Russian-Ukraine War
João Nuno Adubeiro Mendes Freire
Student ID: 11553861
Faculty of Arts and Humanities
Supervisor: Dr Fred Mudhai
Submitted as a dissertation to satisfy the requirements of the MA in Global Journalism and PR, Coventry University
Coventry, August 2022
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge and give my thanks to my supervisor and course director, Dr Fred Mudhai, who guided me in the right direction to make this work possible.
I would also like to take this opportunity to give a special thanks to my peers and colleagues from the Global Journalism and Public Relations and Automotive Journalism who advised me, motivated me and reassured me not only throughout the production of this paper but also throughout the entire course.
Finally, I would like to thank both my parents for always believing in me, supporting me and motivating me unconditionally.
1. Acknowledgements
2. Contents
3. Abstract
4. Introduction
5. Literature Review
6. Methodology
7. Analysis and Discussion
8. Conclusion
9. List of References
Contents
The Abstract
This paper researches the bias in the British Press and how these biases can influence the process of covering a conflict or a war. Research into war coverage has been a part of multiple mass communications studies. This paper adds on to the war coverage researches by exploring how the Telegraph and the Guardian, with contrasting political positions reported on the conflict. Western perspectives can impact the production of news and essentially become a propaganda tool by the elites and these newspapers use their platforms push their own political ideology even when reporting wars. Fairclough’s model of Critical Discourse Analysis is the method used in this study to help explain how media discourse relates to relations of power and disputes over power.
Introduction
On the 24th of February Vladimir Putin officially announced to the world that he made the decision to carry out a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, to which he called “a special military operation”. Many Ukrainian citizens are now forced to shelter in basements and underground stations across the country. There has been thousands of innocent people either killed or badly wounded since the beginning of this invasion. More than 5 million people have now fled Ukraine seeking refugees in neighbouring and other European countries. This has become the largest war in Europe since World War 2. After the fall of the Berlin wall in 1991, which represented the end of the Cold War, Russia has seen its geopolitical sphere of influence diminished with most of its former satellite countries joining NATO. And, while Russia saw its influence in eastern Europe decreased, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (created to help defend against the possibility of a war with the USSR) kept growing more and more. Belarus, Ukraine and Georgia were the only post-soviet countries between Russia and NATO. Putin lost his pro-Russia Ukrainian president after he was voted out of office. When Volodymyr Zelenskyy was elected president of Ukraine, Putin feared Ukraine would finally join NATO. As the threat grew for Russia, Putin decided to invade Ukraine.
Western media organizations have shifted their focus to the conflict since before the invasion. Reporters were sent to the field, specialists have been commenting on the issue and world leaders have been condemning Russia’s actions. A lot of other issues came as a result of the war such as refugees from Ukraine, gas and electricity prices, sanctions and military aid. Most western media organisations have criticised Putin and have shown their support for the Ukrainian people. British press prides itself for their accurate and impartial reporting of current events. However, no individual is free from having preconceived ideas and opinions about the world we live in. Our experiences shape our perspectives and our understanding of the world. Western perspectives differ from other societies. Therefore, western perspectives will affect how media outlets understand and convey information about the Russian-Ukrainian war to the public. “Journalists may unthinkingly subscribe to or knowingly comply with the objectives, ideologies, and perspectives of one or another side to a conflict. Alternately, they must struggle to make sense of the “big picture” in resistance to information monopolies imposed by state and military” (Allan, S., & Zelizer, B. 2004).
The topic for this paper is the coverage of the Russian-Ukrainian war made by the Guardian and the Telegraph which are both British broadsheet newspapers with contrasting political ideologies. This paper seeks to critically analyse and compare these newspapers in order to understand how biases are reflected in their stories, how their reporting is used to further push their own agenda, and how it is used to shape public opinion.
This study will be investigating the British press, more specifically the Guardian and the Telegraph as well as their stances inside the political spectrum, their audiences, their ownership and their western viewpoint on the unfolding conflict.
The time period this study will cover ranges from the Putin’s official announcement of their invasion of their neighbouring country which was on the 24th of February 2022 up until three months after on the 24th of May. This paper will also briefly analyse articles from other periods to compare how the representation of Zelensky or Ukraine changed or how it compares to the coverage of other wars where the United States and the UK were directly involved in.
This paper addresses the biases in the British press and war coverage. Agenda-setting theory, framing theory and gatekeeping theory are crucial to understand the process of media production and how it shapes public opinion. The research analyses linguistics and their relation to power. The Guardian and the Daily Telegraph will be studied by using Fairclough’s method of Critical Discourse Analysis. This type of discourse analysis does not simply look at grammar and sentence construction. In fact, it delves into the connection between power, language and social constructs.
There has been a lot of research throughout the years in regards to war coverage. This research has shown the importance and the responsibility journalists have in the pursuit of the truth and how the information is portrayed to the public. The research on war reporting is focused on a lot of issues such as the influence of propaganda and censorship, 24/7 rolling news, the access to sources, “us” and “them” narratives, the “CNN effect”, embedded and unilateral reporting, and the issue with patriotism and objectivism (Allan & Zelizer, 2004). One of the goals of this paper is to build on the existing literature, help fill in this gap in the research of war coverage and aid in the understanding of key issues raised by the conflict in question.
Literature Review
Western Mainstream Media and the Ukraine Crisis: a study in conflict propaganda
This book analyses how the Western Mass Media (WMM), more specifically the US and the UK's media outlets, contextualised the Ukrainian crisis and the annexation of Crimea in 2014. The book does not analyse how Russia, China and the Donbass have engaged in propaganda. The key concepts analysed in this book is the WMM propaganda dissemination, agenda setting theory and framing theory. The author argues that Vladimir Putin is vilified and that the WMM uses “Manichean”
(duality) forms of discourse. When the book was published, the author believes the West and WMM have exaggerated the idea of a full-scale invasion of eastern Donbass. The author believes that the Ukraine crisis was initiated and sustained to provide a pretence in the context of escalating tensions between the nuclear powers of the United States and its allies in the European Union, in opposition to Russia and China.
