Political cartoons and Trump
How is he portrayed?
Name: Charlotte Coenders Student number: 10003510
Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication Master Track: Political Communication
Supervisor: mw. dr. K. Gattermann Date: 29/06/2017
Abstract
This thesis provides an analysis of political cartoons featuring Trump that were published during the six-month period prior to the presidential elections in the United States. The main goal was to see if the political predisposition and the area of distribution of news outlets would influence the way Trump was portrayed. Using the hierarchy of influence model and previous research on visual communication, seven hypotheses were made regarding different visual aspects of the cartoons. A total of 266 cartoons from twenty different news outlets were analysed, two of which were national outlets with a political predisposition being either liberal or conservative, and eighteen news outlets that were regional outlets from either blue or red states. The results show that there were very little differences between the way news outlets portrayed Trump. The only significant result in line with the expectation was that Trump was portrayed as more dominant in news outlets from red states compared to outlets from blue states. Overall, it can be concluded that the political predisposition and the area of distribution of news outlets did not have a significant influence on the way Trump was portrayed in political cartoons. Further research is necessary to gain insights in what factors do influence the content of political cartoons.
Introduction
On September 30, 2005, Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten publicised twelve cartoons about the prophet Muhammed. These cartoons had a bigger impact than was anticipated by the newspaper and resulted in violent demonstrations in several Muslim countries and an attack on the cartoonist (Kropman, 2015). The drawings were meant to be a contribution to the debate about the criticism of Islam and self-censorship, but instead resulted in violent
reactions and hate (Jensen, 2006). This is not the only case where cartoons are found to be the cause of extreme reactions: the violent attack on the headquarters of the French magazine
Charlie Hebdo on January 7, 2015, is a second example. Again, depictions of the Islamic prophet Muhammed in a cartoon were considered the cause for this attack. Twelve people were killed. Although these are only two examples, it shows the power that cartoons can have. Political cartoons are said to be one of the earliest forms of political satire (Bal, Pitt, Berthon, & DesAutels, 2009). Even though this type of cartoon has been around for quite some time, studies that treat these cartoons in a critical manner are scarce. This relatively small body of research is mainly because there is not one academic discipline that ‘owns’ this type of research. Most research that has been done comes from varying disciplines like history, art theory, sociology, political science, communication and media studies (Diamond, 2002; Edwards, 1997; Greenberg, 2002). An accurate definition of political cartoons is given by Edwards (1997) who describes it as: “a cartoon that appears on the editorial or op-ed pages of a newspaper (in the data base) and is interested to provide commentary on a person or issue in the public arena”. Later, Edwards adds to that definition that it is: “visual/verbal, non-narrative commentary, typically in single-panel form, created by a staff member or newspaper and appearing originally on the editorial pages of a newspaper” (Edwards, 2001). What makes this type of cartoon interesting, is that cartoonists do not have to follow the same rules and regulations that journalists must abide to ensure a level of objectivity. They get room to express their views and be critical (Shepard, 1994; Conners, 2005). A cartoon is also fairly easy to consume and process, since it is only an image that must be viewed and not a piece of text that has to be read (Greenberg, 2002; Rodriguez & Dimitrova, 2011). They also reach many people: in America, a little over 40% of every 100.000 newspaper readers looks at the editorial page regularly, which is the page that features political cartoons. This is an indication that this type of cartoon reaches a large part of the American newspaper readers (Calogero & Mullen, 2008).
2009; Baumgartner, 2008), on how people understand them (Refaie, 2003, 2009) and
analysed visual aspects of it (Calogero & Mullen, 2008; Medhurst & Desousa, 1981; Morris, 1993). Most of these studies employed a qualitative approach to analyse the cartoons. There are few studies known that use a quantitative approach to study them (Calogero & Muller, 2008; Conners, 2005). This thesis focuses on factors that possibly affect the underlying
message of a cartoon and tests how this influence is reflected in the cartoon. It is expected that the political orientation and the area of distribution of a newspaper will, to some extent, affect the message of a political cartoon.
For this study, several cartoons from different newspapers that portray Donald Trump are analysed. The choice to focus on cartoons of Mister Trump has been made in the first place because he was the subject of many cartoons, giving a good sample and making it possible to compare cartoons from different newspapers. The second reason was that he was quite a controversial presidential candidate who had to deal with some difficult moments during the time running up to the elections. This not always made him a very popular candidate among the public nor his own political party, but certainly an interesting one to study (FiveThirtyEight, 2016; Huffpost Pollster, n.d.; Pew Reserch Center, 2016).
The current thesis will look at how Donald Trump was portrayed in political cartoons featured in different newspapers during the time running up to the United States presidential elections. The main purpose of the thesis is to find out if specific newspaper features
influence the way Trump is portrayed in political newspaper cartoons. Therefore, the following research question is formulated:
How was current president of the United States Donald Trump portrayed in political newspaper cartoons in the six-month period leading up to the presidential elections?
History
Cartoons have been around for quite some time. There is evidence that the first political cartoon was created around 1360 B.C. when somebody drew a caricature of the Egyptian leader Tutankhamen (Danjoux, 2007). Back in the eighteenth century, political cartoons were a tool for the educated minority to set personal or partisan vendettas. The prints at that time were independent media and sold separately at print shops (Duus, 2001). In the Gilded age, political cartoons became more popular because of the mass circulation that was made possible with the invention of new technologies. Over time, the message of the cartoon became increasingly the message of the people and less that of the elite (Edwards, 1999). It also became a weapon in the fight for public attention and an instrument of ‘democratic surveillance’ (Foucault, as cited in Duus, 2001). Political cartoons nowadays are often featured on the editorial page of newspapers and give opinions, criticize intolerance and injustice and portray political corruption and social evils (Calogero & Mullen, 2008; Conners, 2005). Over time cartoons have become more and more independent: they no longer spread the word of the elite, but there are still factors that affect the content (Phiddian & Manning, 2004; Shepard, 1994). A tool to identify these factors is the Hierarch of Influences model created by Shoemaker and Reese (1996). This model consists out of different levels that each shape media content. The model includes five levels that range from micro to macro:
individual, routines, organizational, extra media and ideological. Each level will be addressed and the possible influence that they have on cartoons featuring Trump will be discussed.
Hierarchy of influence model
The first level of the model is the individual level. This level addresses the characteristics of a media worker like attitude, training and background. In this case, it can be expected that the political predisposition of a cartoonist has an influence on the message of a political cartoon.
Cartoonists are found to consider themselves as more liberal than the newspaper for which they work (Riffe, Sneed & Van Ommeren, 1985, 1987). This might cause them to be less supportive of Trump, who was the presidential candidate for the Republican Party, and more supportive of other candidates. This can be expected regardless of the political predisposition of the newspaper for which they work.
