Do variations in political discourse among domestic news media regarding the 2024 U.S. presidential election correspond to the nature of their home states’ international relations with the U.S? In abstract terms, can the diversity of international communication discourses be explained by the diversity of international relations?  This is the key question guiding this comparative international communication project.

This project investigates the relationship between two central variables in international relations and communication: the nature of U.S. international relations with the participating states and the political discourses presented by the two leading newspapers in each of those states. The political discourses will be examined by mixed research methods using the quantitative and qualitative analysis of all U.S presidential election content during the period from September 1 to November 10, 2024. Additionally, we will develop a four-point scale to classify the international relations between the U.S. and the participating states, capturing the spectrum of relations from confrontation and cooperation to dependency and independency.

The challenge is that neither international relations nor international communication between any two states follows a linear model. Moreover, categories of international relations are not mutually exclusive, and the same interactive and multidimensional nature applies to international communication. In other words, the proposed four-point scale is not expected to achieve absolute perfection.  International relations often involve a mix of types across economic, political, cultural, military, and diplomatic dimensions and varies over time. However, what we are looking for is the most dominant type that heavily shape the political discourse of the newspaper(s) under investigation more than other types of international relations. 

Rooted in the neorealist approach to international relations, which conceptualizes the international system as a collection of nation-states operating in an anarchic environment, this project investigates international news media’s political discourses as tools for securing power, security, identity, wealth, survival, and broader state foreign policy interests, specifically, in participating state’s position toward the U.S. in terms of confrontation, cooperation, dependency, or independence.  The neorealist approach assumes the absence of any binding legal structures to guarantee adherence to agreements on trade, alliances, or arms control. In this framework, nation-states through its foreign policy leaders (Krasner, 1978; Waltz, 2003; Majeski and Fricks, 1995), tend to act in a relatively uniform manner seeking to maximize security, power, and wealth. Nearly all scholars agree that relations between states are characterized by anarchy, making it one of the most distinctive, significant, and enduring aspects of world politics. The assumption of anarchy suggests that nation-states must rely on their own capabilities to achieve these objectives.  Even though, hierarchies remain a fact of international politics. They affect the actions of both dominant and subordinate states in profound ways. Both in the past and present, states subordinate themselves in whole or part to the authority of other, dominant states (Cooley, 2005; Sharman, 2013). Indicators of international economic and security hierarchies since 1950 suggest that the United States has maintained a relatively dominant position over many states. To recognize and demonstrate respect for the authority of dominant states, subordinate nations will not only follow their commands but also engage in symbolic acts of submission(Lake, 2011).

Building on this theory, the current project explores an under examined area: the political discourses of national news media toward a major international event, the U.S. presidential election, as a strategic tool for advancing state interests. Consistent with our assumption that political discourse within participating states may not present a unified stance, especially in countries where media systems enjoy full or partial independence; the analysis will include two ideologically contrasting or different newspapers from each participating state.

Against this background, we developed the “four-point scale” below to capture the complexities on international relations that is perceived to be the predictor of the political discourse of the participating states news media regarding the 2024 U.S., presidential election.  

1. 1. Confrontation: Indicators include diplomatic disputes, military confrontations and threats, sanctions, ideological opposition, brainwashing war and propaganda and UN and Security Council voting confrontation, etc. 
   2. Cooperation: Indicators include political alliances, shared foreign policy goals, trade relations, joint military operations, UN and Security Council voting alignment, etc. 
   3. Dependency: Indicators include economic, military and political dependency, debt relationship, foreign policy coordination and alignment, UN and Security Council voting dependency, etc. 
   4. Independency: Indicators represent independent relationships that do not fit into any of the three defined categories. States in this category are to some extent self-sufficient, with minimal or no reliance on the U.S. Relevant indicators include military, economic, and ideological independence, as well as autonomy in UN and Security Council voting.

