Abstract
This study assesses the reflection of Middle Eastern media networks on the states and the news concerning the oil crisis and Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) conditions. A critical discourse analysis approach is adopted to analyze 22 articles from Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya regarding the Qatar withdrawal from OPEC. The ideological choices vary as Al Jazeera is focused on the Qatar economy, while Al Arabiya on Saudi Arabia. These online publications have presented a positive self-presentation of their funded country while the negative representation of the other. Al Jazeera has pointed that the exit of Qatar from the OPEC is to focus on its other non–oil production sector, while Al Arabiya has pointed that this exit is due to the primary role of Saudi Arabia, with which Qatar has an on-going conflict. Qatar is symbolic to broaden regional division, which may later diffuse to other OPEC members and will leave no mark on the decision-making process of the alliance.
Keywords
Introduction
In the present era of globalization, media sources constitute a unique and prime role in communicating the discourse to the reader (Hidayatullah, 2017). Various researches have emphasized the substantial role of the media outlets in the dissemination of the information (Castello, 2013; Sharifi et al., 2017). Every news or event in the world becomes international; the moment it occurs because of the power relations of leading players across the globe (Moscato, 2016). Parker (2015) adds that media acts as a stimulus for the dissemination of the ideas of a certain group by constructing particular meaning using genres and narratives. Castello (2013) addresses the media ideology defining it as a form of social process, which allows the circulation of the idea on a massive scale. Media sources constitute the potential to impact the perception of the world and drive them toward a certain direction (Berger, 2012).
Text in the online publications is biased, convincing, and an official evocative of public opinion through which readers and researchers are attracted (Chen et al., 2018). The ideology of these online publications is primary as the discourse of media is legislated as a prominent supplier of public opinion (Happer & Greg, 2013). This problem further becomes more complex when the region is vulnerable to various crises, such as found in MENA (the Middle East and North Africa region) countries. Generally, the relationship with news media and journalism are found challenging (Hinnebusch, 2018). Historically, the MENA region has always had state-controlled media (Bruns et al., 2015), which initiated using printed online publications.
Despite the increase in the development prospects, MENA has experienced numerous conflicts in the form of political disputes and instability, which led to the upsurge of media in the region (Koch & Stivachtis, 2019). The socioeconomic and political networks described the purpose and way of dissemination adopted by these media corporations, which is represented in coverage of every single event (Radcliffe & Lam, 2018). Therefore, confront over the insulation of media from economic as well as the political side is constantly growing, notably for states where the supersession of the basic rights exists (Akpojivi, 2018). The degree of ideologization reaches its pinnacle point for the two media giants in the Middle East, such as Al Arabiya in Saudi Arabia and Al Jazeera in Qatar. The increased political influence impacts the discourse of the media, which often led to the deviation of the ethical goals to that of manipulation (Abdulmajid, 2019).
The stability of the region is jeopardized due to the immense contribution of the media to the ideological representation of the conflicts in the region. Furthermore, the frequent crisis within the MENA states, such as withdrew of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Bahrain ambassadors from Qatar based on the past rivalry that dates back to 1995. This further intensified the adverse response to these conflicts, along with its representation in the news media. Until now, the conflicts of the news media and its promoted ideology have been investigated by Jones (2019) and earlier research of Carpentier and Spinoy (2008) on the Western media outlet. An assessment for the MENA regional news outlet and its ideology construction mechanism remain dearth requiring more research. Therefore, the study investigates the role of the Arabic News outlet and its reporting on the OPEC issues from 2018 to 2019 in the region. The study assesses the two media outlets such as Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya, which hold a substantial consumer base. Following research questions are constructed to examine the role of the Arabic News outlet on the OPEC issues comprehensively:
Theoretical Framework
Critical Discourse Analysis
The study has employed critical discourse analysis (CDA) for assessing the conflict discourse in the region. The study has followed methods proposed by Richardson (2006), due to its practical nature of online publications analysis. Using this approach, a comparative analysis of the two news networks (Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya) was carried out concerning its ideology and power. CDA assess online publications discourse based on three aspects, that is, linguistic analysis, discursive practices, and social analysis (Richardson, 2006).
van Dijk’s (2005) analytical framework is applied in this study for finding out implicit and explicit discursive steps for representing “us” with positive characteristics and “them” with negative characteristics. CDA is an effective tool to analyze a discourse or language as its core focus is to deconstruct those implicit and explicit ideologies of discourses that assist in producing and reproducing unequal relationships in society (Fairclough, 1995; van Dijk, 1998; Wodak & Meyer, 2009). A total of 27 ideological strategies were proposed by van Dijk, which are influential to identify the important strategies of positive self-presentation and negative presentation (p. 67). According to van Dijk (2006), the positive self-presentation is an ideological aspect used for referring to an individual as superior as compared with others, whereas the negative other-representation considers others as inferior. These discursive strategies enhance or reduce bad aspects of an individual and report discourse ideologically.
CDA proposed by Fairclough provides research to gain its insights on discursive, linguistic, and social aspects. According to Fairclough (1993), text analysis involves a comprehensive understanding of language forms. Fairclough categorizes text analysis under four major tenants; cohesion, text structure, grammar, and vocabulary. Force of utterances, the intertextuality of the text, and coherence of the text are involved in these concepts (Ghannam, 2011). The sociocultural analysis is the third level of analysis, which is accomplished through the power relations examination prevailing in any society. Furthermore, the prevailing hegemonies are reproduced, restructured, or challenged through imbalanced power relations (Hassan, 2018).
Fairclough (1995), in media discourse, reported that media sets a platform for the audience and then stresses its power. The power of media is undeniable in shaping perception, values, social relations, and beliefs of people. Media is further considered as a significant power, which is majorly manifested in framing the news story and manipulating the language (Sivandi & Dowlatabadi, 2015). The rationale behind the selection of CDA in this article is to examine the ideological development of Arabic articles, which is well-articulated by the fact that CDA helps in examining the broad news categories. Fairclough (1993) summarized that the CDA of news media headlines assists to find the answers to the questions that are presented in the study.
