Ethnicity and tolerance in media discourse revisited Desislava St. Cheshmedzhieva-Stoycheva ABSTRACT: The paper revisits the topic of ethnicity in media discourse from the perspective of CDA ten years after the initiation of its first version. It outlines some of the continuing tendencies observed in Bulgarian and British press in relation to publications on different ethnic groups and compares these trends to the observations made in the beginning of the century on the topic. The focus is mostly on the use of ethnonyms, pejoratives and stereotypes. KEY WORDS: ethnic groups, media discourse, CDA INTRODUCTION
The 21st century has been marked by an increased awareness of the Other, however, public opinion, especially on those who differ in ethnicity and religion, has remained within the sphere of intolerance.
This continuing hostility to the ethnic Others, provoked a revision of the topic of ethnicity and tolerance in the media five years after its first analysis. The main approach used is CDA and the paper focuses on the use of ethnonyms, emotionally charged lexis and the stereotypical qualities conveyed by the press.
The corpus for this comparative study is comprised of articles on ethnic groups in the Bulgarian and the British printed media published in the beginning of the century (2001-2005) – 6572 articles and in the period February – March 2011 (889 articles)1.
The main assumption that I make in this research is that despite the continuing general negativism towards some of the ethnic groups the language of the printed media nowadays is more politically correct than in 2001-2005.
Use of ethnonyms
According to Gossieux  the name is one of the most significant markers of identity mostly because an ethnic group could not exist without being named [see also Eriksen 1991]. Therefore, the appearance of an ethnonym marking an ethnic group in the media speaks of existence and recognition of said group on the one hand; while on the other, providing information on any ethnic group introduces this group’s culture and character to the members of the majority, thereby fostering intercultural awareness and competence.
The coverage different groups received in the Bulgarian press in 2001-2005 and in the beginning of 2011 could be presented through figure 1, which shows that the groups that received and still receive widest coverage in Bulgaria are those of Roma and Turks2.
Fig. 1. Ethnic groups represented in the Bulgarian press
The rest of the groups, such as Armenian, Jewish, Bulgarian Mohammedans, Karakachan, Gagauz, etc. are only barely touched upon, mostly in cases of publications on polls or on the ethnic variety of the Bulgarian nation, where they enter into paratactic structures like: (1) “ […] отнася се за българи, турци, цигани, помаци и всякакви други групи, които формират българската национална култура” (‘it’s about Bulgarians, Turks, Tsigani, Bulgarian Mohammedans and all the other groups that comprise the Bulgarian national culture’ – Dn/ 04.10.04). Very often these examples explicitly cover only four of the ethnic minority groups: (2) “Хилядите български граждани – българи, турци, роми, арменци и други, които дойдоха на площада” (‘The thousands of Bulgarian citizens like Bulgarians, Turks, Roma, Armenians and others, who came to the square’ – D/ 01.12.05), as well as (3) “България ще стане чиста и свята република, в която българи, турци, арменци и евреи ще живеят в мир и разбирателство” (‘Bulgaria would become a pure and holy republic in which Bulgarians, Turks, Armenians, and Jews would live in peace and understanding’ – Dn/ 26.08.01). This on the one hand suggests an equal status attributed to the minority groups, while on the other hand, it leads to the observation made by Dobreva [2009: 254-258] that the higher use of the ethnonymsRoma3, Turks, Armenians, and Jews, gives the position of the prototypical ethnic minority groups for the Bulgarians while the other groups, i. e. of Karakachan, Gagauz, Bulgarian Mohammedans, etc. are of lower importance and are left somewhere “at the periphery of the notion of ethnic minority” [see Dobreva 2009: 256]. Therefore, the message conveyed by Bulgarian media about these latter groups is more or less of invisible ethnic groups [see Daynov 2002], which is also supported by some of the publications: (4) “България: Невидимото малцинство на помаците” /h/ (‘Bulgaria: the invisible minority of the Bulgarian Mohammedans’ – Dn/ 25.05.05). The same trend has been observed in 2011 as well.
Another way of interpreting the scarce coverage on the other ethnic groups is as an attempt at implying the fact that all other ethnic groups, but the Roma and Turks, have managed to adapt to the customs and way of life of the majority.
