Our obsession with uncovering the identity of Melania Trump

Melania Trump is best known as the Slovenian supermodel wife of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and for famously plagiarising Michelle Obama’s 2008 speech to the Democratic National Convention.  Yet Melania is considered by the media as somewhat of an enigmatic figure, choosing to stay at home rather than parade the campaign trail with her husband. Despite her mystique and preference for privacy, she has been swept up in the chaos sparked by many of her husband’s scandalous feuds and controversial remarks. Most recently, defending her husband against leaked footage from 2005 where he boasted that because of his celebrity status he could grope and kiss women without their consent.  Melania’s response to the vulgar discussion that saw many Republicans denounce their support for Trump was that it was “boy talk” and that “he was … egged on to say dirty and bad stuff.” The fixation with exposing the clandestine personality of the potential First Lady, who is Spartan with her words and content with maintaining her private life in the Trump Tower, has led to the rising media storm that has encircled Melania since her husband rose in the polls.


In the quest to uncover the character of the next potential First Lady of the United States, various publications have strived to expose what they believe to be the real Melania Trump to their readership. One article by the The New Yorker in particular echoes the obsession with unearthing Melania’s past and familiarising the world with her personality, asking in its headline, ‘Who Is Melania Trump?’.  The article is written by Lauren Collins and presents a fantastical narrative of a young, beautiful, promising Slovenian woman in desperate pursuit of the “American dream”, suggesting that Donald Trump was her ticket out of communist Yugoslavia.  The article draws on the mysteriousness of Melania, lamenting, “Her story is so vacuous as to almost require the imagination to spackle its holes.” With not much information to go on, the author constructs a narrative arch of Melania as a formidable and aspirational woman, longing to exchange her humble town life for a more glamorous existence. The author achieves this by juxtaposing Melania’s modest beginnings to the excessive wealth that awaited her as the wife of a multi-millionaire businessman.


“She was born in Novo Mesto, in what was then Yugoslavia, in 1970, and raised in a Communist apartment block in Sevnica, a pretty riverside town where a smuggled Coke was a major treat.

Now Melania, who once lived a quiet life in the Zeckendorf Towers, on Union Square, lives a quiet life in the Trump Tower, on Fifth Avenue. House rules require that guests don surgical booties, so as not to scuff the marble floors.”


The extravagance of Melania’s life in New York is harped on throughout the article to present a sort of ‘rags to riches’ narrative. This story angle serves as an explanation of Melania’s motives for remaining in a marriage with a man 24 years her senior, who is loathed passionately by many worldwide. Yet the author does not call for her audience to pity Melania, and crafts a characterisation of her that is cold, robotic and callous, asserting that she is both “un-American” and has “no affinity for her homeland”. The article presents a character assassination of Melania where she is described as “aspirational, playing ice queen rather than soccer mom”, arguing “If we take the office of First Lady seriously, then it’s worth trying to figure out who Melania is as a person, versus a product to be placed.”


The author uses “we” to unite herself with her readership, which she assumes is the American people. She writes in a persuasive tone, attempting to convince the reader that it is critical that the nation unearth Melania’s personality, the claim being that Melania is rebuffing her responsibility as a prospective First Lady to gain conference with the nation. The author’s negative construction of Melania as a reluctant participant in the campaign and as a sheer “product” lacking personality, is solidified through the comparisons to other First Ladies such as Michelle Obama.


“We marvelled at Michelle’s arms, because it seemed that they could be ours, if only we were willing to work as hard as she did, but you don’t hear anyone (other than her husband) talking about Melania’s legs.”


The author presents a superficial comparison of Melania to Michelle that is purely based upon physicality. She argues that Melania does not measure up to the same standard as First Lady, Michelle Obama, by contrasting their physical attributes. However, the author then contradicts her own emphasis on Melania’s physical attributes by criticising Trump for reducing Melania to a sexual object in their “inegalitarian” marriage.