The incorporation of multiple approaches and disciplines make CDA a diverse area of study. The discourse perception of Fairclough is summarized as linguistically oriented discourse analysis and social and political perception associated with language and discourse. It is presented in the form of a framework, which is appropriate in social scientific research, and particularly in the study of social change (Fairclough, 1993). Fairclough and Wodak (1997) have argued that discourse is both socially conditioned and socially constitutive. The audience is unaware of the frameworks of power relations, nature of social practices, and social structures, while their practices mark an impact on the social struggles and structures around them.
Linguistic Analysis
In this analysis, the research focuses on the article’s choice of words, sentence structure, modal verbs, and combination of different propositions to a narrative (Richardson, 2006). Example of linguistic analysis as exemplified in Richardson (2006, p. 95), book constitute of the following way.
The rationale for selecting this analysis is to examine how the two online publications (Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya) position one country’s importance at the expense of others using words (Richardson, 2006).
Discursive Practices
Discursive practices refer to the sources which are inclusive in the news reporting. Such as the use of politicians quotes as a headline by a journalist. This enables the journalist to incorporate the opinion in the paper without reflecting his opinion. Moreover, the use of supportive or background information can help influence the text objectivity (Richardson, 2006). In the discursive practices, both institutional and organizational practices (Richardson, 2006) are studied as to how OPEC is impacting the region, notably for the hub of two networks, that is, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which impact the text producing rather than text consumption.
Social Analysis
It is related to the analysis of the journalism practices that are adopted at a social level (Richardson, 2006). For instance, this incorporates more social relations, that is, unequal, discriminatory, and iniquitous power relations (Richardson, 2006). It is because journalism constitutes of different state practices concerning its economy, political control, and ideological practices in the context of the Middle East trade climate. It is inclusive of different statements made and discussed on different actors involved in the OPEC. Through these tools of CDA, the news outlet such as Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya can highlight the ideological beliefs of the two regions, that is, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
Literature Review
CDA is a specific element of discourse analysis that emphasizes on the role of language in political procedures and society, which targets conventionally texts produced by institutions and elites including political speeches and news. It is also apparent that new methods are needed for data collection as content takes new moves and forms from texts to language that is integrated with images, data, and design (Bouvier & Machin, 2018).
In recent times, media has emerged as an important pillar of the state, along with the executive, judiciary, and legislature aspects. The online publication articles play an influential role in originating and propagating the ideological campaigns that orient and manipulate the audience (Mahmood et al., 2018). The online publications are likely to give importance to certain opinions and assessments by selecting a topic of the day; although, there might be some exceptions. van Dijk (2011) conducted a study considering the dialogue as a social association, which is one of the major characteristics of media dialogue. The dialogue refers to the language used for communicating with the news recipients. The media dialogue outlines the language used in the context of social practices, more simply, “language as a social practice” (Kopytowska, 2012, p. 1). Its significance of the media ideology of online publications is also significant due to its impact on the social actions and relations, globally (Kopytowska, 2012). Kopytowska (2012) further argued that it is the principle communicational determinant of discourse, which describes the concept of social interaction in such societies. Elewa (2019) has compared the ideologies, cultural values, and social systems enlightened in the linguistic strategies and structures applied by online media sources to present quoted Arabic expressions. Elewa (2019) recommended, based on this enlightenment, that ideology of target readers or publishers should be reflected by editors or translators of these newspapers as CDA is a medium to reflect sociocultural differences. Haider (2019) was of the view of the representation of leaders through online news channels, and revealed that both social and political contexts are viewed by newspapers either positively or negatively. In the case of Qaddafi, newspapers portrayed him as a negative leader despite of his efforts in revolutionizing Libya.
Furthermore, Fairclough (2001) describes dialogue as a language or speech that is a societal practice identified by social infrastructure. He further claimed that dialogue possesses a region and has an impact on society. This is because the language is considered to be a socially structured process by the non-linguistic part of the population. While the association of language with the society is internal, showing a dialectical association between these two variables. In this context, Mahmood et al. (2018) have presented a CDA of the newspapers (Dawn and the New York Times) in the aftermath of Peshawar attacks, specifically referring to “Army Public School.” Mahmood and colleagues were of the view that the word “Taliban” was majorly emphasized by the New York Times for the attackers, whereas the word “militants” was often claimed by Dawn for the attackers. This shows the impartialness approach created by the New York Times in dealing with such events as compared with Dawn.
Alrefaee et al. (2019) have revealed the representation of two newspapers events for serving the ideology and objective of Yemen. The authors have claimed that the agency of procedures is highly mystified by printed materials through different strategies including passivation and nominalization. This refers to the fact that CDA allows writers to manipulate the realizations of power and agency in the representation of action for producing specific meanings that are not always comprehensive for audience. Likewise, Persson and Neto (2018) have investigated the embedded ideologies in discursive practices throughout the public sphere, specifically those committed by the bureaucratic approaches of the federal government for mystifying reality, promoting, and legitimizing essential interests and actions with respect to the public spheres. The authors have organized these ideologies in five categories including participationism, neoliberalism and managerialism, ideology and pragmatism, double standard policy, and the fallacy of choice and the policy of terror.
An investigation on the power of language influences was conducted by Ahmadian and Farahani (2014) by mainly focusing on the online publications: The Los Angeles Times and Tehran Times helped in examining the ideological differences displayed in the depiction of Iran’s nuclear program. They used the application of van Dijk’s (2013) framework of positive and negative self-presentation that revealed the same issues in a different pattern. Another study on Iran’s nuclear program in British online publications by Atai and Mozaheb (2013) revealed that the media prejudice in the online publications representations of the issue is likely to be built through the ideological circles of the West and the East. Considering the political conflicts, Matar (2017) proposed that the pattern displayed by these conflicting events provides an in-depth representation of the culture and values as well as the reality of the political crises that the online publications attempt to build in the minds of their consumers. It is because of this, this study is based on the OPEC crisis, and its’ reporting, to identify the realities that Al Arabiya and Al Jazeera are structuring in the minds of individuals.