An interesting tendency observed in the publications on Turks in the beginning of the century and in 2011 is the high number of articles in which the Turks in Bulgaria are connected with the activity, members and campaigns of the Movement for Rights and Freedoms. The MRF or its leader Ahmed Dogan are the subject of 405, or 53.4%, of all 759 articles comprising the corpus on Turks for the period 2001-2005, and of more than the half of the articles in 2011. This leads to the conclusion voiced by Daynov  and Markov  that the image of Bulgarian Turks has to some extent merged with that of the political party representing them.
The corpus from the British press shows more dynamism than the one in the Bulgarian press. Similar to the Bulgarian press though, one could notice the preferred coverage mostly on two to four of the ethnic minority groups in the UK.
Fig. 2. Ethnic groups represented in the British press
As shown on Fig. 2, the two groups that enjoyed widest coverage in the beginning of the century were Asians and Indians, while in 2011 these two groups have been exceeded in coverage by the colour marker black referring usually to Africans and Caribbeans and by an increased coverage on the community of the Gypsies and Travellers. This change is interesting as the group of the Travellers in the UK is significantly smaller in numbers than that of Asians as a whole.
The analysis of the corpus of articles from the beginning of the century and from 2011 shows preference to paratactic structures involving Asian and black used as modifiers to one and the same noun or referring to the groups of people themselves: (5) “black and Asianstaff” (DT/ 19.06.01); (6) “more black and Asiancharacters are likely to feature in the Afternoon Play […]” (DT/ 13.02.11).
Occurrences of the colour marker used as a hypernym to Asian are encountered mostly in cases of quoting the speech of members of the majority: (7) “After Mr Patel got up to leave the room, Mr Major was heard to say to a colleague: ‘Good candidate... shame he’s black’. […] Mr Patel, an Asian, quit the interview process […] ‘Mr Patel isn’t even black, he’s Asian.’” (DMl/ 19.02.11). The example confirms the statement that in the mind of the majority the colour marker black is still sometimes used to describe “all those ethnically, and therefore culturally, and sometimes economically and politically associated with 4 main regions […], i.e. Africa, the Caribbean, India and Pakistan/ Bangladesh” [UNESCO 1977: 28], i. e. all those who are not considered “white”.
The rest of the groups have received insignificant interest both in the beginning of the century and today.
Use of emotionally coloured lexis in the national press could clearly show the attitude the majority exhibits to the ethnic Others. In this case pejoratives speak of hatred and disrespect.
The analyzed corpus of Bulgarian articles on ethnic minorities in the beginning of the century shows only 9 cases of pejoratives, 8 of which refer only to the Roma community. The usages are mostly in indirect speech, reiterating the opinion or words of someone else: (8) “Тия циганьори, ако не се изнесат от планината, тук ще стане екологична катастрофа” (‘If these Gyppos do not leave the mountain we are faced with an ecological catastrophe’ – S/ 14.08.01). Apart from the very rare occurrences of циганьори (‘Gyppos’), мангал (‘brazier’) only twice and турчуля (‘Turkos’) once in (9) “Къде-къде по-лесно и безопасно е да седнеш в някое питейно заведение, […] и да отправяш люти закани към ‘гадните циганьори и турчуля’” (‘It is much easier and safer to sit in some pub […] and to hurl heated threats to ‘the nasty Gyppos and Turkos’’ – S/ 25.07.05), there are no other pejoratives used to mark any of the other ethnic groups. The trend to omit any possible occurrences of pejoratives is even stronger in the corpus from 2011. There is only one occurrence of the derogative мангал (‘brazier’) (10) “В журито са още ‘почетният мангал’ Андрей Слабаков, Иво Папазов - Ибряма […]” (‘The honorary ‘brazier’ Andrey Slabakov, Ivo Papazov – Ibryama’ – St/ 10.02.11), which, however, is not used in order to insult but in a jocular fashion.
The corpus of British publications shows higher occurrence of pejoratives. The highest use is marked by the pejorative Paki. In 2001-2005 the word was used 194 times: (11) “The child, from the Ipswich area, allegedly retaliated by calling the other boy ‘a Paki bastard’ and punching him” (DT/ 10.04.01). The same pejorative occurs 18 times in 2011 only in reported speech: (12) “The ‘Paki’ Priti Patel is far from pretty – in fact she is ugly as hell!’ he wrote in his blog, Jailhouselawyer” (DMl/ 06.02.11). The corpus shows use of the derogative to insult not only people who are from Pakistan but all ethnically different who resemble Pakistani in appearance.
