In this paper I conduct a media analysis based on the discourse theory of Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouddes. I analyze op-ed articles about the planning of a mine in Rönnbäck, Västerbotten, published in the national Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter and the local Västerbotten newspaper Västerbottens-kuriren. The aim is to examine the discourses that appear around the mine, especially connected to development and perceptions of nature. I found three main discourses: the socio-economic discourse, the environmental discourse and the discourse on ideology and rights. The dominant perception of development was about the economy and the need for work-opportunities. There was a conflict, between the company Nickel Mountain Group AB and the opponents to the mine, concerning the best way to reach this development goal. The mine’s opponents also presented a view of development in which a pristine environment was a central aspect of quality of life. Connected to this view was concern about losing that which exists today. The environment was seen partly from an economic perspective but there was also a view of nature as something with intrinsic value. In the discussion I highlight some of the points of conflict I found: socio-economic benefits, democratic process and rights. I suggest that an open and broader debate concerning the meaning of these terms is important. I also point out the importance of including the prior assumptions and difference in powerposition of the different actors, given that their opportunities and view of reality are affected by this.

The topic of the present dissertation is argumentation in the late statesman Olof Palme (1927-1986). One may reasonably think that the fascination for Palme is mainly due to his way of expressing his policy, and therefore also to his argumentation strategy. The theoretical background consists of Lloyd F. Bitzers’s theory on the rhetorical situation, Stephen E. Toulmin’s theory on the description of argumentation structures and on the notion of fallacy, as it appears in pragma-dialectics and informal logic. The rhetorical situation is used to identify vital presuppositions and conditions surrounding the analysed argumentation.Toulmin’s theoretical model is used to analyse structures in the argumentation, and the notion of fallacy is used to discover infringements upon these structures. The object of this analysis is the decisive electoral debates of autumn 1976 between Olof Palme and Thorbjörn Fälldin, held in Scandinavium, Gothenburg, Sweden. Palme had to think of a number of surrounding conditions, such as that the debate was decisive, the composition of the audience. Palme and Fälldin otherwise appeared to be rather equally equipped for the debate. Palme’s task was primarily to gain the number of votes needed to continue to keep social democracy in power. There seem to exist several levels making up his argumentation, grouped under attack and defence. Defence is in most cases based upon a strong connection with the social democrat tradition. The attack is more complicated, linked to Palme’s overall argumentative intention: to depict the non-socialists as a bad governing alternative, and the social democrats as a better one. Fallacies are regarded as instances of breaking the frame of rules that govern a critical discussion. Palme has several fallacy-like features in his argumentation. Among those, most common, are that he attacks the person Thorbjörn Fälldin, instead of the policy or party that he represents. Palme also starts from presupposed premises and tries to link the economic policy of the alliance to an intellectually-thought delimiting between liberal and conservative capitalism and social-democrat solidarity. He strives to portray the liberals and conservatives as money-orientated, whereas social democracy is depicted as people-orientated.Palme goes arguably too far at several moments during the debate,which possibly hurts his own argumentation. / Innehåller en 20-sidig utskrift från radions P1 från duellen mellan Palme och Fälldin i Göteborg den 1 sept 1976.

Background: Diabetes is a global health issue on the rise. Besides genetics as a cause of diabetes, diet, weight and lifestyle are amongst the main factors. Due to the modernized society, new technology and risks, there has been a shift in responsibility of safety and health. As a part of a health promoting policy development during the last few decades there has also been a natural de-authorization of health knowledge and expertise. Governmental expertise has been decentralized to the society and so has the responsibilities. Traces of this new health paradigm can be seen in the media discourse. It has been seen in studies of the reporting of diabetes in North American press, that societal factors – such as labor market, health care and infrastructure – often get veiled by individuals’ responsibility and guilt due to lifestyle and life choices. This affects how individuals feel about their life situation and how the public perceive them.     Method and material: A quantitative content analysis was performed on 112 articles from six Swedish broadsheet and tabloid newspapers. The articles were coded with variables measuring article theme, dominant framing of diabetes´ causes and whose responsibility, what arguments are used and what agents with dignity can be seen. Excerpts from the articles were also analyzed with qualitative tools as modality and argumentation analysis. Results: Similarities between the Swedish and the North American newspapers were discovered. Societal factors and structures as causes and means of responsibilities were not as prominent as those aiming for the individual. The responsibility of the society was also reported to a much greater extent than society as a factor contributing to cause diabetes. This can be considered a sign of the health promoting strategy and the individualism that is rooted in modernization, industrialization and economic liberalization. Doctors and scientists were given dignity as often as celebrities and private citizens, which indicates the de-authorization of health knowledge and the further use of scientists and doctors as a truth repository in media. Several of the articles concern the critique of the diabetes unawareness and predominant individual responsibility that was the outset of this study. Celebrities and private citizens were frequently given dignity in these cases. In their criticizing, high modality contributed to a strong authority in their knowledge. / Grund för forskningsfrågan: Diabetes av olika slag drabbar ett växande antal människor världen över. Sjukdomen tros främst bero på genetik och omgivande faktorer så som livsstil, vilken påverkas av den omgivande miljön. Det har visat sig i studier av rapportering kring sjukdomen i bland annat nordamerikansk press att samhälleliga faktorer ofta hamnar i skymundan och att skulden och ansvaret för sjukdomen framstår ligga hos individen och dess egenvalda livsstil. Detta kan bero på en hälsofrämjande strategi som setts växa fram under de senaste decennierna, som en reaktion på effekterna av teknisk utveckling, modernisering och marknadskrafter. Strategin har inneburit en naturlig av-auktorisering av hälsokunskapen och individualisering av ansvaret. Detta hälsoparadigm återspeglas i medierna.   Studien: Denna studie undersöker rapporteringen av diabetes i svensk press, genom en kvantitativ innehållsanalys av 112 artiklar från sex svenska dags- och kvällstidningar. Materialet kodades med variabler för bland annat artikeltema, dominant gestaltning av orsak samt ansvar för diabetes, vilka argument som förekommer och vilka aktörer som tillskrivs dignitet i sammanhanget. Detta kompletterades med en kvalitativ analys av några textutdrag från materialet, med verktyg och begrepp från och argumentationsanalys samt det lingvistiska begreppet modalitet.   Resultat: Det framträder stora likheter mellan de svenska tidningarna och de nordamerikanska. Samhällsstrukturer som orsak till och ansvar för diabetes framgår inte i samma utsträckning som individens roll. Samhällets ansvar för sjukdomen framgår dock i större utsträckning än dess skuld, vilket går i linje med individualiseringen av hälsoansvaret. Läkare och professorer tillsammans förekommer med dignitet i ungefär lika många artiklar som privatpersoner och kändisar tillsammans, vilket indikerar avauktoriseringen av hälsokunskapen, och den fortsatta användningen av läkare och professorer som ett slags ”sanningsvittnen”. I flera artiklar framträder just den kritik mot okunskap kring sjukdomen och hur individerna själva måste arbeta för att förändra läget, en utgångspunkt för denna studie. Kändisar och privatpersoner fick i dessa fall dignitet. I deras kritiserande av andra uttalanden de inte höll med i, agerade hög modalitet en faktor som gav dem auktoritet i sina uttalanden.