Russia’s Image Formation by Media Channels: A Case Study of Measurement

The objective of this study is to measure the image of Russia formed by RT and BBC, to compare the results of the traditional and of the content-analysis.

Data and methodology: the traditional and the content-analysis of the BBC and of the RT text documents connecting to the Jamahiriya falling from 15.02.2011 to 10.03.2012; within the framework of the content-analysis — correlation-regression analysis. The reliability of statistical connection was checked up by means of the F-test.

Results. According to the content-analysis in both RT and BBC Russia is associated with a system of concepts symbolizing power and strength in international relations and is not associated with democracy or authoritarianism in any way. According to the traditional analysis in RT Russia is a strong power that shares the values of democracy and is ready to fight authoritarianism at the cost of renouncing its own interests. In BBC Russia is a weak international relations actor, unable to deal with the development of its own consistent foreign policy, inclined to support authoritarianism, but forced to give up NATO’s authority.

Conclusion: the researcher’s subjectivity greatly distorts the overall picture, and content-analysis allows for more objective results. Or the tendentiousness of media channels in forming the image of Russia is realized by selective coverage of significant events. Within the framework of the materials themselves, held in the style of objective judgment, it does not manifest itself in any way.

1. Ageeva A. V. The role of the “soft power” instruments in the international politics of Russia // Power [Vlast]. 2018. Vol. 2. No. 4. P. 39–63. (In rus)

2. Achkasova V. A. “Communicational” level of political marketing: the traits of State image producing // Works of North-West Academy of State Management. 2011. Vol. 1. N 2. P. 26–21. (In rus)

3. Volodina L. V., Kostritskaya T.B. “Soft” power as instrument of state-reputation management // Administrative Consulting [Upravlencheskoe konsultirovanie]. 2014. No. 5 (65). P. 25–30. (In rus)

4. Pashinyan I. A. Content analysis as method of research: gains and limits // Scientific periodic: problems and resolutions. 2012. No. 3 (9). P. 13–18. (In rus)

5. Solovnin V. M. Objectivity in Content Analysis // Content Analysis: Problems of Methods and Methodology. M., L., 1973. Vol. 1. (In rus)

6. Altheide D. L. Ethnographic content Analysis // Qualitative Sociology. 1987. March. Vol. 10 (1). P. 65–77.

7. Berelson B. Content Analysis in Communication Research. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press, 1952.

8. Corsaro W., Heise D.R. Event Structure Models from Ethnographic Data // Sociological Methodology. 1990. Vol. 20. P. 1–57.

9. Ferguson J. H., Kreshel P. J., Tinkham S. F. In the Pages of Ms.: Sex Role Portrayals of Women in Advertising // Journal of Advertising. 1990. Vol. 19. Is. 1. P. 40–51.

10. Franzosi R. From Words to Numbers: Narrative, Data and Social Science. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2004.

11. George A. Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches to Content Analysis. In: Raftery A. (ed.). Sociological Methodology. Oxford : Basil Blackwell, 1949. P. 135–44.

12. Heise D.R. Modeling Event Structure // Journal of Mathematical Sociology. 1989. Vol. 14. Is. 2–3. P. 139–169.

13. Holsti O. Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities. Reading, MA : Addison Wesley, 1969.

14. Janis I.L., Fadner R.H. A Coefficient of Imbalance for Content Analysis // Experimental Division for the Study of War Time Communications. Document N 31. Nov. 1. Washington, DC : Library, 1942.

15. Kaplan A. Content Analysis and the Theory of Signs // Philosophy of Science. 1943. No. 10 (4). P. 230–247.

16. Krippendorf K. Content Analysis. An Introduction to its Methodology. Beverly Hills, CA : Sage, 1980.

17. Lasswell H. D., Lerner D., de Sola Pool I. The Comparative Study of Symbols. Stanford, CA : Stanford University Press, 1952.

18. Lasswell H. D. and Associates. The Politically Significant Content of the Press: Coding Procedures // Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly. 1942. Vol. 19. No. 1. P. 12–23.

19. Laver M. Party Policy in Britain, 1997: Results from an Expert Survey // Political Studies. 1998. Vol. 46. No. 3. P. 336–347.

20. Laver M., Garry J. Estimating Policy Positions from Political Texts // American Journal of Political Sciences. 2000. No. 44. P. 619–634.

21. Lebart L. Sur les analyses statistiques de texts // Journal de la société statistique de Paris. 1993. Vol. 134. N 4. P. 17–36.

22. Leites N. C., de Sola Pool I. On Content Analysis. 1942. Vol. 26. Library of Congress. Experimental Division for the Study of War-Time Communications.

23. Robinson W.S. The Logical Structure of Analytic Induction // American Sociological Review. 1951. No. 6. Vol. 16. P. 812–818.

24. Shapiro G., Markoff J. A Matter of Definition. In: Roberts C. W. (ed.). Text Analysis for the Social Sciences Methods for Drawing Statistical Inferences from Texts and Transcripts. Mahvah N. J. : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 1997. P. 9–31.

25. Waples D., Berelson B. What the Voters Were Told (An Essay in Content Analysis) (mimeographed). Graduate Library School, University of Chicago, 1941.