Framing of Ivanka Trump's new White House Position

In the Cosmopolitan piece, the story about Ivanka Trump’s role in the White House is framed in a way that challenges her ascent to power. The language and style of writing used by the author is forceful and angry, expressing her disbelief at Ivanka’s role. In the piece, she frequently uses a question and answer style of writing to assert her feelings towards the idea Ms. Trump being in the White House. The main theme of the article is about working woman, and how despite Ivanka’s use of the hashtag, through nepotism has usurped woman who are working for roles in the political sphere. The only quotes are from Trump and Ivanka, and are dissected by the author. This, along with the fact that the piece was written in first person with consistent use of the word ‘we’, shows that the author is not attempting to distance herself from the news of Ivanka Trump. Rather, she is working to frame the story in an ‘us’ v ‘them’ mentality and is clearly choosing a side.

The New York Times piece is more standard reporting. It attempts to deliver the news of Ivanka’s new position at the White House in a more balanced way, at least compared to Cosmopolitan. This article chronicles how Ivanka’s role has changed since the beginning of the campaign. In a stark contrast to the Cosmo piece, this one details the way Ivanka has said she is ensuring to remain ethical in her business and in the White House. This piece also discusses the way Ivanka is upsetting other working women, despite her celebration of them with her brand. Additionally, this piece provides background of Ms. Trump and her husband as Democratic leaning in previous years. While the New York Times has been challenging Trump since the campaign, this piece is framed in an almost optimistic way regarding Ivanka in the White House. While there are quotes discussing the ethical issues, it shies away from directly damning the position. Furthermore, there are large sections dedicated to explaining the measures taken by Ivanka so that she remains ethical, as well as how she has helped Democrats in the past. I wouldn’t say that it is framed in a positive light of the appointment, but it appears to be pointing out why this is not that bad of a thing in the Trump era, and uses the historical precedent of Presidents leaning on their children to do so. The framing here is more of a standard news story, and unlike the Cosmo piece it does not challenge the appointment or explain the quotes used. Rather, it allows the quotes to speak for themselves, which is particularly notable with the conclusion of the article, where an ethics lawyer declares the whole thing nepotism.