A cold war of words?
Framing of the Ukrainian conflict
A comparative analysis of frames within RT and BBC
Master Thesis
Name: Daniva van der Wiel, Student Number: s125901 Supervised by: Dr. H. Mazepus
Leiden University, Faculty of Governance and Global Affairs MSc Crisis and Security Management
TABLE OF CONTENT
Abstract ……….... 4
1. Introduction ……….. 5
1.1 Disinformation ……… 5
1.2 Research question ………... 6
1.3 Academic and societal relevance ……… 9
1.4 Reading guide ………. 10
2. Orienting framework ……… 11
2.1 Crisis in Ukraine ……… 11
2.2 International responses to the Ukrainian crisis ……….. 12
2.2.1 Political response of the EU ……… 13
2.2.2 Political response of Russia ………. 16
2.3 The EU versus Russia ………. 19
3. Theoretical framework ……….... 20
3.1 Information provision through the media ……….. 20
3.2 Political bias ………... 21
3.3 Framing ……….. 22
3.3.1 Definitions of framing ……… 22
3.3.2 Frames in political news ………. 23
3.3.3 Different frames ……….. 24
3.4 Problem situation ………... 28
4. Methodology ……… 29
4.1 Research question ……….. 29
4.2 Data collection and research design ……… 29
4.2.1 Dataset ……… 30
4.3 Operationalization ………. 31
4.3.1 RT ………... 31
4.3.2 BBC ………. 32
4.3.3 Framing ………... 33
4.4 Validity and reliability ……… 34
5. Analysis ………... 35
5.2 BBC ……….. 43
6. Conclusion ……….. 51
6.1 Answer to research question ……….. 51
6.2 Limitations and recommendations for further research ……….. 52
Bibliography ……… 54
Appendix 1: Outcome RT1 Atlas.ti (example) ……… 58
Abstract
Over the past decades, the internet and the availability of information have started to play a bigger role in our daily lives. This increase of information provision creates new threats to international peace and security. This study originated as an academic interest regarding information provision of different news agencies about the Ukrainian conflict. The Ukrainian conflict started in 2014. The information provision about the Ukrainian conflict differ. The Ukrainian crisis is covered in different ways. These differences in framing the same issue, threaten the notion of objective truth. This study shows the danger of information provision and the importance of media pluralism in order to promote critical thinking.
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Disinformation
Over the past decades, the internet and the availability of information have started to play a bigger role in our daily lives. Information is a key element in economic and political processes due the fact that the modern society is largely dependent on information as the fundament of innovation (Pomerantsev & Weiss, 2014). Despite the positive side effects, like interconnectedness with the world, there are also dangers associated with these developments. The acceleration of information and communication technology leads towards new aspects of information warfare. This information warfare results in new threats to international peace and security (Giles, 2016). The rise of the internet increases the possibility for political actors to create and disseminate disinformation (Mejias & Vokuev, 2017). Disinformation is information with an intentional deception, whereas misinformation contains inaccurate information (Fallis, 2015). Both disinformation and misinformation have the power to mislead people. Government propaganda is part of disinformation and thus aims to mislead people and tries to influence the perception of the receiver. Propaganda is a form of mass communication practiced by those in power in order to expand and/or maintain their power. Propaganda is often used during conflicts in order to shape perceptions and influence the attitudes of allies, neutrals and enemies (Ingram, 2016).
Recent security-related developments resulted in an increasing awareness and worry about the use of disinformation (Giles, 2016). The Ukrainian crisis is one of these security-related developments. The Ukrainian crisis can be used to clarify the different interests of actors in a conflict and the use of information regarding these different interests. Within the Ukrainian crisis, there is a central role of informational component. The Ukrainian crisis can be described as a hybrid warfare (Pasitselska, 2017). A hybrid warfare implies “Achieving political-strategic goals by making use of all political, military, economic, information, intelligence and cyber resources, without there being open conflict between two states” (Dutch Military Intelligence Services, 2016). In recent years, the term hybrid warfare has become more conspicuous in the public debate. The aim of hybrid warfare is to influence democratic decision-making processes (Dutch Military Intelligence Services, 2016). This is being achieved, among other things, by influencing the public opinion, excluding independent media and causing dissension within states and international organizations (Dutch Military Intelligence Services, 2016).
The Ukrainian crisis can be regarded as a part of a far-reaching conflict between Russia and the West, two superpowers (Sauer, 2017). Many authors make a comparison between the Cold War and the Ukrainian conflict. Some authors even call the Ukrainian conflict a Cold War 2.0. For instance, the Guardian posted an article with the headline ‘Cold War 2.0: how Russia and the west reheated a historic struggle’ (The Guardian, 2016). Also, Robert Legvold (2014) publicised an article in Foreign Affairs called ‘Managing the New Cold War. What Moscow and Washington Can Learn From The Last One’. However, it is wrong to call the Ukrainian conflict a new Cold War. There is no capitalist western bloc opposed to a communist eastern bloc like in the Cold War. Nevertheless, the Ukrainian conflict did cause new tensions between the West and Russia. In addition to pre-building politically and economic tensions in Ukraine, the refusal to sign the Association Agreement with the European Union by the former Ukrainian president Yanukovych in November 2013 demonstrates the starting point of what we call the Ukrainian conflict. President Yanukovych did make a deal with the Russian President Vladimir Putin. This deal entailed Russia buying $15 billion in Ukrainian bonds (Diuk, 2014). The closer ties with Russia rather than with Europe, the political crisis and social upheaval in Ukraine led to mass protests on the Maidan Nezalezhnosti (independence square) in Kyiv. These protests are referred to as Euromaidan (Diuk, 2014). The original main goal of the protests, the request for European integration, was replaced by demands for the resignation of President Yanukovych. In February 2014, the clashes between protesters and pro-government groups resulted in the ousting of President Yanukovych (Makhortykh & Lyebyedyev, 2015).
The reaction of Russia to the fall of the Yanukovych regime was striking and powerful at the same time. Representatives of Russian special forces and military intelligence, former referred to as soldiers without any insignia referring to a country, took military control of the Crimean area. After a referendum held on 16 March 2014, Crimea became part of the Russian Federation (Haukkala, 2015). Russia annexed Crimea and a new conflict was born (Karolewski & Cross, 2016).
The direct involvement of Russia in the Ukrainian conflict caused an interesting development regarding the information provision of the conflict in Ukraine. Russia tries to increase their influence in the world by the use of TV news, printed and social media. Due to this, ‘fake news’ has transformed into a subject that many academics and professionals focus on (Dimitrova, Frear, Mazepus, Toshkov, Boroda, Chulitskaya, Grytsenko, Munteanu, Parvan & Ramasheuskaya, 2017). There is a rise of studies that tend to gain more insight in this hybrid warfare.