Besides, when emphasizing the concept of ideology and its impact on news dialogue, the terms inclusive of framing, bias, representation, and partiality are utilized very often. The majority of the studies conducted in the context of media accept that all the news portrayed on television, online publications, and radio are biased, and which is the explanation of the circumstances and not the concept of political crises as recommended by Fowler (1991). As the news reporting and representation corporations are constructed socially, politically, and economically, however, almost all the news is portrayed from specific areas. Fowler (1991) added that the same ideology is expected to be implemented in other news media, which includes news articles on social media. By undertaking the effect of Al Jazeera, El-Ibiary (2011) has claimed that the role of Arab media channels is limited to enlighten and inform the oppressed Arab individuals because of (a) lack of professional media practice, (b) weak economic foundation, (c) shattering in the Arab media, and (d) lack of media expression.
Ali et al. (2017) have categorized thematically the ideological values using a CDA. It was observed that direct quotations of politicians’ statements were used in the newspapers, which comprise possessive and plural personal pronouns when referring to their activities. The ideological values were revealed in the news event through quotations of event. Similarly, the objectivity improved the sociopolitical ideologies using the quotations of politicians. Abdulmajid (2019) has explored the media discourse ideologization in the Middle Eastern countries by examining political effects over leading media companies in the region. The author has indicated that local political agendas appear in violation with the impartiality of news reporting and the journalistic commitment to objectivity.
Khan et al. (2019) have focused on Trump’s ideological statements against Muslim discourses during the American Presidential Election 2016. The authors have indicated that several rhetoric strategies were presented by Trump in his speeches including number game, polarization, populism, victimization, authority, presupposition, and evidentiality. Moreover, Donald Trump has portrayed Muslims and Islam as a negative phenomenon and presented himself as Islamophobe by negatively targeting Islamic aspects such as Jihad and Shariah. Aazam et al. (2019) have adopted Fairclough three-dimensional model for investigating Trump’s constructed ideology from the viewpoint of Michael Wolf. The author in his book, “Fire and Fury: Inside the White Trump House,” wrote that Trump was an incompetent and ineligible person for the president of the United States. This also showed that Wolf manipulated the working ideology and sentence structuring of this book to portray an anti-Trump representation.
The foundation of GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) was held in the year 1981 as the result of multiple establishments within the regions (Bojarczyk, 2013), which include the Iran–Iraq war held between the years 1980 and 1988, Israel–Egypt interactions, Islamic Iranian Revolution 1979, and Cold War establishments. Moreover, the failure of the Arab League and the correspondence between the social, economic, and political values of the state members of the state of Arab league are considered as some of the factors for the development of GCC. As discussed earlier, it is a combination of six different and significant countries that are situated in the Arab Peninsula. Naheem (2017) claimed that the amalgamation of these six countries is referred to as the significant and core part of maintaining social and economic sustainability in the Gulf. Besides, the British Encyclopedia Britannica on social media also postulated that the aim of the union is to acquire unity between the state members, which depends on their general objectives. Also, the similarity between their cultural and political traits is found to be the key factor in Islamic ideology (Gulf Cooperation Council, n.d.). However, the state has undergone a fair share of trade and political crisis.
Rababah and Hamdan (2019) have expressed that the representation of the self and other in the political leaders’ speeches portray two different opposing ideologically governed insights on the Gaza conflict. The “self” was represented as honorable, human, and strong in political speeches as compared with the “other,” which is considered to be an only risk and an agent of demolition. Guzman (2016) has presented CDA of two online media giants: FoxNews.com and CNN.com for reflecting the ideological steps taken by the U.S. government and Egyptian government under the presidency of Hosni Mubarak. Both editors have reflected a positive image of U.S. government’s democracy and support of U.S. people toward these steps taken, whereas authoritarian rule or Hosni Mubarak was usually the main discursive element portrayed in the newspapers. Lee Ludvigsen (2018) has portrayed the drone warfare in Arabian Peninsula using a qualitative CDA. The author, in this paper, has critically opined that drones were the ultimate cause of oppression and death of Muslims in this territory. The United States was the only one inspired by such warfare, but a negative image of inhumanity and cowardliness was created among other nations for such events.
Furthermore, one primary example of the press freedom scandals within the MENA was the joint venture between Orbit and BBC, which was supported by the citizens of Saudi Arabia. This was developed by an Arabic BBC channel. However, the BBC insisted that this joint venture should have similar values as that practiced by the world services which was conflicted by Orbit, initially censored an interview, and then a documentary. This led to the breakdown of the venture (Miles, 2006; Thussu, 2006). Soon after the adaptation of 24 novel BBC channels, several Arab media scholars and journalists moved to other novel Arab channels, which include Al Jazeera (Thussu, 2006). According to the study postulated by the Committee to Project Journalists (CPJ), Egypt, for example, was considered as the third-largest state consisting of numerous journalists among other countries in the year 2016 (Beiser, 2016).
In the year 2016, various media outlets were shut closed in the MENA region along with 10 journalist’s imprisonment for opposition to be silenced. Similarly, press freedom is at stake in many parts of the MENA region, which is reflected through journalism imprisonment. The existence of several ideological discrepancies may also account for the complicated position of the press and its freedom (BBC Report, 2011; Jayasekera, 2016). Allagui and Akdenizli (2019) also acknowledged this fact in their research, stating that these media outlets generally receive their funding from the government and thus represented a government stance through their content. Moreover, the region also composes certain unstable regions that use the media as a channel for the dissident of the voice.
