Introduction

This working paper serves as a foundational document, outlining the project’s objectives and conceptual framework. It defines key terms, articulates the hypotheses, explains the underlying rationale and elaborate on the requirements of the project. More importantly, it underscores the project’s significance and its contributions to theory building in multidisciplinary fields of the comparative international communication studies, international relations, political communication, cross border journalism and political economy. 

The 2024 U.S. presidential election has been a major event at the forefront of global influential news media coverage. This is due to the United States’ unparalleled influence in international politics, where the president’s role-whether constructive or destructive, positive or negative-influences the international politics. The U.S. holds dominant power across military, economic, technological, and cultural relations, making its elections a major event for media coverage worldwide. Consequently, influential newspapers across the world have – though from different perspectives – historically placed a certain emphasis on covering U.S. elections. This project also provided a unique opportunity to analyze the attitudes of 33 states and 66 news media outlets involved in this project toward U.S. policy and the election itself. The significance of the project becomes even greater in light of the deep divisions within the American ruling class, between upholding a capitalist democracy shaped by electoral plutocracy and advancing an authoritarian alternative (Harris, Hrubec, & López, 2025).

 

This project is particularly timely as the U.S. aligns itself with Israel in its war on Gaza, which is marked by significant human rights violations and breaches of international law and international humanitarian law. Despite these issues, the U.S. continues to provide Israel with overt support through various means, including military aid, diplomatic backing, and political endorsement. Beyond this, the U.S. has also been involved in numerous contentious issues across Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Europe, as well as in the Russia-Ukraine war. While some states view these interventions as violations of rules of the international world order, others align with the U.S., considering its actions as a model of Western democracy, human rights, peacekeeping efforts and counterterrorism-efforts. Regardless of the legal and political assessment of U.S. interventionist behavior, it drives the prominence of the election in media discourses worldwide, shaping its framing, tones, and various portrayals of the American model on the global stage.

Rational and Conceptual Framework 

International communication research, especially comparative studies, is as Paul Lazarsfeld argues, a field distinct from domestic communication studies, presenting novel and compelling avenues for investigation. Lazarsfeld suggested that the international scope would allow for more productive experimentation with research methods than was feasible within a national context (Lazarsfeld, 1952; Lazarsfeld, 1976).  In contrast to the potential contribution of research in this particular field,  the analysis of comparative international communication research over  27-year period from 1970 to 1997 (Chang et al., 2001) indicates that the field shows a clear lack of theoretical advancement with a few efforts made to test theories in cross-national contexts.  Chang and his colleagues stress the importance of conducting research that is firmly grounded in a well-developed theoretical paradigm, one that continuously addresses the what, why, how, and so what questions throughout the entire process of thinking and planning. After eight years, Loffelholz and Weaver (2008) observed that journalism research no longer operates within national or cultural boundaries. This is a fact supported by the comparative international communication research carried out by Hanitzsch, Hanusch, Ramaprasad, and de Beer (2019), Weaver and Willnat (2012), Weaver and Willnat (2012), Kamhawi and Weaver (2003), Weaver and Buddenbaum (1983), Thussu (2009), Mutsvairo et al. (2021), Thussu (2022), Claudia Mellado (2013), Hanitzsch and Mellado (2011), Hamada (2021), Hamada (2019), Hamada and Vallesi (2023), Hamada and Abdel-Salam (2025),(B. Hamada, I, , 2022) Hamada, Abdel-Salam, and Bebawi (2024). 

Despite the growing of comparative international communication research, it remains largely confined within the boundaries of its own field, showing little or no engagement with other fields, especially international relations. The integration of these two disciplines, we argue, has the potential to offer a rich range of variables, theories and power dynamics that help explain not only global messaging but also the broader patterns of international communication as a state behavior.  Literature review indicates that the intersection of international relations and international communication remains an under-researched area despite its significance in explaining the patterns of international communication of the nation states in the global system (Acharya, 2011; Asante, 2014; Asante & Miike, 2013; Mowlana, 2016).   

This project is justified, then,  by the fact that international communication, as a field of inquiry, remains insufficiently internationalized (Lee, 2015).   In his effort to identify a new starting point for revitalizing both international communication and the broader field of communication studies, Lee calls for a more genuinely international approach. His argument resonates with Mills (1959) who urges scholars to examine media and communication issues through global and historical perspectives. Consistent with this trend, Waisbord advocates for a “cosmopolitan scholarship” that is marked by attentiveness to comparative and global issues, as well as active participation in globalized academic debates. To advance this vision, Waisbord proposes three key strategies: (a) investigating understudied regions to challenge established assumptions and expand analytical perspectives; (b) engaging in comparative research to develop more robust and nuanced theoretical insights; and (c) exploring transnational flows and global-scale questions (Waisbord, 2015).

This project is grounded in the premise that international communication remains closely tied to power and the nation-state, which continues to be the dominant actor in the current international order, despite the field’s expansion beyond national boundaries (Lee, 2015). The absence of interdisciplinary studies may be due to the ambiguity and multitude of forces and variables involved, the challenges of measuring these variables, and the continuous changes, complexities, and intervening factors that shape issues, policies and outcomes in these interconnected disciplines. 

The current project is an attempt to fill this gap by use of interconnected conceptual frameworks, the first of which is the neorealist approach to international relations, which views the international system as a collection of nation-states operating within an anarchic environment. This 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 their foreign policy leaders (Krasner, 1978; Majeski & Fricks, 1995; Waltz, 2003) 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 their objectives. As Morgenthau (1973) advocates all politics revolves around the contest for power, and the U.S. according to several indicators is a superpower influencing and sometimes controlling the foreign and domestic policies of several states. 

Hierarchies are a fact of international politics affecting 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). According to the state-centric model of international relations, power hierarchies are continuing features of global politics. Consequently, changes in the international system stem from shifts in the global distribution of power as reflected in the hierarchical positions of the system’s dominant actors (Tarzi, 2004). Indicators of international economic and security hierarchies since 1950 suggest that the U.S., 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).

Drawing on this conceptual foundation, the current project investigates a relatively underexplored area: how national news media construct political discourses around a major international event; the U.S. presidential election, as a strategic tool for securing power, security, identity, wealth, survival, and broader state foreign policy interests. In other words, foreign media coverage of this event is perceived as an extension of the foreign policy behavior of the respective state. This behavior largely reflects the nature of bilateral relations between the U.S., and the state where the news media operate. At the same time, such political discourse can also function as a strategic tool to reshape or challenge the type of international relations. As such, the project seeks to understand the implications and consequences of the power the U.S. exerts and seeks to exert in the current international politics via the political discourses it generates and stimulates across the world, a phenomenon referred to as “reactive discourse.”  Simultaneously, it seeks to explore how various states each characterized by unique forms of international relations with the U.S., articulate their “proactive discourse” whether in support of or in resistance to developments surrounding the U.S. presidential election. That said the central question guiding this project is as follows: Do differences in political discourses among the news media of participating states concerning the 2024 U.S. presidential election reflect the nature of their respective 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?  

Another factor influencing the variation in political discourses across participating states is Media-Political Parallelism. This concept has been explored throughout history from various perspectives under different terms that describe the alignment of media discourse with social and political control in a given society. Despite these variations, the focus is often on parallelism, particularly in terms of the media’s relationship with sources of power that determines political discourse and ideological orientations of media coverage such as the government, political parties, the market, the audience, and other political bodies, which influences the degree of media freedom, independence, professionalism and overall purposes and functions.  

