This study has examined how the celebrities Paolo Roberto and Margaux Dietz were portrayed in the Swedish newspapers Aftonbladet and Expressen in connection with their scandals in 2020 and 2022. The purpose of the study is to investigate whether there are gender stereotypes in the way Roberto and Dietz are portrayed in newspapers, and to see what similarities and differences can be observed in the representation of the celebrities in text and image. The theoretical framework of the study is based on framing, theories of gender, theories about scandals and media logic. The method used in the study is a quantitative content analysis. The results show that Dietz was portrayed in a more negative way than Roberto, who was portrayed more neutral. The results also showed that Roberto was primarily discussed from a professional perspective, while Dietz was more often discussed from a private perspective. When the celebrities were represented in images, the results showed that Dietz was more frequently shown smiling and looking into the camera. Based on the results, we can conclude that Roberto and Dietz are portrayed differently in the reporting of their scandals in newspapers, both in text and image. We see that these gender stereotypes that have emerged in previous research largely agree with this study. Through a gender perspective, many of the differences can be linked to the gender stereotypes and structures of masculinity and femininity that have long existed in our society.

This essay aims to find out how Hillary Clinton is portrayed in news articles dated between October 8th to November 8th 2016 gathered from Fox News and CNN. With the help of qualitative framing analysis the study looks closer on 14 articles from the chosen time period to reveal which frames that are visible in the news material. The study also raises questions about how those frames portray masculinity or femininity and how the results of the study differs from studies done by other researchers. Results reveal that there are three prominent frames visible in the chosen material; a game frame, a scandal frame and a frame about competence and trustworthiness. Hillary Clinton is mostly portrayed as a masculine, competent yet criminal person, and the previous research matches with the findings in some areas that concern scandals and trust and differs in others that concern gender stereotypes.

In October 2006 the media began investigating the four ministers Billström, Borg, Borelius and Stegö Chilò who were all being accused of miner tax fraud. The two women, Stegö Chilò and Borelius became the primary victims of an extensive media hunt where the media already had made their minds up; the women had to go. The more the women tried to explain themselves, they only seemed to be digging themselves into a deeper hole and ten days into the “hunt”, the media got their way, the women resigned while the men, even today remain on their positions. What was it then that made the outcome so different regarding the four ministers when the only thing to really set them apart was their genders? With support of theories from Giddens, Habermas and Thompson as well as theories regarding media, gender and the medias ethical responsibility we have in a qualitatively narrative analysis studied 20 articles from Dagens Nyheter and Expressen. This contributed to the discovery of how men and women in these articles are presented within different power structures, gender representations, themes and roles. We also found that the two Newspapers, in the witch-hunt that took place, failed in their responsibility toward society when they ignored the relevant news reports in favor of an entertaining tale of responsible men and immoral women.

The concept of an apologetic president has only recently emerged in the United States. All presidents have made mistakes, but only recently have Americans come to expect apologies from them. The development of an increasingly critical media has necessitated that future presidents hone the art of apologizing. This thesis extrapolates lessons in this skill from the apologies of Presidents Nixon and Clinton. Watergate and Lewinsky-gate were cover-up scandals that rocked the nation in the 1970s and '90s. Although the presidential misconduct in both cases were similar, the way each president opted to navigate his controversy differed dramatically. Both presidents initially tried out the tactic of denying all accusations but branched off after taking that step. A comparison of their approaches offers insight into the possible ways of seeking forgiveness from a scorned public. The nuances of delivering a successful apology are dictated by circumstantial, structural factors as well as the personality of the president, which explains why no two apologies are the same. Although the art of apologizing will continue to evolve over time, future presidents stand to learn a great deal from studying Nixon and Clinton. This thesis finds that even though Americans get a certain degree of satisfaction from exposing presidential wrongdoing and making life more than uncomfortable for a wayward executive, the legacies of Nixon and Clinton are proof that a smattering of mistakes cannot completely overshadow a tradition of accomplishments. No matter how vindictive Americans may appear to be in the thick of a scandal, in the long run, the United States is a forgiving nation.

<p>In this dissertation, I take a new approach to presidential scandal, which is frequently attributed to evidence of misbehavior. I argue instead that scandal is a socially constructed <italic>perception</italic> of misbehavior which opposition elites help create. I formalize this argument by developing a model of presidential scandal, which predicts that allegations of scandal by opposition legislators can influence the occurrence of scandal within some intermediate range of allegation scandalousness and credibility. I derive two comparative statics showing that the incidence of scandal should increase as the transaction costs of allegations decrease and as the critical mass of opposition legislators required to create a scandal decreases.</p><p>I then test the predictions of the model using monthly data from elite news reports for 1977–2006. I operationalized the critical mass comparative static using presidential approval among opposition party identifiers—a useful index of a polarized political climate. I find that the president is more vulnerable to the onset of scandal when his levels of opposition approval are relatively low. Conversely, when the president is relatively popular with opposition identifiers (during “honeymoons,” foreign policy crises, and wars), scandals occur much less frequently. In addition, scandals appear to have become more common over time, which could be the result of increased party polarization. Finally, I show that the underlying hazard of scandal was greater for second-term presidents than for first-term presidents. </p><p>Clearly, however, scandals vary widely in their size and significance. As such, I also create a dependent variable measuring the total quarterly volume of presidential scandal coverage in the <italic>Washington Post</italic>, which should capture the aggregate severity of scandals in a given time period. I show that lagged presidential approval among opposition identifiers is negatively associated with this measure. By contrast, more scandal coverage is published during presidents' second term in office and during election years. </p><p>Journalists and scholars frequently assert that divided government leads to a greater incidence of presidential scandal, but little systematic evidence exists to support these claims. An investigation reveals that divided government suffers from several important inferential problems, including a lack of comparable counterfactual data.. After addressing these issues, I estimate treatment effects for divided government and opposition control of Congress on both high-profile investigations of the president and scandal coverage, but none reach conventional levels of statistical significance. </p><p>Next, I explore the factors predicting when individual members of Congress will make scandal allegations against the president and the executive branch. Specifically, I test hypotheses developed from my formal model on a new dataset of scandal allegations against the president in the Congressional Record between 1985 and 2006. Results from multilevel event count models indicate that scandal allegations decline as state- and district-level presidential vote increases among members of the opposition party in both the House and the Senate. Members of the Senate are also more likely to make allegations as they gain seniority within the chamber. Finally, members who are up for re-election in the Senate make fewer allegations than those who are not.</p><p>Finally, I analyze the allegation data as a series of social networks. I present a new approach to analyze clustering in these data, which helps us to characterize patterns in allegations and member behavior. My analysis indicates that clustering among members—which suggests a convergence in scandal targets—is positively associated with increased scandal coverage at the Congress level. By contrast, I find that highly clustered allegations (i.e. those made by members who also made other allegations together) tend to receive less coverage than those that attract support from a broader coalition of members who would otherwise not be connected.</p> / Dissertation

No description available.

No description available.

This thesis examines the so-called ‘Windrush scandal’: a systematic case of mistaken identity which erroneously misconstrued Britons of Carribean descent as being in the UK illegally. The Windrush were denied rights they were legally entitled to, were detained, threatened with deportation, and in some cases, deported. A range of mechanisms present in British government and society which legitimised anti-immigration policies are identified and used to examine the experience of the Windrush and the violation of their rights. This thesis uses citizenship as a starting point for examining its relevance to human rights and concludes that the contemporary scaling back of protections surrounding citizenship have far-reaching consequences for citizens and non-citizens alike.

No description available.

No description available.