Blog Post 7 – Discussion
Muna N -
So the patterns that emerged from this study’s data analysis speak to deeper currents within political media. As one of my authors posits, framing shapes not only what people think about but also how they think about it—and in Kamala Harris’s case, those effects appear particularly nuanced. The overwhelmingly favorable portrayals across CNN, The Hill, and the New York Post may suggest an evolving awareness within the press regarding the optics of representation, especially when covering figures who defy historical political norms.
In Harris’s case, images became more intentionally composed and strategically curated as her campaign progressed—particularly in the second trimester—suggesting a deliberate effort by media outlets and campaign teams to construct a coherent visual narrative. Interestingly, this trend diverges from the one observed in Jakob Janoski’s analysis of Donald Trump, whose imagery trended more favorable over time; Harris’s imagery, by contrast, grew more polarized over the course of the election.
The Hill’s marked shift toward favorable portrayals may reflect the strategy centrist outlets sometimes employ to maintain broad appeal. Furthermore, research into racial and gender visual stereotypes underscores the possibility that Harris’s intersecting identities influenced editorial image selection more heavily than written content might reveal.
This reveals a complex interplay between ideology, identity, and strategic communication. Visuals, far from being passive representations, serve as tools of political influence and audience persuasion. This finding reinforces the need for ongoing analysis into how media outlets engage with candidates who embody multiple historically marginalized identities in a media climate driven by both optics and algorithms.