From Civilian to Threat: Discursive Constructions of Responsibility in a Lethal ICE Operation
Author
Del Sorbo, Gaetano
Term
4. semester
Education
Publication year
2026
Submitted on
2026-05-31
Pages
60
Abstract
This thesis examines how American newspapers and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) construct responsibility and legitimize state action in coverage of a fatal ICE operation in Minneapolis in which Renée Good was shot and killed by an ICE agent. Guided by the question of how responsibility and legitimacy are built in public discourse, the study applies Critical Discourse Analysis (Fairclough’s textual, discursive, and social practice levels) to selected articles from The New York Times and Fox News, together with the official and political statements quoted within them. Drawing on theories of securitization, power/knowledge, and legitimation, and on work that treats terrorism as a political category and highlights how knowledge can be occluded, the analysis compares how the same event is made meaningful for different audiences. It finds that The New York Times tends to foreground biography, legal uncertainty, and critical voices, which makes responsibility more contested, whereas Fox News and official statements more often stress threat, officer vulnerability, self-defense, and public order, which renders state action easier to defend. The thesis argues that legitimacy is produced through language—through the personalization or depersonalization of Good, the opening or closing of interpretive possibilities, and the authority afforded to official sources—and situates these patterns within U.S. media polarization and Trump-era immigration politics. Rather than adjudicating legal facts, the study shows how a civilian death can become publicly readable as a security problem, and how lethal state action can be made contestable or defensible through discourse.
Afhandlingen undersøger, hvordan amerikanske aviser og U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) konstruerer ansvar og legitimerer statslig handling i dækningen af en dødelig ICE-operation i Minneapolis, hvor Renée Good blev skudt og dræbt af en ICE-agent. Med udgangspunkt i spørgsmålet om, hvordan ansvar og legitimitet bygges i offentligheden, anvendes kritisk diskursanalyse (Faircloughs tekst-, diskurs- og socialpraksisniveauer) på udvalgte artikler fra The New York Times og Fox News samt de officielle og politiske udtalelser, de citerer. Med afsæt i teorier om sekuritisation, magt/viden og legitimering og i arbejder, der behandler terror som politisk kategori og peger på videnstab, sammenlignes, hvordan den samme begivenhed gøres meningsfuld for forskellige målgrupper. Analysen viser, at The New York Times ofte fremhæver biografi, juridisk usikkerhed og kritiske stemmer, hvilket gør ansvar mere omstridt, mens Fox News og officielle udtalelser oftere betoner trussel, betjentes sårbarhed, nødværge og offentlig orden, hvilket gør statens handlinger lettere at forsvare. Afhandlingen argumenterer for, at legitimitet skabes gennem sprog – via personalisering eller depersonalisering af Good, åbning eller lukning af fortolkning samt den autoritet, der tilskrives officielle kilder – og placerer mønstrene i amerikansk mediepolarisering og immigrationspolitik under Trump. Studiet tager ikke stilling til juridiske forhold; det viser, hvordan et civilt dødsfald kan gøres læsbart som et sikkerhedsproblem, og hvordan dødelig statslig handling kan gøres henholdsvis anfægtelig eller forsvarlig gennem diskurs.
[This apstract has been generated with the help of AI directly from the project full text]