A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF CORRUPTION FRAMING IN THE PUNCH AND THE GUARDIAN NEWSPAPER: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF LANGUAGE AND NARRATIVE STRUCTURE IN THE TWO DAILIES.

This study critically examines the discourse of corruption framing in Nigerian newspapers, focusing on Punch and The Guardian. The research was motivated by the need to understand how linguistic choices, narrative structures, and framing strategies influence public perception of corruption and accountability in Nigeria. Specifically, the study sought to identify the dominant linguistic features used in reporting corruption in both newspapers, examine the narrative structures employed, compare the framing patterns and discursive strategies between the two papers, explore the ideological implications of these language and narrative choices, and assess how such representations may reinforce or challenge societal attitudes toward corruption. The study adopted a qualitative research design grounded in Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), drawing on Fairclough’s three-dimensional model of text, discourse practice, and social practice. The population comprised all corruption-related news reports published in Punch and The Guardian between January 2020 and December 2024. Using purposive sampling, a total of 40 articles 20 from each newspaper were selected from their official online archives. Data were analyzed using a content analysis guide informed by CDA principles, focusing on linguistic devices, narrative structures (episodic/thematic), framing types, and grammatical agency. Findings revealed that both newspapers framed corruption primarily through attribution of responsibility, but with notable distinctions. Punch emphasized moral and conflict frames, employing accusatory language, active voice, and personalized blame to portray corruption as an ethical failure of individuals. The Guardian, by contrast, adopted systemic and economic frames, using euphemisms, hedging, and thematic narratives that situated corruption within institutional and structural contexts. Both papers exhibited limitations such as episodic coverage, heavy reliance on official sources, and minimal follow-up on corruption cases patterns that may reinforce public cynicism and perceptions of impunity. The study concludes that corruption reportage in Nigerian newspapers is ideologically mediated rather than neutral, reflecting divergent editorial philosophies: Punch foregrounds personal accountability, while The Guardian emphasizes structural reform. Nevertheless, both contribute to shaping public understanding of corruption in ways that can either sustain or challenge dominant power structures. The study recommends that Nigerian newspapers should balance episodic and thematic reporting to capture both individual and systemic dimensions of corruption. Journalists are encouraged to strengthen investigative follow-ups on corruption cases and diversify news sources beyond official voices. Finally, media organizations should promote ethical and independent journalism practices that prioritize public accountability and democratic transparency.