For just one instance of a case that needs examination; I need not look further than the metro system just a few minutes away. The Washington Metro has been rife with discourses over whether or not the system is actually improving at all, and there are really two main discourses that can be analyzed. First of all, there is the discourse that is positive towards the Metro, namely coming from WMATA, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transport Authority.[1] On the opposite side, there is a negative discourse about the Metro, usually consisting of the majority of Metro riders, and this discourse is prevalent enough to be restated by the Washington Post.[2]
Looking through news releases from WMATA, it is clear that the discourse that they have is concerned with creating a positive image of the Washington Metro and providing various statistics that seem to back up their argument.[3] The negative discourse is concerned with finding holes in the positive discourse created by WMATA.[4] Together, they create a set practice of WMATA releasing a new statement to support their discourse, and then the populous and media set out to disprove whatever WMATA says. From there, WMATA releases another statement counter–acting whatever arguments have been presented against the status of the Washington Metro.
The press release from WMATA and the Washington Post article that I have cited are really a microcosm of what is a larger ecosystem of these two discourses, and there are many other texts that are available for analysis–from Twitter pages and Facebook groups to Governmental documents and interactions with people riding the metro. There is a lot to get through with this set of discourses, and they are worth looking into.
Bibliography:
Martine Powers, “Metro: We’re Getting Better, Give Us Another Chance,” Washington Post, November 16, 2017, sec. Transportation, accessed November 22, 2017, https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/metro-were-getting-better-give-us-another-chance/2017/11/16/01d8e99e-cafd-11e7-8321-481fd63f174d_story.html.
“Metro Showing Signs of Getting ‘Back to Good,’” WMATA, last modified September 11, 2017, accessed November 22, 2017, https://www.wmata.com/about/news/b2g-update-sept17.cfm.
[1] “Metro Showing Signs of Getting ‘Back to Good,’” WMATA, last modified September 11, 2017, accessed November 22, 2017, https://www.wmata.com/about/news/b2g-update-sept17.cfm.
[2] Martine Powers, “Metro: We’re Getting Better, Give Us Another Chance,” Washington Post, November 16, 2017, sec. Transportation, accessed November 22, 2017, https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/metro-were-getting-better-give-us-another-chance/2017/11/16/01d8e99e-cafd-11e7-8321-481fd63f174d_story.html.
[3] “Metro Showing Signs of Getting ‘Back to Good.’”
[4] Powers, “Metro.”
Nathan, this is a good start in terms of the texts you have found for potential analysis. I would push you to think about the broader (or deeper) meanings and identities being constructed through these discourses, though. The idea of “positive” and “negative” framings might be one aspect of what you could analyze, but it is also a fairly superficial level for analysis. Remember that discourses are always *on* or *about* something, and that they create or confer identities and meanings broader and deeper than just good/bad (a discourse of lone mothers *as* immoral, which is in turn connected to discourses on poverty, social class, sexuality, morality, etc.). What are the broader identities or meanings at stake here that you could analyze? Could the discussion about Metro be part of a broader discourse on public transit? What additional texts would you have to read to understand these meanings?