News narrative, rhetorical and critical analysis of the North American Free Trade Agreement, elite press and border press: 'The Washington Post', the 'Dallas Morning News', the 'Los Angeles Times', and the 'San Antonio -Express -News

This study, News Narrative, Rhetorical and Critical Analysis of the North American Free Trade Agreement: Elite Press and Border Press, evolved from the fact that very little research had been conducted analyzing NAFTA from a Human Communication perspective to determine the role that the border and national press played during the passage of NAFTA.;The study compares the coverage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) during the period January 1993 through May 1998 as reported by the elite press: The Washington Post and the border press: the Dallas Morning News, the Los Angeles Times and the San Antonio Express-News. This study also indicates, in the view of the respective newspapers, perceived issues (including political, labor, environmental and commercial) and motives of Mexico and the United States. Additionally, the study identifies other voices in the news media. These voices included women, Afro-Americans, and those at the lower end of the wage scale.;By using a frame and narrative analysis of 182 news articles and editorials, this study provides a meaning-centered analysis of the four newspapers and serves as an indicator of the portrayal of NAFTA by the elite press and border press. The study found that three major frames arose from coverage NAFTA by the respective newspapers. These frames included: pro-NAFTA, anti-NAFTA, and NAFTA extension.;Upon completion of the frame and narrative analysis, a critical analysis is conducted. Specifically, this section utilizes Robert McKerrow's theory of critical rhetorical analysis and Robert Cox's theory of transnational historical materialism as a basis for a comparison and contrast of the frames generated from the narrative analysis. Both of these critical approaches argue for the good of the common person; yet, from this identical axiological stance, they draw completely opposite conclusions. According to McKerrow's critical rhetorical analysis, NAFTA is nothing more than another attempt by powerful elites (multinationals) to exploit and penalize the less fortunate (minorities, low-income workers, and small businesses), and farther enrich themselves with the concurrence of the respective governments involved (especially Mexico and the United States).;In contrast, according to Cox's transnational historical materialistic analysis, the common good is represented by the transnational corporations (TNC's), and NAFTA is a win-win situation for both the workers and the TNC's.