This thesis conducts a critical analysis of editorials and columns in mainstream newspapers during Malaysia's 13th General Election (GE13) campaign. In a country that practises parliamentary democracy but simultaneously observes a close cooperation (Mustafa, 2010, p. 51) between the ruling party and the mainstream press, this study explores the links between the two. The thesis demonstrates the continuing power of the mainstream press in the country. It also explores how a so-called parliamentary democracy can lead to authoritarian rule, as well as the role of the press in this process. Adhering to Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) principles, the thesis describes and explains how particular relations of power are enacted, reproduced and legitimized within government-owned media, in this case Malaysia where control is institutionalized. This study specifically focuses on the discursive strategies of legitimation in editorials and columns, and how they present particular narratives or arguments in the interests of the powerful. The thesis offers a greater understanding of the deep ideological structures of mainstream newspapers and, in particular, their construction and (de)legitimisation of the government and opposition during the GE13 campaign. This investigation draws on various methods, from quantitative content analysis to the Discourse-historical Approach (DHA), and insights from a range of disciplines, to examine the discursive features of mainstream newspapers discourse during the GE13 campaign. The main contributions of the thesis are on theoretical, methodological and empirical grounds. It contributes to the body of knowledge on political communication research by focusing on the Asian-Malaysian context and moving away from Western-centric models that often overlook the key element of culture. The application of the DHA provides a novel and valuable contribution to the understanding of Malaysian election communication discourse through its interdisciplinary methods and analyses. The empirical investigation provides conclusive evidence that revolves around the issues of the perversion of developmental journalism, race/ethnicity, Islam and its abuses, as well as change and time. This thesis also reviews and reveals the extent to which the press in Malaysia is controlled, dominated and manipulated, thereby challenging those, including the ruling elite, who have claimed that Malaysia is a democratizing nation state.

<p>This dissertation is a collection of three papers. Each paper constitutes a chapter. Each chapter empirically examines an aspect of bias-motivated behavior in the United States. </p> <p>The first chapter studies the impact of penalty enhancement statutes by state legislatures on the incidence of hate crimes in the United States. Penalty enhancements may deter crime, however, the passing of such laws may also increase awareness among law enforcement officials and increase arrests. Using administrative data on hate crimes and a difference-in-differences method that leverages state-level variation in the introduction of legislation, this paper does not find a significant effect of the state enactment of penalty enhancement statutes on hate-crime incidence rates. </p> <p>The second chapter examines whether election timing and election outcomes affect the incidence of crimes motivated by hate and intolerance. Using administrative data and a difference-in-differences design that compares election with non-election years, I show that hate crimes increase by an average of 28 percent in the three weeks around a US presidential election. This effect is larger in recent presidential elections and when there is no incumbent candidate. Second, using a similar design and cross-state variation in the timing of gubernatorial elections, I find no evidence that these state-level elections affect hate-crime incidence. Third, using regression-discontinuity designs based on vote counts, I find that the number of hate crimes is not affected by presidential or gubernatorial election outcomes. </p> <p>The third chapter studies the impact of presidential and gubernatorial election timing on the level of toxicity present on social media platforms such as Twitter. Together with Sameer Borwankar, I empirically determine the extent to which the toxicity of Twitter content changes during election times as compared to non-election times. We randomly sample Twitter users and collect all tweets made by this sample around election time. We use a difference-in-differences identification leveraging election and non-election years. We further focus on toxic content that is motivated by political polarization and examine various bias-motivation categories that come up in this content as well as the variation in the intensity of toxicity between national and local election times.  </p> <p><br></p>