Media and Disasters
Hey all, since the reading this week from Hannigan’s Disasters Without Borders is about Media and its influence on the politics of disasters, I’ve decided to do my blog post comparing the media coverage of disasters and how they shape the discourse surrounding an event.
For my case study, I chose a disaster that has been frequently population the international headlines recently, the annexation of Crimea by Russia. For context, in the past weeks Russia has made several bold moves by stirring Russian nationalist sediment in Crimea, an area of Ukraine that strategically borders the Black Sea and has a majority cultural and linguistic Russian population. Recently, in response to resistance by the Ukrainian government and some Ukrainians living in and around Crimea, Russia inserted a military presence into the region and has slowly began the process of annexing the region from Ukraine, citing a “referendum” that the Crimean population took that reflected a majority of the population supporting leaving Ukraine and joining Russia.
The crisis has received lots of attention from the international community and numerous of nations have condemned what appears to be a clear example aggressive imperialism by Russia. On the flip side, Russian president Vladimir Putin dismisses allegations of Russian pugnacity and has referenced Ukraine’s referendum as a rationale for annexing the territory. Notable about the situation also is Russia’s military and economic vested interest in Crimea. One of the Russia’s only warm water naval bases is in Crimea and operates it within the purview of the Ukrainian government. With recent developments however, Russia is in danger of losing operation authority over the base.
The reason why the Crimea Crisis is such a fitting guinea pig, ripe for analysis of the media coverage surrounding it is because it almost perfectly exemplifies how media coverage, and the political affiliations of said media outlets, help shape discourse surrounding a crisis along with frame the perspective that subscribers view the crisis hold. There is no better exemplar of dissimilarities between media coverage of the same event than the perspectives posited by The Washington Post, an American outlet, and The Moscow News, the longest running English-translated newspaper which is owned by the Russian state media outlet RIA Novosti.
The Washington Post has run numerous articles covering the Crimean crisis, including “Russia threatens retaliation as Kiev orders military moves in eastern Ukraine” on 4/23/14 in which the authors report on the bellicose rhetoric of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stating that Russia would defend its interests militarily if provoked and drew illusions to Russia’s skirmish with Georgia over the South Osseita area in 2008. The article continues by documenting Ukrainian citizens and officials’ unrest and discontent over the advancing Russian military and political influence in the Crimean area. The article makes a point to reference the increasing kidnapping, assault, and other heinous crimes that are coming to light under the growing Russian military strong arm that is enveloping Crimea and surrounding areas of Ukraine. Overall, the tone and rhetoric present in the piece conveys a very pro-Ukraninan report and tries to highlight the hostility and villainous behavior of the militarily domineering Russian might. The piece clearly espouses the general Western position of disdain and contempt toward Russian zeal to overtake Crimea.
Concurrently, the writing from The Moscow News on March 13th titled “Crimea could join Russia weeks after referendum” provides a markedly different outlook on the crisis. The article’s use of language, such as Russia “absorbing” Crimea after the “referendum” that reflected the majority of the province wishing to be annexed by Russia, illustrates the article’s attempt to downplay and avoid Russian aggression and malevolent influence in the event and euphemize the situation by obscuring some unflattering details about Russia’s imperial escapades. Additionally, the article also made sure to mention that Crimea is a linguistically and culturally majority Russian area in an attempt to soften Russian advances into the area and provide more of a rationale for Crimea to leave Ukraine.
Reading the article from The Moscow News, which was written only a month before The Washington Post article I couldn’t help noticing the almost diametrically opposed tones, rhetoric, and subversive propaganda that are present in both. This drastic difference harkens back to Cold War tensions present between the US and the USSR throughout the 20th century. These tensions often manifest in the propaganda and rhetoric present in nation’s media outlets. What the media feeds it’s subscribes often shapes opinions and cognition surrounding the same event. This phenomenon highlights a principle touched upon in John Hannigan’s Disasters without Borders chapter about mass media: Media outlets frame foreign disasters within a narrow “them vs. us” dichotomy where the U.S. media outlets tries to portray Russia as a foreign “other” with malevolent intentions through its coverage of events such as the crisis of Crimea while the Russian media tries to rationalize and defend its nations action while often omitting key information for media reports to purposely keep subscribes not fully informed on events such as the Crimean crisis. It is interesting to note how where one lives, what sources one derives their news, and what political affiliations said news organizations espouse can significantly meld the prospective one has on an event such as the Crimean crisis.