This phenomenon fake news and disinformation continues in the Ukrainian conflict. Within the Ukrainian conflict, propaganda and media manipulation are being used (Khaldarova & Pantti, 2016). By using disinformation, propaganda and manipulation, the goal of hybrid warfare is to influence conceptions and attitudes of people. The media has a big impact on political processes by shaping different perceptions of political and social subjects. Methods and techniques to create and disseminate information have become more advanced, which leads to disinformation through the media (Saran, 2016). Due to this, the Ukrainian conflict is displayed differently in the media which increases the risk of disinformation.
The European Council concluded during their meeting on 19 and 20 March 2015 that Russia’s ongoing disinformation campaigns need to be combatted. The increasing use of communication tools in political, economic and security related developments have influenced the EU’s eastern neighbourhood since the end of 2013 (Action Plan, 2015). They emphasized the urge to establish an action plan on strategic communication (European Council, 2015). In cooperation with EU institutions and Member States, an Action Plan was created in June 2015. This Action Plan focusses on the measures regarding the EU Strategic Communication. Moreover, the Action Plan encourages media freedom. One of the three goals of the Action Plan is ‘increased public awareness of disinformation activities by external actors, and improved EU capacity to anticipate and respond to such activities” (Action Plan, 2015).
The European Council tries to increase the supply of Russian language media. Some Member States already actively encourage broadcasting in the Russian language in order to reach national minorities. Furthermore, the EU supports independent media at local level, including media in the Russian language, in order to make sure that citizens have access to different media sources (Action Plan, 2015). The EU wants to fulfil the role of a media watchdog.
On April 26 2018, the European Commission presented measures to tackle and combat online disinformation in order to protect European values and security (European Commission, 2018). The European Commission decided that online platforms should develop and follow a common Code of Practice with the aim of ensuring transparency about sponsored content. This should be accomplished by July 2018. Moreover, fact-checkers, researchers and public authorities should have the possibility to monitor online disinformation 24/7. The European Commission also suggests an independent European network of fact-checkers (European Commission, 2018).
A lot of research has been conducted regarding media framing during times of war and conflict. Dimitrova and Strömback (2005) showed that there are significant differences
regarding information about the war in Iraq provided by U.S. media and Swedish media. The U.S. media quoted for example more often government and military sources comparing to Swedish media (Dimitrova and Strömback, 2005). This study tries to give a broader overview of the framing theory and applies this to a different conflict: The Ukrainian conflict. Within the Ukrainian conflict, there are different interests of different countries.
1.2 Research question
In this research, I would like to find out how information provided by Western and Russian news agencies differ regarding the Ukrainian conflict. This study focusses specifically on the Russian international news agency RT (Russia Today) and the English international news agency BBC. Since RT is a Russian news agency that writes articles in English, and the BBC is an English news agency in Europe, they are both the ideal media platforms to use in this study.
Due to the annexation of the Crimea in March 2014 and the Russian invasion in of eastern Ukraine in August 2014, the Kremlin decided to expand their media scope in Europe. The Kremlin elected two leading European countries: France and Germany. The focus on these two countries, writes the Wall Street Journal, “reflects the Kremlin’s attempts to open a gap between Europe and the U.S., and between the European public and its governments, over how to respond to the Ukraine crisis.” (Troianovski, 2014). RT has required free access to Western audiences (Van Herpen, 2016). However, RT claims to provide “alternative perspectives on current affairs, and acquaints international audiences with a Russian viewpoint on major global events” (RT, 2018). Nevertheless, RT is part of an official list which states the main organizations of strategic importance for Russia (EUvsDisinfo, 2017). EUvsDisinfo (2017) also claims that RT receives instructions every week from the Kremlin regarding the guidelines of political events, what should be talked about and what should not be talked about.
The British Broadcasting Cooperation (BBC) on the other hand, is one of the most respectable news sources in the West. The BBC writes on their website that they are “independent, impartial and honest (BBC, 2018). The news agency is praised for their critical news articles.
This study tries to find out what the differences are between information campaigns of RT and the BCC about the Ukrainian conflict. Given the information above, the research question this study aims to answer is: “How does the information provided by RT differ from
the information provided by the BBC in regard to the Ukrainian conflict?” This study seeks to find differences between information provided by RT and the BBC; there is a comparative element. Both news agencies publish articles in English.
In order to give an answer to the research question, the framing theory, the theory about how a concept or event is presented to the audience, will be used. The purpose of frames is to understand media content (Street, 2001). The framing theory will form the basis of this study in order to analyse the news articles of RT and the BBC and to find out whether there are differences between the information the two news agencies provide regarding the Ukrainian conflict.
1.3 Academic and societal relevance
This study has both an academic and societal relevance. The academic literature on the theory of framing is extensive. This study will contribute to a comprehensive overview of the academic literature on framing. The academic relevance lies in the fact that the theory of framing will be applied to news articles from two different news agencies with different angles focussing on a political event: the crisis in Ukraine.
Hybrid warfare is becoming more important in the public debate. Hybrid warfare comes in different appearances, among which information warfare (MIVD, 2016). Information warfare is a new threat to (inter)national peace and security and can thus be related to the field of Crisis and Security Management. The goal of disinformation is to mislead and confuse people and can have a huge impact on society. It is essential to study the fundamental methods and aspects of media framing in order to uncover the use of disinformation in the media.
The societal relevance of this study contains that Russian misinformation in general is a much-discussed topic. The Russians are among others suspected of trying to influence American citizens during the presidential elections in the United States by providing misinformation on Facebook (Volkskrant, 2017). This study focusses not only on Russian news articles, but it tries to seek differences between news coverage in the West and news coverage in Russia. The outcomes of this study might raise awareness among citizens regarding news coverage in general and cause some form of critical thinking.
1.4 Reading guide
The content of this study will follow a strict format. The next section is an orienting framework which outlines the context of the Ukrainian crisis and international responses to the crisis in Ukraine. The third section will touch upon the concept of misinformation and the different aspects of framing theory which will form the basis for the analyse. The fourth section contains the methodology of this study, in which among others the research method will be discussed. The analysis section will apply the theory of framing as discussed in the third section to the articles selected articles of RT and BBC. Finally, the conclusion will provide an answer to the research question, describe shortcomings of this research and give suggestions for further research.
2. CONTEXT / ORIENTING FRAMEWORK
The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 symbolizes the end of the Cold War. The Cold War entailed a period of armed peace between two power blocks: the capitalistic western block and the communistic eastern bloc. In 2014, history repeated after Europe again got involved in a great power confrontation (Sakwa, 2016). The crisis in Ukraine reminded Europe of the possibility of war, exactly one hundred years after the end of the Second World War; according to Sakwa 2016) the war to end all wars. The developments in Ukraine led to a low point in the relation between Russia and the West since 1989 (Plekhanov, 2016). This section will describe these developments in Ukraine and elaborate on the reaction of Europe and Russia to the crisis in Ukraine.
2.1 Crisis in Ukraine
21 November 2013. The day the Eastern Partnership Summit took place in Vilnius. Then Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych decided not to sign an association agreement with the European Union. Instead of investing in closer ties with the European Union, Yanukovych was interested in an economic deal with Russia (Götz, 2016). Money was an important factor in the choice between the EU and Russia. Moreover, Ukraine earned money from Russian gas that was transported to Europe (Hirst, 2015).