“Her husband seems to define her largely by her physical advantages, which confer upon him an aura of sexual potency. ‘Where’s my supermodel?’ he yelled from the stage, at a town-hall meeting at the University of Pennsylvania, in 1999, shortly after ushering Melania onto the Howard Stern show to discuss the couple’s ‘incredible sex’ and her lack of cellulite.”


As the quote above demonstrates, the author thrusts doubt upon Melania’s decorum as a prospective First Lady by including quotes by Donald Trump where he overtly sexualises her physical advantages.  This serves as a warning to readers that Melania is incapable to fill the role of First Lady as her depth of character is ignored by her husband and is deemed unimportant, locked away from the public eye. The author also compares Melania to Donald Trump in order to turn the reader against Melania and paint a negative image of her character. This suggests that the article is intended for those who are unsupportive of Trump becoming president. The author attempts to lessen Melania’s likeability by portraying her relationship with her husband, arguing that Donald Trump’s crude and aggressive rhetoric has rubbed off on Melania. The underlying warrant cautions the reader that just as Donald is not fit to be president, Melania is not fit to fulfil the role as First Lady of the United States.


Yet Melania appears to have internalised many aspects of Donald’s culture: his ahistoricism; his unblinking gall; his false dichotomies between murderous scofflaws and deserving citizens, women who ask for nothing and nagging wives. Like Donald, Melania doesn’t drink… She has taken on her husband’s signature pout, in a connubial version of people who grow to look like their dogs.”


These comparisons are largely speculative and are derived from the author’s observations of the couple, rather than on a factual basis. The suggestion that the author concedes to is that Melania, the model, has been branded by her husband and mirrors many of his unflattering qualities. This is a contrast to the independent woman portrayed earlier in the piece who pursued her own interests, compared to the meagre characterisation placed upon the married Melania. Seemingly, the author conveys the opinion that Melania has shed her past self to fit into Donald’s American world and become his wife.


This article from The New Yorker leans on the assumption that a reader is bewildered by Melania Trump and is interested in her true identity. It relies mainly on evaluational claims rather than facts to create a compelling narrative about Melania that is derived from the author’s interpretations of her upbringing, marriage and career. The author is consistent in her traditional and patriotic standpoint that deems the role of the First Lady as quintessential to the US presidency, presenting a negative characterisation of Melania where she is painted as “cold” and “un-American”.


The New York Post presents a slightly different take on Melania, where she is offered to readers in an erotic light, as the so-called sex symbol of the Republican campaign. The hyper-sexualisation that is glued to Melania’s image perpetrates a sense of shame about her past dealings as a naked model, distracting from her personality as readers are directed to focus merely on her physicality. The New York Post released a naked photo of Melania as a 25-year-old model on the cover of their July issue, sparking controversy and a barrage of criticism. The provocative headline read ‘Ogle Office’ and the caption, “You’ve never seen a potential First Lady like this!” Many questioned the relevance of this image and argued that it was placed out of context, considering the image is over 20 years old and its original intention was to be sold to a European audience who may hold sexuality in a vastly different light to Americans. The appeal to comparison with previous First Ladies in the caption reveals the underlying worldview of the publisher who suggests that it is taboo and unprofessional for a potential First Lady to have posed naked in this manner.


The Ogle Office front page by The New York Post, 2016

The spread included other shots of Melania in erotic, canted positions which the magazine censored, indicating that the average reader would find the images too graphic and confronting for everyday consumption. The images were accompanied by an interview with the photographer who commented “I am completely against this world, and I don’t understand why the girls f- -k with old guys to afford a Chanel, Louis Vuitton and Hermès bags…The fashion industry has become the biggest pimp ever.”


