Volume 15, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1878-9714
  • E-ISSN: 1878-9722
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



The burgeoning digital economy has also aroused wide public concerns over its improper use of personal data for economic and political profits. This study focuses on the milestone Facebook-Cambridge Analytica scandal and examines how Mark Zuckerberg succeeded in avoiding public blame during two US Congressional hearings. An integrated analytic framework has been established by combining blame theory and critical discourse analysis to examine blame-avoiding strategies used by Mark Zuckerberg during the two Congressional hearings. The findings have revealed not only the topics but also the specific strategies and the linguistic means and realizations for these strategies. It is expected that this study can generate significant implications on blame-avoiding strategies by digital corporations for their inherently flawed business models.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Benoit, William L., Paul Gullifor, and Daniel A. Panici
    1991 “President Reagan’s defensive discourse on the Iran-Contra affair.” Communication Studies42 (3): 272–294. 10.1080/10510979109368342
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10510979109368342 [Google Scholar]
  2. Boatwright, Brandon Carl, and Candace White
    2020 “Is privacy dead? Does it matter?” The Journal of Public Interest Communications4 (1): 78–78. 10.32473/jpic.v4.i1.p78
    https://doi.org/10.32473/jpic.v4.i1.p78 [Google Scholar]
  3. Fairclough, Norman
    1995Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London and New York: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Halliday, M. A. K.
    1994An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2nd ed.London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Hansson, Sten
    2015a “Calculated overcommunication: Strategic uses of prolixity, irrelevance, and repetition in administrative language.” Journal of Pragmatics841: 172–188. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.014 [Google Scholar]
  6. 2015b “Discursive strategies of blame avoidance in government: A framework for analysis.” Discourse & Society26(3): 297–322. 10.1177/0957926514564736
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926514564736 [Google Scholar]
  7. 2017 “Anticipative strategies of blame avoidance in government: The case of communication guidelines.” Journal of Language and Politics16(2): 219–241. 10.1075/jlp.15019.han
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.15019.han [Google Scholar]
  8. 2018a “Analysing opposition-government blame games: Argument models and strategic maneuvering.” Critical Discourse Studies15(3): 228–246. 10.1080/17405904.2017.1405051
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2017.1405051 [Google Scholar]
  9. 2018b “Defensive semiotic strategies in government: A multimodal study of blame avoidance.” Social Semiotics28(4): 472–493. 10.1080/10350330.2017.1334358
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2017.1334358 [Google Scholar]
  10. Hart, Christopher
    2018 “Event-frames affect blame assignment and perception of aggression in discourse on political protests: An experimental case study in critical discourse analysis.” Applied Linguistics39(3): 400–421.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Hering, Martin
    2008 “Welfare state restructuring without grand coalitions: The role of informal cooperation in blame avoidance.” German Politics17(2): 165–183. 10.1080/09644000802075757
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09644000802075757 [Google Scholar]
  12. Hinds, Joanne, Emma J. Williams, and Adam N. Joinson
    2020 “‛It wouldn’t happen to me’: Privacy concerns and perspectives following the Cambridge Analytica scandal.” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies1431: 102498. 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2020.102498
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2020.102498 [Google Scholar]
  13. Hinterleitner, Markus
    2017 ”Reconciling perspectives on blame avoidance behaviour.” Political Studies Review15 (2): 243–254. 10.1111/1478‑9302.12099
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1478-9302.12099 [Google Scholar]
  14. Hobolt, Sara B., and James Tilley
    2014Blaming Europe?: Responsibility without Accountability in the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199665686.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199665686.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  15. Hood, Christopher
    2002 ”The risk game and the blame game.” Government and Opposition37 (1): 15–37. 10.1111/1477‑7053.00085
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-7053.00085 [Google Scholar]
  16. 2010The Blame Game: Spin, Bureaucracy, and Self-preservation in Government. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 10.1515/9781400836819
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400836819 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2014 ”Accountability and blame–avoidance.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability, edited byMark Bovens, Robert E. Goodin and Thomas Schillemans, 603–616. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Hood, Christopher, Will Jennings, and Paul Copeland
    2016 ”Blame avoidance in comparative perspective: Reactivity, staged retreat and efficacy.” Public Administration94 (2): 542–562. 10.1111/padm.12235
    https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12235 [Google Scholar]
  19. Howlett, Michael
    2012 ”The lessons of failure: Learning and blame avoidance in public policy-making.” International Political Science Review33 (5): 539–555. 10.1177/0192512112453603
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512112453603 [Google Scholar]
  20. Isaak, Jim, and Mina J. Hanna
    2018 ”User data privacy: Facebook, Cambridge Analytica, and privacy protection.” Computer51 (8): 56–59. 10.1109/MC.2018.3191268
    https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2018.3191268 [Google Scholar]
  21. Kabachnik, Peter, Joanna Regulska, and Beth Mitchneck
    2012 ”Displacing blame: Georgian internally displaced person perspectives of the Georgia-Abkhazia conflict.” Ethnopolitics11 (2): 123–140. 10.1080/17449057.2012.675210
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17449057.2012.675210 [Google Scholar]
  22. Kozlowska, Iga
    2018 ”Facebook and data privacy in the age of Cambridge Analytica.” Available online at: https://jsis.washington.edu/news/facebook-data-privacy-age-cambridge-analytica/. Accessed on15 May 2021.
