
corpus. There were many more positive statements about the
project than negative ones
(220 vs. 130 statements), particularly in terms of the benefits
and costs for students (146 vs.

48 statements). While the relative frequency of advantages and
disadvantages is not in and
of itself evidence of distortion, it does signal the possibility that
the patterns identified in the
early articles shape the entire corpus.
technology 187
© 2008 The Authors
In summary, when Habermas’ first standard, that of ‘truth’, is
applied, we find indications of
distortions. Positive claims are made but are poorly supported
by evidence (grounds). Argu-
ments linking evidence and conclusion are frequently missing,
suggesting evidence of faulty
logic, such as the inductive fallacies of faulty analogy and
‘false cause’ (Michalos, 1986). There
are omissions and incomplete statements, particularly
concerning the total costs (including

the investment in infrastructure and labour required to redesign
the courses). There is little
discussion of vendors’ interests or contributions. Given that
Acadia is presented in the media
as an exemplar to other institutions these distortions have broad
implications.
Empirical analysis of sincerity claims
Sincerity requires congruity between what is said and what is
meant, or between the underlying
intent and the expressed intent in the communication.
Hyperbole, imagery and metaphor can
reinforce certain perspectives in the discourse even in the
absence of evidence. We paid
particular attention to the positive (and negative) associations
of language and found many
examples of how connotative language (intentionally or not)
was used to reinforce the benefits
of the programme (cf. Appendix A). The 1996 articles ‘Acadia
logs on to the laptop age’ (EM4),
‘Acadia getting hooked to the information highway (EM3), and
‘Acadia plugs into the computer
age (EM5) are examples of hyperbole and metaphor eliciting
positive responses. Paula Cook,

the project coordinator, says ‘We all feel a bit like pioneers.’
The dominant metaphor is the ‘revolution’, as in ‘the wired
revolution’ or the ‘techno-
revolution’ invoking broader discourses related to the
technological imperative. The AA is
‘new’, ‘innovative’, ‘exciting’ and ‘pioneering’, while the
critics are defending ‘old’ or ‘traditional’
approaches. ‘It’s not technology that’s the threat. It’s the status
quo, if the universities don’t
reinvent themselves, they will be replaced’ (EM7). Often, the
choice of words will evoke
and reinforce the benefits of the programme – ‘initiative’ (28
citations), ‘innovation’ (15 cita-
tions) or ‘investment’ (four citations).
We see language with powerful associations used to reinforce
the claims about access. For
example, ‘Parents often end up buying their children computers
for university, but not every
student gets one. But at Acadia, the playing field is level.
Students have equal access to
learning’ (EM20). ‘For the first time in the history of Acadia . .
. every person involved in the
program has equal access to information and technology’

(EM10). The term ‘level playing field’
itself appeals to powerful emotions and values in spite of the
evidence that the programme may
actually limit access (discussed above).
There were 223 positive adjectives applied to the project
compared to 29 negative or
ambiguous terms. The frequency of positive and negative
descriptors suggests the possibility
of distortion. Words with positive associations – ‘innovative’
(29), ‘first’ (15), ‘new’ (12), ‘wired’
(8); ‘award-winning’ (8), ‘hi-tech’ (9), ‘ambitious’ (4),
‘pioneering’ (9), ‘exciting’ (8), etc. – evoke
larger discourses of the technological imperative and reinforce a
positive view of the pro-
gramme. Adjectives that invoke scepticism, such as
‘controversial’ (8), ‘expensive’ (7), or
‘scary’ (3), are seldom used.
188 W Cukier et al.
© 2008 The Authors

Technical jargon also reinforces the technological mystique.
Technical terms pervade the
discourse, but are seldom explained.
A campus wide Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) switching
solution enabled students
and faculty to gather information electronically and to better
communicate. Now in its second
year, the program is being called a great success. About 4500
‘drops’ have been installed
. . . where students can connect their laptops to the network via
Ethernet locally and the ATM
backbone (EM13).
Invoking powerful discourses can create systemic distortions
without clear intent. However,
more reflective use of language would be expected by the
standards of public journalism.
Empirical analysis of legitimacy claims
Our analysis of legitimacy centres on participation, specifically
the inclusion and exclusion of

actors with an interest in the discourse. We find further
evidence of distortions in the claims for
quality and accessibility when we examine who speaks about
the AA and its impacts. Most of
the claims about the improved quality of education and
increased access come from the
administrators, a few selected faculty who regularly comment
on the programme benefits, and
the vendors. Students, the group most directly affected, seldom
comment on quality, for
example.
We also see further evidence of distortions in the ways that
those who question the
assertions of increased quality, value or accessibility tend to be
marginalized or excluded.
Objections to the programme or its shape are cast as resistance.
‘Some professors are
uncomfortable with the technology and prefer lecture halls
without laptops whereas others
have adapted well’ (EM6). The motivation of the Faculty
Association is self-interest: ‘In any
labour conflict the union will use every lever they have. It may
be disappointing, certainly in an
academic environment, but is not surprising . . . Really it’s

about change and moving the
yardsticks and there are those who are resistant to that’ (EM16).
In contrast, the 1996 announcement ‘Acadia Advantage’ (EM3)
stated, ‘the whole project is
academically driven’. While ‘corporate partnerships’ are
mentioned, no one questions the
administrators’ or suppliers’ motives and only one article
examines the interests at stake. ‘The
academic market is viewed by companies as a frontier that’s
gradually opening up, waiting to
be conquered. IBM Canada, for example, has signed a
comprehensive deal with Acadia
University in Wolfville, NS, to provide ThinkPad laptops . . .
for all students’. As part of its
strategy to influence future buyers ‘students, once converted to
the digital world, will remain
active buyers of computer gadgetry for life.’ (EM26). The
vendors are often quoted to reinforce
the positioning of Acadia as a leader, pioneer and expert. IBM
says, ‘They’re well ahead of
other post-secondary institutions in Canada and they’re willing
to share what they’ve learned.
We direct both potential and existing clients to Acadia so they
can see what their peers are

doing’ (EM25). The value of the AA programme was about $4
million annually and the potential
marketing benefits even more significant. IBM invested in the
infrastructure and Acadia
guaranteed IBM a monopoly. But this is omitted.
technology 189
© 2008 The Authors
Once again, the overall patterns are instructive. For example,
almost half of the articles citing
experts quote administrators. Eighty papers contain 147
statements by administrators regard-
ing the programme. In comparison, only 36 articles cite faculty
members a total of 86 times. A
substantial number of faculty statements (12) come from a
single instructor. Students, who are
supposed to be the principal beneficiaries of the programme, are
cited in 32 articles a total of

53 times. In addition, several articles include comments from
other experts (10) and vendors
(18). While the numbers do not tell the whole story, it appears
that certain perspectives are
privileged and others marginalized.
Empirical analysis of comprehensibility claims
While comprehensibility may be assessed in a variety of ways,
for our purposes we have
focused strictly on the semantic and syntactic accuracy of the
texts. Although assumptions of
the reader’s level of technical expertise may vary with the
publication, there is little evidence
of violations of the comprehensibility claim in its most obvious
sense. As would generally be
expected in published media discourse, the texts are
grammatically and syntactically correct
and should be accessible to the audiences for which they are
intended.
I M P A C T A N D D I F F U S I O N O F T H E D I S C O U R
S E
Our analysis reveals communications distortions in the

discourse and highlights the continued
need for critical reading (and critical writing). CDA considers
discourse in its social context and
supplementary materials provided insights into the production
and reproduction of the dis-
course and its distortions. Powerful actors – the university
administration and the technology
suppliers – actively worked to influence the media. By reporting
their claims uncritically,
reinforcing them through the use of loaded language and
marginalizing critics, journalists
became part of the production of systemic distortions. The
processes of manufacturing media
interest in AA are visible in the many press releases from the
university and the vendors. The
university president actively solicits media attention (EM22).
Acadia’s Director of Public Affairs
explicitly describes helping IBM promote and ‘spin’ the project
in ‘Managing the message’
(IBM, 2000).
Other research examines relationships between industry and
media and the impact of
private sector funding on academic research (see, for example,
Lewis et al., 2002; Polster,

