{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.013071895424836602, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.040229885057471, '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}}
Confrontational yet submissive: Calculated ambivalence and populist parties’ strategies of responding to racism accusations in the media

This article provides an analysis and typology of the discursive strategies nationalist-populist anti-immigration parties use when responding to racism accusations in mainstream news. The typology is based on a three-party comparative analysis of statements given in national public service media by the representatives of three electorally successful Northwestern European populist parties – the UK Independence Party, the Finns Party and the Sweden Democrats. When responding to racism accusations, populist parties use both submissive and confrontational sets of discursive strategies in varying combinations to communicate an ambivalent attitude towards racism. This ambivalence is communicated both on the level of an individual speaker utilizing several strategies and on the level of multiple speakers communicating contradictory messages. The comparative analysis suggests that country-specific contexts, and the statuses of both the persons under accusation and the responders giving statements, affect to what extent responses to racism accusations tend to be confrontational.