No description available.

This master's thesis deals with the implications of metaphorical language, which comedy news programs used to portray Donald Trump as a candidate during the 2016 US presidential election. First, the author outlines the most important moments of Donald Trump's presidential campaign, then introduces the comedy news genre as well as three comedy news programs - The Daily Show, Last Week Tonight and Real Time - which are included in the analytical part of the thesis. The thesis continues with the theoretical and methodological chapters, in which conceptual metaphor analysis based on the works of Lakoff, Johnson and Yanow is presented. The metaphor analysis itself, performed on 73 comedy news episodes, reveals that mostly the same metaphors were used across all three programs and they overwhelmingly portray Donald Trump as non-human. As the election kept approaching, Donald Trump was increasingly portrayed as "a natural disaster," "the apocalypse" or "the Devil." The author suggests that the overall tacit objective of the metaphors used in the three comedy news programs was to dehumanize Donald Trump. Finally, the limitations of the analysis are discussed and suggestions for further research on the implications of metaphorical language are made.

This study explores how presidential candidates during the 2020 American election were tied to external others, taking the shape of China and Russia. The study argues that an identity perspective becomes fruitful for addressing the research problem, as it becomes a matter of who "we" as a nation are. In general, identity studies tend to focus on the external other, while this study aims to contribute with an understanding of how the internal and external other can be interconnected.  American exceptionalism - the notion that the US has a unique role to play on the world stage - is a prominent part of American political identity. Nonetheless, the concept of exceptionalism also implies that being an American is an act of choice and not exclusively a birthright, thus individuals and values can be labeled as "un-American". Drawing on and combining the theoretical insights from Michel Foucault, Ernesto Laclau, Chantal Mouffe, and Ty Solomon, politics in itself becomes a narrative war to fill nodal points with a hegemonic substance based on a wish for identity-fulfillment. The study finds that the other candidate is separated from the idea of what constitutes the US by reference to foreign and threatening powers. The other candidate is framed as unfit to be president, and since he does not correspond with the identity of the nation itself, he can not lead and personify the US. Thus, the other candidate is narratively constructed as unable to grant the wish for national identity fulfillment. The substance of the nodal points also does not exhibit a value in themselves but has to be contrasted against something or someone - in this case, an Other.

The aim of this thesis is to look for paralels in reactions and attitudes of Czech and American media towards offensive statements of presidents of the Czech Republic and USA with the focus on mainstream media. In a theoretical part of the thesis the role and function of media in liberal democracies are defined. Following part describes an actual media landscapes of USA and the Czech Republic. The main part - research, is based on the description of the media landscapes in both countries and analyzes the media reactions and attitudes towards one specific presidential statement (one by US president Donald Trump, one by Czech president Milos Zeman). Each statement had to be at most critical, attacking the media and had to raise high media response. Media reactions were afterwards analyzed using qualitative content analysis according to the principles of grounded theory. In the conclusion the categories given by the analysis are being compared and analyzed.

This diploma thesis examines the impact of the former US President Donald Trump's private Twitter account on agenda-building and how the Czech media work with information from this account. The diploma thesis is divided into two parts. The first part of the diploma thesis deals with the key theories and concepts of media studies such as the theory of agenda-setting, gatekeeping, news values, framing and intermedia agenda-setting. It also focuses on the contemporary form of political communication and the phenomenon of celebrity politics. The thesis also includes the overview of existing studies describing the political communication of the former US President Donald Trump on the social networking site Twitter and confirm the agenda-building role of this social network. The second part of the diploma thesis describes the research methodology and subsequent quantitative content analysis of news articles. The findings of quantitative content analysis are explained in the context of the theoretical concepts and previous studies. One of the main findings of this thesis is that Trump was able to some extent build media agenda, frame different topics and events and control his image in the media through his Twitter account.

More Americans voted in the 2020 elections than in any other in 120 years, and the majority supported the Democratic candidate - Joseph R. Biden, Jr. In 2020, Biden won 26 states, including Arizona, where he won as the first Democrat in the presidential elections since 1996. With a small margin of only 10,457 votes, every vote was essential. In Arizona, 412,256 people identify as American Indian and Alaska Native and their support for the Democratic candidate proved to be decisive in the 2020 elections. However, only little has been written about American Indians and Alaska Natives and their voting habits. Existing studies suffer from examining only one tribe or state, are old or ambiguous. American Indians and Alaska Natives are also often excluded from collecting and reporting data, and when included, the data is either inaccurate or put them in "the other" category. This work is the first to examine Native American voting in the 2020 presidential election. It aims to prove that the Native vote was one of the aspects that helped Biden win the elections since Native Americans traditionally support the Democratic candidates. To prove my thesis, I compared the results of the 2016 and 2020 elections from the precincts overlapping with tribal lands in Arizona and conducted a quantitative analysis of...

The storming of the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, came to shock the entire world. An angry mob of Trump supporters had, after months of encouragement from President Trump, attacked the heart of American democracy in an attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. The attempt failed, when a new president, Joe Biden, was inaugurated on January 20, 2021. The aim of this case study is to create an understanding of how President Donald Trump, his administration and allied Republicans tried to overthrow American democracy in connection with the 2020 presidential election, and why they didn’t succeed. Using Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt's 2018 book “How Democracies Die” as the theoretical framework of the thesis, an ideal-type definition of “how to overthrow a democracy” was formed. Based on this ideal-type definition, the source material, consisting of documents, social media posts, newspaper reports and transcribed speeches, was examined. The results indicate that President Trump largely fulfilled almost all signs and variables of the ideal-type definition, by spreading disinformation to systematically undermine election results, interfering with and pressuring institutions, such as the DOJ, to accept conspiracy theories of election fraud, inciting large-scale protests, refusing to condemn threats against government officials and refusing to stop the attack of the Capitol on January 6, 2021. The results also indicate that democracy survived mostly because of the brave civil servants and politicians who, even under threat, secured the election result and protected the democratic institutions during the 2020 presidential election and on January 6, 2021. But even though it's been a year since Trump's attempt to overturn the election results, democracy is still under attack. Trump´s strong hold on the Republican Party has resulted in, for example, the exclusion of Republicans who stood against Trump´s attempt to overthrow American democracy and the introduction of new election laws that make it harder for people to vote.

This essay aims to analyse the motives behind President Donald Trump’s choice to remove Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH), a provision of the 1968 Fair Housing Act. The true motives are analysed through the lens of Rational Choice theory. The choice of theoretical framework can account as an explanation as to why the law was removed. The essay is moreover based upon drafts originating from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The public has since the removal of the AFFH doubted the motives presented by the President, thus giving room for further scientifical exploration on the subject. The author has chosen to conduct a quantitative text analysis to present the given arguments by the administration and the Republican party and furthermore to present alternative motives. The analysis presents an argumentation analysis to further explore the strength in the arguments presented from the relevant actors. The theoretical framework provides an explanation of the choices made, namely by offering a new dimension in which to examine the true motives behind the choice to remove AFFH.

No description available.

No description available.