6.4 Summary Semino & Masci (1996, p.263-264) make an astute claim that “quantitative data not bear a straightforward relationship to the impact that particular metaphors may have on public opinion”. This is due to the fact that metaphors may appear in more or less salient positions within the broadsheet or be unevenly publicized across a range of mainstream media or social media, thus affecting the reach of the metaphor. Semino & Masci also rightly point out the unavoidable bias where the level of media interest accorded to key actors and public personalities results in a situation where a particular statement (and its relevant metaphorical implications) may be highlighted by the press and quoted widely across the entire spectrum of traditional news media (headlines and texts) as well as across a range of social media. Hence, the salience of a metaphor is not merely quantified empirically, but has to be taken in tandem with a range of factors such as attribution to key public figures and editorial ideological concord. Thus, while the detailed analysis done thus far in this thesis is based on empirical principles, it is not able to predict and take into account the cumulative power of these myriad factors of influence. Furthermore, it must not be forgotten that impartiality in the news is never a legal requirement and often comes in a distant second to market forces. Bell’s (1991, p.105) principle of “audience design” clearly states that a newspaper will construct a world-view or an evaluative stance that is in accord with the editorial political and philosophical affiliations and with the majority of their target audience. Ultimately, this results in an ethnocentric world-view 295 with a generic system of shared values and metaphorical evaluations. It is these particular sets of metaphorical evaluations and group ideologies that result in the potential socio-economic manipulation of the readers’ perceptions of “us” vs. “them”. Thus, this thesis highlights the dangers inherent in the use of metaphors as a deliberate strategy for the influencing aggregate perceptions and behaviour, advocating a critical approach to the study of metaphors in discourse. Finally, it is also important to note that modern consumers of news texts are assailed by a gamut of alternative discourses outside traditional news media. This is especially so with the increased proliferation of social media (political blogs, interest-group chat-rooms, social media websites that facilitate interaction with a range of viewpoints, online broadsheets with an interactive comments function). This clearly goes to show how our values and what we actually perceive are fashioned by the discourses that we are socialized into. Hence, it is important to temper the strengths of the claims in this thesis pertaining to the influence of metaphor in discourse, as media consumers cannot be merely seen as passive recipients of editorial ideological input. Furthermore, it has also been established that the pattern of evaluative stances identified in this thesis generalisable only to the scope of these corpora. In conclusion, it is hoped that the discussions put forth in this thesis show that the critical study of metaphors in media discourse is one that addresses the complexities inherent in real data. These complexities include editorial ideological concord, attribution to key figures, positional salience on the actual broadsheet/ webpage and the aggregate effect of multiple discourses on the 296 reader’s final stance. All these are factors worthy of further, more systematic investigation. 297 . 295 6. 4 Summary Semino & Masci (19 96, p. 2 63 - 264 ) make an astute claim that “quantitative data do not bear a straightforward relationship to the impact that particular metaphors may have. media (headlines and texts) as well as across a range of social media. Hence, the salience of a metaphor is not merely quantified empirically, but has to be taken in tandem with a range of factors. media, thus affecting the reach of the metaphor. Semino & Masci also rightly point out the unavoidable bias where the level of media interest accorded to key actors and public personalities