<p> The study investigated the existence of some generic and non-generic media frames in the campaign speeches of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton using content analysis. The comparison of the two political actors in their usage of frames in their campaign speeches revealed that Donald Trump exploited economic consequence, conflict, morality, attribution of responsibility, and negative campaign frames more than Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton did not socially exclude any minority group within and outside the United States of America. Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are equal in their utilization of the human interest frame, positive campaign, and mixed campaign. If campaign speeches were moderators of candidates’ electoral victory, negative campaign is, therefore, a facilitating factor in affecting voters' behavior considering the success of Trump in the polls. Nevertheless, the commonness of mixed campaign to both the political candidates indicates that a discrete use of any of the generic frames by political actors and communicators may not be a certainty for changing voters’ behavior. Instead, scholars and professionals should treat frames as discretional communication tools applicable and dependent on the context of a social environment in which many factors exist and determine the choice of frames in communicating between the speech actors and the audiences.</p><p>
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:PROQUEST/oai:pqdtoai.proquest.com:13420149 |
| Date | 12 April 2019 |
| Creators | Abdullah, Tawfiq O. |
| Publisher | University of Louisiana at Lafayette |
| Source Sets | ProQuest.com |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | thesis |
Page generated in 0.0022 seconds