Настольная книга по медийному саморегулированию
December 19, 2016, witnessed three tragedies that could not go unnoticed by the Russian media: dozens of people died as a result of a surrogate alcohol poisoning in Irkutsk, a Russian ambassador was killed in Turkey, and a terrorist attack took place at the Christmas market in Berlin. In this article, we use the network agenda-setting theory to analyze how these tragedies were covered by different types of mass media. We show that ties between the tragedy and a network of other acute issues are more important than objective circumstances, such as the number of victims or the geography of the event. The context in which the events were examined led to greater attention to the killing of the ambassador and less attention to the surrogate alcohol poisoning. We believe that the state can exercise indirect control over the agenda by creating a network of events that will correctly guide discussions about tragedies.
This study analyzes the discussion of import substitution in the Russian press from August 2014 to December 2016. By drawing on 269 press media items (obtained from the “Integrum” database and featuring Rossiyskaya Gazeta, Novaya Gazeta, Komsomolskaya Pravda, and Kommersant) the authors show that the discussion is being constructed within the following eight frames – anti-Western, patriotic, nostalgic, sentimental, interest-centered, consequence-centered, selfish and demonstrative. The most popular frames are the patriotic and the consequence-centered ones. However, the spectrum of frames most frequently engaged differs across periodicals. For instance, while the pro-state and pro-government Rossiyskaya Gazeta constructs a predominantly positive image of import substitution through the use of anti-Western and patriotic frames, the more liberal and oppositional Novaya Gazeta often emphasizes the likely negative consequences of such protectionism using the sentimental and demonstrative frames. Komsomolskaya Pravda uses the widest range of frames, but presents the information in a more simplified form to make it clearer to its target audience. In contrast, Kommersant discusses import substitution at a more expert level and invokes the selfish and the consequence-centered frames. Through the qualitative content-analysis of the selected media the authors have produced a list of keywords that serve to determine the place of import substitution in network agenda-setting. Their joint reference analysis has revealed three large clusters in the public discussion: the economic-political, the selfishly patriotic and the protectionist cluster. The authors conclude that the debate on import substitution combines both economic and political arguments; and the media often resort to ideological constructs to justify their attitude towards import substitution.