2005). IBM established ‘a centre for research, for teachers to
promote the growth of technology
in education’ (EM11) at Acadia. Its research was widely
publicized (though unpublished), for
example, the study of the Physics class, (Williams et al., 1998).
Other research from the centre
was essentially descriptive, describing the benefits of AA (with
little empirical evidence)
implementation strategies (Hemming & MacKinnon, 1998;
MacKinnon & Hemming, 1998), or
analysing factors that attract students to the laptop programme
(Kondra & Sparkman, 1995).
In spite of all of the claims, to this day, there is little evidence
of the impact of the project on
190 W Cukier et al.
© 2008 The Authors
learning (Acadia University, 2002, Prescod, 2003). Our point is
not whether or not the project

was beneficial but that the discourse was distorted.
Vendors who contributed significantly to the AA ‘showcase’
used it in their efforts to
encourage other educational institutions to adopt laptops. They
‘hyped’ the project in their
marketing efforts, took professors from Acadia on IBM road
shows and sponsored tours of
the Acadia campus (IBM, 2003). To a large extent, it worked.
‘Oakville private school joins
wired revolution’ (EM18). ‘UOIT bills itself as Canada’s first
wireless campus . . . The
only program like it in Canada is at Acadia’ (EM14). ‘There’s
an inevitability to the foray into
technology-mediated post-secondary education’, said Ken
Grant, director of the School
of Information Technology Management at Ryerson Polytechnic
University in Toronto’
(EM15).
Many also adopted the discourse. At a meeting organized with
IBM, one college president
said, ‘The partnership with IBM reflects Sheridan’s commitment
to providing an innovative and
quality educational experience to our students . . . We have

created a level playing field for
students’ (Sheridan College, Mobile Briefing, May 2000,
unpublished). The Manager of Part-
nerships and Alliances at Sheridan, echoed this: ‘Delta instantly
levelled the playing field: now
everyone . . . has access to the technology’ (Sheridan College,
Mobile Briefing, May 2000,
unpublished). We have already discussed, in a previous section,
our view of the ‘level playing’
field metaphor.
The government of Canada also reproduced the distortions in
communications. In 2000, it
created an ‘Arms-Length Committee to Advise Governments,
Universities and Colleges on
Reaping Benefits of Online Learning’ (Industry Canada, 2000).
The Advisory Committee was
dominated by vendors (IBM, AT&T, BCE and Lucent) and
administrators with IBM laptop
programmes (Acadia University, Sheridan College and College
Boreal), and it assumed that
online learning was beneficial and essential. ‘If we do not
engage in this opportunity, the need
will be met by foreigners and we will lose our cultural
sovereignty’ (Advisory Committee for

On-line Learning, 2000, pp. 45–46). A chapter is called the
‘Global Playing Field’. The
discourse that has characterized the institutional environments
of universities now has further
reinforcement in the policies, funding and discourses of
government.
The ways in which technology discourse is (re)produced, the
role of public relations, of
advertising, of research funding, of capital contributions and
other forms of influence warrant
further exploration. As Habermas himself has noted, the public
sphere has been transformed
by the media concentration, advertising and public opinion
management (Habermas, 1962/
1999). Certainly, stakeholders are not all equal in their efforts
to ensure their messages are
heard and this, in part, may account for the consistency and
strength of the dominant discourse
despite the elements of irrationality revealed in our analysis.
Conclusions and implications for future research
This paper proposes an approach for applying Habermasian
validity claims in CDA, by

translating universal principles of communication into specific
tools for discourse analysis. It
technology 191
© 2008 The Authors
illustrates our method by applying it to the media discourse on
an information technology
project and revealing a number of distortions.
We found that Habermasian communicative rationality offers a
fruitful way to structure an
analysis of texts. We developed indicators for each claim –
argumentation and use of evi-
dence to assess ‘truth’, connotative language to assess
‘sincerity’, participation to assess
‘legitimacy’ and compliance with linguistic rules to assess
‘comprehensibility’. While imper-
fect, the mapping of the validity claims to specific textual

elements is defensible and pro-
vides a more structured lens for discourse analysis. The major
challenge stems from the
necessity to infer recipients’ responses in order to assess the
pragmatic effects of commu-
nication. Hence, our approach faces a trade off between precise,
customized categories
grounded in context specific knowledge about groups of readers
or listeners and, on the
other hand, more general categories that can be transferred
across contexts and applied to
different discourses.
The paper illustrates how the validity claims can provide a
framework for assessing the
public discourse on information technology to reveal
communications distortions. We do not
want to overstate our claims regarding the shape of the media
discourse concerning the AA;
the scope of the analysis is rather small. However, the patterns
identified are reflected in the
broader societal discourses about technology (Cukier et al.,
2002). Our focus is not on the
AA project itself but on the media discourse about the AA. The
published texts emphasize

benefits rather than costs and claim improvements in learning
and teaching based on limited
evidence. Benefits are attributed to the introduction of the
technology when other factors
may have played a significant role. This effectively silences
discussion of improving peda-
gogical quality in any way other than through investment in
information technology. The
significant cost of the IT infrastructure and course redesign is
downplayed. The project was
presented as a model to other institutions, and given the
isomorphic tendencies of organi-
zations, the distortions, particularly the omission concerning
costs, have potentially signifi-
cant system-wide implications.
The metaphors and images evoke the technological imperative,
and connotative language
reinforces the benefits of the project. The overwhelming use of
positive adjectives and meta-
phors suggest that, regardless of the argumentation, the positive
aspects of the programme
are reinforced through use of language with positive
connotations. The academic literature was
not significantly different from the non-academic, using much

of the same loaded language
associated with the technology ‘revolution’ (Cukier et al.,
2002). More reflection on our own
discourses as researchers is needed.
Examination of the authorities cited also shows that the
dominant voices are those support-
ing the programme; critics are marginalized both subtly and
overtly. The relative power of the
various actors engaged in this discourse, their complex
interrelations and the role of the
suppliers of technology in promoting the market for learning
technologies cannot be ignored
and warrant further investigation. Overall, our study does
suggest that analysis of media
discourse on technology is a promising area for further
exploration and Habermas’ validity
claims can not only help identify distortions, but suggest
standards for reading and writing
critically.
192 W Cukier et al.
© 2008 The Authors

R E F E R E N C E S
Acadia University (2002) Computer use reports. [WWW
document]. URL http://aitt.acadiau.ca/research/
technology/technology.htm (last accessed 2007).
Advisory Committee for On-line Learning (2000) Advisory
Committee for Online Learning: report. [WWW
document]. URL http://www.schoolnet.ca/mlg/sites/
acol-ccael/en/report.html (last accessed 2007).
Attewell, P. & Rule, J. (1984) Computing and organiza-
tions: what we know and what we don’t know. Commu-
nications of the ACM, 27, 1184–1191.
Brooke, C. (2002) What does it mean to be ‘critical’ in IS

research. Journal of Information Technology, 17, 49–57.
Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT)
(2000) Analysis of Acadia University Finances 1988 to
2001. [WWW document]. URL http://www.caut.ca/aufa/
newsletter/0112/analysis.htm
Cecez-Kecmanovic, D. & Janson, M. (2001) Electronic
discourses and rationalization of organizations. Pro-
ceedings from AMCIS: Seventh Americas Conference
on Information Systems, Boston, Massachusetts, 3–5
August 2001.
Cukier, W., Bauer, R. & Middleton, C. (2002) The dis-
course of learning technologies in Canada. In: Global
and Organizational Discourses about Technology,
Wynn, E., Whitely, E.A., Myers, M. and DeGross, J.I.
(eds), pp. 197–221. Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Norwell, MA, USA.

