Mass media in general and news media in particular, such as newspapers as the most powerful means of communication, can report and modify an event or a problem in line with dominant ideas and perspectives of news writers. Accordingly, news is not a neutral phenomenon reflecting facts of real life; rather, it is cunningly ideological and biased (Caldas-Coulthard, 2003). In this regard, critical discourse analysis (CDA) can be used as a tool to unravel the hidden ideologies of news. Conducted in a CDA framework, the present study aims to examine discursive strategies employed in ten news reports of an Iranian newspaper- The Tehran Times- and an American newspaper- The Los Angeles Times- on the representation of Iran’s 5 + 1 negotiations. To this end, Van Dijk’s (2000) framework was adopted to analyze the corpus of news reports during a time span of forty days from June 5th to July 14th in 2015. In order to facilitate the analysis of data, the researcher focused on five similar subjects which are covered in the two newspapers. The results of the analyses of five pairs of news reports showed that the two newspapers represent the same issue, namely Iran’s 5 + 1 negotiations, differently to their readers using both similar and different discursive strategies. However, similar strategies are employed to convey opposite viewpoints towards nuclear talks in each newspaper. The results indicated that the dominant macro-strategies in The Tehran Times and The Los Angeles Times are positive self-presentation and negative other-presentation, respectively which are identified by other discursive strategies such as lexicalization and repetition as the most frequent ones used in the news reports. While The Tehran Times emphasizes positive deeds of nuclear negotiators in the rounds of talks through the employment of positive self-presentation macro-strategy, The Los Angeles Times focuses on negative attributes of talks by using negative other-presentation macro-strategy. Therefore, me
