A FRAMING ANALYSIS AND MODEL OF BARACK OBAMA IN POLITICAL

CARTOONS
by
Anthony Palmer
Bachelor of Arts
Duke University, 1999
Master of Mass Communication
University of South Carolina, 2003
______________________________________________
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in
Mass Communications
College of Mass Communications and Information Studies
University of South Carolina
2011
Accepted by:
Ran Wei, Major Professor
Kenneth Campbell, Committee Member
Erik Collins, Committee Member
Todd Shaw, Committee Member
Lacy Ford, Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School

UMI Number: 3488389

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3488389
Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

 Copyright by Anthony Palmer, 2011

All Rights Reserved.

ii

DEDICATION
To Eriko, for her patience.
To Brandi, for her support.
To Mom, for getting me this far.
To Miles, for inspiring me to finish.
And to Duke, for always being there with a smile and a wagging tail.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This dissertation would not have been possible without the efforts and
influences of countless people who have helped, guided, and inspired me along the way.
These thanks extend far beyond people who have assisted me with this dissertation or
with my doctoral studies in general. These thanks extend to people whom I have met in
previous chapters of my life and people who may not be aware of just how much I
appreciate what they have done.
To start, I cannot recall ever hating school. There may have been days when I
did not want to get out of bed, and there may have been days when I came home
discouraged. But I have always liked learning. This would not have been possible
without the presence of talented, caring, and inspiring teachers whose classes I had the
great fortune of being part of as a child and teenager at Department of Defense schools
in Vogelweh and Ramstein, Germany. Thanks to Ms. Goldman for teaching me humility
and for making learning fun. Thanks to Ms. Snellings for getting me to think creatively.
Thanks to Ms. Crummett for making me love to write and getting me to write regularly.
Thanks to Dr. Knudsen for teaching me about professionalism. Thanks to Mr. Davatelis
for always being in my corner when I felt that few others were. Thanks to Ms. Potus for
teaching me that learning was not just about memorizing facts, but also about
integrating it to understand reality. Thanks to Ms. Campbell for finding ways to inspire
genuine interest in an intimidating area of study. Thanks to Ms. Ermel for never settling
iv

for mediocrity. Thanks to Mr. Nukala for prompting me to take my writing to the next
level. Thanks to Ms. Pyne for seeing a little deeper in me. Thanks to Ms. Coffield and
Mr. Lopez for instilling confidence in me at a time when I was unsure of what lay ahead.
Undergraduate studies at Duke University forced me to mature not just as an
academic, but also as a person. This includes becoming more cognizant of my skills and
interests, as well as understanding the importance of making good decisions. While
most of my professors and instructors at Duke were of a great quality, there are a select
few who touched me in a unique way. Thanks to Dr. Curran for providing perhaps the
most rigorous course I have ever taken. Thanks to Dean Bryant for always having a cold
soda ready for me when I needed to vent in her office. Thanks to Bernard Milliken and
Alberta Cash for reminding me that college was about more than just books. And
thanks to Paul Jeffrey for the good jazz.
Shortly before enrolling at the University of South Carolina as a masters degree
student, I began to think of academics a lot more seriously. Even though I had majored
in psychology and sociology as an undergraduate, I knew my future career would entail
my love for writing. So I began to study journalism and mass communication at a more
academic and professional level. When I took my first class in the fall of 2001, little did I
know that the professors I met then would be serving on my dissertation committee ten
years later. These professors obviously had strong teaching abilities. But beyond that, I
also felt quite comfortable interacting with them or dropping by their offices just to talk.
I would later learn that the ability to work well together was the most important quality
I should consider when assembling my dissertation committee.
v

During my two years as a masters student, I learned about the importance of

relationships, networking, and not being afraid of trying something new. Specifically, I
wish to thank Dr. Sakakibara for giving me the encouragement and motivation to satisfy
my wanderlust and move to Japan. Thanks also to Uchida-sensei for showing me a side
of Japan that most non-Japanese never get to see. I would also like to thank Dr. Rowe
for introducing me to an academic interest I never knew I had, teaching English to
speakers of other languages. While these two professors are far removed from the
journalism and mass communication faculty, I believe the lessons I learned from them
were highly valuable in my life in general. In addition, what I learned from them gave
me a greater sense of perspective about life.
After spending four years working and enjoying life in Japan, I finally committed
myself to obtaining my doctorate and completing my formal education. Now I had
another chance to interact with the journalism faculty, only at a more mature level. As
a masters student, they gave me the foundation I needed to become a more critical
thinker and an actual creator of knowledge. Now it was time to bridge the gap between
student and scholar.
Thanks to Dr. Pardun for teaching me about the pain entailed in conducting
research. Thanks to Dr. Duhe for always having an open door and for teaching me
things that could never be learned in a textbook or a classroom. Thanks to Dr. Tanner
for her patience, guidance, toughness, and advice. Thanks to Dr. Stephens for being an
advocate. Thanks to Dr. Grant for providing an excellent course on how to teach mass
communications. Thanks to Dr. Zoch for believing in me. Thanks to Dr. Stpales-Carter
vi

for serving as my advisor and for keeping me grounded in our many conversations.
Thanks to Sandra Hughes for always being organized and having a story to share. And
thanks to Debbie Garris for her endless supply of sweets to take the pain of writing away.
Of course, the journalism schools faculty and staff are not the only ones who
have played a role in getting me this far. My colleagues who have run the gauntlet with
me also helped me survive. Thanks and good luck to Mel, Caroline, Jack, Matt, Brett,
Jasem, Daphney, Beth, Heidi, Youngshin and Hokyung for the stories, the laughter, the
support, the rants, and the perspectives we shared both in and out of class. And I would
be remiss if I did not thank McCown Bridges for stepping up and volunteering to code all
those cartoons and attend all those training sessions.
I must also thank the members of two fellowship organizations that offered me
mentorship, workshops, and conferences at which I could learn how to become a better
scholar and how I could ensure that I would have a successful career post-dissertation.
These fellowships are the Southern Regional Education Board and USCs AfricanAmerican Professors Program. Thanks to Dr. Abraham, Dr. Haynes, Dr. McFadden, Ms.
Wright, and Ms. Gettone for providing a nurturing environment and a valuable support
network for making it through such an intense and demanding time. And thanks to the
student members of these organizations for their friendship and professionalism.
The final thanks must go to my committee members. I understand that serving
on a dissertation committee usually doesnt result in extra compensation or accolades.
It entails lots of reading, making sense of chaos, patience, and time management.
Without their feedback and patience, this dissertation simply would not have been
vii

possible. Perhaps I would have stumbled my way through to an inferior product. Or

maybe I would have been stuck with a literature review that had nothing to do with my
hypotheses. Or maybe I would have taken two years just to complete the first four
chapters. So a special thanks is in order for the four faculty members whose dedication
is what is most responsible for getting me through this doctoral program.
Thanks to Dr. Shaw for offering an engaging political science class that exposed
me to a lot of critical literature on political science, political communication, and race
relations. Thanks also to Dr. Shaw for serving on my comprehensive exams committee
and for not compromising his standards just for the sake of getting something off of his
plate. Thanks to Dr. Collins for always being available for a brief chat and for asking
targeted questions designed to get me to assert myself academically. And thanks again
to Dr. Collins for helping me find a coder for my data analysis. I also appreciate his
frankness, his resourcefulness, and his intensity. Thanks to Dr. Campbell for providing
so much detailed feedback on multiple drafts of this dissertation and forcing me to
justify my approach. And thanks again to Dr. Campbell for pointing me in the right
direction regarding framing literature and my coding sheet.
And of course, thanks to Dr. Wei for serving as the chair of my committee. I first
met Dr. Wei in 2001 when I took his masters-level research methods course. From
when I initially asked him to serve on my committee all the way through my defense, Dr.
Wei has always been receptive to my input and very well organized. He unfailingly
provided lots of feedback and creative comments both in his office and over lunch. His
guidance turned a mess of disjointed paragraphs into respectable, grounded arguments.
viii

Dr. Wei also had a wealth of information and never hesitated to share it with me if he
thought it could make my own scholarship better.
Finally, I must thank my family. I know this process has been a trying one for
everyone. There have been so many weekends where I was stuck behind a computer
when I knew my wife wanted to talk with me, my son wanted to play with me, and my
sister wanted to relax with me. I know it hasnt been easy for anyone, but I want to
thank you all for doing your best to understand and for putting up with me and my
relative absence since I started this degree program three and a half years ago.
One more thank you is in order. Its for my mother. While a doctoral
dissertation is probably not the ideal place for this, I think its important for me to thank
the person who has had the greatest impact on my life and my getting this far. You
have always been there for me and done your best to give me every advantage in life.
From teaching me long division to letting me play Fraction Fever in your classroom on
the weekends to teaching me all 50 state capitals to constantly reminding me how I was
almost finished even though I knew nothing could be further from the truth, you have
been cheering me on since you taught me how to read. I love you so much and greatly
appreciate everything youve done for me. Mom, I hope this work makes you proud.
So thank you again, Dr. Wei, Dr. Campbell, Dr. Collins, Dr. Shaw, the rest of the
journalism faculty, my family, my friends, my colleagues, and everyone else whom Ive
had the great fortune of meeting along the way. This dissertation is the result of not
only hard work, but also good experiences with good and nurturing people who helped
give me the tools to get this far. Thank you.
ix

ABSTRACT
This dissertation proposes a typology of the frames that uniquely characterize political
cartoons, including first-order, second-order and overarching frames. It then proposes a
model of the frame building process in political cartoons based on framing influences,
first-order frames, rhetorical themes, framing devices and overarching frames. This
model of frame building is tested in a content analysis of 496 political cartoons of Barack
Obama covering the time from his presidential candidacy through his first year as
president. The proposed frames and identified framing devices are analyzed against the
different stages of Obamas campaign and presidency as well as the ideological slants of
the cartoonists. Results showed that cartoonists tended to focus on politicking during
Obamas campaign, but addressed policy during his presidency. Results also showed
that cartoonists tended to portray news in their cartoons of Obama as part of a theme
or broader narrative. Implications of this frame-building model on framing theory are
discussed.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION. iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv
ABSTRACT.. x
LIST OF TABLES xiii
LIST OF FIGURES. xiv
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. Context. 1
1.2. Study Significance. 5
1.3. Dissertation Structure 6
CHAPTER 2: STUDY BACKGROUND. 7
2.1. Context of Study. 7
2.2. Defining Political Cartoons. 10
2.3. History of Political Cartoons.. 13
2.4. Political Cartoons as Political Messages 17
CHAPTER 3: REVIEW OF LITERATURE. 22
3.1. Framing Theory22
3.2. Types of Frames. 25
3.3. Factors Influencing Frames. 29
3.4. Framing and Other Media Effects Theories 35
3.5. Framing and Visual Imagery.. 40

xi

3.6. Political Cartoon Research.. 43

3.7. Applying Framing to Political Cartoons.. 63
CHAPTER 4: FRAMEWORK OF ANALYSIS AND HYPOTHESES. 67
4.1. Framework. 67
4.2. Research Questions and Hypotheses. 81
CHAPTER 5: METHODOLOGY88
5.1. Sampling.. 88
5.2. Coding Sheet and Operational Definitions.. 94
5.3. Coding Process and Reliability. 112
CHAPTER 6: RESULTS. 116
6.1. Descriptive Statistics 116
6.2. Results of Hypotheses Testing. 145
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION. 159
7.1. Recapping Purpose of Study..159
7.2. Contributions of Study to Framing Theory.. 163
7.3. Directions for Further Study.. 175
REFERENCES. 180
APPENDIX 191

xii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1 List of hypotheses and research questions.. 87
Table 5.1 Reliability data for all variables (Cohens kappa). 115
Table 6.1 Proposed criticism scale values and definitions 130
Table 6.2 Criticism scores for all cartoonists. 130
Table 6.3 Conservative criticism scores in relation to hypothesized score.. 131
Table 6.4 Liberal criticism scores in relation to hypothesized score. 132
Table 6.5 Distribution of relative object sizes as framing devices.. 146
Table 6.6 Distribution of context frames by rhetorical theme.. 152
Table 6.7 Summary of hypotheses testing.. 159

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1 Influences on the creation of political cartoons.. 30
Figure 3.2 Rhetorical themes in political cartoons. 46
Figure 3.3 Rhetorical disposition in political cartoons. 49
Figure 3.4 Stylistic elements in political cartoons... 52
Figure 3.5 Classification scheme of political cartoon elements. 56
Figure 4.1 Proposed classifications of frames in political cartoons. 69
Figure 4.2 Proposed model of the framing process in political cartoons 73
Figure 6.1 Distribution of cartoons by cartoonist ideology and Obamas title.. 117
Figure 6.2 Average monthly approval rating for President Obama (Gallup) 118
Figure 6.3 Distribution of issue frames.. 120
Figure 6.4 Distribution of issue frames by Obamas political title.. 121
Figure 6.5 Distribution of strategy frames.. 122
Figure 6.6 Distribution of strategy frames by Obamas political title.. 123
Figure 6.7 Distribution of thematic frames. 124
Figure 6.8 Distribution of thematic frames by Obamas political title. 125
Figure 6.9 Distribution of episodic frames.. 126
Figure 6.10 Distribution of episodic frames by Obamas political title 127
Figure 6.11 Distribution of candidate frames by Obamas political title 128
Figure 6.12 Distribution of candidate frames by cartoonist 129
xiv

Figure 6.13 Distribution of success frames. 134

Figure 6.14 Distribution of success frames by Obamas political title. 135
Figure 6.15 Distribution of setback frames. 136
Figure 6.16 Distribution of setback frames by Obamas political title. 137
Figure 6.17 Distribution of overarching frames by Obamas political title 138
Figure 6.18 Distribution of metaphors as framing devices.. 139
Figure 6.19 Distribution of exemplars as framing devices 140
Figure 6.20 Distribution of depictions as framing devices 142
Figure 6.21 Distribution of object placements as framing devices. 143
Figure 6.22 Monthly average approval and success frame percentage. 146
Figure 6.23 Distribution of topic frames by Obamas political title 149
Figure 6.24 Distribution of context frames by Obamas political title. 152
Figure 6.25 Distribution of candidate frames by ideology and context frame.. 154
Figure 6.26 Distribution of candidate frames by ideological leaning 155
Figure 6.27 Distribution of first-order frames.. 156
Figure 6.28 Distribution of cartoons by first-order frame combination. 157
Figure 7.1 Revised proposed classification of frames in political cartoons.. 163
Figure 7.2 Revised proposed model of framing process in political cartoons 166

xv

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 CONTEXT
Framing is a stream of media effects research that addresses how media
messages are presented by communicators and interpreted by audiences (McQuail,
2008). Framing can explain why, for example, communicators sympathetic to an idea
may express it in terms of its benefits while those opposed to it may express it in terms
of its negative consequences (Gamson & Modigliani, 1989; Miller, Andsager & Riechert,
1998). Similarly, the presentation of these messages may influence how audiences
perceive them (Jacoby, 2000).
Given its relevance to public policy, political campaigns and elections, political
communication offers numerous avenues for framing research. Campaigns, for example,
feature contests between candidates of different political ideologies. Developments in
these campaigns are reported by journalists and news media organizations through a
lens that may be sympathetic or hostile to these ideologies. These journalists and news
media organizations also may be influenced by institutional constraints or economic
pressures that affect what they report and how they report it. In other words, these
influences may affect the frames journalists use to communicate with their audiences.
(Gamson & Modigliani, 1989; Miller, Andsager & Riechert, 1998).

Political news is at the forefront of American news media, as the Pew Research
Center (2009, 2010) found that more than half of all news stories on network television,
cable television, newspapers, radio, and online news sources in 2008 and 2009 related
to politics. For example, the top three news stories of 2008 included the 2008
presidential campaign and congressional elections, the American economy, and the Iraq
War. In 2009, the top three were the expanded military campaign in Afghanistan, the
congressional debate over health care legislation, and general government news. These
stories consisted of both hard news and subjective analyses.
Though comprehensive and informative, the Pew Research Centers studies
reflect a lack of attention paid to another type of story that, by definition, almost
exclusively focuses on political news: political cartoons. Appearing online and on the
editorial pages of newspapers across the United States and worldwide, political
cartoons combine compelling and controversial analyses of local and political news with
visual representations of abstract concepts and concrete political figures (Lamb, 2007;
Olson, 2009; Seymour-Ure, 2001; Gerteis, 2007; Becker, 1996). But despite their
prevalence in American media, their consistent political focus, and their inherent
incorporation of frames, just like news stories have inherent frames, political cartoons
are underresearched in academic literature (Diamond, 2002; Muller & Ozcan, 2007;
Koetzle & Brunell, 1996). This dissertation is a framing study of political cartoons
addressing President Barack Obama, adding to the thin academic literature on political
cartoons as news content.

Although this dissertation is a framing study, it borrows from Medhurst and

DeSousas (1981) rhetorical analysis of political cartoons of the 1980 presidential
campaign between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. Medhurst and DeSousa argued
that political cartoons were an understudied and powerful form of graphical persuasion
that bore similarities to producing effective oral rhetoric. To facilitate understanding
the elements that comprise political cartoons, they proposed a classificatory scheme
based on the rhetorical and stylistic elements political cartoons entail.
The rhetorical themes Medhurst and DeSousa (1981) identified focused on both
personal characteristics and political traits. A recurring rhetorical theme of Carter, for
example, was that he was diminished by his fight for the Democratic Partys nomination.
A common rhetorical theme of Reagan was that he was both serious and strong
(Medhurst & DeSousa, 1981). These themes arose from popular perceptions of the
candidates based on prior media coverage. The political cartoons reinforced these
themes by publishing them to the mass audiences of the newspapers in which the
cartoons appeared.
As vehicles through which political messages are conveyed to mass audiences on
a daily basis, political cartoons constitute an important form of political communication.
This dissertation proposes that political cartoons contain frames that are derived from
the totality of the rhetorical and graphical devices Medhurst and DeSousa (1981)
identified. Like political news stories (Druckman, 2001; Rhee, 1997) and campaign
literature (Miller, Andsager & Riechert, 1998), political cartoons use framing to augment

the messages they convey to audiences (Greenberg, 2002). Hence, as a type of political
message in their own right, political cartoons are appropriate for framing analysis.
To be specific, this dissertation integrates political cartoons and framing into an
analysis of the most heavily covered newsmaker of 2008 and 2009, Barack Obama. As a
presidential candidate in 2008, Obama was the lead newsmaker in almost 7,000 news
stories, nearly doubling the number of stories about the second-most heavily covered
newsmaker, John McCain, who was the lead newsmaker in 3,700 stories. In 2009 as the
44th president of the United States, Obama was the lead newsmaker in over 7,700 news
stories, more than ten times the amount of stories focusing on the years second biggest
newsmaker, Michael Jackson (Pew Research Center, 2009, 2010). This extensive media
coverage resulted from his protracted contest for the Democratic Partys presidential
nomination against Hillary Clinton, the general election campaign against Republican
nominee John McCain, his historic election night victory and inauguration, and the
media attention he naturally warranted as president of the United States.
This dissertation explores how political cartoonists combined visuals and rhetoric
to create the frames they used to portray Barack Obama and his policies, both as a
candidate and as a president. Which graphical and rhetorical devices did political
cartoonists employ in their frames of Obama? Which frames were used to portray him
to audiences? Is there a difference between the frames cartoonists used to portray
Obama as a presidential candidate and as a president? Did conservative cartoonists
employ different frames from liberal cartoonists? How did the balance of frames that
the cartoonists used change over the course of his presidency?
4

1.2 STUDY SIGNIFICANCE

As stated earlier, political cartoon research of any type is limited (Koetzle &
Brunell, 1996; Diamond, 2002). At the time of this dissertation, a keyword search of
Thomson Reuters' Social Sciences Citation Index revealed that there are only about 100
studies on political cartoons, although this number may be inflated because some of
these studies focus on political humor (Young, 2004) or satire in general. Of these 100
or so studies, only about a quarter analyze political cartoons from a mass
communication perspective. These studies consist of historical analyses (Lamb, 2007),
analyses of a major event (Diamond, 2002; Muller & Ozcan, 2007), graphical and
rhetorical analyses (Bormann, Kester & Bennett, 1978; Conners, 2005; Gilmartin, 2001;
Koetzle & Brunell, 1996), and examinations of how audiences interpret political cartoons
(Bedient & Moore, 1985). To the extent of the authors knowledge, none of these
studies examines political cartoons from a framing perspective.
Political cartoon research on the 2008 campaign is limited to two studies
(Conners, 2010; Edwards & McDonald, 2010), with only one of these focusing on Barack
Obama. Conners (2010) examined portrayals of Barack Obama during the presidential
primary season when he was campaigning against Hillary Clinton for the Democratic
Partys nomination. The focus of her research was more on imagery and themes related
to race. This study contained no discussion of framing and little discussion of themes
related to Obamas political positions or personal attributes not related to race.
This dissertation seeks to advance mass communication and political science
literature by proposing a model of framing in political cartoons. This model will explain
5

how frames in political cartoons are created, leading to a greater understanding of

political cartoons as an effective means of visual communication about politics. This
dissertation also seeks to advance the political cartoon, mass communication, and
political science literature by encouraging future studies of the frames, rhetoric and
imagery used to characterize the 2008 campaign that go beyond demographic
characteristics, such as race and gender.
1.3 DISSERTATION STRUCTURE
Chapter 1 of this dissertation addresses general background information about
political cartoons, their integration of framing, and the prominence of Barack Obama in
American media. Chapter 2 summarizes Obamas presidential campaign and provides a
detailed review of the literature on the definitions of political cartoons and how they
have changed throughout American history. Chapter 3 provides an analysis of framing
as a theory of media effects and an explanation of how framing is applied to this study.
Chapter 4 proposes an original model of framing in political cartoons, addresses this
dissertations hypotheses and research questions, and articulates the framework of
analysis employed. Chapter 5 consists of this studys methodology, including the
sampling and coding processes. Chapter 6 describes the results of the study and the
extent to which they support the dissertations hypotheses and research questions.
Chapter 7 addresses how this dissertations findings contribute to the framing literature,
how the proposed framing model should be revised, and how this dissertation could
open new avenues to further research.

CHAPTER 2
STUDY BACKGROUND
2.1 CONTEXT OF STUDY
Before reviewing the definitions of political cartoons and framing that inform
this dissertation, a brief account of Barack Obamas candidacy and the first half of his
presidency may provide the context available to political cartoonists when creating
cartoons about him. Born to a White mother from Kansas in the United States and a
Black father from Kenya in Africa in 1961, Obama received considerable media attention
as a presidential candidate because of his biracial identity and international upbringing
(Time, 2007; MSNBC, 2008; ABC News, 2008), but also because of his ability to energize
young voters, shatter campaign fundraising records, and integrate new media into his
presidential campaign (Brownstein, 2008). Obama raised more than $500 million online
from more than 6 million donors (Washington Post, 2008) and mobilized thousands of
supporters through his campaign Web site, social networking sites and text messages to
organize on his behalf. His command of new media led one prominent political pundit
to dub Obama the leader of the first 21st century campaign (Brownstein, 2008).
With almost 70 million votes, Obama received more votes than any presidential
candidate in history (Federal Election Commission, 2010). Many of the votes came from

young and first-time voters (Caraley, 2009) in the first presidential election since 1952 in
which no candidate was an incumbent president or vice president (History, 2010).
Obama, a liberal first-term Democratic senator from Illinois, a traditionally
Democratic state, campaigned as an agent of change and hope. He defined change
as a departure from the controversial policies of Republican President George W. Bush
and the partisanship that characterized politics in Washington (Kenski et al., 2010;
Renshon, 2008). Obamas biracial roots, youth and optimism also signified change in
comparison to his opponent John McCain, a 72-year-old White male who had served in
the Vietnam War and advocated continuing many of the same policies of fellow
Republican George W. Bush, whose approval ratings were at 25% shortly before the
election (Gallup, 2009; Kenski et al., 2010).
McCain and his Republican allies tried to label Obama as a tax-and-spend liberal
who was too inexperienced to lead and too soft on terrorism to keep America safe
(Kenski et al., 2010). Obama also had to contend with accusations that he was
unpatriotic, a Black radical, elitist, corrupt, nave, and not eligible to be president
because, according to some critics, he was not born in the United States (Kenski et al.,
2010; Dreier & Martin, 2010). Despite these concerns, Obama won the election
comfortably, including winning some states that no Democratic presidential candidate
had carried in over 40 years. The election results were seen not only as an endorsement
of Obama and his policies, but also a repudiation of the Bush presidency (Jacobson,
2009). Some scholars and political pundits contend that Obama might have received
even more votes if not for reticence among some voters about his racial identity (Lewis8

Beck, Tien & Nadeau, 2010), though these potential lost votes may have been offset by
disaffected Bush voters who either stayed home or voted for Obama (Lupia, 2010).
Expectations of Obama were high at the onset of his presidency by virtue of his
promises of change and hope. This optimism was reflected in public opinion polls
that showed his job approval rating above 60% in the weeks after his inauguration
(Jacobs & King, 2010). But a poor economy, two unpopular wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,
resurgent Republican opposition, unfulfilled promises of bridging the partisan divide in
Washington, and controversial legislation sent Obamas approval ratings steadily lower
(Gallup, 2011).
Because of its length and national focus, a presidential campaign is the most
grueling and highest profile campaign in American politics, which makes it a natural
subject for mass communication and political science researchers to address. Over the
course of a presidential campaign, candidates are subjected to intense media scrutiny,
including from political cartoonists. This media attention typically applies to the
candidates with the highest profiles and the most viability. So-called gadfly candidates
(nominal candidates who have no chance of winning), minor party candidates
(candidates not representing the Democratic or Republican Party), and dark horse
candidates (credible candidates who are considered underdogs) tend to receive far less
attention from political cartoonists (Buell and Maus, 1988). This would suggest that
Barack Obama would be the subject of at least the plurality of political cartoons about
the Democratic presidential candidates because of his winning the leadoff political

contest in Iowa, his strong fundraising performance, and his seizing the mantle of
presidential frontrunner from Hillary Clinton.
2.2 DEFINING POLITICAL CARTOONS
Political cartoonists operate under different constraints from strip cartoonists
and other speakers and writers. While authors, essayists, or public speakers can build
their arguments over pages, columns, inches, or minutes, cartoonists have much less
space in which to convey their points. Political cartoonists also differ from strip
cartoonists in that they tend to present their ideas in one panel, as opposed to a series
of panels like strip cartoonists do.
Various definitions of political cartoons exist in the scholarly literature, each
differing in its level of specificity, the cartoons required elements, how and where the
cartoon is published, and the cartoons form. One of the earliest explicit definitions of
political cartoons comes from Bormann, Koester and Bennett (1978) who defined
political cartoons as containing personae in at least an implied dramatic action, *being+
cryptic, and tend*ing+ to allude to a single fantasy (p. 319). While describing what
political cartoons do, this definition includes no mention of who political cartoons are
primarily about or how they can be distinguished from a standard comic strip. It also
does not account for political cartoons that include no images of people at all. The
definition also seems to limit the content of a political cartoon by saying it should
allude to a single fantasy (a fantasy can be defined as shared conceptualization of a
person or political issue [Bormann et. al, 1978]). This is restrictive in that a political
cartoon could suggest a new perspective on a politician or political issue that might not
10

be widely shared. Since political cartoons routinely cover changing political

developments, audiences may not have developed opinions on the news that the
cartoons cover.
Medhurst and DeSousa (1981) provide a detailed analysis of the rhetorical,
thematic, and stylistic differences that characterize political cartoons, but they offer no
explicit definition of political cartoons themselves beyond identifying them as a form of
persuasive graphical communication. This dissertation applies their classification
system to cartoons about Barack Obama, but has to search elsewhere for a definition of
political cartoons themselves.
Buell and Mauss (1988) research illustrates the lack of consensus and lack of
specificity in the literature on what constitutes a political cartoon because they made no
distinction between a political cartoon and a politically oriented comic strip like
Doonesbury. A comic strip typically consists of multiple panels and the characters in the
comic strip are not ordinarily identified by labels. There is also far more space for
cartoonists to convey their messages in a comic strip because of the multiple panels
available to them. Political cartoonists, on the other hand, usually have less space with
which to work, often only one or two panels, thus requiring them to express themselves
quickly and efficiently (Medhurst & DeSousa, 1981; Pett, 1994).
Feldman (1995) defines political cartoons as employing graphic metaphor and
comically distorted drawing while addressing subjects that are also covered in political
stories and editorials (p. 571). This definition suffers from the same limitations that
characterize Buell and Mauss (1988) definition in that it seems indistinguishable from
11

the definition of a comic strip, which also incorporates comically distorted drawing.
This definition is also restrictive in that it ties political cartoons to political news stories
and editorials. The implication here is that a political cartoon matches its home
publications news content.
Edwards (2001) offered a more specific definition that addressed the form of
political cartoons and where they were published. A political cartoon is visual/verbal,
non-narrative commentary, typically in single-panel form, created by a staff member of
a newspaper or appearing originally on the editorial pages of a newspaper (p. 2,149).
While comprehensive, her definition does not account for political cartoons that appear
solely on the internet or on the same pages as regular comic strips. And while her
definition includes rhetorical guidelines for content, it does not include any thematic
guidelines. A strength of this definition is that it accounts for editorial cartoons that
have an apolitical focus, such as cartoons that commemorate a public figure who
recently passed away or cartoons about nonpolitical topics, such as social changes,
advances in technology, or the results of medical research. The broadness of her
definition seems to suggest that politics does not have to be a focus of the cartoons at
all. This distinction in content has been dealt with by some political cartoon researchers
who used the terms political cartoon and editorial cartoon interchangeably
(Bostdorff, 1987; Medhurst & DeSousa, 1981; Lamb, 2007).
Perhaps the most comprehensive definition of a political cartoon, which also
serves as the conceptual definition of a political cartoon for this dissertation, comes
from Diamond (2002). His definition focuses solely on the content of political cartoons
12

while not addressing how or where they are published, how they are understood by
audiences, or how powerful or provocative they may be. He states:
A political cartoon is a political symbol that includes text, imagery and
one of the following types of symbols: 1) symbols of the political
community; 2) symbols associated with regime norms, structures and
roles; and 3) situational symbols relating to current authorities,
nongovernmental political actors, and policies and policy issues (p. 252).
This definition has been borrowed and expanded upon to identify political
cartoons as employ*ing+ a range of potent rhetorical tools to define actors and
processes of political and societal culture (Edwards & Ware, 2005). The elaboration is
problematic for this dissertation because of the value judgment it places on potent
rhetorical tools. This definition suggests that while political cartoons must contain a
potent rhetorical message, it does not account for the fact that some cartoons may
not be compelling or understood by their audiences. If a political cartoon cannot be
understood by an audience, it lacks potency and is of little persuasive value (Bostdorf,
1987).
2.3 HISTORY OF POLITICAL CARTOONS
The roots of political cartooning in America lie in the work of British political
cartoonists and caricaturists from the 18th and early 19th centuries. Relatively
uncommon at the founding of the United States, political cartoons at the time often
borrowed heavily from British cartoonists in terms of their style, which consisted of a
single-panel image of a political leader or a depiction of a political situation with a
caption below it (Shaw, 2007). Part of the reason political cartoons were not
widespread in the United States at its inception and during its first few decades was
13

because the technology associated with publishing the them as well as the skills needed
to create them remained in the Old World (Europe) and had to be imported or taught.
The popularity of magazines in the mid-19th century and improvements in
printing press technology led to an increase in the popularity of political cartoons (Shaw,
2007). The lack of a convenient transportation infrastructure and efficient
communication network limited the practicality of national newspapers, and books
were expensive to reproduce. Magazines were better able to serve the increasingly
literate public because they were cheaper than books and could be published more
regularly. One of the most popular magazines of the time was Harpers Weekly, which
published Frank Leslies 1861 Union Glue cartoon depicting President Abraham
Lincoln trying to repair a fractured wall that represented the divide between the Union
and the Confederacy at the onset of the Civil War (Lewin & Huff, 2007).
The advent of photography in the mid-1800s also significantly impacted political
cartoons by popularizing the element of caricature. Photographs allowed the public to
easily identify public figures in images and recognize their physical features. Prior to
photography, a persons likeness had to be captured by an artist. In addition to allowing
more people to access images of public figures, this new technology affected political
cartoonists by changing the way they drew their cartoons. Now they could exaggerate
physical features in their cartoons to influence or be more congruent with public
perceptions of the public figures they satirized (Shaw, 2007). This element of caricature
in political cartoons has survived to the present day.

