This study examines the role of traditional media-outlets when Donald Trump was elected the 45th president of the United States in 2016. The study is a quantitative study, comparing the 2012 and 2016 presidential elections, where the correlation between voter’s media consumption and their perceived polarization are examined. The data comes from the ANES Time Series Studies from 2012 and 2016. This study shows that traditional media (TV, radio, newspapers and certain webpage’s) played a significant, but relative small role, in both elections. However, the correlation between media and polarization was slightly higher in 2016. The conclusion is that an individual’s media consumption also influences his or her level of polarization, also when Donald Trump was elected president. But an individual’s level of polarization is also based on a number of other factors, apart from media consumption. The study also discusses media consumption and polarization in the context of the new media model, where social media plays a large part.

Syfte: Syftet med studien är att undersöka hur diskursen kring Donald Trumps uttalande om Sverige ser ut i svenska tidningar. Frågeställningar: Hur ser diskursen kring Donald Trumps uttalande om Sverige ut i svenska tidningar? Hur används språket för att skapa mening i rapporteringen kring uttalandet? På vilket sätt skildras de teman som framkommer i rapporteringen kring uttalandet? Hur framställs de personer som kommer till tals i rapporteringen kring uttalandet? Metod och material: Metoden som används i denna studie är kritisk diskursanalys. Materialet består av tio tidningsartiklar. Resultat: Studien visar att diskursen kring Donald Trumps Sverigeuttalande innefattar fyra olika teman eller ramar. Studien visar också att språket spelar en avgörande roll i utformningen av ett ämne och hur det förmedlas till läsarna, och att personer som förekommer i rapporteringen både formar och formas av diskursen

The aim with this essay is to examine how two Swedish newspapers, Aftonbladet and Dagens Nyheter, have framed Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton during the US presidential election in 2016. The goal with this essay is to contribute to research on how politicians are described in the news media and how politicians’ gender affect this description. The research questions are as follows:  1. How did the Swedish newspapers Aftonbladet and Dagens Nyheter frame Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton during US presidential election in 2016? 2. What similarities and differences can be seen between the two candidates, in how they were framed? 3. Were there any similarities and differences between the two newspapers, in how they framed the candidates?    In order to answer the research questions, we conducted a quantitative content analysis, in which we analyzed 160 news articles. The articles were published between February first and November eighth in 2016. Through, first, a strategic, and then, a systematic selection 80 articles for each candidate were selected. For the survey three theoretical fields were chosen; framing theory, media logic (focusing on personalization) and gender theory. The quantitative content analysis coding scheme is based on these theories.   The results show that game and strategy framing was the most prevalent form of framing in both newspapers, about half of all the articles were framed as game and strategy. The most common topic of the articles was “the election, opinion polls and media”. The result also showed that Trump often was termed as evil, as a loser, and the articles were often negatively angled towards him. Clinton was more often termed as good, as a winner and the articles were more positive towards her. However, Trump got the most attention in both papers. The survey also shows a higher degree of personalization against Clinton and she weren’t quoted in the articles as much as Trump. No major differences were seen between the newspapers in their use of frames and the degree of personalization.

Análisis histórico-reflexivo y comparativo sobre la política exterior de los Estados Unidos hacia el mundo desde la época de la Guerra Fría hasta la actualidad. En particular, se enfatizan las características esenciales del gobierno demócrata de Barack Obama (2009-2017) y el actual, republicano, presidido por Donald Trump a los fines de resaltar sus diferencias e impacto tanto en política doméstica como en el ámbito internacional. La charla concluye con algunas reflexiones sobre las políticas domésticas e internacionales del Presidente Trump a la luz del COVID19 y su posible impacto en las elecciones presidenciales de noviembre próximo. / Oliver Griffith: Diplomático estadounidense retirado, con amplia experiencia en Europa, África y Latinoamérica. Experto en comunicación, miembro y director de la Cámara americana de Comercio en Francia y actualmente Director de la consultora Diplomatic Writing Service.

This study examined how Trump frames various countries and their leaders and whether the framing changes from different factors. It also observed whether foreign leaders were following the same path as Trump in their diplomatic communication and interaction on Twitter. This was to contribute more knowledge that connects global politics with social media to see if changes of frames through Twitter caused any global political consequences. Theories including realist constructivism and framing theory, along with concepts of social norms, political context, events, and enemy images, were applied to the study. Using directed content analysis, together with longitudinal and comparative elements, the findings showed a separation between Trump’s and the other leaders’ tweets. Almost all tweets were connected to the concepts, and various techniques of framing were identified in tweets from most leaders. However, Trump’s informal,disdain, and dramatics in his tweets have distanced himself from the rest of the leaders’ posts. Although a couple of leaders’ attempt to be hostile towards Trump and the U.S. in their tweets, they were still formal. It shows that not only is Trump’s Twiplomacy a reflection of American superpower forcefulness, but also a unique form that the rest choose to ignore.