Dahlberg, L. (2004) The Habermasian public sphere: a
specification of the idealized conditions of democratic
communication. Studies in Social and Political Thought,
10, 2–18.
Doolin, B. & Lowe, A. (2002) To reveal is to critique:
actor–network theory and critical information systems
research. Journal of Information Technology, 17, 69–78.
Ellul, J. (1980) The Technological System, Neugroschel,
J. (trans.). Continuum, New York, NY, USA.
Fairclough, N. (1995) Critical Discourse Analysis: The Criti-
cal Study of Language. Longman Group, New York, NY,
USA.
Forester, J. (1983) Critical theory and organizational analy-
sis. In: Beyond Method, Morgan, G. (ed.), pp. 234–346.
Sage, Beverley Hills, CA, USA.

Forester, J. (1989) Planning in the Face of Power. Univer-
sity of California Press, Berkeley, CA, USA.
Habermas, J. (1999) The Structural Transformation of
the Public Sphere, Burger, T. (trans.). MIT Press, Cam-
bridge, MA, USA. (Original work published 1962)
Habermas, J. (1971) Knowledge and Human Interests.
Shapiro, J. (trans.). Beacon Press, Boston, MA, USA.
Habermas, J. (2001) On the Pragmatics of Social Interac-
tion, Fultner, B. (trans.). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA,
USA. (Original work published 1976)
Habermas, J. (1979) Communication and the Evolution of
Society, McCarthy, T. (trans.). Beacon Press, Boston,
MA, USA.
Habermas, J. (1984) The Theory of Communicative
Action, McCarthy, T. (trans.). Beacon Press, Boston,
MA, USA. (Original work published 1981)
Habermas, J. (1988) On the Logic of the Social Sciences,
Weber-Nicholsen, S. & Stark, J.A. (trans.). MIT Press,

Cambridge, MA, USA.
Habermas, J. (1993) Justification and Application:
Remarks on Discourse Ethics, Cronin, C.P. (trans.). MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA, USA. (Original work published
1991)
Habermas, J. (2000) On the Pragmatics of Communica-
tion. MIT Press, Boston, MA, USA.
Habermas, J. (2006) Political communication in media
society – does democracy still enjoy an epistemic
dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical
research. Proceedings from ICA: International Com-
munications Association Annual Conference. [WWW
document]. URL http://www.icahdq.org/Speech_by_
Habermas.pdf (last accessed 2007).
Hackett, R.A. & Uzelman, S. (2003) Tracing corporate

influences on press content: a summary of recent
NewsWatch Canada research. Journalism Studies,
4, 331–346.
Hemming, H. & MacKinnon, G. (1998) “The Acadia Advan-
tage”: notebook computer and teacher education. In:
Science: Teacher and Teacher Education Annual,
pp. 911–915. The Association for Science Education,
Herts, UK.
Heracleous, L. & Barrett, M. (2001) Organizational
change as discourse: communicative actions and deep
structures in the context of information technology
implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 44,
755–778.
Herman, E.S. & Chomsky, N. (1988) Manufacturing
Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media.

Pantheon, New York, NY, USA.
Hirschheim, R. & Klein, H.K. (1994) Realizing emancipa-
tory principles in information systems development: the
case for ETHICS. MIS Quarterly, 21, 33–57.
technology 193
© 2008 The Authors
http://aitt.acadiau.ca/research
http://www.schoolnet.ca/mlg/sites
http://www.caut.ca/aufa
http://www.icahdq.org/Speech_by_
IBM (2000) Managing the message. Laptop University
Implementation Kit. IBM, Armonk, NY, USA.

IBM (2003). Acadia University: combining IT and an inno-
vative, educational vision. [WWW document]. URL
http://www.ibm.com/industries/education. IBM, Armonk,
NY, USA. (last accessed 2007).
Industry Canada (2000). Arms-length committee to advise
governments, universities and colleges on reaping
benefits of online learning. [WWW document]. URL
http://www.ic.gc.ca/cmb/Welcomeic.nsf/261ce500dfcd
7259852564820068dc6d/85256779007b79ee
85256922004f2e46?OpenDocument (last accessed
2007).
Klein, H.K. (1999) Knowledge and methods in IS research:
from beginnings to the future. In: New Information Tech-
nologies in Organizational Processes, Ngwenyama, K.,
Introna, L., Myers, M. D. & Degross, J.I. (eds), pp.
13–25. Kluwer, Boston, MA, USA.

Klein, H.K. & Huynh, M.Q. (2004) The critical social
theory of Jürgen Habermas. In: Social Theory and
Philosophy for Information Systems, Mingers, J. and
Willcocks L. (eds), pp. 157–237. Wiley & Sons, Chich-
ester, UK.
Kondra, A. & Sparkman, R. (1995) Employment equity: a
structured approach. Presented at the Atlantic Schools
of Business Conference, November 2–4 1995. Univer-
sity College of Cape Breton, Sydney, Nova Scotia,
Canada.
Larsen, P. (1991) Textual analysis of fictional media
content. In: A Handbook of Qualitative Methodologies for
Mass Communication Research, Jensen, K.B. &
Jankowski, N. (eds), pp. 121–148. Routledge, London,
UK.

Lewis, B., Massey, C. & Smith, R., eds. (2002) The Tower
under Siege: Technology, Power and Education. McGill-
Queen’s University Press, Montreal and Kingston,
Canada.
Lyytinen, K.J. & Klein, H.K. (1985) The critical theory of
Jürgen Habermas as a basis for a theory of information
systems. In: Research Methods in Information Systems,
Mumford, E., Hirschheim, R., Fitzgerald G. & Wood-
Harper, T. (eds), pp. 219–237. North-Holland, Amster-
dam, The Netherlands.
MacKinnon, G. & Hemming, H. (1998) “The Acadia Advan-
tage”: linking pedagogy and computer technology. Pro-
ceedings of the International Conference on Computers
and Advantaged Technology in Education, pp. 189–192.
May 1–4, 1998. International Association of Science and

Technology for Development, Cancun, Mexico. Acta
Press, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Michalos, A.C. (1986) Improving Your Reasoning. Prentice
Hall, London, UK.
Mingers, J. (1980) Towards an appropriate social theory
for applied systems thinking: critical theory and soft
systems methodology. Journal of Applied Systems
Analysis, 7, 41–49.
Myers, M.D. (1994) A disaster for everyone to see: an
interpretive analysis of a failed IS project. Accounting
Management and Information Technologies, 4, 185–201.
Ngwenyama, O.K. (1991) The critical social theory
approach to information systems: problems and chal-
lenges. In Information Systems Research: Contempo-
rary Approaches and Emergent Traditions, Nissen, H.E.,