In 2013, Ukraine was facing a dilemma between intensifying relations with the EU or with Russia. Ukraine and Russia have a common history. Ukraine became independent in 1991, after it has been part of the Soviet Union since 1922 (Kubicek, 2008). After Ukraine became an independent country, it faced disorientation regarding a national identity. The Ukrainian population is multicultural and consists of among others Belarusians, Crimean Tartars and Russians (Minorityrights, 2005). Ukraine was also confronted with different issues when trying to organize politics conform the Western standards. Yanukovych was negotiating about an Association Agreement with the EU and was considering options for NATO-membership. At the same time, Ukraine recovered its ties with Russia and signed the Black Sea Fleet agreement (Plekhanov, 2016). Developing better relations with Russia, led to dissatisfaction among the nationalists who considered this to be contrary to the national interests of Ukraine. Ukraine was
being confronted with domestic tensions, which resulted in a strong division between the Western Ukrainians, who strived for democracy and for independence from Russia and pro-Russia Ukrainians (Sakwa, 2016).
This EU-Russia division within Ukraine erupted after Yanukovych did not sign an association agreement with the EU. Just before the Summit in Vilnius, the three opposition parties (two national democrats and the radical Svoboda) endorsed a resolution which stated:
“In the case of the President’s refusal to carry out his constitutional duties and his failure to sign the agreement, we shall make every effort to have the President impeached for high treason, and we shall call on all democratic countries of the world to impose immediate sanctions on Yanukovych and members of his corrupt regime” (Plekshanov, p. 17).
The opposition leaders responded to this resolution by protests on the Independence Square in Kiev. The Euromaidan was born and a political war had started.
On 18-20 February 2014, the protests in Kiev reached its peak, armed radicals tried to assault the building of the Ukrainian parliament and got into a fight with the police. As a result, the government announced a state of emergency. The Ukrainian intelligence service SBU organised anti-terror action. The Ukrainian government used snipers against opponents of Yanukovych (De Volkskrant, 2014). The following three days almost 100 people died in the fights between the police and the protesters. The civic protest movement had become an armed struggle (Volkskrant, 2014). The situation escalated and Yanukovych was being ousted (Plekhanov, 2016).
The developments in Ukraine led to concerns in Russia. The cancellation of the EU-deal and the ousting of Yanukovych meant changing relationships in the conflict. President Putin decided to intervene in the conflict (Sakwa, 2016). The intervention of Russia in the Ukrainian crisis can among others be explained by the fact that Russia had deep concerns regarding the agreement on the Black Sea Fleet and Ukraine’s possible intentions to join NATO (Plekhanov, 2016). As a result, Russia supported the local pro-Russian politicians by sending armed forces, aiming to organize a referendum on the future of Crimea. First, Russia denied that the armed forces were trained Russian special forces. Later, Medvedev admitted Russia had moved troops in Crimea (The Telegraph, 2014). The Crimean referendum was held on 16 March 2014, while Russia blocked the entry points of Crimea. 82 per cent of the total Crimean population voted in favour becoming part of Russia and Crimea returned to Russian jurisdiction. Crimea became formally part of Russia on 18 March (Sakwa, 2016). During the referendum were no independent Western observers present. The secession of Crimea from Ukraine and
subsequently becoming part of Russia, is in violation with international law (Geiss, 2015). The intervention of Russia in the Ukrainian crisis resulted in strong aversion from Kiev, the United States and European governments. They argued the annexation of Crimea by Russia is contrary to the Budapest Memorandum of 1994. The Budapest Memorandum is a political agreement between Russia, the United States, Ukraine and the United Kingdom. Article 2 of the agreement states the undersigned “reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations” (General Assembly Security Council, 1994). As a result of rejecting this agreement, Western countries implemented (economic) sanctions against Russia and Crimea, see Figure 1 on page number 15.
Despite the disputes between the West and Russia, there were international shared concerns regarding the possible escalation of the conflict in Ukraine. These concerns were followed by negotiations between Kiev and Donbass. The negotiations resulted in the Minsk agreements with the aim to end the Ukraine Crisis (Plekhanov, 2016).
2.2 International responses to the Ukrainian Crisis
The crisis in Ukraine caused a lot concerns regarding increasing tensions between Russia and the West. The interests of the EU and Russia are directly opposed to each other in the Ukraine crisis.
2.2.1 Political response of the EU
Ukraine is one of the closest partners of the European Union, also within the EU’s Eastern Partnership. The European Union emphasizes the importance of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine.
Ukraine and the EU negotiated about an Association Agreement between 2007 and 2011. The decision of Yanukovych to not sign the Association Agreement caused a lot of protests in Ukraine and can be considered as the starting point of the Ukrainian crisis. After Yanukovych was ousted, an Association Agreement was signed on 21 March and 27 June 2014
(EEAS, 2019). The main goal of the Association Agreement is to deepen and improve the relationship between the EU and Ukraine; politically, economically and culturally.
Since the beginning of 2014, Ukraine has expressed its ambition for a stable economy and improving living conditions of its citizens within a short period of time. In order to support Ukraine with the reforms, the EU and Ukraine signed the Association Agenda. The main goals of this agreement are diminishing corruption, energy efficiency, reorganization of the judiciary, constitutional and electoral reforms and the development of business. Gender equality is a topic within all sectors (EEAS, 2019). Along with this political support, the EU also supports Ukraine financially; the EU has guaranteed a €13.8 billion support package for Ukraine (EEAS 2019). This will encourage Ukraine to implement reforms.
The Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA) is part of the Association Agreement. The DCTFA was implemented on 1 September 2017. This free trade area improves the bilateral trade relations between the EU and Ukraine. As a result of DCFTA, Ukrainian companies can enter the biggest market in the world (EEAS, 2019). At the same time, it will be easier for European companies to cooperate with Ukrainian businesses. The EU wants to strengthen its economic ties with Ukraine. As well as Ukrainian export to the EU as Ukrainian import from the EU has strongly increased (EEAS, 2019). The EEAS (2019) states the EU is strengthening its position as most important trading partner of Ukraine. Besides the reinforced trade relationship between the EU and Ukraine, Ukraine will also benefit from developments in general regarding the business climate in Ukraine. The DCFTA will also lead to more variety in the Ukrainian economy (EEAS, 2019).
