[links to articles above]
On December 2, there was a call between President-elect Trump and Taiwan's President Tsai Ing-Wen, generating Chinese protest and a range of reactions in the US. These responses can be found in the very news articles that portray the event through the language they use.
On December 2, there was a call between President-elect Trump and Taiwan's President Tsai Ing-Wen, generating Chinese protest and a range of reactions in the US. These responses can be found in the very news articles that portray the event through the language they use.
Take the article China lodges complaint over Trump-Taiwan call, from CNN. Throughout the article, it could be said that they were attempting to point out more significant and impacting consequences of the call, saying that it "could risk a major upset" and "risks throwing US-China relations into a tailspin". This would make Trump's actions irresponsible and thoughtless towards the delicate state of foreign affairs. Their referral to the negative consequences attempts to persuade readers of Trump's incapability. The go on to say, "It is perhaps the first major sign of the unpredictability that Trump has vowed to bring...", the word "unpredictability" implying negativity towards Trump and his volatile actions. They also speculate "if this was a blunder by a team with limited experience of international affairs". With words like "blunder" and "limited experience" that have negative connotations, they remind their readers of Trump's team's seeming incompetence. They close by quoting Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat who sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who says, "'That's how wars start'" and "'allies will walk if they have no clue what we stand for. Just as bad'", again attempting to persuade their readers that these calls will likely have a severe negative consequence.
Meanwhile in the article China lodges protest after Trump’s call with Taiwan, from New York Post, they attempt to downplay the significant consequences that could arise from the call using language. They instead address the praise Trump has gotten from his followers and Congressional Republicans. They begin by quoting said Congressional Republicans, one of whom, John Bolton, "pooh-poohed critics’ worries the call could undo decades of delicate diplomacy and lead to conflict between the superpowers. "Their use of the phrase "pooh-poohed" implies their belief that those worries were foolish and impractical, thus downplaying the possible negative outcomes of Trump's actions. They also seem to be praising Trump for his actions, quoting Rep. Pete King, "'Strong message to China. New day in Asia.'" It is mostly their avoidance of the possible consequences of the call that shows their attempt to persuade their audience that Trump's actions were not actually dangerous, and were even possibly good for the country. Certain words used to describe the situation between China, the US, and Taiwan could also be seen as attempts towards persuasion. For instance, "China’s aggressive territorial claims in the South China Sea". The word "aggressive" clearly has a negative connotation, painting China in a bad light. They defend Trump's disregard of the "one China" principle by supporting Taiwan. They describe Tsai as "democratically-elected" something that would appeal to readers. They end the article by quoting China’s Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, who again downplays the event, attempting to persuade readers that nothing severe will come out of it, and what Trump did was actually totally fine.