Studies on such a concept was originated  by Siebert, Peterson, and Wilbur (1956)  who posed the question of why does press actually serve different purposes in different countries? They argue that the press functions differently depending on the underlying system of governance and control. The concept was later examined by Seymour-Ure, (Seymour-Ure, 1974) as well as Blumler and Gurevitch (Blumler & Gurevitch, 1975). However, “political parallelism” gained widespread recognition after Hallin and Mancini considered it as one of the four central critical categories in their seminal work “Comparing Media Systems”. The remaining core variables that define media systems, namely, the structure of media markets, the development of journalistic professionalism, and the role of the state, fall outside the scope of this project (Hallin & Mancini, 2004). Today, Hallin and Mancini’s three models of media systems serve as a key reference for numerous comparative studies on journalism and political communication. This project focuses on a single dimension, “political parallelism “which assesses the extent to which political advocacy is considered an integral part of journalism’s mission and discourse across different states. The linkages between media political discourse and political power structures in society are enormous and rapidly changing matters of enquiry that have advanced from several comparative studies by not only political communication scholars but also political scientists.  

It is worth stating that in this project the concept has been refined to focus exclusively on “Media- State Parallelism” as the term “political” encompasses opposition parties and other political actors, which would complicate the classification process. The new concept is aligned with the objective of this project-where the state is considered the primary actor in international relations. Hence, it would be more logical to measure media alignment/ parallelism with the state itself, rather than with the broader range of competing or cooperative political entities within each participating state. Undoubtedly, this concept originates from, and is primarily applicable to, Western contexts.  Its applicability to non-Western media systems may be limited, partial, or even entirely absent (De Albuquerque, 2018; Herrero, Humprecht, Engesser, Brüggemann, & Büchel, 2017; Jones & Hadland, 2024). 

Media – State parallelism as used here builds on a diverse literature exploring how it influences political discourse surrounding an event that gathered significant international media coverage, which is the U.S., presidential election. In doing so, it provides a unique opportunity to evaluate the global implications of media-state parallelism. It also critically examines the concept’s applicability within and beyond the Western framework while remaining open to revealing distinct dynamics that shape media-state relations. While the participating states’ diverse international relations with the U.S. are expected to shape distinct political discourses – the central focus of this project, — variations in media-state parallelism among participating states — introduce an additional factor that further diversifies these discourses. This diversification expands the study’s scope, enhances our understanding of the complex interplay among the examined variables, and ultimately facilitates the development of new theories at the intersection of international relations, international communication, political communication, media systems and political economy.  In state where news media operate with full or partial freedom and independence, political discourse surrounding the U.S. presidential election is unlikely to be unified. To address this complexity, the study focuses on two media outlets with differing alignments to the state.

Measuring the Independent Variables 

The preceding discussions focused on two conceptual frameworks from which the two primary independent variables of this project are derived: (1) the nature of international relations between the U.S. and the participating states, and (2) the degree of media–state parallelism. To best measure these variables, the Founder and Lead Principal Investigator (FLPI) developed the following “Four-Point Scales”. 

The first Four-Point Scale

intends to capture the types of international relations between the U.S., and the participating states. The type of relationship is perceived to be the predictor of political discourse of news media regarding the 2024 U.S., presidential election.  The scale includes the following typologies: 

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 (Axelrod & Keohane, 1985; Cardoso & Faletto, 2024; Keohane, 1984; 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.  In contrast, the media-state parallelism scale below is an ordinal scale, with options arranged from highest parallelism to counter-parallelism.

The Second Four-Point Scale

aims to measure the degree of media-state parallelism, requiring each research team to select one option.

1. High parallelism, where the newspaper’s political discourse serves as the official voice of the participating state, advocating government policies and defending its foreign policy. 
2. Low parallelism, where the newspaper’s political discourse is mixed, balanced or showing less alliance to the government in comparison to the opposition parties or other political voices in the society. 
3. Independent, where the newspaper’s political discourse provides a platform for diverse voices, ensuring equal opportunities for expressing news and opinions. It adheres to a professional editorial policy and an independent code of ethics, with minimal or no interference from the government, advertisers, or political parties. Journalists also have the autonomy to choose their stories and determine their editorial angles.
4. Counter – parallelism, here, the newspaper’s political discourse does not align with the state’s position, instead reflecting the ideology and perspectives of other political institutions, such as opposition parties or related bodies. In doing so, it challenges the official voice of the state.

There is no doubt, in some states; newspapers may not fit neatly into the clear-cut alternatives of state parallelism. For instance, there may be no official state newspaper, no newspaper affiliated with a political opposition party, or no entirely independent newspaper.  In other words, the two extremes of parallelism (high parallelism vs counter- parallelism) may not exist, particularly in states that prohibit the public expression of opposing voices. In such cases, it is important to carefully select newspapers that are not politically, ideologically or professionally identical. This is to ensure a minimum level of diversity in their political discourses towards the 2024 U.S. presidential election.  The proposed indicators to measure “media- state parallelism” are: 1) ideological orientation, 2) editorial policy statement, 3) actual journalism practices, 4) political advocacy, 5) media ownership, 6) media freedom and independence, 7) journalists’ perception of autonomy, and 8) journalists’ perception of influences  

Each research team assigned a state is required to produce an 800–900 word report on “media-state parallelism” concluding with the identification of a single level of parallelism based on the four-point scale provided above. Three levels of analysis could be used to write the report: 1) Macro-level analysis of the media landscape, its freedom and independence, journalists’ safety and culture of impunity 2) Mezo-level analysis of news media ownership, editorial policies, and 3) Micro-level analysis of journalists’ including journalism practices, autonomy and their perception of political pressures and influences. 

It is worth noting that each research team has already submitted two reports on the independent variables, both of which have been reviewed by the “Revision Committee”.

The challenge is that neither international relations nor international communication between the U.S., and any participating state follows a linear model. The same interactive and multidimensional nature applies to media-state parallelism. In other words, the proposed four-point scales are 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. Likewise, media-state parallelism involves dynamic forces, making the classification less than fully reflective of the realities of political communication and the media system.   Given these limitations, this study aims to identify the predominant type of relationship that most strongly shapes the political discourse of the newspaper(s) under investigation more than other types of international relations or media-state-parallelism. 

While the two Four-Point Scales are mainly used to examine the project’s independent variables, the dependent variables – the newspaper coverage in the selected countries – will be analyzed using framing and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). All content related to the 2024 U.S. presidential election published between September 1 and November 10, 2024, will be analyzed through a mixed-methods approach that combines quantitative, qualitative and CDA. The following section outlines the project’s methodological framework in detail.

Framing and Critical Discourse Analysis 

 Media framing is a process of socially co-constructing reality. In this process, framing is a process serving  as a means through which journalists develop and crystallize meaning in public discourse (Gamson & Modigliani, 1989). Frame is also defined as a central organizing concept or narrative that gives meaning to a sequence of unfolding events. It highlights the core of the controversy, capturing the essence of the issue at hand (Gamson & Modigliani, 1989). Framing involves emphasizing certain aspects of a perceived reality within a communication, making them more prominent to shape how the audience defines the problem, interprets its causes, evaluates it morally, and considers potential solutions (Entman, 1993). Frames emphasize certain ideas, enhancing their perceived importance and triggering cognitive schemas that guide target audiences in their thoughts, emotions, and decisions (Gross & D’ambrosio, 2004; Iyengar & Simon, 1993; Kim, Scheufele, & Shanahan, 2002). They  are culturally rooted patterns of interpretation expressed through individual perspectives (Reese, 2007). Simply, it is the process of making sense of the world (Brüggemann, 2014).

The literature on framing research can be divided into two categories: studies that examine frames as independent variables and those that analyze frames as dependent variables. When frames are treated as dependent variables, research investigates the factors shaping their development or alteration. Journalists’ framing of an issue may be shaped by various social-structural or organizational factors (Shoemaker & Reese, 1996) as well as individual or ideological influences (Tuchman, 1978).   While media framing is influenced by various factors, this study focuses on three of them: the U.S., the participating state international relation, media-state parallelism, and the forces of integration and disintegration of foreign news across the world. As previously explained, confrontational, cooperative, dependent, or independent relations assess the U.S.–participating state relationship, while media-state parallelism evaluates how closely media align with the state. The third core concept of this project is based on the debate of integration versus disintegration of framing.  The project challenges the conclusion of Curran, Esser, Hallin, Hayashi, and Lee (2017) who found that the Greek and US elections in 2012 were reported in very similar ways in the leading news media located in different continents.  In contrast, and in alignment with the core concept of this project, it is assumed that the U.S. election framing is typically reported in ways that reflect the power relations, media-state parallelism, and  national interests of the home state. In other words, framing is shaped differently depending on these factors. 

