No description available.

Kamala Harris made history on November 7, 2020, when she was elected as the first female Vice President of the United States. In addition to being the first woman, she became the first African-American and Indian-American to attain this position. As a result, the media had to grapple with how to cover her historic campaign from the moment she was announced as the vice-presidential selection. This qualitative thematic analysis examined The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal's coverage of her campaign with significant analysis on important events such as the initial buzz surrounding her selection, the convention speech, and the vice-presidential debate. Specifically, this study examines 70 news articles total from both newspapers from August 11-November 3, 2020 to determine the recurring themes from her coverage. Results indicated that although traditional media frames and themes were not a significant focus, Harris's intersectionality brought about a new set of frames to explore, with subtle differences between the two newspapers. Implications of these results and future considerations for the media are discussed. / Master of Arts / Kamala Harris made history on November 7, 2020, when she was elected as the first female Vice President of the United States. In addition to being the first woman, she became the first African-American and Indian-American to attain this position. Throughout her campaign, the media had to learn how to cover an historic candidate effectively, since this moment had no precedent. This thesis chose to explore The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal's coverage of her campaign because of their influence in shaping the news around the country and they both represent different sides of the political spectrum. Important events that are covered include the initial announcement, the convention speech, and the vice-presidential debate. This study looks to determine if the stereotypical frames that the media places on female candidates are still seen with Harris. Results indicated that although traditional media stereotypes were not a significant focus, Harris's identity brought about a new set of themes to analyze, with each paper focusing on different aspects. Implications of these results and future considerations for the media are discussed.

Este trabalho tem como objetivo estudar o discurso político americano do período inicial da guerra na Síria, visto pela perspectiva do jornal The New York Times. A partir de uma abordagem discursiva baseada principalmente em Foucault (1971), procuramos compreender de que forma a narração da guerra no jornal é constituída por valores culturais americanos que se transformam em uma episteme de compreensão do mundo, dos homens e da realidade. Propomos um olhar para o corpus de análise que permita observar, primeiramente, como o sujeito que tem o direito à fala vai se constituindo e construindo seus objetos: a guerra e o inimigo. Em um segundo momento, baseado nas teorias sobre Império desenvolvidas por Hardt e Negri (2001) e nos estudos de Said (1993, 1999) sobre Orientalismo, observamos como o discurso sobre a guerra da Síria se constitui com base em um projeto ideológico expansionista americano, que se desenvolveu desde a constituição e consolidação da nação e que se encontra para além das fronteiras geográficas. Por fim, concentramos nossa análise no papel da mídia como produtora de um material simbólico, que, ao dar inteligibilidade à guerra, entra em consonância com o espírito americano, fortalecendo-o. Ao transitar entre dois mundos culturais diferentes, o americano e o sírio, a mídia estabelece dois lugares: o do eu e o do outro. Conflitos emergem desse contraste, ora em uma relação de subjugação do outro, colocando-o em posição de inferioridade, ora em uma espécie de ameaça à imagem americana. Concluímos que, ao observar a guerra por uma perspectiva americana, o jornal The New York Times, por refletir um projeto hegemônico em plena expansão, transforma-se, em certa medida, em um agente dessa ação. Acreditamos que reconhecer as estruturas discursivas constituintes desse discurso é posicionar-se criticamente com relação ao que é produzido pela mídia. / This thesis aims at studying the American discourse in the beginning of the Syrian war as seen by the perspective of The New York Times coverage. In a discursive approach, based mainly on Foucaults theories (1971), we focus on analyzing how the newspapers narrative of the war, which comprises American cultural values, builds itself as a kind of episteme that shapes the understanding of the world, men, and reality. We first propose a way of looking into our analytical corpus that allows for an observation of how the subject that is given the right to speak constitutes himself and his objects, namely the war and the enemy. Secondly, in accordance with theories developed by Hardt and Negri (2001) as well as Said (1993,1999), we intend to observe how the discourse about the Syrian war is constructed based on an ideological and expansionist American project, which has been shaped since the onset of colonization and it is far beyond the nations geographical borders. Lastly, we concentrate the analysis on the media as a producer of symbolic material which, in an attempt to give intelligibility to the war, tunes in with ideals that strengthen the American spirit. As the newspaper goes back and forth into the two different cultural worlds of America and Syria, the media establishes two distinct locations: one of the I and one of the other. Conflicts, as a consequence, emerge from this contrast, sometimes in a relation of subjugation of the other by depicting it as inferior, other times as a threat to the American image. We conclude that, by observing the war through an American perspective, the New York Times not only reflects a hegemonic project in full expansion but also functions to a certain extent as an agent of this process. We believe that to recognize the discursive structures present in this discourse is to engage critically in the observation and interpretation of what is produced by the media.

