At the close of the content analysis phase of this research, the coding scheme has 15 categories, five of which are broken down further into subcategories. For each
instance of a code assignment, I identified a snippet, which consists of the sentence within the article where I felt the opinion was first introduced. Table 2 contains a list of all coding categories with an example of a snippet for each. I did not impose any limits on the number of codes that could be assigned in each article. If different people expressed the same opinion in the same article, I coded each of those expressions separately. Also, if the same person expressed multiple opinions in the same article, I coded those different opinions separately. However, if the same person expressed the same opinion multiple times in an article, I only coded that opinion once. As the coding
scheme is a key component of the output of this research which affects the results of the study, I will provide an explanation of each of the coding categories and how I applied them.
Category Example
Character Flaws Most of the attention to Clinton’s emails came from
Republicans, who perceived her more generally as dishonest and scandal-plagued.
Illegal Activity They still chant ‘Lock her up’ at Trump rallies, just as they did at the New York Stock Exchange as she gave her concession speech.
Lack of Transparency The new documents included 115 Clinton email exchanges that were not previously turned over by the State Department. Unimportant This study will be used by liberals as evidence that the media's
unnecessary focus on Clinton's email server cost her the election.
Security Risk The two stories suggested that the AOL email account was used by Pence to discuss seemingly confidential subjects such as terror attacks and to receive FBI updates.
Political Consequences
As far as is known on the public record, the only Russian activities of any consequence were the email hacking of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and John Podesta. Corruption The Podesta Emails support accusations that the former
Secretary of State had a cozy relationship with bankers. Sheds Additional
Light
Whistleblower website WikiLeaks has been dumping hacked emails pertaining to the workings of Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign for weeks now.
Duty of Government John Vecchione, president of the Cause of Action Institute, said it’s the agency’s duty to recover the records.
Incompetence After all, it was Clinton who never seemed to grasp the
seriousness of the issue and how it eroded the public’s already shaky confidence in her.
Interpersonal Conflicts Another email has long-time Clinton aide Doug Band referring to Chelsea Clinton as a ‘spoiled brat’.
Additional Questions But the email leaves plenty questions about what kinds of conversations came before it and who else was involved. Costing Taxpayer
Money
The former governor’s actions have cost us in terms of time and money.
Medical Problems Additional documents allegedly show that Chelsea Clinton emails, an email sent by Clinton to Abedin saying she did not
wish to fly on the same plane with former First Lady Michelle Obama to Betty Ford’s funeral, and an email chain between Clinton staffers showing they drafted a “doctors statement” as to why Mrs. Clinton fainted due to “dehydration” causing her to hit her head and suffer a “concussion” in December 2012. Violent Fallout In December 2016, Edgar Maddison Welch, a man who
believed the viral Internet rumor, opened fire in the restaurant in Washington.
Table 2. Coding categories with examples.
The most widely used category overall was “Character Flaws,” with 85 uses, 69 of which were implicit, and 16 of which were explicit. I assigned this category any time an individual suggested that either the content of the emails, or the circumstances of the email scandal, carried evidence that a person possessed undesirable character traits. I broke this category down into five subcategories, based on which character flaw the person allegedly possessed. In order of frequency, these subcategories were hypocritical (63 uses); dishonest (14 uses); cruel, inconsiderate, or selfish (four uses); racist (two uses); and sexist (one use). Explicit uses of this category typically mentioned the name of the character flaw. The statement, “Most of the attention to Clinton’s emails came from Republicans, who perceived her more generally as dishonest and scandal-plagued” (Edwards-Levy 2017), is an example of this. Implicit uses did not mention the flaw directly but used language that implied the flaw. For example, in the statement, “But a lawyer working on behalf of a New Jersey newspaper seeking public records from the governor recently argued Christie engaged in somewhat similar behavior” (Arco 2016), the author mentions an accusation that Christie criticized Clinton for doing something like what he was doing but does not explicitly mention hypocrisy.
The second most used category was “Illegal Activity,” with 65 uses, 37 of which were implicit, and 28 of which were explicit. I assigned this category when an individual
expressed the opinion that either the content of the emails, or the circumstances
surrounding the management of the emails, provided evidence of illegal activity. Explicit uses of this category stated that a person may have violated laws or mentioned
punishments that result from illegal activity. The statement, “They still chant ‘Lock her up’ at Trump rallies, just as they did at the New York Stock Exchange as she gave her concession speech” (Traister 2017), is an example of this. Implicit references often mentioned the use of the emails as evidence in court cases or criminal investigations. In the statement, “Their attorneys now say Christie deleted text messages and hid emails that may have contradicted his claim that he knew nothing about the lane closures” (Blitzer 2016), the author mentions accusations that Christie’s emails may provide evidence that he was involved in something that was deemed illegal but falls short of explicitly accusing him of illegal activity.
