5. Media representation of the Russia-US diplomatic relations

As globalization impacted on the shift from the traditional to modern norms and values in society, political and diplomatic communication became driven by the informational diversity. Consequently, media sources have started to impact the civic engagement significantly on a broad context of domestic and foreign policy affairs, maintaining an advanced proliferation of political communication. By considering media as a tool for diplomatic conduct, the accumulation of a specific extent of political knowledge, trust, and awareness can be summarized as a representation of political truth (Norris, 2000). Another significant point worth considering is the antagonistic mode of relationship between politicians and journalists, highlighted by Blumler (1997) with an extensive reference to the desire to control the agenda covered.

The alterations in the eloquence towards the establishment of the attitude towards the Russia-US relations may be depicted in various media sources. A broad selection of salient issues was tackled with the coverage starting from such broad areas as the quest for political dominance in general to more narrow issues as the distribution of resources, including oil and gas. Basically, the publications are concerned with:

- Security;

- Intelligence;

- Dissatisfaction with mutual representation.

This paper will give a comparative analysis of two cases: The New York Times on the part of the US and Kommersant on the part of Russia, focusing on the narrative towards the agenda coverage and representation of two sides of the debate. Those two cases were selected based on several patterns, including:

(1) Essentially, dedication to the political agenda coverage;

(2) Mutually shared descriptive features, for instance, similar patterns of the newspaper's structure (e.g., information blocks, rubrics);

(3) Orientation on a relatively similar target audience.

The only difference is coverage; however, this pattern is not essential for the purpose of the presented paper.

Before moving to the initial case description, it is essential to highlight the fact that the presented analysis takes into account such margin of error as the subjectivity of the authors' Scholium: Meaning the attitude of the author of the note used for analysis. personal attitude which may be stipulated by the impact of two major factors:

(1) Professional socialization of the author, including both public and private opinion Scholuim: `Public' opinion - stands for the one accepted for the public dissemination, while `private' - for the latent, non-publishing distribution among the collective of the editorial board, driven by their personal preferences towards the agenda. of the editorial board of the journal and the general position of the publishing house;

(2) Individual socialization of the author, involving the overall influence of the social connections binding around the author of the specific column note, selected commentary and article, shaping her (his) mindset and narrative model towards the described topic.

Generally, the issues covered may be divided into several parts. Apart from being distinguished into two big groups, presenting the general vision, namely, (1) peaceful and mutually beneficial, and (2) competitive and challenging relations, those may be redivided into more specific parts, depending on the agenda area. The auctorial classification is presented in Graph 1.

Graph 1 Distribution of agenda topics, covering Russia-US bilateral relations Scholium: Security and cybersecurity were divided into different parts for the presented paper. Initially, the reason for this concerns the fact that the 1990s-2010s were marked with the massive rise of the information technology, marking the new types of security challenges, including, in turn, the cybersecurity and cybersurveillance.

Much of these patterns may be concisely explained by the increased involvement of the non-state actors in the internal and external affairs of the states worldwide (Warren, 2006), bringing challenges to the conduct of diplomacy. The initial analysis of the narrative both of the New York Times and Kommersant will be further described through the specific case-articles selected.

V.1. US Case study: The New York Times (NYT)

The New York Times (NYT) is a daily American newspaper with the worldwide coverage of a broad target audience, founded in 1851 The New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/ and operating in more than 195 states worldwide New York Times Company 10-K (2017, February 22). In The New York Times. Retrieved from http://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0000071691/37d516f5-b9da-4ca8-a50f-d70630760094.pdf . According to the data available for 2016, its normal print circulation, incorporating both paid and qualified circulation of the daily paper in print, was around 571,500 for weekday (Monday to Friday) and 1,085,700 for Sunday New York Times Company 10-K (2017, February 22). In The New York Times. Retrieved from http://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0000071691/37d516f5-b9da-4ca8-a50f-d70630760094.pdf.

The case of the New York Times was selected for various reasons: “accessibility of knowledge”, on the one hand, meaning that it is accessible to all kind of readers without orientation on a narrow category of potential consumers, and accessibility of the newspaper's archive for comparative discourse research, on the other hand, aimed at measuring the narrative of the bilateral diplomatic relations between Russia and the US and the way it changes during different stages of time. It is worth emphasizing that the initial accessibility and the public dissemination of the information are essential here, due to its powerful tool of spreading the data and psychologically influencing the world outlook and mindset of the readers, their views and other related patterns, including social attitudes, political behavior (Javaid & Elahi, 2014; Lewis et al., 2010).