Reporting War: Journalism in Wartime
The authors of this book seek to address the issue of media organisations’ treatments of international crisis and raises questions regarding the future of war reporting and the role of journalists during war. The book touches upon multiple concepts and theories such as the framing theory, influence of censorship and propaganda, objectivity, and patriotism, embedded and unilateral journalism, the CNN effect, narratives, and the use of language. The concepts and theories in this book contribute to the idea presented by this paper that media outlets have, in fact, biases. The author argues that war reporting distorts the reasons why the media chooses to focus on some wars over others, frequently fails to capture both the depth and direct results of wars or explain their actual durations and repercussions and conceals the extent of media bias through the control of information distribution. In addition, the author concludes that western media outlets tend to be used for propaganda dissemination by those in power. This study criticises the “propaganda model” of Herman Chomsky (1988), claiming it poorly explains media’s complicity in times of war.
Conspiracy and Populism: The Politics of Misinformation
This book delves into far-right populist conspiracy theories manufactured by governments, politicians, journalists and other people with influence to further their agenda and how this misinformation and disinformation spread through traditional and contemporary forms of media. It is important to note that it focuses on critical issues that will be discussed in more depth further on, such as framing theory and agenda-setting, the "unscrutinised information" shared through the various social media platforms and Russia's disinformation tactics. This book, written by Eirikur Bergmann, only focuses on the far-right populist propaganda tactics and does not explore how other entities from the other side of the political spectrum use their propaganda tactics to further their agenda. Nevertheless, it is still an exciting and valuable source for this paper for the reasons explained previously.
Analysing Newspapers: An Approach from a Critical Discourse Analysis
In order to examine the political and ideological consequences of language use in the press, John E. Richardson leans on critical discourse analysis. The book establishes a useful framework that may be used for all types of journalistic work and research through a fair and in-depth analysis. Simple and concise explanations of fundamental language ideas and techniques—such as sentence structure, presupposition, lexical analysis, and rhetoric—are provided, with crucial points illustrated using newspaper excerpts. The author takes into account not just the language of journalism but also how it is consumed and produced as well as how it ties to institutions and societal concepts that are changing. This book provides both theoretical understandings and practical advice on how the press operates, drawing on contemporary global topics like the invasion of Iraq.
Language in the Media: Representations, Identities, Ideologies
This book explores how the media depicts language-related issues and how it shapes and creates what individuals believe language is. In addition, this book offers a multilingual survey of language construction in and by the media. It brings together an international team of specialists to investigate how the media shapes and values language. This is an essential source for this study as it delves deep into the language and communication tactics by the media. It is the only book where the main focus is not on foreign policy or international relations, but it will help do a media analyses.
Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language
Norman Fairclough is known for being one of the founders of Critical Discourse Analysis which is a method of discourse analysis. The author examines how relations of power and disputes over power alter discursive practices ideologically. He also looks at how the lack of transparency in these connections between speech and society functions as a source of authority and hegemony. In relation to media discourse, media outlets now play the role of mediator of information. This reflects the need to increase the sales of news in order to attract a bigger readership and more advertising partnerships. Fairclough believes the media is more accessible to socially powerful groups, therefore it can be argued that it reflects the opinions of those in positions of social power. This does not imply that they are always intentionally distorting or manipulating the information. In reality, they might be seen as intrinsic in reasonable business procedures. By elevating the views of the wealthy and powerful to those of "common sense," the media justifies and reinforces the current uneven power structures. In the case of the Guardian and the Telegraph, it can be argued that their ownership, their advertising partners and their political alignments are all part of the socially powerful groups that influence the production and dissemination of information. This book contributes to the understanding of the agenda setting theory, framing theory and gatekeeping theory and how it is portrayed in the press through discourse.
Methodology
Has previously stated, this paper aims to analyse and compare newspaper articles to understand how biases and preconceived ideas change the production of news and how that goes on to shape public opinion. The media organizations that will be analysed in this paper are the Guardian and the Telegraph. These include the Daily Telegraph, the Sunday Telegraph, the Guardian and the Observer. It is important to notice that only the print version of these newspapers are going to be analysed in this study. The online versions of these newspapers will not be included in the research. The articles being analysed and compared are related to the Russian invasion of Ukraine to understand how British newspapers frame the news to further their agenda in relation to their political ideology and their westerns’ perspectives. I will be doing Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) of written discourse to understand how the stories are framed, what issues are emphasized in the text, and what is made important. I will analyse what concepts and issues are being minimized or not mentioned in these articles in order to further explain how media discourse could be including or excluding readers from a community.
Critical Discourse Analysis is an interdisciplinary approach to the study of discourse. Norman Fairclough, known for being one of the founders of CDA, claims that the goals of this type of discourse analysis are "to systematically explore often opaque relationships of causality and determination between (a) discursive practices, events and texts, and (b) wider social and cultural structures, relations and processes; to investigate how such practices, events and texts arise out of and are ideologically shaped by relations of power and struggles over power." (Fairclough, 2018).
Fairclough's Critical Discourse Analysis module is divided into three categories or "dimensions." The first dimension is text, which can take the shape of speech, writing, images, or a combination of all these forms of communication. This is known as a “word level” analysis. The second dimension is known as discursive practice, and it is concerned with texts or the composition of texts. The analysis in this dimension takes place at the “text level”. The final dimension is known as social practice which relates to the values of the society or the organisation, commonly refer to as “the norm” level. The CDA technique developed by Fairclough is based on the premise that language may influence behaviour and contribute to change. As a result, language is seen as a powerful instrument. This is what discourse analysis entails.
In terms of the discourse surrounding journalism, critical discourse analysts argue that a dialectical link exists between social behaviour and the discursive methods used in the creation of news articles. Similarly, there is a dialectical link between consumption of these articles and social behaviour:
readers interpret "the meanings of texts using their knowledge and beliefs, and these texts go on to shape these same readers' knowledge and beliefs." (Richardson, 2007, p. 45).
When conducting a CDA, it is vital to understand how the texts relates to the audience. Therefore, this paper will question if the audience expected to share the views of the text, the audience’s relation to the subject or author and if the audience was receptive. CDA is a form of textual analysis that is crucial for understanding how power relations are established and reinforced through language.