14

Political cartoons in newspapers became even more popular during the

newspaper battles after the Civil War. Newspapers during the late 1800s and early
1900s were often characterized by their sensationalistic content. The lack of objectivity
and ethical guidelines during this era of yellow journalism led to the publication of a lot
of controversial content, including political cartoons that skewered public and business
leaders (Lamb, 2007). On the other end of the spectrum, muckrakers, journalists who
vigorously sought to find and report the truth about American leaders and institutions,
also became active during this time. Aware of the potential threat political cartoons
posed to their careers and other interests, whether they were influenced by muckraking
or sensationalism, business leaders and politicians alike tried to silence political
cartoonists by shaming them and protesting their unfairness (Bostdorff, 1987). Contrary
to the wishes of the business leaders and politicians, however, their protests often only
encouraged the cartoonists to keep lampooning them if they identified the
objectionable cartoons as personal attacks (Lamb, 2007).
After the era of yellow journalism and World War I, a rising interest in more
sophisticated media content and a growing educated middle class led to the modern
political cartoon. By this time, political cartoons and popular comic strips were being
published and syndicated in newspapers. Because these newspapers were being read
by average people as well as public elites, the work of political cartoonists was also
being read by regular people and government leaders alike. According to Hess and
Kaplan (1975), this forced cartoonists to appeal to average people while not losing their
credibility and influence with the people they satirized by incorporating the
15

sensationalism of the past in their work. Modern political cartoons reflect this maturity
by using pictures and words to inform, console, and persuade audiences while retaining
their provocativeness (Lamb, 2007).
Perhaps the most significant incident involving modern political cartooning
concerns the publishing of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, the holiest figure in
Islam, in a Danish newspaper in 2006. According to the Koran, it is forbidden to
represent the likeness of Muhammad in a physical image. Even more provocative was
the fact that several of the cartoons depicted Mohammed as a terrorist with a bomb in
his turban. This outraged local Muslims, but the outrage soon spread to Muslim
communities throughout Europe and predominantly Muslim countries in Asia and Africa.
This outrage led to protests, boycotts, diplomatic sanctions, and even violence against
anything representing Denmark or the West (Muller & Ozcan, 2007). The controversy
and violence spawned by these cartoons contributed to the censorship of some
instances of political satire of Muslims by some media organizations and programs, such
as the popular cable television program South Park, in an attempt to avoid violence or
negative publicity (New York Times, 2010).
In 2011, the primary threat to political cartoonists lies not with the government
leaders they satirize, but with the changing media landscape. Americans of all ages are
turning to the Internet to get their news more often and turning to newspapers, where
most political cartoons are published, less often (Pew Research Center for People and
the Press, 2011). These changes in media consumption are adversely impacting
newspapers by leading to declining subscription rates and falling revenues. To
16

compensate, newspapers are forced to reduce budgets, merge with other newspapers,
use syndicated material, or lay off their employees, which often includes their political
cartoonists (Ozga, 2005). There were about 2,000 staff political cartoonist jobs at the
start of the 20th century, but only about 200 in the 1980s. By 2008, this number had
fallen again to about 90 (Siegel, 2008).
These changes in media consumption and newspaper downsizing have impacted
not only the number of political cartoonists, but also the content of their work. Some
cartoonists have lamented that the cartoons that get published are often watered
down in order to avoid offending readers or to conform to an editors ideology (Siegel,
2008; Ozga, 2005). Inoffensive cartoons are more easily reprinted or picked up by other
publications, thus helping the cartoonists gain exposure and more revenue for their
work. This increased exposure helps mitigate the adversity brought about by the
financial struggles of the newspapers for which they work (Ozga, 2005).
2.4 POLITICAL CARTOONS AS POLITICAL MESSAGES
Given that political cartoons typically address political topics, the cartoons could
be considered political messages. Political scientist John Zaller (1992) identified two
types of political messages: persuasive messages and cueing messages. Persuasive
messages are arguments or images providing a reason for taking a position or point of
view (p. 41). If an individual accepts these arguments or images, they become reasons
that might induce an individual to decide a political issue one way or the other (p. 40).
Persuasive messages may include subtle or subliminal images or may seek to evoke an
emotional response rather than a rational one.
17

Cueing messages, the second type of political message, consist of contextual

information about the ideological or partisan implications of a persuasive message (p.
42). These messages assist audiences by enabling them to perceive relationships
between the persuasive messages they receive and their political predispositions, which
in turn permits them to respond critically to the persuasive messages (p. 42).
Considering the Obama is weak on national security charge, a cueing message would
concern itself with the source of the criticism or the motivations behind it. If a
Republican candidate criticized Obamas defense policies to a Democratic voter, for
example, the voter would be more likely to reject the criticism.
Political cartoons contain both persuasive messages and cueing messages. They
derive their persuasiveness from their integration of language and imagery. Language is
the most effective way to convey information and develop arguments while visual
imagery is the most effective way to arouse emotions (Gombrich, 1982). Combining
pictures and words makes messages more memorable (Graber, 1996). Political cartoons
combine both of these means of communication, thus making them particularly
influential and often controversial not because of who drew the cartoons, but because
of whom the cartoonists depict in them and political cartoons tendency to go beyond
the limits of formal public discourse (Jackson, 2008; Gilmartin, 2001; Trimble, Way &
Sampert, 2010; Koetzle & Brunell, 1996).
Political cartoons also contain cueing messages because each cartoon is drawn
by a political cartoonist who has his own political ideology. These cartoons also appear
in newspapers and on websites that have their own editorial slants or political agendas.
18

The editors of these newspapers and websites also have some degree of control over
which cartoons may be published (Ozga, 2005). The result is that audiences
interpretations of political cartoons are influenced by their own ideologies, the
ideologies of the cartoonists, the content of the cartoons, and the audiences feelings
about the publications in which the cartoons appear.
Rowson (2009) argues that the urge to mock our social or political betters is
hardwired into us (p. 150). Humor, he argues, achieves this purpose by reinforcing a
peoples sense of self, making sense of the external world, lessening tensions, and
defusing potentially volatile situations. Political satire has been a successful formula for
some comedy shows on television, such as The Daily Show and The Colbert Report
(Warner, 2007; Feldman & Young, 2008). People prefer humorous forms that reinforce
their beliefs and confirm a continuous political cosmology (Berger & Wildavsky, 1995),
but responsible satirists and cartoonists make the powerful the targets of their humor
because to criticize or lampoon the powerless is to cease being satirical and to start
becoming a bully (Rowson, 2009). Aware of the potential potency of political cartoons,
politicians have long tried to silence political cartoonists because they perceive their
work as threats to their power, influence and legitimacy (Lamb, 2007; Bostdorff, 1987).
Despite the dwindling number of political cartoonists in the United States and
the limited literature on political cartoons, they warrant more attention because of a
diminished appetite for extensive rational argument, an increased reliance on visual
cues, their likelihood of being read because of their conciseness, and their ability to
provide a running commentary of a political campaign (Kelley-Romano & Westgate,
19

2007a; Koetzle & Brunell, 1996). The heightened impact of increased media options
also makes the role of political cartoons more important, as Kelley-Romano and
Westgate (2007a) argue:
*A+s individuals are inundated with information and forced to
understand and evaluate [major news stories] instantaneously, political
cartoons help them make sense of situations through non-discursive,
emotionally evocative content (p. 757).
Some of the ways in which political cartoons express such arousing content
instantly is through framing devices, of which Gamson and Modigliani (1989) identified
five: metaphors, exemplars, depictions, catchphrases, and visual images. Metaphors
can be employed by representing an abstract concept with a concrete object. For
example, a contentious political issue like illegal immigration could be depicted in a
political cartoon as a bomb. This metaphor suggests that illegal immigration is a
politically dangerous and unpredictable issue that must be handled delicately. Historical
examples, or exemplars, may remind audiences of previous politicians, events, and the
thoughts they may evoke. A political cartoon showing George W. Bush morphing into
an image of Richard Nixon may evoke concerns about Bushs ethics because of Nixons
Watergate scandal. Depictions can be represented graphically by something as simple
as a facial expression or body language. The image of a horrified Obama looking at a
chart showing a falling stock market could suggest that Obamas political fortunes are
tied to the stock markets performance. Visual images include icons. Portraying Obama
as Elvis Presley with sunglasses and slicked back hair could suggest that Obama is highly
popular and able to galvanize young voters.

20

To summarize, political cartoons are a form of political communication that

incorporates persuasive messages, cueing messages, text, graphics and satire into
concise, timely and entertaining messages about a political campaign or political news
cycle. Using imagery, political cartoonists are able to make their messages more
compelling by tapping into readers emotions. Imagery also allows political cartoonists
to express abstractions and complexities more quickly and perhaps more efficiently than
could be done using a purely textual form of communication.

21

CHAPTER 3
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Because framing comprises the theoretical thrust of this dissertation and
because the dissertation examines the framing devices that can be found in political
cartoons, a review of framing theory is necessary. This chapter of the dissertation
defines framing, states framing theory, and analyzes the different types of frames and
the factors that influence them. The chapter then turns to a discussion of the links
between framing and the related media effects theories such as agenda setting and
priming. Next, the chapter reviews the empirical literature of framing in political
cartoons before culminating with a justification of why framing is an appropriate theory
through which political cartons can be examined.
3.1 FRAMING THEORY
Framing is rooted in Goffmans (1974) conceptualization of frames as organizers
of fragments of information. Taken collectively, these pieces of information could be
characterized by an overarching meaning or interpretation identified as a frame.
Frames are used by mass media to organize and present information and viewpoints
and are used by audiences to interpret and understand information (Tuchman, 1978;
Gitlin, 1980; Gamson & Modigliani, 1989; Gamson, 1989; Iyengar, 1991, 1996; Gamson,
Croteau, Hoynes & Sasson, 1992; Entman, 1993; Shoemaker & Reese, 1996; Nelson,

22

Oxley & Clawson, 1997). Audience members may use only frames provided in a media
message for interpretation and understanding, or audience members may impose their
own frames on media content. These dual processes of news presentation by
communicators and information interpretation by audiences constitute framing
(Goffman, 1974; Scheufele, 1999; Nelson & Kinder, 1996; Entman, 1993). This
dissertation is primarily concerned with how communicators, in this case political
cartoonists, present, or frame, information.
Gamson (1989) defines frames as central organizing ideas for making sense of
relevant events and suggesting what is at issue (p. 157). Political cartoonists engage in
framing by having an interesting message to convey, arranging this message for a
specific effect, and stylizing the message using artistic principles (Medhurst & DeSousa,
1981). Communicators using other mediums, such as newspapers or television, use
similar processes to frame their content for audiences, though the artistic element is
unique to political cartooning.
Gamson and Modigliani (1989) likened the images, metaphors and symbolic
devices that characterize media discourse to interpretive packages that give meaning
to an issue. Broadcast news stories, blog postings, newspaper articles and editorials,
magazine advertisements, and political cartoons are all comprised of these interpretive
packages. These interpretive packages can include five devices that suggest a frame, or
position, in condensed form: metaphors, exemplars, catchphrases, depictions, and
visual images. The totality of these devices constitutes the overarching frame of an
interpretive package, or in the case of this dissertation, a political cartoon (Gamson &
23

Modigliani, 1989). These packages, or political cartoons, assimilate new information

over time and create narratives and interpretations that compete for dominance and
are reflected in divergent public opinion (Iyengar, 1991, 1996).
Framing by message communicators, such as political cartoonists, is the process
of *selecting+ some aspects of a perceived reality and *making+ them more salient in a
communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal
interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item
described (Entman, 1993: 52). What differentiates framing from agenda setting is that
while agenda setting suggests to audiences what to think about (McCombs & Shaw,
1972), framing suggests how to think about it (Nelson, Oxley & Clawson, 1997).
Framing consists of two elements: selection and salience. Selection entails
choosing certain aspects of a situation to communicate, whereas salience entails
making a piece of information more noticeable, meaningful, or memorable to
audiences (p. 53). In other words, selection involves communicating some parts of a
perceived reality to communicate to audiences at the expense of other parts of this
reality. This selected information is then made more salient by making it more
noticeable, meaningful, or memorable to audiences (p. 52-53). Of these two
components of framing, agenda setting primarily emphasizes the salience of messages,
indicating that the most salient messages should be the most important messages for
audiences to consider or that the salient messages reflect the messages that audiences
consider the most important.

24

The manner in which communicators convey messages and the process by which
audiences interpret them illustrate how framing operates both at the macro and micro
levels. Framing at the macro level entails the process by which a journalist, or in the
case of this dissertation, a political cartoonist, presents information because the
messages are being transmitted to mass audiences. How these audiences use and
interpret this information as they form their own opinions about it shows how framing
operates at the micro level (Scheufele & Tewksbury, 2007). For example, a reader who
follows politics regularly and sees a political cartoon requiring a high level of context in
order to sufficiently understand it might interpret it differently from a reader who lacks
this knowledge and is therefore less able to understand the cartoon as was intended by
the cartoonist who operates at the macro level by communicating frames to mass
audiences through political cartoons.
3.2 TYPES OF FRAMES
3.2.1 Media Frames and Individual Frames
Scheufele (1999) identified two general types of framesmedia frames and
individual frames (p. 106), which correspond to framing at the macro and micro levels,
respectively. A media frame is created by a media organization or communicator, or a
political cartoonist in the case of this dissertation, who may select certain information
about a subject to publish and make some of this information more salient in its
presentation. Audience frames, in comparison, result from audiences interpretation of
this information and might not be consistent with how the communicators intended it
(Shoemaker & Reese, 1996). This is because information is interpreted based on
25

existing schema or ways in which information about a subject is organized (Gitlin, 1980;
Gamson & Modigliani, 1989; Entman, 1993). Factors influencing both audience and
media frames are addressed later in this chapter.
This dissertation proposes that political cartoons are characterized by six media
frames based on three dimensions of political news content. The three dimensions and
the frames they include are: 1) the general news content of the story, which is
characterized by (a) issue frames and (b) strategy frames; 2) how the news being
presented is attributed, which is characterized by (c) thematic frames and (d) episodic
frames; and 3) how favorable the news story is for the person being addressed, which is
characterized by (e) success frames and (f) setback frames. While news stories are not
reported strictly using one frame or another, most stories are reported with one
predominant frame (Iyengar, 1996). Thus, while a political news story may contain
elements of both frames from each of the three dimensions, one frame from each
dimension is usually dominant.
This dissertation ultimately addresses six types of media frames, but only four
will be addressed in the next section because the final two frames correspond to the
final stage of the political cartoon framing model that this dissertation proposes. The
four frames addressed in the next two sections include issue frames, strategy frames,
thematic frames, and episodic frames. The final two frames are identified as themes in
the framing literature, but this dissertation suggests they are media frames; they are
addressed in Section 3.5.2.

26

3.2.2 Issue Frames and Strategy Frames

Issue frames focus on solutions to problems, who is advocating which policies to
confront the problems, and what the consequences of these problems and policies are
(Jamieson & Cappella, 1993; Cappella & Jamieson, 1996). This media frame includes
substantive analyses of political positions and appeals to audiences to consider the
consequences of various political problems and legislation.
Strategy frames are media frames that focus less on policy and more on the
competitive aspects of politics and campaigning (Jamieson & Cappella, 1993). Strategy
frames are characterized by several features: 1) the primary focus being on winning and
losing; 2) the language of competition and war; 3) the mention of performers, critics,
and voters; 4) an emphasis on the performance and perception of a candidate; and 5) an
emphasis being given to polls and political positioning (Cappella & Jamieson, 1996: 74).
The portrayal of a presidential campaign as a horserace is an example of a strategy
frame.
3.2.3 Episodic Frames and Thematic Frames
Episodic and thematic news frames can be applied to not just political news, but
news in general. Episodic frames are media frames that depict issues in terms of
specific instances (Iyengar, 1996: 62). Examples of this would include a bank robbery,
an assassination attempt or workplace accident. These events are reported as
independent happenings or as not being a part of a broader pattern of news about a
certain actor, nation, or group.

27

Thematic frames are media frames that depictissues more broadly and
abstractly by placing them in some appropriate context (Iyengar, 1996: 62). Reporting
a bank robbery using a thematic frame would include information about fluctuations in
the crime rate. Similarly, using a thematic frame to report an assassination attempt
would frame the event in the context of activities such as ongoing violence or political
turmoil, such as a series of violent actions on behalf of a terrorist or political
organization. A workplace accident could be presented in a thematic frame as the latest
in a series of infractions involving an employers unsafe business practices.
Television news stories are more likely to employ episodic frames than thematic
frames because episodic reports tend to provide good pictures; they do not require
reporters with subject-matter expertise; and, being devoid of interpretive analysis, they
are less likely to be labeled as biased by media critics (Iyengar, 1996: 62). Because of
the graphical nature of political cartoons and their ability to represent abstract concepts
with pictures, Iyengars analysis inform this dissertation by suggesting that political
cartoons of Obama, because of the prominence of the visuals the cartoons about him
incorporate, are more likely to contain episodic frames than thematic frames.
Finally, the heavy reliance on episodic frames by television news organizations,
according to Iyengar (1996), may serve to protect elected officials from policy failures
or controversies and thus strengthen their legitimacy (p. 62). Because episodic frames
do not incorporate context, audiences may fail to see negative news events as the result
of a politicians policy ideas or as part of a pattern of political or corporate malfeasance.
Institutional pressures that journalists face, such as the need to maintain positive
28

relationships with sources, may lead them to alter the frames they use to report the
news. This will be further addressed in the next section of this dissertation.
3.3 FACTORS INFLUENCING FRAMES
3.3.1 Factors Affecting Media Frames
As was mentioned in Section 3.1, a political cartoon is a type of interpretive
package. Three factors affect the selection and construction of the media frames that
are used to convey the information in an interpretive package or political cartoon.
Identified by Gamson and Modigliani (1989), these factors influence how interpretive
packages are created. As shown in Figure 3.1, the three factors are cultural resonances,
sponsor activities and media practices.
Cultural resonances, which include ideas and language that reflect larger cultural
themes or elements of ones cultural heritage, make interpretive packages seem more
natural and familiar. Referring to former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani as Americas
mayor in news stories is an example of cultural resonances influencing media frames.
Giulianis perceived strong leadership in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001,
terrorist attacks resonated with and consoled a grieving nation (National Public Radio,
2007).

29

sponsor
activities
cultural
resonances

media
practices
political
cartoons

Figure 3.1 Influences on the creation of

political cartoons (adapted from Gamson
& Modigliani, 1989)
Sponsor activities arise from message sponsors seeking to advance or promote
their interests (Gamson & Modigliani, 1989). Corporations, interest groups and
politicians use advertising, interviews, advocacy, and speechmaking to promote their
preferred messages and agendas. The goal of these sponsors is to mobilize supporters,
demobilize opponents, and earn the support of the uncommitted (Gamson & Modigliani,
1989; Nelson, Oxley & Clawson, 1997). Similarly, political cartoonists may alter their
work to satisfy the wishes of their sponsors, such as editors and publishers. These
editors and publishers have editorial standards as well as their audiences and
advertisers to consider, so they may oppose the publication of cartoons that threaten
these standards and relationships (Ozga, 2005).
Finally, media practices focus on journalists and news media as the creators of
interpretive packages (Gamson & Modigliani, 1989). In reporting political news,
journalists are not necessarily impartial receptacles and distributors of information. For
example, journalists may lend more credence to official sources while requiring a higher
standard of proof for other sources of news, such as minor political parties or
30

controversial citizens groups. Journalists quest for balance also may inadvertently
result in inaccurate or unhelpful interpretive packages receiving more attention than
they should because sometimes one side may be wrong about a political issue. Other
times in politics, a side whose voice should be heard receives no attention at all,
especially if it does not represent one of the two major political parties, because the
media may deem it an illegitimate challenger (Gamson & Modigliani, 1989). Some
ideas and language are given a more generous welcome by journalists (Gamson &
Wolfsfeld, 1993). Ansolabehere, Behr and Iyengar (1991) have described the extent to
which journalists own behaviors may influence the news they report:
*Reporters+ bring to the campaign their own expectations and objectives.
Whether driven by boredom, cynicism, idealism, or by the norms of
adversarial reporting, members of the press have ample opportunity to
put their own imprint on campaign news (p. 118).
In short, a communication source serves as a filter or gatekeeper of information.
This filter may be based on a journalists identity or the journalists personal or
professional experience. Similarly, political cartoonists may opt to draw cartoons only
about major political candidates or cartoons that are favorable towards candidates with
whom they agree even though alternative candidates and their ideas or legitimate
questions about their preferred candidate could be considered. And like journalists,
political cartoonists have expectations and objectives that may be played out in their
cartoons.
Media practices that affect the creation of interpretive packages and the frames
they entail include the attribution of news. Attribution influences the formation of
frames that are commonly used in political news because it provides context for why
31

political problems happen and how they may be remedied. This context is essential for
understanding how and why news happens. Iyengar (1996) studied this context as it
applies to the attribution of responsibility for political issues in television news. He
identified two types of attributions of human behavior: causal responsibility and
treatment responsibility. Causal responsibility pertains to the origin of a problem,
whereas treatment responsibility concerns who or what has the ability to alleviate the
problem (p. 60).
Perhaps the force that exerts the most influence over media practices and
attributions of responsibility for political news is the communicators, or in the case of
this dissertation, the cartoonists, political ideology or worldview, though short-term
factors, such as the information environment in which political issues and events are
presented may also influence these attributions (Iyengar, 1996). These influences on
journalists or communication sources highlight the role of media frames, which may be
influenced by journalists individual frames that are derived from their ideological or
political predispositions, journalisms professional conventions, medias organizational
constraints, and social norms and values. Gamson and Modigliani (1989: 9) suggest that
many journalists straddle the boundary between producers and consumers of
meaning, suggesting that their predispositions may constitute individual frames that
they as journalists use in creating media frames.
Another type of media practice that influences media frames may also come
from the nature of the medium in which the content appears. The majority of political
cartoonists publish their cartoons in newspapers. Some cartoonists may have the
32

freedom to draw almost any cartoon they wish, while others must ensure that their
work conforms to their editors wishes (Gamson & Stuart, 1992). Their cartoons are the
result of their own subjective interpretation of political news as well as the wishes of the
editors for whom they work (Ozga, 2005; Buell & Maus, 1988). Thus, for example,
despite a presidents message discipline, likeability, or political acumen, presidents are
dependent upon the interpretive latitude of an attentive, sometimes hostile, press to
transmit some facsimile of the desired message to the electorate (Hughes, 1995).
How presidents and political news are portrayed in political cartoons is dependent on
the frames that are influenced by the freedom, or lack of it, allowed the political
cartoonists by the medium.
Media practices have taken a turn for some political cartoonists due to the
downsizing in the newspaper industry and opportunities created by new media
technology. Many political cartoonists, no longer affiliated with individual newspapers
due to layoffs, buyouts and corporate mergers (Siegel, 2008; Ozga, 2005), now publish
their cartoons on their own Web sites, taking advantage of new media technology.
Using the Web allows these cartoonists to enrich their cartoons by adding color, sound
and animated graphics (Mello, 2007). Publishing their work to their own Web sites also
gives political cartoonists greater editorial control and the freedom to publish more
controversial content. For example, on September 7, 2010, Daryl Cagle published a
political cartoon of a donkey, representing congressional Democrats, being impaled by a
line representing rising unemployment. The donkey has blood spurting from its body
and a terrified look in its eyes, symbolizing the upcoming 2010 midterm elections that
33

resulted in Republicans regaining control of the House of Representatives and

significantly bolstering their ranks in the Senate (Sabato, 2010). Such a graphic cartoon
might not be published in newspapers because editors might deem it too controversial
or inappropriate for a mainstream audience. Because of the greater creative and
editorial control online cartoonists enjoy, they may utilize more controversial material,
such as harsher frames and more violent imagery, than cartoonists who publish in
newspapers.
3.3.2 Factors Affecting Individual Frames
Like media frames, there are a number of possible influences on individual, or
audience, frames. Those frames include the individuals global and long-term political
views and short-term, issue-related frames of reference (Scheufele, 1999: 107).
Global and long-term political views are influenced by personal characteristics including
personality, self-interest, leadership, group identification, values, and inferences from
history. Short-term views based on specific political subjects, such as whether a
politician should resign in the wake of a scandal, have a more powerful impact on
perceiving and interpreting information than global, long-term views (Kinder, 1983).
This means that in political cartoons, a cartoonist may seek to create a media
frame of Obama representing a positive force in American politics, but the individual
frame may give it a different interpretation. The individual frames that audiences use to
interpret such a cartoon are more likely to be based, according to Scheufele (1999), on
controversial items prominent in the news at the time, such as the questionable
associations Obama has with his former pastor Jeremiah Wright and business developer
34

Tony Rezko, than they are to be based on their global beliefs about Democrats, liberals
or Blacks.
Individual frames can also be influenced b y the various placements of political
cartoons and the information environments in which they appear. In newspapers,
political cartoons typically appear on the editorial pages. This information environment
may include an editorial addressing the same topic or issue as the cartoon, other
editorials, and letters to the editor that support or reflect a viewpoint that is different
from that of the political cartoon. The political cartoon may also appear next to another
political cartoon that takes a different viewpoint. A political cartoon may appear at the
top of a page or it may be placed near the bottom. Both placements convey to readers
the importance of the message of the political cartoon (Medhurst & DeSousa, 1981).
The presence of a political cartoon that is critical of Barack Obamas immigration policy
coupled with an editorial on the same page that is also critical of the same policy may
give an individual frame greater prominence. The information environment in which
political cartoons appear is beyond the scope of this dissertation, but it is important to
consider this when studying audience perceptions of the cartoons.
3.4 FRAMING AND OTHER MEDIA EFFECTS THEORIES
Framing has received considerable attention in mass communication and
political science literature, having been used to address issues such as the framing of
responsibility for social problems (Kim & Willis, 2007; Domke, McCoy & Torres, 1999),
the portrayals of presidential candidates (Miller, Andsager & Riechert, 1998; Devitt,
1997), and how political news stories are reported in media (Gamson & Modigliani,
35

1989; Iyengar, 1991; Durham, 2007; Jacoby, 2000; Kim, Scheufele, & Shanahan, 2002;
Druckman, 2001; Chong & Druckman, 2007; McLeod & Detenber, 1999; Lowry, 2008).
However, even though these are all framing studies, they represent a major criticism of
the framing literature because of a lack of consistency regarding how frames are defined
(Nelson, Oxley & Clawson, 1997; Scheufele & Tewksbury, 2007; Entman, 1993).
3.4.1 Framing and Agenda Setting Theory
Inconsistencies regarding framing are not limited to how framing, itself, is
defined, but also framings relationship to related phenomena. Framing is closely
related to agenda setting, leading to the improper and inconsistent application of the
term framing in political science and mass communication literature (Druckman, 2001;
Scheufele, 1999). This, in turn, limits the validity of some framing research because
researchers may purport to study framing even though they are actually studying an
entirely different phenomenon, such as identifying themes (Scheufele & Tewksbury,
2007).
Framing research focuses on the meaning of a media message while agenda
setting focuses on the salience of the message. Agenda setting would posit that mass
medias reporting of a political issue more heavily may make audiences consider this
political issue increasingly important. Framing would examine the meaning in the
message.
Analyzing political cartoons from an agenda-setting perspective might reveal that
tax cuts, foreign trade, and unemployment are the three most heavily covered political
issues. Consequently, the expectation would be that the public would believe these
36

three issues were the most important ones to them. Examining political cartoons
through framing, on the other hand, might reveal the perspective that tax cuts are a
giveaway to wealthy people, or foreign trade disadvantages American workers, or
unemployment places an unsustainable strain on government services. In short, what
produces an agenda-setting effect on audiences is the prominence given an issue, which
results in a certain level of attention and cognitive processing. What produces a framing
effect is how the issue is characterized in its coverage, which results in audience
members thinking a certain way (Scheufele & Tewksbury, 2007).
3.4.2 Framing and Second-Level Agenda Setting Theory
Framing is not a separate concept at all, but rather an extension of agenda
setting, argues McCombs (2004), who is one of the founders of agenda setting theory.
McCombs contends that framing simply uses different modes of presentation that make
aspects of an issue more salient and influence audience attitudes. Termed secondlevel agenda setting, it differs from regular agenda setting, which deals with the
communication of broad messages. Second-level agenda setting concerns attributes of
a larger message.
In an analysis of political cartoons, for example, agenda setting may suggest that
public financing of political campaigns became an important issue with audiences
because of exposure to a sufficient number of political cartoons about the issue. That is
the notion of saliencethe media making an issue important by assigning it more
salience. Second-level agenda setting, however, suggests that more than the salience of
an issue is communicated; a perspective or slant on the issue is also conveyed
37

(McCombs, 2004). In the example of political cartoons addressing the public financing
of political campaigns, second-level agenda setting would be the perspective on the
issue that is communicated. That perspective might be that public finance of political
campaigns constitutes a threat to the freedom of speech because people and
corporations should be able to donate as much money as they wish to their preferred
candidates. In the language of second-level agenda setting, this may be the attribute
of campaign financing that is emphasized. Audiences may then consider this attribute
of campaign financing to be more important because of its salience in political cartoons.
Although similar, this process differs from framing because, according to McCombs
(2004), second-level agenda setting is primarily concerned with the messages
themselves, not their ability to resonate with existing schema among audiences like
framing suggests.
3.4.3 Framing and Priming Theory
An extension of agenda setting is a concept known as priming, the process by
which mass media influence the standards audiences use to make evaluations about an
issue (Iyengar & Kinder, 1987). While agenda setting informs audiences of what they
should think about or what they should consider important, and while second-level
agenda setting informs audiences of the more detailed parts of a larger message that
they should consider important, and while framing suggests to audiences how they
should think about an issue, priming sets the rubrics or parameters audiences should
follow when considering an issue. These parameters provide specific criteria for

