It has been pointed out in Section 8.4.3 that translators adjust their target texts to the political and ideological bias related expectations of their actual clients. This finding can be explained by the political mass communication context in which the source and target texts exist with the help of the TPMC Model. Within the scope of the political mass communication analysis, on the basis of the findings of the CDA analysis, a parallel between the features of source texts and the target texts will be drawn with reference to the professional behaviour of the journalists having produced the source texts and the translators having created the target texts.

In Section 8.4.3 it has been argued in relation to the TDSI Model component of Context that translation shifts in the target texts surface in connection with references to local and global contexts. It has been concluded that local and global contexts are manipulated to reflect the political expectations of the client. As far as textual features related to the component of Power of the TDSI Model are concerned, target texts through translation shifts seem to undermine the dominance of the ruling elite irrespective of client expectations. With these findings as input to the component of Reality of the TPMC Model, it is argued that journalists rely on their own subjective reality in the construction of newspaper articles: in their articles they represent the reality they perceive. Similarly, translators rely on their own subjective realities, which surface as translation shifts in the target text. The import of translators’ subjective realities is supported by the following findings of the CDA analysis: ideological additions surface in the target texts that are not present in the source text, the interpretation of local and global contexts in the target texts are different from that in the source text and translators seem to undermine the dominance of the ruling elite, which reveals they perceive a different subjective reality from that of the ruling elite.

On the basis of the input of the results produced with the help of the components of Context and Power of the TDSI Model, it is argued that journalists and translators similarly relate to the aspect of constructed reality: journalists present a constructed reality through the articles they create that is congruent with the political and ideological expectations of the newspaper publishing their articles. Translators present different constructed realities in target texts for different clients depending on the political and ideological expectations of the actual client. Regarding constructed reality, it seems that client expectations, let them be those of a newspaper or a political party, are of primary importance.

In connection with the input of the TPMC Model component of Bias, it has been argued in Section 8.4.3 that textual features related to the TDSI Model components of Action and Ideology show translators’ strategy to reproduce the political standpoint and the ideology shared by the client, and that translators only include their political and ideological convictions in the target texts if these convictions are shared by the client. With these findings as input to the structural bias aspect of the component of Bias, it can be established that journalists produce texts that are biased towards the newspaper publishing their articles, while translators produce target texts that are biased towards their client. Source and target texts, thus, tend to exhibit structural bias towards the clients. This suggests that in political mass communication settings journalists and translators behave in the same manner: they produce texts that are suitable for their client, let it be a newspaper or a political party.

Based on the findings established with the help of the components of Action and Ideology of the TDSI Model, with reference to the personal political bias aspect of the component of Bias of the TPMC Model, it can be stated that journalists include their own political affiliations in the articles they create, while translators only include their own personal political convictions if those are shared by the client. If the client opposes to the political views shared by the translator, translators refrain from reproducing their own political convictions in their target texts. Therefore, target texts exhibit translators’ personal political bias if and only if this is in line with client expectations.

As for the comparison of the findings of the present research with other studies’ findings, the following can be stated. Examining the (re)production of power in texts, Zhang (2013, p. 408) discusses the job of transeditors in producing news, and concludes that they “intentionally or unintentionally put their own knowledge and values into the transedited texts”, which is interpreted by Zhang (2013) as taking a stance and assuming a value position in terms of the events described. This points in the direction of the findings of our investigation by recognising that translators have the opportunity as well as can and will alter or manipulate the contents of their target texts by incorporating value judgements and positions in their texts.

In another study, Valdeón (2007) compares two English-language news texts in BBC and CNN, respectively, and their translations published by these news agencies’ Spanish-language services. Valdeón (2007) concludes that despite the fact that the content of the source and target news texts have remained the same, the translations have undergone transformations including changes in the order of paragraphs as well as additions, omissions and substitutions of non-equivalent terms. According to Valdeón (2007), these changes allow space for translators – i.e. mediators between the readerships of the two language versions – to project their ideological and bias-related additions in the resulting texts, and to incorporate the ideology and bias of those news corporations they are working for in order to effect manipulation. This underscores the findings of the present research in that translators, while producing their texts, tend to lean ideologically and bias-wise towards those commissioning their work, and incorporate ideology and bias in their texts.

Simo and Ahmed (2023) examined the creation of bias in English into Kurdish translations of media texts with political content. Through the content analysis of qualitative interviews with ten translators, the researchers identified ideology as a source of bias in the examined translated texts. Also, the authors reveal that, in addition to political, personal and social reasons behind bias, translators are impacted by their agencies’ ideological expectations and are also aware of procedures for minimising bias in translated texts. This seems to support the findings of the present research as it is established that translators are influenced by their agencies’ ideological expectations and the researchers claim that the fulfillment of these expectations by translators are tangible in the examined target texts.

Loupaki (2010) studies four English source newspaper articles and their Greek translations, and investigates textual differences and translators’ strategies in the reproduction of ideological conflicts. It is identified that translators’ strategies may extend to the reproduction and erasure of conflicts, and to the inclusion of new conflicts. Loupaki (2010) claims that the reproduction of ideological conflicts is achieved textually through literal translation, neutralization, ommission, addition and explicitation. Loupaki (2010) concludes that translators typically comply with the ideology promoted by the publisher they are working for, which perfectly resounds with the findings of the current research.

By incorporating Munday’s (2012, 2018) appraisal approach to translation studies and the socio-political factors established by Schäffner (2004, 2012), Phanthaphoommee (2022) uses a two-level model for the analysis of English into Thai translations of political texts. The study examines whether the ideology shared by the institution commissioning the translation impacts the resulting target text. For the analysis, President Biden’s inaugural address and its two Thai translations are used. It is concluded that the translators re-interpret – e.g. through evaluative vocabulary – the source text in their translations while being mindful of the institutions commissioning the translations. This seems to support the findings put forward by the present study: translators comply with their clients’ expectations when producing political target texts. The findings of the above studies seem to confirm the results of the current research in the following ways: 1. bias can be located in target texts, 2. bias can be present in the translation of political texts, and 3. bias is typically included purposefully by translators in translated texts.

The results obtained with the help of the two components of the TPMC Model suggest that the political mass communication setting of the target texts under scrutiny prompts translators to create target texts that politically and ideologically meet the political and ideological expectations of the actual client, which is very similar to journalists’ behaviour in the same communicative context. It follows from this that, with reference to the translation of argumentative newspaper articles, translator behaviour is obviously and primarily influenced by client expectations and that the level of translators’ critical awareness is low.

The current research has shown that, in terms of the (re)production of ideology and bias, translators work with the actual client in mind: they are likely to (re)produce the ideology shared by the client and to incorporate bias favouring the client in the target texts they produce. This, on the one hand, is commendable as this attitude shows that translators professionally strive to satisfy their clients. On the other hand, though, with reference to political discourse, this attitude communicates that translators write whatever clients want to read. In other words, in a political sense, translators exhibit a servile attitude to clients.