An image of Melania Trump (then Melania Knass) taken from The New York Post spread


Another image in The New York Post spread from the 1996 photo shoot


The final image from The New York Post spread which was originally shot for Max Magazine

These quotes were presented wildly out of context, the photographer describing his general experiences with the fashion industry, rather than targeting Melania directly who he said in a separate article was “a true professional… always smiling, with a very pleasant personality and was polite and very well educated”. The fact that the publisher chose this particular quote to complement the seductive images of Melania misconstrued the photographer’s statement, suggesting that Melania “pimped” herself out by marrying Donald Trump. The piece renders her in a negative light, as a trophy wife and “gold digger” who has sold herself out for fame and money. There is no factual basis for this claim and it is merely evaluative, where a nude image from 20 years earlier is depicted as a palpable signal that Melania is morally inept. This reveals the publication’s worldview, where the naked female body is seen as scandalous and uncouth, especially considering the prestigious and morally-sound position that the First Lady is idyllically expected to represent. The images are arranged and captioned in a manner where audience shock and discomfort is not just anticipated, it is a blatant expectation, as they ‘ogle’ the image which carries flagrant overtones of slut-shaming and hyper-sexualisation.


The media places a great emphasis on Melania’s history as an immigrant and foreigner, casting doubt on whether she is an American citizen and how she obtained the highly sought after H1B visa. An article by St. Louis Dispatch titled ‘Melania Trump’s ‘Extraordinary Ability’ To Gain Special Immigration Status’ accused her of being unfairly granted a visa because of her relationship with Donald Trump, a well-connected businessman.


The modelling profession will never require bending immigration rules so that our country doesn’t get out-modelled by foreign competitors.

The only reason this needs clarification is because Melania Trump, who could become America’s next first lady, somehow finagled a coveted H1B visa in 2000 (the same year she began appearing in public with Donald Trump) under the guise of being a model.”


This accusation interrogates the premise that Melania Trump was awarded an immigration visa based on her “extraordinary ability” as a model. The article’s warrant is that an “underfed” model shouldn’t be awarded a visa before an engineer, scientist or someone in the high-tech field. It also doubts the talents of Melania and implies that she could not have achieved the successful visa outcome without someone working behind-the-scenes to assist her. However, these claims are not supported by evidence and are somewhat impetuous, consisting of sheer speculation. The claims present unsupported conclusions, as article has gaps in its information, refraining from defining what constitutes as “extraordinary ability”, how Melania failed to qualify for this specification and finally, the number of visa applications granted that year and how many were denied.


The article reads as if it was written as a smear on Donald Trump, who is notorious for his anti-immigration policies, arguing that his views are hypocritical as his wife is an immigrant herself.


“Trump lives and breathes by a double standard on immigration in which it’s perfectly fine to bend the rules when it suits his needs. When it’s other people’s lives, families and staffs on the verge of being split up, he shrugs his shoulders and pronounces, ‘Get ‘em outta here’.”


In this quote Melania is an invisible actor with the sole focus resting on Trump who is assumed guilty and the sole individual responsible for “bending immigration rules”. This article is clearly positioned towards a reader that possesses anti-Trump sentiments and who does not require great convincing in order to label Trump a hypocrite. Melania’s foreign background is manipulated to attack Trump as she is portrayed as a passive and compliant partner who is an extension of Trump rather than a separate individual who holds her own vices and sense of accountability.


A copious portion of what has been written about Melania Trump paints her in a negative light. She is viewed, first and foremost, as Donald Trump’s wife, a Slovenian supermodel with an elusive past who has climbed her way to recognition. The quest to piece together Melania’s character has been sparked by her reluctance to appear on the campaign trail and her preference for privacy. These three articles speculated on various aspects of Melania, constructing narratives about her identity drawing on her foreignness, marriage and mere observations of her character. Melania has been hyper-sexualised, framed as un-American and presented as a trophy wife who opportunistically married Donald Trump to gain American citizenship and a percentage of his hefty fortune. Often she is compared to previous First Ladies to argue that her lack of modesty is not compatible with the role of the First Lady, who is viewed as an icon of American femininity and class.  Yet the mystery remains unsolved, as little is known about Melania, the articles showboating the manic pursuit to uncover the personality of the potential First Lady of the United States. The questions remains, who is the real Melania Trump? Is she the immigrant who fraudulently was awarded a visa, an erogenous model, or a young woman from a modest town who stopped at nothing to achieve her American dream, or a combination of the three? An astute reader may be sceptical as to whether the articles are disingenuous in their attempt to unearth the real Melania Trump. In fact the bigger question remains unanswered as to whether these articles borrow from a political agenda, acting to injure the presidential campaign of her husband, the infamous Donald Trump.