Klein, H.K. & Hirschheim, R.H. (eds), pp. 267–280.
North Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Ngwenyama, O. & Lee, A. (1997) Communication richness
in electronic mail: critical theory and the contextuality of
meaning. MIS Quarterly, 21, 145–167.
Phillips, N. & Hardy, C. (2002) Discourse Analysis: Inves-
tigating Processes of Social Construction. Sage, Thou-
sand Oaks, CA, USA.
Polster, C. (2005). Privatizing Canadian universities.
Canadian Dimensions, 39 (Sept/Oct). [WWW docu-
ment]. URL http://canadiandimension.com/articles/
2005/08/30/58 (last accessed 2007).
Prescod, F. (2003) Meeting the challenges of the 21st
century: examining the impact of the laptop teaching/

learning environment on deep and surface learners –
initial findings. Information Systems Education Journal,
1, 1–10.
Richardson, H., Tapia, A. & Kvasny, L. (2006) Introduction:
applying critical theory to the study of ICT. Social
Science Computer Review, 24, 267–273.
Slembrouck, S. (2001) Explanation, interpretation and cri-
tique in the analysis of discourse. Critique of Anthropol-
ogy, 21, 33–57.
Toulmin, S.E., Rieke, R. & Janik, A. (1978) Introduction to
Reasoning. Macmillan, New York, NY, USA.
Ulrich, W. (2001) A philosophical staircase for information
systems definition, design, and development: a discur-
sive approach to reflective practice in ISD (part 1).
Journal of Information Technology Theory and Applica-

tion, 3, 55–84.
Van Dijk, T.A. (1991) The interdisciplinary study of news
as discourse. In: A Handbook of Qualitative Method-
ologies for Mass Communication Research, Jensen,
K.B. & Jankowski, N. (eds), pp. 104–120. Routledge,
London, UK.
Van Dijk, T.A. (2002) Political discourse and political
cognition. In: Politics of Text and Talk: Analytical
194 W Cukier et al.
© 2008 The Authors
http://www.ibm.com/industries/education
http://www.ic.gc.ca/cmb/Welcomeic.nsf/261ce500dfcd
http://canadiandimension.com/articles

Approaches to Political Discourse, Chilton, P. &
Shaffner, C. (eds), pp. 204–236. Benjamins, Amster-
dam, The Netherlands.
Van Dijk, T.A. (2006) Discourse and manipulation. Dis-
course and Society, 17, 359–383.
Williams, P.J., MacLatchy, C., Backman, P. & Reston, D.,
(1998). Studio physics report on Acadia advantage.
[WWW document]. URL http://www.acadiau.ca/
advantage/physics.htm (last accessed 2007).
Winner, L. (1986) The Whale and the Reactor. University
of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, USA.
Wodak, R. & Meyer, M., eds. (2001) Methods of Critical
Discourse Analysis. Sage, London, UK.
Wynn, E.H., Whitley, E.A., Myers, M.D. & DeGross, J.I.
(2003). Global and Organizational Discourse about
Information Technology. Kluwer, Norwell, MA, USA.

Biographies
Wendy Cukier is a Professor and Associate Dean at the
Ted Rogers School of Management, Ryerson University
in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. She is also cross-appointed
to the Graduate Programme in Communication and
Culture and Founder of the Diversity Institute. Her
research interests are wide-ranging but focus on
critical perspectives on technology as well as social
change. Currently she holds an Social Science and
Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRCC)
grant to explore a variety of technology discourses and
genre of communications. She has co-authored two
books and many articles. She is active in both academic

service as a reviewer for several journals and in industry
and voluntary associations. Wendy has received many
awards for her work including two honorary doctorates
and the Meritorious Service Cross, one of Canada’s
highest civilian honours.
Ojelanki Ngwenyama is a Professor and Director of the
Institute for Innovation and Technology Management at the
Ted Rogers School of Management, Ryerson University,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada and Research Professor at
Aarhus School of Business, University of Aarhus, Denmark.
His research focuses on a range of topics including the
critical social theory approach to information systems
research and decision models for IS management. His

papers have appeared in a range of international scholarly
journals, including MISQ, European Journal of Operational
Research, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management
and Information Systems Journal. He is a member of IFIP
WG 8.2 and is presently on the Editorial Advisory Board of
the Scandinavian Journal of Information System.
Robert Bauer is an Associate Professor of Organiza-
tional Design and Behaviour at the Institute for Organiza-
tional Studies at Johannes Kepler University, Linz, Austria.
His research aims at better understanding different ways of
knowing (including but not limited to explicit formal and
everyday language statements) and exploring their conse-
quences for organizational design and behaviour. He
studies aspect of identity and difference on the individual,

organizational and inter-organizational level as well as with
respect to the philosophy of organization science. He is
also a registered psychotherapist and has worked exten-
sively as an executive coach and trainer.
Catherine Middleton is an Associate Professor and
Canada Research Chair in Communications Technologies
and The Information Society at the Ted Rogers School of
Management at Ryerson University in Toronto, Ontario,
Canada. Her research focuses on consumer adoption
of new communication technologies, with specific interests
on mobile devices and fixed and wireless broadband
networks. See http://www.broadbandresearch.ca and
http://www.cwirp.ca for Catherine’s current research

projects.
technology 195
© 2008 The Authors
http://www.acadiau.ca
http://www.broadbandresearch.ca
http://www.cwirp.ca
A P P E N D I X A : C O N N O T A T I V E L A N G U A G E
– A D J E C T I V E S
Adjectives – Positive Number of references
Innovative 29
First 15
New 12

Advanced 11
Pioneering 9
Hi-tech 9
Technological 8
Wired 8
Award winning 8
Exciting 8
Unique 7
Electronic, vaunted, cyber 6
Laptop, significant, great, effective, top ranked 5
Latest, lauded, information age, major, modern 4
Top of the class, affordable, up to date, ambitious 3
Sophisticated, highly touted, computer-oriented 2

Revolutionary, radical, large, leading edge, dynamic, superb,
online, coveted, most, novel,
selective, special, recently approved, heralded, future, ground
breaking, academically driven
1
Total 223
Adjectives – Negative/Ambiguous
Controversial 8
Expensive 7
Mandatory 6
Scary 3
Compulsory, multimillion dollar 2
Pricey 1
Total 29

196 W Cukier et al.
© 2008 The Authors
!"# $#%&'()*+"(, -#'.##* (*/)$0&'()* &*1 2)003*(2&'()*
'#2"*)%)4(#+ &1),'()* &*1 0&*&4#0#*'
5(&**(+ 67 8,&*)+&9:9 ;$#4)$< =7 =$&+'&2)+&9 >*4#%(?(
=)3%<0#*&?)3-
&!"#$%&'"(& )* +$($,"'"(& -./"(." $(0 1".2()3),45 6&2"(7
8(/9"%7/&4 )* :.)()'/.7 $(0 ;<7/("775 6&2"(75 =%""."
-!"#$%&'"(& )* >(*)%'$&/.75 6&2"(7 8(/9"%7/&4 )* :.)()'/.7
$(0 ;<7/("775 6&2"(75 =%""."
@#2#(A#1 BC D&*3&$< CEEEF $#2#(A#1 (* $#A(+#1 /)$0
GB H&$2" CEEBF &22#,'#1 CI H&< CEEB
!"#$%&'$

