NOTICE OF THESIS EXAM
OCTAVIA BUTARBUTAR
202200010014
DECEMBER 18, 2024, 2:00 PM
Building C, Room 706
Adviser : Yanti, Ph.D.
Examiners : Christine Manara, Ph.D.
& Dr.
Engliana
Title
FRAMING DONALD
TRUMPS CANDIDACY: A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF AL JAZEERA AND THE SPECTATOR
COVERAGE
Abstract
This study investigates how Al Jazeera and The Spectator, two
international media outlets, frame Donald Trump’s candidacy for the 2024 U.S.
presidential election. Employing Van Dijk’s Ideological Square and Critical
Discourse Analysis (CDA) framework, the research explores how linguistic
elements and sociocognitive contexts are utilized to emphasize or mitigate
Trump’s positives and negatives. The study adopts a qualitative approach,
analyzing 20 articles (ten from each outlet) published between July and August
2024. The findings revealed significant differences in portrayals of Donald
Trump, influenced by the ideological orientations of Al Jazeera and The
Spectator. Al Jazeera, reflecting its Middle Eastern perspective, consistently
depicted Trump as a symbol of Western dominance and emphasized his legal and
moral shortcomings. For example, phrases like “31 counts of willful retention
of national defense information” and “Trump election campaign accuses Iran of
hacking attack” illustrate a critical stance. In contrast, The Spectator,
catering to a conservative British audience, highlighted Trump’s populist
appeal and alignment with British interests, using phrases such as “Trump’s
stance on free speech” and “Trump as a ‘badass’ leader”, portraying him in a more
favorable light. It can be concluded that Al Jazeera and The Spectator employ
contrasting framing strategies, critical and legalistic versus favorable and
humorous, shaped by their ideological orientations, which actively influence
public perceptions of Donald Trump’s 2024 candidacy.
Keywords: framing, Donald Trump, Van Dijk, critical discourse
analysis, media bias.