Trump's Twiplomacy - A New Diplomatic Norm?

Trump’s Twiplomacy: A New

Diplomatic Norm?

Kajsa Hughes

Two-year Political Science MA programme in Global Politics and Societal Change Dept. of Global Political Studies

Course: Political Science Master’s thesis ST631L (30 credits) Thesis submitted: Summer, 2020

1

Abstract

This study examined how Trump frames various countries and their leaders and whether the framing changes from different factors. It also observed whether foreign leaders were following the same path as Trump in their diplomatic communication and interaction on Twitter. This was to contribute more knowledge that connects global politics with social media to see if changes of frames through Twitter caused any global political consequences. Theories including realist constructivism and framing theory, along with concepts of social norms, political context, events, and enemy images, were applied to the study. Using directed content analysis, together with longitudinal and comparative elements, the findings showed a separation between Trump’s and the other leaders’ tweets. Almost all tweets were connected to the concepts, and various

techniques of framing were identified in tweets from most leaders. However, Trump’s informal, disdain, and dramatics in his tweets have distanced himself from the rest of the leaders’ posts. Although a couple of leaders’ attempt to be hostile towards Trump and the U.S. in their tweets, they were still formal. It shows that not only is Trump’s Twiplomacy a reflection of American superpower forcefulness, but also a unique form that the rest choose to ignore.

Keywords: framing, social norms, Trump, Twiplomacy, Twitter, Word count: 21,979

2

Table of Contents

1. Introduction………...5

1.1 Research Question and Aim………..7

1.2 Research Contribution………..….9

1.3 Relevance to Political Science and Global Politics……….10

1.4 Outline of Thesis………...10

2. Background……….12

2.1 The U.S. as a Superpower and its Negotiating Behavior….…………....12

2.2 Donald J. Trump and His Presidential Behavior……….13

3. Literature Review………16

3.1 Digital Diplomacy Literature………...16

3.2 Framing Literature………...19

3.3 Explanatory Model for Political Agenda and Power Relations…………20

4. Theoretical Framework………...23

4.1 Realist Constructivism as an Approach..……...………..23

4.2 Framing Theory………...24

4.3 Conceptual Framework………..…..26

5. Methodology………...30

5.1 Content Analysis……….…30

3

5.3 Data Collection………..…………..31

5.3.1 Primary Sources………32

5.3.2 Additional Material………...………33

5.4 Data Analysis and Interpretation………..……...33

6. Findings………...36

6.1 Overview……….36

6.2 Trump’s Twitter Findings ………..……….36

6.2.1 Language………...………36

6.2.2 Features..………...………41

6.2.3 Trump’s Framed Groups………...………41

6.2.3.1 Friendlies..……….42

6.2.3.2 Friendlies with Negative Tweets………...…………43

6.2.3.3 Mixed Relationships………..………45

6.2.3.4 Non-Friendlies with Positive Tweets………47

6.2.3.5 Non-Friendlies………..………50

6.3 Findings from Foreign Leaders’ Tweets………..……51

6.3.1 Friendlies………...51

6.3.2 Mixed Relationships………..59

6.3.3 Non-Friendlies……….………..63

6.3.4 Leaders without Twitter……….68

7. Analysis………...70

7.1 Political Context………..70

7.2 Events………..71

7.3 Enemy Images………...………...73

7.4 Change in Social Norms?...74

4

7.6 Realist Constructivism Revealed in Tweets...80

8. Conclusion………...82

8.1 Summary…..………82

8.2 Evaluation…………..………..83

8.3 Interpretation……….……….………….83

9. Bibliography………....…85

9.1 Literature……….85

9.2 Tweets……….98

5

1. Introduction

Communication is the backbone of the postmodern political society, from face-to-face

conversations, to international news coverage, to online posts by all types of actors. No matter the means, communication has always contributed to “shaping the character and scope of their society, its economic life, politics and culture.” (Lorimer & Scannell, 1994: 1). Moreover, communication is an important key within global politics to manage relations between countries, as it is recognized as “the established method of influencing the decisions and behaviour of foreign governments and peoples through dialogue, negotiation, and other measures short of war or violence” (Freeman & Marks, 2016). It is the communication between two states to arrange global political practices such as diplomacy and foreign policy. This includes goals, agreements, or adjustments, by using various tactics and strategies to accomplish them (ibid). Such progress between political actors are usually done behind closed doors, later for the results to be revealed to the public through various mediums.

Traditionally, diplomacy is based on person-to person communication between diplomats sent by political leaders to promote the interests of their nation-states and to make compromises. While it mainly is bilateral, it can even be done on a multilateral level, in which international political actors and institutions would hold conferences and summits to discuss their interests (Verrekia, 2017: 12). The goal of diplomatic relations is to strengthen nation-states,

organizations and institutions, and even to resolve issues without using force or causing

resentment, as means to preserve peace. However, there are times in which disputes and coercive threats are involved in diplomatic negotiations, leading to ultimatums, disrupting alliances, and even war. However, diplomacy overall strives for sustainable peace through cooperation and nonviolent resolution between nation-states (Freeman & Marks, 2016).

The way to keep peaceful negotiations is through traditional diplomatic language.

Researchers such as Simunjak and Caliandro (2019) have outlined the ways such a language and communication of political actors should be kept. These ways include; being courteous, marked by respect for and consideration of others, constructive and positive, balanced and moderate, vague and open to interpretations, and deliberate, masterful, carefully and prudently drawn up. They additionally address the avoidance of dramatic communication, as well as superior,

6

indifferent, controlling, or offensive behavior towards other actors, including no insults, uncivil wording, naming, and shaming (ibid, 2019: 14). Moreover, mass media, such as television, radio, and news articles has played an informative role for the public by presenting traditional

diplomatic communication and behavior as friendly and polite, for example, showing foreign leaders shaking hands or having calm press conferences (Gilboa, 2001). Nowadays, however, factors such as new technologies and influential actors using them have altered such

communication on media, affecting diplomatic behavior (Archetti, 2011: 182-183).