The second level of the model is the routines level. This level concerns the rules, norms and procedures that exist in media work. Contrary to newspaper journalists who must follow professional routines and procedures to ensure a level of objectivity, cartoonists have the privilege to give their opinion (Conners, 2005; Ryfe, 2006). Newspaper editors cannot demand cartoonists to draw about specific topics or to incorporate certain messages (Phiddian & Manning, 2004). However, there are some basic rules that also apply to cartoonists, as they have to keep the social appropriateness and the national law in mind and be careful with incorporating religious deformation, racial discrimination or hate speech (Keane, 2008). Cartoonists need to determine themselves what is appropriate and what is not, because some things might be legal but are at the same time unacceptable (Modood, 2006). When it comes to cartoons featuring Trump, this means that cartoonists are free to draw what they please, as long as they do not violate any law or social rules.
The third level is the organizational level. This level is about the distribution of power within the news organization. The editor is the person who makes final decisions about what is published and what not. Since cartoonists have other professional routines and procedures than journalists, this decision is also based on different criteria. Whether a cartoon is accepted or not depends first and foremost on if it is in line with the newspaper's editorial policy (Lamb, 1996). These policies are guidelines by which a newspaper operates. Besides that, the editor must determine if the content is a fit with the newspaper. Newspapers tend to see their cartoonists as a mouthpiece, therefore an editor can expect that the underlying message of a
cartoon featuring Trump is conform the political orientation of the newspaper (Ammons, King & Yeric, 1988; Shepard, 1994). Cartoonists however do not see themselves as a mouthpiece and, as already stated before, often hold more liberal conviction than the newspaper for which they work (Riffe, Sneed & Van Ommeren, 1985, 1987). Getting a cartoon published that challenges the political orientation of the newspaper can be difficult, if not dangerous for the position of a cartoonist at a newspaper: there are cartoonists that claim to have lost their job because of some disagreement on points of view (Best, 1989; Phiddian & Manning, 2004; Shepard, 1994). Therefore, it is not likely that the published cartoons featuring Trump differ much in their political messages from the political stance of the newspaper. The editor also assesses if the cartoon is offensive to external groups that are important for the newspaper (Lamb, 1996). This brings us automatically to the fourth level of the model, which is the extra-media level. This level concerns the influences that come from outside the newspaper. It is expected that the most important group that has an influence on how Trump is portrayed are advertisers. This is expected because this group is often responsible for a significant amount of the newspapers income. This group wants the newspaper to have a large number of readers, so that their ads will be seen by as many people as possible. For newspapers, this means that they need to give the people what they want to ensure that they keep buying the newspaper (McManus, 1995). Newspapers do so by featuring stories conform the political predisposition of their readers, but at the same time not being too extreme in their statements, to appeal to a large group of people (Gabszewicz, Laussel & Sonnac, 2002; Stroud, 2010). Therefore, to please their readers and in turn their advertisers, it is probably important for a newspaper that political cartoons featuring Trump are in line with the political predisposition of that
newspaper.
The last level of the model is the ideology level. This level is about the major
blue states. This means that either the Republican Party (red) or the Democratic Party (blue) won in the presidential elections (Levendusky & Pope, 2011). Considering historical election results, there are certain states that are won by the same party nearly every election (CNBC, 2015; National Archives and Records Administration, n.d.). A previous study found that cartoons published in free societies are a good reflection of the public opinion (Lacity & Rudramuniyaiah, 2009). It can therefore be expected that states where the same party wins election after election, that the political cartoons published by regional newspapers from those states are more in line with this political preference. This would mean that Trump is more supported and portrayed in a positive manner in political cartoons featured in newspapers from red states compared to political cartoons featured in newspapers from blue states. Taking all the different levels of the hierarchy of influence model into account, it can be concluded that cartoonists are to some extent free to draw what they please but that newspapers prefer the cartoons to be in line with their own political predisposition or the political predisposition of the state, depending on if it is a national or regional newspaper. Because newspaper editors have more power within a news organisation than cartoonists, it is expected that political cartoons featuring Trump will follow to some extend the political predisposition of the newspaper or state. To check if this is indeed the case, cartoons from national newspapers with a different political stance (liberal and conservative) and regional newspapers from different states (red and blue) will be compared on several visual aspects which are discussed below.
The message
The core of a political cartoon is a message or opinion that a cartoonist wants to express. Not in words, but in visual form (Conner, 2005). To understand the image, a viewer must be able to identify and understand cues that cartoonists incorporate in their images that point to the
meaning or refer to the real world (Conners, 1998; Sturken & Cartwright, 2003). This skill is also referred to as visual literacy (Refaie, 2009; Stokes, 2002). Cartoonist have three different tools with which they can clarify their intentions: their drawing style, the use of symbols and the use of visual metaphors. The first tool, their drawing style, consists of the deliberate choices cartoonists can make in the way they portray something. This can be somewhat compared with adverbs in written language: they give extra information about the subject. A cartoonist can make choices on three separate visual aspects: drawing lines, size and
exaggeration, or amplification of features. The first aspect, drawing lines, focuses on the pen strokes of a cartoonist. These pen strokes can give vital clues about how a cartoon must be read: things drawn with thick pen strokes attract for example more attention than things drawn with thin pen strokes. The things drawn with the thick pen strokes are also often the main subject of the cartoon and should therefore be looked at first (Medhurst & Desousa, 1981). It is expected that when Trump is portrayed in a political cartoon, he will be the main subject of the image and therefore be drawn with thick lines, since he was the Republican candidate for the 2016 presidential elections. This is expected for all types of newspapers. This leads to the first hypothesis:
H1: Trump is drawn with relatively thick lines in political cartoons compared to the rest of the cartoon.
The second aspect that can be manipulated by cartoonists, is the size of things. The bigger someone or something is portrayed, the more important it is in the cartoon (Medhurst & Desousa, 1981). Here too it can be expected that when Trump is portrayed in a political cartoon, he will be an important aspect of the cartoons because of his role in the elections. It is therefore likely that he is portrayed as the largest person compared to other people in the cartoon. This is again expected for all types of newspapers.
The third aspect of the drawing style is the exaggeration or amplification of features. This aspect focuses on specific features of things or people that are made more prominent. Previous research has found that the amplification of specific facial features can be indicators for competence. These features are: a more angular face, a strong jaw, a large nose, high cheekbones and being muscular (Edwards, 2007; Olivia & Todorov, 2010; Werner, 2006). There are also facial indicators discovered for immaturity: a high forehead, soft chin and round eyes, and for dominance: having a large head compared to the body and a broad and angular chin (Calogero & Mullen, 2008; Edwards, 2007; Riggio & Riggio, 2010; Werner, 2006). It can be expected that Trump will be drawn as a more competent and dominant presidential candidate in political cartoons featured in conservative newspapers and in newspapers from red states compared to liberal newspapers and newspapers from blue states based on their political predisposition. For the same reason it can be expected that Trump is drawn as more immature in political cartoons featured in liberal newspapers and newspapers from blue states compared to conservative newspapers and in newspapers from red states.
H3: Trump is drawn more often as a competent person in political cartoons featured in a)
conservative newspapers compared to liberal newspapers and b) newspapers from red states compared to newspapers from blue states.
H4: Trump is drawn more often as immature in political cartoons featured in a) liberal newspapers compared to conservative newspapers and b) newspapers from blue states compared to newspapers from the red states.