All the above-mentioned measures confirm EU’s connection with Ukraine and shows EU’s commitment to Ukraine. As mentioned before, the EU supports the importance the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine. When Crimea and Sevastopol were annexed by Russia in 2014, the European Council strongly disapproved this action. Leaders of the EU emphasized that violence and duress in order to alter European borders is unacceptable. The EU states the annexation of Crimea is in contrast with the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Five years after the annexation, the EU still disapproves this breach of international law (EEAS, 2019). The actions of Russia regarding the peninsula of Crimea, led to a non-recognition policy. The EU has implemented several sanctions with regard to Russia. First of all, the EU banned the visa of 170 persons and has frozen their capital, the same applies to 44 entities. These persons and entities have, according to the EU, acted contrary to Ukraine’s territorial integrity or promoted Russian decision-makers (EEAS, 2017). The EU also imposed sanctions on Crimea and Sevastopol. The EU does not import goods from Crimea or Sevastopol, nor does
the EU export goods to Crimea or Sevastopol. Moreover, European businesses are no longer allowed to invest in Crimea or Sevastopol, the same applies to touristic services (EEAS, 2017). Furthermore, the EU has emphasized the bilateral arrangements between the EU and Russia are only covered in the internationally territory of Russia; Crimea and Sevastopol are not internationally recognised as Russian territory (EEAS, 2017). Finally, the EU has established guidelines regarding Schengen visa applications by the citizens of Crimea and Sevastopol (EEAS, 2017). The sanctions taken by the EU against Russia as described above, are clarified in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1 (EEAS, 2017)
The EU attaches great importance to a peaceful and sustainable solution to the conflict in Ukraine. From the beginning, the EU has underlined the value of territorial integrity and sovereignty in Ukraine. The EU encourages all actions taken in order to come to a political solution for the conflict in Ukraine. The EU tries to contribute to this by a mix of measures with diplomatic efforts in order to exert pressure and at the same time maintaining the dialogue (EEAS, 2019). The EU implemented diplomatic and economic restrictions against Russia. At the same time, the EU kept dialogue with Russia open by negotiating the Geneva Joint Statement in 2014 (MFA Ukraine, 2014). The agreements of the Geneva Joint Statement were
further elaborated in Minsk in September 2014 and February 2015. Since the provisions of the Minsk deal have not all been implemented, the EU is still imposing sanctions to Russia (EEAS, 2019). The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) set up a Special Monitoring Mission (SMM). This mission observes and controls the implementation of the Minsk agreements. The EU is supporting the SMM financially (EEAS, 2019).
At last, the EU also supports Ukraine by providing humanitarian help. The EEAS (2019) states stat 3.4 million people in Ukraine lack humanitarian help. The EU tries to provide help by supporting the people who need it the most financially. The EU funded approximately €640 million for humanitarian aid in Ukraine. The EU’s Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (ECHO) has a coordinating role regarding humanitarian aid in Ukraine (EEAS, 2019).
2.2.2 Political response of Russia
It may be clear that the EU and Russia both have different interests and insights when it comes to the crisis Ukraine.
President Vladimir Putin (2014) stated in a speech the Crimean referendum is an event with historical magnitude. It is striking Putin outlines the referendum was in agreement with international norms. Putin emphasizes the common history of Russia and Crimea. He also emphasizes the current similarities between Russia and Ukraine, for instance the exclusive mix of cultures and traditions. Putin says he recognizes all ethnic groups in Crimea.
In his speech, Putin returns to history. He argues the transfer of Crimea to the Republic of Ukraine in 1954 was in opposition to the constitutional norms. However, after the fall of the Soviet Union, Crimea was assigned to a different country (Ukraine). Nevertheless, Putin (2014) outlines Crimea is historically part of Russia and Sevastopol is historically a Russian city.
Dmitry Medvedev (2014) describes that within a year, Ukraine changed from a close neighbour country with a good trade relation and where Ukrainian citizens were considered as relatives to a country with a split society and a turned down economy. Putin (2014) emphasizes Russian citizens and Russian speakers in Crimea also suffer from this political crisis. Medvedev states that Russia is willing to help all the Ukrainian citizens, even when they state Ukraine needs to be independent from Russia. Medvedev (2014) also emphasizes just like Putin that Ukrainian and Russian citizens share the same culture, mentality, living standards and centuries-long common history. Medvedev describes for example that Russian citizens listen
to Ukrainian folksongs as if these are Russian folksongs. The bonds between Russia and Ukraine are extremely strong. Even after Ukraine and Russia were no longer merged in one country, they kept on speaking the same language and kept reading the same books. Moreover, Putin (2014) argues Crimea has always been an integral component of Russia. Due to this, Ukrainian citizens will always be important for Russia.
According to Medvedev, in addition to the historical and cultural interconnectedness, there is also a big interconnectedness with regard to the economies of both countries. Ukraine was a pioneer of the Soviet republics in the field of technology. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, these technological advantages, among others the gas transport system, were assigned to Ukraine (Medvedev, 2014). Moreover, Russia paid the whole Soviet debt. In 1993, Russia supported Ukraine by providing a loan of 250 billion roubles (Medvedev, 2014). According to the Russian government, the above-mentioned examples confirm the close ties between Russia and Ukraine.
However, Medvedev also outlines Ukraine is confronting a turbulent present. Ukrainian President Yanukovych negotiated with the EU about an association deal. He tried to strengthen ties with the EU as well as with Russia. However, at long last, Yanukovych had doubts about the economic advantages of the association agreement with the EU. There was no guarantee that the EU would support Ukraine financially. Due to this, Yanukovych decided not to sign the Association Agreement. As a result of all the developments within Ukraine, Ukraine was facing an economic disaster. Ukraine has a lot of debts, mostly held by Russia (Medvedev, 2014).
Medvedev (2014) argues that the core of Ukraine’s problems can be found when the Ukrainian government started talking about independency from Russia, which was being supported by Western countries. Different countries including Ukraine were encouraged to become part of the Eastern Partnership and decrease cooperation with Russia. Medvedev (2014) describes the European actions as dictating Ukraine. He emphasizes that the Association Agreement mainly consists of benefits for the EU. Ukraine needs to adopt legislation in accordance with EU norms with regard to a broad free trade area. However, the EU will not invite Ukraine for EU-membership. In other words; the EU confirms her idea of having better regulations and directives than Ukraine. Medvedev (2014) considers this as a form of supremacy. He argues that there cannot be a fair competition between Ukrainian companies and European companies.
Medvedev (2014) states that the Ukrainian will to become part of the EU is a mistake. EU membership is not mentioned in the Association agreement. With regard to this, the EU
does not consider Ukraine as an equal partner. He also questions if Ukraine will economically benefit from EU membership. Bulgaria became part of the EU in 2007, the years after EU membership unemployment increased in Bulgaria (Medvedev, 2014).
According to Medvedev (2014), Russia is Ukraine’s biggest trade partner. However, the EU also claims to be the biggest trade partner of Ukraine (EEAS, 2019). Russia has offered a trilateral meeting between Ukraine, the EU and Russia. According to Russia, the EU rejected this offer since the EU argued that Russia was no part of the process. Moreover, Medvedev (2014) argues that the European unwillingness to include Russia, is the cause of the civil war in eastern Ukraine. If Europe would have accepted to discuss the problems on a trilateral basis, hundreds of thousands of refugees would not have fled to Russia, according to Medvedev (2014).