To conduct a more nuanced analysis of the framing industry, this study will explore the relationship between the strategic game frame and the use of a negative tone. The strategic game frame as examined by (Cappella & Jamieson, 1997)  emphasizes: (1) a focus on winning and losing; (2) the use of language drawn from wars, games, and competition; (3) narratives featuring performers, critics, and voters; (4) the centrality of performance, style, and the candidate’s perceived image; and (5) a strong emphasis on polls and candidates’ standings. Similarly, Pedersen (2014) identified a clear association between the strategic or horse-race frame and news coverage of negative campaigning, finding it significantly more prominent than coverage of positive campaigning.

To what extent does U.S. election framing in states engaged in confrontational relations with the U.S. rely on the strategic game frame along with the use of a negative tone either to attack the American election model or to externalize their domestic conflicts with liberals closely aligned with the U.S.?  In this context, Tai, Peterson, and Gurr (1973) propose that some states often attribute “internal hostilities” to a “convenient external target”-in this case, the U.S.,  Similarly, (Snyder, 1999) argues that states with hostile relations toward the U.S. often “externalize” their domestic conflicts with liberals.  Drawing on the theory of externalization, he contends that leaders in states with adversarial or confrontational relationships had “strong incentives” to adopt anti-Western and anti-American foreign policies and FLPI adds anti- media coverage of the U.S. presidential election.  This approach served to antagonize domestic liberals, particularly those perceived as closely aligned with Western ideals, often labeled as “Westoxicated (Morse, 1970).

Media framing as adopted here examines news media text themselves as an output for other political variables rather than assuming direct or indirect effects on audiences (Dodson, 2010). In this regard, framing research shares certain characteristics with critical discourse analysis (CDA), which has historically focused primarily on textual analysis (Fairclough, 2003). Though framing is the dominant research paradigm at present in media and social sciences, one cannot ignore the intersection among different approaches. Yet, the majority of framing research in communication has tended to refer back to the work of Entman (1993) and Entman (1991), one of the first authors to develop a systematic methodology for framing research. Entman’s methodology combined quantitative content analysis of attributions with qualitative analyses that contextualized the texts within a broader discursive framework. 

In this context, several questions can be posed to elucidate the nature of international relations between U.S., and the respective state. For example, should we view the framing of the 2024 U.S. presidential election in foreign news media as a manifestation of the given state’s foreign policy toward the U.S.? Alternatively, is it better to understand it as a reaction to a temporary event? To what extent is this framing intertwined with or reflective of the nature of U.S. power relations with the given state? Does the framing reflect the U.S. dominance as a superpower within the international system, or does it express the state’s marginalized position? Is it driven by a desire to emulate the American election model domestically or to resist its adoption? Why does the framing of the U.S. elections differ between states such as Russia, the UK, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia? Additionally, how does the framing of the U.S. elections vary among news media within a given state, particularly those exhibiting different degrees of state parallelism?

Critical Discourse Analysis

CDA is far from easy, as Fairclough contends it requires true multidisciplinarity, and an account of intricate relationships between text, social cognition, power, society and culture. Power involves control by one group or state over other group/s or state/s. Such control may pertain to action and cognition. It is through discourse that one group or state changes the mind of others in one’s own interests (Fairclough, 2013). The power and dominance of groups and states are often measured by their ability to control access to discourse. This control is significant not just as a means of influencing social actions but more fundamentally as a mechanism for shaping the minds of others by managing social representations. Fairclough focused on how governments use (CDA) within societies as a tool for manipulation, utilizing language to establish connections between ideology, power, and societal structures (Fairclough, 1995). The current project extends this concept to the international domain, examining how each participating state employs CDA to advance its foreign affairs-either by imposing its own ideologies and power or by subordinating itself to those of another nation (in this study, the United States). Both imposition and subordination are achieved through the strategic use of language and the manipulation of journalistic framing. Van Dijk (2000) has emphasized four strategies that facilitate nuanced ideological analysis, allowing for the expression of various ideological positions as outlined below:

1. Highlight positive aspects about “us.”
2. Focus on negative aspects about “them.”
3. Downplay negative aspects about “us.”
4. Minimize positive aspects about “them.”

In line with the above discussion, the primary objective of CDA is to uncover the connections between language, ideology, domination and power. (Chang Changfu & Baotong, 1998).  Given the previous conceptions and strategies of CDA, it is appraent that the use of CDA in the context of elections can be understood in two contrasting ways. On one hand, it reflects a struggle for power- between those striving to assert and maintain dominance and those resisting it. On the other hand, it represents a form of cooperation embodying the practices and institutions through which a state seeks to resolve clashes of interest over resources, power, freedom, and similar concerns. While the first perspective highlights power struggles as the essence of CDA, the second frames it as the nonviolent management of conflicting interests. In other words, discourse is the focus of struggle. This view is based on the perception of (Chilton & Schaffner, 2002) for politics. 

From a CDA perspective, one might ask to what extent political discourse regarding U.S. elections varies from one state to another. What factors shape the differences and similarities in these discourses across the world? Is it the nature of international relations between the target state and the U.S.? Do editorial and professional policies within the state play a role? To what extent is political discourse influenced by domestic political dynamics? Alternatively, is it the result of an interplay between external and internal forces shaping the state’s political discourse? To what extent do political discourses of newspapers aligned with the state differ from those that are not? Do newspapers of the target states just publish “reactive discourses,” exclusively produced by external sources, such as U.S. media, international news agencies, or other global outlets? Alternatively, do these newspapers publish their own distinct “proactive discourse,” reflecting the perspective of their journalists, columnists, freelancers, and/or the discourse of the state in which they operate? 

What common ground do these two types of discourses share in terms of their objectives, their positions on accepting or resisting the U.S. election model, and its underlying characteristics? One might also ask: Are the agenda-setters of the target newspaper’ discourses primarily local forces and sources, external forces and sources, or a combination of both? It is assumed that newspapers within and across states do not adopt uniform frames and discursive strategies. Rather, their editorial approaches to U.S presidential election are influenced by factors such as the nature of U.S. relations with the state in which they operate their degree of state parallelism, prevailing values, socio-economic conditions, and editorial constraints. These factors are linguistically embedded in newspaper discourses to ensure their target audiences effectively interpret them (Ledouble & Marty, 2019). It is also assumed that, despite the rise of the internet and social media networks, understanding the influence of international relations on international communication requires focusing on the nation-state as a central unit of analysis. This approach requires analyzing the most influential nation-state news providers, as they more directly represent the nation-state’s position, despite having a more limited domestic and international reach compared to social media platforms.

Against this background, it is expected that the international communication or more specifically, the news media’s coverage of the 2024 U.S. presidential election play a role subsidiary to the power relations that govern the U.S and prospective states.  It is also argued that different news media have different relationships to both the state and the market affecting the way it covers the foreign policy issues (Benson & Hallin, 2007). Furthermore, it is argued that studying frames in isolation, without examining the forces or powers that shape them, results in an incomplete and sometimes misleading analysis. This underscores the importance of integrating framing analysis (both quantitative and qualitative) with CDA.  More importantly is examining the amount and frequency of flows of news and discourse in states with varied international relations with the U.S. One of the key questions this project addresses is the extent to which the amount and frequency of  the U.S. election coverage in the participating states depends on whether their relationship with the U.S. is confrontational, cooperative, dependent, or independent.

