초록 열기/닫기 버튼
It is familiar to blame not the U.S. but North Korea for the ongoing security crisis on Korean peninsula. Nonetheless, to raise the question of ‘who benefits at whose costs’ helps to cast doubts on such a conventional wisdom. The author attempts thus to identify the possible symbiotic relationship between foreign policy and the press by employing the method of ‘Critical Discourse Analysis.’ To be specific, while articulating geopolitical contexts which underwrite media’s discourses, it tries to identify discursive tactics by dissecting them into logos, pathos and ethos. Especially for this, total number of 407 articles collected from the New York Times, Washington Post and LA Times by differing time from 2001 to 2017 was analyzed. This study produces the following results. First of all, there were plenty of reasons for the U.S. presidents including George Bush II, Obama and Trump not to engage actively in peace talks. Such motivations as blocking Asian unity, enhancing military interests and reassuring the U.S. leadership were found. Secondly, the media’s positions materialized through frames, phrases and policy options fit nicely with those of the U.S. government. While neglecting to unveil contexts and truths, in the end, those media are persistent in portraying North Korea as a ‘Devil’ applied uncritically to other rogue states like Iran and Syria. The author suggests shedding fresh lights on the continuity of ‘propaganda war’ initiated primarily by the U.S. in the field of international communication.
