29
Saudi Arabia: Weekly Variation in Argument Usage
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
9/13/02
11/2/02
12/22/02
2/10/03
4/1/03
5/21/03
date
real
coll
legal
hist
moral
econ
Islm
3 per. Mov. Avg. (real)
3 per. Mov. Avg. (coll)
3 per. Mov. Avg. (legal)
3 per. Mov. Avg. (hist)
3 per. Mov. Avg. (Islm)
3 per. Mov. Avg. (moral)
3 per. Mov. Avg. (econ)
The Saudi Arabian data set is rather different its usage of various argument types over time than
any of the others. While in the other newspapers, usage of realist and collective security
arguments varied together over the entire time period, there are three points in the Saudi Arabian
data set where one type of argument (either realism or collective security) is actually exchanged
almost entirely for the other. This suggests that these two types of logic may not be as
compatible in Saudi editorialists’ minds as they are in the usage of other authors.
Step 3: Attitudes Toward War
One of the most striking features of the New York Times data set is that although editorials
opposing the war (war-) are dominant, other argument types also play a significant role. This is
quite different from the other data sets, especially the non-American ones, as will be discussed
below. Although there are small peaks in the trendline representing editorials that were
ambivalent about the war (war=) in both November 2002 and early February 2003 that may
correspond to more major peaks visible in the non-American newspapers, there is not a clearly
discernable pattern visible in the New York Times.
Convention