38

assessing the performance of political leaders and the effectiveness of public policy
(Scheufele & Tewksbury, 2007).
For example, priming in a political cartoon about health care might lead
audiences to think about health care legislation in terms of how many people should be
covered and at what cost. Such a cartoon may not make a judgment regarding the
merits of a politicians health care proposal; it simply informs audiences of benchmarks
or a scorecard they can use to evaluate health care policy in general. A political cartoon
addressing illegal immigration may prime audiences to evaluate it in terms of how much
money illegal immigrants contribute to local economies. Using this rubric, the perceived
merits of an immigration bill would depend on how adversely local communities are
impacted by the bills adoption.
Priming is considered an extension of agenda setting because it is based on a
memory-based model of information processing (Scheufele & Tewksbury, 2007). In
agenda setting, the more mass media report on an issue, the more salient the issue
becomes for audiences and the more likely they are to remember it. Priming works in a
similar fashion by influencing the criteria audiences use when evaluating an issue. As a
result, these new considerations become more salient.
Unlike priming, framing does not concern itself with rubrics to facilitate how
audiences should think about an issue, and unlike agenda setting, framing does not
suggest which topics are the most important based on how much attention they receive
in mass media. Framing argues that how news is presented or characterized influences
how audiences understand or interpret it. It does not merely suggest that an issue is
39

important or that it should be evaluated using certain guidelines. Framing makes

evaluative judgments about the merits, consequences or effectiveness of an issue.
Agenda setting may suggest that abortion policy is an important issue. Priming may
suggest that abortion policy should be considered in the context of the number of
unmarried mothers seeking abortion services. Framing may suggest that clinics
providing abortion services should not receive federal funding because they are
engaged in the destruction of innocent human life.
3.5 FRAMING AND VISUAL IMAGERY
Examining written text is only one aspect of framing, especially when addressing
political cartoons. According to Graber (1989: 145), purely verbal analyses not only
miss the information contained in the pictures and nonverbal sounds, they even fail to
interpret the verbal content appropriately because that content is modified by its
combination with picture messages. A greater emphasis should be placed on the role
of visuals in framing (Matthes, 2009). Visual information has been defined as
information encoded by visual means (Coleman & Banning, 2006). Like articles
consisting solely of written text, visual images also comprise interpretive packages,
which contain media frames. Visual images are also one of the five framing devices
suggested by Gamson and Modigliani (1989). Because visual images are more easily
remembered than verbal information (Graber, 1990, 1996), can make a story more
powerful or vivid (Schwalbe, Silcock & Keith, 2008), and comprise the daily visual report
of a news event (Fahmy, Kelly & Kim, 2007: 557), the frames that political cartoons
convey visually may be more powerful than the frames the cartoons convey through
40

text. Visual framing research of political news has tended to focus on television and
newspaper coverage of politicians, campaigns, and events that lend themselves to
compelling or sobering images, such as wars, natural disasters, or protests (Sigelman &
Bullock, 1991; Coleman & Banning, 2006; Schwalbe, Silcock & Keith, 2008; Fahmy, Kelly
& Kim, 2007; Miller, Andsager & Riechert, 1998).
Matthes (2009) identified three approaches in the scholarly literature for dealing
with visual elements in framing research. The first approach is to focus solely on text
while ignoring examining any accompanying visual elements. The second approach is to
discuss the visual elements when interpreting a frame even though the visuals are not
considered the main part of the frame. The third approach is to code visual images
directly and treat them as constituents of a frame (p. 350). This dissertation adopts
the third approach and attempts to treat visual elements in a political cartoon as parts
of a frame.
A search in major communication journals of content analysis studies of media
frames yielded 131 articles (Matthes, 2009). Of these, 83% did not code visuals at all,
12% discussed the use of visuals in interpreting frames, and 5% coded visuals directly.
Even framing studies examining the content of television, a visual medium, tended to
consist solely of textual analyses, as 72% of these studies did not take visuals into
account when examining the frames. These findings reveal that written textual
elements are the main components of frames in framing research. The findings also
reveal that when visuals are examined, they are treated as complementary elements
of frames (Matthes, 2009: 355). Because of the relative lack of attention paid to visuals
41

in framing research and the tendency for visuals to be relegated to a complementary

role when they are examined, this dissertation helps bridge this gap by examining
textual and visual elements of political cartoons as equal.
Given journalists autonomy and goal of objectivity, their portrayals of politicians
and political candidates in their stories may not be consistent with the desires of the
politicians they cover. Miller et al. (1998) found that visual images of the 1996
Republican presidential candidates in newspaper stories were more likely than the
candidates press releases to focus on the candidates political positions in relation to
each other. Images of the candidates in their own press releases were more favorable
and focused more on character and good government issues, such as family and term
limits. Miller et al. (1998) suggest that even though news media may not reflect the
images that the candidates are trying to project, they are still serving democracy by
report*ing+ on things that the candidates themselves are not promoting (p. 322).
These findings suggest that despite criticisms of bias or poor judgment from the
politicians who are portrayed in media images, the news media still play an important
role as an independent voice that seeks to convey frames and information through
imagery that might not be consistent with the politicians wishes.
Changes in the news media have also affected how politicians campaign, as
political strategists have always designed campaigns to make optimal use of the
leading communications medium of the day, rendering other media subject to strategies
concocted for the dominant medium (Sigelman & Bullock, 1991: 9). The influence of
changing media technology on political campaigns is accounted for by what Sigelman
42

and Bullock (1991) term the videostyle interpretation of media coverage of

presidential campaigns, which asserts that politicians have changed their campaign
activities and personal behavior to play for the cameras so that they can be covered
favorably on television newscasts (Sigelman & Bullock, 1991). One of these changes is
the planning of photo opportunities for the broadcast media to cover because
politicians and their strategists believe these kinds of stories convey their campaigns
favorably and in a controlled environment while satisfying televisions voracious
appetite for certain types of stories served up on a certain schedule (p. 10).
Political cartoonists are not dependent on access to politicians in order to
communicate messages about them in their work. And while a photo opportunity
may allow a politician a highly controlled environment in which to portray himself
favorably to the news media, political cartoons do not offer the same level of security.
This suggests that the frames political cartoonists may use to convey messages about
politicians are more likely to be less flattering than the frames the broadcast media may
use because political cartoonists are less intertwined with a politicians daily campaign
schedule. Political cartoonists create their own visuals rather than having to rely on
visuals created and staged by politicians.
3.6 POLITICAL CARTOON RESEARCH
3.6.1. A Classification System of Political Cartoons
Perhaps the political cartoon study that most significantly informs this
dissertation is Medhurst and DeSousas (1981) rhetorical and graphical analysis of
cartoons of the 1980 presidential campaign. A keyword search of the Thomson Reuters
43

Social Sciences Citation Index shows that the Medhurst and DeSousa study is the most
frequently cited article pertaining to identifying the rhetorical and graphical elements of
political cartoons. Their study analyzes political cartoons in terms of what the
cartoonists talk about and how they use graphical and rhetorical devices to portray the
subjects and arguments they address. These graphical and rhetorical devices are the
basis of a classificatory scheme they propose for political cartoons and their content.
These devices also bear similarities to the framing devices identified by Gamson and
Modigliani (1989).
Medhurst and DeSousa (1981) assert that political cartoons have three primary
elements: 1) rhetorical invention, which addresses the main topic being addressed; 2)
rhetorical disposition, which addresses how the argument is constructed; and 3)
rhetorical style, which includes the rhetorical and graphical tools that distinguish one
cartoonists work from another and convey rhetorical nuances within a panel. In this
dissertation, these three elements constitute framing devices used in political cartoons
and help characterize the frames political cartoons may contain.
Political cartoons, Medhurst and DeSousa (1981) argue, are a form of rhetoric
and contain means of persuasion that are independent of audience perception and
interpretation. This is similar to media frames in that the conveyors of the messages,
political cartoonists in this case, are able to communicate their desired messages to
mass audiences whose ability to interpret these cartoons is determined by their own
schema. This also suggests that the frames used in political cartoons function both as
media frames and independent variables in Scheufeles (1999) taxonomy of framing
44

research. (Scheufele [1999] classified framing research using four categories based on
whether the research examined media frames or individual frames, and whether the
frames were independent variables or dependent variables.) This argument is also
consistent with Gamson and Modiglianis (1989) concept of interpretive packages,
which in this case would be the political cartoons themselves. Political cartoonists
integrate both rhetoric and graphics into their work. As is necessary for effective oral
communication, a graphic artist must also rely on invention, disposition, style, memory
and delivery to create a persuasive message, (Medhurst & DeSousa, 1981: 199), or, as
this dissertation asserts, frame.
3.6.1.1. Rhetorical Invention
The first element of a cartoon identified by Medhurst and DeSousa (1989),
rhetorical invention, concerns the political cartoonists selection of a topic about which
to draw. Rhetorical invention, the first stage in the production of any communicative
art, consists of the discovery or creation of subject matter (p. 199). In an examination
of the rhetorical invention or subject matter of political cartoons, Medhurst and
DeSousa found four rhetorical themes of political cartoonists used: political
commonplaces, literary/cultural allusions, popular caricatures of candidate traits and
transient situations. These rhetorical themes are illustrated in Figure 3.2.

45

Rhetorical
themes

Political
commonplaces

Literary/cultural
allusions

Popular
caricatures

Transient
situations

Figure 3.2 Rhetorical themes in political cartoons (based on Medhurst &

DeSousa, 1981)

The first rhetorical theme, political commonplaces, is defined as topics that are
available to any cartoonist working within a modern nation-state (Medhurst &
DeSousa, 1981: 200). This would include political topics that are commonly addressed
in the news media, such as national defense, international relations, the state of the
economy, political campaigns, lobbying, social policy, and elections. An example of a
political cartoon characterized as a political commonplace would be one that shows the
effects of Barack Obamas economic policies on the stock market because economic
affairs are an issue that the news media address regularly (Pew Research Center, 2009).
The second rhetorical theme, the literary/cultural allusion (Medhurst &
DeSousa, 1981: 201), refers to content based on or derived from any fictive or mythical
character or any narrative or form, whether drawn from legend, folklore, literature or
the electronic media (p. 201). An example of a political cartoon using this particular
theme would be one examined by Conners (2005) of the 2004 presidential campaign
between George W. Bush and John Kerry. Bush and Kerry appeared together in a
political cartoon with the words The Choice written over their heads. Bush was
depicted as Tigger from the childrens story Winnie the Pooh while Kerry was portrayed

46

as Eeyore, another Winnie the Pooh character. In Winnie the Pooh, Tigger is typically an
energetic, fun-loving character whose kidding around often annoys his friends who want
him to be more serious and responsible. Eeyore, on the other hand, is usually an
unpleasant, emotionless character who does not cause trouble, but has trouble
endearing himself to his friends because of his lack of optimism and emotion. The
implication is that Bush was incapable of being serious while Kerry was always too
serious. Political cartoons incorporating literary or cultural allusions require readers to
have some familiarity with the allusion in order to sufficiently understand the cartoon.
These political cartoons meanings are derived both from political commonplaces as
well as the allusions themselves (p.201). In the case of the Winnie the Pooh example,
the political commonplace would be assessments of the candidates personalities,
whereas the cultural or literary allusion would be the childrens story itself.
The third rhetorical theme, popular caricatures, is based on a popular
perception of the politicians personal character (Medhurst & DeSousa, 1981: 202). The
popular caricatures grow from personal characteristics that can include, but are not
limited to, intelligence, morality, charisma, and age. These personal characteristics can
be transformed into a combination of imagery and caption (p. 202). Political
cartoonists do not have the ability to whimsically ascribe certain personal characteristics
to politicians; as with literary/cultural allusions, these perceptions must already exist in
the public consciousness before they can be caricatured by the cartoonist (p. 202).
President George W. Bush, for example, came to be caricatured as a weak and
ineffective leader after the federal government was criticized for what came to be seen
47

as an ineffective response to Hurricane Katrina (Kelley-Romano & Westgate, 2007a). In

isolation, the caricature of Bush as weak and ineffective might not have been acceptable
by the public. However, because doubts about President Bushs leadership had already
begun to form as a result of reservations about his prosecution of the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan (CBS News, 2004; CNN, 2004), political cartoonists were able to play off of
this existing perception of incompetence by reinforcing it in their cartoons about his
response to Hurricane Katrina.
The fourth rhetorical theme, transient situations, consists of idiosyncratic and
transient situations which appear unexpectedly during the course of a campaign
(Medhurst & DeSousa, 1981: 202). Political cartoons based on this theme relate to
situations that may have an immediate impact and contain a timely message, but they
have little salience beyond their immediate context (p. 202). Properly understanding
political cartoons using this theme requires the audience to be familiar with unexpected
and timely campaign events. A political cartoon in which Democratic presidential
candidate Al Gore criticizes George W. Bush for being fuzzy on various issues would
make little sense to audiences unless they realized that then-Republican presidential
candidate George W. Bush criticized Al Gores budget numbers in a 2000 presidential
debate as fuzzy math (CBS News, 2004). While literary and cultural references may be
enduring to audiences, transient and idiosyncratic campaign news is much less so and
requires political cartoonists to create their cartoons in a timely manner in order to take
advantage of the opportunity.

48

This dissertation uses these four rhetorical themes to help determine the
overarching frames, that is, the frames that describe the overall tone, of political
cartoons in general. These themes reveal what inspires political cartoonists to create
these messages.
3.6.1.2. Rhetorical Disposition
The second element of political cartoons, according to Medhurst and DeSousa
(1981), is rhetorical disposition, which concerns how the arguments contained within
the cartoon are constructed. Even though they use the term rhetorical disposition,
which suggests a focus on words, this disposition may be based on text as well as
graphics. They identify three types of rhetorical disposition in their analysis of political
cartoons: contrast, commentary and contradiction (see Figure 3.3).

rhetorical
disposition
contrast

commentary

contradiction

Figure 3.3 Rhetorical disposition in political

cartoons (based on Medhurst & DeSousa, 1981)

Medhurst and DeSousa (1981) identified contrast as the most basic and most
common form of rhetorical disposition. Contrast can exist between ideologies,
candidates, standards of living, cultures and generations, and serves as the most
commonly used form of rhetorical disposition for political cartoonists. The spatial
constraint of political cartoons, typically presented in one panel, contributes to the
frequency of contrast as the basic principle of arrangement (p. 205). Within these
49

constraints, political cartoonists convey meaning to their audiences by building on

contrasts or tensions. This can be done by comparing visual forms, images and text, two
or more verbal texts, or popular conceptions and images (p. 206).
Medhurst and DeSousa (1981) also identified commentary and contradiction as
two minor forms of rhetorical disposition available to political cartoonists. Commentary
entails congruence between the cartoonists message and an existing reality. Medhurst
and DeSousa argue that this type of rhetorical arrangement is the safe form of
disposition because it offers a popularly accepted image and requires only that the
reader recognize the congruence between what is and what is imagined (p. 207).
Kelley-Romano and Westgate (2007b) found that commentary was a common fixture of
political cartoons during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. An image of the Gulf Coast
with a series of giant footprints coming from the water onshore by a giant named
Katrina would be an example of a political cartoon using the rhetorical disposition of
commentary. Most people would certainly agree that Hurricane Katrina left a wide
swath of destruction along the Gulf Coast, so a political cartoon illustrating this fact
would offer readers little tension.
Contradiction in political cartoons revels in the exposition of dichotomies and
the unmasking of polarities (Medhurst & DeSousa, 1981: 207). It entails one politician
or political party taking two different positions on the same subject. This rhetorical
arrangement serves to generate condemnation, as it is unflattering to have
inconsistencies between someones past positions and present statements revealed.
The rhetorical arrangement of contrast merely informs the audience of the differences
50

between two images in order to reach a conclusion. Peoples partisan leanings and
personal biases may lead them to be more sympathetic or more hostile towards a
certain candidate or position when a contrast is offered. However, the rhetorical
arrangement of contradiction removes this choice altogether and is met by most
reasonable people with condemnation because the political figure represented in the
cartoon is guilty of that most unpardonable political sin, hypocrisy (p. 207).
While they do not serve as frames themselves, the three types of rhetorical
disposition serve as devices that help characterize frames in political cartoons. The use
of contrast, for example, could suggest a thematic frame by comparing the positions
Obama advocated on the campaign trail with the positions he advocated as president.
The thematic frame in this case might be one of Obamas political evolution.
3.6.1.3. Rhetorical Style
Rhetorical style contains six devices and constitutes the final element of
Medhurst and DeSousas (1981) classification scheme of political cartoons. Medhurst
and DeSousa identified at least six stylistic elements available to political cartoonists (p.
212). Although termed stylistic elements, these consist of graphical elements that are
the most idiosyncratic part of a political cartoon and use graphics to make rhetorical
arguments. These stylistic elements are also what distinguish one political cartoonists
work from anothers. The six stylistic elements are: 1) the use of line and form to create
mood; 2) the relative size of objects; 3) the exaggeration of features; 4) the placement
of objects within a panel; 5) the relationship between text and images; and 6) the
interaction of rhetorical, dispositional and stylistic elements (see Figure 3.4).
51

Stylistic
elements

Line and form

to create
mood

Relative size
of objects

Placements of
objects within
panel

Exaggeration
of features

Relationship
between text
and images

Interaction of
rhetorical,
dispositional
and stylistic
elements

Figure 3.4 Stylistic elements in political cartoons (based on Medhurst & DeSousa, 1981)

The first stylistic element is the use of line and form to create a tone and mood
(Medhurst & DeSousa, 1981). Medhurst and DeSousa cite political cartoonist Paul
Conrad as using a wide, dark pen stroke to lend ominous tones to his political
caricatures. Herbert Block, who signs his cartoons as Herblock, uses shades of gray,
crosshatches, and lines of force to give stylistic distinction to his cartoons (Medhurst &
DeSousa, 1981: 213). This stylistic element is not included for analysis in this
dissertation because the cartoons included in the sample were taken from an online
source. Computer technology makes it easy to add color or shading to images, thus
limiting the relevance of this stylistic element.
The relative size of objects within the cartoons panel comprises the second
stylistic element. Political cartoonists use size to convey a political figures overall
strength or strength relative to other political figures. Using visual images of various
sizes allows political cartoonists to communicate more thoroughly than by merely using
words. Depicting a president as shorter and skinnier than a governor in the same panel
would suggest that the governor is more politically powerful or that the president is a
diminished figure. Similarly, drawing a person holding a bag of money identified as
52

wasteful spending and juxtaposing it with another person holding a much larger bag
of money identified as entitlement spending conveys that wasteful spending is
insignificant compared to entitlement spending. Medhurst and DeSousa (1981) argue
that Pat Oliphant portrayed President Jimmy Carter as small and weak compared to Ted
Kennedy during the 1980 presidential primaries. However, despite this size differential,
Carter was able to politically outmaneuver Kennedy as was indicated by Oliphants
cartoons of a small Carter standing on the shoulders of his much larger rivals, including
Kennedy, who are bogged down in a swamp. Another similar depiction shows Carter
lashing a much larger Kennedy with a whip at a press conference as if Carter were his
master (p. 213). Obamas social networking ability (Brownstein, 2008), the rising federal
deficit (New York Times, 2010), and Obamas dwindling popularity (Gallup, 2011)
suggest ample opportunities to employ this graphical device of relative size.
The third stylistic element is the exaggeration or amplification of physionomical
features, also termed caricature (Medhurst & DeSousa, 1981). This stylistic element
concerns itself with the dominant physical features parodied by cartoonists (p. 214).
For example, Medhurst and DeSousa observed that President Jimmy Carters smile was
often exaggerated in political cartoons. The meaning of this smile could vary from
cartoon to cartoon, however, as the meaning or interpretation of these exaggerations in
general depends on their context, imagery, audience predisposition, and audience
knowledge (p. 214). These exaggerations may over- or under-represent a politicians
actual tendencies, but they may come to be seen as trademarks to be used satirically to
invite judgment (p. 216). President Bill Clinton, for example, was often caricatured as
53

wearing boxer shorts, being covered in lipstick, or having an open zipper because of his
sex scandal with intern Monica Lewinsky (Benoit, Klyukovski, McHale & Airne, 2001).
These caricatures could invite criticisms of Clintons moral failings, but they could also
remind audiences of his political resilience (Benoit et al., 2001). President George W.
Bush was often portrayed as a short man with oversized cowboy boots and a popgun
because of his perceived inappropriate bravado and lack of maturity (Kelley-Romano &
Westgate, 2007a; Kelley-Romano & Westgate, 2007b). This caricature could suggest
that Bush was unable to handle the seriousness of his responsibilities, or it could remind
audiences that despite his stature, he wielded great power. According to Medhurst &
DeSousa (1981), in the rhetoric of political cartooningthe man is the style (p. 216).
The placement of objects within the panel comprises the fourth element of visual
style (Medhurst & DeSousa, 1981). Placing one object over another, for example, could
signify importance or dominance, whereas placing two objects on the same level could
signify equality. Medhurst & DeSousas analysis of political cartoons during the 1980
presidential campaign included an analysis of a political cartoon showing the nations
Founding Fathers looking down at President Jimmy Carter and Governor Ronald Reagan
below with the caption Where did we go wrong? The placement of the Founding
Fathers above the presidential candidates reinforces the reverence with which the
nations founders are held while also reminding audiences of how Carter, shown in the
cartoon as a bumbling clown, and Reagan, shown as a lumbering Frankenstein, were not
nearly perceived as the statesmen that George Washington, James Madison and

54

Thomas Jefferson were. The prominence of the placement of the Founding Fathers in
this cartoon reinforced its caption.
Medhurst and DeSousa (1981) identify the relationship between the verbal text
and the visual images as the fifth stylistic element of political cartoons. Text may
appear in two forms in political cartoons: 1) dialogs between the figures in the cartoons
in the form of text bubbles or captions; and 2) labels appearing on, over or under a
character provided by the cartoonist to help explain his cartoon (pp. 216-217). The text
may offer commentary about a character or action being discussed in the frame, an
explanation of the images in the frame, or a revelation about a character or scene in the
frame (p. 217). The interpretation of this text is influenced by the imagery
accompanying it. An image of a smiling politician saying trust me may yield a different
reaction among audiences from a more sinister-looking politician using the same words.
Each cartoon contains a combination of rhetorical arrangements and stylistic
devices in the form of graphics. The totality of these elements is the whole cartoon and
the message it suggests. This totality is the final stylistic element addressed by
Medhurst and DeSousa (1981), which is the interaction of inventional, dispositional, and
stylistic elements. Termed a graphical and stylistic element, the interaction of
inventional, dispositional, and stylistic elements describes an entire cartoon at a
microlevel because it focuses primarily on the individual graphical and textual
arrangements of a cartoon. This differs from overarching frames, discussed in Chapter 4,
which examine cartoons at the macrolevel. Overarching frames are concerned with the
interaction of frames and framing devices contained within a cartoon.
55

The three rhetorical inventions, three forms of rhetorical disposition, and six
graphical and stylistic elements comprise elements that political cartoons can have (see
Figure 3.5). Rhetorical invention addresses the subject of a cartoon and the vehicle
through which the subject is discussed. Rhetorical disposition addresses how text or
graphics are used to present an argument. Graphical and stylistic elements address how
graphics may be used to communicate or reinforce messages and often vary among
cartoonists as a matter of their unique styles of drawing.
Political cartoons

Rhetorical invention

Rhetorical disposition

Graphical and stylistic

elements

Political
commonplaces

Commentary

Use of line and form to

create mood

Literary/cultural
allusions

Contrast

Relative size of objects

Popular caricatures

Contradiction

Exaggeration of features

Placement of objects within

panel

Transient situations

Relationship between text

and images
Interaction of rhetorical,
dispositional and stylistic
elements

Figure 3.5 Classification scheme of political cartoon elements (based on

Medhurst and DeSousa, 1981)

56

3.6.2. Frames of Successes and Setbacks in Political Cartoons

Perhaps the second-most important political cartoon study for this dissertation is
Buell and Mauss (1988) examination of cartoons of the 1988 presidential campaign.
Though not a framing study, it informs this dissertation by helping to identify the final
two of the six frames of political cartoons referenced in Section 3.2.1: success frames
and setback frames.
While a political candidates ideas are important, how mass media portray these
ideas is critical as well. Buell and Maus (1988) identified three themes cartoonists used
in their treatment of the presidential candidates during the 1988 campaign: success
themes, setback themes, and personal problem themes. These themes are similar to
the concept of frames as defined by Scheufele (1999) in that they suggest how messages
are presented and how messages may be understood.
Of all the candidates Buell and Maus (1988) examined in political cartoons during
the 1988 presidential campaign, George H.W. Bush, Gary Hart, and Pat Robertson were
portrayed the most negatively. The most prominent Bush themes were setback and
personal problem themes. More specifically, Buell and Maus (1989) found that the
most common portrayals of Bush were that 1) he was a wimp, 2) he was the successor
to Ronald Reagan with no sense of political direction, and 3) he had questionable ethics
because of his ties to political scandals, such as Iran-Contra. Perhaps a similarly
unflattering theme could be employed by cartoonists to portray Barack Obama because
of his youth and lack of executive experience.

57

The most common theme of Gary Hart was the personal problem theme, or
more specifically, his reported sexual activity and unpaid campaign debts. The sexual
activity theme stemmed from his past dalliances with Donna Rice aboard a yacht named
Monkey Business. Audiences who remember this embarrassing event had these
memories rekindled by political cartoons that referenced it. The personal problem
theme related to debt resulting from his unpaid debts from his 1984 campaign. Stories
and images about his debts could throw Hart off his campaign message by inviting
questions about his fiscal management or motivation for running for president. Barack
Obama does not have any sex scandals, but he has been criticized for his associations
with controversial figures in the past, such as his former pastor Jeremiah Wright.
Political cartoonists may treat such relationships as a personal problem for Obama just
as Harts sexual activity and debt were a personal problem for him.
The personal problem theme was the most commonly used one to describe Pat
Robertson as well. This was because he sometimes failed to live up to the Christian
values he advocated as an evangelical Christian and televangelist, thus making him an
easy target for political cartoonists to depict him as a hypocrite. One cartoon by Paul
Conrad, for example, shows three men dressed in cloaks as they watch a boulder
blocking the entrance to a cave. The imagery is a reference to Easter and the
resurrection of Jesus. The boulder is blocking the entrance to the cave where Robertson
is, but it does not budge. The caption below the cartoon says On Super Tuesday he
was supposed to rise! using a Christian story to mock the political shortcomings of an
imperfect Christian presidential candidate. Just as religion was Pat Robertsons most
58

salient demographic characteristic during his campaign, during the 2008 campaign,
gender may have been the most salient demographic characteristic because of Obamas
campaign against Hillary Clinton. Just as Robertsons religion was a basis for personal
problem themes by political cartoonists, Obamas gender may have led to similar
portrayals as he tried to court female voters.
This dissertation suggests that these three themes identified by Buell and Maus
(1988) are the equivalent of media frames because they suggest how audiences should
think about various politicians and political issues. More specifically, they suggest that a
politician is strengthened or weakened by personal or political triumphs and failures.
Themes have also been identified by Pan and Kosicki (1993) as frames because of how
they organize information:
[T]he structured array of signifying elements [of a theme] does set up
parameters of a cognitive window through which a news story is seen.
In other words, the intended meaning of a news story has the capability
of directing attention as well as restricting the perspectives available to
audiences (Hall, 1980; Tuchman, 1978). Because of this structuring
function, a theme is also called a frame (p. 59).
Because the three themes identified by Buell and Maus (1988) consist of one
positive theme and two negative ones, this dissertation condenses them into two
frames: success frames and setback frames. In addition to strategy frames, issue
frames, thematic frames, and episodic frames, these new frames constitute the final
two media frames of political cartoons. These success and setback frames will also
constitute the basis on which the overarching frames of political cartoons can be
determined. This will be addressed in Chapter 4.

59

3.6.3. Additional Political Cartoon Research

Themes based on demographic traits were often employed by political
cartoonists in their treatment of Elizabeth Dole in her 2000 presidential campaign as
well. The themes most frequently emphasized in the political cartoons about Dole
showed her playing a domestic or supportive role as the wife of then-Senator Robert
Dole, speaking about personal and character issues, and appearing at home (Gilmartin,
2001). These findings were in direct contrast to the themes emphasized by political
cartoons of her male rivals, which were four times more likely to portray them as
speaking on the campaign trail compared to Dole. More than 75% of the political
cartoons of her male rivals depicted them speaking about political issues compared to
0% for Dole. None of the political cartoons of the male candidates emphasized personal
issues or portrayed the men in a domestic or sexualized way, although 57% of the
cartoons of Dole did. It should be noted that at the time of Gilmartins (2001) study,
about 98.5% of political cartoonists were males (Wilkinson, 1998). This gender
imbalance may have influenced how much and what type of attention presidential
candidates received from political cartoonists. Gilmartin (2001) found that only 30 of
the 750 political cartoons related to the 2000 campaign referenced Dole. Of these, only
19 featured Dole as the primary subject despite her polling in second place among
Republican voters and placing third in Iowas straw poll.
Gilmartins (2001) analysis of political cartoons of Elizabeth Dole is consistent
with the idea that frames call attention to some aspects of an issue at the expense of
drawing attention away from other aspects (Entman, 1993; Gitlin, 1980; Iyengar, 1996;
60

Chong & Druckman, 2007). In the case of Dole, her femininity was emphasized at the
expense of her professional qualifications. In political communication literature, which
includes political cartoons, framing calls attention to some aspects of reality while
obscuring other elements, which might lead audiences to have different reactions
(Entman, 1993: 55). Political cartoonists are able to do this through the graphics they
select and the text that accompanies them (Medhurst & DeSousa, 1981).
Racial and gender frames were also the subject of Conners (2010) analysis of
political cartoons of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton during the 2008 presidential
primaries. The contest between Obama and Clinton featured both mixed-gender and
mixed-race dynamics. Campaigns between candidates of different races and genders
have attracted increased media attention. Obamas race and Clintons gender were
referenced in nearly 15% of news stories (Miller, Peake & Boulton, 2009; Peake & Miller,
2008) from the fall of 2007 through Super Tuesday in February 2008.
Conners (2010) identified several negative themes contained in the political
cartoons about Obama and his campaign: 1) his inexperience, 2) his rhetoric, 3) his
association with controversial pastor Jeremiah Wright, and 4) medias adulation of him.
Regarding the theme of being the medias preferred candidate, she references one
cartoon showing Clinton at an airport being charged for her bags while Obama is
greeted by an airline agent who moves him to first class for no reason other than the
fact that she likes him. This suggests a type of setback frame of Obama not based on
scandal or ethics.

61

While race was another common theme of the political cartoons Conners (2010)
analyzed, it seems that it was a particularly salient issue for Obama. Illustrating this
point, Conners cites a cartoon of Hillary Clinton stating, I disagree with *former
Democratic Party vice presidential candidate Geraldine+ Ferraros racial insensitive
BLACK comments about Obama. Obama also had to contend with news stories that he
was not Black enough or too Black and gave several speeches about race and unity
(Kenski et al., 2010). This suggests that race could be the basis for both success and
setback frames in political cartoons of Obama.
There is also evidence that political cartoonists are more interested in strategy
frames than issue frames, regardless of the candidates race or gender. Koetzle and
Brunell (1996) analyzed political cartoons of the 1992 presidential election between
incumbent George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Ross Perot and found that the frames
related to the candidates personal issues, which, to use the terminology of this
dissertation, are encompassed by strategy frames, were four times more common than
frames related to specific policies, which are encompassed by issue frames. The
researchers argued that evaluations of the candidates were a product of the
perceptions voters had of them over the course of the campaign. The overwhelming
majority of cartoons making an evaluative judgment were negative. Because candidate
perceptions are important to voters, cartoonists often depicted the candidates in a
strategy frame, such as participating in a horserace or boxing match against each other
(Koetzle & Brunell, 1996). The length of Obamas campaign and his trajectory from
earning a surprise victory in the Iowa caucuses to losing the New Hampshire primary, to
62

securing his partys nomination, to polling behind John McCain after the Republicans
convention suggests that his perception among voters changed considerablychanges
that would be reflected in cartoons about his campaign incorporating strategy frames.
3.7 APPLYING FRAMING THEORY TO POLITICAL CARTOONS
Framing is an appropriate theoretical perspective through which to examine
political cartoons, given that they operate as frames for the organization of social
knowledge insofar as they make use of various rhetorical devicesmetaphors,
catchphrases, depictions, etc.that purport to capture the essence of an issue or event
graphically (Greenberg, 2002: 183). These symbolic devices provide a shorthand way
of suggesting an underlying storyline or message (Gamson, 1989; Graber, 1996).
This dissertation suggests that these metaphors, symbolic devices, words, and
visual images constitute frames, specifically media frames, because they are published
by communicators, in this case, political cartoonists, for mass audiences. These media
frames are based on the subject of the content contained within the cartoon, how
information about the subject is attributed, and how favorable or unfavorable the
content is for the politician covered. This dissertation proposes that the totality of these
rhetorical, graphical, and symbolic devices constitutes an overarching frame for each
political cartoon. These proposed overarching frames are addressed in Chapter 4.
Political cartoons commonly offer a take on current and rapidly changing political
news. Politicians make gaffes, tragic news stories may break during the course of a
campaign, and changing circumstances may push certain political issues to the forefront
of a national or local discussion. Breaking news stories may lead political cartoonists to
63

depict political news using issue frames. The final weeks of a political campaign may
lead the news media, and political cartoonists by extension, to focus more closely on
any missteps the candidates make. This would suggest that cartoonists may be more
apt to use strategy frames in their work. If a candidate has a history of making such
mistakes, cartoonists may pile on him by using thematic frames to portray the incident.
As a result of the ever-changing political landscape, political cartoonists have a
wealth of short-term issues about which to draw and analyze. In addition, politics is
often about legislative wrangling and political positioning. Media messengers, or
political cartoonists in this case, can choose the events about which they wish to
communicate and present this information through the filter of their own beliefs
(Iyengar, 1996). This freedom may lead one cartoonist to portray a weakened politician
using thematic and setback frames while another cartoonist who is more sympathetic to
this politician may cover him using episodic and setback frames.
Even though political cartoons often appear in newspapers, it is likely much
easier to identify the frames of a political cartoon than those of a newspaper article
because of the efficiency of graphics and limited text. Newspaper articles, like other
interpretive packages, contain frames. Articles may also include graphics, such as
pictures or charts, but the text of the article must be read in order to determine the
storys frame. Political cartoons are able to combine graphics and text to communicate
frames much more efficiently than purely textual communication because of the
condensing nature of graphics. In political cartoons, both graphics and text are
fundamental in the creation of rhetoric and frames.
64

The choice, size, and placement of these graphics can all be used to suggest
certain messages (Medhurst & DeSousa, 1981). Even political cartoons with no text at
all contain messages because graphics also allow cartoonists to communicate
information more efficiently than through text (Graber, 1996). For example, a
cartoonist could draw Obama with a calm facial expression or smile while juggling
various dangerous objects, such as knives, torches, and bombs. These dangerous
objects could represent thorny or politically difficult issues, such as the economy,
immigration, and terrorism. This cartoon would efficiently convey that Obama is cool
under pressure (because he does not look nervous or exasperated), that he is managing
many difficult issues at once (because he is juggling), and that each of these issues has
the potential to politically wound him (because the items he is juggling are dangerous
objects). The collective imagery of the cartoon could suggest that Obama is in total
control of the nations affairs, which could be classified as a success frame.
The format of the text within a political cartoon can also convey frames
(Medhurst & DeSousa, 1981). In the case of Obama, a cartoonist may use a text box
with an elegant font to represent his strong oratory skills. Or a cartoonist may draw a
text box next to Obama that keeps saying hope and change, which could suggest
that even though Obama talks a lot, he says very little or has little to offer beyond
campaign platitudes. The use of boldface or italics could also stress the importance of
words and the issues they represent and may be used liberally in political cartoons, as
opposed to regular newspaper or magazine articles.