Eden Gillespie, MDIA2002, F12A, z5059936

For: The Columbia Review

Words: 2495

Media Assignment Task 4 Proposal, z5059936, Eden Gillespie, F12A

My media task will be about how Melania Trump is represented in the media as a potential first lady.

I especially want to focus on the articles which allude to the fact that she’s not first lady material as a model, who posed nude in her 20s (See: New York Post’s Ogle Office cover).

Another angle is her status as an immigrant, where conservatives have criticised her and doubted her US citizenship. Many articles also make reference to the fact that she’d be the first immigrant first lady if Trump was elected.


Here are links to some of the articles that interest me:


Eden Gillespie

z5059936, F12A

MDIA2002, Eden Gillespie, z5059936, F12A, Media Views Article 1

MDIA2002 Views Journalism Article 1

Eden Gillespie, z5059936, F12A
Words: 1933

Is the proposed marriage plebiscite the best way to settle the issue of same-sex unions?

The legal recognition of same-sex marriage has been widely debated in Australia, remaining on the public agenda for decades. As of 2016, countries like Spain, New Zealand, the United States, Britain and Canada have confirmed their legal recognition for same-sex unions. With the plebiscite under heavy scrutiny by some Greens and Liberal MPs, the issue is on the forefront of the government’s radar. ‘Malcolm Turnbull, please don’t break the nation’s heart over marriage equality’ by Kristina Keneally and ‘Only a vote can end same-sex marriage debate’ by Andrew Bolt, are two articles with significantly contrasting standpoints on the marriage plebiscite. Both articles are ‘recommendatory’ as their main purpose is to propose solutions to settle the issue of same-sex marriage. Despite their conflicting views, both pieces assume a like-minded reader and rely on assumptions rather than quantitative evidence, using emotionally-laden language and inserting their personal opinions into their articles to cement their arguments.

Kristina Keneally’s piece from The Guardian is an example of the emerging criticisms of the marriage plebiscite. Her stance on the marriage equality plebiscite is clearly articulated in her article and appeals to the negative consequences of a nation-wide vote. She argues that marriage equality will not be achieved through a plebiscite and predicts Malcolm Turnbull will ‘break the nation’s heart’ if it occurs. This claim is a generalisation which relies on the emotional assumption that all Australians share the same worldview on same-sex marriage and will be devastated if it is not legalised. The warrant in this claim is that Turnbull is directly responsible for the outcome of the plebiscite and that the nation is emotionally invested in the topic of same-sex marriage. This heading sets a precedent which continues throughout the article, where the author relies on her own assessments rather than factual evidence to support her claims. It also emphasises the author’s ‘recommendatory’ approach as she deters the reader from supporting the plebiscite in favour of a parliamentary vote. Thus, an analysis of her article reveals an example of  media coverage concerning the plebiscite that is devoted to championing the alternatives to a nation-wide poll, her solution being a parliamentary vote.