Media has significantly changed over time, since the start of the Internet, and later on with the change from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0. For instance, with the update of the World Wide Web, its new technological applications have created more participatory and collaborated platforms to produce content, also known as user-generated content (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010: 60-61). This content has led to social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc., which are online infrastructures that allow user-generated content to be created and exchanged by individuals. Moreover, the increase of online access through new technologies like portable computers and smartphones has changed the way various populations access entertainment and information. Not only have these new inventions increased the networks and capacities of human knowledge, but they have additionally changed the norm – meaning the accepted standard

behavior – of what is private versus public (van Dijck, 2013). van Dijck explains further about the changed norm, stating “patterns of behavior that traditionally existed in offline (physical) sociality are increasingly mixed with social and sociotechnical norms created in an offline environment, taking on a new dimensionality.” (van Dijck, 2013: 19). This new form of online sociality, especially through Twitter – a social media platform for individuals to post micro-blogs – has led to more types of speakers and interactions that have both positive and negative effects, especially within the diplomatic sphere of how political actors engage in online public

7

1.1 Research Question and Aim

Twiplomacy has become a growing diplomatic sensation through which politicians are able to reach both domestic and foreign audiences through an increasingly direct interaction (Hughes, 2020). This can benefit political actors, institutions, organizations, and even citizens to engage in various views, interests, and perspectives on specific policy issues and other discussions

(Duncombe, 2018: 93). The use of Twitter by political actors has become a new phenomenon, which has led to new studies by scholars such as Constance Duncombe (2019), and Radhika Chhabra (2020) who focus on the positive results of political actors moving towards an online medium. However, there is a lack of research on the negative consequences of political actors’ Twitter behavior. Moreover, as scholars like Bridget Verrekia (2017) additionally trace the evolution of diplomacy through online platforms and how it benefits themselves as political actors, there is lack of investigation of Twiplomacy’s vivid effects on relations between countries. This presents an issue in which a political actor may cause conflict from an online post, notably when the President of the United States (U.S.), Donald J. Trump, a much-known user of Twitter, erratically posts his comments and opinions of other national leaders, both positive and negative (Simunjak & Caliandro, 2019: 15). Furthermore, Trump’s language in his tweets contradict the traditional diplomatic communication norm with name-calling, threats, and dramatic comments. An example of this includes Trump’s frequent name-calling of North Korea’s leader Kim Jong Un as “Little Rocket Man”. In other words, he tends to offend and defame others as a tactic to make him look competent (Kristiansen and Kaussler 2018: 29, in Özdan, 2020). Such an example demonstrates how Twiplomacy could cause tensions between countries rather than amities. This presents the central research question:

“Is President Trump altering the norm of traditional Twiplomacy?”

In other words, the thesis speculates that Trump’s alternative way of communication through Twitter may cause other foreign leaders to follow the same path in such diplomatic

8

There is existing literature that focuses on Trump’s behavior and rhetoric on Twitter, but not on the way he frames other foreign leaders and vice versa, as well as any consequences. These issues listed present a large research gap, which this study means to fill. Therefore, the aim of this study is to examine how Trump frames various countries and their leaders and whether the framing changes from different factors. It will also observe whether foreign leaders are following the same path as Trump in their diplomatic communication and interaction on Twitter. In

addition, it will further examine whether any changed frames of a country and/or its leader has led to diplomatic consequences.

The paper argues that Trump’s tweets and his framings of other foreign leaders and countries are a combination of his narcissistic personality along with an extreme version of American forceful foreign policy, approaching foreign leaders as if it were the hegemon of a unipolar system that attempts to coerce other countries to follow American principles. It further argues that foreign leaders of major powers that Trump has framed negatively, has so far led to minor conflicts in which most foreign leaders discount his tweets and proceed to continue with traditional diplomatic communication.

The research uses the single case study design with comparative elements, meaning that the study compares Trump’s framings as a concept and engagements with a number of countries, based on Trump’s relations with certain foreign leaders, and how he comments about them in his posts. Moreover, the research additionally includes longitudinal elements. This way, the study grasps an in-depth research analysis of a specific phenomenon over time with different types of data. It attempts to connect certain developments of foreign policies and summits to Trump’s portrayal of countries and foreign leaders involved. It also observes Twitter communication from other national leaders, as well as responses from Trump’s tweets to review any change in their diplomatic communication. The methodology chapter will discuss specifically the different elements briefly mentioned in this section.

The research uses a combined International Relations (IR) theory, realist constructivism, as a theoretical lens, as well as framing theory, including related concepts such as social norms, political context, events, and enemy images. Data used includes tweets from Trump, and national leaders from the listed countries: Germany, Canada, France, Russia, North Korea, China, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Mexico, the United Kingdom (U.K.), Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Japan, and

9

India. Qualitative content analysis is used to categorize and analyze the Twitter posts. Additional data from other mediums is collected to represent those leaders who do not use Twitter, to further support the findings. This allows us to understand possible change in diplomatic communication, and the effects of Trump’s framing of other national leaders.

1.2 Research Contribution

This research focuses on a relatively new topic, as there has not been much academic attention directed towards the effectiveness of Twitter being used as a political tool, until Trump’s

presidential campaign in the 2016 election and consequently his presidency. Findings of how any new change in diplomacy through framing via Twitter could academically contribute by further explaining power relations – meaning the political forces that affect the hegemonic discourse between states (Daldal, 2014: 152) – through social media platforms, and more specifically on Twiplomacy.

The thesis argues that if one political actor of a superpower can gradually change an international diplomatic norm through social media communication, it will most likely increase and extended throughout other international elite actors and areas. Moreover, the study would also show how events and political contexts can have an effect through social media, leading to possible change in relations. Such factors between states and its leaders can change the

perception of each other and therefore present another frame to the public, which could possibly lead to negative consequences. Publicly framing a national leader could lead to threats, new allies, and the worst being war. Thus, the concept of Twiplomacy requires much more academic and public attention to fully understand more modernized forms of communication between political actors, as well as the effects of it.

10

1.3 Relevance to Political Science and Global Politics

Although there is much debate about defining politics and political science, it is mainly agreed that it focuses on “the way power is accumulated, used and controlled in modern society” (Guild & Palmer, 1968: 6 in Sharma & Sharma, 2000: 4). Social media is thus an increasingly used tool for those political actors who want to communicate to a wider audience in order to gain or control political, social, and economic power (Hughes, 2020). This is performed through public engagement of numerous political movements, issues, and summits/conferences to gain positive public opinion (Duncombe, 2018: 93). By the use of Twitter, political leaders can communicate directly to the public, rather than through news outlets to post about their engagements.

(Simunjak & Caliandro, 2019: 15).

Moreover, Kaarbo and Ray (2010) define global politics as “the relations among different actors in the world, the characteristics of those relations, and their consequences. It also has to do with the nature of those actors, how they have changed over time, and how their interactions have changed over time” (2010: 3). This is precisely what the study is attempting to examine, by monitoring any changes in power relations, from when Trump took office till the end of 2019, based on all leaders’ Twitter framings of others. Furthermore, it studies whether Trump’s specific Twitter behavior is powerful enough for other leaders to be influenced to the same manner, which could also result in altered relations between countries. Finally, connecting theories and concepts related to IR and political science to social media use, demonstrates that more modernized mediums can also be in the realm of political science.