Este trabalho tem como objetivo estudar o discurso político americano do período inicial da guerra na Síria, visto pela perspectiva do jornal The New York Times. A partir de uma abordagem discursiva baseada principalmente em Foucault (1971), procuramos compreender de que forma a narração da guerra no jornal é constituída por valores culturais americanos que se transformam em uma episteme de compreensão do mundo, dos homens e da realidade. Propomos um olhar para o corpus de análise que permita observar, primeiramente, como o sujeito que tem o direito à fala vai se constituindo e construindo seus objetos: a guerra e o inimigo. Em um segundo momento, baseado nas teorias sobre Império desenvolvidas por Hardt e Negri (2001) e nos estudos de Said (1993, 1999) sobre Orientalismo, observamos como o discurso sobre a guerra da Síria se constitui com base em um projeto ideológico expansionista americano, que se desenvolveu desde a constituição e consolidação da nação e que se encontra para além das fronteiras geográficas. Por fim, concentramos nossa análise no papel da mídia como produtora de um material simbólico, que, ao dar inteligibilidade à guerra, entra em consonância com o espírito americano, fortalecendo-o. Ao transitar entre dois mundos culturais diferentes, o americano e o sírio, a mídia estabelece dois lugares: o do eu e o do outro. Conflitos emergem desse contraste, ora em uma relação de subjugação do outro, colocando-o em posição de inferioridade, ora em uma espécie de ameaça à imagem americana. Concluímos que, ao observar a guerra por uma perspectiva americana, o jornal The New York Times, por refletir um projeto hegemônico em plena expansão, transforma-se, em certa medida, em um agente dessa ação. Acreditamos que reconhecer as estruturas discursivas constituintes desse discurso é posicionar-se criticamente com relação ao que é produzido pela mídia. / This thesis aims at studying the American discourse in the beginning of the Syrian war as seen by the perspective of The New York Times coverage. In a discursive approach, based mainly on Foucaults theories (1971), we focus on analyzing how the newspapers narrative of the war, which comprises American cultural values, builds itself as a kind of episteme that shapes the understanding of the world, men, and reality. We first propose a way of looking into our analytical corpus that allows for an observation of how the subject that is given the right to speak constitutes himself and his objects, namely the war and the enemy. Secondly, in accordance with theories developed by Hardt and Negri (2001) as well as Said (1993,1999), we intend to observe how the discourse about the Syrian war is constructed based on an ideological and expansionist American project, which has been shaped since the onset of colonization and it is far beyond the nations geographical borders. Lastly, we concentrate the analysis on the media as a producer of symbolic material which, in an attempt to give intelligibility to the war, tunes in with ideals that strengthen the American spirit. As the newspaper goes back and forth into the two different cultural worlds of America and Syria, the media establishes two distinct locations: one of the I and one of the other. Conflicts, as a consequence, emerge from this contrast, sometimes in a relation of subjugation of the other by depicting it as inferior, other times as a threat to the American image. We conclude that, by observing the war through an American perspective, the New York Times not only reflects a hegemonic project in full expansion but also functions to a certain extent as an agent of this process. We believe that to recognize the discursive structures present in this discourse is to engage critically in the observation and interpretation of what is produced by the media.

This study was designed to determine (a) the extent of the coverage in total wordage; (b) the direction and intensity of the articles; and (c) the impression conveyed by each newspaper toward the two main parties of the war. The findings show that (a) The New York Times devoted nearly twice as many words to the war as The Times of London; (b) the majority of the articles were neutral; (c) The New York Times was more favorable to the leftists and was as favorable to the rightists as The Times of London; and (d) the two newspapers were consistent in direction, and all deviation from neutrality remained within the limits of mild intensity.