65

Political cartoons can also suggest frames by showing inconsistencies between

the text of a cartoon and the graphics that accompany it (Medhurst & DeSousa, 1981).
Kelley-Romano and Westgate (2007a), for example, identified cartoons of George W.
Bush saying he had everything under control in the wake of Hurricane Katrina even
though the graphics around him suggested chaos and ruin. This inconsistency could
convey a setback frame of Bush being out of touch, for example.

66

CHAPTER 4
FRAMEWORK OF ANALYSIS AND HYPOTHESES
4.1 FRAMEWORK
Chapter 3 identified four media frames that characterize political news and two
frames of political cartoons. The four frames of political news content can be used to
address the frames of political cartoons as well. The four frames news framesissue,
strategy, thematic, and episodic framesare based on the news content of an
interpretive package (Capella & Jamieson, 1996) and the context in which the news is
presented (Iyengar, 1996). The two cartoon framessuccess and setback frames
describe the overall favorability of the content of political cartoons towards a politician
(Buell & Maus, 1988). The previous chapter also discussed the five framing devices of
interpretive packages, including visual images, metaphors, exemplars, catchphrases, and
depictions (Gamson & Modigliani, 1989). Finally, Chapter 3 identified four rhetorical
themes, three forms of rhetorical disposition, and six stylistic elements that form a
classification system of political cartoons and their rhetorical and stylistic elements
(Medhurst & DeSousa, 1981; see Figure 3.5). Chapter 4 attempts to link these political
news frames, political cartoon frames, framing devices, rhetorical themes, rhetorical
dispositions, and stylistic elements into an original model that explains the process of
framing in political cartoons.

67

4.1.1. Topic Frames, Context Frames, and Candidate Frames

This dissertation adopts the two Capella and Jamieson (1996) frames that
describe the subject of political news content: issue frames and strategy frames. Issue
frames pertain to substantive news content, such as legislation, social problems, and
ideological differences. Strategy frames pertain to the more competitive aspects of
politics, such as polling, fundraising, endorsements, and voter feedback. For example,
one cartoon may employ an issue frame when it criticizes Barack Obamas energy policy;
another cartoon may use a strategy frame when it shows how Obama dwarfed his rivals
in receiving campaign donations. Because both of these frames talk about the specific
topics covered in political cartoons, they will be termed topic frames.
This dissertation also adopts Iyengars (1996) thematic frames and episodic
frames that describe the context of how political news is attributed. Thematic frames
portray news events as part of a broader pattern or context. Episodic frames portray
news events as isolated, random, or independent events. Both of these frames can be
applied to political cartoons as well. A cartoon that expresses opinion on a session of
the House of Representatives discussing health care legislation would employ an
episodic frame. A cartoon expressing similar opinion on the same legislation while also
showing the image of a graveyard filled with the remains of previous failed Democratic
legislation would employ a thematic frame. Both thematic and episodic frames address
the context in which news is presented and will be termed context frames in this
dissertation.

68

Additionally, this dissertation adopts Buell and Mauss (1988) success and
setback frames. Success frames are complimentary of a politician or his ideas while
setback frames are critical of a politician, his ideas, or his political clout. These two
frames are based on evaluations of how favorable or unfavorable a cartoons content is
towards a politician or candidate and will thus be termed candidate frames.
4.1.2. First-Order, Second-Order, and Evaluative Media Frames

First-order
frames

Dominant
second-order
frames

Second-order
frames
Issue frame

Dominant topic
frame

Topic frame
Strategy frame
Thematic frame

Dominant
context frame

Context frame
Episodic frame

Candidate
frame

Success frame

Dominant
candidate frame

Setback frame

Evaluative
media frames
(Overarching
frames)
Political success
frame
Personal success
frame
Political setback
frame
Personal
setback frame

Figure 4.1 Proposed classifications of frames in political cartoons

Figure 4.1 shows the development of frames as posited by this dissertation.
Topic frames, context frames, and candidate frames constitute the three main types of
frames in political cartoons. These main frames will be termed first-order frames. Each
political cartoon analyzed in this dissertation contains all three of these first-order
frames because each cartoon includes news content, news context, and a degree of

69

favorability towards the politician, political party, or political issue it addresses. Political
cartoons are about news and political topics, which are placed in a specific context and
often laud, lampoon, or criticize a politician.
Each of the three first-order, or main, frames also contains two dichotomous
frames that are more narrowly focused. These more narrowly focused frames will be
identified as second-order frames. The two second-order topic frames are strategy
frames and issue frames. The two second-order context frames are thematic frames
and episodic frames. The two second-order candidate frames are success frames and
setback frames.
Iyengar (1996) noted that even though news stories may contain multiple frames,
one frame will tend to predominate. This dissertation applies the same idea to political
cartoons in that while a cartoon may contain both dichotomous second-order frames
for their corresponding first-order frametopic, context, or candidate frameone
second-order frame for each will have greater prominence. For example, even though a
cartoon may contain both thematic and episodic frames, it would be either primarily
thematic or primarily episodic regarding its context frame. The second-order frames
with the greater prominence will be called dominant second-order frames.
Finally, the evaluative media frame, which suggests the overarching message of a
political cartoon, is derived from the totality of the three dominant second-order frames,
each representing one of the three first-order frames, for each political cartoon. Figure
4.1 suggests that political cartoons may have one of eight possible second-order frame
combinations: 1) issue, thematic, and success frames; 2) issue, thematic, and setback
70

frames; 3) issue, episodic, and success frames; 4) issue, episodic, and setback frames; 5)
strategy, thematic, and success frames; 6) strategy, thematic, and setback frames; 7)
strategy, episodic, and success frames; and 8) strategy, episodic, and setback frames.
These eight possible combinations of dominant second-order frames form the
basis of the types of evaluative media frames. The terminology for these evaluative
media frames come from Buell and Mauss (1988) identification of three specific frames
in their analysis of political cartoons: success frames, political setback frames and
personal problem frames. This dissertation expands these three cartoon frames to
create four evaluative media frames, or overarching frames, that are based on two
dimensions: the favorability of the cartoon towards a given politician and whether the
focus of the cartoon is political or personal. The four combinations of these two
dimensions that address the overall nature of a political cartoon are 1) political success
frames, 2) personal success frames, 3) political setback frames, and 4) personal setback
frames. These overarching evaluative frames are based on how the cartoon employs
second-order frames; that is, whether it uses a success frame or a setback frame,
whether it focuses on issue frames or strategy frames, and the nature of the context
created by thematic and episodic frames.
Favorable cartoons that address political issues are characterized by what will be
termed political success frames. These frames may include favorable commentary
about topics like winning an election, getting a law passed, or being complimented by a
voter. Favorable cartoons that address character issues are characterized by what will

71

be termed personal success frames. These frames may include favorable commentary
about a politicians popularity, family dynamics, maturity, or personal strength.
Critical cartoons addressing political issues are characterized by what will be
termed political setback frames. Critical cartoons addressing character issues are
characterized by what will be termed personal setback frames. These two frames are
based on the two setback themes identified by Buell and Maus (1988): political setbacks
and personal problems.
4.1.3. Original Model of Framing in Political Cartoons
The three first-order frames, six second-order frames, three dominant secondorder frames, and two overarching frames addressed in the two previous sections all
correspond to different stages of the proposed model of framing in political cartoons
(see Figure 4.2). The purpose of the model is to illustrate the steps of a proposed
framing process that is unique to political cartoons. The model is a synthesis of the
literature, incorporating a variety of perspectives about the nature of framing and how
the framing process works. Citations are in the literature review and will be omitted
here. This section of the dissertation discusses all steps of the model in order.

72

Influences on media
frames

Selection of topic frame

issue frame
strategy frame

cultural resonances
media practices
sponsor activities

Selection of context
frame

Selection of rhetorical
theme

thematic frame
episodic frame

political commonplaces
popular caricatures
literary/cultural allusions
transient situations

Selection of
presentation devices

Selection of candidate
frame

rhetorical disposition
metaphors
exemplars
catchphrases
depictions
visual images
object size
object placement

success frame
setback frame

Evaluative media frame

(Overarching frame)
political victory frame
personal triumph frame
political setback frame
personal problem frame

Figure 4.2 Proposed model of the framing process in political

cartoons
4.1.3.1. Influences on Media Frames
The first step of the model of framing in political cartoons concerns the factors
affecting the media frames political cartoonists use. Political cartoons are the products
of combined influences acting on the media organizations to which the cartoonists
73

belong and the influences of the cartoonists themselves. Three factors influence the
creation of political cartoonscultural resonances, media practices, and sponsor
activities (see Section 3.3.1 and Figure 3.1).
Most Americans would recognize a depiction of President George W. Bush as a
cowboy as a reference to a macho attitude backed by a sense of disregarding rules
when it is beneficial to him. Such a depiction might lose its effectiveness if it appeared
in a publication serving an audience unfamiliar with the connotations of cowboys.
Sponsor activities refer to the influence of news sources in the political cartoons,
or in news stories on which cartoons are based. A political party official may provide
information to a reporter with the expectation that the story is favorable to that party,
for example. Sponsor activities also include constraints placed upon cartoonists by
publishers who have various publics to serve.
Cartoons frames are also influenced by media practices, including constraints
that cartoonists place upon themselves, such as the routines they follow to identify
topics, which might consistently limit the range of views to which they are exposed.
Political cartoonists also have personal ideologies and experiences that may influence
the decisions they make in creating cartoons. Thus, the first step of the model shows
that a number of influences affect the framing of a political cartoon even before the
drawing begins.
4.1.3.2. Selection of Topic Frames
The second step of the model concerns the selection of the general news topic of
the political cartoon. Politics offers a multitude of topics for cartoonists to lampoon.
74

These topics lead to the adoption of one of two topic framesissue frames and strategy
frames. Issue frames address substantive political subjects. Topics addressed by an
issue frame should be those that are addressed using the political commonplaces
rhetorical theme. Strategy frames focus less on public policy and more on the
competitive aspects of politicking and campaigning, such polling, fundraising, and
winning the public relations battle in the wake of major political news.
4.1.3.3. Selection of Rhetorical Theme
Once cartoonists have selected a general topic about which to draw, they must
choose how to present it. There are four rhetorical themes that integrate the content of
cartoons with how the content is portrayed. The setting and images contained within
each cartoon address its rhetorical theme.
In the rhetorical theme of political commonplaces, the focus of the cartoon is on
general political news. The theme of popular caricatures uses popular perceptions of a
political candidate, such as a politicians tendency to misrepresent facts or engage in
unethical activity. A political cartoon that uses literary/cultural allusions turns to
historical settings or literary works to convey a message. The final rhetorical theme,
idiosyncratic and transient situations, addresses random or unusual events that may
occur over the course of a campaign or news cycle.
4.1.3.4. Selection of Context Frames
After a cartoonist selects a topic and decides on the nature of the cartoon to
portray it, the next stage of the framing model concerns choosing a context in which to
present the content. Political cartoonists must select one of two context frames.
75

Depending on their ideology, political cartoonists can use different context frames to
minimize bad news or have a politician take credit for good news. The two context
frames are episodic frames and thematic frames.
Thematic frames show an issue as part of a broader pattern or context. Political
cartoons that focus on caricatures of political figures would seem to be covered by
political cartoonists using a thematic frame because the caricatures must be based on a
popular perception of a candidate in order for them to be effective. The popular
perception of the candidate provides the historical context the thematic frame and
political cartoon need in order to be effective.
Episodic frames provide commentary on an issue independently or in isolation.
Idiosyncratic and transient events, the fourth rhetorical theme, seem well suited for
being depicted by episodic frames because these events occur randomly or in isolation.
Because political cartoons about transient events require more context in order to be
understood, the idiosyncratic character or news event is likely to be labeled with text or
identified by name in a dialogue because the character is unfamiliar.
4.1.3.5. Selection of Presentation Devices
The fifth step of the model entails the cartoonists selection of presentation
devices. These devices include five framing devices, three rhetorical dispositions and
five stylistic devices. These devices concern the arrangement of visuals and text and
how the cartoons arguments are constructed.
The first presentation framing device is visual images. Cartoonists can use
images to create caricatures of politicians. They can be drawn as fat and sloppy or as
76

thin and weak. Physical features can be exaggerated to further suggest a message
about a politician.
Metaphors, the second presentation framing device, allow for quick comparisons
to be made regarding a politician, constituency, or political issue. Portraying a political
issue as an iceberg suggests that the issue is more complicated or more dangerous than
people may think. Similarly, drawing a politician as a superhero suggests that he is
politically powerful and popular.
The third presentation framing device, exemplars, consists of references to or
images of historical figures. The purpose of an exemplar is to serve as a source from
which a lesson could be drawn. Drawing Barack Obama sleeping in his bed while a ghost
with Richard Nixons face hovers over it could suggest that Obama is being haunted by a
scandal. Or it could provide a warning about the potential consequences of any ethical
wrongdoing.
Catchphrases, the fourth presentation framing device, are unique or memorable
expressions that may convey an extra meaning. During the 2004 presidential campaign,
John Kerry infamously said, I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against
it, in reference to funding for military operations in Iraq. (CBS News, 2004). Some
variation of this quote could be used to suggest that Kerry or some other politician has
no consistent stance on an issue.
The final presentation framing device, depictions, concern the portrayal of a
politician without the use of a metaphor. An image of a smiling politician conveys a
different message from an image of a weeping or frustrated one. Similarly, an image of
77

a politician wearing a new suit may convey freshness and poise while an image of a
politician wearing an old suit with holes and patches may convey that the politician has
no political capital or no new ideas.
Rhetorical disposition also constitutes a presentation device. The three
rhetorical dispositions, addressed in Section 3.6, include commentary, contrast, and
contradiction. Commentary consists of a general take on a politician or political issue,
be it positive or negative. Contrast shows two different opinions about an issue from
two different perspectives or two different results of the same issue. Contradiction, the
least flattering of the three dispositions, entails one person advocating two opposing
views.
Of the six stylistic elements of political cartoons, five of which are relevant here.
Some of these elements overlap with the framing devices identified by Gamson and
Modigliani (1989). The new elements include the relative size of objects within a panel
and the relation of text to visual imagery. The size of objects can convey strength,
significance, or value. Drawing one item representing an abstract issue or politician as
smaller than another object suggests that the second object is more important or more
powerful. The relation of text to visual imagery includes the consistency of the text with
the images that surround it or how much or how little text is used to fill a panel. For
example, a cartoon of a politician saying everything is okay when he is standing in a
room with a burning stove and a mess on the floor suggests a disconnect between the
politicians words and reality.

78

4.1.3.6. Selection of Candidate Frame

The sixth step of the model of framing in political cartoons consists of selecting a
candidate frame. A political cartoon may be favorable of a politician, critical of a
politician, or neutral. Favorable and neutral cartoons convey success frames while
critical cartoons convey setback frames. These frames are used in conjunction with the
other second-order frames. For example, a cartoon with an issue and success frame
could depict Obama explaining his tax policy to a voter who expresses his approval of or
agreement with the policy. A cartoon with a strategy and setback frame could show
Obama receiving a silver medal at the Olympic Games while Hillary Clinton received a
gold medal. This imagery could represent the results of a primary election or state
caucus that Clinton won.
4.1.3.7. Overarching Frame
The totality of the first six steps results in the overarching frame of political
cartoons. Discussed in Section 4.1.2, the four overarching frames are political success
frames, personal success frames, political setback frames, and personal setback frames.
These frames are the result of the interplay of rhetorical, graphical, and stylistic
elements. They identify both the subject of a political cartoon and how favorable the
cartoon is.
Political successes can include the passage of legislation that a politician
supported, winning an endorsement, or being elected. A cartoon employing a political
victory frame could depict Obama in a boxing ring knocking out his opponent. The
boxing match could represent a campaign.
79

A personal success represents a favorable development regarding a politicians

character, such as practicing good ethics, displaying personal courage, or avoiding
politicizing a serious issue. A cartoon utilizing a personal success frame may depict a
clean Obama smiling while his rivals toss mud at each other in a mud pit. This imagery
could suggest that Obama, unlike his rivals, is mature or above politics.
Politicians can be weakened by political setbacks. The political setback frame is
any frame that portrays a politician or political candidate as politically weakened,
undesirable, outmaneuvered, or ineffective. Like political success and personal success
frames, political setback frames can be used with both issue frames and strategy frames.
A cartoon showing Obama standing in the shirt pocket of oil and energy companies,
represented by a large, fat man, would combine issue and political setback frames and
suggest that Obama is beholden to big oil. A cartoon could combine strategy and
setback frames by showing Obama as a high school boy being rejected by a former
Obama supporter, shown as a high school girl, who told him she wanted to break up
with him because she does not love him anymore. Such a cartoon shows a voters
negative evaluation of Obamas policies.
Legislative defeats, electoral defeats, and an eroding political base are not the
only negative forces that can burden a politician or political candidate. Moral failings
and involvement in or having an association with scandals can also weaken ones
political fortunes. Personal setback frames contain messages highlighting a politicians
personal failures or unsavory details about a politicians past. While political setback
frames reference problems that develop over the course of a campaign or legislative
80

session, personal setback frames reference longstanding problems that continue to

bedevil a politician. Personal setback frames also reference information about a
politicians character that pose a political liability. This frame may be combined with
thematic frames because of the duration of the problem. It may also be combined with
a strategy frame to illustrate how past mistakes haunt a politician on the campaign trail.
For example, a cartoon could portray Obama as receiving a cold reception from
angry voters at a campaign stop in rural America. This cartoon would combine personal
setback, thematic and strategy frames. The personal setback arises from his remarks
about bitter voters who cling to their guns and religion (New York Times, 2008). The
thematic element arises because making disparaging remarks about rural America fits in
with the narrative of Obama as an elitist. The strategy frame applies because the
cartoon shows Obama on the campaign trail receiving a negative evaluation from voters.
4.2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES
This dissertation explores the frames that political cartoonists used in their
cartoons of Barack Obama during his presidential campaign and the first year of his
presidency. Earlier in this chapter, this dissertation stated that political cartoons and
the frames they contain are the products of a process that begins with internal and
external influences on a political cartoonist and a decision on an idea to address. This
idea is reflected in the choice of a topic frame. After choosing a topic frame, the
cartoonist must decide which of four rhetorical inventions to use to convey the frame.
The next step is to decide on a context frame, which places the message of the cartoon
in some sort of context. After that, cartoonists implement a variety of rhetorical,
81

framing, and stylistic devices. The result of the totality of these devices is a candidate
frame which is either a success or a setback. These candidate frames can then be
classified into one of four overarching frames based on successes or setbacks and
whether the cartoon is related to a politicians political standing or personal character.
The second stage of the proposed model of framing in political cartoons
concerns types of topic frames, including issue and strategy frames. Issue and strategy
frames focus on the nature of the political content in a political cartoon, be it about the
competitive aspects of politics or about substantive policy discussion.
Obamas 2008 presidential campaign lasted for more than 18 months and was
characterized by a preponderance of polling at the national and state levels, political
posturing, appeals for candidate endorsements, constantly evolving campaign and
communication strategies, an extended battle for his partys nomination against Hillary
Clinton, and a multitude of presidential debates. Because campaigning is inherently
competitive and because the 2008 campaign was so long and intense, cartoonists had a
wealth of material about which to characterize using strategy frames in their work.
As president, Obamas focus shifted from campaigning to governing. Governing
requires the careful analysis and negotiation of various policy proposals, such as health
care reform legislation, prosecuting the war in Afghanistan, and improving the struggling
economy. As the president and leader of the federal government, Obamas actions
offer a lot of material to political cartoonists as well. While there are still strategic and
competitive aspects to political positioning, there is more of an emphasis on the
substance of governing. This informs the first two hypotheses:
82

H1. Strategy frames are more likely to be employed by political cartoonists

during Obamas campaign than during his presidency.
H2. Issue frames are more likely to be employed by political cartoonists during
Obamas presidency than during his campaign.
The next stage of the model concerns the selection of a rhetorical invention
which serves as a domain of political cartoon content. Based on the content that
typifies each rhetorical invention and the graphics and text that comprise this content,
each rhetorical invention should be more likely to entail certain frames than others. For
example, political commonplaces address general political news (Medhurst & DeSousa,
1981). Because of the fast pace of presidential events, context may also be difficult to
provide if a president is advocating renewable energy one week and meeting diplomats
in Asia the following week. This suggests episodic frames would be the most common
frame used for this rhetorical invention.
H3. Episodic frames are more likely than thematic frames to be used in cartoons
about political commonplaces.
The second rhetorical theme, popular caricatures, is based on shared
perceptions of a political figure (Medhurst & DeSousa, 1981). For a cartoon using this
rhetorical theme to resonate with audiences, the caricature has to be consistent with
the audiences understanding of the politician. As a result, cartoonists may integrate
added context into such a cartoon to reinforce the caricature.
H4. Thematic frames are more likely than episodic frames to be used in cartoons
about popular caricatures of Obama.
83

Literary and cultural allusions, the third rhetorical theme of political cartoons,
require readers to understand the literary or cultural references made in order to
interpret the cartoons (Medhurst & DeSousa, 1981). Incorporation of schema based on
cultural or literary allusions suggests a reliance on thematic frames.
H5. Thematic frames are more likely than episodic frames to be used in Obama
political cartoons that use cultural or literary allusions.
The final rhetorical theme of political cartoons, idiosyncratic and transient
situations, involves topics, people, or events that were never part of media discourse
about politics before. Because of this, episodic frames seem the most appropriate to
convey such events. Unlike with cartoons that use cultural allusions, political
cartoonists need to address these transient events quickly and clearly identify the
transient elements of the cartoons in order for them to be understood by audiences.
Because these cartoons are based on episodic content, it is expected that episodic
frames would be used to communicate them.
H6. Episodic frames are more likely than thematic frames to be used in political
cartoons about transient situations.
The physical structure of a political cartoon also influences the types of frames it
may incorporate. Political cartoons typically consist of one panel. This suggests that
cartoonists may be more inclined to employ frames that require fewer contextual cues,
thus leading to the following hypothesis:
H7. Episodic frames are more likely to be employed by political cartoonists
during Obamas candidacy and presidency.
84

How information is presented and understood is the result of internal and

external influences. Communicators may be influenced by journalistic norms and
organizational pressures (Gamson and Modigliani, 1989; Gamson & Stuart, 1992).
Audiences interpretation of information may be influenced by their worldview and
personal experiences (Iyengar, 1996; Bormann et al., 1976). Because political
cartoonists have different political ideologies and personal experiences, they will frame
Obamas candidacy and the news events that occur during his presidency through lenses
that are consistent with their worldviews (Gamson & Modigliani, 1989; Gilmartin, 2001).
These worldviews and ideologies could influence how political cartoonists use
context frames to portray successes and failures as isolated events or as part of a
broader pattern. Conservative cartoonists could minimize Obamas successes by using
episodic frames to separate Obama from the political party he represents or to portray
his successes as random or isolated, rather than as part of a pattern. Likewise, liberal
cartoonists could use thematic frames to portray Obamas successes as part of a positive
narrative while employing episodic frames to minimize his setbacks.
H8. Liberal cartoonists are more likely to rely on thematic frames than episodic
frames in political cartoons of Obama that incorporate success frames.
H9. Liberal cartoonists are more likely to rely on episodic frames than thematic
frames in political cartoons of Obama that incorporate setback frames.
H10. Conservative cartoonists are more likely to rely on episodic frames than
thematic frames in political cartoons of Obama that incorporate success frames.

85

H11. Conservative cartoonists are more likely to rely on thematic frames than
episodic frames in political cartoons of Obama that incorporate setback frames.
The favorability of the political cartoons content is expressed using success or
setback frames. Conservative cartoonists likely disagree with Obama more often than
liberal cartoonists, so conservative cartoonists may use success frames to portray
Obama more sparingly. Conversely, liberal cartoonists should be more apt to use
success frames because they are more likely to agree with Obamas policies.
H12. Conservative cartoonists are more likely than liberal cartoonists to use
setback frames in their cartoons of Obama.
H13. Liberal cartoonists are more likely than conservative cartoonists to use
success frames in their cartoons of Obama.
This dissertation also explores the extent to which the treatment of Obama by
political cartoonists mirrors public opinion. As Obama makes political decisions and
handles various situations as president, the publics perception of him as is measured by
political polling may change. But do political cartoonists portrayals of Obama match
public polling trends? Success frames and setback frames form evaluative judgments of
Obamas character and political performance on behalf of political cartoonists which are
comparable to the questions asked in public opinion polls.
RQ. To what extent is there an association between the favorability of the
frames of Obama in political cartoons and his presidential approval ratings as
measured by public opinion polls?

86

In summary, this dissertation analyzes three first-order frames that characterize

political cartoons and bases the hypotheses on the presence of these frames in
conjunction with the cartoonists ideologies and Barack Obamas political status at the
time each cartoon was published. Table 4.1 lists these frames and the hypotheses that
were formulated to test them.
Table 4.1 List of hypotheses and research questions
H1
H2
H3
H4
H5
H6
H7
H8
H9
H10
H11
H12
H13
RQ

Strategy frames are more likely to be employed by political cartoonists during

Obamas campaign than during his presidency.
Issue frames are more likely to be employed by political cartoonists during
Obamas presidency than during his campaign.
Episodic frames are more likely than thematic frames to be used in cartoons
about political commonplaces.
Thematic frames are more likely than episodic frames to be used in cartoons
about popular caricatures of Obama.
Thematic frames are more likely than episodic frames to be used in Obama
political cartoons that use cultural or literary allusions.
Episodic frames are more likely than thematic frames to be used in political
cartoons about transient situations.
Episodic frames are more likely to be employed by political cartoonists overall.
Liberal cartoonists are more likely to rely on thematic frames than episodic
frames in political cartoons of Obama that incorporate success frames.
Liberal cartoonists are more likely to rely on episodic frames than thematic
frames in political cartoons of Obama that incorporate setback frames.
Conservative cartoonists are more likely to rely on episodic frames than thematic
frames in political cartoons of Obama that incorporate success frames.
Conservative cartoonists are more likely to rely on thematic frames than episodic
frames in political cartoons of Obama that incorporate setback frames.
Conservative cartoonists are more likely than liberal cartoonists to use setback
frames in their cartoons of Obama.
Liberal cartoonists are more likely than conservative cartoonists to use success
frames in their cartoons of Obama.
To what extent is there an association between the favorability of the frames of
Obama in political cartoons and his presidential approval ratings as measured by
public opinion polls?

87

CHAPTER 5
METHODOLOGY
5.1 SAMPLING
This dissertation uses content analysis to examine the rhetorical themes and
types of frames that characterize political cartoons of Barack Obama during his
presidential campaign and presidency. Content analysis is an appropriate research
method for studying political cartoons because it allows researchers to examine how
messages are presented (Kassarijian, 1977).
5.1.1. Selection of Cartoons
As was done in Gilmartins (2001) study, only political cartoons whose content
was primarily about Barack Obama or his policies were analyzed. Cartoons containing
no image of Obama were only analyzed if the cartoons content was primarily about his
character, actions or policies. Cartoons containing no image of Obama and no reference
to him or his policies were not included.
The time period that was analyzed is December 1, 2007, through January 31,
2010. These dates were chosen for several reasons. First, the first-in-the-nation Iowa
caucuses took place in early January 2008. Barack Obama upset then-frontrunner
Hillary Clinton and John Edwards to win the Iowa caucuses. The December 1 starting

88

date allowed for the inclusion of political cartoons capturing the final month of
campaigning in the run-up to the caucuses.
Secondly, the time frame allowed for a near balance of coverage in that it
includes 11 months of political cartoons about Obamas presidential candidacy and 12
months of political cartoons about Obamas presidency. This time period also includes
the duration of the unusually long fight between Obama and Clinton for the Democratic
Partys presidential nomination (Tolbert, Keller & Donovan, 2010), the entire fall
campaign against Republican nominee John McCain, the three-month transition period
between Election Day and Inauguration Day, and the Obama presidencys First 100
Days, a time during which criticism from the news media is typically less severe as
journalists give a new president an opportunity to become established (Hughes, 1995).
In order to accurately analyze any possible trends that may be observed in the
political cartoons, the work of political cartoonists who did not publish political cartoons
for the entire period of examination was not analyzed. Similarly, to ensure consistency
within the sample, this dissertation only analyzed political cartoons, not caricatures of
political figures or politically oriented comic strips that often tell a story, such as Garry
Trudeaus Doonesbury or Tom Tomorrows This Modern World (Newton, 2007; Trudeau,
2007).
5.1.2. Selection of Cartoonists
The political cartoons analyzed in this dissertation were obtained primarily from
Creators Syndicate, available at www.creators.com/editorialcartoons. The work of 24
political cartoonists is available at Creators Syndicate, but this dissertation analyzed the
89

work of only 16: eight conservatives, Chuck Asay, Steve Breen, Ken Catalino, Bob Gorrell,
Clay Jones, Steve Kelley, Michael Ramirez, and Gary Varvel; and eight liberals, Bruce
Beattie, Steve Benson, Chris Britt, Mike Luckovich, Gary Markstein, Marshall Ramsey,
Steve Sack, and John Sherffius. In some cases, the Creators Syndicate Web site did not
have all of a cartoonists political cartoons available for viewing. In the event that a
cartoon could not be retrieved from Creators Syndicate, it was retrieved from Daryl
Cagles Political Cartoonists Index, available at www.cagle.com.
The work of the following eight cartoonists whose work is included on the
Creators Web site was not included in the sample: Chip Bok, John Deering, William
Simpson Garner, Geoffrey Moss, Dwayne Powell, Scott Stantis, Paul Szep and Mike
Thompson. Garner, Powell, Stantis, and Thompson did not have political cartoons
available for viewing that spanned the duration of the time period this dissertation
wished to analyze. Moss and Szeps work consisted mainly of illustrations and
caricatures of politicians and newsmakers, so their work did not fit the Diamond (2002)
definition of political cartoons this dissertation used. Bok and Deering published
political cartoons for the duration of the specified time period, but their work was
identified on the Creators Web site as both conservative and liberal. The hypotheses
proposed in this dissertation do not address the work of political cartoonists who are
moderates or independents, though a cursory examination of Boks work revealed a
discernable conservative slant.
The Creators Syndicate roster of political cartoonists was chosen for this
dissertation for several reasons. First, because Creators features nationally syndicated
90

and award-winning cartoonists (Association for American Editorial Cartoonists, 2010),

examining their work would make this study more authoritative in that it would analyze
the work of some of the most talented and the most established political cartoonists.
Secondly, Creators features an equal or near-equal balance between
conservative and liberal cartoonists. This balance would make it easier to identify and
compare differences in the framing of Obama by conservative and liberal cartoonists
while minimizing any possible sampling errors that could arise by excluding some
cartoonists or weighting other cartoonists work too heavily. Oversampling liberal
cartoonists work, for example, would potentially affect the validity of this dissertations
findings.
According to Creators, because most cartoonists do not explicitly identify their
political ideology when submitting their cartoons for syndication, the Creators staff has
to examine each cartoonists body of work and determine whether other media
organizations would perceive it as mostly conservative or mostly liberal. The Creators
staff with whom the dissertation author spoke candidly acknowledged that these
estimations are perceptions and not an exact science. Nevertheless, the
classification helps grouping of like-minded cartoonists.
There are other online sources of political cartoons, but after reviewing them,
Creators Syndicate seemed the most appropriate for the purpose of this dissertation.
One alternate source for political cartoons is the Association of American Editorial
Cartoonists (AAEC), a professional association for professional and student political
cartoonists. Their webpage (www.editorialcartoonists.com) features a directory of all of
91

its approximately 200 members. Their work, however, is often unavailable for viewing
and their political leanings are often undisclosed. Creators Syndicate clearly lists the
political leanings of its syndicated cartoonists.
GoComics, another online source for political cartoons, provides a list of the top
ten cartoonists, which is determined by the number of subscribers who use an RSS feed
to have these cartoonists work delivered via e-mail to their mailboxes. While this
provides an objective way to identify popular political cartoonists, none of the top ten
cartoonists is identified by GoComics as conservative. As of this writing, of the top 20
political cartoonists listed at GoComics, 12 are liberal, six are conservative, and two are
middle of the road." Using this source would create a sampling problem.
Daryl Cagles Political Cartoonists Index (DCPI) is an extensive online database
that features the work of more than 100 political cartoonists from the United States and
around the world. DCPI, however, includes no information about the political
orientations of the cartoonists, potentially leading to a biased sample even if random
sampling were used. DCPI also includes the work of cartoonists who publish solely on
the Internet. Given the editorial freedom that independent online-only cartoonists
enjoy and the technical opportunities the Internet offers, such as the ability to integrate
sound and moving images, not all of the political cartoons included at DCPI are
comparable in their form and in their suitability for publication in a traditional
newspaper. DCPI also includes politically-oriented comic strips on its site, which are not
the same as political cartoons.