!"(+ ,&,#$ #J&0(*#+ '"# (0,&2' )/ (*/)$0&'()* &*1
2)003*(2&'()* '#2"*)%)4(#+ KLM!N &1),'()* )* 0&*&4#0#*'
,$&J(+7 !"#
+'31<9 -3(%1(*4 )* '"# '"#)$#'(2&% /$&0#.)$? 1#A#%),#1 -<
82)'' H)$')* &*1 "(+ 2)%%#&43#+9 &''#0,'+ ') (1#*'(/< '"#
1<*&0(2
$#%&'()*+"(,+ -#'.##* LM! &1),'()* &*1 0&*&4#0#*' #//)$'+
').&$1+ 0)1#$*(O&'()* &*1 $#)$4&*(O&'()*7 P+(*4 1&'& /$)0
%#&1(*4
;$##? Q$0+9 .# $#,)$' #A(1#*2# &+ ') "). 2"&*4#+ (*
+'$&'#4<9 )$4&*(O&'()*&% +'$32'3$#9 0&*&4#0#*' +<+'#0+9
&*1 "30&* +?(%%+ %(*?
.('" '"# 23$$#*' &*1 ,$)+,#2'(A# %#A#% )/ 3+# )/ A&$()3+
'<,#+ )/ &1A&*2#1 LM!7 R(*1(*4+ 4#*#$&%%< &,,#&$ ')
+344#+' '"&' ;$##? Q$0+
&$# (* & ,$)2#++ )/ $#2)4*(O(*4 '"# ,)'#*'(&% )/ LM! ') #*&-
%# &*1 +3,,)$' 2"&*4#+ '"&' &$# *#2#++&$< /)$
+322#++/3%%< 2)0,#'(*4 (* &
"<,#$S2)0,#'('(A# #*A($)*0#*'7 L* ,&$'(23%&$9 LM! &1),'()*
(+ +").* ') &//#2' +'$&'#4< -< +3,,)$'(*4 %)*4S'#$0 +'$&'#4(2
)-T#2'(A#+
&*1 '"# U3#+' /)$ ,$)Q'&-(%('<7 L*1($#2'%<9 (' &%+) %(*?+
') +'$&'#4(2 ,%&**(*4 +<+'#0+7 LM! (+ /)3*1 ') -# $#%&'#1 ')
&* (*'#$*&%

#*A($)*0#*' 2"&$&2'#$(O#1 -< ),#* )$4&*(O&'()* &*1 V#J(-
(%('<7 R(*&%%<9 '"# $#+3%'+ +"). '"&' '"# +&0,%# Q$0+
$#2)4*(O# '"# *##1 /)$
03%'(S+?(%%#1 ,#$+)**#% ') #J,%)(' '"# &1A&*'&4#+
+'#00(*4 /$)0 LM! &1),'()*7 ! CEEC 6%+#A(#$ 82(#*2# W7X7
>%% $(4"'+ $#+#$A#17
?"[email protected])%07A L*/)$0&'()* &*1 2)003*(2&'()*+
'#2"*)%)4(#+F L0,&2'F 8'$&'#4<F 8'$32'3$#F H&*&4#0#*'
+<+'#0+F Y30&* $#+)3$2#+ +?(%%+F =&$'(&%
2)$$#%&'()* &*&%<+(+
() *+$%,-.'$/,+
L' (+ *). .(1#%< &22#,'#1 '"&' 4%)-&%(O&'()*9 1#$#4S
3%&'()*9 &*1 (**)A&'()*9 ,$),#%%#1 -< (*/)$0&'()* &*1
2)003*(2&'()* '#2"*)%)4(#+ KLM!N &$# '"# ?#< /)$2#+
+"&,(*4 '"# #2)*)0(2 %&*1+2&,#7 LM! "&+ 2)0# ')
2)*+'('3'# '"# -&+(+ )/ #2)*)0(2 1#A#%),0#*' -)'" &'
'"# 0&2$) &*1 0(2$) %#A#%+9 &*1 "#*2# '")+# &2')$+ '"&'
/&(% ') ,&$'(2(,&'# (* +32" 1#A#%),0#*'+ $(+? (*2$#&+(*4
0&$4(*&%(O&'()*7 L' (+9 '"#$#/)$#9 *) +3$,$(+# '"&' '"#
(0,&2' )/ LM!&1),'()* &*1 3+# )* '"# 0&*&4#0#*' )/
'"# Q$0 "&+ $#2#(A#1 2)*+(1#$&-%# &''#*'()* /$)0

$#+#&$2"#$+ &*1 ,$&2'('()*#$+ &%(?#7
R)$ '"# 4$#&'#+' ,&$'9 #0,($(2&% $#+#&$2" )* '"#
+3-T#2' "&+ -##* 2)*132'#1 (* '"# P8 &*1 )'"#$ %&$4#
#2)*)0(#+ K#747 PZ9 M&*&1&9 &*1 >3+'$&%(&N7 L' 2)3%1
-# &$43#19 ").#A#$9 '"&' #A#* &+ LM! (* -3+(*#++
)$4&*(O&'()*+ &$)3*1 '"# .)$%1 2)*A#$4#9 '"# (0,&2'
)/ '"#($ 3+# 0&< .#%% 1#,#*1 )* *&'()*&% 23%'3$# [C]
&*1 (* '"# +,#2(Q2 (1()+<*2$&+(#+ )/ '"# #2)*)0(2
#*A($)*0#*' (* ."(2" '"#< &$# #0-#11#17 L' '"3+
$#0&(*+ 3*2%#&$ (/9 &*1 ') ."&' #J'#*'9 $#%#A&*' Q*1S
(*4+ &$# &,,%(2&-%# ') )'"#$ 2)3*'$(#+9 &*1 #+,#2(&%%<
'")+# '"&' 2&* -# 2&%%#1 ^̂ &1A&*2(*4__ )$ ^̂ #0#$4(*4__9
+32" &+ ;$##2#7 ;#*#$&%(O&'()*+ &-)3' '"# )3'2)0#+
$#%&'#1 ') LM! &1),'()* 2&**)' -# 0&1# 3*'(% $#+#&$2"
L*/)$0&'()* ` H&*&4#0#*' Ga KCEECN IbacIb
: M)$$#+,)*1(*4 &3'")$7 !#%7d !GESBSeCEGIIeF
/&Jd !GESBSeeCeEe7
:B'$/3 $00%"77A +,&*)+f&3#-74$ K5767 8,&*)+N7
EGeSCEIgECgh c +## /$)*' 0&''#$ ! CEEC 6%+#A(#$
82(#*2# W7X7 >%% $(4"'+ $#+#$A#17
=LLd 8 E G e S C E I K E B N E E B i B S E

&22303%&'#+ #A(1#*2# )/ +(0(%&$ #//#2'+ &2$)++ 1(//#$S
#*' #2)*)0(2 #*A($)*0#*'+7
>/'#$ "&A(*4 0&1# $#0&$?&-%# ,$)4$#++ (* '#$0+ )/
0&2$)#2)*)0(2 2)*A#$4#*2#9 ;$##2# "&+ $#2#*'%<
T)(*#1 '"# 62)*)0(2 H)*#'&$< P*()*7 ;$##? Q$0+
*). /&2# '"# 2"&%%#*4# )/ 2)*'(*3)3+%< &1A&*2(*4
'"#($ 2)0,#'('(A#*#++ (* )$1#$ ') +3$A(A# .('"(* '"#
2)*'#J' )/ &* (*2$#&+(*4%< ")+'(%# #*A($)*0#*'7 j* '"(+
&22)3*'9 '"#< *##1 ') $#)$4&*(O# '"#($ +'$32'3$#+9
0)1#$*(O# '"#($ 0&*&4#$(&% ,$&2'(2#+ &*1 &1),' *#.
+'$&'#4(#+ /)$ 4$).'"7 !"#+# 2"&%%#*4#+ &$# &%+) (*1(S
2&'(A# )/ '"# #//)$'+ *##1(*4 ') -# 3*1#$'&?#* -< Q$0+
(* )'"#$ 2)3*'$(#+ ,$#,&$(*4 ') T)(* '"# 63$),#&*
P*()*9 +32" &+ '")+# )/ 6&+'#$* 63$),# K(7#7 Y3*4&$<
&*1 =)%&*1N7
!"# $)%# )/ LM! (* '"# +322#++ )/ '"#+# #//)$'+ 0&<
-# 1#2(+(A#7 P*/)$'3*&'#%<9 '"#$# (+ & $#%&'(A# %&2? )/
#0,($(2&% $#+#&$2" $#4&$1(*4 '"# (0,&2' )/ &1A&*2#1
LM! )* ;$##? 0&*&4#0#*'7 !"(+ %&2? )/ &''#*'()* (+
+3$,$(+(*49 +(*2# (' (+ )/'#* &$43#1 '"&' LM! /3*1&0#*S