General narrative: The attitude towards the Russia-US bilateral diplomatic relations

Starting from the analysis of the background events, including the financial crisis that happened in 1998, the narrative emphasises on the drastic economic disaster which damaged not only the domestic balance of power but also impacted the instability of Russia's foreign relations with other states. By making a note of emphasis in the heading “Good News From Russia (Yes, It's True)”, it makes evident that the “good news from Russia” was not that frequent and, moreover, seemed not that trustworthy. The auctorial inversion, in this case, reminds of a note of sarcasm and obscenity, making the article sound assumptive and even conservative. The use of vigor wording supports such a style, for instance:

“It was aggravated by claims that those same reformers were guilty of money-laundering -- wasn't this proof that Americans who had supported Mr. Yeltsin had ''lost'' Russia?” (Malia, 1999)

“Against such a background, it is only natural that The Nation, reviving the old chimera of ''socialism with a human face,'' wrote that Mr. Yeltsin destroyed the bright hope of a genuinely reformable Communism.”(Malia, 1999)

“We don't have to worry about imperial aggressiveness in the Caucasus and Central Asia.” (Malia, 1999)

Speaking about the general narrative of the article, it is relatively optimistic, placing hope for the improvement of the bilateral relations of Russia and the US. However, a certain degree of distance between the two sides still remained.

The narrative of the article is relatively controversial and even provocative, written in the manner of an investigative report. The narrative depicts that the Russian intelligence officer was hiding under an assumed diplomatic position, which issued a mistrust from the US perspective, accusing the Russian side of the increase of the frequency of such instances.

“Since Moscow is regarded as less of a threat to the United States now, the market value of Russian spies has declined since the height of the cold war, experts say.” (Risen, 2001)

At the same time, an article seems to present a varnishing reputation of the US's side, combining the one with the caution of an increased Russian presence, that, as it might seem, was both not desirable and expected.

“It appears that the United States has not increased its presence in Moscow to a similar degree, officials said, adding that Russia has more intelligence officers in the United States than the United States has in Russia.” (Risen, 2001)

“Still, some officials caution that the increased Russian intelligence presence in the United States does not mean that Moscow is winning any new spy war.” (Risen, 2001)

The general narrative sounds to be relatively bigoted and critical, implying the wording of the arguments presented.

“Now comes Vladimir Putin -- by instinct and training a less likely friend of the United States than was Mr. Yeltsin -- to offer support in our struggle against terrorism.” (Sestanovich, 2001)

Apart from placing emphasis on the general shift of power within the Russian domestic environment, the author also criticizes it for the challenging external relations, including disagreements between Russia and the US over the war in Chechnya, presenting it as a threat to the diplomatic relations between two sides.

“Russia's war in Chechnya has been a magnet and a motivator for the very terrorists who threaten Americans worldwide. <..> Mr. Putin says he has been fighting our enemies, alone, for the past two years. But has he made them weaker or stronger?” (Sestanovich, 2001)

Additionally, among other concerns was Russian actions towards Georgia.

“Russia's charge that Georgia is a Taliban-style haven for terrorists is preposterous. The danger it creates, however, cannot be ignored.” (Sestanovich, 2001)

Not only did the political issues were shaping the bilateral diplomatic agenda of the two states but also economic ones. Especially in the early 2000s, the demand for cooperation has increased.

“States can be boiled down to one point: stop treating Russia like an enemy economy.” (Tavernise, 2001)

Still, although not stating directly, the US was trying to place much of the responsibility on its side, thus showing its unipolar dominance and power.

“As Russia moves to integrate its economy with the rest of the world's, business leaders and government officials here say that more support is needed from America to smooth the way.” (Tavernise, 2001)

By taking as an assumption such position, the statement which Russian economic advisory issued in response may highlight an attempt to improve the economic situation both in internal and external manners.

“Russia should be considered an equal partner. We cannot be equal by economic size, demographics, or geographical location. But in commercial relations, in all these rules of behavior, it should be very normal good relations among neighbors.” (Tavernise, 2001)

It also coincided with Russia's intention to join the World Trade Organization (WTO), which could be assessed as another threat to the US' economic supremacy.

It should be noted that from the very beginning on an article, it states that “<…> Russian intelligence officers secretly placed sophisticated nuclear detection equipment inside North Korea <…>” (Risen, 2003), which means a certain acceptance by the US the existence of a strong intelligence system working for the benefit of Russia. Considering the US's suspense towards the surveillance from the side of geopolitical and geoeconomic rivals, what may be highlighted is its suspiciousness and appraisement of such precedent as a potential threat. The reason for this is the fact that as long as the US did not possess its embassy on the territory of North Korea, its diplomatic control there was fragile. Therefore, the US was initially forced to appeal to Russian assistance. Hence, in this situation, the Russian counterpart was even performing as a diplomatic intermediary between the US and North Korea.

Nevertheless, two days later, on January 22, 2003, Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service stated this report to be a deception. Russians Say Times Report Is Untrue. (2003, January 22). The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/22/world/threats-and-responses-russians-say-times-report-is-untrue.html?searchResultPosition=7

The beginning of the article on the agenda is quite optimistic, recalling the overall positive tendency in the improvement of the Russia-US relations, which appeared in the early 2000s, claiming that never before have they reached such a peaceful condition of mutual coexistence.