H5: Trump is drawn more often as a dominant person in political cartoons featured in a) conservative newspapers compared to liberal newspapers and b) newspapers from red states compared to newspapers from the blue states.
The use of symbols is the second tool that cartoonist can employ to make their message clear. Symbols are meaningful, graphic and often simplified representations of something (Marcus, 2003). How a symbol is understood depends on someone’s cultural background and knowledge of current events (Piamonte, Abeysekera, & Ohlsson, 2001; Refaie, 2009). Symbols that are frequently used in American political cartoons are: Uncle Sam, the Eagle, the American Flag and the Statue of Liberty, all of which are patriotic icons (Fischer, 1986; Steinbrink & Bliss, 1988). Patriotism is the affective attachment that someone has for his or her country (Kosterman and Feshbach 1989). Issues related to patriotism have often been used in political campaigns to show the love and pride one has for one’s country (Sullivan, Fried & Dietz, 1992). It is therefore expected that these symbols will also be used in political cartoons that portray presidential candidate Trump. It is expected that the patriotic symbols will be used more frequently in conservative newspapers and in newspapers from red states compared to liberal newspapers and newspapers form blue states, since these
newspapers want to portray him as a good and country-loving candidate based on their political predisposition.
H6: Trump is portrayed more often in combination with patriotic symbols in a) conservative newspapers than liberal newspapers and b) in newspapers from red states than newspapers from blue states.
Lastly, cartoonists can employ visual metaphors to get their message across. There is no agreement about the definition of visual metaphors and there is a fair number of different descriptions addressing the concept. The definition that is currently the most accepted is that of the visual metaphor as a thought that is expressed visually by several interrelated verbal and visual signs that together create the underlying concept (Refaie, 2003). Other definitions focus more on specific types of visual metaphors, like visual metaphors in films or in
specifically on visual metaphors in political cartoons. He calls visual metaphors visual fusion and defines it as the combination of a human face or head with the body of an animal.
Different animals can have different meanings. A lion, for example, often represents the good or courage while snakes, spiders, rats and vultures are mostly associated with evil (Edwards, 1997; Kirschen, 2010). There are also animals that represent the American political parties: the donkey is the mascot of the Democratic Party and the elephant of the Republican Party. Some countries can also be represented by animals, like China as a dragon and Russia as a bear (Fuller & Pribble, 1982; Tannenbaum, 1955). It is expected that political cartoons featured in conservative newspapers and in newspapers from red states employ significantly less animals with a negative connotation compared to liberal newspapers and newspapers from blue states, since they want to portray him in a more positive manner.
H7: Animals that represent something negative, like snakes and spiders, will be used more often in a) political cartoons featured in liberal newspaper compared to conservative newspapers and b) in political cartoons featured in newspapers from blue states than in newspaper from red states.
Research method
Political cartoons from twenty different American news outlets are analysed for this thesis. The term news outlets is intentionally used instead of newspapers, since only online editions of newspapers were used to search for cartoons. It can therefore not be guaranteed that the cartoons were published in print as well. Also, one of the twenty news sources is not an online newspaper but the website of a news channel (Fox News). This source was allowed in the sample, because no conservative newspaper could be found that met all the selection criteria for the cartoons to be included in the sample. The selection criteria for the cartoons were: they had to contain a portrait of Trump, they had to be featured on the editorial or opinion section
of the newspaper or news source and they had to be freely accessible and published between May 3rd, 2016 and November 8th, 2016. These dates were selected because May 3rd was the day Trump became the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party, and November 8th was the day of the United States presidential elections. Among the twenty news sources, there are two national news sources: one with a liberal bias (The New York Times) and one with a conservative bias (Fox News) (Pew Reserch Center, 2016). The cartoons from these sources will be used to check for differences in political cartoons that might be caused by these political orientations. Even though Fox News is not a newspaper, it did feature political cartoons on its website. All other news sources in the sample are regional news outlets. These outlets are included because it is expected that states favouring either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party portray Trump differently in political cartoons. The regional news outlets are from either the West, Midwest, Northeast or the South of the United States (United States Census Bureau, n.d.). From each region one blue state and one red state was selected. The criteria for a state to be selected was that the Republican Party or the Democratic Party had won five times in a row with a popular vote margin of at least fifteen percent. If there were more states that met these requirements, only the state with the largest number of inhabitants was selected. It turned out that the Northeast region had hardly any states where the Republican Party won one time, let alone five times in a row. Therefore, this region was left out of the analysis. The blue states that were selected, are California (West), Illinois (Midwest), and Maryland (South). The red states are Utah (West), Kansas (Midwest) and Texas (South) (CNBC, 2015; National Archive and Records Administration, n.d). From these states, the three newspapers with the largest circulation numbers were analysed (Alliance for Audited Media, 2012) (see appendix A). The cartoons were retrieved through the websites of the newspapers or, if this was not possible, through the special search engines for (newspaper-)cartoons: gocomics.com and politicalcartoons.com. For one newspaper, the cartoons could be
accessed through the blog of the cartoonist.
The aim was to make a constructive week for the six-month period to create a
representative sample of the cartoons for the analysis. This means that from each newspaper six cartoons would be analysed: one for each day of the week (except for Sunday, since not all newspapers have a Sundays edition). However, it turned out that not all newspapers publish cartoons on regular basis or make all their cartoons online accessible. This made it impossible to use the constructive week as sampling method, but since the entire sample turned out to be not too large, it was decided to use all the retrieved cartoons in the sample.
From the national news outlets, a total of 23 cartoons was retrieved (liberal, n = 11; conservative, n = 12). From the regional news outlets, a total of 243 cartoons was retrieved (blue states, n = 140; red states, n = 103) (N = 266). Not all news outlets had a regular cartoonist. From the regional news outlets, there are ten outlets that publish cartoons from their own regular cartoonist. From the national news outlets, only the New York Times has its own regular cartoonist. Fox News uses cartoons from external cartoonists (see appendix A). Some news outlets use a slideshow to give an overview of multiple cartoons from other newspapers which they find relevant. If this was the case, only the first cartoon was taken into the sample, unless this cartoon was already a part of the sample, then the second cartoon was selected unless this cartoon was also part of the sample, then the third cartoon would be selected, etcetera. Further, if a cartoon was divided into multiple boxes, like comics, they were left out of the sample, since the study is about single boxed cartoons. If a news outlet used cartoons from another outlet that already was a part of the sample, this cartoon was not coded twice.
Content analysis
No previous quantitative studies were found that look at the visual indicators that are the focus of this thesis. However, here were studies that looked at some of the relevant aspects in a qualitative way (Edwards, 1997; Kirschen, 2010; Olivia & Todorov, 2010; Riggio &
Riggio, 2010; Werner, 2006). Findings from these studies were used to create a new codebook that measures these aspects in a quantitative way. The codebook consists of five parts. The first part concerns the visual indicators for competence, which are: having a more angular
head shape, a sharp angled jaw, a large nose and high cheekbones. The second part is about
Trump’s importance in the cartoon. This section includes items about him being drawn with
thick lines and being portrayed as the biggest person. The third part is about if Trump is
portrayed as a mature and dominant person. This section consists out of questions concerning:
his head body ratio, the size of his forehead, the size and shape of his chin, the size of his lips
and if he is made more muscular. Part four is about the use of patriotic symbols in the cartoon and part five is about the use of visual metaphors (see appendix B). The answer options for the variables varied between simple yes and no options and categories regarding the size or shape of specific physical features. There were also questions regarding the representation of things. These questions could be answered with the options positive, neutral or negative. How these categories had to be interpreted, was explained in the question. Other important
variables were: the name of the newspaper, the publication date of the cartoon, the name of the state, the colour of the state and political orientation of the newspaper.