Factors Determining the Flow of U.S. Election News and Discourses

A substantial body of research has conceptualized the amount and frequency of international news and discourses flow at a more abstract level. These theoretical approaches highlight dynamics such as the concentration of power, wealth, and technology (Schramm, 1964), the dominance of elite nations (Galtung & Ruge, 1965), imperialism and cultural imperialism (Boyd-Barrett & Braham, 2013; Boyd-Barrett & Rantanen, 1998; Chadha & Kavoori, 2000), dependency (Meyer, 1989), and world-systems theory (Wallerstein, 1974). Despite numerous efforts to understand how and why the flow of news and political discourses varies across states within the global system, These conceptual frameworks have not been empirically examined in a large scale within diverse states with regard to a particular event (Boyed Barrett, 1980). 

The most comprehensive approach explaining this phenomenon is the world systems theory (Wallerstein, 1974) in which Wallerstein  argues that while all nations within the global system interact with one another, these interactions are not between equal partners. Instead, the superior economic, political, and military power of developed states enforces conditions of unequal exchange on developing states. Drawing on several approaches, Wallerstein conceptualized the world as located in three interactive zones-core, semi-periphery, and periphery- based on a variety of historical, economic, and political characteristics. Western industrialized states are always at the position in which they produce and sell international news and impose political discourses. In contrast, the peripheral states consume and depend on their information and political discourses from the core states (Kim & Barnett, 1996). 

If, as world-systems theory suggests, core nations often influence the actions or reactions of states  in the semi-periphery and periphery, then events and issues originating in the core such as the 2024 U.S., presidential election have far-reaching repercussions and are observed accordingly in news media of other parts of the world. In the context of international communication, news coverage can be seen as a spreading effect moving outward from the centre of the world system (Chang, 1998). It is a fact that recent studies have increasingly moved beyond examining media and messaging systems within a single country or region, focusing on how and why these systems interact within broader international or global contexts (Chang, 1998). Unfortunately, the inconsistency between the theoretical frameworks and empirical findings  of “world- systems theory as well as other theoretical frameworks”  is still apparent (Chang et al., 2001). The inconsistency that offers a strong rationale for the current project, which aims to verify the validity and accuracy of several conceptual frameworks, with particular emphasis on world-systems theory. It uniquely takes the nation-state as the unit of analysis, capturing a spectrum of international relations that range from confrontation to cooperation and from dependency to independency. Equally important is the diversity of news media, both in traditional print and modern digital forms, and in terms of their alignment and non-alignment with the state.

 To achieve this integration, this project combines three distinct approaches examining framing and CDA: 

1. Quantitative Framing Analysis: This technique focuses on identifying and measuring the prevalence of specific frames in the examined coverage of the U.S. presidential election, based on predefined categories outlined in the codebook. The goal is to provide a systematic and generalizable understanding of patterns in news media framing across countries.
2. Qualitative Framing Analysis: This approach aims at analyzing non-numerical data, such as texts and visuals, with an emphasis on describing what is communicated within the frames. It focuses on exploring meanings, ideas, and strategies embedded in the media coverage, offering a deeper understanding of how frames are constructed and contextualized. In this context, it is important to recognize that texts and visuals are material objects that become “data” once they are coded. These data can take numeric form, meaning that all texts and visuals can be transformed into quantitative data, depending on the coding system employed. In the codebook of the current project, for instance, it is possible to quantify the number of participating states with different types of international relations with the U.S., the number of news items produced by each news source, the prevalence of specific election frames, journalistic formats, and other relevant variables. However, the data analyst may also be asked to describe any of the above variables, which would require a qualitative form of analysis. While quantitative analysis yields statistical measurements, qualitative analysis provides descriptive interpretations. For example, we may want to quantify how many times the U.S. election is framed positively or negatively, but we also need to understand how the election is framed and what each frame conveys.
3. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA): As a specialized form of qualitative analysis rooted in critical theory, CDA examines how discourse-incorporating language, texts, and visuals-is shaped by and contributes to power, ideology, and inequality. It seeks not only to describe discourse but also to critique and challenge the inequalities it sustains. CDA as Tehrani and Yeganeh (1999)  highlight seeks to reveal how ideology and power are embedded in texts in ways that often go unnoticed by the average reader. Drawing on concepts such as ideology, hegemony, power, dominance, dependency, confrontation, and alliance, CDA reveals the relationship between discourse and sociopolitical power structures.

As an extension to CDA, this project aims to integrate two opposing discourses. The first is what FLPI calls “reactive” and the second is the “proactive”. The first investigates a discourse exclusively produced outside the participating state and the role of the two newspapers are just republishing it. The proactive discourse, in contrast, is exclusively produced internally and represents the voice of the newspaper, the elite, the journalists or the representative of the state in which the newspaper operates. The proactive discourse may implicitly endorse indigenous models of electoral competition worldwide. One of the key objectives of this study is the distinction between reactive and proactive discourse, analyzing and comparing them in terms of their objectives, discursive strategies, ideological orientations, as well as their differences and similarities.

The overall objective is to understand how the discourse of target states both reactive and proactive reflects and contributes to the (re)production or challenge of U.S. dominance. Dominance, in this context, refers to the exercise of political, economic, and military power by the U.S., which sustains inequalities in international relations. Such discourses either reinforce or challenge the dynamics of confrontation, cooperation, dependency or independency that shape the relationships between the U.S. and these participating states. To examine this critical role, CDA  as Van Dijk (1993) suggested, has to seek to uncover the structures, strategies, and other characteristics of text that facilitate these dynamics. Unlike non-comparative studies, this research aims to draw conclusions that extend beyond individual cases, exploring differences and similarities among the subjects of analysis within the context of their specific conditions (Esser, 2013). For example, the concept of news selection or omission of CDA technique will be thoroughly assessed by examining the issues each newspaper emphasizes or de-emphasizes individually.

How to Apply CDA in Revealing Power, Ideology, and Dominance

It is important to distinguish between these terms: power is evident when language is used to reinforce or challenge existing authority. Ideology is present when implicit beliefs and values shape the discourse to support or oppose a particular presidential candidate. Domination occurs when discourse legitimizes and perpetuates unequal power relations. The most two thinkers dealt with this issue are (Fairclough, 1995; Fairclough, 2003, 2013; Van Dijk, 2000).  The first introduces a three-dimension model in which he classifies CDA into three interrelated dimensions.   At the first level, the analyst describes the object of analysis; the text.  He conducts a syntactic analysis of the discourse focusing on grammatical aspects or other points that can be observed and read directly from the text. The second level represents the semantic part of the discourse analysis, and involves interpreting the meaning of the text in its communicative situation. In this dimension, he agrees with van Dijk who argues that much of information of a text is not explicitly expressed, but left implicit.  The third level focuses on placing and interpreting the text by relating it to a macro sociocultural context. 

They both agree on the idea that analysis of the discourse is not limited to the textual structures; texts do not have meanings, but are assigned meanings by mental processes of language users. In this sense, van Dijk emphasized the need to spell out the cognitive representations and strategies of journalists in the production of news report and those of the readers when understanding and memorizing it (Van Dijk, 1993; Van Dijk, 2000). In other words, each analysist in his/her state has to analyze the text from within the cognitive, social, political and cultural context out of which this text is produced and consumed.  This resonates with the purpose of CDA that seeks to understand opaque and transparent meaning of dominance, discrimination, power (Blommaert & Bulcaen, 2000) and control and FLPI adds ‘ideology” as manifested in language. 

The key idea here is that readers rely on mental or contextual models while interpreting a text. For example, consider the mental models readers may activate when Trump describes Harris as a “radical leftist,” “socialist”or“nasty woman.” Conversely, what implicit ideological meanings emerge when Harris describes Trump as “racist,” “authoritarian,” “fascist,” “incompetent,” “corrupt,” or “oppressor”? These ideological labels are strategically crafted to resonate with the anxieties of either conservative or liberal audiences. Such terms carry ideological implications, shaping discourse in ways that journalists who produce them and readers who interpret them often share an implicit understanding.  In other words, to analyze ideology, power relations, and domination through CDA is to connect the structure of discourse with the structure of society. Discourse is an opaque power object in modern societies and CDA tries to make it visible and more transparent (Blommaert & Bulcaen, 2000).