Putin (2014) describes the residents of Crimea and Sevastopol asked Russia to intervene in the conflict in order to defend their rights and lives. He also states that Russia had no choice but helping the people in Crimea and Sevastopol. Putin emphasizes that the wishes of the Crimean residents regarding their own future should be respected. In order to establish these wishes, Russia decided to help. Putin (2014) admits he gave permission to use Armed Forces in Ukraine. However, he denies that these Armed Forces did not come into action. Putin also invalidates the argument that the declaration of independence and the announced referendum in Crimea are illegal. Putin (2014) refers to the Kosovo precedent. Within this precedent Kosovo became independent from Serbia, all western countries agreed with this separation. Moreover, Putin quotes Chapter 1 of the United Nations Charter, which states that “general international law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence” (Putin, 2014). Putin states that in the Ukraine case, western countries do not let themselves be led by international law but by the rule of gun. Putin calls the West hypocrite and states that they have crossed a line.
Medvedev states Ukraine needs to take its responsibility, just like Russia took its responsibility after the referendum of Crimea. Medvedev (2014) emphasizes that Crimea’s return to Russia was a Crimea’s decision. Putin (2014) says in his speech he respects the territorial integrity of Ukraine and does not want to break down Ukraine. However, he describes Crimea is in need of a strong and stable sovereignty. According to Putin (2014) only Russia can take care of this.
As the described in the previous section, the EU implemented sanctions against Russia after the annexation of Crimea. According to Putin (2014), these sanctions are irresponsible and
aggressive in tone. As a reaction on these sanctions, Russia banned food imports from the EU, US, Australia, Norway and Canada with a total of $9 billion a year (Popov, 2015).
2.3 The European Union versus Russia
It is interesting both the European Union and Russia argue Ukraine is their closest partner. Both actors also state that they respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine (EEAS, 2019 and Putin, 2014). Despite these similar statements, the response of the European Union to the conflict in Ukraine and the response in Russia differ a lot. The European Union states Crimea and Sevastopol were annexed by Russia in 2014. The European Council strongly condemns this action and calls the Crimean referendum illegal. Russia on the other hand, emphasizes that historically, Crimea has always been a part of Russia. The term ‘annexation’ therefore does not occur in the speeches of Putin nor Medvedev. Putin states to wit that the people living in Crimea and Sevastopol, asked Russia for help. As a result, Russia decided to help Crimea by creating a situation in which Crimean residents could decide on their own future. Where the European Union declares the referendum illegal, Russia states the referendum was lawful and transparent. The European Union and Russia both blame each other for the situation in Ukraine.
3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
This section presents the theoretical framework which will form the basis of this study. With the elaboration of the theoretical framework, the main concepts will be defined and the framing theory will be translated into measurable indicators.
Framing is a useful theory to analyse news articles. Moreover, it is a basic element of political communication and news reporting (Aarøe, 2011). The theory of framing offers the possibility to illustrate and define the power of a text (Entman, 1993). On the basis of different definitions and descriptions, this section will provide more information about media communication and what frames in the media contain and how it works.
3.1 Information provision through the media
The media is part of today’s society. The magnitude and influence of the media have been expanding due to amongst others the advent of television and digital communications through the internet. Media play an important role during conflicts; they are often the only source available providing the ‘other’ side of the conflict. Due to this, media have a great influence on opinion formation in society (Hass, 2010). Politicians, leaders and protesters use media as a communication tool (Zeitzoff, 2017).
“Free and independent news media are a key element in democracies, where they play a vital political role in keeping governments and citizens aware of, and in contact with one another.” (Caparini, 2004). Media has the ability to influence the political processes. The media ensures a connection between politics and citizens. The media hold a twofold function; representing and forming political opinion (Caparini, 2004). On the one hand, the media inform and report to the citizens regarding an issue or event. On the other hand, the media have the ability to influence the opinions and decisions of citizens.
Communication and the provision of information in a conflict can fulfil two different roles. The first type is elite-level communication. This entails diplomacy and communication tactics by political leaders, rebel groups and military commanders in order to communicate and inform about logistics and intentions with opponents (Zeitzoff, 2017). The other type of communication concerns mass-based appeals. This type is focussed on leaders and challengers
who try to influence and regulate mass behaviour. They try to do this by regulating the content of information and manipulating the mass channels of communication (Zeitzoff, 2017). However, the advent of the Internet changed both the tactical communication and the mass communication. Creating own content as well as the possibility to respond directly to leaders is being facilitated. This acceleration of communication influences conflicts and politics. However, it is still not clear how it exactly influences conflicts politics (Zeitzoff, 2017).
3.2 Political bias.
The media have a big influence on how politics is covered. Media content can be systematically favourable to a particular set of interests. This is consistent with the term ‘bias’ (Street, 2001). Mass media may filter available information and can manipulate or specifically focus on certain events or issues. This results in a one-sided perception of the event or issue (Hass, 2010).
The description of the term bias clashes with the fundamental assumptions of democracy. Democracy is characterized by (media) freedom and political equality. In order to guarantee media freedom, pluralism of media is important. One of the general assumptions of democracy is that a specific group or set of interests is not favoured over another (Street, 2001). Moreover, information citizens have access to, should be correct and unbiased. When the media systematically focus on particular interests and thereby misinform the citizens, the democratic process is hampered. Misrepresentation in the media can affect the outcome of political processes (Street, 2001). The assertion that the media is biased, starts with the idea that journalists express a preference for a specific view of the world. One set of interests is substantiated while other interests are undermined.
Bias can be used to analyse media content. However, coverage of world politics should not be read in terms of bias, but in terms of narratives. Instead of using bias to understand media content, this study focusses on the theory of framing. Framing explains the way in which news media work as stories, whereby news refers to various events taking place in the world. The media does not only pick specific events or issues, but it also makes sense of these events (Street, 2001).
3.3 Framing
3.3.1 Definitions of framing
As with many concepts and theories, there is not one commonly accepted definition of framing. The theory of framing is being used within various disciplines, which makes it hard to agree on one systematic approach. There is a lot of literature which contributes to the understanding of frames (Semetko & Valkenburg, 2000).
The concept of framing was clarified by Erving Goffman. His book Frame Analysis (1974) is highly valued and often referred to. Frames comprise the way people give meaning to and understand their surrounding area, as well as events in the world (Szwed, 2016). Framing is focussed on interpretation: “[…] each framework allows its user to locate, perceive, identify, and label a seemingly infinite number of concrete occurrences defined in its terms” (Goffman, 1974: 21). It provides a way to comprehend events and information and to make sense of reality. Frames shape the world (Neuman, Just & Crigler, 1992).
The two main features of framing are selection and salience. Certain aspects of an issue or topic are being selected and highlighted, while other aspects are not mentioned. By doing this, some features of reality are more salient in a communicating text. In this context, more salient refers to more noticeable and meaningful. By selecting and highlighting, some of the components are being used to substantiate an argument about a certain issue (Entman, 1993). Particular aspects are being emphasized (Börang et al., 2014). An explicit definition of a problem or issue is being encouraged to use, as well as causal interpretation and moral evaluation (Entman, 1993). Framing basically equals defining problems.