1.4 Outline of Thesis

After this introduction chapter, there will be a background chapter, which focuses on providing historical and conceptual information required for an overall understanding of the factors and actors of the case study. This will be followed by aliterature review to examine previous research related to the study’s topic. Afterwards, a theoretical framework is presented by including the important theories and concepts needed for observing various frames and changes

11

from powerful actors worldwide. The next chapter describes the methodology of this thesis, along with reliability and validity reflections. It will also include an outline of the data collection, its interpretation, and general advantages and limitations. The sixth chapter provides the analysis findings, followed by a discussion chapter which connects the findings to the theoretical and conceptual framework. Lastly, the eighth and final chapter concludes the entire study.

12

2. Background

2.1 The U.S. as a Superpower and its Negotiating Behavior

Throughout the history of the U.S., the country has formed a ‘world leader’ attitude. It from rebelling from Britain’s monarchy into a new ‘free’ republic, to embracing the riches from free trade domestically and internationally, later leading to an industrial boost for an economy; rejecting ‘old world’ European diplomacy; and its mission to spread American influence across the globe after the Great War to advocate peace and good-doing based on Woodrow Wilson’s promotion of America’s role of world leader. Such assumed values and ideas have determined today’s American foreign policy approach, striving to shape events and areas based on their principles (Herring, 2008: 2-3). The ideological pragmatism initially was offsetting for the international public, leading the country towards unilateralism (isolationism). This eventually created an attitude or moral superiority, patriotism, and sensitivity towards foreign threats during the world wars (ibid: 5-7). Moreover, it has always been somewhat hostile towards international politics and institutions, deriving from its separation of the European political regime. This had also an effect on its foreign policy by exploiting their rivals for their own sole interests (ibid: 8-9).

Even though relations between powers are hypothetically seen as a multipolar system or uni-multipolar system – meaning the U.S. as the superpower, but still requiring other major powers such as Germany, China, France, Brazil, etc. to combine action for international issues – the U.S. hypothetically prefers a unipolar system in which it would be the hegemon, and

therefore its officials tend to behave as if it were, lecturing other countries to follow American practices and standards (Huntington, 1999: 36). However, the other major powers prefer a collective multipolar system leading to less pressures and coercions of more powerful countries (ibid: 37). When countries refuse to be coerced by the U.S., the country attempts to use economic sanctions and at the worst case, military interventions such as launched bombings or missile attacks, which could lead to an international backlash. Economic sanctions work when other

13

countries support them, otherwise they do not use them in which they become symbols of American weakness (ibid: 39).

This can also be reflected onto their diplomatic behavior, as it is claimed that U.S.

negotiators and diplomats are “forceful, explicit, legalistic, urgent, and results-oriented”, with the regard that the U.S. is a world hegemon (Quinney, 2002: 1). Moreover, cultural and structural factors play a part in their negotiating behavior, in which their language is blunt and related to American culture such as “labor relations, Christian theology, and sport”, while also setting various pressures such as earlier deadlines and exerting different resources to show the benefits of agreeing with the U.S. and the costs of not reaching an agreement with them (ibid).

The examples provided in this section plays a large role in the diplomatic behavior of American political actors such as President Trump. Tougher coercion with various countries for American interests has somewhat always occurred during the country’s existence (Huntington, 1999; Art, 2003). Therefore, framings of various national leaders through Twitter for example, might be one version of American diplomatic forcefulness when they are not in accordance with American principles.

2.2 Donald J. Trump and His Presidential Behavior

Various researchers such as Eugene B. Kogan, Ilias Kapoutsis and Roger Volkema, and Asaf Siniver and Christopher Featherstone have studied Trump’s ways of negotiation, his personality traits, and grounds for his decision-making. Not only have psychologists suggested that he could have a narcissistic personality, a large number of accounts from his associates, adversaries, and third-party observers like journalists report that his behavior falls into the category of

hypercompetitive, demonstrating “heightened worth fluctuating with underlying low self-esteem, high levels of neuroticism, decreased need for others, and interest in admiration and recognition from others” (Kapoutsis & Volkema, 2019: 48-49). Moreover, his background as a millionaire from Manhattan allowed him differentiate himself from other Republican candidates during the 2016 election, as well as making numerous controversial and politically incorrect

14

statements which made him seem like a “hard-core toughie” and relatable to the public (ibid: 50, 56).

This behavior is also seen in his ways of negotiating, in which Eugene B. Kogan (2019) describes Trump’s style:

First, Trump is an observer: he begins a negotiation with an assessment of his

counterparts’ strengths and vulnerabilities. Second, he is a performer: he is perennially aware of – and seeks – media attention in order to use publicity to maximize his leverage in a negotiation. Third, he is a controller: his top-down leadership style aims for

bureaucracy-free efficiency. Finally, he is a disrupter: gut-driven, action-oriented, and risk-tolerant, he draws strength from adversity. (ibid: 67).

Even though Kogan presents his negotiation style in a very formal manner, Trump’s behavior is much more controversial in which accounts and studies have shown that he is quick tempered, has a short attention span, and has a poor impulse control (Drezner, 2020: 384). His attempts to erode presidential constraints are worrisome, in which his psychology could possibly lead to negative consequences. Various subordinates and supporters have characterized him as if he were acting like a child, having no interests in trade organizations or policy issues, which hurts his decision-making (ibid: 386-387). Moreover, his deficit in knowledge and short attention span has led to missing out shifts in countries’ stance on an issue, breaking diplomatic protocol which disrespects foreign leaders, and constant delaying implementations of policies (ibid: 389). His emotional impulse control has led to decisions and threats such as the trade war with China or threatening to close the Mexican border, which he later was not committed to. Not only has this left American citizens to distrust him, but also foreign leaders to discount many of his threats (ibid: 390). Trump’s behavior has led to the inability to negotiate, bargain, settle disputes, and other deals, which in turn has impaired his presidency.

Trump’s behavior and decision-making additionally comes from a plutocratic (money-first) worldview, in which political and diplomatic issues are treated as economic endeavors or business opportunities (Siniver & Featherstone, 2020: 2). This is seen in his administration, with a cabinet of millionaires and billionaires, as well as his choice of destination of his first visit

15

being Saudi Arabia instead of the typical Mexico or Canada, due to the country’s business deals of hundreds of billions of dollars (ibid: 4-5). Moreover, his only involvement in the North Atlantic Trade Organization (NATO), is whether alliances have met the target spend of 2 per cent of their GDP on NATO. Otherwise, Trump lacks interest in other political, national security, or diplomatic issues, in addition to be confrontational and breaking international norms (ibid: 5-6). This demonstrates that his influences come from money and business deals, rather than from international policy making and collaborative efforts with other states, leading to heavy critiques for foreign leaders.