Critical Discourse Analysis can establish what topics or issues the Guardian and the Telegraph, as well as their readers, value or dismiss. Understanding what and how these topics or issues are conveyed to the public can help explain the way the biases on these two polarizing British newspapers is manifested and their implications.
Critical Discourse Analysis is a qualitative and interpretative method of analysis. The findings obtained are supported by both the specifics of the source material from the newspapers and contextual information. The paper will use both primary and secondary sources. The primary source involves observing and analysing newspaper articles, such as news stories, opinion pieces and letters to the editor. The secondary sources include books and journals from other researchers to support the argument made by the primary sources. It is essential to acknowledge that the Guardian and the Telegraph have contrasting political ideologies. Arthur Asa Berger defines Ideologies as "systematic beliefs about politics held by members of some groups or members of political parties." Their ideology becomes apparent specially during the general elections. The Guardian tends to lean more towards the left, showing support for the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, whilst the Telegraph has kept its loyalty to the Conservative party.
The material sourced for this paper comes from archived newspapers from The Guardian and the Telegraph. Lexis Nexis Library News is the search engine that is used to access archived newspapers. Lexis Nexis is a company that provides databases that can be accessed online, including websites for computer-assisted legal research, newspaper search, and customer data, as well as data analytics tools. It is important to note that the data collected for this study ranges from the 24th of February, when the president of Russia, Vladimir Putin, formerly announced the invasion of its neighbouring country, Ukraine, until the 24th of April. The data acquired from Lexis Nexis will include news articles and feature articles to understand and compare how the British press covers the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and how that information is conveyed to the public. In addition to the analyse of newspapers, this study will also rely on books, journals, online articles and other existing studies about critical discourse analysis, theories of mass media communications, media discourse and war reporting.
Analysis and discussion
The focus of this paper is on the analysis and comparison of two British broadsheet newspapers and their coverage of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. As previously stated, the newspapers in question are the Guardian and the Telegraph. It is important to stablish why these two media outlets are the focal point of this study by providing some context. Both these newspapers are very well known, well stablished and have readers from across the United Kingdom and is renowned worldwide. They have been in circulation for over 100 years, helping shape public’s opinion and even policy making. Whilst these papers have a lot of similarities, they also contrast each other in a lot of ways. Their political inclinations, for example, are opposite to one another. The Guardian has always been in favour of either the Labour Party or the Liberal Democrats (Nelsson, 2015) whilst the Telegraph, leaning more towards the right, has always been a faithful supporter of the Conservative Party (Smith, 2017).
Herman and Chomsky have identified five factors that influence media production known as fivefilter propaganda model. “Corporate ownership and the profit orientation of the media; the influence of advertisers on media content; media’s overwhelming dependence on official sources; media reporting routines that render them vulnerable to manipulation, fear of “flak” by powerful sources” (Allan & Zelizer, 2004).
One of the main reasons for biases in the British Press is the readers. It is not uncommon for newspapers to embrace certain viewpoints to appease to their reader base in order to improve circulation of newspapers. According to a survey made in 2017 of how 52,615 British adults voted for in the general election, the Telegraph saw 79% of their readers voting for the Conservatives whilst 73% of the Guardian’s readers voted Labour (Curtis, 2017).
This is part of what is known as “agenda-setting” theory. This theory is based on two key assumptions (University of Twente, 2004). The first is that the media shapes reality rather than just reflecting it. For instance, portraying certain events in “sensational” manner or openly siding with a political party during general elections. The second is the media concentration on certain issues or subjects making the public perceive said issues as vital. Bernard Cohen stated that the media “may not be successful much of the time in telling people what to think, but it is stunningly successful in telling its readers what to think about.”. Cohen added that “the world will look different to different people depending on the map that is drawn for them by writers, editors and publishers of the paper they read” (Cohen, 1963 as cited in McCombs & Shaw, 1972).
If the majority of the Guardian’s and the Telegraph’s readers voted for the Labour party and the Conservative party respectively, then we can assume that some of their interests and values align with the party they have voted for. For instance, supporters of the Conservative party are likely to be proBrexit and in favour of a more controlled immigration similar to the “Australian-style points-based system”, in favour of the monarchy, of the military and the free market. On the other hand, Labour party’ supporters are more likely to have socialist ideals, be against Brexit or in favour of a new referendum, in favour of creating a more humane immigration system and of scrapping the Immigration Act 2014 and in favour of a new Green New Deal.
To properly understand the biases in the Guardian and the Telegraph and how they set their agenda, it is essential to examine, not only their readership but also at their ownership. Owners of media organizations may be able to utilize the news produced for their own benefit. Some owners may attempt to interfere with news production in order to propagate their own opinions and political viewpoints. Alternatively, they might use it to maximize profits and therefore encourage the creation of content that is easy to sell.
The Guardian, The Observer and the Guardian Weekly are part of the Guardian Media Group which is owned by Scott Trust Limited. Guardian Media Group describes itself as an “unique structure that exists to secure the financial and editorial independence of The Guardian in perpetuity and to safeguard the journalistic freedom and liberal values of The Guardian, free from commercial or political interference” (The Guardian, 2018). The Daily Telegraph and the Sunday Telegraph, on the other hand, are part of the Telegraph Media Group which is a subsidiary to Press Holdings. The Telegraph Group was acquired by the Barclay Brothers in 2004. The Barclay Brothers are known partially for their media conglomerate which includes newspapers such as the European, the Scotsman, the Sunday Business and of course the Telegraph Media Group. According to Baker (2002), media conglomerates seem to be more prone than other forms of ownership to be motivated by maximizing profits at the expense of quality in news creation and journalism.
Former Telegraph columnist Peter Oborne, wrote about the decay in the quality of news writing after the Barclay Brothers acquired the Telegraph, specifically during the time period where most newspapers were going online, whilst at the same time seeing their circulation plummeting. This was eventually followed by the sacking of multiple reporters, sub-editors, and editors. Oborne recalls solecisms becoming more recurrent and news stories “seemed to no longer be judged by their importance, accuracy or appeal to those who actually bought the paper. The more important measure appeared to be the number of online visits” (Oborne, 2015). Then Oborne goes on to divulging something much more serious such as advertisements in editorials, omission of articles that could be damaging to certain organisations and the indifference facing the Hong Kong protests back in 2014.