Other derogatives used in the beginning of the century were nigger – 64 times: (13) “Other recovered letters showed that Stewart had referred to ‘a lot of niggers on the wing’, that he had Mubarek’s home address” (G/ 04.09.01), and black bastard 25 times: (14) “She said he boasted: ‘I’ve stabbed the black bastard.’” (G/ 25.11.01). The latter are not encountered in the corpus from 2011.
Pejoratives like pikey, tinker, mink, gippo, gyppo, or gypo, as well as the common nouns diddicoys and hillbillies used to name the British Gypsies are encountered in 40 of the examples from the British media in the beginning of the century usually in reports on cases of racism: (15) “[…] The charity said the children are frequently called ‘mink’ and ‘tink’ or ‘dirty gypo’” (I/ 20.12.03) or in reported speech: (16) dirty Gypsy bastard, (17) a fucking Gypsy, (18) gypo scum, (19) dirty gyppo, (20) feckless gyppo scum. The examples analyzed herewith, show an interesting trend: the group that in 2001-2005 was one of the least presented in society is being attributed the highest variety of pejoratives used to mark its members. This could be interpreted both as exhibition of hatred and as lack of any respect for that group. In addition to that it should also be noted that this is the only ethnic group whose ethnonym is sometimes written with a small rather than the required by English grammar capital letter characterizing nationality or ethnicity. This fact in itself depersonalizes the groups [see Cheshmedzhieva 2010].
Different than the corpus from the beginning of the century the articles from 2011 do not feature any pejoratives used to mark the Gypsies.
Analysing the publications from the beginning of the century one could not but notice the fact that Armenians, Jews, Karakachan, Bulgarian Mohammedans, and to a degree Turks enjoy positive stereotypes. That same trend is observed in the examples from 2011 which mention said groups: (21) “[…] от едната страна сме българи, турци, помаци, арменци и всички останали, които живеем бедно, но запазваме достойнство, и от другата страна са изпадналите на социалното дъно декласирани и лумпенизирани роми, […]” (‘[…] On the one hand we have Bulgarians, Turks, Bulgarian Mohammedans, Armenians and all those who live poorly but maintain our dignity, and on the other hand there are the declassed and degraded Roma who have reached the social bottom […]’ – Dn/ 01.09.04), as well as (22) “Защото и турци, и татари, и българите мохамедани, и каракачани, и власи, да не говорим за евреи и арменци, са хора на редаи закона” (‘Because Turks, and Tatars, and Bulgarian Mohammedans, and Karakachans, and Wallachs, not to mention Jews and Armenians are people of law and order’ – St/ 28.05.05).
Apart from the general stereotype of all ethnic groups in Bulgaria, but the Roma, being “good”, there are also stereotypes expressed through analytical structures referring to each ethnic group separately. Armenians are presented as “proud”, “modest”, “willing to be first”, “witty”, “with good sense of humour”, but also sometimes as “stingy”, i.e.: (23) “Арменците са много задружни - споделя тя за роднините си по мъжова линия. […] Тя знаела, че арменките са много добри домакини и въртокъщници” (‘Armeniansare very united […] She knew that Armenian women are very good housewives and family managers’ – S/ 06.05.04); “Познавам арменците като добри и грижовни съпрузи […]” (‘I know Armenians as very tender and caring husbands’ – D/ 26.03.11). Bulgarian Mohammedans are described as (24) “затворена общност и не допускат чужди хора до себе си” (‘a closed community not letting strangers near them’ – S/ 09.08.01), or through their trade: (28) “Преди повечето помаци от този край били овчари” (‘Most of the Bulgarian Mohammedans from this region used to be shepherds’ – Dn/ 30.03.06); Jews: (25) “евреи, а на последните можеш повече да разчиташ, защото са по-еластични, по се увират навсякъде и имат достъп до тайните на обществото” (‘Jews, and you can count more on the latter as they are more flexible, have their fingers in every pie and have access to the secrets of society’ – S/ 24.05.01); the community of the Gagauz is also positively presented this time through a noun phrase (26) “Пословичната за добруджанските гагаузи чистота е белязала всяко кътче – от мегдана до крайните махали” (‘From the main square to the remote quarters of the village one could notice a kind of immaculateness which is characteristic of theGagauz from the region of Dobrudzha’ – St/ 20.07.02); Karakachan: (27) “Помнете, че за каракачаните няма невъзможни неща, защото животът ни е научил да бъдем твърди” (‘Bear in mind that there are no impossible things for the Karakachans because life has taught us to be tough’ – St/ 04.07.05).