To test the reliability of the codebook, a second coder coded a random selection of ten percent of the total sample (n = 30). This made it possible to calculate the Krippendorff’s Alpha (see appendix C). Of the thirty-six variables, ten turned out to have a Krippendorff’s Alpha higher than .80 which means that they are reliable and can be used in further analysis. Seven variables had a Krippendorff’s Alpha between .60 and .80, therefore they can be used
in further analysis but their results must be interpreted with caution (De Swert, 2012). Some variables could be made more reliable by grouping them together, but only two variables could be made reliable past the .80 standard: Shape of Trump’s jaw (α = 1.00) and Size of
Trump’s head compared to his body (α = .84). The reliability of two other variables could be
raised to a Krippendorff’s Alpha score between the .60 and .80 if answer categories were grouped together. These variables are: Shape of Trump’s face (α = .64) and Size of Trump’s
forehead (α = .65). There were twelve variables with a Krippendorff’s Alpha below .60 that
could not be made more reliable. These variables are not used in any further analysis since they are unreliable and therefore produce unreliable results. The Krippendorff’s Alpha could also not be calculated for three variables, since the aspect that these variables measured did not occur in the sample of the second coder. These variables are: Is the American Eagle part
of the cartoons, How is the American Eagle represented and Is a building part of the metaphor. The items regarding the American Eagle are nevertheless taken into the analysis
since they measured a rare aspect and because all the other variables concerning patriotic symbols had reliable Alpha scores. The item regarding the building being a part of a metaphor, was on the other hand left out the analysis.
Results
To see if there are systematic differences between political cartoons from liberal and
conservative news outlets and news outlets from red states and blue states, either a Chi-square test, a Fisher's exact test or an independent samples t-test was used. These tests are
appropriate since all variables are categorical of nature and some variables can be recoded into dummy variables. Which test was used for which variable depended on the number of answer categories and the number of observations. If a variable could not be analysed with a Chi-square test due to violations of the assumptions, a Fisher’s exact test was conducted
instead (Field, 2014). A univariate table containing frequencies and percentages of the variables is presented in the appendix (see appendix D)
Most cartoons appeared in October (24%) and the least in November (3.1%). This was expected since only the first eight days of November were part of the sample. There was no significant difference between the number of cartoons that were published per month between national and regional news outlets, X² (5) = .3.03, p = .695. November was left out of this analysis, since only a few days of this month were part of the sample. There was also no significant difference in the number of cartoons published per month between news outlets from red states and news outlets from blue states, X² (5) = 9.06, p = .107, nor was there a significant difference between the American regions, X² (10) = 13.75, p = .185. Lastly, there was no significant difference between the national news outlets in the number of cartoons published per month (p = .700, Fisher's exact test).
Importance
The first two hypotheses both focus on the importance of Trump in the cartoons. Hypothesis 1 focuses on the thickness of the lines with which Trump is drawn and hypothesis 2 looks at his size in the cartoon. The results show that there are no significant differences between liberal and conservative news outlets in the thickness of lines with which Trump is drawn (p = .478, Fisher's exact test). The same goes for cartoons featured in news outlets from red and blue states, X² (1) = .86, p = .355. This means that according to the data, the two national news outlets and the eighteen regional news outlets do not differ in line thickness with which Trump is drawn. The results also show that he is mainly drawn with normal lines. Therefore, hypothesis 1: Trump is drawn with relatively thick lines in political cartoons compared to the
rest of the cartoon, must be rejected. There is also no significant difference in the size with
test) and red and blue state news outlets, X² (2) = 1.08, p = .584. This means that Trump is portrayed more or less the same and that he is not portrayed as the biggest person in the majority of the cartoons. Based on this result, hypothesis 2: Trump is drawn relatively big,
compared to other people in political cartoons, must be rejected as well.
Competence
Hypothesis 3 assumes that Trump is portrayed more often as a competent person in cartoons from conservative news outlet compared to the liberal news outlet (H3a). Before analysing facial indicators for competence, it has to be made sure that the new outlets do not
significantly differ in the frequency by which Trump’s face appears in the cartoons. No significant difference was found between the liberal and conservative news outlets (p =.224, Fisher's exact test) and between the news outlets from red (M = .92; SD = .27) and blue states (M = .97; SD = .17), t (158.823) = 1.66, p = .104, CI = [-.01, .11]. Therefore, the facial indicators for competence can be compared. Furthermore, the results show no significance difference between the liberal and conservative news outlets in the way they draw the visual indicators for competence (Face shape: p = .787; Fisher's exact test; Jawline: p = 1.00, Fisher's exact test; Nose: p = .093, Fisher's exact test). Trump is mostly portrayed with a round or normal face shape, a jawline that is absent and a normal sized nose. When it comes to Trumps muscularity, which is also an indicator for competence, there is again no
significant difference between the two news outlets (p = 1.00, Fisher's exact test). Out of all the cartoons, there is only one in which he is made more muscular. Since there are no
significant differences in the visual indicators for competence, hypothesis 3a must be rejected. It was also expected that Trump is portrayed more often as a competent person in cartoons from red state news outlets compared to blue state news outlets (H3b). However, there was no significant difference in the way these news outlets drew the visual indicators for competence,
face shape and nose size (Face shape: X² (3) = 6.96, p = .073; Nose: p = .174, Fisher's exact test). Trump was mostly portrayed with a round or normal shaped face and a normal sized nose. The states did differ in the way they portrayed Trumps jaw (p = .001, Fisher's exact test). He was drawn more with a sharp angled jaw in cartoons from red state news outlets, while he was drawn relatively less with this type of jaw in cartoons from blue state news outlets. However, this association is weak (V = .23). There was also a significant difference between the states and Trump’s muscularity in the cartoons, X² (1) = 4.87, p = .036. Trump was more often portrayed with no emphasised muscularity in cartoons from red states compared to the cartoons from blue states. This association is again weak (Phi = .14). This last result should be interpreted with caution since the variable that measures this aspect has been found not to be completely reliable. Overall, hypothesis 3b cannot be accepted. Trump was indeed more often portrayed with a sharp angled jaw in red state newspaper cartoons, which is conform the expectation, but the other indicators showed no differences between the states, or even showed an opposite relation than was expected. Therefore, too little evidence is found to support this hypothesis.