This are only a few examples of how the press, more specifically the Telegraph, has framed stories and pushed their own agenda.
Biases in the media can take many forms. All types of media biases are used in different ways and in different occasions and are framed in specific ways in order to shape public’s perception of reality. Biases can be by omission, by selection of sources, by story selection, by placement and by labelling.
Bias by omission occurs when a journalist excludes one side of the argument, limiting the information available to the readers. This is especially common in political stories (Dugger, 2021) and occurs by excluding facts from either the liberal or conservative viewpoints. This might be observed in a single article or in a series of articles published over time. Bias by source selection happens when journalists incorporate various sources with the sole purpose of providing one point of view. (Baker, 2017). This can also happen when journalists purposefully exclude sources that could potentially provide relevant arguments and facts that benefit the opposite side of the story (Dugger, 2021). This form of prejudice also employs phrases such as "experts believe" and "observers say" to persuade readers into believing that what they are reading is trustworthy. Furthermore, the use of expert opinions, but only from one side of the story, establishing a barrier between one side of the story and the readers, mixing omission with source selection. (Baker, 2017). There is also the bias by selection of stories. This is more visible throughout a complete organization than in a few stories. This happens when media organisations only include stories in their broadcasts that reflect the corporation's values and ideologies. This entails disregarding any stories that could persuade individuals into supporting opposite values (Baker, 2017). This happens with the Guardian and the Telegraph where they will purposefully chase stories that promote their political alignments and avoid those stories that does the contrary. Biases by placement is form of bias that demonstrates how essential a certain story is to the media organisation. Editors will often opt to place stories badly if they do not believe they are as significant or do not want them to be as easily accessible. This positioning is used to diminish their significance and lead readers into believing that they are not as significant as front-page stories (Baker, 2017). The last form of bias is known as labelling. This is arguably the more complex form of bias that is commonly employed to mischaracterize politicians and other figures of authority. Many journalists will identify politicians as extremist on either side of the argument while stating nothing about the opposing side. These designations might be beneficial or detrimental depending on which perspective they are prejudiced towards. Some journalists will erroneously identify people as "experts," granting them authority to misrepresent the subjects of the story.
By doing the Fairclough’s model of CDA, we can detect how a western point of view can influence the media into being biased and even be used as a propaganda tool. Furthermore, we can even understand how they can even go as far as to push their own political ideologies to their readers.
The West's big gamble has shocked Putin and saved the liberal order
For instance, a feature article written by Sherelle Jacobs with the headline “The West's big gamble has shocked Putin and saved the liberal order” published on the Daily Telegraph on the 12th of April 2022, shows a very biased opinion on the Russians troops retreat from the Ukrainian capital city. The writer’s overall attitude towards the subject is that western countries are the clear representation of the “good guys” whilst Putin’s Russia are portrayed as “villains”.
Words such as “shocked”, “stunned”, “desperately”, “drastically”, “struggle”, “fold” and “retreat” which are associated with Vladimir Putin, illustrates how Jacobs feels towards the Russian president, depicting the latter as a failure. On the other hand, we can tell that the attitude the author has towards western societies is the complete opposite. The text praises the West’s “striking capacity to take risks” and considers the policy to supply arms to Ukraine a “dicey policy” which “has proven decisive”. In addition, the author states that “Ukrainian determination and Western unwillingness to relent” (Jacobs, 2022) are preventing Putin from winning the war. The author does state that western countries do makes “reckless and deluded decisions” using the examples of Iraq and Afghanistan to illustrate his point. However, it points out that those are the characteristics that make the West “an unpredictable and muscular opponent”. (Jacobs, 2022)
The writer has various assumed interpretations. “In recent weeks, the latter has defied Putin's threats of nuclear war in order to supply arms to Ukraine. This dicey policy has proved decisive, not just stalling the Russian army but forcing it to retreat from Kyiv” (Jacobs, 2022). In this excerpt, the author makes the implication that western countries are directly responsible for Russian forces falling back and retreating Kyiv solely by supplying weapons to Ukraine. This statement elevates the aid from the West but diminishes the efforts of the Ukrainian army. “But Moscow may soon be tempted to direct its focus from an unwinnable military war to a global PR battle that is still very much in play” (Jacobs, 2022). In this example, the writer not only implies that the West and Ukraine will come out victorious but also guesses that Putin will struggle to maintain his position as Russia’s leader by using the modal expression “may soon be tempted”. The modality in this sentence allows the writer to make assumptions which are likely to happen but, at the end of the day, it does not mean that it is an absolute certainty (Richardson, 2007).
The author reveals a pro-military attitude in this article. The use of military Jargon such as “neutralise”, “operation” and “nuclear strike” as well as the adoration for the west’s “striking
capacity to take risks” (Jacobs, 2022), and by “risks” the writer refers to an escalation of the conflict, possibly resulting in a nuclear strike of a western country.
There is somewhat of a feeling of patriotism displayed throughout the article. The way the writer is very blatantly one-sided. “The media typically cover war from the point of view of the country in which they and their major owners and readers are based, reflecting the point of view of that country’s government and its foreign policy elites.” (Allan, S., & Zelizer, B. 2004). The unilateralism of western war coverage has always been a common practice of media outlets, even with the improvements of communications technology which removed physical obstructions to multilateral coverage.
The patriotism represented by Jacobs in the form of glorification of the West and unilateral reporting of the conflict, reveal the culture values of the Telegraph. These media organisation is known for their right-wing political alignment. The feeling of patriotism and being pro-military is often associated with a more conservative, traditional and more right-leaning culture.
Volodymyr Zelenskiy stands defiant in face of Russian attack
The Guardian has taken similar position on their stories when it comes to their discourse. For instance, a feature article written by Luke Harding is titled “Volodymyr Zelenskiy stands defiant in face of Russian attack”. The angle of this story, however, is from Zelenskyy’s perspective. The writer portrays the Ukrainian president on a more humane level in order to make their readers relate and empathize with him. The article is a human-interest story from the emotional and descriptive way it is written. For instance, the writer characterizes the Ukrainian president as “gaunt” and “unshaven” after surviving another Russian attack, but still “defiant”, “unbowed” and “going nowhere”.