Media and Disasters
Hey all, since the reading this week from Hannigan’s Disasters Without Borders is about Media and its influence on the politics of disasters, I’ve decided to do my blog post comparing the media coverage of disasters and how they shape the discourse surrounding an event.
For my case study, I chose a disaster that has been frequently population the international headlines recently, the annexation of Crimea by Russia. For context, in the past weeks Russia has made several bold moves by stirring Russian nationalist sediment in Crimea, an area of Ukraine that strategically borders the Black Sea and has a majority cultural and linguistic Russian population. Recently, in response to resistance by the Ukrainian government and some Ukrainians living in and around Crimea, Russia inserted a military presence into the region and has slowly began the process of annexing the region from Ukraine, citing a “referendum” that the Crimean population took that reflected a majority of the population supporting leaving Ukraine and joining Russia.
The crisis has received lots of attention from the international community and numerous of nations have condemned what appears to be a clear example aggressive imperialism by Russia. On the flip side, Russian president Vladimir Putin dismisses allegations of Russian pugnacity and has referenced Ukraine’s referendum as a rationale for annexing the territory. Notable about the situation also is Russia’s military and economic vested interest in Crimea. One of the Russia’s only warm water naval bases is in Crimea and operates it within the purview of the Ukrainian government. With recent developments however, Russia is in danger of losing operation authority over the base.
The reason why the Crimea Crisis is such a fitting guinea pig, ripe for analysis of the media coverage surrounding it is because it almost perfectly exemplifies how media coverage, and the political affiliations of said media outlets, help shape discourse surrounding a crisis along with frame the perspective that subscribers view the crisis hold. There is no better exemplar of dissimilarities between media coverage of the same event than the perspectives posited by The Washington Post, an American outlet, and The Moscow News, the longest running English-translated newspaper which is owned by the Russian state media outlet RIA Novosti.
The Washington Post has run numerous articles covering the Crimean crisis, including “Russia threatens retaliation as Kiev orders military moves in eastern Ukraine” on 4/23/14 in which the authors report on the bellicose rhetoric of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stating that Russia would defend its interests militarily if provoked and drew illusions to Russia’s skirmish with Georgia over the South Osseita area in 2008. The article continues by documenting Ukrainian citizens and officials’ unrest and discontent over the advancing Russian military and political influence in the Crimean area. The article makes a point to reference the increasing kidnapping, assault, and other heinous crimes that are coming to light under the growing Russian military strong arm that is enveloping Crimea and surrounding areas of Ukraine. Overall, the tone and rhetoric present in the piece conveys a very pro-Ukraninan report and tries to highlight the hostility and villainous behavior of the militarily domineering Russian might. The piece clearly espouses the general Western position of disdain and contempt toward Russian zeal to overtake Crimea.
Concurrently, the writing from The Moscow News on March 13th titled “Crimea could join Russia weeks after referendum” provides a markedly different outlook on the crisis. The article’s use of language, such as Russia “absorbing” Crimea after the “referendum” that reflected the majority of the province wishing to be annexed by Russia, illustrates the article’s attempt to downplay and avoid Russian aggression and malevolent influence in the event and euphemize the situation by obscuring some unflattering details about Russia’s imperial escapades. Additionally, the article also made sure to mention that Crimea is a linguistically and culturally majority Russian area in an attempt to soften Russian advances into the area and provide more of a rationale for Crimea to leave Ukraine.
Reading the article from The Moscow News, which was written only a month before The Washington Post article I couldn’t help noticing the almost diametrically opposed tones, rhetoric, and subversive propaganda that are present in both. This drastic difference harkens back to Cold War tensions present between the US and the USSR throughout the 20th century. These tensions often manifest in the propaganda and rhetoric present in nation’s media outlets. What the media feeds it’s subscribes often shapes opinions and cognition surrounding the same event. This phenomenon highlights a principle touched upon in John Hannigan’s Disasters without Borders chapter about mass media: Media outlets frame foreign disasters within a narrow “them vs. us” dichotomy where the U.S. media outlets tries to portray Russia as a foreign “other” with malevolent intentions through its coverage of events such as the crisis of Crimea while the Russian media tries to rationalize and defend its nations action while often omitting key information for media reports to purposely keep subscribes not fully informed on events such as the Crimean crisis. It is interesting to note how where one lives, what sources one derives their news, and what political affiliations said news organizations espouse can significantly meld the prospective one has on an event such as the Crimean crisis.
