11 minute read
Global coverage of US election campaign echoed regional priorities
from BBC MONITOR 33
Donald Trump’s victory in the November elections was the culmination of a lengthy, tight campaign which was watched closely around the world. Here we take an in-depth look at how the international media viewed the final two months of the campaign. While reporting varied in scale and thematic focus, it largely reflected regional priorities and concerns. Over to our regional teams…
Latin America: Focus on immigration, economic policies
Latin America – a region that has a long history of turbulent election campaigns, contested vote results and sometimes violent election aftermaths – was mesmerised by the hard-fought campaign between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. The closeness of the race was a theme in itself.
From Mexico and Cuba to Peru and Argentina, news outlets provided almost daily, often blow-by-blow coverage, as countries that for years had put relations with the US, whether friendly or hostile, at the top of their foreign policy priority list tried to decipher the implications for them of a Trump or Harris victory on 5 November.
In Latin America’s media in general, but especially in that of America’s immediate southern neighbour Mexico , the US candidates’ respective plans for immigration and trade garnered most scrutiny, with regional commentators seeking to gauge what this might mean for their countries, their economies and their citizens. In many Central American and Caribbean nations, remittances sent home by migrants in the US are a mainstay of the national economies, and so US immigration policy is an issue.
Almost every Trump statement attacking or insulting migrants, or pledging “mass deportations”, gained attention in the Latin American media, as did Harris’s campaign assurances that she would seek to maintain secure US borders and not decriminalise illegal immigration.
Mexican media in particular also keenly noted Trump’s vows to apply ultranationalist, protectionist trade policies, including threats to slap high tariffs on US imports of vehicles from Mexico and to “re-negotiate” the existing US-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) free trade agreement. The media also fretted over both candidates’ pledges to get tough with the Mexican drug cartels smuggling the deadly drug fentanyl over the border.
With commentators across the region noting unprecedented levels of acrimony, animosity, polarisation and even latent violence in the US election – the reported “assassination” bids against Trump were headline news –many Latin American observers also questioned what this electoral battle, and its outcome, would mean for US democracy.
Harris’s portrayal of Trump as a “threat to democracy” was widely reported in Latin America, but at the same time Trump’s casting of Harris as a “socialist”, or even “communist”, found resonance among right-wing social media cheerleaders who equated their own crusades against “communism” in Latin America with this US election battle.
This means that countries and their media south of the US border were closely watching to see whether the much-vaunted US model of democracy –preached for decades by Washington as a model to follow in the region – would emerge strengthened or weakened by the bruising test of the Harris vs Trump choice offered to US voters.
China: Criticism of US policies at home and abroad
China’s chief geopolitical rival, the US, loomed large in Beijing’s media coverage, although the election itself was not a major theme.
This reticence mirrored Beijing’s official stance that it does not comment on foreign countries’ “internal affairs”, and expects others to reciprocate.
Instead, most election mentions came within broader criticisms of Washington’s foreign policy – particularly through painting the US as stoking conflict in the Middle East and Ukraine.
Other articles took aim at the US domestic situation, portraying it as a divided and violent society with a failing political system unable to cope with challenges such as the recent hurricanes. This contrasted with the implicit message that China is harmonious and peaceloving, and benefits from the stable rule of the Communist Party.
Chinese state media sent reporters to key US battleground states, who often highlighted voters’ political disaffection and division.
Bloggers on one state-affiliated platform – the news and blog site Guancha, which operates on a slightly looser leash, though with a predominantly nationalist tone – were evenly split on the outcome. While Trump received heavier coverage, both candidates were widely criticised.
Assassination attempts played into the narrative of the US as violent, while Trump’s mooted 60% tariffs on Chinese imports went down badly. Elon Musk’s backing of Trump also generated headlines, with the US billionaire’s financial giveaways to voters met with derision.
Russia: Focus on Ukraine
The presidential candidates’ perceived stances on the Ukraine war and geopolitics more broadly were the main theme of US election coverage by Russian TV and pro-Kremlin commentators.
Analysis of the quotes from television hosts, correspondents, talk show pundits and social media commentators showed that apart from the two candidates’ names, the words most used in the coverage were “Ukraine”, “Kyiv” and “Zelensky”.
Mentions of Ukraine surged in the wake of the second assassination attempt against Trump, in which the suspect was said to have been an “active supporter” of Kyiv. Ukraine was invoked in commentaries on the candidates’ perceived views on RussiaWest relations and on whether Trump was “sincere” in his stated intention to end the Ukraine war. Closer to the election date, some Russian observers noted that the subject of the Ukraine war had become “toxic” for the Democrats.
Similarly, the word “Kyiv” surged in the immediate aftermath of the second apparent attempt on Trump’s life, with Russian reporting mooting an interpretation of some of Trump’s pronouncements as questioning Ukrainian statehood. Mentions of Kyiv also appeared in Russian reporting of claims alleging Ukrainian interference in the US election.
There was a discernible pro-Trump (or anti-Harris) bias in Russian TV and social media commentators’ coverage of the two candidates, with criticism of Harris featuring primarily in Russian TV’s monitoring of US media.
Some commentators, however, maintained that, as far as Russia is concerned, the two candidates were as bad as each other.