The sections in this chapter provide relevant background information, which provides an understanding of Trump’s tweets later in the analysis. The discussed factors go hand-in-hand by explaining how there is more to Trump’s tweets, as the U.S. has already demonstrated its

distinctive diplomacy, affecting different relations. The next chapter presents previous research to elaborate on specific works related to the study.

16

3. Literature Review

3.1 Digital Diplomacy Literature

For more diplomatic purposes, several works have looked at both positive and negative ways in which Twitter and social media in general have become a diplomatic tool. Bridget Verrekia’s (2017) studied the advantages and challenges of digitalization within diplomacy. By interviewing four former diplomats or individuals working for organizations that involved diplomacy, the research discusses various dynamics of digital diplomacy. This includes the change within public diplomacy, from monologue to dialogue, meaning instead of informing the public via radio, articles, and television, social media platforms allow the public to interact with the political actor (ibid: 17). Social media has also extended diplomatic networks through digital accessibility, allowing non-state actors to become more valuable and beneficial for diplomats and world leaders (ibid: 19). Additional positive factors include such new platforms and technologies to allow political actors show their activities so that public are included in such processes, as well as decreasing financial and environmental costs with less travel (ibid: 21).

However, challenges discussed involve many world leaders either not taking advantage of the new digital diplomatic communication or are misled or confused about using social media platforms like Twitter. This could possibly hurt their political representation when not extending their influence (ibid: 22-23). Another disadvantage is the threat of cybersecurity, which involves leaked information, accounts being hacked, or anonymous misinformation and disinformation, causing dangers within diplomacy (ibid: 24-25). Verrekia concludes that even with the positive effects of digital diplomacy, humans are still needed in the field for various diplomatic activities such as negotiating confidential matters.

The second study is a brief by Radhika Chhabra (2020), which also reviews positive and negative aspects of digital diplomacy, but rather the communicational aspect in which the author points out that diplomacy involves constantly continuing relations between states and non-state actors (ibid: 3). The brief mainly looks at Twitter as a communicative tool and reviews the different communicative dynamics from the platform. One of the advantages is the ease of

17

communication between actors of all levels, encouraging actors to take part in debates and discussions revolving foreign policies and decision-making processes, thus escaping bureaucratic processes (ibid: 4). Moreover, online interactions between states enhance mending relations, and develop trust and even alliance with each other. Another advantage of Twitter diplomacy is the crisis response mechanism, which effectively reduces the time to respond to crises and extend support to citizens in need of help worldwide (ibid: 5-6). The final positive aspect is image enhancement recognition, meaning how a state is recognize by others. Social media platforms are thus used as a tool to cultivate a positive state identity representation. Such image

management has the goal to be more included in diplomatic engagement with other states in order to increase their influence. It also allows individual political actors to manage a positive perception of themselves to the public (ibid: 6-7).

One disadvantage that Chhabra mentions, is that the ease of communication among political actors can undermine the effect of traditional diplomacy (ibid: 7). Moreover, tweets can often be misleading and create a vague atmosphere. Another negative aspect is the escalation of conflict, when irresponsible Twitter exchanges create a ripple effect of misunderstandings and distrust, leading to unnecessary conflict (ibid: 8). Chhabra even uses Trump’s hostile tweets about North Korea as an example. The author concludes by questioning the effectiveness of using Twitter as a tool for diplomacy.

The two works above demonstrate that there currently is a growing number of political actors turning towards social media, which produces both positive and negative outcomes. What the studies lack, however, is the examination of changes in framing from political leaders’ tweets, as well as studying any change in Twitter behavior from leaders influenced by another leader such as Trump. Therefore, this study aims to fill those gaps.

Maja Simunjak and Alessandro Caliandro (2019) pursue to understand how Trump is using Twitter for diplomatic purposes and which political actors engage with him on Twitter, leading to question whether there is a new code of diplomatic communication via social media developments (ibid: 13). The two authors outline traditional diplomatic communication and compare it to Trump’s controversial language and behavior on Twitter, leading to concerns of his presidential communication after taking office. Either his style of communication would disrupt

18

diplomatic practices and possibly cause international conflicts, or it would break the traditional diplomatic pattern of communication (ibid: 15-16).

Simunjak and Caliandro use the Digital Methods (DM) approach to manage and map out online structures, and additionally used content analysis and discourse analysis. Data collected included Trump’s tweets of the first month of his presidency using a Python software to collect and narrow down tweets, along with additional tweet from national leaders that mention Trump. The authors then discussed which national leaders Trump tweeted more about than others, and vice versa, followed by showing his twitter interactions. This resulted in 5 categories, displaying the countries that engage or not with Trump, as well as whether the conversing from each side was negative or positive, thus showing any change in formal diplomatic communication.

Simunjak and Caliandro additionally study Trump’s Twitter language. With American allies he uses courteous language, whereas for other countries he does not use positive and constructive language (ibid: 20-21). For Iran and Mexico, Trump portrays the countries unfavorably through negative connotations, along with being superior to them. However, he additionally used negative language for friendly countries like France, Australia, and Sweden due to various events. Russia has been portrayed both negatively and positively, but mainly about Trump’s personal relationship with the country, not formally like the others. However, the truthfulness appears somewhat vague when Putin’s and Trump’s statements contradict each other’s. In general, his vocabulary and phrase structure try to portray these countries with numerous problems as unsafe.

The authors conclude briefing about Trump’s controversial behavior and rhetoric on Twitter, and how it contradicts the traditional diplomatic code of communication. Moreover, the only national leader who responded in a similar manner was the President of Venezuela, the rest has never responded to Trump’s attacks. However, the authors stress that their study should be replicated in a longitudinal form. This study attempts to do so, while also using framing as an important aspect. It will additionally examine whether Twitter engagement between leaders will affect power relations, which Simunjak and Caliandro’s (2019) study lacks.

19

3.2 Framing Literature

The next two studies provide separate examples of framing. As it is generally used by the media to provide meaning and a perspective to the public, it can also change the meaning of an object, tactic, or phenomena. Muhammad Rashid and Moazzam Naseer (2019) demonstrate how two different news channels, namely Al Jazeera English and Al Arabia, can frame situations and events from the conflict between Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The two countries have gone back and forth between peaceful and hostile, and Al Jazeera tends to be critical of Saudi Arabia, while Al Arabia criticizes Qatar (ibid: 6).