The writer supports this characterization of Zelenskyy with quotes from a Ukrainian citizen a stating the following: "I didn't like him before and didn't vote for him. But I now see him with new respect. He's doing a good job." Harding also quoted Kristina Berdynskykh, one of Ukraine's top journalists to reinforce his story: "I have a lot of complaints against Zelenskiy over his domestic politics. But the way he behaves during the offensive of absolute evil against Ukraine is real political leadership and tremendous courage". (Harding, 2022)
Whilst the Telegraph chose to praise western efforts and ridicule Putin at the same time, the Guardian’s article chooses to romanticise the Ukrainian leader in “novel” style article. The article is written in third person which indicates that Harding’s intention was not to include any personal
remarks, nor does he address the reader directly. The writer is careful not to use contractions in his text which provides a more formal discourse.
The writer uses background information on the Ukrainian president in order to keep the readers interested and engaged in the story: “The former TV actor and comedian won a landslide victory in the spring 2019 presidential election. He promised to bring peace to the east of the country and to negotiate with Vladimir Putin. Three years later, he finds himself at war with Russia, and leading an against the odds struggle against Kremlin occupation and national extinction” (Harding, 2022)
Harding proceeds point out mistakes and flaws Zelenskyy has made prior to the Russian invasion of his home country, in order to maintain his audience interest: “In the run-up to this week's invasion Zelenskiy's ratings had fallen. One critique was that he has lagged behind events - offering to declare Ukraine a neutral country, for example, once it was too late and Russian bombs were already falling. There were disagreements with the international community too over the threat from Moscow” (Harding, 2022). This critic was immediately followed by a “And yet” to explained that despite the mistakes he has made leading up to the war, he has now “behaved with courage and extraordinary resilience in the dark hours” (Harding, 2022).
The writer also condemns Vladimir Putin’s reasons for inciting a full-scale invasion of Ukraine: “When he sent in the tanks this week Putin claimed he was undertaking a mission to "demilitarise and denazify" Ukraine. On Friday, Putin called Ukraine's leaders fascists and drug addicts. Ever since the Maidan uprising in 2014 against President Viktor Yanukovych, Kremlin state channels have suggested the country is run by far-right extremists.” (Harding, 2022). At first the writer explains Putin’s claims in a neutral and unbiased manner to emphasize the seriousness of the situation. The explanation is immediately followed by the writer’s direct opinion of Putin’s statement: “The claim is ridiculous” (Harding, 2022).
It can be argued that these two articles exemplify how the British press tends to create its own narrative in the coverage of war and conflicts to push the geopolitical agenda of western societies over others. The Telegraph portrays the West as a force to be reckon with in an upbeat feature article meant to motivate the readers. It exaggerates the representation of the efforts made by western societies and deliberately ridicules Putin at the same time. The Guardian, on the other hand, portrays the Ukrainian president as a victim of the circumstances, whilst at the same time depicting him as a Ukrainian hero who “has already earned his place in history, as the leader of nation under fire, fighting for its survival” (Harding, 2022). This is made clear the exaggerated descriptive nature of these stories which, consequently, results in a lack of objectivity and impartiality. These feature articles clearly
show how the Guardian and the Telegraph use specific discursive methods as propaganda tools in order to shape public opinion and social behaviour in favour of western societies.
Even though these newspapers agreed for the most part when it comes to their interpretation of the conflict, the Guardian and the Telegraph will still push their political ideologies to their readers in their war coverage, often by going after the opposition. When it comes to editorials, it is very clear to understand how biases come into play. However, when it comes to a news story, it can be harder for the readers to detect any biases. This paper will analyse the biases in both opinion and news articles of the newspapers mentioned previously to understand how stories are framed, which topics are mentioned, and which are prioritized or minimized.
Ignore the sniping - our war effort for Ukraine is something to be proud of
The first article being analyse is a feature published in the Daily Telegraph on March 9th, 2022. The article is written by British columnist and author, Allison Pearson. The headline which reads “Ignore the sniping - our war effort for Ukraine is something to be proud of” has an interesting play on words. The slang word “sniping” is referring to the criticisms the British government had received regarding the aid the UK has provided to Ukraine. However, “sniping” is also a military term which signifies the action of shooting someone from a hidden position. The writer could be doing a play on words given that the context of this article is about the speech president Zelenskyy gave in the House of Commons. The rest of the headline “our war effort for Ukraine is something to be proud of” elucidates the reader what the “sniping” was about whilst at the same time demonstrating the feeling of patriotism, which she reinforces throughout the article.
Pearson‘s clear goal in her feature was to defend the government’s war efforts against critics that claim the UK is not giving close to enough support, by quoting Zelenskyy’s speech in parliament, where he stated “We are grateful to you, to Boris”. The writer clings on to this quote to argue against the comparisons made between the support by European countries and the UK. According to Pearson’s article, the critics point out that “Poland has taken in almost a million refugees, Hungary 170,000, Slovakia 114,000 and the rest of the EU 157,000 set against the UK's grand total of 500?”
(Pearson, 2022). The author never really acknowledges or discusses her opinions over whether or not the UK should take in more refugees. This dismissive attitude towards this issue reveals that the writer does not share the “critics” opinion that the UK should welcome more Ukrainian refugees.
Furthermore, Pearson’s attitude is emphasized by the listing of all the support given to Ukraine by the UK: “In the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, the British public raised £120million for Ukraine in just five days. Across the country, small platoons collect medicines, canned goods, baby formula, warm
clothes. (There is a touching national belief that, if we send enough woollies, Vladimir Putin will put a sock in it.) Army veterans make ration packs for their brethren while the British Government sends unprecedented quantities of what our Defence Secretary calls "lethal aid"” (Pearson, 2022).