The way how a problem or conflict is presented and formulated, influences how the receiver of the information perceive and comprehend this problem or conflict (Iyengar, 1994). Texts have the power to transform certain pieces of information into more salient by recurrence or by associating the information with familiar symbols the receiver can identify with (Entman, 1993).
Kahneman and Tversky (1984) substantiated the main goal of framing; influencing the receiver. They supported this by among others the following example:
Imagine that the U.S. is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual Asian disease, which is expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs to combat the disease have been proposed. Assume that the exact scientific estimate of the consequences of the programs are
as follows: If Program A is adopted, 200 people will be saved. If Program B is adopted, there is 1/3 probability that no people will be saved.
Regarding the example given above, 72% of the participants chose Program A and 28% chose Program B. However, both programs have the same expecting outcome of saving 200 people. This example uses positive and negative wording. It demonstrates that the use of words and the way how things are described, influence people’s interpretations. However, this study will not focus on how the articles of RT and the BBC influence the perceptions of people.
3.3.2 Frames in political news
Framing has major consequences for political communication. Frames have the capability to focus on certain elements of reality and hereby obscuring other aspects. News frames offer the possibility to obtain support regarding specific political interests. Due to this, framing can have a huge impact when it comes to expanding political power (Entman 1993). The frames can shape the aspects of the information receiver. Lecheler (2010), argues that frames in the news can be defined as “patterns of interpretation that are used to classify information and that aid audiences in processing information efficiently (p. 4).
The information and interpretations of events in Ukraine have not been so contrary since the end of the Cold War (Toshkov, Mazepus & Dimitrova, 2018). There is an asymmetric provision of information regarding the crisis in Ukraine. Propaganda is one of the key factors that led to Russia’s success within the Ukrainian crisis. RT and Sputnik have made a major contribution to the Russia propaganda machine (De Jong, Oosterveld, Usanov, Kertysova, Ilko and Gonzaléz, 2015). Information regarding the Ukrainian conflict provided by mass media in Europe differs from information provided by mass media in Russia. It can be stated that dissertation of information through online media has become an instrument since the Euromaidan protests.
Different actors can influence framing, among others the norms of the journalist and political ideology. The national atmosphere in which journalists work, impacts framing. It is mainly the political elite that influences media framing (Dimitrova & Strömbäck, 2005).
The urge of political leaders to control media makes it interesting to look at the information provided by RT and the BCC regarding the Ukrainian conflict. The political leaders of the West and Russia both have different views regarding the conflict as described in section
2 of this study. Due to this, one will expect that the information provided in Russia regarding the Ukrainian conflict differs from the information provided in the West by using different frames. There might for example be a difference about the mentioned cause of the Ukrainian conflict and the responsibility of this cause.
3.3.3 Different frames
As mentioned before, the theory of framing is a vibrant research field. A distinction can be made between thematic and episodic framing. News about political issues can in most cases be distinguished episodic and thematic frames (Iyengar, 1991). Both frames are fundamental types of frames that are applicable to different issues, times and spaces in political communication (Aarøe, 2011). Thematic frames are frames more focussed on the broader context regarding political events and issues underpinned with collective and general evidence. In other words, thematic frames use a wide-angle lens to illustrate the problem within a landscape. Thematic frames use a particular event to illustrate a broader picture. The context and environment are being emphasized. Thematic frames illustrate trends over time. An example of a thematic frame are the social grievances of groups who are guilty of terroristic activities (Iyengar, 1991). Episodic frames on the other hand, concentrate on concrete events regarding a specific issue (Aarøe, 2011). Episodic frames support human interest. Episodic frames can be regarded as a case-study, for example the bombing of an airplane (Iyengar, 1991). Described with other words, episodic frames that approach the problem with a telephoto lens in order to create a portrait. Aarøe (2011) argues episodic frames are more powerful than thematic frames. Thematic frames contain theoretical information. Due to this, thematic frames do not evoke an emotional reaction regarding a particular person. Conversely, episodic frames focus on specific persons or actors at which the reader can direct their emotional reaction (Aarøe, 2011). As a result, episodic frames are more powerful in influencing opinions of the reader than thematic frames.
Frames affect the way how issues and events are presented. A distinction can be made between frames which differ per subject used by the media; the economic frame, the conflict frame, the powerlessness frame, the human impact frame and the morality frame (Neuman, Just & Crigler, 1992). These frames determine the topic of the news article.
The economic frame can be applied to a wide range of issues. The emphasis of the economic frame is on profit and loss (Neuman, et al., 1992). The frame reports an event or issue and
focussed on the economic consequences of this event or issue (Semetko & Valkenburg, 2000). An issue is framed in economic terms.
Another frame is the conflict frame. The conflict frame underscores conflict between individuals, groups or institutions in order to attract the attention of the audience. Within the presentation of the news, there are often two sides of a story. The conflict frame corresponds with the political world that is characterized by winners and losers (Neuman, Just & Crigler, 1992). These ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ are generally polarized forces. The conflict is being framed as an us/them conflict with a focus on other countries motives in the field of international relations.
The third frame is the powerlessness frame. Within this frame, there is criticism of those who are in power, mainly governments and political leaders. This frame focusses on responsibility.
The fourth frame is the human impact frame. This frame is focussed on particular individuals or groups who are affected by an issue (Neuman, Just & Crigler, 1992). Journalists transform items in something where people can identify with by giving a human face to an issue. This happened among other things with the issue of the refugee flow to Europe. This crisis got an image after the photo of the little boy who washed up dead in Turkey. An emotional angle is added to an event or issue. Since there is a big competitive market for news, journalists need to produce content grabs the attention of the public. The news is being personalized and emotionalized (Semetko & Valkenburg, 2000).
The fifth frame is the morality frame. Within the morality frame, an event of issue is described in terms of moral prescriptions or religious teachings. However, since journalists are tended to be objective, they often refer indirectly to moral and/or religious prescriptions, by for example having someone else asking a question (Neuman et al., 1992). The morality frame focusses on norms and cultural values.
The five frames which are mentioned above, concentrate on the topics of issues and events. Within this study, a distinction will be made between three topics: the conflict frame, the economic frame and the morality frame. With other words, the human interest frame and the powerlessness frame will not be considered as a separate topic. A human interest frame is automatically episodic. As a result, the human interest frame will not be a separate topic in this study.
The powerlessness frame will also not be a separate topic in this study. An important part of the analysis of this study is the valence of two different actors: Russia and the West. Since this has overlaps with the powerlessness/responsibility frame, this frame will not be considered
as a topic in this study. However, the West and Russia will be evaluated. A distinction will be made between three valences: negative, positive and balanced.
Within this study, frames vary on three different aspects: episodic versus thematic, different topics and different valences. Figure 2 presented below, shows a schematic representation of the different aspects of the theory of framing that will be used for the analysis of this study.