The past events in Qatar have demonstrated the practice of suppressing the freedom of the press, such as authorities in Qatar disabled accessibility to the Doha news, which enlighten and discourse the information on sensitive topics (Clark et al., 2017). The concept of self-censorship proliferated in the region due to the substantial restrictions imposed on the media corporation (Freedom of the Press 2017 Qatar, 2017). This case further intensified for the region of Saudi Arabia, which has created a suppressed environment for all its media outlets. It is because the media figures in the region along with bloggers, writers, and journalists are always at a risk of legal prosecution where the outcome is generally imprisonment for a lengthy period. The recent issue of the World Press Freedom (2018) ranks Qatar at 125th position, while Saudi Arabia rests at 169th position among the 180 countries. The same scenario is found for other MENA regions.
Method
Study Design
A comprehensive methodology was developed to investigate the ideological foundation in Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya news articles covering headlines and text and aimed to discuss the conflict between Qatar and Saudi Arabia toward Qatar’s withdrawal from OPEC. In this regard, qualitative analysis was conducted by the following framework of Fairclough that emphasizes majorly on textual analysis, lexical choices, and social analysis in the two online publications: Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya. In total, 22 articles were analyzed from the two online publications on the respective topic.
An analytical framework is provided by the CDA version, for qualitative analysis, which includes three different analysis levels such as linguistic analysis, discursive analysis, and social analysis. However, the focus of this study was on the linguistic analysis of headlines, text, and sections with selective sociocultural analysis. Data were collected for 1 year (December 2018 to December 2019). Furthermore, this study focused on the exit of Qatar from OPEC as the event just occurred in December 2018, and this explains why the majority of the selected articles are published in December 2018 or months after. Therefore, the framework selected comprised of only 1 year. Each news headline and text were considered as a unit for analysis. In addition, lexical choice, cohesion, rhetoric, and bias were included as variables that assist in examining the data through CDA.
Study Data Collection
The study comprises of 22 articles that are published by the two media outlets, that is, Al Arabiya and Al Jazeera, and posted online. The sample of the articles is presented in Table 1.
Selected Articles From Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya.
Note. OPEC = Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries; GCC = Gulf Cooperation Council; WTO = World Trade Organization.
The selection of the 22 online publications articles was made after comprehensive research and their relevance to the research in terms of the oil crisis that followed the withdrawal of Qatar from OPEC and recent low oil prices in the Gulf region. The terms used for searching comprise of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Gulf region, OPEC, and Oil Crisis. The discourse analysis includes everything in the article from the title of the online publications to the text. The rationale behind the selection of the two online publications, namely, Al Arabiya and Al Jazeera, was that both outlets print just news online (Elmasry et al., 2013). Second, the collection of online media sources was due to the easy and free collection of the data.
Moreover, the ideological construction of Al Jazeera was studied due to its influential power, and it is one of the most significant media outlets globally, which is located in Doha, Qatar. It has been claimed by the Saudi Arabia news outlets that terrorist “plots” are encouraged by (Al Jazeera) who supplement the actions of Houthi militias, in Yemen, which are being fought by Saudi Arabia, and have shown increased inclination to “break the Saudi internal ranks,” as BBC depicted (Ponniah, 2017). The neighbors of Qatar have demanded the suspension of Al Jazeera in the Gulf region. Al Arabiya, located in the UAE was selected based on its substantial contribution to the existing conflict. Moreover, the two media outlets, namely, Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya, were considered as parallel in the global media landscape. As the two outlets were stated funded, therefore, they served as an excellent source for the representation of the ideology in the two disputed regions.
Results
The ideological representation of the online publications has a substantial impact on the discourse-analytical studies as pioneered by van Dijk (2013). The ideological representation was more central on reflecting positive attributes of one and negative attributes of the other (Richardson, 2006, p. 51). It is perceived to be represented in a positive square that is applicable across all discourse levels. It focuses on major trends and insights of an article by employing different language assessing tools (linguistics, discursive, and social analysis). Such as the discursive tool varies in terms of their focus; for instance, one presents the description of the problem, other on the degree of details, and contrast, and last on the actors involved. The focus of this discourse analysis was on the role of Saudi Arabia and Qatar in OPEC, the withdrawal of Qatar from OPEC, and the lowering oil prices.
Research Question 1: How Headlines Are Reflected From its Reporting Title in Both the Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya Online Publications?
One aspect that deserves particular attention is the headline preceding the content and how the authors have used it for reporting on a particular issue. The researcher focused on the choice of words and their structuring, which were made by the two included online publications for representing a particular picture. Also, the current study assessed the representation approach used by the two online publications. It was found that the focus and emphasis of the two articles were on the same reporting diverge based on their inclination and center, which was noticeable in the title. Such as the reduction of oil prices according to both online publication networks were represented as:
It can be observed that Al Arabiya emphasized the Saudi role and support to the oil reductions, whereas Al Jazeera presented a generalized idea stating the support of the OPEC, as a whole. However, Al Arabiya provides a more Saudi Center image while also explicitly detailing the issue using statistics for support. Likewise, the second article for the two online publications:
In these headlines, the hint of ideology representation was also observed where Al Arabiya article focused on what is next for OPEC while stating goodbye to Qatar, whereas Al Jazeera states the reason which led Qatar to exist from OPEC. The positive self-representation is particularly evident from the Al Jazeera reporting, which has centered its attention on a reason to form a positive image and overcome any query related to Qatar exit from the OPEC:
The preceding headlines were focused on the Qatar’s “non-participation” in the Gulf summit. The headline in Al Jazeera article focuses on the absence of Qatari leader from the Gulf summit as mentioned in the words “emir stays away.” However, Al Arabiya’s article focused on the reason of exclusion of Qatar from the OPEC as evident from the words “limited impact,” thus representing the 57 years of Qatar’s stay in OPEC in a negative manner that focuses only on this phrase:
The title of the Al Arabiya focused on destabilizing of the Qatar economy, and toward the diplomatic crisis of the state (Qatar) as evident in the words “distortion of facts,” whereas Al Jazeera has not stated a single word that negatively reflected Qatar but instead focused on the positive words such as support. This analysis of the headline sheds light to the representation approach and corroborates that online publication network is inclined to positively represent oneself while negatively represent the other. Moreover, the role of the United States was emphasized due to its position as a net oil exporter. As Al Jazeera has it headquarter in Qatar, it did provide information within the article stating the exit of Qatar from OPEC. Moreover, the tone of Al Jazeera was found to be more neutral, while Al Arabiya was found to be more manipulative and dominant as evident from the words “facts are not surprising.”