Using critical discourse analysis of news reports from both channels, the authors found that Saudi Arabia is portraying Qatar as a supporter of terrorism and an ally of Iran (a rival of Saudi Arabia) through the media channel Al Arabia. Qatar, however, uses Al Jazeera, which has acquired a large audience within and outside the region (ibid: 19). Saudi Arabia considers itself to be the hegemon of the Muslim countries, and after being criticized by Al Jazeera, the medium has been blocked by Saudi and other Arab countries. However, Al Jazeera has a larger audience, and therefore has the confidence to heavily criticize Saudi Arabia’s authoritarian mannered government, their support of terrorist groups in order to contain their rivals, and their human rights violations (ibid). Thus, the results show that both countries are framing each other as an enemy through their own controlled news channel, but also showing how Qatar is ‘winning’ due to its channel’s large and wide-ranged audience.

The next piece of literature focuses on changing the perspective of the use of landmines in a multilateral summit through framing. Miguel de Larrinaga and Claire Turenne Sjolander (1998) discuss how the use of landmines during the 1997 Ottawa Process has been put on the international agenda. Those who were for landmines would frame it as a legitimate weapons of war, and how they are a necessity for state security and preservation (ibid: 130). To challenge such framing requires tackling the masculine hierarchy of authority and privilege that ignores civil society over ‘protection’ of the state, by de-politicizing landmines (ibid: 130-131). Thus, the counter discourse involved themes such as the threat to human security, showing that the primary victims of landmines are civilians (ibid: 132). Moreover, arguments additionally involved the end of the Cold War, stressing decrease of security of the state and focusing more on the security

20

of humanity (ibid: 133). Humanitarianizing landmines, by showing its consequences of its victims – mainly women and children – through words and images, allows the framing of the use of landmines as a legitimate security tool to move to an enemy towards civil society. Such

change of framing thus resulted in anti-landmine treaties and movements at the end of the Ottawa Process.

The literatures above demonstrate that framing can be used by various actors and mediums, for different purposes. It benefits this study by showing how conflicts, events, and change in politicized objects or phenomena can alter the way one frames something or someone. Framing through a social media platform, however, is a new form that has not been investigated enough. This study, therefore, attempts to investigate the same concept through a new medium, namely that of Twitter. The next chapter provides a theoretical framework that benefits the research to conceptualize the analysis along with the background information.

3.3 Explanatory Model for Political Agenda and Power Relations

This section explains how various elements can be translated into a conceptual framework to explain power relations as well as a country’s own political agenda. Johan Eriksson and Erik Noreen (2002) attempt to create an explanatory model from various concepts that form threat images and political security agenda. The concepts include identity, cognition, framing, events, political context, institutional context, and opinion, all based on perception and the hierarchical status of the country. This means that more elitist countries make more security decisions based on more amounts of perceived threat. They additionally demonstrate the model with the concepts in their figure below.

21

(ibid: 19)

The authors apply their explanatory model onto various examples such as the September 11 attacks, an event that has drastically changed American opinion and identity through

cognition to frame terrorism as priority to tackle as their political and institutional agenda (ibid: 6-19). Another example is the relations between the Baltic states and Russia, in which the event of Russia withdrawing their occupation of the Baltics has led to developing their own identity. However, their opinions and political context still show that they perceive Russia as a threat, to which their priority is become members of NATO and to continue to frame Russia as

untrustworthy (ibid: 13-16,19-20). The final example includes Sweden’s political and

institutional context, in which its various political parties represent different identities and thus opinions of what is a threat, such as the Green Party viewing military threats as non-existent and environmental threat as a top priority (ibid: 15, 18, 20). Although this work focuses more on security, Eriksson and Noreen’s (2002) explanatory model introduces concepts that can be possibly reflected onto world leaders’ tweets, which will be looked at in the next chapter.

Felicia Schillström (2020) executes an in-depth case study of the U.S.’s enemy image towards North Koreaduring Trump’s presidency, and how it has affected foreign policies concerning peace between the two countries, by using the same explanatory model by Eriksson and Noreen (ibid: 10-11). The author analyzes four events from 2017 to 2019 using both traditional and comparative case study design, focusing on the changed discourse of the U.S. enemy image of North Korea (ibid: 17). The events involved a detainee, nuclear tests, and summit-meetings, which were used to see whether they had an impact on Trump’s framing of

22

North Korea and the relations between the two countries. Materials collected include public speeches and news articles describing the events.

When applying the concepts from the explanatory model to the four events, the analysis revealed that Trump is framing North Korea as a country and the relationship between the two through his rhetoric on Twitter and from speeches. The rhetoric between 2017 and 2018 had changed from hostile to more negotiable, in which the two countries attempted to cooperate through the summit-meetings (Schillström, 2020: 21-23). The cognitive aspect is from the disapproval of the ideology of communism from the U.S, whereas North Korea has been striving for since the Korean War (ibid: 23-24). National identity is important to include since the two countries’ core values clash with each other (ibid: 24-25). As for the political context, Trump’s speeches show how North Korea was a threat only towards the U.S., but still was striving for strategic bilateral agreements for the interests of both countries (ibid: 28-29). Schillström

concludes that Trump’s enemy imaging of North Korea has slowly downplayed from negotiation but has become unclear since the Hanoi Summit-Meeting.

Schillström’s study shares similarities to this specific study, by showing Trump’s changes in framing a country and its leader. However, this study focuses on Twitter posts by Trump and many other additional leaders. Moreover, Schillström lacks an important factor in which Trump practically taunts Kim Jong Un through name-calling on Twitter, and additionally does not examine whether North Korea responded to such tweets. Thus, this study contributes to the scholarship by investigating further into leaders’ changes of framings of others through Twitter.

23

4. Theoretical Framework

4.1. Realist Constructivism as an Approach

Realism and constructivism are generally seen as two separate entities within the sphere of IR and global politics. Realism focuses on power politics, more specifically that the state is the main actor in international politics that uses power – meaning the interests and agency of the state – of its social institutions, that structures relations between other foreign states (Barkin, 2010: 17-18, 20). Constructivism, on the other hand, focuses on the effect of constructed ideas and beliefs on world politics rather the material agents, in addition to that reality is constantly changing along with meanings (Theys, 2017: 37). Samuel Barkin (2010) has therefore combined the two, calling it a realist constructivism. This not only focuses on the relations between countries and their powers, but also the change in international politics through social structures (ibid: 169). This approach can help further explain any tensions between countries from developing new policies by seeing how countries have to compromise and negotiate various terms that might contradict their national identity (ibid: 170-171).

Sterling-Folker (2004) explains that power and values go hand-in-hand, using tribes as an example to demonstrate the importance of tribal morality, as it is both socially constructed but controls its practices in relation with other tribes. This is reflected into the modern-day global system of how human experience has an impact on groupings and power relations (ibid: 342). However, it can also function the other way around, in which power is complex enough to have an impact on social relationships (Bially Mattern, 2004: 345). Thus, a variety of factors

combined take an effect on political processes.