This thesis employs a qualitative content analysis of media sources to investigate the erosion of controls on elite actors under the Trump administration. Findings demonstrate the emergence of an aggressive new trend of deregulatory politics, involving the wholesale disarming of a wide range of regulatory bodies and regulators, removal of protective policies and safety nets for consumers, minority populations, and the environmental sphere. Concerningly, much of the rhetoric through which such actions are justified opposes rational modes of governance and further polarizes U.S. racial divides while undermining the media, courts and legal structures, and the scientific community as external regulators. This populist bent belies the extent to which neoliberal continuities are maintained and expanded. These aggressive changes foreshadow increasing opportunities for white-collar crime and elite deviance, as elite actors are left to self-regulate and navigate a fast-changing and nebulous regulatory landscape with lacking oversight and accountability. The implications of these findings are significant to the field of white-collar crime, suggesting a widening arena of opportunity for elite deviance and warranting a renewed challenge to crimes of the powerful. / Graduate

With over 550,000 American lives claimed by COVID-19, over 30 million confirmed infections, and historic job losses across the nation, evaluations of the pandemic response from the Trump Administration have been polarizing. In the eyes of many Americans, President Trump’s Coronavirus response has been lacking in swiftness and efficacy, while many others see the governmental response as competent or having exceeded expectations. In light of previous research, to expect these evaluations to be politically polarized would be reasonable, but at what point do these partisan biases fall away? This survey study will test how partisan biases influence Americans’ evaluations of President Donald Trump’s – and President Biden’s – handling of the Coronavirus pandemic response – factoring in how respondents have been personally affected by the pandemic or personally know someone who has been. These experiences with COVID-19 will be quantified by proximity to loss of life due to, and infection of, COVID-19, as well as job loss as a result of the effects of the virus. As devastating as these experiences may be, I expect the influence of partisan biases to be overwhelmingly correlated with respondents’ evaluations of both President Trump’s and President Biden’s COVID-19 response when compared to the correlation of personal experience. As the findings will suggest, these expectations prove to be accurate; Republicans indicate substantially higher levels of satisfaction with President Trump’s pandemic response when compared to Democrats, with the reverse relationship observed for evaluations of President Biden, and this holds true at all levels of proximity. Further, partisan identity yields a considerably larger magnitude of correlation with these evaluations when compared to personal experience. Unfortunately, Americans do not seem to hold their presidents accountable for their actions (or inaction) by learning from even the most traumatic experiences; party overpowers all else. The findings of this study will greatly enrich the current literature on the extent to which partisan biases influence evaluations of government, and will provide insight into the reliability of democratic accountability, and, resultantly, the very functioning of American democracy.

Many scientists have described the anthropogenic climate changes as one of the most pervasive threat of our time that will form this and future generations. Despite that is the climate change is still controversial and missing from the American security agenda. The purpose of this study is to empirically analyse the American environmental discourse under the administration of Donald Trump and the omission of climate changes in the security agenda. To be able to explain the absence of the climate changes in the American security agenda, the environmental discourse will be analysed and the theoretical framework of Copenhagen’s school of securitization will be used to define the current description of the environment, the climate threats, and the global warming. By using a qualitative text analysis, consisting of a discourse analysis, lectures, debates, and documents from the Trump administration are examined, to be able to understand how the discourse is constructed and thus how the omission of the climate changes from the security agenda can be understood by using the securitization theory. The study indicates that the approach taken by the Trump administration on the American environmental discourse is produced can prevent the climate changes, the global warming, and the environment to be securitized, which in its turn can contribute to understanding of why it has not been brought up in the American security agenda. In the analysis it can be concluded that the Trump administration have moved towards a morepoliticized discourse, but also towards a depoliticized discourse.

We outline four connections between xenophobia and punitiveness toward criminals in a national sample of Americans. First, among self-identified whites xenophobia is more predictive of punitiveness than specific forms of racial animus. Second, xenophobia and punitiveness are strongly connected among whites, but are only moderately and weakly related among black and Hispanic Americans, respectively. Third, among whites substantial proportions of the variance between sociodemographic, political, and religious predictors of punitiveness are mediated by levels of xenophobia. Finally, xenophobia is the strongest overall predictor of punitiveness among whites. Overall, xenophobia is an essential aspect of understanding public punitiveness, particularly among whites.

Since the inauguration of Donald J. Trump as the 45th president of the United States of America, US policy has shifted towards isolation and protectionism, challenging initial patterns of cooperation among the states within the global political order, aiming at improving the American stance in the world. Thus, this paper will analysis whether the ‘Trumpian’ foreign policy approach might indeed be able to enhance the American stance in the international realm, by arguing that the breaking with initial patterns of cooperation provokes resistance with the American leadership, leading to a weakening of the American positionality within the global hierarchical structure and thus, weakening the structural power-capabilities of the US. In order to do so, the author applies a qualitative discourse analysis to the examination of documents, representing the voices of European decision-makers. The author concludes by stating that the American behaviour is eventually challenging the positionality of the US globally, provoking a restructuring of the global political order.