Immaturity
Hypothesis 4 focuses on how immature Trump looks in the cartoons. It is expected that Trump is portrayed as more immature in cartoons from the liberal news outlet compared to the conservative news outlet (H4a). However, the results show no significant difference between these news outlets and the indicator for maturity (Size of forehead: p = .478, Fisher's exact test). In almost all observations, Trump was portrayed with a small or normal forehead. It was also expected that Trump is portrayed as more immature in cartoons featured in blue state news outlets compared to red state news outlets (H4b). Again, no significant difference was found between these news outlets, X² (1) = .16, p = .800. They portrayed him with a small
or normal forehead. Because there were no differences between the news outlets, hypothesis 4a and 4b must both be rejected.
Dominance
Hypothesis 5 is about how dominant Trump is made in the cartoons. It is expected that he is made more dominant in cartoons from conservative news outlets than in cartoons from liberal news outlets (H5a). The results show no difference between these two news outlets and the size of Trump’s head relative to his body in cartoons, which is identified as a visual indicator of dominance (p = .590, Fisher's exact test). Trump was drawn mainly with a small head or a head that is more or less the same size as his body. Therefore, hypothesis 5a must be rejected. It was also expected that Trump would be portrayed as more dominant in cartoons from red state news outlets compared to blue state outlets (H5b). The relation between Trump’s head to his body in cartoons from red and blue state news outlets turned out to be statistically
significant, X² (2) = 9.81, p = .007. More often, his head was drawn larger than his body than could be expected by chance in news outlets from red states than in news outlets from blue states. However, this relationship is weak (V = .20). Based on these results hypothesis 5a must be rejected, but hypothesis 5b can be accepted.
Patriotic symbols
Hypothesis 6 assumes a difference in the use of patriotic symbols in cartoons from liberal and conservative news outlets (H6a). The results show no significant difference between the political orientation of the news outlets and the use of the patriotic symbols (American Flag: p = .089, Fisher's exact test; Statue of Liberty: p = .478, Fisher's exact test; Other patriotic
symbols: p = 1.000, Fisher's exact test). The patriotic symbols Uncle Sam and the American
combination with patriotic symbols in conservative newspapers than in liberal newspapers,
must be rejected. Hypothesis 6 also assumes a difference between the use of patriotic symbols in cartoons from red and blue state news outlets (H6b). But the relation between the colour of the state and the use of most patriotic symbols in cartoons was again not significant (Uncle
Sam: p = 1.000, Fisher's exact test; American Eagle: p = 1.000, Fisher's exact test; American Flag: p = .468, Fisher's exact test; Statue of Liberty: p = 1.000, Fisher's exact test). The only
patriotic symbol that was used significantly different, was: Other patriotic symbols (p = .022, Fisher's exact test). However, this was a weak and negative relation (Phi = -.16). Cartoons featured in news outlets from blue states appear to use more unspecified patriotic symbols (others than Uncle Sam, American Eagle, American Flag or Statue of Liberty) in combination with Trump than could be expected by chance compared to cartoons from red state
newspapers. However, this last result should be interpreted with caution, since the variable that measures this aspect turned out to be not completely reliable. Regardless of this last significant result, hypothesis 6b cannot be accepted, since there is only one very weak relation.
Visual metaphors
The last hypothesis predicts that cartoons from conservative news outlets have less depictions of animals representing something negative than cartoons from liberal news outlets (H7a). This expectation was not confirmed by the results, since there was no significant difference between the two news outlets and the use of animals (p = 1.000, Fisher's exact test). In all observations, there was only one cartoon from the conservative news outlet that included an animal, which was a cat. The last hypothesis also predicted that cartoons featured in news outlets from red states would have less animals representing something negative than cartoons from blue state news outlets (H7b). This expectation was also not confirmed by the results:
depiction of animals (p = 1.000, Fisher's exact test) and no significant difference in the type of animals depicted in the cartoons (p = .878, Fisher's exact test). The animal most drawn was the elephant. Besides the elephant, also bulls, a dog, a monkey, pigs, a porcupine and a sheep appeared in the cartoons, none of which are animals with a negative connotation. Based on these results, hypothesis 7a and 7b must both be completely rejected.
Conclusion
The content analysis of newspaper cartoons featuring Trump in the six-months leading up to the United States presidential elections provides useful insights in how newspapers and their cartoonists portrayed him. The most striking result is that there are very few differences between the cartoons from all types of news outlets. Overall, the conservative news outlet and news outlets from red states did not portray Trump in a more supportive way compared to the liberal news outlet and news outlets from blue states, even though these differences were expected based on their political predisposition and area of distribution. The only hypothesis supported by the results is hypothesis 5b: Trump is drawn more often as a dominant person in
political cartoons featured in newspapers from red states compared to newspapers from the blue states. Besides the visual indicator for dominance, the only other visual indicator that did
show a significant difference in line with the expectations was Trumps jawline. Trump was portrayed more with a sharp jawline in newspapers from red states compared to newspapers from blue states. But because the jawline was only one of four indicators for competence, and the other three indicators did not show a significant difference, it was not enough to accept the hypothesis. None of the other results showed a relation as expected by the literature. There was however one result that showed a complete opposite relation than predicted. It was expected that Trump would have been depicted more often in combination with patriotic symbols in cartoons from red state news outlets, but instead he was more often portrayed in
combination with patriotic symbols in cartoons from blue state news outlets. However, the patriotic symbols did not serve a prominent role in the cartoons and were mostly portrayed in a subtle, neutral way.
Overall, it can be concluded that Trump was portrayed the same in cartoons from the different news outlets. The cartoons did not depict Trump as extra competent or immature. However, his dominance was exaggerated in cartoons from red state news outlets. The
cartoons did not emphasise Trump’s importance compared to other figures in the drawing, nor did they portray him in combination with animals representing something negative.
Furthermore, he was portrayed significantly more often with patriotic symbols serving a neutral function, but this was only the case for cartoons from blue state news outlets.
For all the unexpected results, there might be good explanations. In general, because of controversies surrounding Trump’s presidential campaign leading to an overall decreased popularity amongst U.S. citizens, the expected potential difference between conservative or red state news outlets and liberal or blue state news outlets might have been less pronounced. Also, it is possible that the Hierarchy of Influence model is not the best model to assess factors that influence the content of cartoons. Cartoonists are said to have a different status than journalists by having more freedom of expression. Therefore, cartoons can be regarded as a special type of news content compared to regular news content by journalists. Since the hierarchy of influence model is mostly based on such regular news content, it might not be the best model to analyse cartoons.
This thesis is not without shortcomings. The main problem was the reliability of the variables. Of the thirty-six variables, twelve turned out to be not reliable enough to use in further analysis, and nine variables had a Krippendorff’s Alpha between .60 and .80, which means they could be used in further analysis, but had to be interpreted with caution. There
of interest did not occur in the subsample of the second coder. Only twelve variables had a Krippendorff’s Alpha higher than .80, making them reliable. For further research, it is recommendable to try and create more variables with a reliability over the .80 limit by improving answer categories and training to coders. A second aspect that could be improved is the sample. It would be an improvement to include more liberal and conservative news outlets, since only one of each was included in the current thesis. By adding news outlets, the results will become more generalizable and thus more accurate. Another recommendation is to divide the regional news outlets in conservative and liberal outlets, and via this way extend the sample size of these groups. Furthermore, the fact that only twelve of the thirty-six
variables turned out to be reliable could be a result of using quantitative codebook based on qualitative research. This codebook established quantitative variables that are possibly better measured through qualitative research. In the future, it would be recommended to establish a codebook that is more suitable for quantitative research, instead of basing this completely on qualitative research.