92

Given these alternative sites inconsistent identification of cartoonists political

leanings, unequal representation of conservative and liberal cartoonists, and the
inability to view some cartoonists work, Creators Syndicate was deemed the most
suitable site from which cartoons could be obtained.
5.1.3. Selection of Stratified Sample
The total number of political cartoons created by the 16 Creators Syndicate
cartoonists who published for the duration of the time period being examined was
approximately 5,000. Of these, 1,497 cartoons constituted the universe of conservative
and liberal cartoons of Barack Obama or his policies for the specified time period,
including 970 from conservative cartoonists (64.8% of all cartoons) and 527 from liberal
cartoonists (35.2% of all cartoons). From this universe, a stratified sample of 496
cartoons was obtained, including 320 from conservatives and 176 from liberals. Using
this method, the breakdown reflects the proportion of the two groups in the universe.
To obtain the number of cartoons that should be included from each cartoonist
in this stratified sample, 600 was divided by 16, the total number of cartoonists whose
cartoons were analyzed. This yielded an average of 37.5 cartoons per cartoonist, which
was rounded up to 40. In order to maintain the ratio between suitable conservative and
liberal cartoons that was found on the Creators site, the number of cartoons for each
liberal cartoonist was reduced to 22. The 320 conservative cartoons include 160 before
Obamas inauguration and 160 after his inauguration. The 176 liberal cartoons include
88 before Obamas inauguration and 88 after his inauguration.

93

5.1.4. Variables
Three types of variables are used to study how Obama was framed in political
cartoonists: general variables, frame variables, and framing device variables. General
variables consist of basic descriptive information about each cartoon, including the
cartoonist, the cartoonists political ideology, the cartoons publication date, Obamas
title at the time the cartoon was published, and Obamas presidential approval rating at
the time the cartoon was published. Frame variables include each cartoons rhetorical
theme and the presence or absence of issue, strategy, episodic, and thematic frames.
The final framing variable assesses whether the overall content of each cartoon contains
a political success frame, a personal success frame, a political setback frame, or a
personal problem frame. The framing device variables examine the presence and
nature of the framing devices identified by Gamson and Modigliani (1989) and the
stylistic devices identified by Medhurst and DeSousa (1981): exemplars, metaphors,
visual images, catchphrases, depictions, relative object size, and object placement.
5.2 CODING SHEET AND OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS
All political cartoons selected for inclusion in the stratified sample were coded
using a 32-question coding sheet developed for this dissertation based on the literature
review. Questions 1 through 6 concern general descriptive variables, questions 7
through 17 address frame variables, and questions 18 through 32 address framing
device variables.

94

5.2.1 General Variables

1. Cartoonist identity. Each cartoon has the cartoonists name written somewhere in
the cartoons panel, typically on the edges. All 16 cartoonists were assigned a number
to identify their work: 1=Asay, 2=Beattie, 3=Benson, 4=Breen, 5=Britt, 6=Catalino,
7=Gorrell, 8=Jones, 9=Kelley, 10=Luckovich, 11=Markstein, 12=Ramirez, 13=Ramsey,
14=Sack, 15=Sherffius, and 16=Varvel.
2. Political cartoon identity. This variable is a combination of the cartoonists identities
and the chronological order of the cartoons they published. For example, the fourth
cartoon drawn by Bob Gorrell would be coded as 7.04. The coding value for any
cartoon drawn by Gorrell is 7. The 04 indicates that there are three other Gorrell
cartoons in the sample that were published before this particular one.
3. Political orientation of the cartoonist. Creators Syndicate identifies its cartoonists as
conservative or liberal. Conservatives are Chuck Asay, Steve Breen, Ken Catalino,
Bob Gorrell, Clay Jones, Steve Kelley, Michael Ramirez, and Gary Varvel. Liberals are
Bruce Beattie, Steve Benson, Chris Britt, Mike Luckovich, Gary Markstein, Marshall
Ramsey, Steve Sack, and John Sherffius. Cartoons drawn by conservatives are coded as
1; cartoons drawn by liberals are coded as 2.
4. Publication date. This variable lists the specific publication date of each political
cartoon. Its purpose is to allow for easy identification of cartoons that were published
at specific times during the sample period, such as the week of the Democratic National
Convention, Election Day and Inauguration Day. This date was obtained from the dates
listed on the Creators Syndicate and Daryl Cagle Political Cartoon Index Web sites.
95

5. Obama title at time of publication. Using the publication date explained in variable
#4, this variable indicates Obamas political status at the time the political cartoon was
published. This variable includes four possible values: 1, indicating presidential
candidate status (for all cartoons published through November 3, 2008); 2, indicating
president-elect status (cartoons published from November 4, 2008, through January 19,
2009); 3, indicating new president status (covering the first 100 days period from
January 20, 2009 through April 30, 2009); and 4, indicating post-first 100 days of the
presidency (beginning on May 1, 2009). This variable was included to compare the
treatment of Obama as a presidential candidate with the treatment of Obama as a
president. It was also included to examine whether the leniency offered by journalists
during first 100 days period (Hughes, 1995) extends to political cartoonists.
6. Obamas presidential approval rating at time of publication. Gallup measures
Obamas approval rating as president by conducting regular public opinion polls. These
data were obtained from www.gallup.com/poll/113980/gallup-daily-obama-jobapproval.aspx. This variable indicates Obamas approval rating in the Gallup poll at the
time each political cartoon was published and allowed for the measurement of any
associations between trends in his public approval ratings and the how favorably Obama
and his agenda were framed in political cartoons. This variable is used in conjunction
with the framing variables that are addressed later in the coding sheet to answer the
lone research question posited in Chapter 4.

96

5.2.2 Frame Variables

7. Rhetorical theme/invention of the cartoon. This variable examined the presence of
rhetorical themes that characterize the overall subject matter of each political cartoon:
political commonplaces, coded as 1; literary and cultural allusions, coded as 2;
popular perceptions of a candidate, coded as 3; and idiosyncratic or transient
situations, coded as 4. The purpose of this variable is to explore the relationship
between episodic and thematic frames and each of these four rhetorical themes, as was
indicated in H1-H4. This variable also allows for an examination of whether there are
differences in the themes used by cartoonists of different ideologies and differences in
the themes of Obama at different stages of his campaign and presidency.

Political commonplaces: When the focus pertains to general political topics,

such as immigration, terrorism, gay rights, fundraising, international affairs or
taxes.

Literary/cultural allusions: When the focus incorporates a literary or cultural

symbol to make a political argument. An example of this would be likening
Obama to Batman as he tries to save the American economy just as Batman tries
to save Gotham City. Another example of a literary or cultural allusion would be
a cartoon depicting Obama as a car salesman trying to sell an old car. American
audiences would understand this imagery because it is consistent with the
stereotype of car salesmen lying to their customers to get them to buy poor
products.

97

Popular perceptions of a candidates traits: When the main focus of the cartoon
is on a well known feature of Obamas stature, personality, or tendencies.
Unlike cartoons coded as political commonplaces, the focus of popular
perception cartoons is on Obama himself, not an abstract political issue like
crime or defense spending. Cartoons focusing on Obamas tendency to use a
teleprompter or his ability to deliver a rousing speech would be coded as
popular perceptions. These cartoons also may caricature a physical feature to
make a political argument.

Transient events: When the focus is on high-context news. Such news consists
of unusual or distinct events that may happen over the course of a political
campaign or news cycle. For example, a political cartoon showing an elementary
school student responding to a teacher that he cannot answer her question
because it is above his pay grade would be coded as a transient event
because it is a reference to Obamas above my pay grade remark about
abortion rights in the final weeks of his campaign. The news that is referenced in
these cartoons is typically minor and temporary. It may also reference minor
actors in the course of a political campaign, such as Obama Girl or Joe the
Plumber, both of whom gained notoriety for their roles in creating music videos
to show support for Obama (as Obama Girl did) and in challenging Obama
directly at a campaign stop in Ohio (as Joe the Plumber did).

8. Topic frame. This variable addresses what type of topic frameissue or strategy
characterizes the political cartoon. Issue frames pertain to substantive political issues,
98

such as explaining proposed legislation or identifying the consequences of social

problems. An example of a political cartoon with an issue frame would be one showing
two voters discussing the merits of Obamas policies or of one voter seeking information
about these policies by asking another voter to explain them. A strategy frame is
characterized by content referencing the more competitive aspects of politics, such as
polls, political positioning, voter evaluations, or campaigning. An example of a cartoon
with a strategy frame would be one depicting Barack Obama and John McCain as
racecar drivers approaching the final stretch of a race that represents the final weeks of
the grueling presidential campaign. The presence of an issue frame is coded as 1
while the presence of a strategy frame is coded as 2. In the event that a cartoon
contains both types of frames, only the most prominent one is coded.
9. Issue frame. This variable examines which primary issue frame, if any, characterizes a
political cartoon. Cartoons containing no issue frame and cartoons characterized
primarily by a strategy frame even though they have less prominent issue frames are
coded as 0 for no issue frame/issue frame is not primary topic frame. Cartoons
containing one or more issue frames are coded according to the primary frame
referenced. If a cartoon contains multiple issue frames of equal primacy, the primary
frame is determined by which frame is referred to first in the cartoons text or imagery.
When a primary issue frame is present, it is coded as: 1= foreign policy, including
terrorism, war, and international relations; 2= economic policy, including taxes,
unemployment, the federal budget, and jobs; 3= health care policy, including health
care reform legislation and regulation of pharmaceutical companies; 4= social policy,
99

such as civil rights, abortion, crime and education; 5= government and ethics, such as
political processes, government transparency and courts; 6= energy or environmental
policy, such as recycling and conservation; and 7= some other issue frame.
10. Strategy frame. This variable examines the primary strategy frame, if any, that
characterizes a political cartoon. Cartoons that do not focus primarily on Obama in a
competitive political context and cartoons characterized primarily by an issue frame
even though they contain strategy frames are coded as 0 for no strategy
frame/strategy frame is not primary topic frame. Cartoons containing one or more
strategy frames are coded according to the primary frame referenced. If multiple
strategy frames are present, only the first strategy frame is coded. If a cartoon contains
multiple strategy frames of equal primacy, the primary frame will be determined by
which frame is referred to first in the cartoons text or imagery.
Because the coding sheet requires the primary frame of a cartoon to be coded, a
cartoon cannot be coded as present for both issue and strategy frames. The issue and
strategy frames measured by variables 8 and 9 address H5 and H6.
When a primary strategy frame is present, it is coded as: 1= polling data and
elections; 2= political metrics, including fundraising, endorsements, and voter feedback;
3= political performance, including performance in debates, interviews, speeches and at
campaign events; 4= personal issues, including character traits, biographical information
and gaffes; 5= political relationships, including dealings with Congress and feedback
from corporations or other organizations; 6= media coverage of politicians and politics;
and 7= some other strategy frame.
100

11. Context frame. This question addresses what type of context framethematic or
episodiccharacterizes the political cartoon. Thematic frames describe content that is
placed within a broader context or as part of a pattern of behavior or trend. Episodic
frames present content as random or isolated occurrences. Unlike thematic frames,
episodic frames do not present information in a broader context. A thematic frame is
coded as 1 while an episodic frame is coded as 2. In the event that a cartoon
contains both types of frames, only the most prominent one is coded.
12. Thematic frame. A cartoon identifying Obama as another tax-and-spend liberal
would suggest a thematic frame because the context in which he is placed is fiscally
irresponsible liberal politicians. Another example would be a cartoon showing
fluctuations in the unemployment rate since Obamas inauguration because the broader
context would be the jobless rate over a period of months. Cartoons that do not
portray Obama or his ideas in some sort of context or pattern or cartoons in which a
thematic frame is not the primary context frame are coded as 0 for no thematic
frame/thematic frame is not primary context frame. Cartoons containing one or more
thematic frames are coded according to the primary frame referenced. If multiple
thematic frames are present, only the first thematic frame is coded. If a cartoon
contains multiple thematic frames of equal primacy, the primary frame will be
determined by which frame is referred to first in the cartoons text or imagery.
When a primary thematic frame is present, it is coded as: 1= previous presidents,
politicians and icons; 2= previous Obama statements and actions; 3= Bill and Hillary
Clinton; 4= the Democratic Party or liberals; 5= the news media; 6= statistical trends,
101

such as economic or polling data; 7= references to national or international

circumstances; 8= references to a cultural figure or setting, such as Halloween or a
foreign countrys practices; and 9= some other thematic frame.
13. Episodic frame. An example of a cartoon with an episodic frame would be one
showing Obama meeting a foreign leader and winning concessions from that leader.
This is episodic because 1) no comparisons are being made between Obama and
previous American presidents meeting this foreign leader, 2) Obamas ability to win
concessions from this leader is not portrayed as another example of how Obama is able
to successfully deal with world leaders, and 3) the event is portrayed as a one-time
happening, not as part of a broader narrative. Cartoons that do not portray Obama or
his ideas as isolated or random events and cartoons in which an episodic frame is not
the primary context frame are coded as 0 for no episodic frame/episodic frame is not
primary context frame. Cartoons containing one or more episodic frames are coded
according to the primary frame referenced. If multiple episodic frames are present, only
the first episodic frame is coded. If a cartoon contains multiple episodic frames of equal
primacy, the primary frame will be determined by which frame is referred to first in the
cartoons text or imagery.
Just as with variables 9 and 10, because the coding sheet requires the primary
frame of a cartoon to be coded, a cartoon cannot have primary thematic and episodic
frames. The thematic and episodic frames measured by variables 12 and 13 will be
employed to address H7 through H11.

102

When a primary episodic frame is present, it is coded as: 1= domestic political

story; 2= domestic nonpolitical story; 3= international story, including stories about
American foreign policy; 4= commentary, including perspectives from voters, consumers,
corporations and constituent groups; 5= story involving a random or unexpected
person; 6= a personal story, including stories about Obamas character; and 7= some
other episodic frame.
14. Candidate frame. This question addresses what type of candidate framesuccess
or setbackcharacterizes the political cartoon. To be coded as a success, the overall
cartoon had to portray Obama or his policies favorably. An example of this would be a
cartoon showing Obama wearing boxing gloves and knocking out his Republican
opposition by getting a major piece of his legislative agenda passed. To be coded as a
setback, the overall cartoon had to portray Obama or his policies unfavorably. An
example of this would be a cartoon showing Obama with a black eye that represents a
legislative defeat. Cartoons that were neither positive nor negative were coded as
success. The rationale for this coding decision is that because political cartoons are
more likely to be critical than supportive of a politician, it could be considered a small
victory for a politician to escape a political cartoon unscathed. An example of a neutral
cartoon that is coded as success would be one showing a nervous Obama getting
ready to walk into a White House filled with garbage that represents the political
problems his predecessor, President George W. Bush, left behind for him to deal with.
A success frame is coded as 1 while a setback frame is coded as 2. In the event that
a cartoon contains both types of frames, only the most prominent one is coded.
103

15. Success frame. This variable addresses the nature of frames that are favorable of
Obama or his policies. This variable addresses H8 through H13.
Cartoons not containing a success frame and cartoons in which success frames
are not the primary candidate frame are coded as 0 for no success frame/success
frame is not primary candidate frame. When a primary success frame is present, it is
coded as: 1= Obamas ideology and actions are attractive or beneficial to society; 2=
Obama displays political strength against Republicans, such as his ability to get his
legislation passed; 3= Obama displays political strength against Democrats, such as Bill
and Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Partys base; 4= Obama displays good character,
including references to his morality and bipartisanship; 5= Obama receives favorable
media coverage; 6= Obama as a beneficiary, including neutral treatment of Obama,
references that he is beating his critics expectations, and determinations that Obama is
advantaged by some situation; 7= the celebration or commemoration of an event; and
8= some other success frame.
16. Setback frame. This variable addresses the nature of frames that are critical of
Obama or his policies. Cartoons not containing a setback frame and cartoons in which
setback frames are not the primary candidate frame are coded as 0 for no setback
frame/setback frame is not primary candidate frame. When a primary setback frame is
present, it is coded as: 1= Obamas ideas and actions are harmful or ineffective,
including criticisms of his political ideology; 2= Obama displays weakness against
Republicans; 3= Obama displays weakness against Democrats; 4= Obama displays poor
character, including moral failings, ethical lapses, or partisanship; 5= Obama receives
104

unfavorable media coverage or has media problems; 6= Obama is increasingly

unpopular or disappointing; 7= Obama has to contend with an undesirable problem or is
the target of unproven allegations; and 8= some other setback frame.
17. Overarching frame. This variable addresses the overall characterization of the
political cartoon and contains four values: 1= political success frame, 2= personal
success frame, 3= political setback frame, and 4= personal setback frame. In the event
that a cartoon contains more than one type of frame, only the most prominent one is
coded. Definitions are:

Political success frame: When the overall cartoon portrays Obama as politically
successful or strong in relation to his opposition. An example would be a
cartoon depicting Obama as a knight slaying a dragon that represents a poor
economy. His ability to confront a difficult issue and emerge victorious is a
political victory.

Personal success frame: When the overall cartoon portrays Obama as displaying
personal courage or personal attractiveness. An example of this would be a
cartoon showing Obama giving a thoughtful speech about a damaging
controversy related to his personal background. This is a personal triumph
because he is displaying personal strength by confronting a difficult issue directly.

Political setback frame: When the overall cartoon portrays Obamas policies in
an adverse way or portray Obama as suffering from a political problem or
weakness. An example of this would be a cartoon showing Obama with empty
pockets that represent diminished political strength.
105

Personal setback frame: When the overall cartoon portrays Obamas character
in an adverse way or portray others, such as voters, as unreceptive to Obama
personally. An example of this would be a cartoon showing a voter criticizing
Obama for not providing the change he was hoping for.

5.2.3 Framing Device Variables

18. Rhetorical disposition. This variable examines how an argument is constructed in a
political cartoon. The three values are 1= commentary, 2= contrast and 3= contradiction.
Commentary provides one cartoonists perspective on an issue. Contrast shows
multiple results of one policy or multiple interpretations from multiple people of a
policy. Contradiction shows one person advocating multiple positions on a policy.
19. Metaphors. This variable examines whether a metaphor was used to communicate
a frame. Metaphors include likening a person or an abstract issue to another image to
suggest congruence. An example of a metaphor would be depicting the federal budget
as a hungry lion. The presence of a metaphor is coded as 1 for yes; the absence of a
metaphor is coded as 0 for no.
20. Metaphor description. This variable examines the specific nature of the primary
metaphor used to frame a message in a political cartoon. In the event that a cartoon
contains multiple metaphors, only the primary metaphor is to be coded. A metaphor of
Obama should always be coded as primary. In the absence of this type of metaphor, the
primary metaphor should be the one that appears most prominently in the cartoon. A
value of 0 is coded if there is no metaphor present. When a metaphor is present, its
content is coded as follows: 1= dangerous device, such as a bomb, knife, or some other
106

weapon; 2= hostile creature, such as a monster, lion, or ogre; 3= difficult circumstances,

such as a messy kitchen, jumping through a flaming hoop, or walking on a tightrope; 4=
benevolent creature, such as an angel, superhero, wise man, or a helpful animal; 5=
weak, vulnerable or hapless creature, such as a defenseless kitten, a victim tied to
railroad tracks, a hostage or a baby; 6= machine, including tools, vehicles, and
computers; and 7= some other metaphor.
21. Exemplars. This variable examines whether an exemplar was used to communicate
a frame. An exemplar is a historical icon or historical figure that is used as a reference
point or a source for wisdom. An example of an exemplar would be an image of
President John Kennedy commending Barack Obama for passing civil rights legislation.
The presence of an exemplar is coded as 1 for yes; the absence of an exemplar is
coded as 0 for no.
22. Exemplar description. This variable examines the specific nature of the primary
exemplar used to frame a message in a political cartoon. In the event that a cartoon
contains multiple exemplars, only the most prominent one is to be coded. A value of 0
is coded if there is no exemplar present. When an exemplar is present, its content is
coded as follows: 1= George W. Bush, the last president before Obama; 2= Bill Clinton,
the last Democratic President before Obama; 3= some other former president or
politician, including governors, senators, and congressmen, but not including Abraham
Lincoln; 4= a civil rights icon, such as Martin Luther King or Abraham Lincoln; 5= a
historical event, such as Pearl Harbor, Vietnam, or the September 11 terrorist attacks;
6= a world leader, including foreign heads of state, the pope, and the United Nations or
107

other international organizations; 7= a celebrity, including athletes, movie stars,

musicians, criminals, and idiosyncratic figures (e.g., average people thrust into fame); 8=
an economic figure, such as a company CEO or business leader; and 9= other exemplar.
23. Catchphrases. This variable examines whether a catchphrase was used to
communicate a frame. Catchphrases are memorable words or expressions that carry an
added meaning because of who said them or what they refer to. An example of a
catchphrase would be a child telling his mother something depended on what the
meaning of is is because it was an infamous quote by President Bill Clinton that he
used to try to defend himself against accusations of sexual misconduct (BBC News,
1998). The presence of a catchphrase is coded as 1 for yes; the absence of a
catchphrase is coded as 0 for no.
24. Catchphrase description. This variable examines the specific nature of the primary
catchphrase used to frame a message in a political cartoon. In the event that a cartoon
contains multiple catchphrases, only the primary catchphrase is to be coded. If one
exists, an Obama catchphrase should always be coded as primary. In the absence of this
type of catchphrase, the primary catchphrase should be the one that appears most
prominently in the cartoon. A value of 0 is coded if there is no catchphrase present.
When a catchphrase is present, its source is coded as follows: 1= Barack Obama; 2=
George W. Bush; 3= Bill or Hillary Clinton; 4= John McCain or Sarah Palin, Obamas
Republican opposition during the 2008 campaign; 5= some other former president,
politician or political icon; 6= a celebrity, such as a musician, actor, athlete, criminal, or
idiosyncratic figure; and 7= other source.
108

25. Depictions. This variable examines whether depictions were used to communicate a
frame. Depictions are portrayals of people in a setting that provides a specific context
of understanding. A cartoon showing Obama in a hospital could suggest, for example,
that something, such as the economy, is in poor condition. Unlike metaphors
(addressed in variable 19), which are individual issues or politicians that are represented
as different images; depictions address the setting or environment in which a message is
communicated. The presence of a depiction is coded as 1 for yes; the absence of a
depiction is coded as 0 for no.
26. Depiction description. This variable examines the specific nature of the primary
depiction used to frame a message in a political cartoon. A value of 0 is coded if there
is no depiction present. When a depiction is present, its content is coded as follows: 1=
a sport or other competitive event, such as a soccer match, game show, or contest; 2= a
movie or television show, including noncompetitive programming; 3= a literary or
cultural setting, such as a fairy tale or foreign country; 4= a private home; 5= a military
setting, such as war or boot camp; 6= an academic or research setting, such as a
university or hospital; 7= a job setting, such as an assembly line or a fast-food
restaurant; 8= a corporate setting, such as a boardroom or executive office; and 9= the
White House, Congress, or another federal office; 10= a church or other religious
setting; and 11= other depiction.
27. Visual images. This variable examines whether visual images were used to
communicate a frame. Visual images are operationalized as caricatures that suggest
how to think about a person. For example, portraying an Obama critic as short and fat
109

may suggest that the critic should not be taken seriously or that the critic and his ideas
are unattractive. The presence of a visual image is coded as 1 for yes; the absence
of a visual image is coded as 0 for no.
28. Visual image description. This variable examines the specific nature of the primary
visual image used to frame a message in a political cartoon. In the event that a cartoon
contains multiple images, only the primary image is to be coded. An image of Obama
should always be coded as primary if the image suggests a message. In the absence of
this type of image, the primary image should be the one that appears most prominently
in the cartoon. A value of 0 is coded if there is no visual image present. When a visual
image is present, its content is coded as follows: 1= undesirable, such as appearing dirty,
dishonest, ominous, ugly, or worn out; 2= desirable, such as appearing polished, well
dressed, fresh, or handsome; 3= physiological, including the exaggeration of physical
features, such as oversized ears, being exceptionally tall and thin, or being
conspicuously short and fat; and 4= no visual image.
29. Object placement. This variable examines whether the spatial orientation of visual
images is used to communicate a frame. The placement of objects refers to where
objects are located within a cartoon panel and in relation to other images in a panel. An
example of this would be a cartoon showing a political prize on top of a tall tree that
Obama wishes he could claim. This imagery could suggest that the political prize is
difficult to obtain because it is out of Obamas reach. The presence of object placement
as a framing device is coded as 1 for yes; the absence of object placement as a
framing device is coded as 0 for no.
110

30. Object placement description. This variable examines the specific nature of the
placement of objects used to frame a message in a political cartoon. In the event that a
cartoon contains multiple objects placed in different areas, only the primary object
placement is to be coded. Objects placed in relation to Obama should always be coded
as primary. In the absence of this type of placement, the primary placement should be
the one that appears most prominently in the cartoon. A value of 0 is coded if there is
no presence of object placement as a framing device. When object placement is
present, its nature is coded as follows: 1= above Obama; 2= below Obama; 3= next to
Obama or side by side; 4= in front of, ahead of, opposite, or facing Obama; 5= behind or
in the background of Obama; 6= around, surrounding, or on all sides of Obama; 7=
inside or encircled by Obama; 8= a reflection or mirror image of Obama; 9= some other
spatial relationship; and 10= the placement of objects suggests a frame, but the objects
have no connection to Obama in the cartoon panel.
31. Relative object size. This variable examines whether the size of an object in relation to
another object is used to communicate a frame. The relative size of objects refers to how large
or how prominently displayed an object is in relation to another object. The larger an object is,
for example, the stronger, more popular, or more prominent it is. An example of relative object
size being used to communicate a frame would be Obama holding a large bag of money while
Republican rival John McCain holds a much smaller bag of money. This suggests that Obama has
more money available to spend on his campaign than McCain. The presence of a relative

object size as a framing device is coded as 1 for yes; the absence of relative object
size as a framing device is coded as 0 for no.

111

32. Size of objects description. This variable examines the specific nature of how the
relative sizes of objects are used to frame a message in a political cartoon. In the event
that a cartoon contains multiple objects of multiple sizes, sizes of objects in relation to
Obama should always be coded as primary. In the absence of a size relationship
involving Obama, the most prominent size relationship is coded. A value of 0 is coded
if there is no presence of relative object size as a framing device. When the relative size
of objects as a framing device is present, its nature is coded as follows: 1= Obama is
larger; 2= Obama is smaller; 3= Obama is the same size as the object; and 4= the relative
size of objects suggests a frame, but the objects have no relation to Obama in the panel.
5.3 CODING PROCESS AND RELIABILITY
To establish intercoder reliability, 70 cartoons (11% of the stratified sample)
were coded by two independent codersthe primary coder and secondary coder. The
primary coder was a graduate student in the School of Journalism and Mass
Communications at the University of South Carolina who was paid to code the entire
stratified sample of 634 cartoons. The secondary coder was the dissertation author and
served as the coding trainer for the primary coder.
The coding trainer provided the primary coder three training sessions, each of
which lasted from 60 to 90 minutes. Each training session consisted of explaining the
coding sheet, developing algorithms to facilitate decision making, and coding about ten
cartoons together. After the first training session, the coding trainer provided the
primary coder with about 15 cartoons to code independently. When the primary coder
finished coding these cartoons independently, a second training session was held in
112

which the two coders coded five to ten more new cartoons together, compared their
results, and further refined the decision-making process to be followed when coding.
The primary coder was assigned another set of cartoons to code independently and a
third training session was held. None of the cartoons analyzed during the training
sessions was a part of the stratified sample used in the dissertation. Approximately 50
cartoons were analyzed during the training sessions.
After the third training session, the coding trainer selected 70 cartoons to be
coded independently by the two coders. These 70 cartoons, which were randomly
selected from the stratified sample, were used to determine intercoder reliability. The
author analyzed the resulting data using Stata 11.
Cohens kappa was the statistic used to assess the intercoder reliability. This is a
suitable statistic for content analysis satisfying the following conditions: 1) the
independence of units, 2) the mutual exclusivity and independence of coding categories
of a nominal scale, 3) the independence with which the coders operate, 4) the lack of
restrictions placed on the distribution of each coders judgments for each category, and
5) the role of chance in making coding decisions (Cohen, 1960, 1968). This test is also
the most commonly used judge of interjudge reliability in the behavioral sciences
(Perreault and Leigh, 1989: 140).
Four variables addressing two framing devices were excluded from further
analysis because of difficulty in achieving sufficient reliability during the training
sessions. These variables were the presence of a catchphrase, the presence of visual
imagery, the type of catchphrase and the type of visual imagery in a political cartoon
113

(variables 23, 24, 27 and 28). Correctly coding catchphrases requires a high level of
familiarity with the political news cycle; correctly coding visual imagery requires coders
to differentiate between a cartoonists unique drawing style and their own subjective
analysis. Chapter 6 further addresses issues related to the exclusion of these variables.
The average kappa value for the remaining 28 variables examined was .751. This
result was sufficient, as kappa values ranging from .61 to .80 indicate substantial
reliability, while kappa values higher than .80 indicate almost perfect reliability (Landis
& Koch, 1977: 165). Once the reliability statistics were obtained, the primary coder
coded the remaining 564 cartoons alone and without any further training.
Cohens kappa values for all variables ranged from .491 to 1.000 (see Table 6.1).
The lowest reliability scores corresponded to the specific type of success and setback
frames (k=.502, k=.525, respectively), the placement of objects in relation to Obama as a
framing device (k=.539), the usage of relative object sizes as a framing device (k=.569),
and the nature of the size relationship between objects and Obama within a political
cartoon panel (k=.491). These reliability scores limit the strength of the conclusions that
can be drawn from their corresponding variables. Reliability data for all proposed firstorder frames and most of the second-order frames were much stronger: .796 for topic
frames, .743 for candidate frames,.712 for context frames, .804 for issue frames, .744
for strategy frames, .696 for thematic frames, and .691 for episodic frames.

114

Table 5.1 Reliability data for all variables (Cohens kappa)

variable
k
variable
k
1. cartoonist identity
1.000
17. overarching frame
.600
2. political cartoon ID
1.000
18. rhetorical disposition
.728
3. cartoonist ideology
1.000
19. metaphor presence
.784
4. publication date
1.000
20. metaphor type
.725
5. Obama political title
1.000
21. exemplar presence
.718
6. Obama approval rating
1.000
22. exemplar type
.729
7. rhetorical theme
.711
23. catchphrase presence
**
8. topic frame
.796
24. catchphrase type
**
9. issue frame
.804
25. depiction presence
.827
10. strategy frame
.744
26. depiction type
.695
11. context frame
.712
27. visual imagery presence
**
12. thematic frame
.696
28. visual imagery type
**
13. episodic frame
.691
29. object placement presence
.706
14. candidate frame
.743
30. object placement type
.539
15. success frame
.502
31. relative object size presence
.569
16. setback frame
.525
32. object size relationship
.491
** Indicates a variable that was excluded from analysis due to low reliability

115

CHAPTER 6
RESULTS
This chapter provides the descriptive results of the data obtained from the
statistical procedures used to address the research question and each hypothesis and
major variable examined in this study. A review of the data for all variables is presented
first in conjunction with summaries of noteworthy findings. The final section includes
the results of hypothesis testing and conclusions that can be made from the data. Given
their specificity in relation to first-order frames, all hypotheses proposed in this
dissertation address second-order frames.
6.1 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
6.1.1 General Frequency Data
The period of Obamas candidacy produced the largest percentage of political
cartoons (38.91% of the sample, n=193). The approximately ten-week period during
which Obama was president-elect contained 11.09% of the cartoons (n=55). The threemonth period following his inauguration, the so-called honeymoon period, contained
15.73% of the cartoons (n=78). The remaining cartoons (34.27%, n=170) were published
after the honeymoon period. Chi-square goodness-of-fit tests show no significant
differences in the distribution of cartoons by ideology for any of the four time periods,
which indicates an ideologically balanced sample of conservative and liberal cartoonists

116

for all time periods (presidential candidate: x2=.47, df=192, p=..49; president elect:
x2=2.64, p=.10, df=54; new president: x2=.16, p=.69, df=77; post-100 days president:

140

x2=.01, p=.94, df=169; see Figure 6.1).