The third most used category was “Lack of Transparency,” with 64 uses, 54 of which were implicit, and 10 of which were explicit. I assigned this category when an individual expressed the opinion that either the content of the emails, or the
circumstances of the email scandal, indicated that a person was not being transparent in his or her professional conduct. Explicit uses of this category mentioned the word transparency or made clear accusations of inappropriate destruction of public records. The statement, “Two former Christie appointees indicted in the scheme are alleging that Gibson Dunn destroyed or withheld evidence” (Katz & Bernstein 2016), is an example of this. Implicit uses mentioned missing information and questionable behavior without making clear accusations. For example, the statement, “The new documents included 115
Clinton email exchanges that were not previously turned over by the State Department”, mentions missing email messages (Singman 2017).
The next most used was the “Unimportant” category, with 48 uses, 45 of which were implicit, and 3 of which were explicit. I assigned this category any time an individual suggested that the email scandal was not important, or that it was not important enough to warrant the level of attention it was receiving. Explicit mentions used the words “unimportant”, “unnecessary”, or equally clear language to describe the attention given to the controversy. The statement, “This study will be used by liberals as evidence that the media’s unnecessary focus on Clinton’s email server cost her the election,” is an example of this (Cillizza 2017). Implicit uses undercut the sense of importance assigned to the scandal without stating outright that it was not important. In the statement, “Christie’s lawyers say they’ve now searched that account and found no emails ‘related to and contemporaneous with the lane realignment’” (Katz & Bernstein 2016), Christie’s lawyers are refuting one of the major reasons for interest in his email.
The next category was “Security Risk,” with 47 uses, 31 of which were implicit, and 16 of which were explicit. I assigned this category when an individual made the case that the email either presented or revealed a security risk. This category was further broken down into subcategories based on whether the risk was to national security (31 instances) or a state’s security (16 instances). Explicit uses mentioned the security risk directly. The statement, “Who knows what kind of security ijkfamily.com has” (Daileda 2017), is an example of this. Implicit uses often referenced improper handling of
classified or confidential information. For example, the statement, “The two stories suggested that the AOL email account was used by Pence to discuss seemingly
confidential subjects such as terror attacks and to receive FBI updates” (Rathi 2017), references the use of an unsecure, private email account to discuss sensitive information.
The next category was “Political Consequences,” with 37 uses, 33 of which were explicit, and 4 of which were implicit. I assigned this category any time an individual presented evidence or expressed the opinion that the emails caused political or professional consequences. I broke this category into three subcategories based on whether the person was making the case that the emails did have political consequences (29 instances), predicting that they would cause political consequences in the future (six instances), or arguing that they should cause political consequences (two instances). Explicit uses directly stated that the email caused, would cause, or should cause a political consequence. The statement, “As far as is known on the public record, the only Russian activities of any consequence were the email hacking of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and John Podesta” (Lin 2018), is an example of this. Implicit uses made statements that indirectly suggested consequences. In the statement, “Wikileaks, however, may be holding on to a bag of scandals though, saying Friday’s leak was the first batch of 50,000 emails” (Cox 2016), the author suggests that trouble may be ahead for the Clinton campaign.
The next category was “Corruption,” with 36 uses, 34 of which were implicit, and two of which were explicit. I assigned this category any time an individual suggested that either the content of the emails, or the circumstances surrounding the management of the emails, provided evidence of government corruption. Explicit references directly stated that they were talking about corruption. The statement, “Leaks from emails stolen from Hillary Clinton advisor John Podesta continued until Election Day, reinforcing the view
among some in the electorate that the Democratic nomination system was corrupt and rigged” (Pollard, Segal & Devost 2018), is an example of this. Implicit uses discussed behavior that is often associated with corruption. For example, the statement, “The Podesta Emails support accusations that the former Secretary of State had a cozy
relationship with bankers” (Cox 2016), mentions Clinton’s relationship with Wall Street, which is often associated with corruption among the Democratic base.
