Scholarlink

This chapter brings together insights from Chapters 4 and 5 , comparing how people interpreted Trump’s kung flu and bloodbath remarks versus Biden’s bullseye comment during the 2020 and 2024 US presidential campaigns. It argues that Trump deliberately used vague, exaggerated language to stir outrage, connect with his base, and dodge criticism. In contrast, Biden’s bullseye remark, an apparent accidental slip, was heavily criticised by Trump’s supporters but barely defended by Democrats, the media, or YouTube commenters. The analysis highlights how deeply divided worldviews, fuelled by social media and selective media editing, lead to wildly different interpretations. The chapter argues that emotional appeals effectively trump rational debate, an issue worsened by social media algorithms and possible foreign meddling. It concludes that a pragmacognitive approach—focusing on how language is interpreted—is essential to understanding political polarisation, media influence, and ultimately the health of democratic discourse.

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Implications, Discussion, Conclusions, and Next Steps

  • 章节

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年

查看全文
  • Samuel Bourgeois,
  • Derek Bousfield

摘要

This chapter brings together insights from Chapters 4 and 5 , comparing how people interpreted Trump’s kung flu and bloodbath remarks versus Biden’s bullseye comment during the 2020 and 2024 US presidential campaigns. It argues that Trump deliberately used vague, exaggerated language to stir outrage, connect with his base, and dodge criticism. In contrast, Biden’s bullseye remark, an apparent accidental slip, was heavily criticised by Trump’s supporters but barely defended by Democrats, the media, or YouTube commenters. The analysis highlights how deeply divided worldviews, fuelled by social media and selective media editing, lead to wildly different interpretations. The chapter argues that emotional appeals effectively trump rational debate, an issue worsened by social media algorithms and possible foreign meddling. It concludes that a pragmacognitive approach—focusing on how language is interpreted—is essential to understanding political polarisation, media influence, and ultimately the health of democratic discourse.