120

130

80

63

60

59

40

49
30

25

29

20

frequency

100

111

presidential candidate

president-elect
conservative

new president
post-100 days president
liberal

Figure 6.1 Distribution of cartoons by cartoonist ideology and Obamas title

6.1.2 Approval Rating
President Obamas average monthly approval rating in the Gallup poll ranged
from a high of 66.7% in January 2009 when he took office to a low of 49.5% in January
2010 after he had been on the job for a year addressing a weak economy, his
controversial health care plan, and two unpopular wars. The average approval rating
tended to decline each month (see Figure 6.2), which reflects the increased criticism a
new president faces from the public after an initial period of patience and goodwill
(Hughes, 1995).
117

70
65
60
55
50
45
40
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
0
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
01
00
00
n 2 eb 2 ar 2 Apr 2 ay 2 un 2 Jul 2 ug 2 ep 2 Oct 2 ov 2 ec 2 an 2
a
J
J
J
F
M
A
S
N
D
M

Figure 6.2 Average monthly approval rating for President Obama (Gallup, 2009,
2010)
6.1.3 Rhetorical Invention/Themes
The most common rhetorical theme was political commonplaces, accounting for
80.04% of the 496 cartoons (n=397). The second most common theme was
idiosyncratic and transient elements (10.48%, n=52), followed by literary and cultural
allusions (5.24%, n=26) and popular perceptions of candidate traits (4.23%, n=21). A
chi-square goodness-of-fit test reveals that political commonplaces were significantly
overrepresented (x2=805.85, p<.001, df=495) These findings support existing research
on the rhetorical themes of political cartoons (Conners, 2005), which shows that
political commonplaces are the most common. However, the percentages of the other
three themes are much lower in this dissertation. These findings suggest that political
118

cartoonists derived the content of their cartoons from general political topics in a
disproportionately heavy fashion. Their reliance on caricature, cultural references, and
offbeat news to present their arguments was clearly secondary.
6.1.4 Rhetorical Disposition
Commentary was the most common form of the three types of rhetorical
disposition, accounting for 75.81% (n=376) of the cartoons. A chi-square goodness-of-fit
test shows that commentary was used significantly more often than the other forms of
disposition (x2=404.69, p<.001, df=495). Contrast was used in 14.721% (n=73) of the
cartoons, followed by contradiction (9.48%, n=47). Perhaps because of the limited
space available to political cartoonists in a panel, contrast and contradiction were too
difficult to employ regularly. Or perhaps the cartoonists viewed commentary as the
safest or most effective way to communicate their arguments, which would be
consistent with Medhurst and DeSousas (1981) assertion that commentary was safe.
To the extent of the dissertation authors knowledge, there are no studies of
these forms of rhetorical disposition in political cartoons. Medhurst and DeSousa
explain these forms of rhetorical disposition, but report no findings on their prevalence.
This may suggest that rhetorical disposition is under-researched or of limited value as a
component of political cartoons. The relative lack of cartoons incorporating contrast or
contradiction suggests they may be better conceptualized as framing devices.

119

6.1.5 Issue Frames

80

79

40

33

20

22

20
14

frequency

60

65

military/foreign
health care
economics

social

govt/ethics

other

Figure 6.3 Distribution of issue frames

A chi-square goodness-of-fit test shows that the distribution of issue frames was
significantly imbalanced (x2=92.36, p<.001, df=232; see Figure 6.3). The most common
issue frames identified were economics (33.91% of all issue frame cartoons, n=79),
followed by foreign and military policy (27.90%, n=65), and health care (14.16%, n=33).
All of the health care cartoons were published after Obamas first 100 days in office,
reflecting a significant difference in the distribution of issue frames by Obamas political
title (x2=57.27, p<.001, df=232; see Figure 6.4). These data likely reflect the centrality of
the weak economy, the military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the monthslong congressional debate over health care reform proposed by Obama. Surprisingly
little attention was paid to energy and environmental issues despite high energy prices
120

and the potential impact of the United States military campaign in Iraq. Due to low

40

frequency data, energy and environmental issues were combined with other.

37
33

20

13

14

13

13

10

9
6
2

6
3

frequency

30

29
27

foreign/military

health care
economics
social

presidential candidate
new president

govt/ethics

other

president-elect
post-100 days president

Figure 6.4 Distribution of issue frames by Obamas political title

121

6.1.6 Strategy Frames

political metrics

102

political performance

62

personal issues

32

political relationships

43

other

24

20

40

60
frequency

80

100

120

Figure 6.5 Distribution of strategy frames

A chi-square goodness-of-fit test reveals a statistically significant difference in
the distribution of strategy frames (x2=73.44, p<.001, df=262; see Figure 6.5). The three
most common strategy frames were political metrics (38.78% of all cartoons with a
strategy frame, n=102), followed by political performance (23.57%, n=62) and political
relationships (16.35%, n=43). Of the 102 political metric cartoons, 86 of them were
published during Obamas campaign. This reflects a significant difference in the use of
strategy frames based on Obamas political title (x2=61.93, p<.001, df=262; see Figure
6.6) and likely reflects the attention paid to the fundraising records Obamas
presidential campaign broke and the extent of his ability to generate enthusiasm among

122

grassroots supporters. Due to low frequency data, polling and elections were
combined political performance and media coverage was combined with other.

political metrics
political performance

personal issues

3
3

86
6
6
37

11
11
17
9
13
10
9
11

political relationships
other

2
1

10
11

10

20

30

presidential candidate
new president

40
50
frequency

60

70

80

president-elect
post-100 days president

Figure 6.6 Distribution of strategy frames by Obamas political title

123

90

6.1.7 Thematic Frames

other presidents/politicians

27

Barack Obama

91

Bill/Hillary Clinton

63

George W. Bush

17

national/intl circumstances

69

political ideology

42

other

24

10

20

30

40

50 60
frequency

70

80

90 100

Figure 6.7 Distribution of thematic frames

A chi-square goodness-of-fit test shows statistically significant variation in the
distribution of thematic frames (x2=95.18, p<.001, df=332). The top three thematic
frames used the contexts of Obama (27.33% of all cartoons with thematic frames, n=91),
national and international circumstances (20.72%, n=69) and Bill and Hillary Clinton
(18.92%, n=63). These data suggest that cartoonists commonly examined Obama in the
context of his own previous actions and positions as well as how he related to Bill and
Hillary Clinton as he battled Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Partys nomination.
Interestingly, cartoons using thematic frames about President George W. Bush only
constituted 5.11% of all thematic cartoons (see Figure 6.7), suggesting that the context
of other events and circumstances, such as the economy, were more central than Bush.
124

The distribution of thematic frames also statistically significantly varied with

respect to Obamas political title (x2=120.87, p<.001, df=332; see Figure 6.8). Of the 63
cartoons containing thematic frames about Bill or Hillary Clinton, all but four of them
were published during Obamas presidential campaign. This reflects the primacy of the
Clintons to Obamas campaign as narrated by political cartoonists. That Obamas fight
for his partys nomination lasted the duration of the primary and caucus calendar lends
itself to numerous thematic frames, such as how he slowly defeated Hillary Clinton or
how he had to endure her allies withering attacks. Due to low frequency data,
Democratic Party was combined with political ideology and news media and
culture/history were combined with other.

other presidents/politicians

3
3
5

Barack Obama

13
33

14

39
59

Bill/Hillary Clinton

George W. Bush

3
3

5
6
12
11

national/intl circumstances
political ideology

26

18

4
5

other

20

15
7
9

10

20

presidential candidate
new president

30
40
frequency

50

president-elect
post-100 days president

Figure 6.8 Distribution of thematic frames by Obamas political title

125

60

6.1.8 Episodic Frames

domestic political

76

domestic nonpolitical

12

international

38

commentary

10

unexpected/atypical

18

other

10

20

30

40
50
frequency

60

70

80

Figure 6.9 Distribution of episodic frames

A chi-square goodness-of-fit test shows statistically significant variation in the
distribution of episodic frames (x2=126.66, p<.001, df=162). The top three episodic
frames were about domestic political stories (46.63% of all cartoons with episodic
frames, n=76, see Figure 6.9), international stories (23.31%, n=38), and atypical or
unexpected stories (11.04%, n=18). These data suggest that political cartoonists were
more likely to focus on national political developments and Obamas responses to them
than on nonpolitical stories or appraisals of Obama from voters and other constituent
groups. Unlike thematic frames, there was no statistically significant difference
regarding the distribution of episodic frames by Obamas political title (x2=19.94, p=.17,
df=162; see Figure 6.10). This suggests that cartoonists were not more inclined to use
126

episodic frames at any particular time. Due to low frequency data, domestic
nonpolitical was combined with other.

25

domestic political

15

27

domestic nonpolitical

international

1
1

commentary

9
9
9
2

19

4
5

unexpected/atypical

other

11
4
4

10

presidential candidate
new president

frequency

20

30

president-elect
post-100 days president

Figure 6.10 Distribution of episodic frames by Obamas political title

6.1.9 Candidate Frames and Cartoonists
A chi-square goodness-of-fittest shows statistically significant variation in the
distribution of candidate frames by Obamas political title (x2=27.62, p<.001, df=495). At
none of the four main time periods measured in this study did Obama enjoy treatment
from political cartoonists that was more favorable than critical (see Figure 6.11). During
his campaign, 43.00% (n=83)) of the cartoons of Obama contained success frames. The
two months in which Obama was president-elect saw the most favorable treatment
from cartoonists, with 45.45% (n=25) containing success frames. Cartoonists did not
appear to give Obama a presidential honeymoon, as only 25.64% of the cartoons
127

during his first three months in office contained success frames. The post-honeymoon
period was even worse (20%). These findings suggest that while the honeymoon period
referenced by Hughes (1995) may apply to traditional journalists, it may not apply to
political cartoonists. In fact, these findings are consistent with historical political
cartoon research that shows cartoons to be incisive and critical (Lamb, 2007; Shaw,
2007). The differences between conservatives and liberals in their use of success and
setback frames are discussed in Section 6.2.

83

presidential candidate

110

25

president-elect

30

20

new president

58

34

post-100 days president

136

20

40

success frame

60

80
100
frequency

120

140

160

setback frame

Figure 6.11 Distribution of candidate frames by Obamas political title

Examining the distribution of candidate frames by individual cartoonists reveals
different levels of criticism of Obama depending on whether the cartoonist was liberal
or conservative (see Figure 6.12). Among conservative cartoonists, Clay Jones was the
most sympathetic towards Obama (42.5% of his cartoons contained success frames)
128

while Michael Ramirez and Bob Gorrell were the most critical (10% success frames each).
Among liberal cartoonists, Bruce Beattie was the most favorable (64% success frames)
while Gary Markstein and Steve Sack were the most critical (32% success frames).
Further research on where these cartoonists are based and where their work appears

100

may help explain these varying levels of sympathy towards Obama in their cartoons.

70

78
90

55

50

55
68

73

50
68

90

40

60

78

45

57

65

64

20

35
23

55

43
30

23
10

45

50

45
32

28

50
32

10

conservatives

sherffius

sack

ramsey

markstein

luckovich

britt

benson

beattie

varvel

ramirez

kelley

jones

gorrell

catalino

breen

asay

percentage

80

36

liberals

success frame

setback frame

Figure 6.12 Distribution of candidate frames by cartoonist

Chi-square goodness-of-fit tests were used to test the significance of each
cartoonists distribution of success and setback frames. Because conservative and
liberal cartoonists could not be expected to use both types of candidate frames at the
same rate, the dissertation author created a criticism scale to serve as a basis for
assessing each cartoonists average percentage of setback frames of Obama. This scale
is similar to a 5-point Likert scale used in survey data, but is based on quantitative
129

measurements. Coding setback frames as 0 and success frames as 1results in the

classifications listed in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1 Proposed criticism scale values and definitions
Criticism score
.00
.25
.50
.75
1.00

Classification
Completely critical
Strongly critical
Moderately critical
Slightly critical
Not critical

% success frames / % setback frames

0/100
25/75
50/50
75/25
100/0

The criticism scores for all cartoonists, including the average scores for all
conservatives and all liberals, are indicated in Table 6.2. Scores ranged from .100
to .425 for conservatives and from .318 to .636 for liberals. Average criticism scores
were .250 for conservatives and .465 for liberals.
Table 6.2 Criticism scores for all cartoonists
Cartoonist
Asay
Breen
Catalino
Gorrell
Jones
Kelley
Ramirez
Varvel
Beattie
Benson
Britt
Luckovich
Markstein
Ramsey
Sack
Sherffius

Criticism score
Ideology
.225
Conservative
.350
Conservative
.225
Conservative
.100
Conservative
.425
Conservative
.300
Conservative
.100
Conservative
.275
Conservative
Average conservative criticism score: .250
.636
Liberal
.545
Liberal
.454
Liberal
.454
Liberal
.318
Liberal
.500
Liberal
.318
Liberal
.500
Liberal
Average liberal criticism score: .465
130

The average criticism score for each ideology served as a baseline to which each
cartoonists individual criticism score was compared. The average scores served as the
hypothesized values used in chi-square goodness-of-fit tests that were run to examine
whether each cartoonists proportion of success frames and setback frames significantly
differed from the average distribution of success and setback frames from that
cartoonists ideology (see Tables 6.3 and 6.4).
Table 6.3 Conservative criticism scores in relation to hypothesized score
Conservative
cartoonist
Asay
Breen
Catalino
Gorrell
Jones
Kelley
Ramirez
Varvel

Criticism score

x2

.225
.13
.350
2.13
.225
.13
.100
4.8
.425
6.53
.300
.53
.100
4.8
.275
.13
*= p<.05; hypothesized criticism score of .25

df

.72
.14
.72
.03*
.01*
.47
.03*
.72

39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39

These data indicate that most of the conservative cartoonists whose work was
analyzed in this dissertation could be classified as strongly critical of Obama. Bob
Gorrell (x2=.4.8, p<.05, df=39) and Michael Ramirez (x2=4.8, p<.05, df=39) were both
statistically significantly more likely to use setback frames than other conservatives,
perhaps indicating higher levels of criticism of Obama compared to other conservative
cartoonists. This could indicate persistent disagreement with Obamas agenda because
of ideological differences. On the other end of the spectrum, Clay Jones was
considerably more generous towards Obama, creating a body of work that was

131

statistically significantly less critical of him (x2=6.53, df=39, p<.05). This could indicate
that as a conservative cartoonist, Jones was pleased that Obama was not as liberal as he
may have feared. It could also indicate that Jones may be closer to an ideological
centrist than a hard conservative, and would therefore be less apt to find fault with
Obamas policies.
Table 6.4 Liberal criticism scores in relation to hypothesized score
Liberal cartoonist
Beattie
Benson
Britt
Luckovich
Markstein
Ramsey
Sack
Sherffius

Criticism score
x2
.636
2.44
.545
.50
.454
.20
.454
.20
.318
2.04
.500
.80
.318
2.04
.500
.80
*= p<.05; hypothesized criticism score of .47

p
.18
.48
..88
.88
.15
.78
.15
.78

df
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21

These data indicate that most of the liberal cartoonists whose work was
analyzed in this dissertation could be classified as slightly more critical than moderately
critical of Obama. The higher criticism scores of Bruce Beattie and Steve Benson
indicate a body of work that may be less critical of Obama, but these scores were not
statistically significantly higher than the average liberal criticism score (x2=2.44, p=.18,
df=21; Benson: x2=.50, p=.48, df=21). The criticism scores for Gary Markstein and Steve
Sack are closer to strongly critical than moderately critical, but no statistically
significant difference was observed (x2=2.04, p=.15, df=21). As liberal cartoonists,
Markstein and Sack may have been disappointed with Obama for not pushing his

132

agenda aggressively enough. Their low criticism scores could also indicate disapproval
resulting from Obama being too liberal for their tastes.
No liberal cartoonist was statistically significantly less likely to be critical towards
Obama than moderately critical. These findings suggest that in terms of raw
treatment through success and setback frames, conservative cartoonists are decidedly
critical of Obama while liberal cartoonists adopt a somewhat less negative and more
ambivalent attitude in that they use a more equal balance of success and setback
frames. It is also possible that while liberal cartoonists might be sympathetic to Obama,
a left-of-center president, this does not discourage them from criticizing him in their
work as political cartoonists. Caution should be taken when interpreting these results,
however, because such a scale has never been applied to evaluating the degree of
criticism that can be found in political cartoons. Limitations and implications of this
scale are discussed further in Section 7.1.

133

6.1.10 Success Frames

ideas are attractive

14

strength against politicians/other

25

shows good character

favorable/neutral appraisal

97

celebration or commemoration

20

10

20

30

40 50 60 70
frequency

80

90 100

Figure 6.13 Distribution of success frames

The three most common success frames were Obama deserving a chance or a
neutral appraisal of Obama (60.63% of all cartoons with a success frame, n=97), the
display of political strength against other politicians (15.63%, n=25), and a celebration or
commemoration of an event (12.50%, n=20). A chi-square goodness-of-fit test shows
that there is a statistically significant overrepresentation of cartoons containing neutral
frames or give Obama a chance frames (x2=172.69, p<.001, df=159), suggesting that
cartoonists might have been more inclined to give Obama the benefit of the doubt even
if they did not explicitly support his policies.
A chi-square test also shows a significant relationship between success frames
and Obamas political title (x2=48.45, p<.001, df=159; see Figure 6.14). For example, the
success frame of Obama showing strength against other politicians was used 21 times
134

during his candidacy, but only four times after his election, suggesting that Obama was
more likely to be portrayed as a stronger politician during his candidacy than during his
presidency. Due to low frequency data, strength against Republicans and strength
against Democrats were combined with other. Receives favorable media coverage
was combined with neutral/Obama deserves a chance. While explanations of these
data are offered, insufficient reliability data limit the strength of these conclusions.

30

29

10

20

21

7
3

frequency

40

50

48

2 2

1 1 2

11

7 8

r
r
al
ion
cte
the
ais
a
o
r
rat
r
/
p
o
s
a
p
n
h
a
a
em
dc
al
icia
re
oo
mm
utr
olit
sa
g
o
e
p
a
/n
rc
st
ws
ide
ble
no
ho
ain
a
o
s
r
g
i
t
o
a
ra
th
fav
leb
ng
e
e
c
r
st
e
ctiv
ttra

presidential candidate
new president

president-elect
post-100 days president

Figure 6.14 Distribution of success frames by Obamas political title

135

6.1.11 Setback Frames

ideas are harmful

106

weakness against politicians/other

16

displays poor character or partisanship

27

critical or disappointing appraisal

20

dealing with bad problem

167

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

frequency

Figure 6.15 Distribution of setback frames

The three most common setback frames were Obama having to contend with an
undesirable problem (49.70% of all cartoons with a setback frame, n=167, see Figure
6.15), Obamas ideas being harmful or unattractive (31.55%, n=106), and Obama
displaying poor character or partisanship (8.04%, n=27). A chi-square goodness-of-fit
test shows that there is a significant over-representation of cartoons containing
contending with an undesirable problem frames and a significant underrepresentation of setback frames related to his political strength or character problems
(x2=266.83, p<.001, df=167). The data support the idea that Obama has had to deal with
many political problems that might not have been of his own creation. A chi-square test
also shows a statistically significant relationship between setback frames and Obamas
political title (x2=22.20, p=.04, df=335; see Figure 6.16). More than half of the Obamas
136

ideas are harmful, unattractive or ineffective frames were used in cartoons after
Obamas honeymoon period ended. Proportionally, no other setback frame was used as
often as this during Obamas post-honeymoon period. This suggests that cartoonists
were not likely to exercise patience with Obama as he tried to correct the nations
problems. However, as was the case with success frames, weak reliability data limit the
strength of the conclusions that can be drawn from these data. Due to low frequency
data, weakness against Republicans and weakness against Democrats were
combined with other. Receives critical media coverage was combined with

10 20 30 40 50 60 70
are
as
e
id

27

24

21

20
14
8

ul
mf

st
ain
ag

po

s/
ian
c
i
t
li

sp
lay
p
dis

er
oth

ara
ch
r
oo

6 7

r
ha

ss
ne
k
a
we

61

59

54

frequency

disappointing or losing popularity.

r
cte

or

h
ns
isa
t
r
pa

tica
cri

lo

ip

g
tin
oin
p
ap
dis

presidential candidate
new president

l
sa
rai
p
ap
de

ith
gw
n
i
l
a

ba

lem
rob
p
d

president-elect
post-100 days president

Figure 6.16 Distribution of setback frames by Obamas political title

137

6.1.12 Overarching Frames

86

25
21

political victory frame

32

personal triumph frame

1
3
94

30

political setback frame

53

130

10

personal problem frame

3
5

20

40

presidential candidate
new president

60
80
frequency

100

120

140

president-elect
post-100 days president

Figure 6.17 Distribution of overarching frames by Obamas political title

The majority of overarching frames were political setback frames (61.90%,
n=307), followed by political success frames (33.06%, n=164). Personal setback frames
and personal success frames represented only 5% of the sample (n=25; see Figure 6.17).
A chi-square goodness-of-fit test reveals this distribution to be statistically significantly
unbalanced (x2=483.98, p<.001, df=495). This uneven distribution suggests that
personal frames are less likely to be used than political frames and that perhaps this
variable is redundant in the presence of the candidate frame variable. A chi-square test
also reveals a significant relationship between overarching frames and Obamas political
title (x2=38.26, p<.001, df=495). Political setback frames were much more likely to be
used in cartoons after Obamas first 100 days in office, suggesting that the confronting

138

realities of governing may lead to more hostile coverage from cartoonists than the
victories of campaigning. Marginal reliability data for this variable limit the strength of
these conclusions. These findings, particularly this variables distribution, also suggest
that the proposed model of framing in political cartoons be revised.
6.1.13 Metaphors

dangerous device/hostile creature

28

difficult circumstances

77

benevolent creature

13

weak/hapless creature

21

machine

19

other metaphor

39

10

20

30

40 50
frequency

60

70

80

Figure 6.18 Distribution of metaphors as framing devices

Metaphors were used as framing devices in 195 cartoons (39.31%). Of these 195
cartoons, the plurality of them (39.09%, n=77) employed a metaphor of Obama dealing
with difficult circumstances, such as a messy kitchen, walking a tightrope, or pushing a
wagon uphill (see Figure 6.18). The plurality of these metaphors (41.67% of all difficult
circumstances metaphor cartoons, n=20) were used in cartoons with issue frames
related to economic issues. A chi-square goodness-of-fit test indicates that the overall
139

distribution of metaphors varies statistically significantly (x2=118.71, p<.001, df=194).

The prominence of difficult circumstances metaphors likely reflects the difficult issue
matrix Obama had to deal with, such as the struggling Detroit automakers, the financial
rescue package, the debate over health care reform, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,
and the weakening economy. No statistically significant relationship was found
between metaphors and Obamas political title (x2=14.56, p=..69, df=194), indicating
that cartoonists were not apt to favor one type of metaphor over another at different
stages of Obamas campaign and presidency.
6.1.14 Exemplars

George W. Bush

20

Bill Clinton

11

other former president/politician

21

civil rights icon

11

historical event

world leader/foreign government

celebrity

other exemplar

10
15
frequency

20

25

Figure 6.19 Distribution of exemplars as framing devices

Exemplars were used as framing devices in 16.33% of cartoons (n=81). The
overwhelming majority of these exemplars were used in cartoons that also had thematic
140

frames (82.72%, n=80). A broad distribution of leaders and icons served as the sources
of these exemplars (see Figure 6.19). The three most common were a former president
or politician other than Bill Clinton (26.58% of all exemplars, n=21), George W. Bush
(25.32%, n=20), and a civil rights icon or Bill Clinton (13.92%, n=11 for each). A chisquare goodness-of-fit test indicates that the overall distribution of exemplars varies
significantly (x2=39.58, p<.001, df=80). The presence of Bush exemplars throughout
Obamas campaign and presidency Bush likely stem from the fact that his presidency
immediately preceded Obamas and provides a natural point of contrast or context. As
a result, Obama has to manage the issues that Bush created or left unresolved, such as
the financial bailouts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. When analyzing these
cartoons, there were several references to congressmen and other political figures who
had endorsed Obama during the campaign, such as Senator Ted Kennedy and former
Secretary of State Colin Powell. The popularity of civil rights icons stems from many
historical references to Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King at the time of Obamas
election and inauguration. The prevalence of cartoons pertaining to civil rights icons is
consistent with existing political cartoon literature on Barack Obama and race (Conners,
2010).
A statistically significant relationship was also found between exemplars and
Obamas political title (x2=34.60, p=.03, df=80). Bill Clinton, for example, was used as an
exemplar in 15 cartoons, but 12 of these were during Obamas presidential campaign.
This is likely a reflection of Obamas contested fight against Hillary Clinton and the
political attacks Bill Clinton made against him.
141

6.1.15 Depictions

competitive event

22

literary/cultural setting

12

private home

35

military/law enforcement setting

13

academic/research setting

16

job setting

14

White House or federal office

50

political event

68

on the street

31

outdoors/wilderness area

55

other setting

26

10

20

30
40
frequency

50

60

70

Figure 6.20 Distribution of depictions as framing devices

Depictions were used as framing devices in 68.75% of cartoons (n=341, see
Figure 6.20). The most common depictions were a campaign or political event (19.88%,
n=68), outdoors or in a wilderness area (16.08%, n=55), and in the White House or some
other federal building (14.62%, n=50). A chi-square goodness-of-fit test indicates that
the overall distribution of depictions varied statistically significantly (x2=116.65, p<.001,
df=340). As a politician, perhaps it is not surprising that the plurality of depictions were
of Obama at some political event. Even though politicians may shun the label of
politician, political cartoonists may be more inclined to use political events as
depictions to remind audiences of a politicians identity as a politician. Due to low

142

frequency data, movie/television show and church/religious setting were combined

with literary/cultural setting.
6.1.16 Object Placement

above Obama

below Obama

next to Obama

95

in front of/facing Obama

87

behind/in background of Obama

32

around/surrounding Obama

62

other spatial relationship

86

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
frequency

Figure 6.21 Distribution of object placements as framing devices

The placement of objects in relation to Obama was used as a framing device in
75.60% of cartoons (n=375, see Figure 6.21). The three most common spatial
arrangements were next to Obama (25.27% of all cartoons with this framing device,
n=95), opposite or facing Obama (23.14%, n=87), and some spatial arrangement that
does not include Obama directly (22.87%, n=86). Due to low frequency data, inside
Obama and mirror image of Obama were combined with other spatial relationship.
A chi-square goodness-of-fit test indicates that the overall distribution of object
placement varies statistically significantly (x2=163.11, p<.001, df=374). The prevalence
143

of these spatial arrangements suggests that cartoonists tended to place items next to
Obama, perhaps as a type of comparison, or in front of or facing Obama, perhaps to
suggest a confrontation.
It was also common to see cartoons incorporating the placement of objects as a
framing device, but not in direct relation to Obama. An example of this would be a
cartoon with a baby bird that representing Obamas economic plans, a hungry cat
representing congressional opposition, and text asking which animal had the greater
chance of survival. While this cartoon would be about the difficulties Obama has to deal
with getting his agenda passed, the two central elements of the cartoon are the baby
bird (Obamas economic plans) and the cat (congressional opposition). The two animals
have a spatial relationship with each other, but not with Obama directly. This shows
how cartoonists could use object placement as a framing device independently of
Obamas presence in a panel.
6.1.17 Relative Object Size
Drawing objects of different sizes in relation to Obama as a framing device was
used in 12.10% of cartoons (n=60). Of these, 58.33% (n=35) included an object that was
larger in relation to Obama (see Table 6.4). Weak intercoder reliability data limit the
strength of the conclusions that can be drawn from these data. This is likely attributable
to the fact that many cartoons contained multiple images of different relative sizes.
When a cartoon contained multiple objects of different sizes, the primary coder was
instructed to code the most prominent object. This could lead to a bias in favor of
coding the larger item even though the smaller item may be the more prominent one.
144

Table 6.5 Distribution of relative object sizes as framing devices

Size relationship
Obama is larger
Obama is smaller
Size relationship independent of Obama
Total

n (%)
22 (36.67%)
35 (58.33%)
3 (5.00%)
60 (12.10%)

That this framing device was most likely to be used to portray Obama as smaller
than another object suggests how powerless cartoonists saw Obama in the face of
difficult political issues, such as the economy and war. It could also suggest that even if
cartoonists saw Obama as powerful, they saw the issues he had to contend with as even
more powerful. Analyzing this framing device with candidate frames and issue frames
reveals that relative object size was most likely to be used in cartoons incorporating the
economy issue frame (n=19) and cartoons with setback frames in general (n=59).
6.2 RESULTS OF HYPOTHESES TESTING
6.2.1. Research Question
The lone research question in this dissertation sought to examine the extent to
which cartoonists use of success frames corresponded with Obamas approval rating in
the Gallup poll. The aim was to put the portrayals of the president into a broader
context. To answer this, the monthly average percentage of cartoons containing
success frames was compared with the monthly average Gallup poll approval rating.
This monthly average of success frames would indicate the cartoonists approval
rating for Obama. For example, a monthly average success frame rating of .60 would
indicate that 60% of the cartoons for a given month are favorable, corresponding to a
60% approval rating from the cartoonists and a 40% disapproval rating. This
145

average proportion of success frames and setback frames was compared to the average
monthly Gallup approval and disapproval rating using a simple logistic regression
analysis. This procedure was adapted from Buell and Mauss (1988) Index of Hard
Knocks that was used to measure the overall levels of criticism cartoonists leveled

40
30
20
10
0
20
09
Fe
b
20
09
M
ar
20
09
Ap
r2
00
9
M
ay
20
09
Ju
n
20
09
Ju
l2
00
9
Au
g
20
09
Se
p
20
09
O
ct
20
09
N
ov
20
09
D
ec
20
09
Ja
n
20
10

Ja
n

percentage

50

60

70

against political candidates in their study.

month and year

average % approval in Gallup poll
average % of cartoons with dominant success frames

Figure 6.22 Monthly average approval and success frame percentage

Simple logistical regression analysis shows that there is no statistically significant
relationship between trends in Obamas monthly approval rating and cartoonists use of
success frames (z=.65, p=.51; see Figure 6.22). Obamas approval rating in the Gallup
poll seemed to have no correlation with cartoonists likelihood to use success frames to
characterize him. Although these data suggest that cartoonists are much more critical
of Obama than the general public, wide fluctuations in the monthly percentage of
146

cartoons containing success frames, such as a 24% drop from February to March 2009,
show how little public opinion matches the opinion of the political cartoonists whose
work was examined in this dissertation. That the highest monthly approval rating
among cartoonists was in October 2009, which was well after the Obama honeymoon
period ended, further illustrates the lack of correlation between the cartoonists
opinions and the publics opinions of Obama.
These data are not intended to suggest that cartoonists influence public opinion
of Obama or that public opinion polls influence cartoonists likelihood of using one type
of candidate frame more than another. Public opinion poll ratings also cannot be
equated with the percentage of success frames a cartoonist uses as operationalized in
this dissertation because while public opinion poll ratings of a president may be based
on all factors a poll respondent takes into account, such as the presidents economic
stewardship or the ability to protect the United States from acts of terrorism, political
cartoonists often focus on one issue at a time in a cartoon, often in a critical or
lampooning manner. The critical nature of cartoons alone would seem to make them
inherently unfavorable to a politician. Additionally, because this dissertation did not
distinguish between cartoons that only had setback frames and those that had
dominant setback frames with less dominant success frames also present, the average
monthly percentage of success frame cartoons may not accurately reflect how favorable
cartoons of Obama are in the context of cartoonists approval of him. The
relationship between public opinion polls and cartoonists portrayals of Obama or any

147

president is a line of inquiry that warrants further investigation, but a more accurate
means of measuring this must be developed. This is addressed further in Chapter 7.
6.2.2. Hypotheses 1 and 2
Hypotheses 1 and 2, respectively, posit that strategy frames are more likely to be
used during Obamas campaign while issue frames are more likely to be used during his
presidency. After removing cartoons from Obamas president-elect period (because he
was not president even though the campaign had ended; these cartoons were
subsequently coded as missing) and consolidating cartoons from the new president
and post-honeymoon periods, a chi-square test was used to test for significance. The
chi-square analysis reveals that strategy frames were significantly more likely to be used
by cartoonists during his campaign while issue frames were significantly more likely to
be used during his presidency (x2=141.55, p<.001, df=440). These data strongly support
H1 and H2.