As the concepts of this study involve power hierarchies, framing, and social norms, it is important to have an approach that overlaps each other. Realist constructivism demonstrates that perceptions of events, countries’ values and interests, and policy agreements, can lead to changes of relations between countries through leaders’ framings on media. The combined theories additionally show that the influence of a leader of a superpower could possibly alter the social norm of formal diplomatic communication, which perhaps could eventually lead to shifts in

24

power relations and alliances between countries. If it does not alter, however, it still proves how a social norm does not diffuse as well as how foreign leaders choose to not engage on Twitter like Trump as a survival tactic for their state.

4.2 Framing Theory

Framing is claimed to be a process of agenda-setting, but can also focus on “the essence of the issues at hand rather than on a particular topic” (Davie, 2011), meaning that there is more behind an event, person, or object. The actual theory involves the media focusing “attention on certain events and then places them within a field of meaning” (ibid). More specifically, a frame is something that can be presented in different ways, depending on the audience, as well as the interests of the controller of the media. It can therefore have a large influence on a specific public by presenting something in a way that benefits the social players.

There are two types of structures of framing – or ‘frameworks’ as Erving Goffman (1974) refers to – that both play a role of letting individuals process data and differ by functionality. The first type is natural frameworks, which is the most basic framework in that physical phenomena are literally identified without any social forces involved. Second, are social frameworks, which base communication processes from socially driven events. Both frameworks influence people to interpret information to form opinions and attitudes and make decisions (Goffman, 1974, in Davie, 2011). In addition, framing includes various techniques, which are used by social actors controlling a type of media, to draw the public’s attention towards a specific topic that has been framed according to the goal of the social actor. Such techniques are displayed in the table below:

Metaphor: To frame a conceptual idea through comparison to

something else.

Stories (myths, legends): To frame a topic via narrative in a vivid and memorable way.

25

Tradition (rituals, ceremonies): Cultural mores that imbue significance in the mundane, closely tied to artifacts.

Slogan, jargon, catchphrase: To frame an object with a catchy phrase to make it more memorable and relate-able.

Artifact: Objects with intrinsic symbolic value – a

visual/cultural phenomenon that holds more meaning than the object itself.

Contrast: To describe an object in terms of what it is not.

Spin: To present a concept in such a ways as to convey a

value judgement (positive or negative) that might not be immediately apparent; to create an inherent bias by definition.

(Fairhurst and Sarr, 1996).

These techniques above can be seen in ways Trump tweets about different countries and/or its leaders, using nicknames, phrases, humor, etc., all to draw attention and to develop a perspective on that specific country and leader. One example includes Trump’s catchphrase-like nickname for North Korean leader Kim Jong Un as ‘Little Rocket Man’, based on North Korea’s nuclear weapons testing (Keating, 2017).

In a more political view, when individuals already have a definable set of political beliefs about certain topics or issues from their stored memories. This makes it more difficult for social actors like politicians to establish frames to encourage people to think about such issues

differently. Therefore, the strategy of “frame in communication” is required to highlight certain features or the topic’s relationship to and individual’s values to provide meaning (Chong & Druckman, 2007: 105-106). The problem with framing is that “they can be built around exaggerations and outright lies playing on the fears and prejudices of the public” (ibid: 111). Overall, many different framings and techniques are used by leaders on social media platforms to show the public their relations with other countries based on political, social, and economic

26

4.3 Conceptual Framework

This section outlines four concepts in relation to the theories above in order to further explain constructed behaviors and power relations affecting frames. The second and third concepts are acquired from Eriksson’s and Noreen’s (2002) explanatory model.

4.3.1 Social Norms

Karl-Dieter Opp and Michael Hechter (2001) claim that norms are cultural phenomena that prescribe specific behavior according to the circumstance, and even considered to regulate social behavior (ibid: xi). Although there are institutional norms such as laws, social norms are more spontaneous and enforced informally, like an expected behavior according to the social

circumstance. In other words, norms are a cooperative pattern of action that produces meaning, in which individual interpret a given situation based on the collective behavior (Horne, 2001: 4; Fine, 2001).

When a norm is formed, there must be a group agreement with some level of consensus in regard to the validity of the rule in order for it to be enforced (Horne, 2001: 5). If only one individual starts a rule, it is not a norm but only their personal temperament. When many people start engaging in the same manner frequently and consistently, “that behavior comes to be associated with a sense of oughtness” (ibid: 6). Individuals then start complying to the according behavior. However, whenever norms start to innovate, individuals choose to either comply or ignore them for the risk of gaining or losing “social approval”. Therefore, actors involved in that norm innovation must come up or change strategies for its diffusion.

A change in norms can also receive different effects from the public due to various motivations. This means that some people will only follow behaviors because of their popularity (ibid: 9). Individuals also have different or conflicting understandings of a new situation, which leads them to negotiate their cognitive interpretations with themselves in order to act in

27

accordance with the old or new norm (ibid: 11). Moreover, their decisions also depend on their self-interests, whether their new behavior will lead to benefits or consequences. However, an individual usually complies when group members do the same. Therefore, networking and higher social positions in society are important to distribute a new norm (ibid: 19, 21).

As Jose van Dijck (2013) briefly stated in the first chapter, Twitter created a new norm of online sociality. Not only have selecting and presenting personal information become an

emerging shared rule and expectation, a new form of communication structure of shorter meanings and less formal language has also contributed to the new norm of demonstrating personal authenticity to a large audience (Schmidt, 2014: 8-10). As for political leaders, seeing the positive effects of social media and its popularity leads them to comply as a way for them to interact directly to the public and to other foreign leaders for their own benefit. However, the question raises of whether a leader from a superpower such as Trump can influence other political leaders to comply towards his Twitter behavior as a new norm.

4.3.2 Events

Events, mainly dramatic ones, can arguably be a concept for explaining certain frames of actors or countries on media. Usually events seen as crises or external shocks lead to extraordinary measures taken involving proposals, resources, and programs (Keeler 1993; Kingdon 1995; Stern 1999; Hermann 1990: 12, in Eriksson & Noreen, 2002: 12-13). The classic example is the 9/11 terror attacks in the U.S., causing the world to prioritize counterterrorism. It additionally caused negative framing on Middle Eastern countries, in which the network responsible for the attacks, al-Quaida, was located. However, dramatic events can even contribute to more peaceful changes like de-securitization and eliminating enemy images. An example of this includes the withdrawal of Russian troops in the Baltic countries in the early 1990s, which led to downplayed security conditions as well as a downplayed threat image of Russia to the world (Eriksson & Noreen, 2002: 12-13). Events as a concept is important to consider when attempting to understand Trump’s various Twitter posts involving a positive or negative image of a foreign leader or country.