Abstract Title: The war in Afghanistan – a necessary evil? (Kriget i Afghanistan – ett nödvändigt ont? En kritisk diskursanalys av New York Times ställningstagande till och framing av kriget i Afghanistan) Number of pages: 41 (41 including enclosures) Authors: Jenny Häggmark, Madeleine Jansson Tutor: Christian Christensen Course: Media and Communication Studies C Period: Fall term 2011 University: Division of Media and Communication, Department of Information Science, Uppsala University Purpose/aim: Our main goal with this paper is to examine and describe how The New York Times have framed the war in Afghanistan in their editorials, and how their position on the war is reflected in the editorials. We are also interested in finding out if their position on the war has changed during the ten years of war. Are the New York Times editorials characterized by peace or war journalism? Material/Method: To fulfill our aim with this paper we are going to use a qualitative method of content analyzes, the critical discourse analysis, when we analyze the editorials selected. The material consists of 40 editorials from The New York Times from four different years – 2001, 2004, 2007 and 2011 – ten from each year. We will analyze these editorials using Johan Galtung’s theory of peace and war journalism, along with the theory of framing, using Robert M. Entman’s definition as a base. Main results: Our main results are that The New York Times has changed their position on the war in Afghanistan since it started in 2001. The first two years that we have analyzed, 2001 and 2004, The New York Times were positive towards the war. However, their position on the war has been negative or neutral in the studied editorials from 2007 and 2011. Our results show that The New York Times framed the war in six salient frames – position, peace, war, nation building/democracy in Afghanistan, “us and them”, and criticism against the Bush administration. The editorials from 2001 are characterized as war journalism while the majority of the editorials from the following years are characterized as peace journalism. Key words: War in Afghanistan, framing, peace journalism, war journalism, New York Times, editorials.

Under Vietnamkrigets förlopp så ändrades sättet som samhället betraktade journalister samt hur deras egen praxis var. Daniel C Hallin beskriver det som att de gick från att ses som en del av myndigheterna till att vara ”vakthundar”. De gick från att vara soldater vid skrivmaskinen till att övervaka det politiska styret. En högre journalistisk standard blev följden. En tidigare studie av New York Times rapportering av förloppet av kriget visar förändringar i användandet av källor och hur vinklingen gick från positiv till kriget till att vara emot det. Denna studie undersöker New York Times rapportering av Irakkriget och fokuserar på om tidningens journalister agerade som vakthundar eller som skrivmaskinssoldater. Genom en kvantitativ innehållsanalys med fokus på fyra datum under 2003 och samma datum 2005 kan studien se hur tidningen använde källor och om den stod bakom bevisen som President Bush presenterade emot Saddam Hussein.  Ur en teoretisk synvinkel tillämpas Pierre Bourdieus fältteori som beskriver media fältet och det politiska fältet som i en tävling mot varandra. En tävling som styrs av normer som reglerar hur interaktionen mellan fälten går till. Förändringen som tillkom under Vietnamkriget ändrade dessa normer. Tidningar som New York Times blev mer självständiga gentemot politiken och normen blev att övervaka myndigheten istället för att föra fram dess budskap. Denna studie går igenom ett antal faktorer som påverkade hur NY Times rapporterade om Irakkriget. En av dessa faktorer är ett kapitalistiskt system som gör att media känner sig tvungna att producera nyheter även om de är osäkra på källorna. Samt det politiska klimatet som existerade i USA där nationell säkerhet prioriterades. President George W Bush använde dessa faktorer på ett smart vis och skapade en situation där media återigen kopplades samman med styret under Irakkriget.  Tidigare forskning gjord av Rod Brookes och Justin Lewis samt av FAIR visar att delar av brittisk media och amerikansk tv-media var för kriget i majoriteten av deras sändningar. Denna innehållsanalys visar att även NY Times rapportering var positiva till Bushs bevis och anklagelser mot Saddam Hussein. Under 2003 så var tidningen beroende av militären och det politiska styret som källor till dess rapportering. De var inledningsvis positiva till kriget och förde fram George W Bushs budskap om att kriget var nödvändigt. Ett flertal variabler visar dock att tendensen var att rapporteringen blev mer skeptisk till Bushs anklagelser mot Saddam Hussein. Under 2005 så ifrågasattes motiven och tidningens skildring vinklade kriget negativt.   Uppsatsens diskussion kopplar denna tendens till att fler krigskritiska källor kommer fram på grund av att Bush förlorade kontrollen av informationsflödet. En jämförelse görs med Vietnam-studien vilket visar att rapporteringen av Irakkriget hade ett större beroende av militära källor (32,3% under 2003 och 10 % totalt under Vietnamkriget). Samt ifrågasatte sina källor mindre. En slutsats görs att den högre graden av journalistik som kom till under Vietnamkrigets tid inte var representerad under inledningen av Irakkriget. / Around the time of the Vietnam war the way journalists were looked upon by society changed aswell as their own praxis. Daniel C Hallin describes it as they went from appearing as an extended part of the government to being watchdogs. They went from being typrewritersoldiers to monitoring the government and a higher standard of journalism came with it. A previous study of mine of the New York Times report of the Vietnam war showed that the way sources were used changed during the course of the war. And the report went from being positive to opposing the war. This study examines New York Times report of the Iraq war and focuses on the role of the newspaper. Were their journalists watchdogs or typewritersoldiers. By making a quantative content analysis focusing on four dates in 2003 and the same dates 2005. The study sees how the newspaper used it 's sources and if it stood behind President Bushs motives for the war.   The study applies Pierre Bourdies field theory which describes media and politics as fields that are in a contest with eachother. Their interactions are controlled by norms. This study looks at the changes that occured during the Vietnam war as the norms changning. Media grew more independent from politics and monitoring the government became the norm instead of broadcasting it 's messages. This study describes a capitalistic system that pressures the media to produce news even if they're unsure of it's sources. Aswell as a political climat in the USA that prioritised national security. President George W Bush used these factors in a smart way and created a situation where the media once again became less independent from the political field during the first stages of the war. Previous studies done by Rod Brookes and Justin Lewis and F.A.I. R have shown that parts of the brittish and american tv-media were pro-war in a majority of their broadcasts. This content analysis had a similar result. During 2003 a majority of the newspapers sources came from the american military and the political field. It concludes that the NY Times was positive to Bushs motives for the war. But grew sceptical and questioned them in 2005. The discussion in the study connects this to more anti-war sources coming forward as a consequence of Bush losing the flow of information. A comparison with the Vietnam war shows that the journalists covering the Iraq war used military sources significantly more (32,3% in 2003 and 10 % in total in the Vietnam war). And questioned their sources less than in the coverage of the Vietnam war. The conclusion of the study is that the higher standard of journalism that surfaced during the Vietnam war wasn 't present at the start of the Iraq war.