The general image of the Turks that is being created by the analyzed newspapers in the beginning of the century is positive: hard-working, honest, but poor and in their bigger part illiterate people whose life is hard and their living conditions bad. On many occasions Turks are presented as similar to Bulgarians, the only difference being language and traditions: (29) “Българските турци са наследилидонякъде български качества, които ни сближават – може би човечност и български нрави като разбирателство с околните, отстъпване” (‘Bulgarian Turks have to a degree inherited Bulgarian qualities, which bring us closer together: probably humaneness and Bulgarian disposition like living on good terms with the others, yielding’ – S/ 12.04.03). At the same time they are described as (30) “втора категория хора – общи работници, тютюнджии и прочие нискоквалифицирани професии” (‘being considered second-hand people: common workers, tobacco growers and other positions requiring low qualification’ – Dn/ 28.02.02), which shows the condescension of the majority. Another trait of the stereotypical image of Turks in Bulgaria is their adherence to the Movement for Rights and Freedoms as suggested by the big number of articles in which the party or their leader is being mentioned. In these articles the stereotype presented is of Turks as weak-willed, almost like puppets following their leader: (31) “Научени сме обаче да си мълчим, защото не знаем какво ще стане”, казват още хората […] Българските турци нямат избор” (‘We are taught to keep silent because we don’t know what will happen […] The Bulgarian Turks have no choice’ – T/ 18.02.11).
An additional tinge to the image of the Turks is being added by the nationalistic press. Touching on past history Ataka link the Ottomans with nowadays Turkey and insist that the policy of influencing Bulgaria in order to deface the country is still active.
The lexemes that are the strongest in conveying this message and thereby contributing to the creation of a negative image are: (32) “Турците са физически и духовни убийци на нацията ни” /h/ (‘Turks are the physical and the spiritual killers of our nation’ – A/ 25.03.11), referring to the process of converting Bulgarians into Turks presented through an analytical statement, as well as (33) “Цели региони от страната се обезбългаряват и ислямизират” (‘Whole regions of the country are being de-Bulgarized and Islamified’ – A/ 29.03.11), the latter referring to the idea that the Bulgarian Turks actually serve the interests of another country and another culture.
While the groups mentioned above enjoy more or less positive stereotypes, the Roma community in Bulgaria is charged with the highest number of negative qualities. The stereotype which was implicitly suggested about the Roma in the beginning of the century could be summarized by a publication in Sega:
(34) Не турците, арменците и евреите са тези, които чакат наготово от държавата, дишат лепило, ходят мръсни, крадат, имат по дузина деца, за които не се грижат, необразовани са, обитават гета, живеят ден за ден и т.н. Това е не просто друг етнос, а радикално друга цивилизация – цивилизацията (за едни) или не-цивилизацията (за други) на ромите. (S/ 27.01.01).
(34`) […] The Turks, the Armenians, and the Jews are not the ones who rely on the country to support them, get high on glue, go about dirty, steal, have a dozen of children for whom they do not care at all, do not have any education, live in ghettoes, live for the day, etc. This is not just a different ethnic group, but a totally different civilization, the civilization (for some) or the non-civilization (for others) of the Roma. (S/ 27.01.01)
The negative qualities are repeated to a degree in 2011 as well: (35) “неграмотно и безработно [малцинство]” ([a minority that is] ‘illiterate and unemployed’ – 24Ch/ 01.03.11); (36) “Пиян до козирката ром” (‘a Roma deadly drunk’ – 24Ch/ 04.03.11); (37) “озверели” (‘fierce, savage’ – T/ 01.03.11). In addition the corpus provides lexemes like (38) “напаст” (‘pest’ – T/ 12.02.11); (39) “хлебарки” (‘cockroaches’ – T/ 12.02.11); (40) “мародери, вандали, апаши” (‘marauders, vandals, thieves’ – 24Ch/ 07.03.11); (41) “бабаити” (‘huskies’ – 24Ch/ 20.02.11); (42) “нападатели” (‘attackers’ – St/ 09.03.11); (43) “многодетни роми” (‘Roma having many children’ – 24Ch/ 28.03.11), which add up to the negative stereotype. Thus in the minds of the readers the group is stigmatized as criminals, people who could do only harm and no good.