'&%%< 2"&%%#*4#+ '"# '$&1('()*&% .&<+ -< ."(2" Q$0+
),#$&'#9 &+ (' #*&-%#+9 &*1 (* 0&*< 2&+#+ 1$(A#+ 1$&S
0&'(2 2"&*4#+ (* '"# +'$32'3$# &*1 ),#$&'()* )/ )$4&S
*(O&'()*+7 j* '"# )'"#$ "&*19 ') -# &-%# ') $#+,)*1 ')
')1&<_+ #A#$ 2"&*4(*4 2)0,#'('(A# 1<*&0(2+ $#U3($#+
Q$0+ ') &1),' *#. .&<+ )/ &11$#++(*4 0&$?#' *##1+
K#747 (**)A&'()*N &+ .#%% &+ '$&*+/)$0(*4 '"# (*'#$*&%
)$4&*(O&'()* K(7#7 $#132(*4 0&*&4#$(&% %&<#$+9
(*2$#&+S
(*4 V#J(-(%('<9 3+(*4 '#&0S-&+#1 .)$?9 #'27NF +32"
2"&*4#+ 0&< &%+) &//#2' '"# #J'#*' )/ LM! &1),'()*7
Y#*2#9 '"# $#%&'()*+"(, -#'.##* LM! &1),'()* &*1
0&*&4#0#*' ,$&J(+ (+ )*# )/ 03'3&% (*V3#*2# &*1
(0,&2'7
!"(+ +'31<9 -3(%1(*4 )* '"# &*&%<'(2&% /$&0#.)$?
1#A#%),#1 -< 82)'' H)$')* &*1 "(+ 2)%%#&43#+ &' HL!9
&''#0,'+ ') (1#*'(/< '"# 1<*&0(2 $#%&'()*+"(,+
(*A)%A#1 -#'.##* LM! &1),'()* &*1 0&*&4#0#*'
#//)$'+7 P+(*4 1&'& /$)0 %#&1(*4 ;$##? Q$0+ .# $#,)$'
#A(1#*2# )/ $#2#*' 2"&*4#+ (* +'$&'#4<9 )$4&*(O&'()*&%
+'$32'3$#9 0&*&4#0#*' +<+'#0+9 &*1 "30&* +?(%%+ &*1
'"#($ %(*? ') '"# 23$$#*' &*1 ,$)+,#2'(A# %#A#% )/ 3+# )/
A&$()3+ '<,#+ )/ &1A&*2#1 LM!7

0) 123,%3$/'&4 "&'56%,.+-
!"# '"#)$#'(2&% 0)1#% 3*1#$%<(*4 '"(+ +'31< (+
+").* (* R(47 B9 &*1 (+ &1),'#1 &*1 0)1(Q#1 /$)0
'"# 4#*#$&% /$&0#.)$? 1#A#%),#1 -< 82)'' H)$')*
[ia]7 >22)$1(*4 ') '"(+ /$&0#.)$?9 &* )$4&*(O&'()* (+
-&+(2&%%< +"&,#1 -< QA# /)$2#+ K'#2"*)%)4<9 +'$&'#4<9
+'$32'3$#9 0&*&4#0#*' +<+'#0+9 &*1 ,#),%#N9 ."(2"
),#$&'# ')4#'"#$ (* '"# 2)*'#J' )/ & 2)0,#'('(A# #*A($S
)*0#*'7 !"#+# /)$2#+ 2)%%#2'(A#%< 1#Q*# & Q$0_+
R(47 B7 !"#)$#'(2&% 0)1#%7
IIE CD:D -#$()7 "& $3D E >(*)%'$&/)( F +$($,"'"(& GH
IJKKJL MNHOMPN
/3*1&0#*'&% ')0<7 )#"%$(0/ &*1 &$# (* 1<*&0(2
#U3(%(-$(309 %#&1(*4 ') '"# &22)0,%(+"0#*' )/ '"#
Q$0_+ )-T#2'(A#+7
!"# 0)1#% (+ ,&$'(23%&$%< $#%#A&*'9 +(*2# (' ,$)A(1#+
& +'$32'3$#1 .&< )/ #J,%)$(*4 /)3$ -$)&1 $#+#&$2"

U3#+'()*+ ,#$'&(*(*4 ') '"# %(*?&4#+ -#'.##* LM!
&1),'()* &*1 $#2#*' 2"&*4#+ (* Q$0+_ +'$&'#4<9 +'$32S
'3$#9 0&*&4#0#*' +<+'#0+9 &*1 "30&* 2&,('&%7
JDQD >(*)%'$&/)( $(0 .)''<(/.$&/)( &".2()3),/"7A
&4#"7 $(0 /'#$.& )( '$($,"'"(&
!"# +"&,# )/ LM! 3'(%(O&'()* (* ')1&<_+ )$4&*(O&'()*
(+ 2"&$&2'#$(O#1 -< &* #J,%)+()* )/ ,$)132'+ &*1 +#$S
A(2#+ &A&(%&-%# *)' 0#$#%< /)$ '"# &3')0&'()* )/ -&+(2
'$&*+&2'()* ,$)2#++(*49 -3' ') +<+'#0+ '"&' +3,,)$' '"#
#J#23'()*9 2)S)$1(*&'()*9 2)*'$)%9 &*1 #A&%3&'()* )/
#*'($# -3+(*#++ ,$)2#++#+ [bI]7 !"# 03%'(S/&2#'#1 *&'3$#
)/ '"#+# '#2"*)%)4(#+ (0,%(#+ '"# *##1 ') +'31< '"#
(0,&2' )/ 1(//#$#*' '<,#+ )/ '#2"*)%)4(#+ )* 0&*&4#S
0#*' ,$&J(+7 k3''& &*1 H&*O)*( [Bi]9 /)$ #J&0,%#9
&$43# '"&' LM! &1),'()* 2)$$#+,)*1+ ') &* (*2$#0#*'&%
,$)2#++ )/ )$4&*(O&'()*&% 2&,&-(%('< 1#A#%),0#*' &*1
+'$&'#4(2 (0,&2'7 W&+#1 )* '"(+9 '"#< 1(//#$#*'(&'#
&0)*4 (*/$&+'$32'3$#9 +#$A(2#9 &*1 A&%3# LM!7
!"# (*'$)132')$< LM! %&<#$ 2)*'&(*+ '#2"*)%)4(#+
'"&' /)$0 ,&$' )/ '"# -&+(2 Q$0 (*/$&+'$32'3$# ,$)A(1S
(*4 '"# -&2?-)*# /)$ /3$'"#$ (*/)$0&'()* +<+'#0+
(0,%#0#*'&'()*7 R&$ /$)0 #J"&3+'(*4 '"#09 (* )3$