Aims:

This project aims to:

1. Understand how international power relations that govern – particularly confrontational, cooperative, dependent or independent dynamics – the U.S. with the participating states influences the emphasis, framing, tone, and orientation of news media coverage and more importantly, the discourses adopted by these news media; 
2. Analyze the factors shaping reactive and proactive discourses in the target states, including their goals, focal points, and ideological orientations.
3. Examine the extent to which a newspaper’s alignment with or independence from the participating state shapes its discourses. 
4. Investigate the convergent and divergent forces driving similarities and differences in international election media framing and discourses. 
5. Identify the similarities and differences among newspapers in the participating states regarding the amount and frequency of news coverage and discourse, and explain the underlying forces at play, and
6. Develop theories and concepts that genuinely reflect indigenous African, Asian, Latin American and Middle Eastern cultures while engaging with Western knowledge and legacy, drawing on models of hybrid knowledge production.

Hypotheses: 

1. International variations in news media framing of the 2024 U.S. presidential election are influenced by the nature of each state’s relationship with the U.S., ranging from confrontation and cooperation to dependency and independency.
2. States with confrontational, cooperative, dependent, or independent relationships with the U.S. are likely to show corresponding differences in how their news media construct political discourses about the U.S. election.
3. The way the news media frame the 2024 U.S. presidential election is influenced by the degree of media–state parallelism in each state. 
4. The political discourse of each news media regarding the 2024 U.S. presidential election is influenced by the degree of media–state parallelism in its respective state. 
5. The neorealist approach to international relations has formed globally fragmented framing and political discourse reflecting and defending the interests of individual states or regional alliances.
6. Diverging national forces rooted in national interests, identity, and the defense of indigenous cultures, exert a stronger influence on the media framing and discourse of the 2024 U.S. presidential election than the converging forces of dominant international news agencies and the global liberal media hegemony. As a result, each state exhibits distinct media frames and political discourses.
7. There is a positive correlation between negative tone of coverage and horse-race framing versus the positive tone of coverage and issue framing. 
8. The volume and frequency of news in the participating states’ newspapers are influenced by the type of international relationship each state has with the United States.
9. The reactive and proactive discourses of the participating states’ news media are different in terms of objectives and discursive strategies. 

Research Questions

1. What are the main issues/ themes and frames used by influential international newspapers in covering the 2024 U.S. presidential election, and how do these framing approaches vary across states?
2. How frequently do influential newspapers employ the policy/issues frames compared to the game/ horse-race frames in their 2024 U.S. presidential election coverage?
3. Is the 2024 U.S. presidential election coverage in influential newspapers primarily descriptive or interpretative?
4. Is the tone of influential newspaper coverage of the 2024 U.S. presidential election- Democratic vs Republican parties – predominantly negative or positive?
5.  Which 2024 U.S. presidential candidate is most frequently mentioned in the influential newspapers and what is the prevailing attitude of the coverage-positive or negative?
6. How have the influential newspapers employed data journalism, data visualization and videos in the 2024 U.S. presidential election?
7. To what extent does the coverage of the 2024 U.S. presidential election reflect the dominance of Western sources, colonial influence, and global journalism values, versus a diversity of indigenous journalistic cultures?
8. How is U.S. democracy portrayed in different states, and what discourses emerge regarding the legitimacy, fairness, and credibility versus the illegitimacy, unfairness and incredibility, of the 2024 election?
9. How do international relationships – confrontation, cooperation, dependency or independency – appear to shape the attitude/ favorability or unfavorability of U.S. election coverage?
10. How is the U.S. portrayed in election coverage – as a hegemonic, interfering force or a fair and just leader – and what power dynamics are reflected in these representations?
11. How do reactive discourses differ from proactive discourses, in terms of discursive strategies, ideological orientations, and focal points?
12.  To what extent do reactive and proactive discourses violate the ethics of election’s coverage? 

Research Design

This research is based on a 70-day content analysis (CA) and critical discourse analysis (CDA) of the most influential newspapers across the world covering the 2024 U.S. presidential election. The sample covers the period from September 1 to November 10, 2024, with data collected systematically every day to ensure full representative coverage over the extended timeframe. The analysis includes all journalistic materials related to the election, providing a deeper and more nuanced understanding of media dynamics and framing across the election.

To test the hypotheses and address the research questions, all Principal Investigators (PIs) need to analyze the most influential official newspapers that are selected to meet the “Four-Point Scale” of media – state parallelism. In all cases, the two selected newspapers should differ as significantly as possible in terms of ownership, ideology, political attitudes, or financial resources. In selecting the two most influential newspapers, each research team need to apply the defining characteristics of influential newspapers, which may include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Wide circulation and readership/ reach, 2. Credibility,  3 Cultural and historical importance, 4. Influence on setting the political agenda and  decision making process, , 5. High-Quality Journalism, and 7. Financial Resources.

 

The Pilot Study

A pilot study covering seven days (10% of the total study period) will be conducted to identify ambiguities in content and discourse analysis categories, as well as to test consistency among coders. This step is imperative to ensure that the codebook yields reliable results. For the pilot, two coders will independently analyze the same content without collaboration. The primary objective is to further refine the codebook based on pilot findings. Inter-coder reliability (ICR) will be assessed to evaluate the consistency of coding across multiple coders within each state. This ensures that the same content is analyzed in a consistent, objective, and replicable manner. Cohen’s Kappa will be used to measure ICR, with a minimum level of agreement at 0.85. Research teams that meet the ICR criterion will include the pilot study period as part of their main analysis. Teams that do not meet the required ICR will undergo additional training to improve objectivity and consistency in coding. These teams must repeat the pilot study until they achieve the required reliability before proceeding with the full 70-day analysis. 

Criteria of Maturity and the Current Project 

In a holistic approach, Gurevitch and Blumler (2004) outlined six criteria to evaluate the maturity of comparative research in political communication, all of which are met in the current project. 1. The rationale and the purpose for adopting a comparative approach should be clearly stated. Why have the participating researchers chosen to contribute to this project, and what specific benefit do they aim to gain by working on multiple societies? 2. The study should be grounded in a theoretical or conceptual framework, which will guide both variables to be investigated and the way they are compared.3. Comparative research should be designed to achieve “double value”-providing insights not only into the specific phenomena under study but also into the distinct systems within which those phenomena are examined. This can be accomplished by identifying in advance certain macro-level dimensions along which the political communication systems may differ in their influence on the empirical phenomena; in our project; they are the political discourses and media framing. 4. Initial conceptualizations should include a preliminary statement of expectations, or hypotheses, where appropriate, about what the empirical comparisons might reveal. This helps to guide effectively both the research design and the analysis of results. 5. More advanced research will revisit initial assumptions and expectations about comparative similarities and differences in light of the empirical findings, identifying which have been confirmed and which have not. 6. Nearly everything in political communication is currently in flux, requiring researchers to consider the temporal nature of theories, variables, structures, forms, and strategies.

In addition to the above insightful criteria set by both Gurevitch and Blumler ensuring maturaity of comparative political communication studies, the FLPI adds the following: 7. Interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary approaches are necessary for meaningful comparative studies that transcend disciplinary boundaries. In an era marked by stagnation in the field, this remains the most effective research strategy for generating new theoretical insights. 8. Mature comparative research is not only planned and conducted across cultures or nation-states, but must also prioritize cultures of the Global South, which have been largely overlooked in much of comparative international research in communication studies. With this in mind, the goal is to localize, reorient, and-most importantly-reinvent modes of theorizing in ways that are responsive to local contexts, At the same time, these efforts must engage meaningfully with the global heritage of media and communication studies, which remains predominantly rooted in Western traditions.. In this context,Iwabuchi (2010) advocates for a partnership between Western and non-Western scholars as the most effective and indeed the only way to transcend the West/non-West dichotomy. 