“Technically speaking, the fastest way to guarantee a vote in the parliament on gay marriage is if the prime minister brought forward a bill on the subject and let his party room have a free vote. No plebiscite is needed to give the parliament permission to vote. “

Keneally’s article assumes a progressive reader that is in support of same-sex marriage. This is evidenced by the article’s headline, which acts as a plea directed towards the prime minister. Although, the author expects her reader to be in support of same-sex marriage, she does not assume that they follow her opposition of the plebiscite. Thus, her article is written persuasively, aiming to convince the reader of the negative consequences which the author associates with the plebiscite. Instead of providing factual analysis to advance her position, she attempts to convince the reader by reflecting on how her opinion has changed as a result of the plebiscite not reaching fruition. Thus, she acknowledges her imagined reader who may be unsure about the plebiscite and its consequences.

“I have previously supported a plebiscite… If we’d had a marriage equality plebiscite within a year of Tony Abbot’s original proposal, I think there would have been less angst and fear”.

Further, Keneally relies on a historical narrative, making empty and unproven predictions about the aftermath of a marriage plebiscite vote. She draws on the Australian public’s history of rejecting bills, comparing John Howard’s referendum for a republic to the marriage plebiscite. This is a tactic employed by the author to draw comparisons between the two politicians to suggest that the plebiscite is ill-fated based on the premise that the Australian public have a history of denying parliamentary change through affirmative voting. The underlying warrant is that the marriage equality plebiscite proposed for 2017 is comparable to the referendum for constitutional recognition in 1999. However, according to the Australian Electoral Commission, referendums require a ‘double majority’ and alter the Constitution, whereas a plebiscite is “an issue put to the vote which does not affect the Constitution”.

Throughout the article the author also contrasts the political tactics of John Howard and Malcolm Turnbull to reach the conclusion that Turnbull is misguided in championing for a marriage equality plebiscite.

“Here’s the difference: Howard was not a republican. It’s hard to judge him too harshly… A politician using political tactics to defeat his political opponents is not new.

But Turnbull tells us he is in favour of marriage equality. Yet now that he is the prime minister he’s using Howard’s tactics with little thought for the consequences.”

She implies that Turnbull is careless and inconsistent with his politics, warning that this carelessness will result in the plebiscite being rejected by the Australian public. To emphasise her opinion of Turnbull’s sloppiness she uses emotive language that presents Turnbull as ignorant and incompetent. Some of these terms include; “little thought”, “all over the shop”, “sanguine” and labelling him a “Pollyanna”.  This character attack on Turnbull is another way that the author reveals her own biases, rather than criticising the plebiscite itself, which was proposed initially by Tony Abbott in 2015.

Towards the end of her article, Keneally cites some key influencers in the queer community who are against the plebiscite including Michael Kirby, Dr Kerry Phelps and Patrick McGorry who acknowledge the mental ramifications on the queer community considering the debate surrounding the plebiscite. This is one of the key points of the article where the author appeals to authority instead of relying on her own assumptions concerning the best method for solving the issue of same-sex marriage. It relies on the worldview that the insights of significant members of the queer community should be heard when discussing the same-sex marriage plebiscite. This represents the author’s final plea for Turnbull to reconsider the plebiscite, considering that significant members of the queer community are up in arms about the vote. Thus, an analysis of the article consolidates that it is opinion-based rather than fact. However, the article acts to present a ‘recommendatory’ opposition to the plebiscite.

Andrew Bolt’s article from The Daily Telegraph encourages a public vote on same-sex marriage via the marriage plebiscite. However, his article ultimately rests on a traditional worldview that marriage is between a man and a woman and that same-sex marriage is “changing the nature of marriage”. His article relies on the assumption that changing the nature of marriage requires more consideration than economic reform or laws and indicates that same-sex marriage is considered outside the norm of what the author considers to be a standard marriage.

“Let’s vote and not just because changing the nature of marriage is not the same as changing some tax; it is far bigger in consequence, and irreversible.”