+'31< .# 2)A#$#1 (*/$&+'$32'3$# -< /)23+(*4 )* .)'B
'<(/.$&/)( '#2"*)%)4(#+9 2)0,$(+(*4 #0,%)<## &22#++
') L*'#$*#'9 #S0&(%9 &*1 L*'$&*#'+7 !#2"*)%)4< 3'(%(O&S
'()* &' '"(+ %#A#% (*V3#*2#+ 0&*&4#$(&% &2'()* '"$)34"
&3')0&'#1 2)003*(2&'()* &*1 2)%%&-)$&'()* K#S0&(%9
L*'$&*#'+N )/'#* 2$)++(*4 )$4&*(O&'()*&% -)3*1&$(#+
KL*'#$*#'N7
R3$'"#$ 2&,&-(%('< '"$)34" LM! (+ &2"(#A#1 '"$)34"
'#2"*)%)4(#+ (* '"# +#$A(2# %&<#$9 ."#$# #0,"&+(+ "&+
-##* 4(A#* ') '"# (0,$)A#0#*' )/ #/Q2(#*2< &*1
#//#2'(A#*#++7 !"# '#2"*)%)4(#+ ,$)A(1# R%)."77 -<#B
#)%& $(0 >'#%)9"'"(& K=8LN ') 43(1# (0,$)A#0#*'+ (*
'"# 2)*'#*' &*1 2)*'#J' )/ '"# -3+(*#++ ,$)2#++#+ (*
."(2" '"#< &$# #0-#11#1 K(* %)4(+'(2+9 ,$)132'()*9
U3&%('< 2)*'$)%9 +&%#+ &*1 1(+'$(-3'()*9 &*1 23+')0#$
+#$A(2#N7 :(&"%#%/7" S"7)<%." R3$((/(,
[email protected]=N9 )* '"#
)'"#$ "&*19 (+ & '#2"*)%)4< '"&' "&+ '"# ,)'#*'(&% )/
2)A#$(*4 '"# #*'($# A&%3# 2"&(* )/ &2'(A('(#+ 3*1#$ &
3*(Q#1 '#2"*)%)4(2&% ,%&'/)$07
R(*&%%<9 23$$#*' 3*1#$+'&*1(*4 +##0+ ') 2)*A#$4# )*
'"# A(#. '"&' '"# A&%3# %&<#$ )/ LM! 2)0,$(+#+ '#2"S
*)%)4(#+ '"&'d

K(N #*&-%#+ '"# (*'#4$&'()* )/9 &*1 &22#++ ')9 ."&'
"&+ -##* 2&%%#1 ^̂ )$4&*(O&'()*&% 0#0)$<__ [b]F
K((N +3,,)$'+ 0&*&4#$(&% 1#2(+()* 0&?(*47
!$&$ 6.."77 &*1 6($347/7 Kk>>N '#2"*)%)4(#+9
2)*+(+'(*4 )/ k&'& l&$#")3+#+ '"&' ,$)A(1# #&+<
&22#++ ') 2)0,&*< 1&'&9 k&'&-&+# H&$?#'(*49 k&'&
H(*(*49 jm>=9 &*1 8'&'(+'(2&% 8&%#+ >*&%<+(+ '))%+9
,#$0(' &*&%<+(+ &*1 (1#*'(Q2&'()* )/ $#%&'()*+ ^̂ "(1S
1#*__ (* %&$4# A)%30#+ )/ 1&'& ') 0&?# (*/)$0&'()*
&A&(%&-%# ') & .(1# +#' )/ &2')$+ &2$)++ /3*2'()*&%
-)3*1&$(#+ &*1 "(#$&$2"(2&% %#A#%+7
+$($,"'"(& !"./7/)( -<##)%& KHk8N +<+'#0+9 )*
'"# )'"#$ "&*19 ,$)A(1#9 '"$)34" k>> '#2"*)%)4(#+9
+3,,)$' ') 0&*&4#$+ 2)*2#$*(*4 1#2(+()*+ )* +2#*&$()
#A&%3&'()*9 0)*(')$(*4 )/ +'$&'#4< (0,%#0#*'&'()*9
#'27 -< "&*1%(*4 %&$4#%< 3*+'$32'3$#19 ),#*S#*1#1
U3#+'()*+ &-)3' 3*,$#1(2'&-%# /3'3$# #A#*'+7
JDJD 12" %"3$&/)(72/# T"&@""( 7&%$&",4 $(0
>U1 $0)#&/)(

8'$&'#4< $#/#$+ ') '"# /3*1&0#*'&% 1($#2'()* & Q$0
,3$+3#+ (* ('+ U3#+' ') &1),' ') (*13+'$< #*A($)*0#*'7 L'
(+ $#V#2'#1 -)'" (* '"# *&'3$# )/ 4)&%+ +#'9 &*1 '"# &$$&<
)/ &2'(A('(#+ 3*1#$'&?#* ') 2$#&'# & +,#2(Q2 /)$0 )/
2)0,#'('(A# &1A&*'&4#7 >22)$1(*4 ') =)$'#$ [Ge9Ga]9
'"#$# &$# '.) /3*1&0#*'&% '<,#+ )/ 2)0,#'('(A# &1A&*S
'&4#d 1(//#$#*'(&'()* &*1 %). 2)+'7
!"# #J'&*' %('#$&'3$# "&+ /$)0 '"# )3'+#' &1A)2&'#1
'(4"' LM!S+'$&'#4< %(*?&4#+ -&+#1 )* '"# &++#$'()* '"&'
'#2"*)%)4< &//#2'+ +'$&'#4<9 '"&' +'$&'#4< "&+ (0,%(2&S
'()*+ /)$ *#. '#2"*)%)4< &1),'()*9 &*1 '"&' Q$0+ *##1
+)0#"). ') (*'#4$&'# +'$&'#4(2 '"$3+'+ .('" LM! 2&,S
&-(%('(#+ [b9ib]7 !"# (0,)$'&*2# )/ LM! &+ & +)3$2# )/
+3+'&(*&-%# 2)0,#'('(A# &1A&*'&4# +'#0+ ,$(0&$(%<
/$)0 ('+ ,)'#*'(&% ') #*&-%# '"# '$&*+/)$0&'()* )/ &
Q$0_+ A&%3# 2"&(* [iE]7 8(*2# #A#$< A&%3# &2'(A('<
2$#&'#+ &*1 3+#+ (*/)$0&'()*9 LM! 2&* -# ,$)Q'&-%<
#J,%)('#1 *)' )*%< /)$ '"# &3')0&'()*9 -3' &%+) (*'#S
4$&'()* &*1 #A#* '$&*+/)$0&'()* )/ &2'(A('(#+ '"&' &(0
').&$1+ 1(//#$#*'(&'()* )$ %). 2)+'7
=)$'#$ &*1 H(%%&$ [iC] +'&'# '"&' LM! )//#$+ )$4&*(S
O&'()*+ '"# ),,)$'3*('< #('"#$ ') #*"&*2# 1(//#$#*'(&S
'()* )$ ') %).#$ 2)+'+7 R)$ #J&0,%#9 (*A#+'0#*'+ (* LM!

CD:D -#$()7 "& $3D E >(*)%'$&/)( F +$($,"'"(& GH IJKKJL
MNHOMPN IIB
0&< &%%). & Q$0 ') &2"(#A# & 1(//#$#*'(&'()* &1A&*S
'&4# -< +#23$(*4 $#%&'()*+"(,+ .('" 23+')0#$+ '"$)34"
(0,$)A#1 ,$)132'g+#$A(2# U3&%('< &*1 -< #*"&*2(*4 ('+
&-(%('< ') U3(2?%< $#+,)*1 ') 0&$?#' 2"&*4#+7 LM! 2&*
#*&-%# 2)+' &1A&*'&4#+ -< ,%&<(*4 & 1($#2' )$ (*1($#2'
$)%# (* '"# 2)+' )/ A&$()3+ &2'(A('(#+ (* '"# A&%3# 2"&(*7
l&%SH&$' ,$)A(1#+ & 4))1 #J&0,%# )/ "). #J'#*+(A#
3+# )/ LM! 2&* ,$)A(1# & 2)0,#'('(A# #14#7 L* '"(+
,&$'(23%&$ 2&+#9 '"# (*'#4$&'()* )/ '"# $#'&(%#$_+ +3,,%<S
2"&(* +)/'.&$# .('" k>> '#2"*)%)4(#+ #*+3$#+ )*S
'(0# &*1 #/Q2(#*' 1#%(A#$< )/ ,$)132'+ ') +')$#+ [iG]7
W#<)*1 1(//#$#*'(&'()* &*1 2)+' &1A&*'&4#+9 LM!
0&< &%+) ,$)A(1# Q$0+ .('" 3*,$#2#1#*'#1 ),,)$'3S
*('(#+ ') #J,&*1 ') *#. 0&$?#'+ &*1 *#. '<,#+ )/
&2'(A('(#+7 >+ *#. '#2"*)%)4< -#2)0#+ #0-#11#1
.('"(* '"# )$4&*(O&'()*9 4$&13&% %#&$*(*4 )223$+ '"&'
2$#&'#+ &* &.&$#*#++ )/ 1(//#$#*' ),,)$'3*('(#+ /)$
&2'()*9 ."(2" (* '3$* 2)3%1 '$&*+%&'# (*') 2"&*4#+ (*