References
Alliance for Audited Media. (2012). AAM: Total circ for US newspapers. Retrieved from http://archive.fo/hmbTH#selection-17887.0-17887.9
Ammons, D. N., King, J. C., & Yeric, J. L. (1988). Unapproved imagemakers: Political cartoonists' topic selection, objectives and perceived restrictions. Newspaper Research
Journal, 9(3), 79-90. https://doi.org/10.1177/073953298800900308
Bal, A. S., Pitt, L., Berthon, P., & DesAutels, P. (2009). Caricatures, cartoons, spoofs and satires: political brands as butts. Journal of Public Affairs, 9(4), 229-237. doi: 10.1002/pa.334
Baumgartner, J. C. (2008). Polls and elections: editorial cartoons 2.0: The effects of digital political satire on Presidential candidate evaluations. Presidential Studies Quarterly,
38(4), 735-758. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-5705.2008.02675.x
Best, J. J. (1986). Editorial cartoonists: A descriptive survey. Newspaper Research Journal,
7(2), 29-37. https://doi.org/10.1177/07395329860070020
Calogero, R. M., & Mullen, B. (2008). About face: Facial prominence of George W. Bush in political cartoons as a function of war. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(1), 107-116. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.12.007
Carroll, N. (1996). A note on film metaphor. Journal of pragmatics, 26(6), 809-822. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(96)00021-5
CNBC. (2015). Are red or blue states better job creators?. Retrieved from
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/13/are-red-or-blue-states-better-job-creators.html Conners, J. L. (1998). Hussein as Enemy The Persian GulfWar in Political Cartoons. The
Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 3(3), 96-114. https://doi.org/10.1177
Conners, J. L. (2005). Visual Representations of the 2004 Presidential Campaign Political Cartoons and Popular Culture References. American Behavioral Scientist, 49(3), 479- 487. doi: 10.1177/0002764205280920
Danjoux, I. (2007). Reconsidering the decline of the editorial cartoon. PS: Political Science &
Politics, 40(2), 245-248. doi: 10.1017/S1049096507070370
De Swert, K. (2012). Calculating inter-coder reliability in media content analysis using
Krippendorff’s Alpha [Manual]. Retrieved from http://www.polcomm.org/wp-
content/uploads/ICR01022012.pdf
Diamond, M. (2002). No laughing matter: Post-September 11 political cartoons in Arab/Muslim newspapers. Political Communication, 19(2), 251-272. doi: 10.1080/10584600252907470
Duus, P. (2001). Presidential address: weapons of the weak, weapons of the strong—the development of the Japanese political cartoon. The Journal of Asian Studies, 60(4), 965-997. https://doi.org/10.2307/2700017
Edwards, J. L. (1997). Political cartoons in the 1988 presidential campaign: Image,
metaphor, and narrative. New York, NY: Garland Publishing.
Edwards, R. (1999). Politics as social history: Political cartoons in the Gilded Age. OAH
Magazine of History, 13(4), 11-15. doi: 10.1093/maghis/13.4.11
Edwards, J. L. (2001). Running in the shadows in campaign 2000: Candidate metaphors in editorial cartoons. American Behavioral Scientist, 44(12), 2140-2151. https://doi. org/10.1177/00027640121958249
Edwards, J. L. (2007). Drawing politics in pink and blue. PS: Political Science & Politics,
40(2), 249-253. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096507070382
Fischer, R. A. (1986). Oddity, Icon, Challenge: The Statue of Liberty in American Cartoon Art, 1879‐ 1986. The Journal of American Culture, 9(4), 63-81. doi: 10.1111/j.1542- 734X.1986.0904_63.x
FiveThirtyEight. (2016). Who will win the presidency?. Retrieved from
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo
Forceville, C. (1994). Pictorial metaphor in advertisements. Metaphor and Symbol, 9(1), 1-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms0901_1
Forceville, C. (1995). IBM is a tuning fork: Degrees of freedom in the interpretation of pictorial metaphors. Poetics, 23(3), 189-218. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304- 422X(94)00027-4
Fox News. (2015). Fox News Digital. Retrieved from http://advertise.foxnews.com/#audience -engagement
Fuller, M. J., & Pribble, D. A. (1982). Cartooning: Drawing the line in art and social studies. Art Education, 35(1), 9-11. doi: 10.2307/3192558
Gabszewicz, J. J., Laussel, D., & Sonnac, N. (2002). Press advertising and the political differentiation of newspapers. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 4(3), 317-334. doi: 10.1111/1467-9779.00100
Greenberg, J. (2002). Framing and temporality in political cartoons: A critical analysis of ` visual news discourse. The Canadian Review of Sociology, 39(2), 181-198. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-618X.2002.tb00616.x
Gombrich, E. H. J. (1963). Meditations on a hobby horse and other essays on the theory of
art. London, England: Phaidon Press
Huffpost Pollster. (n.d.). Donald Trump Favorable Rating. Retrieved from
Jensen, T. (2006). The Muhammad Cartoon Crisis. Japanese Religions, 31(2), 83-95. Retrieved from http://www.japanese-religions.jp/
Keane, D. (2008). Cartoon Violence and Freedom of Expression. Human Rights Quarterly,
30(4), 845-875. https://doi.org/10.1353/hrq.0.0031
Kirschen, Y. (2010). Memetics and the Viral Spread of Antisemitism through “Coded
Images” in Political Cartoons. In C. A. Small (Ed.), The Yale papers: Antisemitism in
comparative perspective (pp. 435-456). Retrieved from https://isgap.org/
Kosterman, R., & Feshbach, S. (1989). Toward a measure of patriotic and nationalistic attitudes. Political psychology, 10(2), 257-274. doi: 10.2307/3791647
Kropman, R. (2015). Kurt Westergaard: Ik wil niemand meer haten. Retrieved from
https://www.trouw.nl/home/kurt-westergaard-ik-wil-niemand-meer-haten~a81ede7a/ Lacity, M., & Rudramuniyaiah, P. S. (2009). Funny business: public opinion of outsourcing and offshoring as reflected in US and Indian political cartoons. Communications of the
Association for Information Systems, 24(1), 200-224. Retrieved from http://aisel.ais
net.org/cais/
Lamb, C. (1996). Perceptions of cartoonists and editors about cartoons. Newspaper Research
Journal, 17(3-4), 105-119. https://doi.org/10.1177/073953299601700309
Levendusky, M. S., & Pope, J. C. (2011). Red states vs. blue states going beyond the mean. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(2), 227-248. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfr002
Marcus, A. (2003). Icons, symbols, and signs: Visible languages to facilitate communication. Interactions, 10(3), 37-43. doi: 10.1145/769759.769774
McManus, J. (1995). A market‐ based model of news production. Communication Theory,
5(4), 301-338. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.1995.tb00113.x
Medhurst, M. J., & DeSousa, M. A. (1981). Political cartoons as rhetorical form: A taxonomy of graphic discourse. Communications Monographs, 48(3), 197-236. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/03637758109376059
Modood, T. (2006). The liberal dilemma: integration or vilification?. International Migration,
44(5), 4-7. Retrieved from https://www.iom.int/international-migration-journal
Morris, R. (1993). Visual rhetoric in political cartoons: A structuralist approach. Metaphor
and symbol, 8(3), 195-210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms0803_5
National Archives and Records Administration. (n.d.). Historical Election Results. Retrieved from https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/historical.html Olivola, C. Y., & Todorov, A. (2010). Elected in 100 milliseconds: Appearance-based trait inferences and voting. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 34(2), 83-110. doi: 10.100 7/s10919-009-0082-1
Pew Reserch Center. (2016). Ideological Placement of Each Source’s Audience. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/pj_14-10-21_mediapolarization-08-2/
Pew Reserch Center. (2016). Low Marks for Major Players in 2016 Election – Including the
Winner: Retrieved from http://www.people-press.org/2016/11/21/low-marks-for-
major- players-in-2016-election-including-the-winner/0_1-2/
Phiddian, R. A., & Manning, H. R. (2004, October). Censorship and the political cartoonist. Presented at the Australasian Political Studies Association Conference 2004.