Pearson does not hold back when it comes to negatively portraying Labour MPs as “Boris Bashers”, “perennially whingeing Opposition”, “embittered Remainers” and “those who supported John Bercow against charges of bullying”. In addition, she claims that “all the Labour Party can do is complain about the failure to provide refugee visas fast enough, exploiting this brutal war to advance their openborders obsession” (Pearson, 2022). In this feature article, where the writer is openly right-wing, in favour of Boris Johnson and his government, patriotic, pro-military and anti-EU, accuses the Labour party of pushing their political agenda whilst she pushes the Telegraph’s political agenda.
The writer is very obviously in favour of Brexit. For instance, as mentioned previously, she insults the Labour Party by calling them “embittered Remainers”. Furthermore, she ironically names the EU “marvellous”, she rhetorically asks “what funds did the EU contribute to Operation Orbital?” and answered “nothing” in three different European languages “Rien. Niente. Nichts.” to emphasize how much more helpful the UK is compared to the EU in an exaggerated, sarcastic and even conceited way. The use of rhetorical questions is helping her text be more fluid, energetic and impactful. She goes on to highlight how the UK has done far more for NATO than Germany has.
There are many examples where the writer reveals feelings of patriotism, as mentioned previously.
The first example is when the writer shares a personal emotional experience she had while President Zelenskyy was addressing the House of Commons. She revealed how she was in tears when the Ukrainian President adapted Winston Churchill’s speech during World War Two. She describes it as “the unforgettable, the unbearably beautiful, heart cleavingly stirring, almost too-much to-bear moment” (Pearson, 2022). The emotional words and expression employed by the writer is used to spark a personal response from the readers.
The writer’s attitude towards is compassionate and respectful. She describes Zelenskyy’s voice as “gravelly, staccato Slavic baritone” (Pearson, 2022) to emphasize how serious and raw his speech was. “Staccato” refers to Zelenskyy’s broken English, not in a negative way, but in order to engage the reader’s imagination of a typical eastern European accent. The descriptive nature of this article, which is common in feature articles, is used to maintain the reader’s interest in the subject. The writer also describes his face as “once irrepressibly cheeky face was drawn, ghostly, with a subterranean pallor” (Pearson, 2022). In this example, Pearson is, once again, immensely descriptive to stress how affected the Ukrainian president seemed to be because of the war. She is incentivising her readers to emphasize with him.
The article is written in an overall aggressive deminer. There are multiple examples of the writer blatantly criticising and insulting the Labour party and their supporters. Rhetorical questions, which are often used in feature articles, demonstrate Pearson’s indignation and resentment towards those who disagree with her. It can be argued that the writer’s attitude towards Zelenskyy, the feelings of patriotism and highlighting of all the support the UK has provided throughout the text is to “camouflage” her true feelings towards taking in more refugees. Pearson never specifically states that she does not believe the UK should give asylum to refugees fleeing Ukraine, but she implies that by attacking the Labour party and everyone that criticizes Boris Johnson and his government for not taking in more refugees.
It can also be argued that her discourse not only excludes Ukrainian refugees for the reasons mentioned previously, but also ethnic minorities. “How thrilled and relieved was the latter to find examples of "racism" on the Ukraine-Poland border, where white women and children were given priority over students from Africa and India. Shocking, eh? No. Not to anyone sensible or feeling. Just for once, white Christians could not be treated by our diversity-obsessed media as the least deserving life-form.” (Pearson, 2022). The writer, in this excerpt, criticizes the BBC and Channel 4 by pointing out that their reporting lacks objectivity due to their obsession with diversity. However, one could argue that the writer’s and the Telegraph’s dismissal of any racism and xenophobia at the border between Poland and Ukraine excludes refugee minorities. The Telegraph is demonstrated to engage in and spread these discriminatory discourses as part of a rhetoric of an oppressive, white, middle-class British society. The reporting style has always been negative and stereotypical: minorities or immigrants are often perceived as a concern or a risk, and are usually linked to criminality, violence, conflict, intolerable cultural and ethnic differences, or other types of misbehaviour. (van Dijk 1991: 20).
In fact, the Telegraph, unlike the Guardian, purposely chooses to not publish any stories regarding these racist incidents on the border between Poland and Ukraine in neither the Daily Telegraph nor the Sunday Telegraph. This is known as Gatekeeping. “Gatekeeping is the process of culling and crafting countless bits of information into the limited number of messages that reach people each day, and it is the centre of the media’s role in modern public life.” (Shoemaker & Vos, 2009). The process of gatekeeping is not exclusive to the Telegraph, in fact, all media outlets pick and choose what information is conveyed to the public and what is not. “The gatekeeping process determines the way in which we define our lives and the world around us, and therefore gatekeeping ultimately aects the ff social reality of every person.” (Shoemaker & Vos, 2009). Therefore, the gatekeeping theory is related to the agenda setting theory. The process of gatekeeping and framing stories are part of agenda setting. All these theories have the goal of “shaping the audience’s thoughts about what the world is
like—what some have called “cognitive maps”. Information that gets through all gates can become part of people’s social reality, whereas information that stops at a gate generally does not.” (Shoemaker & Vos, 2009).
The Telegraph chooses not to highlight the racial incidents on its newspapers and only briefly and dismissively mentions the occasion on Pearson’s feature article. However, the Telegraph does publish a story regarding these incidents at the Polish-Ukrainian border on there online version. These proves that the Telegraph went through the process of determining whether or not to publish on their newspapers through the gatekeeping process but choose not to prioritize that story.
This article is not only an example of propaganda pro-Boris’ government but also reveals Telegraph’s cultural values. Similar to “The West's big gamble has shocked Putin and saved the liberal order”, the text once again reveals the sense of patriotism, (this time shown towards the UK and not western societies), and a pro-military attitude which can be interpreted by the words and sentences used to glorify the military. For instance, “But, whatever you may hear in the media, every hour of every fearful day and night in Ukraine, British weapons, British technology, British training and British morale and practical support are helping to keep the dream of a free Ukraine alive.” The clear adoration for the former prime minister of the United Kingdom, which the author mentions on multiple occasions, not only reinforced the patriotism, as mentioned previously, but also demonstrates an appreciation towards tradition and more conservative British values. However, unlike Jacobs feature article, the text in Pearson’s article portrays the Telegraph as a backer of a more controlled immigration. This can be seen by the dismissive attitude, the writer has towards Ukrainian refugees.