+'$&'#4(2 4)&%+ [IB]7
W&+#1 )* '"# &-)A# -$(#/ 1(+23++()*9 '"# /)%%).(*4
$#+#&$2" U3#+'()* .(%% -# #J&0(*#1d
@#+#&$2" U3#+'()* Bd 6%" .2$(,"7 /( .)'#"&/&/9"
7&%$&",4 $(0 7&%$&",/. ,)$37 %"3$&"0 &) >U1$0)#&/)(V
>*
4"79 @/&2 @2/.2 &4#"7 )* >U1V
JDGD 12" %"3$&/)(72/# T"&@""( )%,$(/W$&/)($3
7&%<.&<%" $(0 >U1 $0)#&/)(
j$4&*(O&'()*&% +'$32'3$# ,$)A(1#+ '"# 2)*'#J' /)$
+'$&'#4(2 2")(2#+ ') -# /)$03%&'#1 &*1 (' &%+) ,$)A(1#+
'"# A#"(2%# '"$)34" ."(2" '"#+# 2")(2#+ &$# #//#2'(A#%<
(0,%#0#*'#17 L* 4#*#$&%9 +'$32'3$# 2&* -# 1#Q*#1 (*
'"# 2%&++(2&% '#$0+ 3+#1 -< W3$*+ &*1 8'&%?#$ [] ."#*
'"#< 1(+'(*43(+"#1 -#'.##* 0#2"&*(+'(2 &*1 )$4&*(2
)$4&*(O&'()*+7 !"# /)$0#$ (+ 2"&$&2'#$(O#1 -< & 2)0S
-(*&'()* )/ & '&%% A#$'(2&% "(#$&$2"< &*1 "(4" 1#4$##+ )/
/)$0&%(O&'()* &*1 2#*'$&%(O&'()*7 L* 2)*'$&+'9 )$4&*(2
Q$0+ "&A# /#.#$ 0&*&4#$(&% %&<#$+ &*1 '#*1 ') -# %#++
/)$0&%(O#1 &*1 1#2#*'$&%(O#17

>22)$1(*4 ') H(%%#$ [GG]9 '"#$# (+ & $#%&'()*+"(,
-#'.##* '"# '<,# )/ +'$32'3$# )$4&*(O&'()*+ #+,)3+#
&*1 '"#($ 3+# )/ LM!7 L' (+ 4#*#$&%%< &22#,'#1 '"&' LM!
0&< -# &* #*&-%(*4 0#2"&*(+0 K&%-#(' *)' '"# +)%#
)*#N /)$ 2"&*4#+ (* )$4&*(O&'()*&% 1#+(4*7 !"# #J'&*'
%('#$&'3$# 4#*#$&%%< ,$#1(2'+ & V&''#*(*4 )/ '"# )$4&S
*(O&'()*&% 2"&$' -#2&3+# )/ 2"&*4#+ (* (*/)$0&'()*
'#2"*)%)4< [Bb9BI9Ca]7 Y3-#$ [CE]9 /)$ #J&0,%#9
1#+2$(-#+ & V&''#*(*4 )/ 0&*&4#$(&% "(#$&$2"< -#2&3+#
'"# *##1 /)$ (*/)$0&'()* (*'#$0#1(&$(#+ (+ $#132#17
>22)$1(*4 ') "(0 '"# $)%# )/ 0(11%# 0&*&4#$+ &+
(*/)$0&'()* +3,#$A(+)$+ '#*1+ ') -#2)0# )-+)%#'#9
+(*2# LM! ,#$0('+ '), 0&*&4#0#*' ') 2)003*(2&'#
1#+($#1 (*/)$0&'()* .('")3' 0(11%# 0&*&4#0#*'7
!"# 1#2(+()*S0&?(*4 ,$)2#++ .(%%9 '"#$#/)$#9 (*A)%A#
/#.#$ %#A#%+ )/ '"# )$4&*(O&'()* -#2&3+# &22#++ ')
(*/)$0&'()* (+ 4$#&'#$ .('" LM!7 j'"#$+9 ").#A#$9
)-T#2' ') '"(+ %(*# )/ $#&+)*(*47 n3-)// [IC]9 /)$
#J&0,%#9 &$43#1 '"&' '"# $)%# )/ LM! (+ *)' ') $#,%&2#
0(11%#S%#A#% ,$)/#++()*&%+9 -3' (*+'#&19 ') %#A#$&4#
'"#($ .)$?7
>+ $#4&$1+ '"# 2)*2#*'$&'()* )/ 1#2(+()*S0&?(*4
&3'")$('< &*1 '"# /)$0&%(O&'()* )/ $3%#+ &*1 ,$)2#S

13$#+9 '"# Q*1(*4+ )/ 032" )/ '"# (**)A&'()* %('#$&'3$#
+344#+' '"&' '"#+# /&2')$+ (*"(-(' (**)A&'()* [a9BE]
&*19 "#*2#9 LM! #J,%)('&'()*7
!"3+9
@#+#&$2" U3#+'()* Cd 6%" .2$(,"7 /( )%,$(/W$&/)($3
7&%<.&<%" %"3$&"0 &) >U1 $0)#&/)(V >* 4"79 @/&2 @2/.2
&4#"7 )* >U1V
JDXD 12" %"3$&/)(72/# T"&@""( '$($,"'"(&
747&"'7 $(0 >U1 $0)#&/)(
L/ +'$32'3$# ,$)A(1#+ '"# +?#%#')*9 0&*&4#0#*'
+<+'#0+ 2%#&$%< 2)$$#+,)*1 ') '"# *#$A)3+ +<+'#0
."#$#-< 2))$1(*&'()* &*1 2)*'$)% (+ #//#2'#1 '"$)34"S
)3' '"# )$4&*(O&'()*7 =$)0(*#*' &0)*4 '"#+# &$# '"#
+'$&'#4(2 ,%&**(*49 Q*&*2(&% 2)*'$)%9 &*1 Y30&*
@#+)3$2# H&*&4#0#*' [email protected] +<+'#0+7
LM! 0&< 1$&0&'(2&%%< #*"&*2# '"# 2))$1(*&'()*
&*1 2)*'$)% 2&,&2('< )/ '"# Q$0 [Be]9 &*1 "#*2#9 2&*
+'(03%&'# (*2$#&+#1 3+# )/ 0&*&4#0#*' +<+'#0+7 LM!
$#0)A#+ 1(+'&*2# &*1 '(0# 2)*+'$&(*'+ (* &22#++(*4
$#U3($#1 (*/)$0&'()* V).+ &*1 "#*2# (0,$)A#+ '"#

A critical analysis of media discourseon information technol.docx

A critical analysis of media discourseon information technol.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to A critical analysis of media discourseon information technol.docx

Similar to A critical analysis of media discourseon information technol.docx (20)

More from ransayo

More from ransayo (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

A critical analysis of media discourseon information technol.docx