The emphasis throughout is on hybridity as a means of enriching universal scholarship by fostering a more inclusive intellectual dialogue between academic communities, rather than simply rejecting Western values. In this sense, the objective goes beyond mere de-Westernization. In this sense,Wang and Kuo (2010) ask for avoiding issues of nativism and cultural essentialism (Khiabany, 2011). Similarly,  B. I. Hamada (2022) argues that a hybridity paradigm encompassing both Western and non-Western cultures offers the most effective path for advancing comparative communication studies and protecting journalism theories and concepts from marginalization or falling behind future developments. 9. The active involvement of participating research teams in shaping project concepts, designing research strategies, developing data collection tools, and publishing results in various indigenous languages serves as a genuine indicator of the maturity of comparative research projects. 10. Ultimately, truly universal comparative communication studies must aim to influence policy-making and help bridge the gap between the affluent Global North and the marginalized Global South concerning the phenomena under investigation. The practical impact of such projects should represent the ultimate return on the significant time and effort invested in their planning and execution. As one philosopher aptly stated, ‘there is nothing more practical than a good theory”. 

In terms of its significance and impact, the project resonates with Esser (2013 P.1) who argues that “virtually no other approach has potential to bring communication studies further forward in the age of transnationalization than the comparative approach. Drawing on work of (Hanitzsch, 2009; Hanitzsch, Laucere, & Steindl, 2023), the current project, titled “U.S. Presidential Election of 2024: A Cross-Nation Influential Newspapers’ Analysis,” introduces a distinct model that diverges from the triple classification proposed by Hanitzsch. While the three existing models differ in approach, they all originate from Western frameworks with a Western-centric approach. The first model, a centralized approach, is exemplified by the World Press Freedom Index conducted by the Reporters Sans Frontières and organizations such as Freedom House. These institutions operate without genuine participation from researchers worldwide, reinforcing a Western-centric perspective. The second model, the correspondent approach, allows for greater involvement from international collaborators who lack true academic freedom. Participants have no influence over the project’s outcomes and are often excluded from shaping its conceptual foundations. As a result, they are deprived of both academic autonomy and substantive scholarly engagement. The third model; the coordinated cooperation model, represented by the Worlds of Journalism Study (WJS), offers more flexibility where it grants participants of 120 states in its third wave a degree of independence in shaping the project’s framework and publishing its results. 

What sets the current project apart is its origin, the Global South” that meets both their research interests as well as their counterparts from the Global North. This is why the FLPI calls it “Global South -North Collaborative Model”. Unlike previous models, it ensures full academic freedom, allowing all collaborators to contribute to the conceptual foundations of the project and co-publish its findings. Additionally, this model integrates perspectives from international relations, international communication, political economy, political communication, framing, and critical discourse analysis. 

It is well established that the dominance of the West, particularly the U.S., in global knowledge production and publication has contributed to the marginalization and exclusion of endogenous knowledge and paradigms across rest of the world (Gunaratne, 2010; Hanitzsch, 2019; Kuo & Chew, 2009; Miike, 2002; Papoutsaki, 2007; Waisbord, 2015; Waisbord & Mellado, 2014). This dominance is accompanied by an uncritical reliance on Western and U.S.-centered knowledge. This dominance has profoundly influenced not only higher education systems in journalism and communication, but also the profession itself, including media policies and practices. As such, the verification of such Western knowledge in the rest of the world should be mandatory for communication and journalism scholars, otherwise, they will teach concepts and theories that do not represent their endogenous cultures and base their research on irrelevant frameworks. 

More importantly is to manage their news media according to alien legacy. By the end of this project, it is expected that Latin American, Asian, African, and Middle Eastern scholars, through engagement with their Western counterparts, will develop a hybrid form of knowledge. This knowledge will not reject the West, but instead offer a culturally grounded alternative that incorporates useful aspects of Western thought while authentically representing their own traditions.  This project rejects modes of thinking that reinforce polarization. Instead, it promotes theorization free from ideological bias or the artificial boundaries imposed by arbitrary definitions of the “West” versus the “Rest” (Hall, 2007). This conceptual perspective draws on the work of several Western scholars and provides a foundation for further development (Josephi, 2007).  

This project- through its objectives and methodologies- examines the 2024 U.S. presidential election as a global event with far-reaching implications for politics, the economy, and international relations. It provides a unique platform for a cosmopolitan study that brings together a network of scholars from 33 countries across diverse political, geographical, and cultural contexts, including  five regions, namely, Middle East, Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Europe. By engaging with a range of conceptual frameworks and posing questions and hypotheses that investigate both similarities and differences across nations and regions, the project embodies the core principles of cosmopolitan studies. As Waisbord (2015) argues cosmopolitanism is commonly linked to contemporary normative theories building on both classical and modern philosophy, emphasize a moral commitment to justice, law, human rights, and politics beyond the confines of the nation-state. Cosmopolitan media studies, in turn, should be driven by theoretical and empirical inquiries that resonate across geographic and disciplinary boundaries.

Project Timeframe

N	Tasks	Deadline	Owner
1	Revising the codebook and providing training for the project’s participants.	January 15, 2025	All research teams, Codebook and training committee and the Advisory Board
2	Revising the conceptual notes for U.S-participating states international relations and newspapers-state parallelism	March, 15, 2025	Revision Committee and the Advisory Board
3	Submitting and revising two reports outlining the U.S.–participating state relationship and the parallelism between newspapers and states.	April 30, 2025	All (PIs) and the Revision Committee and the Advisory Board
4	Reviewing and revising the working paper of the project	April 30, 2025	(PIs) in collaboration with their research teams
5	Entering the study metadata	May 6, 2025	(PIs) in collaboration with their research teams
5	Conducting a pilot study to ensure eligibility of the codebook and to examine the inter-coder reliability ( analysis of 7 days)	May 15, 2025	All (PIs) & Advisory Board
6	Conducting the analysis of the two newspapers during the election period (70 days) from September 1 to November 10, 2024.	July 15,  2025	All (PIs) and research teams.
7	Data cleaning	August 15, 2025	The Quality Control Committee and Advisory Board.
8	Conference’ presentations meeting	September 1, 2025	LPI in Collaboration with all PIs
9	Journal ‘articles publication meeting	September 15,  2025	LPI in Collaboration with all LPs
10	Book’ planning meeting	October 1, 2025	LPI in Collaboration with all PIs

 

The outcomes of this project can be published as journal articles, book chapters, books, special issues in peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations, etc.

List of potential Journals for Project Publications:

The following is a tentative list of journals considered for publishing the project’s articles:

1. International Communication Gazette 
2. International Communication Journal
3. International Journal of Press and Politics
4. Global Media and Communication
5. Political Communication
6. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly
7. Journalism Studies
8. Journalism
9. Journalism Practices
10. Global Media and China
11. Asian Journal of Communication
12. African Journalism Studies
13. Annals of International Communication
14. Journal of International Communication
15. Media, Culture and Society
16. Javnost, the Public
17. Mass Communication and Society
18. Review of International Studies
19. Canadian Journal of Communication
20. Journal of Multicultural Discourses
21. Journal of Latin American Communication Research 
22. British Journal of Politics and International Relations
23. European Journal of International Relations
24. International Journal of Middle East Studies 
25. Middle East Journal  

References

Acharya, A. (2011). Dialogue and discovery: In search of International Relations theories beyond the West. Millennium, 39(3), 619-637. 

Asante, M. K. (2014). Facing south to Africa: Toward an Afrocentric critical orientation: Lexington Books.