148

30

presidential candidate

163

25

president-elect

30

58

new president

20

122

post-100 days president

48

20

40

issue frame

60

80 100 120
frequency

140

160

180

strategy frame

Figure 6.23 Distribution of topic frames by Obamas political title

Overall, the majority of the political cartoons analyzed employed a strategy
frame (52.62% of the sample, n=261), and 62.45% of these cartoons were published
during Obamas presidential campaign (n=163). Cartoons primarily containing issue
frames constituted 47.38% of the sample (n=235), with 51.91% of these (n=122) being
published after Obamas first 100 days in office (see Figure 6.23). A chi-square
goodness-of-fit test shows that neither type of topic frame was significantly more likely
to be used than the other (x2=1.36, p=.243, df=495) independent of Obamas political
title.
6.2.3. Hypotheses 3 through 6
Hypotheses 3 through 6 address context frames in the context of rhetorical
themes. Episodic frames are expected to predominate in cartoons with political
149

commonplaces (H3), thematic frames in popular caricatures (H4), thematic frames in

literary and cultural allusions (H5), and episodic frames in transient situations (H6). Chisquare goodness-of-fit tests were used to test these hypotheses.
Examining the distribution of context frames by rhetorical themes (see Table 6.6)
reveals that thematic frames were more than twice as likely as episodic frames to be
used in political cartoons based on political commonplaces, a statistically significant
difference (x2=68.58, p=.001, df=396), but not one that supports H3. These results
suggest that political cartoonists are more likely to analyze general political news in a
broader context or as part of a pattern. For example, a falling stock market is not likely
to be seen as an independent or isolated incident, but rather as a result of a politicians
policies or as the latest in a series of bad news events. This may make it easier for
cartoonists to assign responsibility to certain politicians for news developments.
No statistically significant difference was found between thematic frames and
episodic frames for political cartoons based on popular caricatures of candidates
(x2=2.33, p=.13, df=20; see Table 6.6), thus not supporting H4. This may suggest that
cartoonists were not significantly more likely to use Obamas personal traits as a way of
understanding the attribution of news events.
Thematic frames were statistically significantly more likely than episodic frames
to be used in cartoons based on literary or cultural allusions (x2=9.85, p=.002, df=25),
thus supporting H5. This suggests that literary and cultural elements, such as historical
events, movies and books, contain cues that help provide a particular context for
political news because they are based on symbols that audiences can recognize.
150

Episodic frames were statistically significantly more likely than thematic frames
to be used in cartoons based on transient events (x2=6.23, p=.01, df=51; see Table 6.6),
which strongly supports H6. This suggests that the lack of context or precedent
associated with unexpected or random news events leads cartoonists to be less likely to
analyze the events using context frames that are based on a familiar pattern or theme.
The lack of context and the randomness of the news event may combine to make these
types of political cartoons the most difficult for audiences to understand.
Table 6.6 Distribution of context frames by rhetorical theme
Rhetorical theme
Political commonplace
Caricature of candidate
Literary/cultural
allusion
Transient situation

Thematic
frame
281
14

Episodic
frame
116
7

21
17

Total

x2

397
21

x2=68.58, p=.001, df=396

x2=2.33, p=.13, df=20

26

x2=9.85, p=.002, df=25

35

52

x2=6.23, p=.01, df=51

6.2.4. Hypotheses 7
Hypothesis 7 posited that episodic frames were more likely than thematic frames
to be used in cartoons of Obama overall. To test this, a chi-square goodness-of-fit test
was used to measure the distribution of context frames and found a significant
difference (x2=58.27, p<.001, df=495). Results showed that cartoonists were more than
twice as likely to use thematic frames as episodic frames in their cartoons of Obama
(see Figure 6.24). More than two-thirds (67.14%) of all cartoons employed thematic
frames (n=333), compared to 32.86% (n=163) with episodic frames. While these data
are statistically significant, they do not support H7. It appears that cartoonists are more
inclined to use thematic frames to provide added context in their cartoons.
151

147

presidential candidate

46

42

president-elect

13

48

new president

30

96

post-100 days president

74

20

40

thematic frame

60

80
100
frequency

120

140

160

episodic frame

Figure 6.24 Distribution of context frames by Obamas political title

These data suggest that cartoonists had a proclivity to analyze Obama in the
context of his own actions, those of another person of political importance, or a general
state of affairs rather than in the context of isolated or independent events despite the
fluid nature of politics and political campaigns and the frequency with which isolated or
unexpected events may happen. These data also suggest that cartoonists may rely on
thematic frames more heavily because they facilitate audience understanding and show
how Obama or other newsmakers are related to news events that may occur.
6.2.5. Hypotheses 8 through 11
Hypotheses 8 through 11 focus on the relationship between context frames and
candidate frames. The premise is that liberal cartoonists are more likely to use thematic
frames in cartoons that incorporate success frames (H8) and episodic frames in cartoons
152

with setback frames (H9). Hypotheses 10 and 11 posit that conservatives are more
likely to use episodic frames in cartoons with success frames (H10) and thematic frames
in cartoons with setback frames (H11). Put another way, liberals will try to portray
Obamas success as part of a pattern and his failures as independent incidents while
conservatives will try to portray Obamas successes as independent incidents and his
failures as part of a pattern.
These four hypotheses measure three variables simultaneously: candidate
frames, context frames and the cartoonists ideology. In order to address these
hypotheses, the cartoonist ideology and candidate frame variables had to be paired to
create four new subsamples: conservative success, conservative setback, liberal success
and liberal setback. The context frame variable was divided into two variables based on
ideology: conservative context frames and liberal context frames. The four subsamples
were then measured against the two new context frame groups using a chi square
analysis (see Figure 6.25).

153

success frame
setback frame

53

conservative

27
54

liberal

28

159

conservative

81
67

liberal

27

20

40

60

thematic frame

80
100
frequency

120

140

160

episodic frame

Figure 6.25 Distribution of candidate frames by ideology and context frame

A chi square analysis shows no statistically significant difference between
conservative cartoonists use of thematic and episodic frames for all candidate frames
(x2=0, df=319, p=1.00). For success and setback cartoons, conservatives favored
thematic frames by the same nearly two-to-one ratio. Additionally, no statistically
significant relationship was found for liberal cartoonists (x2=.60, p=.44, df=175) and
context frames. These data reveal that even though thematic frames were more likely
to be used by conservative and liberal cartoonists for all cartoons, the presence of a
success or setback frame did not significantly influence the cartoonists likelihood to use
thematic or episodic frames. Liberal cartoonists were not significantly more inclined to
portray Obamas successes as part of a pattern than as independent events, nor were

154

conservative cartoonists more likely to portray Obamas setbacks as part of a pattern

than as independent events. Thus, Hypotheses 8 through 11 were not supported.
6.2.6. Hypotheses 12 and 13
Hypotheses 12 and 13 focus on which candidate frames cartoonists of both
ideologies are more likely to use to portray Obama. The two hypotheses posit that
conservatives are more likely to use setback frames than liberals (H12) and liberals are
more likely to use success frames than conservatives (H13). To address these
hypotheses, a chi-square test was used in a tabulation of candidate frames and the

success frame

cartoonist ideology.

80

setback frame

82

240

94

20

40

60

80

100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260

frequency
conservative

liberal

Figure 6.26 Distribution of candidate frames by ideological leaning

Compared to success frames, setback frames were more than twice as likely to
be employed by political cartoonists overall in their cartoons of Obama, a statistically
155

significant difference (x2=59.65, p<.001, df=495; see Figure 6.26). Setback frames
accounted for 67.34% of the cartoons (n=334) while success frames accounted for
32.66% (n=162). Analyzing candidate frames by ideology reveals that conservative
cartoonists were statistically significantly more likely than liberal cartoonists to portray
Obama using setback frames (x2=24.07, p<.001, df=495). Likewise, liberal cartoonists
were statistically significantly more likely than conservative cartoonists to portray
Obama using success frames, even though setback frames still constituted the majority
of their cartoons. These data strongly support H12 and H13.

200

336

150

333

100

233
163

163

160

50

frequency

250

300

350

Frame Summary

issue frames (topic)

thematic frames (context)
success frames (candidate)

strategy frames (topic)

episodic frames (context)
setback frames (candidate)

Figure 6.27 Distribution of first-order frames

156

Figure 6.27 shows the distribution of the three types of first-order frames. Chisquare goodness-of-fit tests indicate statistically significant differences in the
distribution for two of the three first-order frame types: thematic frames are more
likely to be used than episodic frames (x2=58.27, p<.001, df=495) and setback frames are
more likely to be used than success frames (x2=59.65, p<.001, df=495). No statistically
significant difference was found in the prevalence of issue frames or strategy frames
(x2=1.36, p<.24, df=495). These findings suggest that the typical political cartoon of
Obama portrays him and the events he confronts as part of a broader narrative and is
likely critical of him. The typical cartoons subject matter is not more statistically
significantly more likely to be about either policy or politicking.

issue thematic success

24

issue thematic setback

125

issue episodic success

19

issue episodic setback

67

strategy thematic success

83

strategy thematic setback

101

strategy episodic success

36

strategy episodic setback

41

20

40

60
80
frequency

100

120

Figure 6.28 Distribution of cartoons by first-order frame combination

157

140

Figure 6.28 shows the distribution of all possible first-order frame combinations.
The most common political cartoon contained issue, thematic and setback frames
(25.20% of all cartoons, n=125) while the least common cartoon contained issue,
episodic and success frames (3.83%, n=19). A chi-square goodness-of-fit test shows
significant differences in the distribution of the eight possible frame combinations
(x2=167.19, p<.001, df=495). These data suggest that even though first-order frames
may theoretically be combined in multiple ways, certain frames are not likely to be
paired by cartoonists in practice because these frame combinations may not match the
news events the cartoonists cover in their work.
Table 6.7 Summary of hypotheses testing
Research Question 1
No relationship
Hypothesis 1
Supported
Hypothesis 2
Supported
Hypothesis 3
Not supported*
Hypothesis 4
Not supported
Hypothesis 5
Supported
Hypothesis 6
Supported
Hypothesis 7
Not supported*
Hypothesis 8
Not supported
Hypothesis 9
Not supported
Hypothesis 10
Not supported
Hypothesis 11
Not supported
Hypothesis 12
Supported
Hypothesis 13
Supported
*=indicates that statistically significant data were found even though the data did not
support the original hypothesis

158

CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSION
7.1 RECAPPING PURPOSE OF STUDY
This dissertation serves several purposes. First of all, it expands the body of
literature on a subject that has received scant attention from researchers. Despite
political cartoons ability to communicate complex political messages in succinct,
humorous, and sometimes emotionally powerful ways, political cartoon research is
underrepresented. This lack of representation may result from limited appreciation of
political cartoons as political messages that are consumed by mass audiences or a lack
of awareness of how complex the messages contained within political cartoons are.
Secondly, this dissertation refines the work of Medhurst and DeSousa (1981), the
most frequently cited political cartoon study. In addition to modernizing their
classification system by applying it to the age of the Internet, it also simplifies their
classification system by revealing elements that may be too difficult to reliably test (such
as catchphrases) or too difficult to operationalize (such as visual imagery in a type of
message that almost always consists of visual images)
This dissertation also bridges the gap between frames and themes by equating
them in the context of political cartoons. What Buell and Maus (1988) identified as
success themes, for example, were reclassified as success frames because they both

159

suggest how communicators (in this case, political cartoonists) wished for their
messages to be interpreted by audiences. By equating themes with frames, this
dissertation reveals at least some degree of overlap between the frames that
characterize mass communication and political science and the themes that characterize
speech and rhetorical analysis.
Fourth, this dissertation advances the academic literature in that it shows how
political frames are significantly more likely than personal frames to be used by political
cartoonists. This dissertation found that the number of political cartoons containing
personal success and personal setback frames were greatly outnumbered by the
number of cartoons containing political success and political setback frames. This
refines the work of Buell and Maus (1988) by illustrating that political cartoonists might
not distinguish between personal and political issues and that it may be too difficult for
cartoonists to analyze personal issues in anything other than a political context. This
finding could also be applied to broader political research, not just political cartoon
research, that examines political news stories that may have a personal component.
This dissertation also proposed a criticism scale that allows researchers to
quantify how likely a cartoonists work is to be critical of a politician. This scale found
two baselines to indicate how cartoonists who are likely ideologically opposed to a
politician and cartoonists who are likely ideologically similar to a politician treat the
politician in their work.
This dissertation found that a criticism score of .25 seemed to accurately
measure the level of conservative cartoonists criticism of Obama, indicating that about
160

only one out of every four conservative cartoons of Obama contains an overarching
success frame. Interestingly, this dissertation also found that the corresponding
criticism score for liberal cartoonists was approximately .47, indicating that
approximately slightly fewer than half of liberal cartoonists cartoons contained
dominant success frames.
The .47 criticism score could reflect liberal dissatisfaction with Obamas policies
or reflect the inherent critical or unflattering nature of political cartoons in general even
if the cartoon is about a politician whom the cartoonist supports. If this criticism scale
has predictive value, the criticism score for conservative cartoons of a conservative
president may also be closer to .47 than .25 while the corresponding score for liberal
cartoons may be closer to .25 than .47. If confirmed by future research, this scale could
be a reliable way to analyze cartoonists proclivity to criticize a politician using setback
frames in their work. This would be a contribution of this dissertation to the research
literature on framing analysis.
However, caution must be taken regarding adopting this scale. Just because a
cartoon contains an overarching success frame does not necessarily mean less dominant
setback frames are absent. When analyzing the overarching frame of a political cartoon
using this scale, a cartoon that is marginally more favorable than critical is coded the
same as a cartoon that is entirely favorable. Giving cartoons a criticism score that
includes values other than 0 and 1, such as .25, .50 and .75, may solve this problem, but
it introduces new difficulties stemming from reliably coding cartoons that, for example,
are only slightly critical (.75) or moderately critical (.50).
161

The issue of less dominant success frames in the presence of a dominant setback
overarching frame may also limit the utility of comparing the percentage of cartoons
containing dominant success frames with Obamas approval rating in the Gallup poll.
These dominant and less dominant success frames and setback frames may also be a
result of the influence of time on public opinion as well as on cartoonists disposition to
use dominant success or dominant setback frames. When evaluating a politician, a poll
respondent (or a cartoonist) might not simply consider how the politician is doing at one
point in time, but rather evaluating the entire body of achievements the politician has
accomplished. The passage of time makes more information available to voters and
cartoonists and gives them a greater body of information from which to make an
evaluative judgment of a politicians approval. This new information can intensify a poll
respondents feelings or change the direction of these feelings (Sayrs, 1989). The
prevalence of thematic frames that was observed in this dissertation supports the idea
that the success and setback frames political cartoonists use in their work are often
based on thematic elements, such as a politicians prior statements and behaviors, a
campaign narrative based on audience perceptions, or some historical context. These
same influences likely affect public opinion as well. Future research on the relationship
between public opinion and political cartoon evaluations should account for these timebased effects on how favorably cartoonists portray and how favorably voters evaluate a
politician or political candidate.

162

7.2 CONTRIBUTIONS OF STUDY TO FRAMING THEORY: THE REVISED MODEL

This dissertation focuses exclusively on media frames and identifies new types of
frames that are unique to political cartoons. These new frames are represented by a
proposed model of the framing process in political cartoons (see Figure 7.1). Three
levels of frames are proposed: first-order frames, second-order frames, and overarching
frames.

First-order
frames

Second-order
frames
Issue frame

Topic frame

Dominant
second-order
frames

Overarching
frames
(Evaluative media
frames)

Dominant
topic frame

Success frame

Dominant
context frame

Setback frame

Strategy frame
Thematic
frame
Context frame
Episodic frame

Figure 7.1 Revised proposed classification of frames in political cartoons

There are two first-order frames: topic frames and context frames. All political
cartoons contain these two first-order frames because every cartoon contains a
message about some topic that is presented in some context. Topic frames identify
what a political cartoon is about. Context frames identify how this content should be
understood in relation to other news. Candidate frames were proposed as a third firstorder frame in the original model, but after analyzing the data and finding how few
cartoons there were that were characterized by personal frames (compared to political
163

frames), candidate frames as separate frames were dropped from the model. The two
dominant overarching frames based on politics were then renamed as success frames
and setback frames to account for all types of positive and negative cartoons, regardless
of their focus, even though the majority of them likely contain a political focus rather
than a personal one.
Each first-order frametopic frames and context framesconsists of two
second-order frames. The topic frames second-order frames are issue and strategy
frames. These two second-order frames distinguish between two types of political
news: news about policy issues and news about politicking. The data suggest that
political cartoonists are significantly more likely to use strategy frames of Obama during
his campaign and significantly more likely to use issue frames during his presidency.
These findings suggest that the primary focus of political cartoons changes with the
political season. In this regard, political cartoonists may accurately reflect the behavior
of the politicians they cover as they alternate between campaigning and governing.
The context frames second-order frames are thematic and episodic frames.
These two second-order frames distinguish between independent news events and
news that reflects a broader news context. The data suggest that political cartoonists
do not tend to portray news as independent or isolated events, but rather as part of a
narrative or broader context. Even though a political cartoon may focus on seemingly
unrelated political issues each day, these issues are more likely to reflect a pattern of
political behavior or societal trends than they are to appear as a collection of
independent news events.
164

None of the four second-order frames is necessarily mutually exclusive. A

political cartoon may contain both issue and strategy frames or both thematic and
episodic frames. However, one second-order frame from each pair will tend to be
dominant, resulting in two dominant second-order frames that characterize the most
salient topic and context frames.
Overarching frames are the singular frames that characterize the overall frame
of a political cartoon. These frames are the evaluative media frames that are presented
to audiences. Each cartoon has only one overarching frame. This frame is either a
success frame or a setback frame. Success frames are favorable or neutral towards the
politician covered in the cartoon. Setback frames are critical of the politician covered in
the cartoon. This dissertation counted both favorable and neutral cartoons as cartoons
containing success frames because given how critical political cartoons typically are of
politicians, receiving neutral treatment from a cartoonist is comparable to a victory in
that the politician escaped political damage.
The most theoretical significance of this study is that it proposed and tested a
model of the frame-building process in political cartooning. Prior research examined
themes (frames), campaign narratives, or candidate representations in isolation, but not
in their totality as this research did. This dissertation provides a comprehensive model
that integrates the findings of previous framing and political cartoon research. This
model also introduces new concepts to describe new configuration of frames. After
analyzing the data, this frame-building model has been revised to reflect findings in the

165

dissertation (see Figure 7.2). A discussion of the revised model follows. (See Figure 4.2
on page 73 for the original model.)

Influences on media
frames
cultural resonances
media practices
sponsor activities
Selection of framing
devices
metaphors
relative object size
spatial arrangement
of objects
exemplars
setting

Selection of first-order
topic frame

Overarching
frame
(Evaluative
media frame)

issue frame
strategy frame

Selection of rhetorical
theme
Selection of firstorder context frame

political
commonplaces
popular caricatures
literary/cultural
allusion
transient situations

thematic frame
episodic frame

Figure 7.2 Revised proposed model of frame-building process in political cartoons

This six-step model integrates framing influences, first- and second-order frames,
rhetorical themes and framing devices into an original model that describes the process
leading to the creation of overarching or evaluative media frames in political cartoons.
The absence of arrows indicates there is no causal or temporal relationship among the
steps. Although the discussion that follows presents the steps in a sequential order, all
166

steps in this model are flexible in that a cartoonist can address each step at a different
part of the process. This model has no set order of steps, and each step is capable of
influencing other steps. The interactions of these steps form the components of a
political cartoons overarching frame, though a cartoonist may begin drawing a cartoon
with this overarching frame already in mind.
The first stage identifies three influences on political cartoonists before they
even draw a cartoon panel. These three influences are cultural resonances, media
practices and sponsor activities. Cartoonists must ensure that the symbols they use in
their work and the subjects they cover are accessible to their audiences. Thus,
cartoonists choose ideas, images, symbols, and representations already in the social or
political culture and already having a shared meaning in the audience. For example,
muscles represent strength and shortness represents weakness. If audiences cannot
understand a cartoons images or references, the message the cartoonist is trying to
convey might be lost. Personal experiences and political ideologies also affect
cartoonists because they may predispose cartoonists to certain worldviews and belief
systems. This is not improper because political cartoonists are not expected to be
objective. The influence of these belief systems is often apparent in cartoons. The
physical constraints of political cartoons also restrict the amount of information (text
and images) that can be placed within a panel. Finally, cartoonists may also have to
adhere to certain editorial standards that may restrict their choices of topics or the
framing devices, such as metaphors, they may wish to use to communicate these
messages. These influences begin the shaping of frames.
167

Guided by these influences, cartoonists select a topic frame, which is either an

issue frame or a strategy frame. (Topic frames are addressed at the beginning of
Section 7.2.) In short, cartoonists decide what to write and draw about guided by the
influences discussed. After selecting a political topic, cartoonists choose one of four
rhetorical themes as a lens through which the topic frame can be expressed. A cartoon
may contain more than one rhetorical theme, but one theme will tend to predominate.
The four rhetorical themes are political commonplaces, popular caricatures,
literary/cultural allusions, and transient events. Most political cartoons use the political
commonplace rhetorical theme, which typically shows a politician in a blank panel or in
a setting that offers no parallels to movies, culture or historical events. Such cartoons
also do not use a politicians caricatures as their focus, nor are they based on random,
high-context news events.
The next step of the revised framing model consists of selecting a context frame.
After selecting a topic and the rhetorical theme through which the topic is presented,
cartoonists must select a context frame that portrays the political news as an
independent event or as part of a broader context or narrative. Context frames were
addressed in greater detail earlier in this section.
The messages of political cartoons are then augmented by five types of framing
devices. These framing devices are primarily graphical, and not every cartoon contains
them. The five framing devices include metaphors, exemplars, settings (formerly
termed depictions), the spatial arrangement of objects (formerly termed object
placement), and the relative sizes of objects. Metaphors allow cartoonists to express
168

abstract concepts visually. Exemplars use past events and past political figures to
provide information about the present. Settings may add to the mood of a cartoon by
reinforcing other images and text within a panel. (The term setting seems more
suitable than depiction, which was used in the original model, because setting
clearly refers to a scene or environment. Depiction could refer to the environment as
well, but it could introduce confusion because it could also refer to ones appearance.)
The spatial arrangement of objects shows the relationship between different images
and the possible consequences of these relationships. (The term spatial arrangement
of objects seems more precise than object placement, which was used in the original
model, because spatial arrangement clearly refers to how objects are placed in
relation to each other. Object placement may invite confusion because it could
suggest that it entails the mere presence of an object within a panel.) Finally, relative
object size provides a visual way to compare the size, value or importance of multiple
objects. This particular framing device needs to be further explored because of the
limited reliability data that characterized it in this dissertation (see Section 7.3). It is
certainly an important framing device, but measuring it proved to be imprecise in the
present study.
The totality of these first-order frames, rhetorical themes and framing devices
results in an overarching frame that serves as the evaluative media frame. The
overarching frame suggests the core message of a political cartoon and is either positive
or negative, that is, it is either a success frame or a setback frame. Overarching frames
were discussed earlier in this section.
169

This model is significant because it introduces new concepts to help clarify the
different types of media frames in political cartoons and other forms of political
messages. New concepts, particularly first-order frames, second-order frames,
topic frames, context frames, and overarching frames, provides a simple way of
conceptualizing a frames scope and content. As stated earlier in this chapter, all
political cartoons, and perhaps political messages in general, contain the two proposed
first-order framestopic frames and context framesbecause political cartoons must
contain a message about a particular topic that is portrayed in a particular context.
Second-order frames identify the topic and context of a cartoon more specifically. So
while first-order frames may comprise the primary elements of a political cartoons
message, the cartoons overarching frames are derived from the combination of the
second-order frames and framing devices the cartoons contain. Given the various
definitions of frames and framing that characterize framing research, this terminology
may help clarify some of the inconsistencies in the literature as well as provide a
standard definition of the components of political messages from a framing standpoint.
Framing research on political messages also often focuses on one dimension of framing,
such as whether a story is portrayed using a specific context frame or a specific
overarching frame. The proposed model in this dissertation potentially allows future
researchers to more easily classify existing framing research based on the types of
frames the research analyzes.
This model could also be considered a process model of frame building in
political cartoons. It shows how the overarching frame of a political cartoon is created
170

or built from a combination of more narrowly tailored second-order frames and framing
devices. Interpreting this model as one of frame building implies that political cartoons
have only one framean overarching frame. The constituent first-order frames would
then be akin to first-order themes that address what certain primary elements of a
cartoon are about (what the cartoons topic and context are) without telling the
audience how to think about it.
For example, the overarching frame of one political cartoon might be that
compared to previous Democratic presidents, Obamas foreign policy has proven highly
effective. The first-order frames are merely the basic components of this message
that the message is about something that is also presented in some sort of context. The
second-order frames of this message have more descriptive value. One is the issue
frame of Obama being successful with foreign policy, and the other is the thematic
frame of Obama being more effective dealing with a political issue than his Democratic
predecessors. Both of these second-order frames suggest how an audience should think
about Obamain this case, they should think about Obama favorably regarding foreign
policy, and they should think about him favorably in relation to other Democrats. This
means of analysis shows that the political cartoon has three frames, with the
overarching frame being more descriptive and more encompassing than the two
second-order frames.
When analyzing the same overarching frame by using themes instead of frames,
the second-order themes would indicate that the cartoon is about foreign policy (an
issue theme) and that the cartoon analyzes Obama in the context of other Democrats
171

(a thematic theme). These two themes would interact with the various framing
devices in the cartoon to create an overarching frame that serves as the cartoons only
frame. In short, second-order themes are objective ways to identify the basic content
dimensions of a political message and make no suggestions regarding the value
judgments an audience should ascribe to these dimensions. Second-order frames, on
the other hand, cast evaluative judgments on the basic content dimensions of a political
message. Themes identify and describe; frames evaluate and suggest. This distinction
between frames and themes is another contribution of this dissertation to the academic
literature.
This dissertation also contributes to the literature on agenda setting. The
confirmation of Hypotheses 1 and 2 supports the idea that political cartoonists are more
likely to focus on the competitive aspects of politics during a presidential campaign
before shifting to more serious and substantive aspects of politics after a president is
inaugurated. This suggests that during a campaign, political cartoonists may view the
strategic and competitive aspects of politics as more important or more interesting for
their audiences than detailed policy issues. It could also suggest the cartoonists are
merely communicating to their audiences what the majority of the candidates political
activities focus on during a campaign.
That issue frames predominate after an election suggests that cartoonists may
play an important role in informing the public on the major policy issues of the day.
While the competitive side of politics will always exist, the confirmation of Hypothesis 2
in this dissertation shows that cartoonists may be willing to put that aside for the sake
172

of addressing substantive issues that may arise during the course of governance. In this
vein, cartoonists may play an important role in informing the public or increasing the
publics awareness of a major policy issue.
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the debate over sweeping health care
legislation, and concerns over the United States and global economy dominated the
news in 2008 and 2009. These three stories also constituted the three most popular
issue frames found in this dissertation, suggesting that there is considerable overlap
between traditional journalists and political cartoonists regarding what they talk about
or analyze. This suggests that political cartoonists may not merely lampoon a politician
on a given issue, but also engage in agenda setting.
No prior research has examined or found a possible link between political
cartooning and agenda setting, but such a link may indicate how first-order topic frames
contain an agenda-setting component. Since agenda setting suggests that the
importance a communicator ascribes to a message is reflected by how prominently the
message is communicated, the nature of cartoons topic frames, be they issue or
strategy frames, in conjunction with the distribution of these frames, suggests an
agenda-setting function in that it indicates which messages cartoonists may deem most
important for their audiences.
In contrast to what Hypothesis 7 postulated, this dissertation found that
thematic frames were significantly more likely than episodic frames to be used in
political cartoons overall. These data suggest that most cartoons about political news
may create or add to a narrative about a politician or frame a politician in the context of
173

external or societal events. The possible existence of such narratives would further
distinguish political cartoonists from political journalists in that cartoonists are under no
obligation to practice objectivity while most journalists are required to do so. That this
hypothesis was not supported suggests that despite the limited space political cartoons
have in each panel, they are still more likely to provide the context cues that thematic
frames require. This is another contribution to the framing literature in that it shows
the efficiency of visual images in the creation of thematic frames.
Hypotheses 8-11 found no significant relationship between a cartoonists
ideology, the candidate frame of a cartoon, and the context frame used to address it.
Liberal cartoonists were not significantly more likely to minimize Obamas failures by
using episodic frames and conservative cartoonists were not more likely to minimize
Obamas successes by using episodic frames. Similarly, liberal cartoonists were not
more likely to use thematic frames to attribute Obamas successes to part of a broader
narrative just as conservative cartoonists were not significantly more likely to attribute
Obamas failures to part of a broader narrative by using thematic frames. This suggests
that while cartoonists may have their own biases that influence their decisions to use
success or setback frames, they still may not use context frames to excessively
cheerlead successes, pile onto setbacks, diminish successes, or minimize setbacks.
These findings suggest a new avenue for research comparing the context and
overarching frames of partisan political media with those of political cartoons. Should
no significant relationship be found between context and overarching frames in partisan

174

political media as was the case in this dissertation, it could suggest that the perceived
bias of a media organization exceeds the actual bias of the organization.
Despite this level of restraint regarding context frames and overarching frames,
the support shown for Hypotheses 12 and 13 shows that ideology still may be a strong
predictor of how favorably a cartoonist may view a politician. While political cartoonists
tended to view Obama more negatively than favorably overall in this dissertation (based
on the distribution of success frames compared to setback frames), liberals were
significantly more likely than conservatives to view him positively. This could have
implications for cartoonists who publish in newspapers instead of solely on the Internet.
The ideological slant of a cartoonist may match the slant of a newspaper in which the
cartoon appears, supporting the proposed models inclusion of media practices and
sponsor activities as influences on media frames. This slant could also be a source of
friction in the event that the ideology of the cartoonist is inconsistent with that of the
audience that views the cartoon. This possible inconsistency between the cartoonists
messages (media frames) and audience reactions to it (audience frames) may offer a
promising direction for further research.
7.3 DIRECTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY
While this dissertation contributes to the scant literature on political cartoons
and offers an original model that can be used to identify their frames, caution must be
taken when considering its findings. First, because of varying levels of political
knowledge, cultural familiarity, and political ideology, audiences may interpret political
cartoons in multiple ways.