It can be argued that the writer’s opinion regarding the minorities attempting to cross the border is racist and xenophobic. However, according to letters to the editor published by the Telegraph, it seems that their readers agree with the comments made by Pearson.
“The essential difference between Ukrainians, mainly women and children, fleeing to safety in the face of Russian aggression, and others claiming asylum, mainly single men - now apparently destined for Rwanda - is that the overwhelming majority of the Ukrainians want to go home but in the meantime are grateful for temporary refuge wherever it is offered.” (Letters to the editor, 2022)
“On Wednesday, 660 immigrants entered Britain by illegal means across the Channel. All of them want to make this country their permanent home for a variety of reasons. Since the start of the Ukrainian crisis, 50 days ago, Britain has apparently allowed in only 12,000 refugees from the conflict, almost all of whom I suspect would want to return to Ukraine as soon as it is safe to do so.”
“Letters to the editor, 2022)
The readers prefer the white Ukrainian refugees over channel refugees over the pretext that Ukrainians will eventually leave to go back to Ukraine. The readers disregard the fact that channel immigrants could also be escaping war torn countries and most would probably return as well if it was safe to do so.
Trump ‘admired’ Putin’s ability to ‘kill whoever’, says Stephanie Grisham
Since the invasion began, and even before that, the Guardian wrote multiple feature articles and news stories associating Vladimir Putin with right wing politicians, especially the former USA president, Donald Trump. Some headlines published read “Trump 'admired' Putin's ability to 'kill whoever', says Stephanie Grisham”, “It's time to confront the Trump-Putin network”, “Why do Putin, Trump, Tucker Carlson and the Republican party sound so alike?” and “Putinism is breeding in the heart of the Republican party” represent only a small sample of articles published by the Guardian linking the Putin with the right.
In this second article, this time written by the Guardian, being analysed in this study also shows how ideologies influence what and how the press frames stories to push their political agenda. Maya Yang, freelance journalist who has written hundreds of articles for the Guardian and is the writer of the article being analysed in this study, with the headline “trump ‘admired’ Putin’s ability to ‘kill whoever’, say Stephanie Grisham”.
The headline of this article implies Donald Trump respected Putin for being able to murder anyone and reinforces that idea by quoting the words “admired” and “kill whoever” from Stephanie Grisham’s interview. Stephanie Grisham was Trump’s former Press Secretary, and she made her statement on a show called “The View”. Grisham says what she believes Trump feelings towards Putin when he was still in the White House. She said: “I think [Trump] feared [Putin]. I think he was afraid of him. I think that the man intimidated him. Because Putin is a scary man, just frankly, I think he was afraid of him” (Yang, 2022). Being someone that worked closely with the former president, her statement carries a lot of weight even though it is just her opinion. The repetition of the words “I think” shows it is a personal belief of hers and, therefore, not a fact. Nonetheless, this will still shape public opinion against Donald Trump. The writer includes a second quote from the same interview which supports the initial idea of the headline and the subheading: “I also think he admired him greatly. I think he wanted to be able to kill whoever spoke out against him. So I think it was a lot of that. In my experience with him, he loved the dictators, he loved the people who could kill anyone, including the press.” (Yang, 2022)
The attitude the writer has towards Donald Trump is very unilateral and biased. There is a clear process of carefully choosing instances which portray Trump has a supporter of the Russian president. The timing is also crucial and worth mentioning. The quotes from Grisham’s interview relate to Trumps relationship with Putin during his mandate and not during the war in Ukraine.
However, Yang claims Trump has “highly praised” Putin for initiating a war that caused “more than 1,300 civilian casualties, including 474 killed and 861 injured” (Yang, 2022). In another paragraph of the same article she quotes Donald Trump claiming the latter “fawned over” Putin. "I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, 'This is genius.' Putin declares a big portion of ... Ukraine. Putin declares it as independent. Oh that's wonderful. So Putin is now saying, 'It's independent,' a large section of Ukraine. I said, 'How smart is that?' And he's gonna go in and be a peacekeeper. That's the strongest peace force. We could use that on our southern border." (Yang, 2022). In this quote, taken from an interview with a conservative radio show, Trump complements Putin’s geopolitical tactics overpowering the West, to argue the fact that Biden’s government is failing to fight and push Russia back.
The writer makes a strong argument in suggesting that the former president is using the invasion of Ukraine to his own advantage. He weaponizes the war in Europe to campaign against Joe Biden and the Democrats in the next presidential election, claiming the handling of the war has been a total failure so far. Trump will most certainty use other strong arguments such as the illegal immigration in the southern US border and the loss of Afghanistan to an extremist Islamic group. On the other hand, there is an attempt at characterizing Trump in a negative fashion by associating him with the Russian leader which is made clear for two reasons. The first reason is the fact that the quotes were carefully chosen with the purpose of framing the story in such a way that damages the character of a right-wing politician. The second reason is the usage of specific words and expressions which reveal the writer’s attitude towards the Trump. For instance, “fawned over” and “highly praised”. Fawning over someone “implies seeking favour by servile flattery or exaggerated attention.” (Merriam-Webster).
The writer is bias by the selection of sources. Bias by source selection happens when the writer incorporates many sources that solely deal with one viewpoint. This can also happen when the writer purposefully excludes sources that are relevant to the opposite side of the narrative. As previously stated, the source repeatedly uses the words “I think” to persuade readers into believing that what they are reading is trustworthy. Also observed is the utilization of expert opinions, but only from one side of the tale, establishing a barrier between one side of the story and the customers (Morrissette et al.).