28

4.3.3 Political Context

Johan Eriksson and Erik Noreen (2002) argue that any political context can be used as a concept, as it can develop a political actor’s decision-making through its knowledge of the context as well as the event occurred, along with the actor’s interests, rather than power-based arguments other persuasive measures (ibid: 15-16). A political context between two countries can include their ideologies, past negotiations, alliances, coalitions, and preferences (ibid). Such factors are taken into consideration when developing a new policy. This concept helps us understand the difficulty of establishing new foreign policies between countries depending on the issue. This includes environmental issues, security and terrorism, threats, economic issues, etc. Therefore, strategic maneuvering along with the sharing of information (secret or public) is required to reach any foreign policy agreement. However, when political leaders are still not in agreement, conflicts such as sanctions or enemy images could arise, which is discussed in the subsequent section. Thus, factors from a political context between two countries and can influence the attitudes and framings of each other through the leaders’ tweets.

4.3.4 Enemy Images

This concept takes place in a situation where perceptions of an individual or group create a negative evaluation, seeing them as bad or evil (Eckhardt, 1991: 87). Attitudes and beliefs are involved in the processing of the image, meaning that if one already believes a specific

individual or group has contradicting values, an enemy image presented will enhance the negative perception of that group. William Eckhardt describes how political actors create enemy images, claiming:

One of the chief ways of making enemy images is simply to condemn or denounce some person or some group for not wanting or respecting certain values which, it is generally assumed, almost every self-respecting and value-respecting person should want or respect (ibid: 88).

29

This has already been witnessed during many events in which the U.S. publicly accuses another country for not acting accordingly to ‘global’ (American) principles, thus threatening them with sanctions or even violence. Such public portrayals could then affect a country’s relations with others (Huntington, 1999).

Even though enemy images are mainly considered for the psychological preparation of war or genocide, as it is propaganda, it is important to use this concept in less dramatic

situations, like diplomatic matters (ibid: 94). Using the U.S. as an example, when foreign countries are not agreeing to their policy requirements, American political leaders aim to

denounce such countries through media and sanctions until the country finally agrees or comes to a compromise. Enemy images can thus be recognized as a power relations tactic (Boulding, 1959), and even a tool to negatively frame countries and its leaders through social media.

30

5. Methodology

5.1 Content Analysis

For this case study, to grasp an in-depth understand of the leaders’ diplomatic uses of Twitter, qualitative content analysis is applied as the technique of identifying characteristics, themes, categories, and other inferences within messages and other forms of communication (Holsti, 1969: 14; ibid: 290). This method not only examines the message itself, but also the sender(s) of the message and the audience as well, or in other words, “to provide knowledge and

understanding of the phenomenon under study” (Downe-Wamboldt, 1992: 314). The method thus allows us not only to see the language and features used in the tweets, but also why they choose to tweet in that manner.

Qualitative content analysis comes in three different approaches: conventional, directed, and summative (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). This specific research uses directed content analysis, in which the goal is to validate and/or extend the theoretical framework of the study (ibid: 1281). This approach becomes more deductive and structured by already providing predictable

variables, meaning that the key concepts become initial coding categories and the theory leads to the operational definitions of each category (ibid). In order to avoid biases and increase

trustworthiness, it is important to properly identify categories and even subcategories before coding (ibid: 1282). Therefore, for this research, categories with codes related to state relations and framing have been prepared as part of the analysis, in which the findings will later support or contradict the theory.

Content analysis on miniblogs or tweets rather than speeches has to be carried out

differently, in which small details online such as the use of capital letters, or specific punctuation marks like exclamation points can express anger or importance. Moreover, online platforms also allow users to upload pictures, videos, or reposts of other users’ utterances, which further

demonstrates their type of behavior through such characteristics (Einspänner, et. al, 2014: 98). In short, the Internet has developed a massive array of information with meaning, but it can also be overwhelming to doing research on online behavior. Therefore, it is important for this study to

31

narrow down on specific data to do content analysis on the rhetoric and characteristics of Twitter posts from various national leaders according to the theoretical framework.

5.2 Longitudinal and Comparative Elements

Alan Bryman (2012) states that qualitative research is in risk of being too subjective or too difficult to generalize and replicate (ibid: 178-179, 405-406). It is important then, when using content analysis as a method, to have findings that accurate and replicable for the results to be valid and reliable. To do this requires longitudinal design elements, meaning collecting data over a longer period of almost three years to observe any development of a specific phenomenon. Moreover, as this study attempts to examine multiple national leaders’ online behavior and responses to Trump’s framing and comments on Twitter, comparative elements are additionally required to observe any changes and/or patterns, and effects of communication. These two elements will therefore benefit the study by observing and analyzing different patterns, specific characteristics, and change over a longer time period to have accurate and replicable results

(ibid). The specifics of the data collection and interpretation will be reviewed later in the chapter.

5.3 Data Collection

Although the data collection is mainly purposive, meaning that the study specifically selects certain units or cases that represent the purpose of the research (Teddlie & Yu, 2007: 80), it sometimes required convenience sampling (drawing easier accessible data (ibid: 78)) for a more flexible approach when attempting to search for more difficult accessed data. What needs to be stressed is how to avoid subjectivity throughout the collection of data, which is a concern when using the purposive sampling technique.

32

5.3.1 Primary Sources

Primary data includes Trump’s tweets from the start of his presidency in January 20, 2017, to December 31, 2019, from both his personal and presidential Twitter account, both found from an archival source online called Trump Twitter Archive (2020). The website not only holds all of Trump’s tweets (including retweets), but also has a search engine with techniques that allows an individual to find a specific tweet based on keywords, dates, time, and even devices. The number of tweets will be narrowed down by finding specific tweets of 16 countries (Germany, Canada, France, Russia, North Korea, China, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Mexico, the United Kingdom (U.K.), Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Japan, and India) and their national leaders, used from the archive’s search engine, in which names of the countries and/or their leaders are typed into. The tweets are then shown in chronological order. These countries/leaders were chosen based on events, changed relations, and opinions from Trump during his time in office, as well as being the most tweeted countries by Trump, apart from Ukraine. This is due to Trump’s Ukraine tweets focusing on an unrelated issue from this study’s topic.

Tweets from the aforementioned countries’ leaders are collected from their twitter accounts on the actual Twitter website, using Twitter’s advanced search where one can narrow down an account’s posts from a specific time frame and keywords. Thus, the collection of data from other national leaders is as similar as to collecting Trump’s tweets. One disadvantage, however, is that the tweets are presented in a non-chronological order, which entails having to spend additional time organizing all posts. An additional issue is the language barrier, in which several tweets from a leader about the U.S. or Trump is written in their native tongue. This requires even more time spent on translation via Google’s Translate. However, the number of tweets from such leaders are far from the amount of Trump’s posts and many of those tweets have an English version of the same tweet.