Both online publications have outlined the exclusion of Qatar in similar patterns. For instance,
In these headlines, the focus of both the articles was on the word “break-up” or “withdraw,” which clearly leads to the subject of this news. The focus in this analysis is on the word “break-up” by Al Jazeera, which reflects a decision made by Qatar being independent and knowledgeable of what is right for its own benefit. On the contrary, the headline of Al Arabiya represents the exit of Qatar from OPEC in a negative way by talking about the matter in a way similar to talking about a foreigner country and not a member of the GCC:
From the aforementioned headlines, both news articles have demonstrated the dispute rose between Saudi and Qatar. Al Jazeera article’s headline shows the lack of interest of Saudis in resolving the dispute brought by Qatar by refusing to attend World Trade Organization (WTO), while Al Arabiya article’s headline emphasized on the challenges brought by Saudi Arabia and ARAMCO on OPEC forum:
The ongoing issue between Saudi-Qatar has been the core focus in both articles. As in Al Jazeera’s article headline, the focus was on the exclusion of Qatar as evident from the word “quits,” whereas the focus of Al Arabiya’s article was on the support of Qatar for Iran as evident from the words “speaks out against.”
Research Question 2: Does the Text of the News Logically Represent and Justify the Saudi–Qatar Conflict and Exit of Qatar from OPEC in Both the Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya Online Publications?
In this section, the primary focus was on the text of the articles. The issue of oil price fluctuation and OPEC reduction of the production has adopted a political agenda based on the striking reporting difference for both news networks. The exit of Qatar from the OPEC has been a focal point of analyzed news articles. From the evaluation of first articles in Table 1, that is, Al Arabiya (Oil tops $73 on Venezuela turmoil, Saudi support for OPEC cuts) and Al Jazeera (OPEC members expected to agree to an oil production cut), it was found that as one reads, a general to specific approach was revealed in both articles. For instance, Al Arabiya, though reflecting a generalized idea, goes more specific where initially, OPEC and the United States were emphasized, such as “The government in Venezuela, an OPEC member whose oil exports have been hit by US sanctions and an economic crisis, dismissed any suggestion of an insurrection.” The start has been more specific where attention was centered on establishing Saudi Arabia’s production of oil. It has emphasized the position of Saudi Arabia as the key producer of oil and its neglection toward the pressure raised by the U.S. President Trump for lowering the production cuts. The article has been completely oil-price-oriented. However, Al Jazeera, despite maintaining a neutral tone, raises a controversial issue by mentioning the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi Arabian journalist, and critic, and links its price reductions to it, that is, “One issue that might complicate relations between the US and OPEC is the murder of Saudi Arabian journalist Jamal Khashoggi by people linked to the government in Riyadh . . .” (Al Jazeera). Doing this, it makes the position of Saudi Arabia questionable as Jamal Khashoggi was a critic of the Saudi government and publicly criticized the actions of Saudi Arabia. Doing this, it draws negative attention on Saudi Arabia while simultaneously neutralizing the position of Qatar for leaving OPEC, which includes an explanation to focus on its already large reserves of gas. This is reflected in the sentences: “. . .the first country from the Middle East to withdraw from OPEC, saying it wanted to focus more on gas production. . .” and “as it played only a small role in the organization, providing just under two percent of OPEC’s total output.” (Al Jazeera)
The discussion of the murder of Jamal Khashoggi has been highlighted to position Saudi Arabia negatively, whereas discussion on the huge gas reserves positively position the other country, that is, Qatar.
Reflecting upon the second articles (Al Jazeera article “Why Qatar left OPEC” and Al Arabiya article “Goodbye, Qatar: What next for OPEC?”) from both the networks, it was found that only 2 days difference exists on the reporting of the issue (article ‘Al Jazeera article was published on December 6, while Al Arabiya article was published on December 4). Al Jazeera reporting has stated the motivation of the exit of Qatar, which was on the expansion of its gas reserves, providing a generalized statement, while the reporting of Al Arabiya highlights another aspect of the exit based on the primary role of Saudi Arabia in the OPEC along with its control of oil prices. The exit of Qatar was driven by the control of Saudi Arabia without naming it. The difference can be observed that both have used the statement of the same individual, that is, Saad al-Kaabi, the energy minister of Qatar; however, the reporting text varies.
Al Jazeera highlighted the significant reserves of gas in Qatar, while Al Arabiya focused on the declining oil reserves of Qatar in contrast to non-OPEC countries (Russia). These aspects emphasized on the disparity of the focus of the two news networks. Al Arabiya formed a connection between Qatar exit with the diplomatic crisis of Saudi Arabia, representing a cause and effect scope of the prevailing crisis. It showed the exit of Qatar from the OPEC was indeed a blessing. Al Arabiya particularly focused on the lack of investment capital for the oil reserves to the exit of Qatar, while simultaneously mentioning the concrete figures for the contribution of Saudi Arabia. In contrast, a positive picture was emphasized for the Al Jazeera article, where the emphasis was on the large gas reserves with further estimation linked to its expansion. Another Al Arabiya article (nos 4 and 6) showed their rationale toward the withdrawal from OPEC in this statement, “We’re looking for a sufficient cut to balance the market, equally distributed between countries.”