Hey all, since the reading this week from Hannigan’s Disasters Without Borders is about Media and its influence on the politics of disasters, I’ve decided to do my blog post comparing the media coverage of disasters and how they shape the discourse surrounding an event.
For my case study, I chose a disaster that has been frequently population the international headlines recently, the annexation of Crimea by Russia. For context, in the past weeks Russia has made several bold moves by stirring Russian nationalist sediment in Crimea, an area of Ukraine that strategically borders the Black Sea and has a majority cultural and linguistic Russian population. Recently, in response to resistance by the Ukrainian government and some Ukrainians living in and around Crimea, Russia inserted a military presence into the region and has slowly began the process of annexing the region from Ukraine, citing a “referendum” that the Crimean population took that reflected a majority of the population supporting leaving Ukraine and joining Russia.
The crisis has received lots of attention from the international community and numerous of nations have condemned what appears to be a clear example aggressive imperialism by Russia. On the flip side, Russian president Vladimir Putin dismisses allegations of Russian pugnacity and has referenced Ukraine’s referendum as a rationale for annexing the territory. Notable about the situation also is Russia’s military and economic vested interest in Crimea. One of the Russia’s only warm water naval bases is in Crimea and operates it within the purview of the Ukrainian government. With recent developments however, Russia is in danger of losing operation authority over the base.
The reason why the Crimea Crisis is such a fitting guinea pig, ripe for analysis of the media coverage surrounding it is because it almost perfectly exemplifies how media coverage, and the political affiliations of said media outlets, help shape discourse surrounding a crisis along with frame the perspective that subscribers view the crisis hold. There is no better exemplar of dissimilarities between media coverage of the same event than the perspectives posited by The Washington Post, an American outlet, and The Moscow News, the longest running English-translated newspaper which is owned by the Russian state media outlet RIA Novosti.
The Washington Post has run numerous articles covering the Crimean crisis, including “Russia threatens retaliation as Kiev orders military moves in eastern Ukraine” on 4/23/14 in which the authors report on the bellicose rhetoric of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stating that Russia would defend its interests militarily if provoked and drew illusions to Russia’s skirmish with Georgia over the South Osseita area in 2008. The article continues by documenting Ukrainian citizens and officials’ unrest and discontent over the advancing Russian military and political influence in the Crimean area. The article makes a point to reference the increasing kidnapping, assault, and other heinous crimes that are coming to light under the growing Russian military strong arm that is enveloping Crimea and surrounding areas of Ukraine. Overall, the tone and rhetoric present in the piece conveys a very pro-Ukraninan report and tries to highlight the hostility and villainous behavior of the militarily domineering Russian might. The piece clearly espouses the general Western position of disdain and contempt toward Russian zeal to overtake Crimea.
Concurrently, the writing from The Moscow News on March 13th titled “Crimea could join Russia weeks after referendum” provides a markedly different outlook on the crisis. The article’s use of language, such as Russia “absorbing” Crimea after the “referendum” that reflected the majority of the province wishing to be annexed by Russia, illustrates the article’s attempt to downplay and avoid Russian aggression and malevolent influence in the event and euphemize the situation by obscuring some unflattering details about Russia’s imperial escapades. Additionally, the article also made sure to mention that Crimea is a linguistically and culturally majority Russian area in an attempt to soften Russian advances into the area and provide more of a rationale for Crimea to leave Ukraine.
Reading the article from The Moscow News, which was written only a month before The Washington Post article I couldn’t help noticing the almost diametrically opposed tones, rhetoric, and subversive propaganda that are present in both. This drastic difference harkens back to Cold War tensions present between the US and the USSR throughout the 20th century. These tensions often manifest in the propaganda and rhetoric present in nation’s media outlets. What the media feeds it’s subscribes often shapes opinions and cognition surrounding the same event. This phenomenon highlights a principle touched upon in John Hannigan’s Disasters without Borders chapter about mass media: Media outlets frame foreign disasters within a narrow “them vs. us” dichotomy where the U.S. media outlets tries to portray Russia as a foreign “other” with malevolent intentions through its coverage of events such as the crisis of Crimea while the Russian media tries to rationalize and defend its nations action while often omitting key information for media reports to purposely keep subscribes not fully informed on events such as the Crimean crisis. It is interesting to note how where one lives, what sources one derives their news, and what political affiliations said news organizations espouse can significantly meld the prospective one has on an event such as the Crimean crisis.
Sorry this is in all caps, the blogger would not let me post any other way
ReplyDelete