This research paper studied the first two weeks after President Donald Trump allegedly called African countries “shithole countries” in a bi-partisan meeting on immigration. It explored the frames and emerging themes used by the media when covering the incident and the surrounding issues. Using the framing theory as a theoretical framework, the study examined the six identified news frames through qualitative content analysis. The six frames used in the coverage of the “shithole countries” incident are racial, conflict, consequences, morality, human interest, and policy. The study examined articles from four news sources that lean liberal, conservative, central-liberal, and central conservative. The study indicated that the four news sources all used five of the six frames, as the Wall Street Journal did not use the morality frame at all. The most used frame was the human interest frame, followed by conflict and consequences. The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal used the conflict frame the most. And CNN and FOX used the consequences frame the most.

This study aims to show how much space Donald Trump and Stefan Löfven get in the digital edition of the Swedish tabloid Aftonbladet. To investigate this, a quantitative content study was used, counting the number of articles in which they appear between January 21st 2017 and July 21st 2017. In total 967 news articles were included in the study where articles appearing in the entertainment and sports section were excluded as well as editorials and columns.   In the articles we counted the amount of words and how long the quotes of the two persons were. We also counted how many articles in which both Donald Trump and Stefan Löfven appear and how the quotes were distributed between them. To count the articles we created a coding scheme with rules for interpretation.   The result of the study was that Donald Trump appeared more frequently in the tabloid than Stefan Löfven. This tells us that Aftonbladet priorities news about Donald Trump over news about Stefan Löfven which can be explained by globalisation, which is one of the theories used in this study, along with the theory of news values. However it was also clear that procentually Stefan Löfven was quoted more than Donald Trump. This can mean that even though globalisation brings nations across the world closer to each other, the physical distance still has a factor in what news sources appear in the news media.

In September 2017, the Trump administration announced its plan to rescind The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program (DACA). Since then, program recipients, who have in recent years assumed the name "Dreamers," have fought back. This thesis explores how Dreamers use storytelling as a means of articulating individual and collective identity as a form of resistance in the sociopolitical climate that is Trump's America.

USA:s presidentval 2016 var ett högst ovanligt val, och var omtalat i stora delar av världen. På demokraternas sida fanns Hillary Clinton, som därmed blev första kvinnan i historien att representera ett av de stora partierna. Republikanerna representerades av Donald Trump, en affärsman god för miljarder utan tidigare politisk erfarenhet. Den 8 november 2016 stod det klart att USA:s befolkning hade röstat fram Donald Trump som landets nya president. Valet skapade ett enormt publikt och medialt intresse och Donald Trump figurerade flitigt i media. Men hur gestaltade och framställde två av de största amerikanska tidningarna landets blivande president veckorna innan valet. Syftet med undersökningen är att se hur Wall Street Journal och New York Times har rapporterat om Donald Trump inför presidentvalet 2016. Vi har gjort en kvantitativ innehållsanalys där vi har använt oss av 133 artiklar med fokus på Donald Trump från en tidsperiod på två veckor innan valet 2016. Materialet har analyserats med hjälp av ett kodschema utformat efter vårt syfte och våra frågeställningar. Resultatet visar att den gestaltning som användes mest i artiklar om Trump var spelgestaltning. Därmed ser vi att vårt resultat ger liknande svar som i resultat från tidigare forskning. Vår studie visar att Trump citerades i 29 av 133 artiklar, resterande artiklar visade på en relativt jämn fördelning. Artiklarna framställde för det mesta Trump negativt, tätt följt av neutralt. Han blev positivt framställd i runt 10 procent av artiklarna.