The analysis of the two articles (Al Arabiya; Goodbye Qatar: What next for OPEC? and Al Jazeera: Why Qatar left OPEC) constructed different viewpoints, where Al Jazeera emphasized the positive and neutral aspects as compared with Al Arabiya. Al Arabiya used manipulative words “want to become Saudi Arabia . . .” for representing Qatar as evident in its labeling of Qatar in place of Saudi Arabia. The diplomatic crisis and unequal representation and treatment of Qatar have been represented in Al Jazeera more descriptively as compared with Al Arabiya, which only drew attention toward it while concluding the article, and that too positively, such as “In this sense, Qatar’s exit from OPEC makes sense not only from a business perspective but also from a strategic one. All things considered; it is the right decision made at the right time.” A similar perspective was shared by another article (Qatar’s break-up with OPEC) with a statement, “Fears that Qatar’s pull-out may encourage other countries to leave OPEC are unfounded,” according to Johannes Benigni, chairman of JBC Energy Group: It’s very difficult to understand the rationale for countries to be either in or not in the organization. Of course, there’s a concentration of power for bigger players, they have something to say and their decisions of a huge impact.
The most important segment stressed upon by the article was the word “encouragement” for the rest of the OPEC members. According to the insights, it was of extreme importance that other members of the organization will think of becoming an independent player in the oil production world rather than being a component of an oil-based organization.
Likewise, another difference between the two online publications was central to the use of modal verbs, the context in which they are used, and the way the story was told. As per Fairclough (2003, p. 171), the use of model verbs was generally made in different ways and was not only restricted to (may, could, should, and more) and expanded to the contextual impact (as per the van Dijk [1998] analysis), such as semantic derogation (which uses negative words for representing other), euphemism (which uses vague words for presenting something in a positive context), and otherness (which reflects egocentricity indicating negative connotation). Considering the use of model verbs in terms of Semantic derogation, the Al Jazeera article writes (Why Qatar left OPEC) “. . . the decision was taken in the context of the on-going Saudi-led blockade on Qatar, many commentators interpreted it as a political act and a rebuke of an organization increasingly seen as a tool of Saudi power projection . . .” This statement negatively portrays the power of Saudi Arabia and its political influence. A similar practice was observed for Saudi Arabia, Al Arabiya (Goodbye Qatar: What next for OPEC?) with a statement such as, “. . . with one of OPEC’s members smallest producers—Qatar . . .” (Al Arabiya), which of the semantic derogation approach of Saudi Arabia, negatively positioning the economy of Qatar and labeling it as the smallest.
Concerning the euphemism context, Al Jazeera article states (Why Qatar left OPEC), “. . .What defines the country’s energy sector is not its oil production, but its capacity and global presence in the natural gas sector . . .,” which hints to the positive image of Qatar reflecting its global contribution in terms of gas. This demonstrated the strategic use of modal verbs and how the political influence of Saudi Arabia posed an adverse impact on the economy. Without highlighting Saudi Arabia, the energy minister of Qatar states Saudi Arabia as the reason behind the withdrawal of Qatar from OPEC, stating, “. . .without naming Saudi Arabia, Qatari Minister of State for Energy Affairs Saad al-Kaabi said, ‘We are not saying we are going to get out of the oil business, but it is controlled by an organization managed by a country. . .’” (Al Arabiya; Article 2).
Another Al Jazeera’s article (Saudi Aramco: A story of oil, wealth and power) negatively framed Saudi Arabia by targeting one of the major organizations in the Kingdom; Aramco with a statement such as “So Aramco shedding its cloak of secrecy and deciding to go public is a huge deal—especially for Saudi Arabia which is run by a monarchy and its affairs cannot be publicly evaluated or scrutinized.” Similarly, in Article 8 of Al Jazeera online publications (Saudi Arabia refuses to engage), a negative tone of Saudi Arabia can be observed where the country enlightening the “national security concerns” to withdraw from dispute settlement arranged in Qatar. The following excerpt is the example of Saudi’s lack of interest; “Riyadh says it cannot engage in dispute settlement procedures because of ‘national security concerns’.” However, the statements made by the general secretary of OPEC regarding the challenges risen by Saudi Arabia and ARAMCO in Al Arabiya’s Article 8 showed how significantly Saudi Government tackled this situation: “Saudi authorities and Aramco have risen to the challenge, and the way and manner in which they have handled this development is commendable.” This clearly showed that Saudi’s interest was merely toward their national security and reputation, but their interest lacks in the matter of the WTO disputes brought by Qatar.
Al Jazeera (Why Qatar left OPEC) has also stated the small economy, but has used neutralized structuring, that is, “. . . particularly the smaller producers like Qatar (whose oil output is just 2 percent of that of the organization) . . .” (Al Jazeera), which reflected the discrepancies in both the news network. In the semantic derogation context, Al Arabiya (Goodbye Qatar: What next for OPEC?) also sheds light on the statement of Qatar Energy Minister; though, it does it negatively, “to put efforts and resources and time in an organization that we are a very small player in and I don’t have a say in what happens.” A similar approach of negative representation of the other can be observed this time for the Al Jazeera online publications article (Why Qatar left OPEC), which reflects on the declining power of Saudi Arabia: . . . As Riyadh’s ability to manipulate the market through OPEC has weakened, and the future of the organization and the effectiveness of its decisions necessitate Russian support. For example, when US President Trump pressed Saudi Arabia to increase oil output and bring down the price of oil ahead of the US midterms, the Saudi leadership had to seek Russia’s cooperation to do so . . .
Concerning the otherness aspect, Al Arabiya article (Goodbye Qatar: What next for OPEC?) writes, . . . However, in a perverse way, should Qatar ever become the equivalent of Saudi Arabia in the LNG and gas sector in the future and dominate that market, then that country could conceivably one day may also be faced by legal anti-trust lawsuits on the ground that it dominates the gas market and sets monopolistic prices . . .
