Ayisha Khurshid | Comsats University Islamabad (original) (raw)
Uploads
Papers by Ayisha Khurshid
The discourse build within in any narrative often has the quality of multiperspectivity, where fa... more The discourse build within in any narrative often has the quality of multiperspectivity, where facts can be blurred and reality can be manipulated. The present paper analyzes the embedded multiperspectivity in the narrative of Peshawar massacre where American, Indian and Pakistani medias have built their own respective discourses to present the issue in front of the audiences. The issue at hand is to explicate the convergence and divergence of frames employed by various medias under discussion to highlight how multiple level views are generated through single event. The Pakistani media framed the issue as the after math of Zarb-e-Azab operation, whereas American media tied it with Malala's narrative. The Indian Media build the narrative around 26/11 and rejected Indian involvement in the atrocity. On the deeper level, the framings employed by all the medias under discussion highlight the vulnerability of security in Pakistan, yet the patriotic stance , blame game, misrepresentations, hate speech, along with strong message of abhorrence for violence add both convergence and divergence in each Multiperspective narratives about Peshawar incident. The reason for divergences in the narratives lies both in political as well as cultural patterns of all the medias under study. As the social responsibility on part of media cannot be denied, there is a need to educate the journalists not to be media frenzy but be responsible enough to present the facts and figures without vague or multi-embedded lexical items.
, attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, the US along with its allies declared War on Terro... more , attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, the US along with its allies declared War on Terror, where the binary opposition of 'Us' vs 'Them' was firmly established and channelized via both electronic and print media. The media's discourse on the war against terrorism has been an intriguing research area for linguists as well as international relations experts. This paper highlights the problematization in defining a universally accepted definition of terrorism, the idiosyncratic nature of the War on Terror and how it differs from conventional wars, and, later how media, state and non-state actors (those labeled terrorists) use language to legitimize their views. International research journal of management, IT and social sciences © 2020. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
The discourse build within in any narrative often has the quality of multiperspectivity, where fa... more The discourse build within in any narrative often has the quality of multiperspectivity, where facts can be blurred and reality can be manipulated. The present paper analyzes the embedded multiperspectivity in the narrative of Peshawar massacre where American, Indian and Pakistani medias have built their own respective discourses to present the issue in front of the audiences. The issue at hand is to explicate the convergence and divergence of frames employed by various medias under discussion to highlight how multiple level views are generated through single event. The Pakistani media framed the issue as the after math of Zarb-e-Azab operation, whereas American media tied it with Malala's narrative. The Indian Media build the narrative around 26/11 and rejected Indian involvement in the atrocity. On the deeper level, the framings employed by all the medias under discussion highlight the vulnerability of security in Pakistan, yet the patriotic stance , blame game, misrepresentations, hate speech, along with strong message of abhorrence for violence add both convergence and divergence in each Multiperspective narratives about Peshawar incident. The reason for divergences in the narratives lies both in political as well as cultural patterns of all the medias under study. As the social responsibility on part of media cannot be denied, there is a need to educate the journalists not to be media frenzy but be responsible enough to present the facts and figures without vague or multi-embedded lexical items.
, attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, the US along with its allies declared War on Terro... more , attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, the US along with its allies declared War on Terror, where the binary opposition of 'Us' vs 'Them' was firmly established and channelized via both electronic and print media. The media's discourse on the war against terrorism has been an intriguing research area for linguists as well as international relations experts. This paper highlights the problematization in defining a universally accepted definition of terrorism, the idiosyncratic nature of the War on Terror and how it differs from conventional wars, and, later how media, state and non-state actors (those labeled terrorists) use language to legitimize their views. International research journal of management, IT and social sciences © 2020. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).