  23. Leong, Ching, and Michael Howlett
    2017 ”On credit and blame: Disentangling the motivations of public policy decision-making behaviour.” Policy Sciences50 (4): 599–618. 10.1007/s11077‑017‑9290‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-017-9290-4 [Google Scholar]
  24. McIntosh, Janet, and Norma Mendoza-Denton
    2020Language in the Trump era: Scandals and emergencies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108887410
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108887410 [Google Scholar]
  25. Meredith, Sam
    2018 ”Facebook-Cambridge Analytica: A timeline of the data hijacking scandal”. CNBC. Available online at: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/10/facebook-cambridge-analytica-a-timeline-of-the-data-hijacking-scandal.html. Accessed on12 March 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Shapiro, Michael J.
    1990 ”Strategic discourse/discursive strategy: The representation of “security policy” in the video age.” International Studies Quarterly34 (3): 327–340. 10.2307/2600573
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2600573 [Google Scholar]
  27. Solomona, R. Patrick, John P. Portelli, Beverley-Jean Daniel, and Arlene Campbell
    2005 ”The discourse of denial: How white teacher candidates construct race, racism and ‛white privilege’.” Race Ethnicity and Education8(2): 147–169. 10.1080/13613320500110519
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13613320500110519 [Google Scholar]
  28. Sulitzeanu-Kenan, Raanan, and Christopher Hood
    2005 “Blame avoidance with adjectives? Motivation, opportunity, activity and outcome.” Paper presented at theECPR Joint Sessions, Blame Avoidance and Blame Management Workshop, Granada, Spain, 14–20 April.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. van Dijk, Teun A.
    1992 ”Discourse and the denial of racism.” Discourse & Society3 (1): 87–118. 10.1177/0957926592003001005
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926592003001005 [Google Scholar]
  30. 1995 ”Aims of critical discourse analysis.” Japanese Discourse1 (1): 17–28.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 1997 ”Political discourse and racism: Describing others in western parliaments.” The Language and Politics of Exclusion: Others in Discourse21: 31–64.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 2003 ”Critical discourse analysis.” InThe Handbook of Discourse Analysis, edited byD. Schiffrin, D. Tannen and H. E. Hamilton, 352–371. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 2013 ”Discourse, power and access.” InTexts and Practices, edited byC. R. Caldas-Coulthard and M. Coulthard, 93–113. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 1993 ”Principles of critical discourse analysis.” Discourse & society4 (2): 249–283. 10.1177/0957926593004002006
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926593004002006 [Google Scholar]
  35. van Leeuwen, Theo
    1995 ”Representing social action.” Discourse & Society6 (1): 81–106. 10.1177/0957926595006001005
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926595006001005 [Google Scholar]
  36. 2008Discourse and Practice: New Tools for Critical Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195323306.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195323306.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  37. van Leeuwen, Theo, and Ruth Wodak
    1999 ”Legitimizing immigration control: A discourse-historical analysis.” Discourse Studies1 (1): 83–118. 10.1177/1461445699001001005
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445699001001005 [Google Scholar]
  38. Vis, Barbara
    2016 ”Taking stock of the comparative literature on the role of blame avoidance strategies in social policy reform.” Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice18 (2): 122–137. 10.1080/13876988.2015.1005955
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2015.1005955 [Google Scholar]
  39. Weaver, R. Kent
    1986 ”The politics of blame avoidance.” Journal of Public Policy6 (4): 371–398. 10.1017/S0143814X00004219
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X00004219 [Google Scholar]
  40. Wenzelburger, Georg, and Felix Hörisch
    2016 ”Framing effects and comparative social policy reform: Comparing blame avoidance evidence from two experiments.” Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice18 (2): 157–175. 10.1080/13876988.2015.1053743
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2015.1053743 [Google Scholar]
  41. Whittle, Andrea, and Frank Mueller
    2016 ”Accounting for the banking crisis: Repertoires of agency and structure.” Critical Discourse Studies13 (1): 20–40. 10.1080/17405904.2015.1074598
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2015.1074598 [Google Scholar]
  42. Winder, Davey
    2019 Data breaches expose 4.1 billion records in first six months of 2019. Forbes.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Wodak, Ruth
    1999 ”Critical discourse analysis at the end of the 20th century.” Research on Language & Social Interaction32 (1–2): 185–193. doi:https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI321&2_22. 10.1207/S15327973RLSI321&2_22
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI321&2_22 [Google Scholar]
  44. 2001 ”The discourse-historical approach.” InMethods of Critical Discourse Analysis, edited byRuth Wodak and Michael Meyer, 63–94. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 2006 ”Blaming and denying: Pragmatics.” InEncyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, edited byKeith Brown, 59–64. Oxford: Elsevier. 10.1016/B0‑08‑044854‑2/04307‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/04307-8 [Google Scholar]
  46. 2015The Politics of Fear: What Right-wing Populist Discourses Mean. London: Sage. 10.4135/9781446270073
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446270073 [Google Scholar]
  47. 2016 ”The discourse-historical approach.” InMethods of Critical Discourse Analysis, edited byRuth Wodak and Michael Meyer, 23–61. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 2021The Politics of Fear: The Shameless Normalization of Far-right Discourse. London: Sage. 10.4135/9781529739664
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529739664 [Google Scholar]
  49. Wodak, Ruth, and Norman Fairclough
    2013Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage. 10.4135/9781446286289
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446286289 [Google Scholar]
  50. Wodak, Ruth, and Michael Meyer
    eds. 2009Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. 2nd ed.London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 2016a ”Critical discourse studies: History, agenda, theory and methodology.” InMethods of Critical Discourse Studies, edited byRuth Wodak and Michael Meyer, 1–22. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. eds. 2016bMethods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error