Asante, M. K., & Miike, Y. (2013). Paradigmatic Issues in Intercultural Communication Studies: An Afrocentric-Asiacentric Dialogue. China Media Research, 9(3). 

Axelrod, R., & Keohane, R. O. (1985). Achieving cooperation under anarchy: Strategies and institutions. World politics, 38(1), 226-254. 

Benson, R., & Hallin, D. C. (2007). How states, markets and globalization shape the news: The French and US national press, 1965-97. European Journal of Communication, 22(1), 27-48. 

Blommaert, J., & Bulcaen, C. (2000). Critical Discourse Analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 29, 447-466. 

Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1975). Towards a Comparative Framework for Political Communication Research:Issues and strategies for research. In S. H. Chaffee (Ed.), Political Communication. Beverly Hills: SAGE Publications.

Boyd-Barrett, O., & Braham, P. (2013). Media, knowledge and power: Routledge.

Boyd-Barrett, O., & Rantanen, T. (1998). The Globalization of News. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Boyed Barrett, O. (1980). The International News Agencies: Beverly Hills CA: Sage.

Brüggemann, M. (2014). Between frame setting and frame sending: How journalists contribute to news frames. Communication Theory, 24(1), 61-82. 

Cappella, J. N., & Jamieson, K. H. (1997). Spiral of Cynicism: The Press and the Public Good. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cardoso, F. H., & Faletto, E. (2024). Dependency and development in Latin America: Univ of California Press.

Chadha, K., & Kavoori, A. (2000). Media imperialism revisited: Some findings from the Asian case. Media, Culture & Society, 22(4), 415-432. 

Chang Changfu, & Baotong, G. (1998). Contemporary Western Rhetoric. Beijing: China Social Sciences Publishing House.

Chang, T.-K. (1998). All countries not created equal to be news: World system and international communication. Communication Research, 25(5), 528-563. 

Chang, T.-K., Berg, P. P., Fung, A. Y.-H., Kedl, K. D., Luther, C. A., & Szuba, J. (2001). Comparing nations in mass communication research, 1970-97: A critical assessment of how we know what we know. Gazette (Leiden, Netherlands), 63(5), 415-434. 

Chilton, P., & Schaffner, C. (2002). Introduction: Themes and Principles in the Analysis Analysis of Political Discourse. In Paul Chilton & C. Schaffner (Eds.), Politics as Text and Talk: Analytic Approaches to Political Discourse. Amsterdam: J: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Claudia Mellado, C. L. (2013). Redefining Comparative Analyses of Media Systems from the Perspective of New Democracies. Communication &Society, Comunicación y Sociedad, 26(4), 1-24. 

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

Curran, J., Esser, F., Hallin, D. C., Hayashi, K., & Lee, C.-C. (2017). International news and global integration: A five-nation reappraisal. Journalism Studies, 18(2), 118-134. 

De Albuquerque, A. (2018). Political parallelism. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication.

Dodson, G. (2010). Australian Journalism and War. Journalism Studies, 11(1), 99-114. doi:10.1080/14616700903119768

Entman, R. M. (1991). Framing US coverage of international. Journal of Communication, 41(4), 52. 

Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-58. 

Esser, F. (2013). The Emerging Paradigm of Comparative Communication Enquiry: Advancing Cross-National Research in Times of Globalization. International Journal of Communication, 7(2), 114-140. doi:10.5167/uzh-91247

Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis-The Critical Study of Language. London: Longman.

Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing Discourse: Textual analysis for Social Research (Vol. 270). London & New York: Routledge London.

Fairclough, N. (2013). Language and power: Routledge.

Galtung, J., & Ruge, M. H. (1965). The structure of foreign news: The presentation of the Congo, Cuba and Cyprus crises in four Norwegian newspapers. Journal of Peace Research, 2(1), 64-90. 

Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American journal of sociology, 95(1), 1-37. 

Gross, K., & D’ambrosio, L. (2004). Framing emotional response. Political Psychology, 25(1), 1-29. 

Gunaratne, S. A. (2010). De-Westernizing Communication/Social Science Research: Opportunities and Limitations. Media, Culture & Society, 32(3), 473-500. doi:10.1177/0163443709361159

Gurevitch, M., & Blumler, J. G. (2004). State of the Art of Comparative Political Communication Research. In E. Frank & P. Barbara (Eds.), Comparing Political Communication: Theories, Cases, and Challenges. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hall, S. (2007). The West and the rest: Discourse and power. Race and racialization: Essential readings, 56. 

Hallin, D., & Mancini, P. (2004). Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hamada, B. (2021). Determinants of Journalists’ Autonomy and Safety: Evidence from the Worlds of Journalism Study. Journalism Practice. doi:10.1080/17512786.2021.1871861

Hamada, B., I. (2019). Press freedom and political instability in the Arab world: An empirical investigation. Journal of Arab & Muslim Media Research, 12(1), 21-41. 

Hamada, B., I, . (2022). Determinants of Journalists’ Autonomy and Safety: Evidence from the Worlds of Journalism Study. Journalism Practice, 16:8,1715-1735, DOI: 10.1080/17512786.2021.1871861(vol. 16, No 8, 1715–1735). 

Hamada, B. I. (2022). Islamic Worldview as a Model for De-westernizing Journalism Studies and Profession. The Javnost-The Public, 28(1), 1-17. 

Hamada, B. I., & Abdel-Salam, A.-S. G. (2025). Deerminants of watchdog journalism: A global empirical approach. International Communication Gazette, 87(3), 191-216. 

Hamada, B. I., Abdel-Salam, A.-S. G., & Bebawi, S. (2024). Journalism Practices in Western and Muslim Majority Countries: Culture Matters. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 19401612241260730. 

Hamada, B. I., & Vallesi, D. (2023). Determinants of Journalists’ Trust in Public Institutions: A Macro and Micro Analysis Across 67 Countries. Journalism Practice, 1-22. 

Hanitzsch, T. (2009). Comparative journalism studies. The handbook of journalism studies, 413-427. 

Hanitzsch, T. (2019). Journalism Studies still needs to fix Western Bias. Journalism, 20(1), 214-217. doi:10.1177/1464884918807353

Hanitzsch, T., Hanusch, F., Ramaprasad, J., & de Beer, A. S. (2019). Worlds of Journalism: . New York:: Columbia University Press.

Hanitzsch, T., Laucere, C., & Steindl, N. (2023). Managing Diversity: Obstacles and Challenges in Cross-Border Journalism Research. In R. Liane, L. Martin, & W. David (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of Cross-Border Journalism. Switzerland: Palgrave.

Hanitzsch, T., & Mellado, C. (2011). What Shapes the News around the World? How Journalists in Eighteen Countries Perceive Influences on Their Work. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 16(3), 404-426. doi:10.1177/1940161211407334

Harris, J., Hrubec, M., & López, E. D. (2025). The Global Impacts of US Presidential Elections. Perspectives on Global Development and Technology, 24(1-2), 7-11. 

Herrero, L. C., Humprecht, E., Engesser, S., Brüggemann, M. L., & Büchel, F. (2017). Rethinking Hallin and Mancini beyond the West: An analysis of media systems in Central and Eastern Europe. International Journal of Communication, 11, 27. 

Iwabuchi, K. (2010). De-Westernization and the Governance of Global Cultural Connectivity: A Dialogic Approach to East Asian Media Cultures. Postcolonial Studies, 13(4), 403-419. 

Iyengar, S., & Simon, A. (1993). News coverage of the Gulf crisis and public opinion: A study of agenda-setting, priming, and framing. Communication Research, 20(3), 365-383. 

Jones, B., & Hadland, A. (2024). South African Media and Politics: Is the Three Models Approach Still Valid After Two Decades? Media and Communication, 12. 

Josephi, B. (2007). Internationalizing the Journalistic Professional Model: Imperatives and Impediments. Global Media and Communication, 3(3), 300-307. 