This indicated the negative connotation of the Qatari dominance and its futurist potential in a negative way, which directs the thinking of the reader that Qatar should remain prominent in either of the two markets to cease its monopolistic pricing mechanism. Likewise, this otherness aspect was also visible in the Al Jazeera article (Why Qatar Left OPEC), “OPEC remains essentially a Saudi-led cartel whose global relevance is in significant decline after the so-called ‘shale revolution’.” This demonstrated how articles have used the modal verbs in forming the contextual meaning for positively portraying the place to which they belong, such as Al Jazeera for Qatar and Al Arabiya for Saudi Arabia. Similar findings have been gained from Al Jazeera Articles 9, 10, and 11.
For instance, in Article 9 of the Al Jazeera online publications, it was reported that the exit of Qatar from the cartel was symbolic and was majorly based on the conflicts with Saudi Arabia and its allies. “More than anything, we suspect that Qatar’s withdrawal from OPEC has been spurred by its on-going dispute with Saudi Arabia and its allies.” Another quote portrayed that Saudi Arabia’s diversity and globalization might act as a blockade for Qatar. Similarly, the exit of Qatar from the cartel allowed Saudi Arabia and Russia to strongly concentrated on the issues of oil policy.
Article 10 of Al Jazeera Online publications has presented a better emphasis on the exit of Qatar. The reason for exiting the organization was to focus on the production of LNG to 110 million tons per year from 77 million tons per year. According to the statements of Qatari oil minister, “Qatar produces around 600,000 barrels of oil per day, which is less than 2 percent of OPEC’s total production of 32.9m bpd in October,” which showed that the concentration of Qatar was switching from oil to natural gas. This indicated that the exit of Qatar was not because of any political or regional issues, but to increase the generation of natural gas in the region. However, in the Al Arabiya’s article, a political conflict can be observed where Iran’s oil minister transparently stated that Americans talk a lot and I advise them to talk less. They (have) caused tensions in the oil market for over a year now and they are responsible for it, and if this trend continues, the market will be tenser.
Despite of Qatar’s intention to produce LNG, Iran, being a major ally of Qatar and member of OPEC, has blamed United States to increase market tensions in the region.
Article 11 of Al Jazeera’s online publications has shown the preference of Qatar toward natural gas and Saudi’s blockade on Qatar. Article 11 supported the subject of Article 10 specifically about the statement of Qatari oil minister. For instance, “The withdrawal decision reflects Qatar’s desire to focus its efforts on plans to develop and increase its natural gas production from 77 million tonnes per year to 110 million tonnes in the coming years.” Article 11 focused on the blockade implied in Qatar and resembles the content presented in Article 9, “They say it has nothing to do with the blockade on Qatar and that they have been thinking about it for several months now.” Likewise, similar explanations were observed in Al Arabiya’s article 11 where Saudi Arabia was focusing on to raise its production by 513 billion riyals in 2020 due to low oil prices and deal with OPEC+. From the statement, “Saudi Arabia pledged to continue cutting 400,000 barrels a day if other producers remained committed to their part of the agreement.”
Research Question 3: How the Role of the United States Is Reflected in The Title and Text of Both the Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya Online Publications?
Another aspect evident from the reporting of the two online publications (such as Article 3: Al-Jubeir: Qatar’s distortion of facts is not surprising on June 3, 2019, and Qatar blockade: the US shows support for both Qatar and Saudi Arabia on June 5, 2019) was about the role of the United States in the region. This section also considered the findings drawn from another article of Al Jazeera (Article: OPEC members expected to agree to an oil production cut on December 2018) which substantially contributed to the role of the United States. Both the Article 3 (i.e., Al Arabiya on June 3, 2019, and Al Jazeera on June 5, 2019) are recent and have presented that the role of Qatar was again up surging based on its alliance with Iran. In Al Jazeera, a neutral tone was reflected where the focus was on stabilizing the relationship between Qatar and Saudi Arabia. The blockade of the good from Qatar side has promoted the U.S. leaders for emphasizing on reducing tensions between Iran and Qatar. For Al Arabiya, a more dominating aspect was provided where the tension between the two regions was reflected in the context of Saudi Arabia Foreign Affairs minister.
Similarly, in the first article (Table 1), Al Jazeera (Article: OPEC members expected to agree to an oil production cut) has presented the statement which zooms into the controversial statement of the Saudi oil minister, reinforced a negative image of Saudi Arabia for the United States and impacted the relationship between the two countries (the United States and Saudi Arabia). Similar to the earlier findings (Representation and Justification), analysis of the mentioned Article 1 (Al Arabiya, that is, Oil tops $73 on Venezuela turmoil, Saudi support for OPEC cuts and Al Jazeera, that is, OPEC members expected to agree to an oil production cut) revealed that focused is on the state which it presents. Such as it was reflected in Al Arabiya’s third article (Al Arabiya article: Goodbye Qatar: What next for OPEC?) concerning the control on the oil prices in the Saudi context; though, it clarified its position of not declining the oil output due to a detrimental impact it caused on the countries that are dependent on oil.
The position and statement neutralized with the inclusion of another country, Russia, which addressed that decision was not only restricted for Saudi Arabia but also Russia. It highlighted the cause–effect relationship of the decisions and enlightened the possible consequences. However, the controversial tone again emerged concerning the role of the United States and Qatar, such as reasoning U.S. Congressional threats as the reason for Qatar to leave OPEC: . . . US Congressional threats such as the proposed NOPEC Act ensures that OPEC members have to take such legal action seriously and some have made the observation that Qatar has decided to leave OPEC so as not to face such future litigation against it if it remained within the organization . . .
The role of the United States has been dual-sided in the Qatar–Saudi Arabia conflict and has been frequently observed in different contexts. For instance, Al Jazeera has reported in its Article 7 (Saudi king extends invitation to Qatari emir to attend GCC summit) with a statement, The United States, a GCC ally, has also tried to mediate in the Gulf dispute, which it sees as a risk in its efforts to contain regional power Iran. Qatar is home to the largest US airbase in the Middle East.