Figure 2. Frames Thematic Conflict Actor 1: Russia Negative/Positive/Balanced Actor 2: West Negative/Positive/Balanced Economic Actor 1: Russia Negative/Positive/Balanced Actor 2: West Negative/Positive/Balanced Human Impact Actor 1: Russia Negative/Positive/Balanced Actor 2: West Negative/Positive/Balanced Morality Actor 1: Russia Negative/Positive/Balanced Actor 2: West Negative/Positive/Balanced Episodic Conflict Actor 1: Russia Negative/Positive/Balanced Actor 2: West Negative/Positive/Balanced Economic Actor 1: Russia Negative/Positive/Balanced Actor 2: West Negative/Positive/Balanced Human Impact Actor 1: Russia Negative/Positive/Balanced Actor 2: West Negative/Positive/Balanced Morality Actor 1: Russia Negative/Positive/Balanced Actor 2: West Negative/Positive/Balanced
3.4 Problem situation
The theories of framing discussed in this section, all emphasize the power of a text and political news reporting. In this study, political communication and information provision during a conflict will be placed central. Figure 3 shows a schematic overview of the theoretical foundation of this study; the theoretical funnel.
Information
Media
Covering politics
Framing
To what extent is Influencing people framing effective?
Figure 3
The theoretical funnel explains the following. The highest level of the funnel is information. The information this study focuses on is information provided by the media. The media sources in this study are RT and the BBC. The media inform citizens about issues and events and cover politics. The event this study focusses on is the annexation. Depending on the media source, its audiences are confronted with different insights and views of the Ukrainian conflict. These differences are a result of framing. Framing selects certain aspects of an issue, while not mentioning other aspects (Entman, 1993). It is about how an issue or event is defined. Due to framing, the media have the power to influence opinions in society (Hass, 2010).
Due to the length of this study, it will not focus on the actual influencing part of the theoretical funnel.
4. METHODOLOGY
In this section, the methodology of the study will be presented. This study applies qualitative content analysis. By means of content analysis, frames can be described and identified in the articles on the website of RT and the BBC. These articles will form the unit of analysis. The goal of the analysis is to identify types of frames, topics and tone assigned to actors present in the articles. This section will discuss indicators that will be used to code and analyse the articles of RT and the BBC. This section will also elaborate on the research design and the used methods of this study.
4.1 Research question
The aim of this study is to find out whether there are differences between the information provided about the Ukrainian conflict by Western news sources and Russian news sources. This leads to the following research question:
“How does the information provided by RT differ from the information provided by the BBC in regard to the Ukrainian conflict?”
4.2 Data collection and research design
This study focusses on the differences regarding the information provided by RT and the BCC about the Ukrainian conflict. As described in the contextual section, Russia and the EU are directly opposite to each other with regard to the Ukrainian crisis. The European Commission argues Russia has annexed the Crimea and calls the referendum in Crimea illegal (EEAS, 2019). Russia on the other hand, argues it wants to respect the choice of the Crimean people and calls the referendum legal (Putin, 2014). Due to this, it is interesting to analyse the news reporting of these two power blocks regarding the Ukrainian crisis. Within this study, the BBC represents the European/Western news reporting and RT represents the Russian news reporting.
This study utilizes qualitative content analysis, focussing on RT and the BBC. The two news agencies were selected since they represent two different actors: Russia and the West.
Since this study only focusses on two news agencies and their reporting about the crisis in Ukraine, an in-depth analysis is necessary. This case study research leads to a more comprehensive analysis about how the Ukrainian crisis is framed by RT and the BBC and what the differences are between these two news agencies. In order to keep this study structured, the decision has been made to analyse one specific event of the Ukrainian crisis: the Crimean referendum. The Crimean referendum took place on 16 March 2014.
Within this study, the decision has been made to use eight cases of each news agency, which means that a total of 16 cases will be analysed. These news articles will form the unit of analysis. The articles will be selected randomly within a certain time period. As mentioned above, the Crimean referendum took place on 16 March 2014. By selecting the 16 articles, the used time period is 6 March 2014 – 26 March 2014. The decision to use this number of cases is a result of feasibility. Due to the limited time period, analysing more cases can be at the expense of the quality of the comprehensive analysis which is necessary to answer the research question.
The Ukrainian crisis will be content-analysed using the theoretical framework. The theoretical framework is based on the theory of framing as described by Neuman, Crigler and Just (1992). Using content-analysis was the most cogent research technique for this study. By analysing the news articles, this study tries to divulge structures and frames within these articles without being able to be influenced by the person who interprets the news articles (Van Gorp, 2010)
Using content analysis in this study is a deductive approach. The categories and codes are pre-defined. The different frames are predefined in order to establish whether and to what extent these frames occur in the selected news articles of BBC and RT. As described in the theoretical framework, there are many authors who have contributed to the scientific knowledge about frames and the effect of these frames. Despite this overload of information there is no accepted set of indicators that form a common approach in order to verify frames in news articles (Semetko & Valkenburg, 2000).
By predefining the different frames, the study can be easily reproduced. A small disadvantage of a deductive approach is that some frames may stay unnoticed (Semetko & Valkenburg, 2000). However, the elaborated theoretical framework which discussed different types of frames reduces this disadvantage.
4.3 Dataset
Sample
number Title Date Weblink
RT 1
Russia vetoes US-sponsored UN resolution
declaring Crimea vote invalid 15-03-14
https://www.rt.com/news/un- resolution-crimea-referendum-118/
RT 2
EU showed its oligarchic face by
condemning the Crimean referendum' 19-03-14
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/eu- crimean-referendum-sanctions-686/
RT 3
Western sanctions against Russia ‘irrational and designed to assert US dominance' –
Russian FM 21-03-14
https://www.rt.com/news/wester n-russian-crimea-russia-301/
RT 4
Mass celebrations in Crimea refute
Western charges of annexation – Lavrov 21-03-14
https://www.rt.com/politics/lavr ov-crimea-slander-annexation-289/
RT 5 Why the EU won’t annex Ukraine 24-03-14
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/eu- annex-ukraine-nato-agreement-829/
RT 6
Crimea declares independence, seeks UN
recognition 17-03-14
https://www.rt.com/news/crimea -referendum-results-official-250/
RT 7
Putin: Crimea similar to Kosovo, West is
rewriting its own rule book 18-03-14
https://www.rt.com/news/putin-address-parliament-crimea-562/
RT 8
‘Russia is enemy of the Western global
financial system’ 26-03-14
https://www.rt.com/op- ed/russia-us-financial-system-473/
BBC 1 Is Crimea’s referendum legal? 13-03-14
https://www.bbc.com/news/w orld-europe-26546133
BBC 2
Kiev expects West response after Crimea
vote 16-03-14
http://www.bbc.com/news/world -europe-26605862
BBC 3
Crimea referendum: Voters 'back Russia
union' 16-03-14
http://www.bbc.com/news/world -europe-26606097
BBC 4
Russia's Vladimir Putin recognises Crimea
as nation 17-03-14
http://www.bbc.com/news/world -europe-26621726
BBC 5
Russia's Crimea plan detailed, secret and
successful 19-03-14
http://www.bbc.com/news/world -europe-26644082
BBC 6
Deadly clashes in East Ukraine ahead of
Crimea vote 15-03-14
https://www.bbc.com/news/w orld-europe-26590745
BBC 7 Ukraine crisis: 'Who lost Crimea?' 17-03-14
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs -echochambers-26618533
BBC 8 Ukraine Crimea: Russia's economic fears 07-03-14
http://www.bbc.com/news/world -europe-26469461
4.4 Operationalization
This section will focus on the operationalization of the key concepts of this study. Operationalization is “the translation of abstract concept and their attributes (dimensions), into less abstract ones that can be detected, classified and measured in the empirical world (Toshkov, 2016: 100). Abstract concepts are transformed into variables which are measurable.