Conclusion
Is it quite difficult to grasp the fact that western mainstream media is often used as a propaganda tool, especially when it comes to the coverage of wars and conflicts. Western media has always done unilateral coverage of wars. “Western reporting of the wars (…) were stories told by Western correspondents reporting from Western positions speaking to (mainly approved) Western political and military sources, mainly about Western military personnel, strategies, successes, and, less often, failures, and backed with comments from (often vetted) Western military “experts.”” (Allan & Zelizer, 2004). The attention given by western mainstream media to specific conflicts and the dismissal of other conflicts as well as the language used to describe said conflicts shapes public opinion and social behaviour. Both the Telegraph and the Guardian have shown to influence the public by determining what issues are more important by featuring them in their stories. Some issues more relentlessly done others. Both newspapers assume the power of mediators of information, evaluating what information and issues are more important to relay to the public and which issues are not. Language is used to frame stories in their own advantage, as well as what sources to use, where to publish the story (front page or online article) and how to publish the story. In this paper, I have shown the biases in both news articles and feature articles by analysing the language used. I established that, in feature articles, the biases are quite apparent whilst in news articles it is harder to detect.
These newspapers have polarizing political ideologies; therefore, they will tend to be more biased towards the political side of the spectrum they identify with the most. For this reason, the Guardian and the Telegraph have the tendency to disagree with each other and will push their political agenda even while covering the war in Ukraine and potentially other conflicts.
Critical Discourse Analysis has helped draw a deeper understanding of the articles analysed in this paper. Specific words or phrases show the writer’s attitude towards the subject in question. These were usually words with a descriptive nature used to either “glamorise” or “ridicule”. For instance, in the article titled “The West's big gamble has shocked Putin and saved the liberal order” used words to portray western societies as heroic whilst at the same characterizing Vladimir Putin as vulnerable and a failure. The analysis at text level also concluded black and Asian refugees from Ukraine were being excluded by the writer in the article “Ignore the sniping - our war effort for Ukraine is something to be proud of”.
By doing Fairclough’s model of CDA, it is possible to understand the core values of the Telegraph and the Guardian. It can be established that the Telegraph has a more conservative attitude, revealed
by the feelings of patriotism, the pro-military attitude, the recollection of past events and past leaders and the adverse opinions regarding immigration. The Guardian’s attitude on the other hand
In conclusion, bias exists in the news, whether we like it or not. Some news organisations have a Conservative bias, while others have a more Liberal angle. It is necessary to be media literate in order to look past media bias in the news. It is arguably impossible to say which of these two newspapers have the most biases. However, reading both newspapers will certainly provide their readers with different perspectives in which they can build a better and more grounded opinion on a certain issue or topic.
Word count: 9050
List of References
About Guardian Media Group (2018, July 24). The Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/gmg/2018/jul/24/about-guardian-media-group
Allan, S., & Zelizer, B. (2004) Reporting War: Journalism in Wartime. (1st ed.). Routledge.
Baker, B. H. (2017) Media Bias. Student News Daily.
Baker, E. C. (2002). Media, Markets and Democracy. Cambridge University Press.
Bell, J., & Waters, S. (2014) Doing your Research Project: A Guide for First-Time Researchers (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Berger, A. A. (2016) Media and Communication Research Methods: An Introduction to Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (4th ed.). Sage.
Bertrand, I., & Hughes, P. (2018) Media Research Methods: Audiences, Institutions, Texts (2nd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.
Castella, T. (2015, February 20). Who are the Barclay Brothers? BBC News https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31517392
Curtis, C. (2017, June 3). How Britain voted at the 2017 general election. YouGov. https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2017/06/13/how-britain-voted-2017-generalelection
Doyle, E. (2019). Media bias and the role of the press (1st ed.). Greenhaven Publishing.
Dugger, A. (2021, June 10). Media Bias and Criticism: Definition, Types and Examples [Video] http://study.com/academy/lesson/media-bias-criticism-definition-types-examples.html.
Freeland, A. (2012) An Overview of Agenda Setting Theory in Mass Communications. University of North Texas.
Fairclough, N. (2018). Critical discourse analysis : The critical study of language (2nd ed.). Taylor & Francis.
Harding, L (2022, February 26). Volodymyr Zelenskiy stands defiant in face of Russian attack. The Guardian.
Humprecht, Edda. (2019). Ownership of News Media. Wiley & Sons.
Jacobs, S. (2022, April 12). The West's big gamble has shocked Putin and saved the liberal order. The Daily Telegraph.
Letters to the Editor. (2022, April 5). The difference between refugees from Ukraine and Channel migrants. The Daily Telegraph.
Machin, D., & Mayr, A. (2012) How to do Critical Discourse Analysis: A Multimodal Introduction (1st ed.). Sage.
McCombs, M., & Shaw, D. (1972). The agenda setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Fawn. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved August 18, 2022, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fawn
Morrissette, E., Mckeon, G., Louie, A., Luther, A., Fagen, A., Media Bias. PressBooks
https://mediastudies.pressbooks.com/chapter/media-bias/
Nelsson, R. (2015, April 13). Guardian general elections editorials: 1918 onwards. The Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/from-the-archive-blog/2015/apr/13/general-election-guardianeditorials-1918-2010
Oborne, P. (2015, February 17). Why I have resigned from the Telegraph. Open Democracy
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/why-i-have-resigned-from-telegraph/
Pearson, A. (2022, March 9). Ignore the sniping - our war effort for Ukraine is something to be proud of. The Daily Telegraph.
Richardson, J. E. (2007). Analysing Newspapers: An Approach from a Critical Discourse Analysis (1st ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.
Shoemaker, P., & Vos, Tim P. (2009). Gatekeeping theory.
Smith, M. (2017, March 7). How left or right-wing are the UK’s newspapers? YouGov.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2017/03/07/how-left-or-right-wing-are-uksnewspapers
University of Twente. (2004). Agenda setting theory. Retrieved July 15, 2022, from https://www.utwente.nl/en/bms/communication-theories/
van Dijk, T. (1991) Racism and the Press. New York and London. Routledge.
Walliman, N. (2011). Your Research Project: Designing and Planning your Work (3rd ed.). Sage.
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2016). Methods of Critical Discourse Studies (3rd ed.). Sage.
Yang, M. (2022, March 9). Trump ‘admired’ Putin’s ability to ‘kill whoever’, says Stephanie Grisham. The Guardian.
Baker, E. C. (2002).
Media, Markets, and Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Baker, E. C. (2002). Media, Markets, and Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Baker, E. C. (2002).
Media, Markets, and Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.