Denna studie syftar till att reflektera över den makt medierna besitter genom att studera de retoriska knep och tillvägagångssätt som Svenska Dagbladet och Sydsvenskan använder i sina ledare för att försöka övertyga läsarna. Tidningarna står nära varandra politiskt, men ändå inte på precis samma punkt på den politiska skalan, så det var då intressant att se om deras syn på valen skilde sig åt. För att komma fram till detta har jag använt mig av den klassiska maktteorin agenda setting och de retoriska teorierna om metaforer. Dessa teorier har applicerats under genomförandet av en retorisk analys av de ledare om valen som publicerats under första kvartalet 2012. I den retoriska analysen har de retoriska begreppen identifierats, analyserats och tolkats utifrån hermeneutiska förhållningssätt gällande min egen förförståelse. Resultatet visade sig bli att även om tidningarna på vissa plan hade olika retoriska tillvägagångssätt så var stommen i deras budskap detsamma. Slutsatsen blir att även om de svenska medierna inte direkt kan påverka den amerikanska politiken så sätter den ändå ramarna för vad den svenska allmänheten kan säga och tänka om den. / This study is aiming to reflect on the power that the media is possessing through studies of rhetorical tricks and approaches that Svenska Dagbladet and Sydsvenskan are using in their editorials to persuade their readers. The papers are very close to each other on a political level, but aren’t on the same exact spot on the political scale, which makes it interesting to see if their view on the elections differed. To get to conclusions about this I used a classical theory about media power called agenda setting and the rhetorical theories of metaphors. These theories were applied during rhetorical analysis of the editorials concerning the elections which was published during the first quarter of 2012. In the rhetorical analysis the rhetorical concepts have been identified, analyzed and interpreted considering hermeneutic approaches of my own pre-understanding. The result was shown to be that even if the papers on some cases had different rhetorical approaches the core in the message was the same. The conclusion is that even if the Swedish media not really are able to influence the American politics, they still set the framework for what the Swedish people are able to say and think about it.

The study of political communication is an old and diverse field, and the media has been proven to have an effect on their readers. The narratives that they create in their reporting can be as damning as they can be auspicious. Therefore, the study of media and how they frame certain events is as important as it has ever been. The democratic primaries in 2016 were certainly an interesting event. Hillary Clinton, the apparent nominee of the party, faced off against Bernie Sanders, who, in America, is something as unusual as a democratic socialist. How were these two polar opposites framed? To find out, a framing analysis was made on New York Times and Washington Post, two of the largest newspapers in the US. The analysis was built around four “events” that were deemed important in the election. 195 articles were analyzed. The methods that were used were both quantitative and qualitative, and the theories of framing (how the media depicts the election) and agenda-setting (what the media deems to be important) were applied. The results showed that the two newspapers did not differentiate all that much from each other, except for a few percent in certain aspects. All in all, the narrative was obvious. Clinton was the candidate that would go on to win the nomination. She was also the most suitable candidate. Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, was framed as the loser and as unsuitable. Though he was consistently framed as having more integrity than his opponent. Clinton was also the candidate that had the biggest focus on her. This was true for all of the events, and in both newspapers. The implications of the study are twofold. First, Sanders was consistently painted in a negative light, which created an undesirable narrative and gave him negative momentum. Secondly, the virtual duplication of the narratives in New York Times and Washington Post suggests that there was some kind of consensus. Either Clinton really was the obvious nominee for the party, or the media hampered Sanders chances to clinch the nomination by depicting him in a negative manner.