Retrieved from http://dspace2.flinders.edu.au/xmlui/bitstream/handle/2328/ 13071/2004053479.pdf?sequence=1
Piamonte, D. P. T., Abeysekera, J. D., & Ohlsson, K. (2001). Understanding small graphical symbols: a cross-cultural study. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 27(6), 399-404. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0169-8141(01)00007-5
Refaie, E. E. (2003). Understanding visual metaphor: The example of newspaper cartoons. Visual communication, 2(1), 75-95. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470357 203002001755
Refaie, E. E. (2009). Multiliteracies: how readers interpret political cartoons. Visual
Communication, 8(2), 181-205. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470357209102113
Riffe, D., Sneed, D., & Van Ommeren, R. L. (1985). Behind the editorial page cartoon. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 62(2), 378-450. https://doi.org/10.
1177/107769908506200223
Riffe, D., Sneed, D., & Van Ommeren, R. L. (1987). Deciding the limits of taste in editorial cartooning. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 64, 607-610.
https://doi.org/10.1177/107769908706400252
Riggio, H. R., & Riggio, R. E. (2010). Appearance-based trait inferences and voting: Evolutionary roots and implications for leadership. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior,
34(2), 119-125. doi: 10.1007/s10919-009-0083-0
Rodriguez, L., & Dimitrova, D. V. (2011). The levels of visual framing. Journal of Visual
Literacy, 30(1), 48-65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23796529.2011.11674684
Ryfe, D. M. (2006). The Nature of News Rules, Political Communication, 23(2), 203-214, doi: 10.1080/10584600600629810
Shepard, A. C. (1994). Open season on editorial cartoonists?. American Journalism Review,
16(10), 15-16. Retrieved from http://ajr.org/
Shoemaker P. J., & Reese S. D. (1996). Mediating the message. Theories of influences on
mass media content. Retrieved from https://journalism.utexas.edu/sites/default
/files/sites/journalism.utexas.edu/files/attachments/reese/mediating-the-message.pdf Steinbrink, J. E., & Bliss, D. (1988). Using political cartoons to teach thinking skills. The
Social Studies, 79(5), 217-220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1945.11019920
Stokes, S. (2002). Visual literacy in teaching and learning: A literature perspective. Electronic Journal for the Integration of technology in Education, 1(1), 10-19. Retrieved from
Stroud, N. J. (2010). Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal of communication,
60(3), 556-576. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01497.x
Sturken, M., & Cartwright, L. (2003). Practices of looking. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Sullivan, J. L., Fried, A., & Dietz, M. G. (1992). Patriotism, politics, and the presidential election of 1988. American Journal of Political Science, 36(1), 200-234. doi:10.2307/ 2111430
Tannenbaum, P. H. (1955). The indexing process in communication. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 19(3), 292-302. https://doi.org/10.1086/266573
United States Census Bureau. (n.d.). Census Regions and Divisions of the United States [map]. Retrieved from https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/maps-
data/maps/reference/us_regdiv.pdf
Werner, W. (2006). Reading pictures of people. The social studies curriculum: Purposes, problems, and possibilities. In E. W. Ross (Ed.), The Social Studies Curriculum:
Purposes, Problems, and Possibilities (pp. 217-239). Retrieved from http://www.suny
Appendix A
Tabel 1. Average news outlet circulation numbers (per week) and their regular cartoonists
Newspaper State Average circulation per week
Regular cartoonist If no regular cartoonist, what do they feature? Los Angeles
Times
California (West) M-F = 641,369 - David Horsey
San Jose Mercury News
California (West) M-F = 529,999 A slideshow of cartoons covering one subject
The Sacremento Bee
California (West) M-F = 192,199 - Jack Ohman
The Salt Lake Tribute
Utah (West) M-F = 102,691 - Pat Bagley
Deseret News Utah (West) M-F = 91,639 They featured cartoons from one of these four
cartoonists/sources:
- Dana Summers (Tribute content agency) - Walt Handelsman (New Orleans Advocate) - H Payne (Detroit local news)
- Lisa Benson (Washington Post) - Nick Anderson (Houston Chronical
Standard-Examiner
Utah (West) M-F = 55,098 Features no cartoons
Chicago Tribune
Chicago Sun-Times
Illinois (Midwest) M-F = 432,455 - Jack Higgins
Chicago Daily Harald
Illinois (Midwest) M-F = 96,073 They featured cartoons from one of these four cartoonists/sources:
- Matt Davies (Newsday)
- Jeff Danziger (Washington Post) - Rob Rogers (Post-Gazette) - Jeff Stahler (GoComics)
- Jerry Holbert (Boston Hearald) - Robert Ariail (The State) The Wichita
Eagle
Kansas (Midwest) M-F = 63,673 - Richard Crowson
The Topeka
Capital-Journal
Kansas (Midwest) M-F = 32,819 - Greg Kearney
The Hutchinson News
Kansas (Midwest) M-F = 30,103 Features no cartoons
Baltimore Sun Maryland (South) M-F = 152,397 - Kal Frederick
News-Post
Maryland (South) M-Sat = 30,367 They featured cartoons from one of these four cartoonists/sources:
- R. J. Matson (Caglecartoons) - Taylor Jones (Caglecartoons) - Milt Priggee (Caglecartoons)
- Adam Zyglis (Caglecartoons) - Bob Englehart (Caglecartoons) - Sean Delonas (Caglecartoons) - John Cole (Times Tribune Scronton) - David Fitzimmons (The Arizona Star) - Steve Sack (Star Tribune)
The Capital Maryland (South) M-Sat = 32,121 - Eric Smith Dellas
Morning News
Texas (South) M-F = 410,130 Features no cartoons
Houston Chronicle
Texas (South) M-F = 325,814 - Nick Anderson
San Antonio Express-news Texas (South) M-F = 137,059 New York Times National M-F = 1,613,865 - Patrick Chappatte
Fox News National M-Sun = 6,500,000 Features cartoons from Cagle Cartoons
Note. The circulation numbers are based on an average circulation per week, calculated over a six-month period except for the circulation
Appendix B Codebook.
