This qualitative case study investigates dissent in the news discourse of a major pro-reform newspaper covering the Iranian presidential election debates that took place in June 2009. Drawing on appraisal theory as its analytical lens, the article examines the evaluation of the three major candidates in the paper’s coverage of the debates. The article begins with the broader sociopolitical context situating the watershed debates and a description of the legal framework within which the Iranian press operate. The analysis next details the function of attitudinal resources in the discursive representation of the political actors. As central to an ideologically invested strategy, evaluative linguistic resources are found to sharply dichotomize the political actors along a range of positive and negative value positions that dissent from those advanced in the narratives of the dominant power.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 6 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.