175

These different levels of political knowledge and cultural familiarity may have
affected the two coders in this dissertation and led to poor reliability data for several
variables that were examined. As stated in Chapter 5, two framing devices were not
included for analysis because of difficulty establishing intercoder reliability. The two
excluded framing devices were the presence of catchphrases and the presence of visual
imagery. While the data lost from excluding these variables might have provided richer
data, they illustrate the difficulty of adequately coding such high-context and subjective
media messages as political cartoons.
The result of these differing levels of political familiarity is that one coder may
immediately recognize a political catchphrase in a political cartoon while the phrase has
little resonance with the other and is coded as not present. Coding catchphrases in
political cartoons successfully seems to require all coders to have a strong grasp of
political trivia and news that exceeds a basic knowledge of civics. However, given the
difficulties revealed by the two coders in this dissertation regarding interpreting
catchphrases, perhaps it illustrates the ineffectiveness of catchphrases as framing
devices in general because maybe the only people who can accurately understand them
are the people who follow politics closelya cultural difference.
The inability of the coders to achieve successful agreement on coding visual
images likely results from differing levels of familiarity with political cartoonists artistic
styles. The secondary coder reads political cartoons almost daily and is familiar with the
cartoonists different drawing styles and caricatures. The primary coder may have a
conceptual understanding of political cartoons, but she is less able to discern when a
176

cartoonist is exaggerating a politicians physical features because that is the way he

typically portrays the politician. Generally, the primary coder could not determine when
the cartoonist is using imagery that goes beyond the usual caricature to suggest another
message, or frame. Successfully coding this variable requires all coders to exhibit a high
level of familiarity with the drawing styles of the cartoonists whose work they will
analyze. Defining visual imagery more explicitly and providing more training sessions
may also facilitate the coders ability to understand messages in the cartoons.
It is also possible that visual imagery should not be applied to political cartoons
as separate framing devices because other framing devices listed in the proposed model
of framing already consist of visual imagery and were examined thoroughly in this study.
Metaphors, setting, the spatial arrangement of objects and the relative sizes of objects
all entail visual imagery. Perhaps visual imagery as a framing device is more
applicable to newspaper graphics, photos, and television news stories, which are not
required to have visual images and may include them to augment their messages.
Visual imagery exists in political cartoons, but it may be identified by another framing
device that can be expressed visually.
The difficulties reflected in coding these two variables are similar to the findings
of Bedient and Moore (1985) in their analysis of how students interpreted political
cartoons. They found that students interpretations of the same cartoons often differed
from each other and were often inconsistent with what the cartoonist intended. These
inconsistencies were prevalent regardless of the content of the cartoon. Bedient and
Moore (1985) recommended that political cartoons be discussed and explained prior to
177

analyzing them to ensure that audiences (or coders in the case of this dissertation)
correctly understand a cartoon before discussing or analyzing them. Given the large
sample size used in this dissertation, discussing each cartoon seems impractical. Should
a study similar to the one in this dissertation be replicated, all coders should have
comparable levels of political knowledge.
This dissertation also examined contrast and contradiction, identified as forms of
rhetorical disposition by Medhurst and DeSousas (1981). The dissertation author
believes these forms of rhetorical disposition are perhaps better suited as framing
devices because they could show, for example, how politicians words are inconsistent
with reality as expressed by cartoonists or that some politicians suffer credibility
problems because they contradicted earlier statements they may have made. However,
because no variables in this dissertation examined the nature of the contrasts or
contradictions contained within a cartoon (such as images contradicting text or one
image contrasting with another), future research should try to clarify whether these
forms of rhetorical disposition should be reclassified as framing devices, left as forms of
rhetorical disposition, or ignored altogether.
The lone research question examined in this dissertation is the extent to which
cartoonists use of success frames to characterize Obama mirrored his public approval
rating. While the data revealed no correlation between the two, a larger sample size
might have yielded different results or at least reduced some of the fluctuations in the
percentage of cartoons with dominant success frames observed for each month.

178

This dissertation focused on media frames in political cartoons; future research

should address their corresponding audience frames. Bedient and Moore (1985)
highlighted problems with the inability of audiences to correctly interpret political
cartoons, but the participants in their study were students in middle and high school.
Participants of such young ages might not have the cognizance of world affairs and
history to correctly interpret political cartoons, which frequently contain symbols that
must be recognized in order to accurately process the overall cartoon. Studying
audience frames with more sophisticated audiences might provide a more accurate
representation of how an audiences understanding of a political cartoon corresponds
with a cartoonists intended meaning.
The proposed model of the framing process in political cartoons may also need
to be revised further should future research focus on the influences on media frames.
Future research examining the cartoonists themselves and what they acknowledge as
influences on them may reveal that some of the purported influences in this dissertation
are overstated or that there are other influences this dissertation did not take into
account.
Finally, future research should also consider the effect of time on other
independent variables in this study. The influences of time on evaluations of a politician
were mentioned in Section 7.1, but these influences are not limited to candidate
appraisals. In future research, a multivariate model should examine, for example, how
time affects a cartoonists choice of topic and context frames or how time affects a
cartoonists choice of metaphors.
179

REFERENCES
ABC News (2008, March 11). Ferarro: Obama where he is because hes black.
Retrieved on September 19, 2010, from www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26803840/
Ansolabehere, S., Behr, R., & Iyengar, S. (1991). Mass media and elections: An overview.
American Politics Quarterly, 19 (1), 109-139.
Antos, J., Wilensky, G. & Kuttner, H. (2008). The Obama plan: More regulation,
unsustainable spending. Health Affairs, 27 (6), 462-471.
Association for American Editorial Cartoonists (2010). AAEC Editorial Cartooning
Winners. Retrieved on September 9, 2010, from
www.editorialcartoonists.com/news/awards.cfm
BBC News (1998, December 9). On this day. Retrieved on April 12, 2011, from
hnews.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/21/newsid_2525000/25
25339.stm
Becker, J. (1996). A disappearing enemy: The image of the United States in Soviet
political cartoons. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 73 (3), 609-619.
Bedient, D. & Moore, D. (1985). Student interpretations of political cartoons. Journal of
Visual/Verbal Languaging, 5, 29-35.
Benoit, W., Klyukovski, A., McHale, J., & Airne, D. (2001). A fantasy theme analysis of
political cartoons on the Clinton-Lewinsky-Starr affair. Critical Studies in Media
Communication, 18 (4), 377-394.
Berger, A. & Wildavsky, A. (1995). In Blind Men and Elephants: Perspectives on Humour,
105-118. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Bormann, E., Koester, J., & Bennett, J. (1978). Political cartoons and salient rhetorical
fantasies: An empirical analysis of the 76 presidential campaign.
Communication Monographs, 45, 317-329.
Bostdorff, D. (1987). Making light of James Watt: A Burkean approach to the form and
attitude of political cartoons. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 73, 43-59.
180

Brownstein, R. (2008, April 19). The first 21st century campaign. National Journal.
Buell, E. & Maus, M. (1988). Is the pen mightier than the word? Editorial cartoons and
1988 presidential nominating politics. PS: Political Science and Politics, Fall 1988,
847-858.
Cappella, J. & Jamieson, K. (1996). News frames, political cynicism, and media cynicism.
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 546, 71-84.
Caraley, D. (2009). Three trends over eight presidential elections, 1980-2008: Toward
the emergence of a Democratic majority realignment? Political Science
Quarterly, 124 (3), 423-442.
CBS News (2004, February 24). Bush teams fuzzy math: Questions about Medicare cost,
job creation, and the deficit. Retrieved on September 18, 2010, from
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/24/politics/main601960.shtml
CBS News (2004, May 24). Poll: Iraq taking toll on Bush. Retrieved on September 13,
2010, from
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/24/opinion/polls/main619122.shtml
CBS News (2004, September 29). Kerrys top ten flip-flops. Retrieved on April 10, 2011,
from www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/29/politics/main646435.shtml
Chong, D. & Druckman, J. (2007). A theory of framing and opinion formation in
competitive elite environments. Journal of Communication, 57 (1), 99-118.
CNN (2004, June 25). Poll: Sending troops to Iraq a mistake. CNN.com. Retrieved on
September 13, 2010, from www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/24/poll.iraq/
Coleman, R. & Banning, S. (2006). Network TV news affective framing of the
presidential candidates: Agenda-setting effect through visual framing.
Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 83 (2), 313-328.
Conners, J. (2005). Visual representations of the 2004 presidential campaign: Political
cartoons and popular culture references. American Behavioral Scientist, 49 (3),
479-487.
Conners, J. (2007). Popular culture in political cartoons: Analyzing cartoonist
approaches. PS: Political Science and Politics, 40 (2), 261-265.
Conners, J. (2010). Barack versus Hillary: Race, gender, and political cartoon imagery of
the 2008 presidential primaries. American Behavioral Scientist, 54 (3), 298-312.
181

Cook, C. (2010, October 13). Triage time for Democrats. National Journal. Retrieved on
October 14, 2010, from
www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/po_20101013_5822.php
Cook, R. (2010, November 18). 94 and 10: Similarities, but differences too. University
of Virginia Center for Politics. Retrieved on January 29, 2011, from
www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/FRC2010111801/
Devitt, J. (1997). Framing politicians: The transformation of candidate arguments in
presidential campaign news coverage, 1980, 1988, 1992, and 1996. American
Behavioral Scientist, 22, 1139-1160.
Diamond, M. (2002). No laughing matter: Post-September 11 political cartoons in
Arab/Muslim newspapers. Political Communication, 19, 251-272.
Domke, D., McCoy, K., & Torres, M. (1999). News media, racial perceptions, and
political cognition. Communication Research, 26 (5), 570-607.
Dreier, P. & Martin, C. (2010). How ACORN was framed: Political controversy and
media agenda setting. Perspectives on Politics, 8 (3), 761-792.
Druckman, J. (2001). On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame? Journal of
Politics, 63 (4), 1041-1066.
Durham, F. (2007). Framing the state in globalization: The Financial Times coverage of
the 1997 Thai currency crisis. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 24 (1),
57-76.
Edwards, J. (2001). Running in the shadows in campaign 2000: Candidate metaphors in
editorial cartoons. American Behavioral Scientist, 44 (12), 2140-2151.
Edwards, J. & Ware, L. (2005). Representing the public in campaign media: A political
cartoon perspective. American Behavioral Scientist, 49 (3), 466-478.
Edwards, J. (2007). Drawing politics in pink and blue. PS: Political Science and Politics,
40 (2), 249-253.
Edwards, J. & McDonald, C. (2010). Reading Hillary and Sarah: Contradictions of
feminism and representation in 2008 campaign political cartoons. American
Behavioral Scientist, 54 (3), 313-329.
Entman, R. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of
Communication, 43 (4), 51-58.
182

Fahmy, S., Kelly, J. & Kim, Y. (2007). What Katrina revealed: A visual analysis of the
hurricane coverage by news wires and U.S. newspapers. Journalism and Mass
Communication Quarterly, 84 (3), 546-561.
Feldman, O. (1995). Political reality and editorial cartoons in Japan: How the national
dailies illustrate the Japanese prime minister. Journalism and Mass
Communication Quarterly, 72 (3), 571-580.
Feldman, L. & Young, D. (2008). Late-night comedy as a gateway to traditional news:
An analysis of time trends in news attention among late-night comedy viewers
during the 2004 presidential primaries. Political Communication, 25, 401-422.
Ford, P., Johnson, T., & Maxwell, A. (2010). Yes we can or yes we did? Perspective
and retrospective change in the Obama presidency. Journal of Black Studies, 40
(3), 462-483.
Gallup (2009). Presidential approval ratings: George W. Bush. Retrieved on September
9, 2010, from www.gallup.com/poll/116500/presidential-approval-ratingsgeorge-bush.aspx
Gallup (2011). Gallup daily: Obama job approval. Retrieved on January 29, 2011, from
www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx
Gamson, W. (1989). News as framing: Comments on Graber. American Behavioral
Scientist, 33 (2), 157-161.
Gamson, W. & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear
power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95 (1), 1-37.
Gamson, W. & Stuart, D. (1992). Media discourse as a symbolic contest: The bomb in
political cartoons. Sociological Forum, 7 (1), 55-85.
Gamson, W. & Wolfsfeld, G. (1993). Movements and media as interacting systems.
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 528, 114-125.
Gamson, W., Croteau, D., Hoynes, W. & Sasson, T. (1992). Media images and the social
construction of reality. Annual Review of Sociology, 18, 373-393.
Gilmartin, P. (2001). Still the angel in the household: Political cartoons of Elizabeth
Doles presidential campaign. Women and Politics, 22 (4), 51-67.
Gitlin, T. (1980). The Whole World is Watching. Los Angeles: University of California
Press.
183

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience.

Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
Gombrich, E. (1982). The Image and the Eye. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Graber, D. (1989). Content and meaning: Whats it all about? American Behavioral
Scientist, 33 (2), 144-152.
Graber, D. (1990). Seeing is remembering: How visuals contribute to learning from
television news. Journal of Communication, 40, 134-155.
Graber, D. (1996). Say it with pictures. Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science, 546, 85-96.
Graber, D. (1993). Making campaign news user friendly: The lessons of 1992 and
beyond. American Behavioral Scientist, 37 (2), 328-336.
Graber, D. (1972). Personal qualities in presidential images: The contribution of the
press. Midwest Journal of Political Science, 16 (1), 46-76.
Greenberg, J. (2002). Framing and temporality in political cartoons: A critical analysis of
visual news discourse. Canadian Review of Sociology, 39 (2), 181-198.
Hall, S. (1980). Encoding/decoding. In S. Hall, D. Hobson, A. Lowe, & P. Willis (Eds.),
Culture, Media, Language: Working Papers in Cultural Studies, 1972-1979 (pp.
128-138). London: Hutchinson.
Hess, S. & Kaplan, M. (1975). The Ungentlemanly Art: A History of American Political
Cartoons. New York: Macmillan.
History (2010). Presidential elections. Retrieved on August 28, 2010, from
www.history.com/topics/presidential-elections
Hughes, W. (1995). The not-so-genial conspiracy: The New York Times and six
presidential honeymoons, 1953-1993. Journalism and Mass Communication
Quarterly, 72 (4), 841-850.
Iyengar, S. (1996). Framing responsibility for political issues. Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, 546, 59-70.
Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

184

Iyengar, S. & Kinder, D. (1987). News that Matters: Television and American Opinion.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jacobs, L. & King, D. (2010). Varieties of Obamaism: Structure, agency, and the Obama
presidency. Perspectives on Politics, 8 (3), 793-802.
Jacobson, G. (2009). The 2008 presidential and congressional elections: Anti-Bush
referendum and prospects for the Democratic majority. Political Science
Quarterly, 124 (1), 1-30.
Jacoby, W. (2000). Issue framing and public opinion on government spending.
American Journal of Political Science, 44 (4), 750-767.
Jackson, J. (2008). Building publics, shaping public opinion: Interanimating registers in
Malagasy kabary oratory and political cartooning. Journal of Linguistic
Anthropology, 18 (2), 214-235.
Jamieson, K. & Cappella, J. (1993, September). The effect of a strategy-based political
news schema: A Markle Foundation project report. Paper presented at the
American Political Science Association convention, Washington, D.C.
Kassarijian, H. (1977). Content analysis in consumer research. Journal of Consumer
Research, 4, 8-18.
Kelley-Romano, S. & Westgate, V. (2007a). Blaming Bush: An analysis of political
cartoons following Hurricane Katrina. Journalism Studies, 8 (5), 755-773.
Kelley-Romano, S. & Westgate, V. (2007b). Drawing disaster: The crisis cartoons of
Hurricane Katrina. Texas Speech Communication Journal, 31, 1-15.
Kenski, K., Hardy, B., & Jamieson, K.H. (2010). The Obama Victory: How Media, Money
and Message Shaped the 2008 Election. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kim, S.-H. & Willis, L. (2007). Talking about obesity: News framing of who is responsible
for causing and fixing the problem. Journal of Health Communication, 12, 359376.
Kim, S.-H., Scheufele, D., & Shanahan, J. (2002). Think about it this way: Attribute
agenda-setting function of the press and the publics evaluation of a local issue.
Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 79 (1), 7-25.
Kinder, D. (1983). Diversity and complexity in American public opinion. Political Science:
The State of the Discipline. Washington, DC: American Political Science
Association.
185

King, P-T. (1997). The Press, Candidate Images and Voter Perceptions, in
Communication and Democracy: Exploring the Intellectual Frontiers in Agendasetting Theory. Mahwah, NJ: Erlebaum.
Koetzle, W. & Brunell, T. (1996). Lip-reading, draft-dodging, and Perot-noia:
Presidential campaigns in editorial cartoons. Harvard International Journal of
Press/Politics, 1 (4), 94-115.
Lamb, C. (2007). Drawing power: The limits of editorial cartoons in America.
Journalism Studies, 8 (5), 715-729.
Landis, J. & Koch, G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical
data. Biometrics, 33, 159-174.
Lewin, J. & Huff, P. (2007). Lines of Contention: Political Cartoons of the Civil War. New
York: HarperCollins.
Lewis-Beck, M., Tien, C. & Nadeau, R. (2010). Obamas missed landslide: A racial cost?
PS: Political Science and Politics, 43 (1), 69-76.
Lowry, D. (2008). Network TV framing of good vs. bad economic news under Democrat
and Republican presidents: A lexical analysis of political bias. Journalism and
Mass Communication Quarterly, 85 (3), 483-498.
Lupia, A. (2010). Did Bush voters cause Obamas victory? PS: Political Science and
Politics, 43 (2), 239-242.
Makemson, H. (2006). Beat the press: How leading political cartoonists framed protests
at the 1968 Democratic Party Convention. Journalism History, 32 (2), 77-85.
Matthes, J. (2009). Whats in a frame? A content analysis of framing studies in the
worlds leading communication journals, 1990-2005. Journalism and Mass
Communication Quarterly, 86 (2), 349-367.
McLeod, D. & Detenber, B. (1999). Framing effects of television news coverage of social
protest. Journal of Communication, 49 (3), 1999, 3-23.
McCombs, M. (2004). Setting the Agenda: The Mass Media and Public Opinion. Malden,
MA: Blackwell.
McCombs, M. & Shaw, D. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 36 (2), 176-187.
186

McCombs, M., Shaw, D. & Weaver, D. (1997). Communication and Democracy:

Exploring the Intellectual Frontiers in Agenda-setting Theory. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlebaum.
McCombs, M. (2004). Setting the Agenda: The Mass Media and Public Opinion. Malden,
MA: Blackwell.
McQuail, D. (2008). McQuails Mass Communication Theory. London: Sage Publications.
Medhurst, M. & DeSousa, M. (1981). Political cartoons as rhetorical form: A
taxonomy of graphic discourse. Communication Monographs, 48, 197-236.
Mello, W.B. (2007). Political cartooning in the 21st century: A changing and dynamic
future. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 24 (1), 78-80.
Miller, M., Andsager, J., & Riechert, B. (1998). Framing the candidates in presidential
primaries: Issues and images in press releases and news coverage. Journalism
and Mass Communication Quarterly, 75 (2), 312-324.
Miller, M.; Peake, J. & Boulton (2009, April). Youve come a long way baby? Press
coverage of Hillary Clintons presidential campaign. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
MSNBC (2008, September 20). Poll: Racial views steer some away from Obama.
Retrieved on September 19, 2010, from www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26803840/
Muller, M. & Ozcan, E. (2007). The political iconography of Muhammad cartoons:
Understanding cultural conflict and political action. PS: Poliical Science and
Politics, 40 (2), 287-291.
National Public Radio (2007, November 20). Revisiting Giulianis role as Americas
mayor. Retrieved on February 20, 2011, from
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16339839
Nelson, T. & Kinder, D. (1996). Issue frames and group-centrism in American public
opinion. Journal of Politics, 58 (4), 1055-1078.
Nelson, T., Oxley, Z., & Clawson, R. (1997). Toward a psychology of framing effects.
Political behavior, 19 (3), 221-246.
New York Times (2008, April 13). On the defensive, Obama calls his words ill-chosen.
Retrieved on April 10, 2011, from
www.nytimes.com/2008/04/13/us/politics/13campaign.html
187

New York Times (2010, November 13). O.K. You fix the budget. Retrieved on April 3,
2011, from www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/weekinreview/14leonhardt.html
New York Times (2010, April 22). South Park episode altered after Muslim groups
warning. Retrieved on January 16, 2011, from
www.nytimes.com/2010/04/23/arts/television/23park.html
Newton, J. (2007). Trudeau draws truth. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 24
(1), 81-85.
Olson, L. (2009). Pictorial representations of British America resisting rape: Rhetorical
recirculation of a print series portraying the Boston Port Bill of 1774. Rhetoric
and Public Affairs, 12 (1), 1-36.
Ozga, M. (2005). Political cartoonists, the endangered species. Recount: A Magazine of
Contemporary Politics. Retrieved on September 18, 2010, from
journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/recount/article/122
Pan, Z. & Kosicki, G. (1993). Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse. Political
Communication, 10 (1), 55-75.
Peake, J. & Miller, M. (2008, August). Presidential primaries and the news: Coverage of
the 2008 nomination campaign. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Political Science Association, Boston, MA.
Perreault, W. & Leigh, L. (1989). Reliability of nominal data based on qualitative
judgments. Journal of Marketing Research, 26, 135-148.
Pett, J. (1994). Whats so funny? Media Studies Journal, 82, 89-96.
Pew Research Center for People and the Press (2011). Internet gains on television as
publics main news source. Retrieved on January 6, 2011, from peoplepress.org/reports/pdf/689.pdf
Pew Research Center Project for Excellence in Journalism (2009). The State of News
Media: An Annual Report on American Journalism. Retrieved on March 26, 2011,
from stateofthemedia.org/2009/a-year-in-the-news/
Pew Research Center Project for Excellence in Journalism (2010). The State of News
Media: An Annual Report on American Journalism. Retrieved on August 28, 2010,
from www.stateofthemedia.org/2010/year_overview.php

188

Renshon, S. (2008). Psychological reflections on Barack Obama and John McCain:

Assessing the contours of a new presidential administration. Political Science
Quarterly, 123 (3), 391-434.
Rhee, J. (1997). Strategy and issue frames in election campaign coverage: A social
cognitive account of framing effects. Journal of Communication, 47 (3), 26-48.
Rowson, M. (2009). Dark magic. Index on Censorship, 38 (1), 140-164.
Sabato, L. (2010). Sixty days to go: The Crystal Balls Labor Day predictions. University
of Virginia Center for Politics. Retrieved on September 17, 2010, from
www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/ljs2010090201/
Sayrs, L. (1989). Pooled time series analysis: Quantitative applications in the social
sciences. Newbury Park, CT: Sage Publications.
Scheufele, D. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication,
49 (1), 103-122.
Scheufele, D. & Tewksbury, D. (2007). Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The
evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication, 57, 9-20.
Schwalbe, C., Silcock, B.W. & Keith, S. (2008). Visual framing of the early weeks of the
U.S.-led invasion of Iraq: Applying the master war narrative to electronic and
print images. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 52 (3), 448-465.
Seymour-Ure, C. (2001). What future for the British political cartoon? Journalism
Studies, 2 (3), 333-355.
Shaw, M. (2007). Drawing on the collections. Journalism Studies, 8 (5), 742-754.
Shoemaker, P., & Reese, S. (1996). Mediating the Message: Theories of Influences on
Mass Media Content. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Siegel, D.J. (2008). Turning the page on political cartoons. Medill Reports. Retrieved on
September 18, 2010, from
news.medill.northwestern.edu/washington/news.aspx?id=80903
Sigelman, L. & Bullock, D. (1991). Candidates, issues, horse races, and hoopla:
Presidential campaign coverage, 1888-1988. American Politics Quarterly, 19 (1),
5-32.
Time (2007, February 1). Is Obama black enough? Retrieved on September 19, 2010,
from www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1584736,00.html
189

Tolbert, C., Keller, A., & Donovan, T. (2010). A modified national primary: State losers
and support for changing the presidential nominating process. Political Science
Quarterly, 125 (3), 393-424.
Trudeau, G. (2007). Death and politics on the funny pages: Garry Trudeau addresses
American newspaper editors. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 24 (1),
86-92.
Tuchman, G. (1978). Making News: A Study in the Construction of Reality. New York:
Free Press.
Warner, J. (2007). Political culture jamming: The dissident humor of The Daily Show
With Jon Stewart, Popular Communication, 5 (1), 17-36.
Washington Post (2008, November 20). Obama raised half a billion online. Retrieved on
September 19, 2010, from voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/11/obamaraised-half-a-billion-on.html
Wilkinson, S. (1998). The rare female cartoonist: If only she wore khaki. The American
Editor, December.
Zaller, J. (1992). The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge
University Press.

190

APPENDIX CODING SHEET

GENERAL VARIABLES
1. Which cartoonist drew the political cartoon?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Chuck Asay
Bruce Beattie
Steve Benson
Steve Breen
Chris Britt
Ken Catalino

7. Bob Gorrell
8. Clay Jones
9. Steve Kelley
10. Mike Luckovich
11. Gary Markstein
12. Michael Ramirez

13. Marshall Ramsey

14. Steve Sack
15. John Sherffius
16. Gary Varvel

2. What is the political cartoon ID? (This ID is a combination of the political cartoonists
ID [see question 1] and the rank ordering of the cartoon by date. For example, the 4th
cartoon by Chuck Asay would be coded as 01.04. 1 is the coding category for Asay. 4
indicates that there are 3 other cartoons published by Asay before this particular one.)
3. What is the ideology of the political cartoonist? (Conservatives: Asay, Breen, Catalino,
Gorrell, Jones, Kelley, Ramirez, and Varvel. Liberals: Beattie, Benson, Britt, Luckovich,
Markstein, Ramsey, Sack and Sherffius.)
1. conservative

2. liberal

4. What is the publication date of the political cartoon? (MM/DD/YYYY)

5. What is Obamas title at the date on which the cartoon was published?
1.
2.
3.
4.

presidential candidate (11-4-08 and earlier)

president-elect (11-5-08 through 1-19-09)
new president (1-20-09 through 4-30-09)
post-100 days president (5-1-09 and later)

6. What was Obamas presidential approval rating in the Gallup poll at the time the
cartoon was published? (Code as missing for all cartoons published on 1-19-09 and
earlier.)

191

FRAMING VARIABLES
7. What is the rhetorical theme of the political cartoon?
1.
2.
3.
4.

political commonplace (general political news and events)

literary/cultural allusion (references cultural artifacts or literary history)
popular perception of candidates traits (general caricatures)
transient element (references a specific, high-context event)

TOPIC FRAMES
8. What is the primary topic frame of the cartoon? (If a cartoon contains both topic
frames, select the most prominent one.)
1. issue frame
2. strategy frame
9. What is the primary issue frame that characterizes the cartoon? (This frame is based
on substantive content, such as an analysis of policy or a social problem.)
0.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

no issue frame/issue frame is not primary topic frame

foreign/military/defense policy/issue
economic policy/issue
health care policy/issue
social policy/issue
government and ethics
energy/environmental policy/issue
some other issue frame

10. What is the primary strategy frame that characterizes the cartoon? (This frame is
based on a competitive aspect of politics, such as polling, strategy, or voter feedback.)
0.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

no strategy frame/strategy frame is not primary topic frame

polling data and elections
political metrics (fundraising, endorsements, individual voter appraisals)
political performance (interviews, campaigning, debates, strategy)
personal issues (character, biography, gaffes)
political relationships (dealings with Congress, feedback from groups/biz)
media coverage
some other strategy frame

192

CONTEXT FRAMES
11. What is the primary context frame of the cartoon? (If a cartoon contains both
context frames, select the most prominent one.)
1. thematic frame

2. episodic frame

12. What is the primary thematic frame that characterizes the cartoon? (This frame
portrays Obama, his policies, or a news event as part of a pattern or broader context)
0. no thematic frame/thematic frame is not primary context frame
1. previous presidents, politicians, and icons
2. previous Obama statements and actions
3. Bill and Hillary Clinton
4. Democratic Party and liberals
5. news media
6. George W. Bush
7. national/international circumstances
8. cultural or historical elements
9. statistical trends
10. political ideology
11. some other thematic frame
13. What is the primary episodic frame that characterizes the cartoon? (This frame
portrays Obama, his policies, or a news event in isolation or as a random occurrence.)
0.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

no episodic frame/episodic frame is not primary context frame

domestic political story
domestic nonpolitical story
international story
individual/group commentary
unexpected/atypical story (offbeat/random story; 15 minutes of fame)
personal story
some other episodic frame

CANDIDATE FRAMES
14. What is the primary candidate frame that characterizes the cartoon? (Code
cartoons favorable or neutral towards Obama as success. Code cartoons critical of
Obama as setback.)
1. success frame

2. setback frame

193

15. What is the primary success frame that characterizes the cartoon? (This frame
portrays Obama or his policies in a favorable or neutral fashion.)
0.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

no success frame/success frame is not primary candidate frame

Obamas ideas and actions are beneficial/effective/attractive
Political strength against Republicans
Political strength against Democrats
Obama displays good character/works well with others
Obama receives favorable media coverage
Obama deserves a chance; Obama as beneficiary/neutral appraisal
celebration or commemorative event
some other success frame

16. What is the primary setback frame that characterizes the cartoon? (This frame
portrays Obama or his policies in an unfavorable or critical fashion.)
0.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

no setback frame/setback frame is not primary candidate frame

Obamas ideas and actions are harmful/ineffective/unattractive
Political weakness against Republicans
Political weakness against Democrats
Obama displays poor character/partisan/poor personal behavior
Obama receives unfavorable media coverage; Obama has media problems
Obama is increasingly unpopular or disappointing
Obama has to contend with an undesirable problem or unproven allegation
some other setback frame

17. What is the overarching frame that characterizes the cartoon? (This frame describes
the overall content of the cartoon based on its focus and favorability towards Obama.)
1.
2.
3.
4.

political victory frame

personal triumph frame
political setback frame
personal problem frame

FRAMING DEVICE VARIABLES

18. What is the rhetorical disposition that characterizes the cartoon?
1. commentary
2. contrast
3. contradiction

194

19. Does the cartoon use a metaphor to frame a message? (This entails representing a
person or issue as some other object.)
0. no

1. yes

20. If the cartoon uses a metaphor to frame a message, what is the primary metaphor?
0.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

cartoon does not use a metaphor to frame a message

dangerous device (bomb, knife, noose, etc.)
hostile creature (monster, lion, ogre, etc.)
difficult circumstances (messy kitchen, steep mountain, juggling, tightrope)
benevolent creature (angel, elder, strong animal, superhero)
weak/vulnerable creature (kitten, baby animal, victim, hostage)
machine (vehicle, tool, computer)
other metaphor

21. Does the cartoon use an exemplar to frame a message? (This entails using a past
figure as an illustrative example to learn from.)
0. no

1. yes

22. If the cartoon uses an exemplar to frame a message, what is the primary exemplar?
0.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

cartoon does not use an exemplar to frame a message

George W. Bush
Bill Clinton
other former president or politician (governor, etc., not including Lincoln)
civil rights icon (MLK, Abraham Lincoln, Rosa Parks, etc.)
historical event (Pearl Harbor, 9-11, Vietnam, Iraq, Challenger, etc.)
world leader (foreign heads of state, pope, United Nations, etc.)
celebrity (musician, artist, athlete, actor, idiosyncratic figure, etc.)
economic figure (CEO, executive)
other exemplar

23. Does the cartoon use a catchphrase to frame a message?

0. no

1. yes

195

24. If the cartoon uses a catchphrase to frame a message, what is its origin?
0.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

cartoon does not use a catchphrase to frame a message

Barack Obama
George W. Bush
Bill Clinton/Hillary Clinton
John McCain/Sarah Palin
other former president/politician/icon
celebrity (musician, artist, athlete, actor, idiosyncratic figure, etc.)
other source

25. Does the cartoon use a depiction to frame a message? (This entails using an entire
setting to convey a message.)
0. no

1. yes

26. If the cartoon uses a depiction to frame a message, what is the depiction?
0. cartoon does not use a depiction to frame a message
1. sport/competitive event (racing, boxing, basketball, game show, etc.)
2. movie/television show (including noncompetitive programming)
3. literary/cultural setting (fairy tales, settings based on novels, foreign country)
4. private home
5. military setting (war, boot camp, etc.)
6. academic/research setting (university, school, hospital)
7. job setting (assembly line, fast food restaurant, etc.)
8. corporate setting (boardroom, executive office, etc.)
9. White House/Congress/federal office
10. church or other religious setting
11. political event (debate, speech, fundraiser)
12. on the street (media interview, interacting with voters)
13. outdoors/wilderness area
14. other setting
27. Does the cartoon use a visual image to frame a message? (This is defined as
caricature.)
0. no

1. yes

196

28. If the cartoon uses a visual image to frame a message, what is the primary image?
0.
1.
2.
3.
4.

cartoon does not use a visual image to frame a message

undesirable (dirty, wounded, toothless, scary, ugly, fading, dishonest, etc.)
desirable (well dressed, polished, wealthy, clean/shiny, etc.)
physiological (big ears, tall and thin, short and fat, exaggerated features)
other image

29. Does the cartoon use object placement to frame a message? (Code as yes if the
spatial orientation of objects conveys a message.)
0. no

1. yes

30. If the cartoon uses object placement to frame a message, where is the primary
object?
0. cartoon does not use object placement to frame a message
1. above Obama
2. below Obama
3. next to Obama (side by side)
4. in front of/ahead of/opposite/facing Obama
5. behind/in the background of Obama
6. around/surrounding/on both or all sides of Obama
7. inside Obama (inside Obamas body or encircled by Obama)
8. reflection or mirror image of Obama
9. other spatial relationship
10. placement of objects for framing exists, but not in relation to Obama
31. Does the cartoon use the relative size of objects to frame a message?
0. no

1. yes

32. If the cartoon uses the relative size of objects to frame a message, what is the
primary size relationship?
0.
1.
2.
3.
4.

cartoon does not use relative sizes of objects to frame a message

Obama is larger
Obama is smaller
Obama is the same size
relative size of objects for framing exists, but not in relation to Obama

197