Iran: Election outcome makes “no difference”
Iranian media extensively covered the US presidential race, analysing polling predictions and the campaign dynamics. They criticised some of Trump’s “populist” tactics and focused on the tight race, highlighting the role of swing states.
A recurring narrative was that the election outcome would make “no difference” to Iran, as both candidates were seen as supporting Israel and opposing Tehran. Several reports noted that Benjamin Netanyahu appeared to favour Trump over Harris, with some accusing the Israeli prime minister of attempting to sway the election – a view echoed by Iran’s Foreign Ministry.
Some reports focused on the “dilemma” faced by US Muslim voters regarding whether to support Harris or a thirdparty candidate.
The Iranian media dismissed accusations of Iranian assassination plots and cyber-attacks against Trump as “imaginary”, echoing official denials.
Towards the end of the campaign there was increasing speculation about how Middle East tensions might influence the election. Some reports suggested that the alleged leak of classified US intelligence on Israel’s plans of a retaliatory attack against Iran signalled a US attempt to dissuade Israel from acting before the election.
Saudi Arabia: Middle East tensions dominate coverage
Saudi media coverage of the US elections centred on how the conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon had shaped US voter sentiment.
Trump was widely seen as benefiting from dissatisfaction over the Biden administration’s policies in the region, with some analysts suggesting this could bolster the Republican candidate’s chances with undecided voters.
The importance of the Arab-American vote, especially in key states such as Michigan, was also a focus, particularly their dissatisfaction over US policy on Gaza.
Security concerns and foreign interference in the elections received extensive attention, focusing on threats from Iran and Russia and assassination attempts against Trump.
Meanwhile, the influence of celebrities such as Elon Musk and Taylor Swift on voters was widely noted, in particular Musk’s financial backing of Trump.
There was limited commentary on Saudi-US relations, but when discussed, columnists suggested that ties would remain stable, regardless of who won the election.
Israel: Election seen as decisive for war direction
While US elections are of significant interest to Israel, the domestic media continued to be dominated by developments in the war in the Gaza Strip and fighting with Hezbollah in Lebanon, giving much less attention to the US presidential race.
War-related developments were also linked to the US election in both the timing and scale of attacks, including media speculation on when Israel would launch its ground offensive in southern Lebanon and Israeli airstrikes on Iran during tit-for-tat exchanges.
Many Israelis had long preferred Trump for his favourable policies towards Israel and Netanyahu had often touted his relationship with Trump while refraining from explicitly endorsing him.
A poll published by Israel’s Channel 12 in September found that 58% of Israelis said they would vote for Trump, while only 25% opted for Harris.
Israeli media see Trump’s return to the White House as a green light for Israel to continue its military campaigns with fewer constraints regarding the humanitarian situation.
Reports also indicated that Netanyahu is waiting for the US election before committing to a “diplomatic route” in efforts to reach a ceasefire deal and secure the release of Israeli hostages who remain in Gaza.
In an unprecedented move, leading ultra-Orthodox right-wing rabbis issued a letter calling on Israelis with American citizenship to go out and vote. The letter was reported by an ultra-Orthodox newspaper that cited the rabbis as saying that “while it is understood they are not calling for a vote for Kamala Harris, they do not explicitly state who to vote for, for obvious reasons”.
Domestic outlets highlighted what they said was Harris siding with protesters in favour of Palestinian rights and against the war in Gaza. They reported displeasure with Harris after she pressed for an end to the war in the Gaza Strip and for Israel to allow more aid to enter the enclave. The rightwing Channel 14 News, known for its support of Netanyahu, referred to Harris as a “terror supporter”.
India: Bilateral ties
Major Indian news media outlets provided extensive coverage of the US election over the last two months of the campaign, with key campaign issues, the contest between Harris and Trump and poll predictions, featuring prominently in daily mainstream coverage.
One key theme was the possible impact of the election result on ties with India, although analysts generally appeared optimistic about the future of bilateral ties regardless of who won the election.
There was media apprehension over what was described as Trump’s “unpredictable” nature and policies. Trump criticised Delhi’s trade tariffs but praised Prime Minister Narendra Modi during his poll campaign.
Meanwhile, Harris’s Indian heritage remained a prominent theme, with the Indian media largely portraying her in a positive light, particularly after the first presidential debate on 10 September.
Some commentators highlighted Harris’s “progressive” reform agenda, predicting that her leadership would have a more structural approach.
The candidates’ stances on tensions in the Middle East and their impact on the election outcome was another major theme in Indian media coverage.
India: Bilateral ties
Major Indian news media outlets provided extensive coverage of the US election over the last two months of the campaign, with key campaign issues, the contest between Harris and Trump and poll predictions, featuring prominently in daily mainstream coverage.
One key theme was the possible impact of the election result on ties with India, although analysts generally appeared optimistic about the future of bilateral ties regardless of who won the election.
There was media apprehension over what was described as Trump’s “unpredictable” nature and policies. Trump criticised Delhi’s trade tariffs but praised Prime Minister Narendra Modi during his poll campaign.
Meanwhile, Harris’s Indian heritage remained a prominent theme, with the Indian media largely portraying her in a positive light, particularly after the first presidential debate on 10 September.
Some commentators highlighted Harris’s “progressive” reform agenda, predicting that her leadership would have a more structural approach.
The candidates’ stances on tensions in the Middle East and their impact on the election outcome was another major theme in Indian media coverage.