Being a major ally of Gulf Countries, the United States attempted to play a crucial role in resolving the dispute between the two oil-producing economies, keeping in mind that both economies are important from an economic perspective.
Another important aspect evident from the Al Arabiya online publications was the support of Iran for Qatar regarding the involvement of the United States in the organization. As evident from Article 10, Americans talk a lot and I advise them to talk less. They (have) caused tensions in the oil market for over a year now and they are responsible for it, and if this trend continues, the market will be tenser.
These statements reflected the negative involvement of the United States, which intentionally created massive tension in the Gulf region, specifically among OPEC members. Likewise, this statement was publicized just after Qatar made a statement against the external pressure of the United States on Iran (Article 9). It should be noted that both Qatar and Iran are major allies and always stand in their bad times. This can be viewed from this statement, “Unilateral sanctions were unwise because they hurt the countries that rely on the supplies.” The position of Iran and Qatar against unilateral sanctions was in impairment as remaining OPEC members strongly supported the unilateral sanctions imposed by the United States.
Another important aspect was the inclusion of Russia in the OPEC+, which was negatively sought among OPEC members. It should be noted that Russia was one of the leading oil suppliers and supported OPEC at the time of Qatar’s exit. However, Article 11 of Al Arabiya has emphasized that the decayed OPEC gives birth to a new OPEC+, which allowed non-OPEC members to give input in OPEC’s decisions. This might not be beneficial for OPEC members, but to balance the global oil prices, both the United States and Russia have intervened purposively in the OPEC.
Discussion and Conclusion
The study has examined the news reporting by two online publications such as Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya on the OPEC countries, the oil price fluctuations and the exit of Qatar. The main focus of the study was on the text production and the ideology followed by the two networks. In this regard, the critical discourse analysis was adopted, which analyzed the 22 articles, eleven selected from each (Al Arabiya and Al Jazeera). The analysis of discourse covered how the linguistic, discursive, and social practices were reflected in the two news media outlets (Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya). The study has covered three major parts, which included a reflection of headlines from its reporting title; representation and justification of Saudi–Qatar conflict and exit of Qatar from OPEC; and reflection of the role of the United States from the title and text of both the online publications. The critical discourse adopted in the paper showed how the two differ and the way they employed the techniques. It also emphasized the role of the OPEC countries along with the fluctuations of the oil prices. It also showed the way they conveyed information and idea while also reflecting their political inclination.
The paper argues that issues of OPEC were not trade-centered but were more focused on the political orientation for the two online publication networks. The analysis showed that each article produced was centered on safeguarding the position of their funded country as well as their economic interest based on their oil export and production, their economic standing as well as profit motivated. The study reasons that OPEC issue was influenced by various factors; such as decision-making, both internally and externally, and its impact on the global economy, where the political stance was high. The primary finding of the analysis on the two networks showed the disparity of reporting on the same news using different viewpoints and perspectives to meet their primary audience and ideology.
The loss of Qatar was not crippling for OPEC as oil reserves of the country were restricted and its production levels have flat lined. On the contrary, OPEC membership for Qatar was indispensable. A gradual increase in the gap created in OPEC has been continuously observed. For instance, Qatar has been boycotted by four Arab countries including the UAE, Bahrain, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia by banning trade and travel regulations on Qatar. Among these countries, Saudi Arabia is the most important member of OPEC. Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt launched a diplomatic and economic boycott of Qatar to change its behavior, with tensions increasing between Qatar and Saudi Arabia. However, tensions between Saudi Arabia and Qatar resulted in the separating of associations between the two economies. This showed the reluctance of Qatar in cooperating with Saudi Arabia even in a major international body such as OPEC. Therefore, the Qatari government has decided to exit the oil organization after 57 years.
Al Jazeera’s online publications have shown the reasons for the exclusion of Qatar from the oil cartel after six decades. The articles have positively presented that the emphasis of Qatar was not political, but sought to enlarge the capacity of natural gas. Also, the article discussed that the exclusion of Qatar from OPEC will not be an influential step for other members to opt leaving the oil cartel. Similar thoughts were underlined in the Al Arabiya online publications where the exclusion of Qatar was discussed. Another interesting element found in the articles of both online publications was the introduction of Russia who was a strong contender in the global oil supply. This showed that the exclusion of Qatar from the OPEC will not affect the oil cartel and other members.
The study added value to the media studies, the role of the OPEC countries and to some extent, the change of prices. It demonstrated how the perspective of the media network was imposed through its reporting and how it excluded certain specific information for deemphasizing the focus on others and their development. As the shift in the oil prices was an ongoing subject, the research area was wide and can be expanded for examining the difference in the reporting style and news on other networks than Al Arabiya and Al Jazeera. Consequently, other news networks can also be analyzed for understanding their inclination, emphasis, and focus. Finally, the findings implied that a critical approach should be adopted for reading the news to understand the primary aim or motive behind text production as well as its consumption. Even though, the two claims to be new sites representing the region as while, the interest, alignment, and the ideology of two directing their news production.
It should be noted that approximately 600,000 barrels of crude oil per day were produced by Doha, while 10 million barrels a day were produced by Saudi Arabia. This comparison reveals that there was a limited contribution of Qatar to the overall oil production of OPEC, and it was clear that this contribution was not essential to OPEC. Indeed, it will affect a 60-year-old organization that can consequently lead to its demise. The message transmitted from the withdrawal of Qatar was that “it may be better to regulate outside the organization as compared to work within the organization.” By concluding, Qatar was symbolic to broaden regional division, which may later diffuse to other OPEC members and will leave no mark on the decision-making process of the alliance.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The author is very thankful to all the associated personnel in any reference that contributed in/for the purpose of this research.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
