Analysis of an Indian Editorial

Using the dimensions presented by Fairclough, I'm going to attempt to analyze an editorial from The Times of India. The editorial is entitled "One for Ramadoss" and can be found here: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Opinion/Editorial/One_for_Ramadoss/articleshow/3563692.cms


Basically, Health Minister Anbumari Ramadoss argues for decriminalizing homosexuality in India, and the author of this editoral supports Ramadoss' position.

According to Fairclough, this article is considered a text in written/visual form (as opposed to spoken text).

Fairclough's dimension of representation is divided into what the text includes and what it excludes. In this example, one element that is included is a description of the worst form of punishment for homosexuality in India: 10 years in prison. On the other hand, the text excludes descriptions of other, perhaps more "typical" punishments and information regarding exactly how one incurs the different punishments.

Another element that Fairclough outlines is presupposition. This article may presuppose that no one else has expressed this opinion before, at least not publicly. Any other supporters of decriminalizing homosexuality are backgrounded while the opinion of this public figure is foregrounded. There is no indication that Ramadoss built his opinion from the statements of others.

The dimension of events and actions is illustrated in this article as well. The text is primarily active and the author personifies concepts such as "state" as the actor. For example, "The state should no longer concern itself with what consenting adults choose to do in private" and "The Delhi high court is examining a public interest litigation on the subject."

Along the same lines, the author also uses nominalizations. Again, concepts such as "state," "society," and "home ministry" become concrete.

Fairclough also discusses the use of summaries, formulation, quotations, and reactions. This editorial is based on a summary of both the current policy and Ramadoss' statements opposing it.

However, this text could also be viewed as focusing on Ramadoss' reaction to the policy of Section 377. OR it could even be viewed as the author's reaction to Ramadoss' reaction.

These are the primary elements that I was able to extract from this editorial (hopefully I used the elements correctly). I also noticed a couple of things that Orwell or Luntz would point out, but I will save those for another time since I wanted to focus on Fairclough for this discussion.