Den 20 januari 2017 tillträdde Donald Trump som USA:s 45e president. Redan under valkampanjen, som Trump gick in i som en politisk outsider, såg vi en ny kommunikationsstil träda i kraft som enligt Enli (2017) bättre kan beskrivas som amatörism. Språket var rakt, direkt och ofiltrerat och tog ett stort kliv ifrån den traditionella politiska kommunikationen. Trumps huvudsakliga kommunikationsplattform är den sociala mediesajten Twitter där han kommunicerar frekvent och monologiskt med sin publik. Genom sin kontroversiella kommunikationsstil som väckt en global debatt kan Trumps kommunikation enligt Davis (2013) liknas vid propaganda från andra världskriget. Denna studie tar genom en kvalitativ innehållsanalys ett grepp om propagandans definition enligt olika teoretiska perspektiv och har därefter för avsikt att analysera Trumps kommunikation på Twitter ur ett propagandaperspektiv. Syftet med studien är att kartlägga om det går att härleda Donald Trumps kommunikation på Twitter till klassisk propaganda från 1937, samt att även belysa genom vilka element detta görs utifrån frågeställningarna: ”Hur kan Donald Trumps twitterinlägg förstås utifrån ett propagandaperspektiv?” Samt ”Vilka likheter/skillnader finns det mellan Trumps twitterinlägg och klassisk propaganda från 1937?”. Till grund för analysen ligger The Institute for Propaganda Analysis, (IPA) sju klassiska propagandaordningar från 1937 vilka utgörs av punkterna: name-calling, glittering generalities, transfer, testimonial, plain folks, och bandwagon (Institute for Propaganda Analysis, 1937) samt Jacques Elluls teori om olika former av propaganda. För att analysera textmaterialet från Twitter användes en hermeneutisk textanalys som grundar sig i läran om läsning och tolkning. Det insamlade datamaterialet är ett urval från Trumps twitterkonto, @real_DonaldTrump, och kom att bestå av 300 tweets under perioden 20 januari – 20 mars 2017 med motivet att denna period representerar Trumps första dagar som USA:s president vilket därmed innebär att en ny politisk kommunikation tog sin början. Genom att analysera samt tolka Donald Trumps twitterinlägg ur IPA:s propagandaordningar framkom tillslut ett resultat som innebar att denna studie avslöjar att två tredjedelar av Donald Trumps tweets kunde tolkas ur IPA:s propagandaordningar. Slutsatsen är således att Donald Trumps kommunikation, trots nya högteknologiska hjälpmedel, kan tolkas ur och liknas vid ett klassiskt propagandaperspektiv som går hela 80 år tillbaka i tiden och kategoriserar därigenom in sig vid Elluls politiska samt horisontella propaganda. / January 20th 2017, Donald Trump was inaugurated as the 45th president of the United States of America. Since the start of the campaign, where President Trump entered as a political wild-card, he skillfully displayed a way of communicating never before seen at this level of politics. This style of communicating is according to Enli (2017) better described as unprofessional. The unfiltered, direct and straight-forward language was far from the traditional political environment historically utilized in presidential campaigns. Trumps primary platform for communicating with the surrounding world is the social media site Twitter, where his frequent one-way messages can benefit from the structure of the chosen interface. Davis (2013) connects Trumps controversial way of communicating to the propaganda of World War 2. This study will by qualitative content analysis, research the definition of propaganda from different theoretical perspectives and purpose as an analysis of Trumps communication through Twitter as propaganda. The objective of this study is to define if President Trump’s communicative strategy via Twitter is a derivate from the propaganda of 1937 and also emphasize from what elements this is done by answering the following: “How can Donald Trump’s tweets be interpreted from the perspective of propaganda? What are the similarities/differences that link President Trump’s tweets to classic propaganda from 1937 and if yes, what are these specific similarities?” The analysis is based upon The Institute for Propaganda Analysis (IPA) seven orders of classic propaganda from 1937; name-calling, glittering generalities, transfer, testimonial, plain folks, card stacking and bandwagon (Sproule, 1997 s.129ff) and Jacques Elluls theory of propaganda in different forms. A hermeneutical text analysis, coming from the research of reading and interpreting, was the tool used for the twitter text analysis. The collection of data is extractions from President Donald Trump’s twitter account, @real_DonaldTrump, and consists of 300 tweets submitted between January 20th and March 20th of 2017. This timespan was intentionally chosen in order to target the early days of Donald Trump’s presidency and the dawn of this new way of political communication. The analysis and interpretation of the selected twitter submissions show that 2/3 of them lies within the orders of propaganda defined by IPA. This concludes that President Trumps communication, despite new technological resources, can be interpreted as and compared to classic propaganda spanning 80 years back in time and thereby categorizes as Elluls political and horizontal propaganda.