Kamhawi, R., & Weaver, D. (2003). Mass Communication Research Trends  from 1988- to 1999. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 80(1), 7-27. 

Keohane, R. O. (1984). After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton University Press.

Khiabany, G. (2011). Whither Eurocentrism? Media, culture and nativism in our time. In W. Georgette (Ed.), De-Westernizing communication research: Altering questions and changing frameworks. London and New York: Routledge.

Kim, K., & Barnett, G. A. (1996). The determinants of international news flow: A network analysis. Communication Research, 23(3), 323-352. 

Kim, S.-H., Scheufele, D. A., & Shanahan, J. (2002). Think about it this way: Attribute agenda-setting function of the press and the public’s evaluation of a local issue. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 79(1), 7-25. 

Krasner, S. D. (1978). Defending the national interest: Raw materials investments and US foreign policy (Vol. 1). New York: Princeton University Press.

Kuo, E. C. Y., & Chew, H. E. (2009). Beyond Ethnocentrism in Communication Theory: towards a Culture-centric Approach. Asian Journal of Communication, 19(4), 422-437. doi:10.1080/01292980903293361

Lake, D. A. (2011). Hierarchy in international relations. New York: Cornell University Press.

Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1952). The prognosis for international communications research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 16(4), 481-490. 

Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1976). The Prognosis for International Communications Research. In H. D. Fischer & J. C. Merrill (Eds.), International and Intercultural  Communication. New York: Hastings House.

Ledouble, H., & Marty, E. (2019). The 2016 presidential primaries in the United States: a quantitative and qualitative approach to media coverage. Studia Neophilologica, 91(2), 199-218. 

Lee, C.-C. (2015). International Communication Research: Critical Reflections and a New Point of Departure. In L. Chin-Chuan (Ed.), Internationalizing “International Communication”. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

Loffelholz, M., & Weaver, D. (2008). Global Journalism Research.Theories, Methods, Findings, and Future: Blackwell -Wiley.

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

Meyer, W. H. (1989). Global news flows: Dependency and neoimperialism. Comparative Political Studies, 22(3), 243-264. 

Miike, Y. (2002). Theorizing Culture and Communication in the Asian Context: An Assumptive Foundation. Intercultural Communication Studies, 11(1), 1-22. 

Mills, C. W. (1959). The sociological imagination. (Vol. 152): New York: Oxford University Press.

Morgenthau, H. J. (1973). Politics among nations. New York: Scientific Book Agency.

Morse, E. L. (1970). The transformation of foreign policies: Modernization, interdependence, and externalization. World politics, 22(3), 371-392. 

Mowlana, H. (2016). The role of media in contemporary international relations: culture and politics at the crossroads. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 11(1), 84-96. 

Mutsvairo, B., Rey, E., Bebawi, S., Ramírez, M., Mellado, C., Mabweazara, H., . . . Thussu, D. (2021). Ontologies of Journalism in the Global South. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 1(21), 1-21. doi:10.1177/10776990211048883

Papoutsaki, E. (2007). De-westernising research methodologies: Alternative approaches to research for higher education curricula in developing countries. Contemporary PNG Studies: DWU Research Journal, 6, 1-15. 

Pedersen, R. T. (2014). News media framing of negative campaigning. Mass Communication and Society, 17(6), 898-919. 

Reese, S. D. (2007). The framing project: A bridging model for media research revisited. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 148-154. 

Schramm, W. (1964). Mass media and national development: The role of information in the developing countries (Vol. 65): Stanford University Press Stanford, CA.

Seymour-Ure, C. (1974). The political impact of mass media. London: Constable.

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

Shoemaker, P., & Reese, S. (1996). Mediating the Message: Theories of Influences on Mass Media Content. New York: Longman.

Siebert, F. S., Peterson, T., & Wilbur, S. (1956). Four Theories of the Press: The Authoritarian, Libertarian, Social Responsibility’ and Soviet Communist Concepts of What the Press Should Be and Do. Chicago/London: University of Illinois Press.

Snyder, R. S. (1999). The US and Third World revolutionary states: understanding the breakdown in relations. International Studies Quarterly, 43(2), 265-290. 

Tai, C.-S., Peterson, E. J., & Gurr, T. R. (1973). Internal versus external sources of anti-Americanism: Two comparative studies. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 17(3), 455-488. 

Tarzi, S. M. (2004). Neorealism, neoliberalism and the international system. International Studies, 41(1), 115-128. 

Tehrani, N. J., & Yeganeh, A. S. (1999). Dictionary of Discourse Analysis. Rahnama Publications. 

Theotonio, D. S. (1970). The structure of dependence. American Economic Review, 60(2), 231-236. 

Thussu, D. (2009). Internationalize Media Studies. Television & New Media, 10(1), 162-164. 

Thussu, D. (2022). De-colonizing global news-flows: a Historical Perspective. Journalism Studies, 1-15. 

Tuchman, G. (1978). Making news: A study in the construction of reality. New York: Free Press.

Van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & society, 4(2), 249-283. 

Van Dijk, T. A., . . (2000). Ideology and discourse: A multidisciplinary introduction.

Waisbord, S. (2015). De-Westernization and Cosmopolitan Media Studies. In C.-C. Lee (Ed.), Internationalizing “International Communication. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Waisbord, S., & Mellado, C. (2014). De-westernizing Communication Studies: A Reassessment. Communication Theory, 24(4), 361-372. doi:10.1111/comt.12044

Wallerstein, I. (1974). The Modern World System. New York: Academic Press.

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

Wang, G., & Kuo, E. C. Y. (2010). The Asian communication debate: culturespecificity, culture-generality, and beyond. Asian Journal of Communication, 20(2), 152-165. doi:10.1080/01292981003693344

Weaver, D., & Buddenbaum, J. (1983). The Press and Government Restriction: A 13-Year Update of a Cross-National Study. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the  Association for Education in Journalism and MassCommunication. 

Weaver, D., & Willnat, L. (2012). The Global Journalist in the 21st Century. New York and London: Routledge.

 

* Acknowledgment

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Prof. Dr. Thomas Hanitzsch, Prof. Dr. Arul Aram, Dr. Bin Chen, Dr. ElSayed ElKilany, Dr. Kofi Takyi Asante, Dr. Saida Kheira Benammar, and Mrs. Sabat Khan for their invaluable review and insightful comments, which significantly contributed to the overall improvement of this working paper.

I am also grateful to the many scholars who, through continuous discussions over the mailing list and online meetings during the past three months, offered significant observations that helped refine this article. These include Prof. Dr.  Karen Arriaza Ibarra,  Prof. Dr. Oddgeir Tveiten, Prof. Dr. Mohammed Kirat, Prof. Dr. Svetlana Bodrunova, Dr. Carmen Beatriz Fernández,  Dr. Murad Alazzany, Dr. Alexia Raquel Ávalos Rivera, Dr. Abdelsalam G Abdelsalam, Prof. Dr. Fatma Elzahraa Elsayed, Dr. Lucia Mesquita, Dr. Islam  Aboualhuda, Dr. Stephen Ssenkaaba, Prof. Dr. Bushra H. Rahman,  Dr. Shepuya Famwang, Prof. Dr. Abdulrahman Al Shami, Prof. Dr. Agnieszka Węglińska, Dr. Abd Almotalab Makki, Dr. Mohamed Lafouairas, Prof. Dr. Abida Ashraf, Prof. Dr. Dr. Zhang, Bingbing, Dr. Andressa Kniess,  Prof. Dr. Grisel Salazar, Prof. Dr. Mohammad Sahid Ullah, Ms. Sara Basyouni Hamada, Mr. Mansour Al Muaili, Ms. Asma Jaghman, Mr. Nader Mohamed, Mr. Anas Fuda, Prof. Dr. Sisanda Nkoala, Dr. Hussien Khalifa, and Ms. Nourhan Elabbassy.