<p><strong><strong>The aim of this essay is to analyze how media constructs strategic positional statements in debates of great immediate interest in order to stress ideological standpoints. Two questions are derived on the basis of this aim.</strong></strong></p><p><strong>- How is Russia positioned in Svenska Dagbladet's and Dagens Nyheter's editorials in the debate on the Swedish defence during 09-01-13 - 09-01-31?</strong></p><p><strong>- Are there differences in the positional statements between the newspapers?</strong></p><p><strong>In the study a Critical Discourse Analytical (CDA) approach is applied, and more specifically that of Teun A. van Dijk. Both the theoretical basis and the methodological tools are based on van Dijks CDA. As the theoretical basis regards focus lies on van Dijks rather specific concept of ideology. The methodological tools applied in the study are lexicalization, implications and analysis of how actors are described as agent or patient in the propositional structure. Besides these micro oriented tools an analysis of the thematic structure is also applied. The analysis is based on a schema that is composed with regard to the aim, the theoretical basis and the methodological tools. In the study a total of eight editorials are analyzed; six from Svenska Dagbladet and two from Dagens Nyheter.</strong></p><p><strong>The result points out to a difference between the two newspapers positioning of Russia. Svenska Dagbladet polarizes Russia and this positional statement can be understood as both nationalistic discourse and, partly, as Russophobia. Dagens Nyheter doesn’t position Russia as a potential threat and Russia doesn’t play a significant role in Dagens Nyheter’s discourse. Dagens Nyheter is mainly focusing on the debate itself. Svenska Dagbladet’s opinion making might possibly be more effective, but at the expense of reproducing a negative construction of Russia.</strong></p><p><strong> </strong></p>

The aim of this essay is to analyze how media constructs strategic positional statements in debates of great immediate interest in order to stress ideological standpoints. Two questions are derived on the basis of this aim. - How is Russia positioned in Svenska Dagbladet's and Dagens Nyheter's editorials in the debate on the Swedish defence during 09-01-13 - 09-01-31? - Are there differences in the positional statements between the newspapers? In the study a Critical Discourse Analytical (CDA) approach is applied, and more specifically that of Teun A. van Dijk. Both the theoretical basis and the methodological tools are based on van Dijks CDA. As the theoretical basis regards focus lies on van Dijks rather specific concept of ideology. The methodological tools applied in the study are lexicalization, implications and analysis of how actors are described as agent or patient in the propositional structure. Besides these micro oriented tools an analysis of the thematic structure is also applied. The analysis is based on a schema that is composed with regard to the aim, the theoretical basis and the methodological tools. In the study a total of eight editorials are analyzed; six from Svenska Dagbladet and two from Dagens Nyheter. The result points out to a difference between the two newspapers positioning of Russia. Svenska Dagbladet polarizes Russia and this positional statement can be understood as both nationalistic discourse and, partly, as Russophobia. Dagens Nyheter doesn’t position Russia as a potential threat and Russia doesn’t play a significant role in Dagens Nyheter’s discourse. Dagens Nyheter is mainly focusing on the debate itself. Svenska Dagbladet’s opinion making might possibly be more effective, but at the expense of reproducing a negative construction of Russia.