Below, background information regarding the news agencies RT and the BBC will be provided. In order to give an answer to the research question, the theory of framing will be operationalized and translated into measurable concepts.
4.4.1. RT
Russia Today (RT) is a news agency that was launched in 2005 and started broadcasting from Moscow (RT, 2018). RT is a Kremlin sponsored international TV news channel (Van Herpen, 2016). RT was created in order to contribute to creating a more positive picture of Russia and to disseminate Russia’s side of the story (Pomerantsev &Weiss, 2014). It tries to promote Russia abroad (Yablokov, 2015). It is striking that RT was formerly called Russia Today. Since RT is more neutral than Russia Today, not everyone would immediately link this to Russia, let alone know it is run by the Kremlin. However, editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan renounced the fact that a name change took place. She argued that the logo was adjusted in order to widen the viewing audience (Von Twickel, 2010).
There has also been a change regarding the content of the news provided by RT: instead of focussing on creating a positive image of Russia, RT tries to downgrade the West (Pomerantsev & Weiss, 2014). The message that Western media do not tell the truth is an important part of RT’s agenda. RT turns against mainstream media (Yablokov, 2015).
The main intention of RT was to become a global challenger of CNN, BBC and Al Jazeera. In 2005, Russia Today started with a budget of $47 million. In 2011, this budget was increased to $380 million. RT was transformed into an organization with staff all over the world. In 2013, RT had a regular audience of 2 million British people. RT is also more successful online than all of its opponents. Moreover, RT broke a YouTube record by being the first TV station with a billion views of its videos (Van Herpen, 2016; Bidder, 2013).
4.4.2. BBC
The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is the public broadcaster in the United Kingdom. Furthermore, the BBC was founded in 1922 and hereby one of the oldest and best-known media corporations in the world (Henry, 2012). The BBC has a global reach via television, radio and the website of the BBC and is one of the biggest players regarding globalization of the media. In 1927, the BBC was amended into a non-profit public corporation (Henry, 2012). The aim of the BBC is to serve the public interest. Despite the fact that the BBC turned into a public cooperation, the British Parliament has not the ability to influence the budget directly. The BBC is namely mainly funded by licence fees derived from British citizens who own a television set (Henry, 2012). This entails the BBC has a high level of political independence.
The BBC broadcasts in 33 different languages and reaches a high amount of non-British citizens. The World Service of the BBC is often referred to as offering objective view for people who are caught in a regime with restrictions. However, the World Service is funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the UK (Henry, 2012). The BBC claims to be a more global news organization instead of a national news organization. By stating this, the BBC declares to be neutral instead of serving British interests.
4.4.4 Framing
This section will translate the theory of framing into measurable indicators in order to analyse the news articles. The basis of the operationalisation scheme below are the different frames as distinguished by Neuman, Crigler and Just (1992). These measurable indicators are further clarified in a coding scheme. By means of this coding scheme, the articles can be easy analysed. Beside the theory of framing the way how the actor is being evaluated will also be analysed: is the evaluation of the actor positive, negative or neutral?
Theory of Framing Definition Indicators
Episodic/Thematic Conflict frame
• The news article describes disagreement and/or clashes between different actors • The news article describes two sides or
more of the conflict
• The news article indicates ‘winners’ and losers’ (us/them)
Economic frame
• The news article describes financial gains and/or losses
• The news article notices the costs of the conflict
• The news article indicates economic consequences of the conflict
Morality frame
• The news article carries out norms and values
• The news article notices morality
• The news article describes specific social instructions on how to live your live
Coding system
1 The news article describes disagreement and/or clashes between different actors
2 The news article describes two sides or more of the conflict 3 The news article indicates ‘winners’ and losers’ (us/them) 4 The news article describes financial gains and/or losses 5 The news article notices the costs of the conflict
6 The news article indicates economic consequences of the conflict 7 The news article carries out norms and values
8 The news article notices morality
4.4 Validity and reliability
The problem of case-studies which is often referred to is the weak external validity. In other words, the findings of the case-study cannot automatically be generalized to other cases (Van Gorp, 2010). The fact that this is study is a single case study, increases this effect. Outcomes of this study and the corresponding statements can only be applied to the case of the Ukrainian crisis and not to other events. However, this qualitative research can contribute to the development of framing analysis in general and the aim of disinformation in the media.
Another important element of doing research is the internal validity. Do we measure what we want to measure? The internal validity regarding this study is strong. The coding scheme presented above is an operationalization of the concept of framing and makes framing measurable.
5. ANALYSIS
This section focusses on the main question of this study: ‘How does the information provided by RT differ from the information provided by the BBC in regard to the Ukrainian conflict?’ The articles will be analysed by 3 aspects of the theory framing: episodic versus thematic, the topics of the articles and the valence of Russia and the West in the articles. The topic of the article will be determined by means of the program Atlas.ti. The coding scheme based on the different frames of Neuman, Cristler and Just (1992) described in the theoretical framework will be the basis of this the analysis.
5.1 Russia Today
RT1
The first article of RT that is being analysed in this study is ‘Russia vetoes US-sponsored UN resolution declaring Crimea vote invalid’ (2014). Subject of the news article is a United Nations resolution which declares the outcome of the referendum in Crimea invalid. Russia is one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. Russia emphasizes that it respects the choice of the Crimean people. As a result, Russia voted against the draft resolution which was suggested by the United States (RT, 15-03-2014). Since the article of RT specifically focus on the UN resolution and Russia’s decision to vote against, the episodic frame is being used. The UN resolution regarding the referendum in Crimea is a very concrete aspect of the Ukrainian crisis. There is a telephoto lens on the UN resolution to approach the annexation of Crimea. Moreover, the article shows elements of human interest: “This annexation … goes beyond Ukraine, it concerns us all” (RT, 15-03-2014). The article also quotes Russia’s ambassador at the UN: “[…] residents of Crimea should decide on their future” (RT, 15-03-2014). The article underlines the impact of the crisis on individuals.
The next step is to determine the topic of the article. The most common frame within the article is the conflict frame. The given fact Russia vetoed the UN-resolution, shows a clash between Russia and other countries. The article also describes that European countries and the United States have pointed out to Russia sanctions might follow as a result of its stance on Ukraine (RT, 15-03-2014). Moreover, within the article is written “current contradictions