In this thesis, the author examines the last 131 days of the 2016 election cycle. This analysis focuses on how sentiment is present on Twitter when people engage in political communication on social media. With the increasing online political discussions created on social media such as Twitter, an analysis of sentiment is critical. The data could be obtainable for candidates to estimate the electorate’s opinion of each candidate. A shift of sentiment offers a deeper insight into tracking changing attitudes toward candidates. Because Twitter only allows each tweet to be 140 characters there is a simplicity that offers statements to be concise. Trends for each candidate throughout the final days of the election cycle are correlated with national polls to assess if there is a relationship present. This study applies sentiment to recognize trends that may estimate a candidate’s chance of winning the election and offers indications as to how the intended electorate may vote when a relationship is established between sentiment and national polls.

No description available.

The aim of this study was to examine differences and similarities in the news coverage among the presidential candidates Joe Biden and Donald Trump in the presidential election 2020. We also examined how the candidates are framed in the different newspapers. In this study, similarities and differences regarding national variances in news articles from Swedish and American newspapers, also where a important part of the research. We did a qualitative text analysis based on 48 online articles from 6 different newspapers, the 3 largest from each country. The newspapers in question are USA Today, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times from USA and Aftonbladet, Dagens Nyheter and Expressen from Sweden. The result showed that there were more differences between the two candidates than similarities, in the way they were presented in news media. Donald Trump was often portrayed as the president that had a very harsh tone in his statements, and he was throwing out accusations towards Biden and the Democrats without having any facts to back them up. This made him look rather ignorant and sometimes even dumb. Biden, on the other hand, was portrayed as the one who is more fitting for the role as president, based on the writings about his previous experience, and many of the articles in the analysis portrayed him as a friendly family man. The focus point on both candidates during the election was who was leading the election, who was leading in which state, and how much that specific candidate was winning by. This was a topic that frequently showed up in articles from both countries and they often portrayed the whole election as some kind of contest or game, instead of focusing on what the candidates wanted to do and change about the country. The American newspapers more frequently wrote about the statistics when it came to who was leading the election, and their news coverage wasn't as clear as the Swedish news coverage. The Swedish newspaper often used secondary sources, for example from American newspapers, since they weren't able to be where the election takes place, which means they are re-telling the things that happened during the election. Other than that, there weren't that many differences between the news coverage in the US and Sweden.

During his presidential campaign and throughout his presidency Donald Trump’s dealings with illegal immigration have sparked global controversy. The election of Donald Trump has thus insinuated a debate within the academic field of International Relations and a reoccurring concept within said debate is populism. This thesis includes itself into said debate through considering the empirical case study of the Trump administration’s securitization of illegal immigration. More specifically, it investigates how Trump’s securitizing speech acts fuel populism in the US which challenges discourses of open borders and subsequently affects US-Mexico relations. The thesis analyzes polls to captivate the US’ general population as an audience and applies discourse analysis on speeches held by Donald Trump to grasp how the Trump administration’s securitization of illegal immigration fueled populism in the US. It studies the negative effects of the securitization on US-Mexico relations by examining the reactions of Mexican presidents, members of the Mexican Foreign Relations Department and members of the Mexican senate. It is found that Trump’s rhetoric employed throughout the securitization of illegal immigration fueled authoritarian populism and xenophobic populism in the US which captivates the negative sentiments of the predominantly conservative Republican voters towards illegal immigration. The employed rhetoric subsequently challenged discourses of open borders. The effects of said challenges had negative implications on US-Mexico relations as the investigations of the reactions of the Mexican presidents, the members of the Mexican Foreign Relations Department and the members of the Mexican senate have shown.

Language and discourse can create a space where political decision-making and action is accepted despite its untypical nature. The goal of the study is to un-derstand how political discourse is constructed with the aim of legitimizing ex-traordinary action in relation to the framework of securitization. The study revolves around how and why President Trump discursively attempts to legitimize his order that led to the assassination of Iranian Major General Soleimani, on the 2nd of Jan-uary 2020, by conducting a discourse analysis of two speeches delivered within the first week following the event. The study contributes with insight on the particular case, and shows how Maj. Gen. Soleimani is represented as an irrational terrorist, who posed imminent danger to the American people. The act attempted legitimized is presented as done in the name of ‘security’ which seeks to justify the notion of President Trump ‘breaking free’ of usual procedures. The main conclusions of the study are the presented legitimatization strategies, including the linguistic constella-tion of an existential threat, the allusion of a hypothetical future and the exploitation of emotional trauma. Moreover, the findings uncover that a securitization move has taken place within the analyzed speeches.