What distinguishes cooperation from dependency is that in cooperative relationships both states retain their autonomy and preserve their sovereignty. Participation is voluntary and the benefits are relatively balanced between the two states. In contrast, a dependency relationship involves a significant power asymmetry, where the dominant state exerts control and captures a greater share of the benefits (the U.S., in this project), while the dependent state receives less and often aligns its policies accordingly. Although cooperation can occur between states of unequal power, dependency implies structural subordination of the weaker party (Keohane, 1984; Axelrod and Keohane, 1985; Cardoso and Faletto, 2024; Theotonio, 1970).

Each research team assigned a state is required to produce an 800–900 word report on the U.S. – home state relationship concluding with the identification of a single type of international relations between the U.S., and the assigned state based on the four-point scale outlined above. Given that U.S. international relations with any given state are not static and cannot be exclusively categorized into just one type at any given time, the research team needs to document these transitional and complex relationships if they exist. A participating state may have a confrontational relationship with the U.S. in economic, military, and political areas, yet maintain a different relationship in cultural issues or vice versa.  However, it is necessary to ultimately determine the most dominant relationship type with the U.S. that is most likely shaping the current local newspapers discourse toward the 2024 U.S. presidential election. It is a fact that the four options of the scale are not mutually exclusive; they are not also arranged in order, as this is a nominal scale.  

Importance of the Report:

This report, ranging from 700 to 800 words, aims to identify one of the key independent variables in the study, predicting that the type of international relations between the U.S. and the participating state shapes the discourse of the respective newspapers. The report will be uploaded to the project’s website and will serve as a key element in the methodology, literature review, and discussion of findings in any forthcoming publications. Finally, it is the responsibility of the Principal Investigator to make sure that the report has been accepted by the Advisory Board and the ‘Statements and Justification Committee” before the pilot study begins to enable the data analysis specialist/s rely on the appropriate type of relationship.  

Evaluation Criteria: 

Submitted reports will be evaluated according to the following criteria:

1. 1. Relevance to U.S. and the participating State’s International Relations: The report should be concise and directly relevant to the study’s objectives.
   2. Clarity and Structure: The report must be clearly written and logically structured, making it easy to identify the dominant type of relationship between the participating state and the U.S.
   3. Evidence and Documentation: The report must be carefully documented, providing evidence beyond the personal judgment of the research team to ensure its validity for use in forthcoming publications.
   4. Conclusion: The report must conclude by selecting only one of the previously mentioned relationship types as outlined in the “four -point scale”.  This choice will guide the analysis of any content/discourse item by the data entry specialist. The chosen type of relationship should accurately reflect reality or come as close as possible to it. Once determined, this type of conformation, cooperation, dependency or independency remain fixed throughout the analysis period, regardless of the nature of the content examined.
   5. Recognition of Report Authors: The authors’ names, job titles, institutional affiliations, emails should be listed in order based on the amount of effort and intellectual contribution.

Evaluation Process

1. 1. The report should be sent to the “Founder and Lead Principal Investigator” via email at [email protected], who will then forward it to the “Revision Committee” and the Advisory Board for revision.
   2. The review reports will be shared with the “Principal Investigators” and the co-author(s) for revision.
   3. The revised report will undergo another round of revisions if necessary and will be uploaded to the project’s website once accepted.

This report must be submitted as a Word attachment, including full personal details and the date of submission. While it is reviewed by the “Revision Committee” and the project’s advisory board, it remains the sole responsibility of its author(s) as an authenticated document on international relations between the U.S., and the participating state. 

—-

References

Cooley A (2005) Logics of hierarchy: The organization of empires, states, and military occupation. New York: Cornell University Press.

Krasner SD (1978) Defending the national interest: Raw materials investments and us foreign policy. New York: Princeton University Press.

Lake DA (2011) Hierarchy in international relations. New York: Cornell University Press.

Majeski SJ and Fricks S (1995) Conflict and cooperation in international relations. Journal of Conflict Resolution 39(4): 622-645.

Sharman JC (2013) International hierarchies and contemporary imperial governance: A tale of three kingdoms. European Journal of International Relations 19(2): 189-207.

Waltz KN (2003) Progress in international relations theory: Appraising the field. New York: MIT Press.