While this sentence does not state outright that Bolt is against same-sex marriage, it is encumbered with negative undertones that suggest same-sex marriage needs strong consideration. His claim that changing the nature of marriage to include same-sex unions “is far bigger in consequence”, also demonstrates a belief that marriage equality will impact upon more of the population than just those entering into same-sex unions. Further, the term “irreversible” is a negatively-loaded word, traditionally associated with something that has dire consequences. The Oxford Dictionary definition of irreversible is “Not able to be undone or altered: she suffered irreversible damage to her health”.  Thus, considering that the article has been formulated on a conservative worldview, the author’s campaign for a nation-wide vote on same-sex marriage is unsurprising.

Bolt’s and Keneally’s articles both present directly opposing insights into the same-sex marriage plebiscite. In spite of this, they are similar as they overtly state their opinions and assume a like-minded reader. The two articles are both ‘recommendatory’ as they suggest methods of reaching a conclusion on same-sex marriage. This is particularly evident when analysing the headline of Bolt’s article: ‘Only a vote can end same-sex marriage debate’. This claim relies on the worldview that the plebiscite is associated with the universal ‘rightness’ of the democratic process and the people’s right to vote. Bolt’s direct, conversational tone and repetition conveys strong evidence of his assumption of a like-minded reader. This is consolidated in his final sentence ‘So let’s vote’ where he reiterates his view, favouring his own recommendations instead of quantitative research from experts.

Like Keneally’s article, which mainly consists of historical comparisons and character assumptions, a large majority of Bolt’s article is based on opinion rather than argumentation. For example, Bolt claims that traditionalists have been “stitched up” by the media without utilising anecdotes or factual evidence, forcing the reader to rely solely on the author’s evaluations and personal experiences.

“But right now these traditionalists — scores of whom have written to me or called — believe they are just being stitched up by the political and media class.

They believe (correctly) the media is campaigning for same-sex marriage, while meanwhile discrediting the Catholic Church and vilifying its priests.”

This statement is completely unsupported and would been more factual or reasonable a claim if the author presented evidence that the Catholic Church have been represented in a bad light. However, without this evidence, this claim seems to meander from the issue of legalising same-sex marriage and thus, it serves as an off-topic distraction from the plebiscite.

Bolt’s article is rife with opinion rather than supported argumentation that is founded on a factual basis. He utilises first-person to show his support for the church and traditionalists. Thus, indicating that the article is littered with the author’s personal insights and bias. His support of the Catholic Church highlights the article’s divisiveness and the resounding sense of ‘us and them’ rhetoric throughout.

“In fact, same-sex marriage supporters already claim they have overwhelming public support, so why would they be scared of a popular vote?

Rather, they have very much to gain.

They say they want public acceptance of same-sex relationships, so what better way to get it than by a loud “yes” by the people?

…so is a political deal really how we want to settle this critical issue?”

Both Keneally and Bolt use emotionally-laden language to strengthen their arguments.  Bolt emotively implies that any alternative to the same-sex marriage plebiscite will be unfair to the Australian people. Some of these words include “dodgy deal”, sell out” and asserts “nothing less will prove to opponents they really have been beaten fair and square.”  The articles venture into strongly opinionated piece that consist of little argumentation and rely on assumptions and unsupported generalisations. Thus, the articles function as a type of loudspeaker, giving volume to the voices of prominent journalists rather than creating well-researched and argumentative pieces that consider expert opinions and factual information.

An analysis of both articles demonstrates an assumed readership whose views align with the opinions of the authors. The articles are significantly bare in terms of argumentation, relying on assumptions and projecting their own opinions into their articles. Both articles assume their readers follow their worldview, with Bolt imagining a conservative readership that may be sceptical of same-sex marriage and Keneally, imagining a progressive reader who supports marriage equality. A deeper study of the articles surrounding the marriage plebiscite debate would result in a stronger analysis of the issue. However, they reveal a significant amount about the marriage plebiscite and the disarray of the current political climate. Thus, both articles utilise recommendatory approaches, attempting to sway public opinion. This reveals that marriage equality is at the forefront of the government’s agenda with the plebiscite under heavy scrutiny.