ABSTRACT
Anchored in a South African case study, this chapter deploys discourse analytic conceptualisations of everyday argumentation to unpack blame attribution in a contentious and highly mediated exchange of accusations and counter-accusations of racism in South African news media. Analytically, I approach blame attribution as a discourse-driven process that requires the construction and justification of grounds on which to argue for the guilt or innocence of individuals or groups who have attracted blame. Since the allocation of blame demands some kind benchmark for ascertaining culpability, blame attribution offers a naturally-occurring site where the construction, normalisation or contestation of social values and relationships can be untangled. The disclosure of such trends, in turn, offer insights into the media literacies that critical readers require to uncover the subtle invocation of ideology and argumentative shortcuts that are mobilised for the purpose of persuading audiences to side with the stance advocated in the arguments under study. To do this, I examine warrants, or implicit if-A-then-B argumentative premises, in opinion pieces published in reaction to the High School Overvaal furore in South Africa.