The next category was “Sheds Additional Light,” with 24 uses, 18 of which were explicit, and six of which were implicit. I assigned this category when a person discussed revelations about other issues that came out of the emails or used the email scandal to enhance a discussion of a separate issue. I broke this category into subcategories based on the other issue being discussed. Clinton campaign strategies was the most common, with five uses. Politicians’ awareness of information security issues, the voter fraud
commission’s use of private email, and the ability of the Indiana state judiciary to check the executive branch each had two uses. The following issues each had one use: parole of Paula Cooper, Mike Pence’s endorsement of Ted Cruz, Jared Kushner’s use of private email, Mike Pence’s opinion of Donald Trump, the firing of James Comey, the
Republican tax reform bill, ISIS’s funding sources, Russian attempts to hack Senate email accounts, the special counsel’s Russia investigation, the publication of the book
Clinton Cash, the Keystone XL pipeline, the Uranium One allegations against Hillary Clinton, and the investigation into the FBI’s handling of the Clinton email investigation. Explicit uses clearly addressed the relationship between the email and the separate issue. The statement, “Whistleblower website WikiLeaks has been dumping hacked emails pertaining to the workings of Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton’s presidential
campaign for weeks now” (Pascaline 2016), is an example of this. Implicit uses referenced the email as a way of enhancing a discussion of a separate issue. In the statement “Pence was also criticized for his use of a private AOL account for state business while he was governor of Indiana” (Steele 2017), the author uses Pence’s AOL account to provide background information on a controversy involving the voter fraud commission that he led.
The next category was “Duty of Government,” with 21 uses, 19 of which were implicit, and two of which were explicit. I applied this when an individual stated or implied that it is the duty of the government or the official to provide the email to the public. Explicit uses directly mentioned a government’s duty. The statement, “John Vecchione, president of the Cause of Action Institute, said it’s the agency’s duty to recover the records” (Schoffstall 2017), is an example of this. Implicit uses referenced ethics or the ways that the duty is reinforced through policy. For example, the statement, “But that doesn’t make their blatant disregard for White House ethics any less alarming” (Hilton 2017), suggests that the use of private email accounts violates the ethical duties of White House employees.
The next category was “Incompetence,” with 11 uses, nine of which were
implicit, and two of which were explicit. I applied this category any time some individual discussed ways that either the content of the emails, or the circumstances surrounding the email scandal, provided evidence of incompetence within the government or political system. Explicit uses directly referenced incompetence, while implicit uses discussed behavior that is often associated with incompetence. For example, I coded the statement, “After all, it was Clinton who never seemed to grasp the seriousness of the issue and how
it eroded the public’s already shaky confidence in her” (Cillizza 2017), as an implicit expression of the “Incompetence” category, because it mentioned Clinton’s email scandal damaging the public’s confidence in her ability to do her job.
The next category was “Interpersonal Conflicts,” with ten uses, eight of which were explicit, and two of which were implicit. I applied this category when an individual discussed interpersonal conflicts between government or political figures that were revealed in the emails. For all ten instances, these conflicts were revealed in the content of the email messages themselves. Explicit uses were clear about the fact that they were interested in an interpersonal conflict, while implicit uses mentioned behavior that was often used as evidence of an interpersonal conflict. For example, I coded the statement, “Another email has long-time Clinton aide Doug Band referring to Chelsea Clinton as a ‘spoiled brat’” (Berman & Merica 2016), as an explicit expression of the “Interpersonal Conflicts” category.
The next category was “Additional Questions,” with nine uses, seven of which were explicit, and two of which were implicit. I applied this category when an individual discussed new questions that the email scandal had led them to ask. I broke this category into subcategories based on the question that was being asked. General questions or more information had four instances, while who was involved or had access to the emails had two instances. How sensitive the emails were, the extent of the situation, and what the officials were hiding each had one instance. Explicit uses mentioned that the email caused the person to ask questions, while implicit uses mentioned aspects of the controversy that were not clear. For example, I coded the statement, “But the email leaves plenty questions about what kinds of conversations came before it and who else
was involved” (Phillip & Walshe 2014), as an explicit expression of the who was involved or had access subcategory within the “Additional Questions” category.
The next category was “Costing Taxpayer Money,” with five instances, four of which were explicit, and one of which was implicit. I applied this category when an individual brought up the concern that taxpayer funds were being used to manage the email scandal. The explicit uses were clear about the use of taxpayer funds to manage the email, while the implicit use referenced the money but was not clear in conveying that it was taxpayer money. For example, I coded the statement, “The former governor’s actions have cost us in terms of time and money” (Cook 2017b), as an explicit expression of the “Costing Taxpayer Money” category.
The final two categories, “Medical Problems” and “Violent Fallout”, had only one instance each. The “Medical Problems” instance had to do with a doctor’s statement that Clinton’s staff drafted after she suffered a concussion in 2012, which was discussed in her released emails. The “Violent Fallout” instance involved a shooting in a Washington pizza parlor by a man who believed the debunked “Pizzagate” rumors. These rumors began after the release in the Podesta emails, when conspiracy theorists found what they believed to be references to a child sex trafficking ring in the emails.