Trump Cartoons
Q1 What is the ID number of the cartoon?
Q43 What is the coders ID? Coder 1 Coder 2
- - - Part 1
Q2 The next questions are about Trumps face in the cartoon. Therefore, it is necessary that his face is visible in the cartoon. Is Trumps face visible in the cartoon?
Yes, Trumps face is visible in the cartoon No, Trumps face is not visible in the cartoon
Condition: No, Trumps face is not visi... Is Selected. Skip To: The next questions are about the whol....
Q3 What is the dominant shape of his face? More round
Not round nor angular More angular
Side profile
Other ____________________ Unknown
Q4 How is his jaw shaped?
With a sharp angle With a normal angle With a soft angle
Other ____________________ Unknown
Q5 How big is his nose compared to the rest of his face? Use the small or large option only when the nose is excessively large or small.
None to barely no nose Normal nose
Excessively large nose compared to the rest of the face Other ____________________
Unknown
Q6 Where are his cheekbones positioned?
1. High cheekbone = starts at the top or above the ear and goes to the tip of the nose
2. Normal cheekbone = starts between the top and middle of the ear and goes to the upper lip corner
3. Low cheekbone = starts at the middle of the ear or lower and goes to the upper lip corner or lower High Normal Low Other ____________________ Unknown - - - Part 2
Q34 The next questions are about the whole depiction of Trump (not only his face) in comparison to the rest of the cartoon.
Q8 Compared to the rest of the cartoon: is Trump drawn with obvious thicker lines than anything else in the cartoon?
Yes No
Trump is the only thing drawn in the cartoon Unknown
Q9 Compared to other people depicted in the cartoon: is Trump portrayed as the biggest person in size?
Yes No
There are no other people depicted in the cartoon besides Trump Unknown
- - - Part 3
Q11 The next questions are about the size and shape of physical features of Trump in the cartoon.
Q12 Trumps head in the cartoon is: Larger than his torso
More or less the same size as his torso Smaller than his torso
Other ____________________ Unknown
Q13 Trumps forehead in the cartoon is:
High: takes up half or more of his face Normal
Small: almost none to no forehead Other ____________________ Unknown
Q14 Trumps chin in the cartoon is:
Big: excessively large compared the rest of the face Normal
Small: almost none to no chin Other ____________________ Unknown
Q38 Trumps chin in the cartoon is: Angular: hard angle Normal: soft angle Soft: not angular at all
Other ____________________ Unknown
Q15 The shape of Trumps eyes in the cartoon is: Angular
Normal Round
Eyes are closed
Other ____________________ Unknown
Q16 The size of Trumps lips in the cartoon is: Thin: almost none to no lips Normal
Big: Exceptional big lips
Other ____________________ Unknown
Q45 Are Trumps lips pursed together? Yes
No Unknown
Q7 Has Trump been made more strong/muscular? Yes
No Unknown
Q44 Is there any other feature that has been significantly enlarged or reduced? Yes ____________________
No
- - - Part 4
Q17 The next questions are about the use of patriotic symbols in the cartoon.
Q18 Are any of the next American patriotic symbols featured in the cartoon? More than one option can be selected.- Uncle Sam- The American Eagle- The American Flag- The Statue of Liberty
Yes, Uncle Sam
Yes, The American Eagle Yes, The American Flag Yes, The Statue of Liberty
Yes, there is an American patriotic symbol is featured in the cartoon, but it's a different one then the once mentioned above.
Display This Question:
If Are any of the next American patriotic symbols featured in the cartoon? More than one option can... Yes, Uncle Sam Is Selected
Q19 How is Uncle Sam represented?
In a positive way (strong, whole, big, smiling)
In a neutral way (a simple representation or as background) In a negative way (broken, fallen, with ruptures, crying)
Display This Question:
If Are any of the next American patriotic symbols featured in the cartoon? More than one option can... Yes, The American Eagle Is Selected
Q20 How is the The American Eagle represented? In a positive way (strong, whole, big, smiling)
In a neutral way (a simple representation or as background) In a negative way (broken, fallen, with ruptures, crying)
Display This Question:
If Are any of the next American patriotic symbols featured in the cartoon? More than one option can... Yes, The American Flag Is Selected
Q21 How is the American Flag represented?
In a positive way (strong, whole, big, smiling)
In a neutral way (a simple representation or as background) In a negative way (broken, fallen, with ruptures, crying)
Display This Question:
If Are any of the next American patriotic symbols featured in the cartoon? More than one option can... Yes, The Statue of Liberty Is Selected
Q22 How is The Statue of Liberty represented?
In a positive way (strong, whole, big, smiling)
In a neutral way (a simple representation or as background) In a negative way (broken, fallen, with ruptures, crying)
If Are any of the next American patriotic symbols featured in the cartoon? More than one option can... Yes, there is an American patriotic symbol is featured in the cartoon, but it's a different one then the once mentioned above. Is Selected
Q39 What patriotic symbol other than the American Flag, American Eagle, Uncle Sam and the Statue of Liberty, has been featured in the cartoon?
Display This Question:
If Are any of the next American patriotic symbols featured in the cartoon? More than one option can... Yes, there is an American patriotic symbol is featured in the cartoon, but it's a different one then the once mentioned above. Is Selected
Q40 How is this patriotic symbol represented?
In a positive way (strong, whole, big, smiling)
In a neutral way (a simple representation or as background) In a negative way (broken, fallen, with ruptures, crying)
- - - Part 5
Q36 The next questions are about visual metaphors. The term visual metaphor means that two or more visual signs (either living things or material things) together create something meaningful. There are three types of visual metaphors which are:
1: Replacement: one object is replaced by another.
2: Fusion: when two objects are fused into one hybrid visual object.
3: Juxtaposition: when objects are placed close to each other to make the connection between them clear.
Q23 Is one of these types of visual metaphor represented in the cartoon? Yes
No
Display This Question:
If Is one of these types of visual metaphor represented in the cartoon? Yes Is Selected
Q24 Which of the three types of visual fusion (replacement, fusion or juxtaposition) are represented in the visual metaphor in the cartoon?
Replacement Fusion Juxtaposition
A combination of the three
Display This Question:
If Which of the three types of visual fusion (replacement, fusion or juxtaposition) are represented in the visual metaphor in the cartoon? A combination of the three Is Selected Q37 Since there is more than one type of visual metaphor, which types are represented? Replacement
Fusion Juxtaposition
Q25 Is Trump part of the metaphor? Yes
No
Condition: No Is Selected. Skip To: Looking at the cartoon, is there any ....
Q46 Is one of the following options a part of the metaphor: A person
A fictive character An animal
A physical object A building
Something from nature Something else
Unknown
Condition: Unknown Is Selected. Skip To: Looking at the cartoon, is there anyt....
