Textual and Rhetoric Analysis of News Headlines of Urdu and English Newspapers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Media discourse is powerful tool of making or breaking the image of any person, event or even idea among masses. Media houses deliberately employ different linguistic, rhetoric and emotional techniques to propagate their ideas in this age of information as well as misinformation. This study attempts to scrutinize print media news headlines by relating how different newspapers show similar event in different ways. The study was exploratory in nature and qualitative methodology was used to determine sample, gather data and further analyze it with narrative interpretations. 06 Pakistani newspapers were selected with equal number of English and Urdu newspapers to determine the sample of the study in form of news headlines. Data was analyzed through the technique of content analysis at textual, discursive and social practice level. Findings divulge that there is significant difference of linguistic and discursive markers among headlines of different newspapers. Certain level of ideology, power and hegemony factors were also found in the news of different newspapers. The apparent reason for using different linguistic and contextual techniques is to create entertainment, sympathy, embarrassment or amusement in the minds of the readers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".