33

5.3.2 Additional Material

Leaders such as Kim Jong Un from North Korea and Xi Jinping from China do not have Twitter accounts, and Angela Merkel has not used her official Twitter account since 2017. However, they still respond to events and comments from Trump. News articles, briefings, and other mediums which include such documented and even translated responses, will be used as additional data to contribute to the findings and analysis. Moreover, to understand the political context and events between the U.S. and another country, and even between Trump and another foreign leader, news and academic articles are additionally required. Such information was then connected to Trump’s tweets and why he frames the country and/or its leader in a certain way.

5.4 Data Analysis and Interpretation

Bryman states that, “qualitative content analysis comprises a searching-out of underlying themes in the materials being analyzed” (2012: 557). Thus, this study requires the use of a coding

scheme, meaning “a translation device that allows investigators to place utterances into

theoretical categories” (Poole & Folger, 1981: 367). As this study not only examines how and when Trump frames another state and/or its leader, but also whether such leaders are tweeting in the same manner as Trump, the analysis needs basic clear categories to code themes in

accordance to the theoretical concepts of political context, events and enemy images reviewed in the previous chapter. This is due to the large amounts of data, mainly from Trump’s Twitter account.

Before coding, it was additionally required to collect background information for each chosen country with its relations with the U.S., to create an informational timeline of their relations. The timeline begins from Trump’s presidential inauguration, January 20, 2017, to December 31, 2019. This was to have a strong understanding of the political context between the U.S. and another country, along with specific events that could have altered its relationship, to fully understand all the leaders’ Twitter posts and decrease any coding issues. The choice of codes was based on themes and patterns related to interstate relations.

34

The coding process came in two phases. The first phase entailed identifying three basic main categories, which were color coordinated as followed: positive (yellow), negative (red), and neutral (green). These categories are based on the context and language used in the tweet to describe a situation, country, or its leader based on its codes:

Positive: agreement, support, friendship/alliance, condolences, appreciation, congratulating, other

Neutral: informative, sarcasm, other

Negative: concern/disappointment, threats, taunts, condemnation, accusation, other

The code ‘other’ in each category represent tweets and phrases that are vague or unidentifiable. Moreover, for some occasional tweets from a few foreign leaders, and for many of Trump’s tweets, more than one category was identified, which was additionally recognized in the analysis. Many tweets from all leaders included features such as images and videos, hashtags (#),

punctuation marks (?, !), use of capital letters (“CHINA HAS…”), hyperlinks to articles and websites, retweets, answering of tweets, and emojis. These features play a major role in the analysis by showing emotions or informing the audience about a certain topic, event, country, or its leader in a particular way.

The second phase of the coding process involved identifying codes in relation to the theoretical and conceptual framework. More specifically, this entailed looking for patterns from foreign leaders’ tweets that are similar to Trump’s tweets, as well as finding tweets that include patterns from framing techniques and concepts such as enemy images, events, and political context. Because a tweet is only a small amount of limited characters, there was no need for qualitative software programs. Instead, each tweet along with its features was categorized into Excel spreadsheets to identify the amount of each codes and features.

To reduce any validity issues through the analysis, it is important to implement a few strategies from John W. Creswell (2014: 201-203). The most important one is reflectivity of any bias, in which every tweet needs to be seen as equal. This needs to be even more stressed for Trump’s tweets, as he is much involved in the controversy of the concept of truth, post-truth politics, and denial of truth (‘fake news’) (Agostinone-Wilson, 2020). As an American citizen, it

35

is even more important that the author views and categorizes Trump’s tweets the same as any other leaders’ tweets without any attitudes or judgement that could harm the analysis. Another strategy is cross-checking tweets to see if they are in the correct category and to find any missed features. The final strategy is peer debriefing of the analysis from colleagues to review the categories to find any mistakes or shifts in the coding structure for more accurate findings. Such strategies will strengthen the study to be valid and reliable for similar future studies.

36

6. Findings

6.1 Overview

This chapter presents the findings of the data analyzed. It first describes the data from Trump’s characteristics and patterns found in his Twitter behavior, followed by an outline of the other leaders’ characteristics and differences. This is done to demonstrate the common patterns found from the majority of the leaders – as well as those leaders that stand out from the majority – to later compare to Trump’s Twitter patterns. All combined tweets totaled to 1,770; in which 658 tweets belonged to 13 foreign leaders since there were no tweets from Germany, North Korea, and China. Trumps tweets totaled to 1,012, where he comments on all 16 countries.

6.2 Trump’s Twitter Findings

This section presents President Trump’s characteristics and features, followed by a display of different groups will be presented based on the amount of positive and negative categories.

6.2.1 Language

What can be found first and foremost about the language in his tweets is the informality, through words and phrases directly or indirectly towards leaders and the audience which are not

37

One example is identified in the final sentence of the tweet below.1

Apart from being informal, the language in his tweets is conversational towards the audience. This means that he uses questions and phrases to engage with the audience, along with countries and actors, rather than solely being informative of a situation. Four examples of this can be seen below.2

1 _{Trump, 2018.}

38

Tweets that included question marks totaled to 40, much more than the other leaders used in their tweets combined. Some tweets indicated questions being stated, but did not use question marks, thus they were not included. 591 tweets were identified that included exclamation points, being more than half of his combined tweets. As these marks are supposed to usually indicate excitement, Trump frequently uses them in negative tweets to show anger, frustration, and even threats, also in neutral tweets (334). This even goes for the use of capital letters for certain words or even all words in a tweet, which was identified in 139 tweets.

Many of Trump’s tweets also present contexts and situations that are either hypothetical or uncertain, using words such as could, maybe, if would, etc. Moreover, 12 tweets end with phrases that indicate uncertain fore comings or for the audience to wait for upcoming

information, such as, “We will see!”, “Stay tuned!”, and “Let’s see what happens!”, very similar to phrases heard in television programs. The tweet below reveals such a phrase.3

It is unclear whether these tweets show lack of knowledge from Trump, or if he is intentionally making the audience interested in the upcoming events, or even both. It could be related to a former profession of his as a television host for a reality television program called The

Apprentice (Hall, et al, 2016: 76).

Harsh words, insults, and name-calling were additionally identified, mainly found in the negative category. As the name-calling was towards enemies of the U.S., Trump would use even harsh and even insulting descriptions towards allies such as Canada and France. Moreover,