This article presents preliminary findings of a research project aimed at investigating textualoutcomes in the press of Hillary Clinton’s first congressional hearing on the Benghaziattacks on September 23rd, 2013. The analysis focuses on the way in which journalists oftwo main U.S. newspapers use congressional hearing material, and centres specificallyon the strategies that are deployed to incorporate the hearing either to endorse/criticiseClinton’s version of the events, or to present a more neutral stance, as may be expected ofhigh-reputation newspapers. The analytical model that has been employed relies on themodel Catenaccio (2008) developed drawing on van Dijk and Bell to analyse the presenceof corporate press releases in the media and has been applied to the genre of congressionalhearing. Findings confirmed that, in terms of input source usage, specific processes andstrategies are similarly employed by The New York Times and The Washington Post and areaimed at avoiding explicit endorsement of Clinton’s point of view.
Jan 27, 2021