Looking at the corpus from the British media the stereotypes being presented are quite different.
Asians are usually presented as old-fashioned marrying within the family or believing in arranged marriages, e.g.:
(44) She added: ‘[…] If I keep completely quiet on forced marriages, lack of English, drug dealing in the community … nothing will change.’ […]. (DT/ 06.07.02); (45) Britain’s first Muslim peer has linked unhappy arranged marriages to the grooming of girls by Asian gangs. […] He starkly stated that there was a connection between forced marriages and the Pakistani gangs in the north of England convicted last month of entrapping and grooming young, often white, girls for sex. (DMl/ 05.02.11).
In addition, due to the terrorist attacks in the beginning of the century and the events that followed in Pakistan and Afghanistan, Asians and Muslims in general acquire the images of suicide bombers and terrorists, which are also fuelled by the nationalistic press:
(46) The attacks were carried out by four British-born suicide bombers of Pakistani origin, led by Mohammad Siddique Khan, a 30-year-old Muslim from Leeds, who detonated a bomb on a train at Edgware Road. (G/ 23.03.01); (47) War On Britain: Suspect Osman Is Held As A ‘Global Terrorist’ /h/ (DMr/ 02.08.05); (48) A shocking documentary by Channel 4 was then aired which showed that hate-filled Muslim supremacy is taught in “private” Islamic schools in Britain. (BNP/ 18.03.11).
As the examples clearly show the negative qualities attributed describe different groups within the Asian community and the subjects are Asians as a whole, or Pakistani, Somali, and Muslim but they are all tarred with the same negativism.
Asians and blacks are also stereotypically connected with robberies and gang activities which additionally strengthen their negative image:
(49) 28pc of robbery arrests are black people, says report /h/ (DT/ 19.06.01); (50) This follows several cases involving Asian gangs targeting teenagers in much the same way as the Muslim paedophile gangs have targeted young white girls in northern towns across Britain. (BNP/ 12.03.11).
Reviewing the publications on Gypsies and Travellers in 2001-2005 the image described is of thieves, who are problematic, illiterate, poor, dirty, like a “leech” on the back of the decent law-abiding tax-payers: (51) “‘[I]tinerant criminals’ caused damage to land and property, and a degree of anger was understandable” (G/ 31.10.03); (52) “‘It’s a minority that causes the problems but when these people are in the area, crime always goes up,’” (G/ 01.08.01).
Most of the texts talking about the deviant behavior of the Gypsies connect deviancy mostly with burglaries, petty thefts and exhibition of hooliganism: (53) “‘They block the road so that you can’t get past. They have even defecated on our verges’” (DT/ 01.06.04).
The reason for the maintenance of these negative stereotypes about the community as a whole is the fear felt by the settled residents towards Gypsies because of their attributed cruelty: (54) “To middle England they are the great unwashed, hell-bent on terrorizing law-abiding denizens. According to urban myth, Pikeyspillage villages, hurling excrement on gardens and intimidating those who dare cross their path” (G/ 08.08.04). In addition, settled people feel threatened by Gypsies as they go wherever they want, settle at different places and seem to be out of law’s reach.
The corpus from the beginning of the year shows a considerable change in the presented stereotypes. Most of the articles feature strong interest and wide coverage on the TV show called “My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding”. The show in a way introduces the British to the allegedly traditional Gypsy lifestyle and values: (55) “While every gypsy and traveller woman wants to be a princess on her wedding day […] the reality is that the man is king on every other day of her life. (DE/ 08.02.11). Apart from the lavish ceremonies concomitant to Gypsy celebrations, the stereotype that is also presented is of the patriarchic structure of the Gypsy family.
There are also occurrences of the autostereotype that disproves the heterostereotype of Gypsies and Travellers as illiterate and unwilling to learn: (56) “We Gypsies and Travellers don’t consider education a right, we consider it a privilege” (G/ 16.03.11). The example, however, confirms, although implicitly the continuing problems Gypsies have with finding legal camps where to station their caravans. The general attitude expressed through the stereotypes of the Gypsies in 2011 is far more positive than the one from the beginning of the century.