La guerre de Corée éclate dans un contexte de tensions grandissantes entre les mondes dits « capitaliste » et « communiste », qui caractérise la guerre froide entre 1945 et 1950. Les États-Unis et leurs proches alliés – dont la Grande-Bretagne – réagissent très vivement à l’invasion de la Corée du Sud par celle du Nord, notamment en s’impliquant directement dans cette guerre qui durera trois ans. Cette réaction rapide s’explique entre autres par la perception qu’ont les dirigeants en Amérique et en Europe de l’Ouest du camp communiste et de son apparente volonté d’hégémonie sur le monde. Ces perceptions sont également présentes dans la presse écrite, qui traite de l’implication des États-Unis et de la Grande-Bretagne (qui fournit le second plus gros contingent) dans la guerre de Corée, de la nature de celle-ci, etc. L’objectif de ce mémoire est donc de cerner ces perceptions dans le traitement du conflit dans le New York Times et le Times de Londres. Les deux quotidiens, de tendance conservatrice, soutiendront unanimement l’intervention américaine puis internationale en Corée ainsi que la mise en place de programmes de réarmement aux États-Unis et en Grande-Bretagne, mais également ailleurs en Europe. Pareillement, la tentative de réunification de la Corée par l’invasion du territoire nord-coréen en octobre 1950 par les troupes onusiennes sera bien accueillie par la presse, du moins jusqu’à l’entrée en guerre de la Chine communiste en novembre. Ici les quotidiens se questionneront sur la personnalité du commandant en chef, Douglas MacArthur, et salueront éventuellement son limogeage. Enfin, la nécessité de mettre fin au conflit transparaîtra dans les quotidiens, qui seront favorables à l’ouverture des négociations de paix en juillet 1951. Ils divergeront cependant sur les éventuelles concessions territoriales et sur la question des prisonniers de guerre refusant d’être rapatriés.

The United States and Cuba announced that they would begin the process of restoring diplomatic relations in December 2014 after over fifty years of political disengagement. The shift in foreign policy produced a plethora of news articles. What do newspaper articles, in particular articles in The New York Times published between January 2014-July 2015, reveal about how, if at all, the representation of Cuba has changed since the two countries have initiated the process of restoring relations? How did the U.S. public react to this change? A qualitative content analysis of 117 articles from The New York Times reveal that the thaw in foreign relations with Cuba does not mean a significant shift in the portrayal of Cuba in U.S. newspapers. Cuba continues to be characterized as an undemocratic, unfree government.

The aim with this study is to compare the American newspaper The New York Times and the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter and its framing of the organization the Islamic State. The study uses a selection of articles during the period when Barack Obama ordered airstrikes against the Islamic State. The period is 2014/07/27-2014/08/14 and it gave 107 articles to the analysis. The study undertakes a methodology based on the quantitative content analysis. The study leans on the theory of framing and theories of war journalism which is a common and well suitable theory for the study’s aim. The result shows both differences and similarities between the two newspapers frame. The most notable difference between the newspapers' articles were the appellation of the Islamic State and also how the newspapers used sources and statements. The Swedish newspaper had a more religious orientation in the appellation of IS, while the American newspaper had a military orientation in the appellation of IS.