{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019569471624266144, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0019569471624266144, 'mean_word_length': 5.354037267080745, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Actor analysis and action delegitimation of the participants involved in Iran’s nuclear power contention: A case study of The Economist

The present research aimed at spotting any possible biased coverage a typical Western newspaper such as The Economist gives to the issue of Iran’s nuclear power program at large and specifically to the way in which the main actors involved in the controversy are portrayed and the actions thereof – most notably, the act of delegitimating Iran’s nuclear program – are represented. To this end, a critical discourse analytic approach centered around Wodak’s ‘discursive strategies’ and Van Leeuwen’s representational resources was applied to 23 argumentative articles of The Economist, all dealing exclusively with Iran’s nuclear contention. The results showed that the differential treatment the Western paper gave to the issue at hand, in terms of scope and complexity, was in line with the advocated policy of the aforementioned paper, that is imposing more sanctions on the country.