The fact that most of the stereotypes discussed above have been presented through an analytical structure additionally enhances the truth value of the statements made [see Reisigl, Wodak 2001: 19-21].
The comparative analysis of the articles on the main ethnic minority groups in Bulgaria and the UK in the beginning of the century and in 2011 shows both similarities and differences.
The groups that were viewed as the scapegoats and devils of society back in 2001-2005 are still the same: Roma and to some extent Turks in Bulgaria, and Asians, Muslims and blacks in the UK.
The general feeling, however, is of a more tolerant portrayal of ethnic groups mostly due to the reduced number of pejoratives, negatively charged lexis and/ or negative stereotypes. The “more tolerant portrayal”, however, might be due not so much to the society becoming really more tolerant to the ethnic Other (as suggested by the readers’ response sections) but to hypocrisy or to a possible shift in interest from the groups traditionally viewed as social devils to some other newly emerging threats such as new immigrants, for example. The latter’s influence on media discourse, however, is still to be explored.
ABBREVIATION OF NEWSPAPERS:
24 часа – 24Ch; Атака – A; Дневник – Dn; Дума – D; Нова зора – NZ; Новинар – N; Сега – S; Стандарт – St; Труд – T
British National Party – BNP; Daily Express – DE; Daily Mail – DMl; Daily Mirror – DMr; Daily Telegraph – DT; The Daily Star – DS; The Guardian – G; The Independent – I; The Metro – M; The Morning Star – MS; The Sun – Sun
Cheshmedzhieva 2010: Чешмеджиева, Д. Tолерантност и етничност в медийния дискурс (съпоставително изследване). Aвтореферат на дисертационен труд за получаване на образователната и научна степен „доктор”. Шумен: ШУ „Епископ К. Преславски”.
Daynov 2002: Дайнов, Е. Какви ги виждаме? Образите на малцинствени и специфични общности в България в огледалото на медиите. – В: Колова, Л. Техните гласове. Присъствието на малцинствени и специфични общности в българските медии (края на XX-ти – началото на XXI-ви век). София: Център за социални практики, 31-53.
Dobreva 2009: Добрева, Е. Толерантност, нетолерантност и нулева толерантност в съвременния български печат (критически лингвосемиотичен анализ). В. Търново: Фабер.
Eriksen 1991: Eriksen, T. H. Ethnicity versus nationalism. – Journal of Peace Research. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage, 28 (3), 263-278.
Gossieux 2004: Госийо, Ж. Ф. Власт и етнос на Балканите. Прев. Климент Дичев. – София: ЛиК.
Markov 2002: Марков, T. Етническите малцинства в огледалото на националните и регионалните ежедневници. – В: Методиева, Ю, Стойкова, Р. Етническите малцинства в печата. София: Маркет тест, 1-7.
Reisgl, Wodak 2001: Reisgl, M., Wodak, R. Discourse and Discrimination: Rhetorics of Racism and Antisemitism. New York, London: Routlege.
UNESCO 1977: Ethnicity and the Media. UNESCO.
Senior Assistant Desislava Stoyanova Cheshmedzhieva-Stoycheva, PhD, Department of English Philology, Shumen University, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
1 Although the corpus from 2011 encompasses a shorter period of time, it covers a wider range of newspapers and still provides an insight into the general perception of the ethnic Others.
2 This observation is interesting, as Turks actually take bigger percentage of the demographic structure but receive smaller coverage in the media – a fact which is in contradiction with the notion that ethnic groups receive media coverage that is reciprocal to their representation in society. The figure also speaks of the total demonization of Roma in Bulgaria.
3 Analysing the articles on Roma in the two periods one could notice a change in the use of the endonym Roma and the exonym Tsigani when referring to the group of Roma in Bulgaria. While in the beginning of the century, the ratio was Roma used in 78% of the examples, while Tsiganin in 22%, in 2011 due to pressure from the government and human rights organizations towards a more politically correct language in the press, the use of the exonym Tsiganin has been reduced to only 12% [for more information on the distinction between Roma and Tsiganin, see Cheshmedzhieva 2009]. The nationalistic press, however, continues to show preference to the use of Tsiganin to Roma
To quote this source: Чешмеджиева-Стойчева, Д. „Ethnicity And Tolerance In Media Discourse Revisited”. Юбилейна конференция „Епископ К. Преславски”. 14-15.09.2011. (под печат)