“Probably not since World War II had there been such a high-water mark in Russian cooperation with America.”(Weisman, 2006)

Notwithstanding, the US's hope for cooperation have been damaged by a certain shift in the Russian political objectives, namely, the decision on the proliferation of its domestic security, and desire to participate in the strategic security ambitions, including cooperation on Iran and increased assertiveness on the nuclear defense.

“Today -- just when Russian cooperation has become vital on Iran -- Mr. Putin's post-9/11 statements seem like a curio from another time. And so do America's hopes.” (Weisman, 2006)

“They know it's not the relationship with Russia that they wanted.” With reference to S. Sestanovich opinion. (Weisman, 2006)

What is also essential to say is that there is a specific alleviation of narrative's sound towards Russia, if not giving the ground for improvement of the mutual relations, then explaining and even justifying the behavior of Russia concerning its domestic aims, which are described as the ones which have gained more prominence and power than years before.

“But Americans may have to accept that Russia's attitude has firm roots in a sense of identity, interests and destiny that is resurgent after years of humiliation.” (Weisman, 2006)

“It [Russia] had shrunk physically and economically after the cold war.” (Weisman, 2006)

A certain extent of a step back from bilateral confrontations (such conclusion was predominantly based on the process and outcomes of the G8 talks). Relevant to the peaceful character of personal relations between George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin, although generally, the US's actions during Bush's presidency at that time were presumably unilateral.

“Russia is not going to attack Europe,” Mr. Bush said. “<…> Russia is not an enemy. There needs to be no military response because we are not at war with Russia.” (Demsey, 2007)

Hence, there is a certain extent of the personification of politics, embodied in the association of decision with a leader, his (her) personal attitude towards another state leader, which is also personified.

At the same time, the narrative of the article's protagonist seems to present a relatively rigor attitude towards Russian side, which is presented by an emotional emphasis applied to describe the issued stance of Russia towards cooperation with the US.

“But Mr. Lavrov, who has consistently taken a tough stance over the American plans, said Wednesday that Russia was not planning to withdraw from the treaty. `The issue will not be raised,' he said.” (Demsey, 2007)

The narrative of an article tackles a debatable summon dedicated to the validity of the Dima Yakovlev Law Federal law of Russian Federation no. 272-FZ of 2012-12-28 "On Sanctions for Individuals Violating Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms of the Citizens of the Russian Federation", issues by the Russian government after the death of adopted Russian toddler in Virginia. The overall debate and ambiguity towards this decision concerned two major issues. On the one hand, this law, from the Russian side, was an act of the legitimization of the adoption of Russian kids, which was especially relevant in the representation of adoption as a particular kind of business, since in many instances, international adoption is driven by the material support. However, on the other, this decision seemed to be an instance of the violation of human rights, namely, the Convention of the Rights of Child “Convention on the Rights of the Child.” OHCHR, www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx. .

Interestingly enough, the narrative of an article presented also depicts this split of ambiguity, which may be interpreted as a desire to amplify the overall pressurizing effect.

“The warning <…> quickly widened a split over the measure at the highest levels of the Russian government. Russian lawmakers are pushing the ban as retaliation for a new American law punishing Russian citizens accused of violating human rights.”(Herszenhorn, 2007)

Even though the article accepts the proposition that there were several preceding cases which of the adoption of Russian kinds, ending up with the abuse instances and even cases of fatal outcome, still, the narrative emphasizes that the Russian legal and social assistance systems are insecure for orphans.

“Critics of the Russian law say that it will most hurt orphans, who are already suffering in Russia's deeply troubled child welfare system.” (Herszenhorn, 2007)

With the Russian incorporation of Crimea, the bilateral relations between Russia and the US had worsened tremendously. As a response, the US issued several kinds of sanctions against Russia, mostly targeting the business industry and economy.

“President Obama signed an executive order barring new investment and trade with Crimea and freezing the property of people or businesses found to be operating in the region or helping its new leadership.” (Baker, 2014)

Such a decision was “intended to provide clarity to United States corporations doing business in the region and reaffirm that the United States will not accept Russia's occupation and attempted annexation of Crimea” (Baker, 2014).

The narrative presented also places emphasis on the unity of the US's actions with its European colleagues against Russia, estimated as a violation of rights. The confidence in the operation's accuracy was also supported, from the American viewpoint, by the economic instability, which Russia was suffering from during the time of the Ukranian crisis.

“The actions came a day after similar moves by the European Union, and they were meant to demonstrate enduring unity between the allies in the face of Russian efforts to drive a wedge between them. Russia is already reeling from a currency crisis fueled partly by previous sanctions and economic isolation stemming from its intervention in Ukraine, as well as the falling price of oil.” (Baker, 2014)

It should not be denied that the publications reported in the “opinion” genre are usually under the influence of specific personal preferences of an author. This article is not an exception, and even the title appears to depict an auctorial metaphor of “playing marbles”, reminding of a well-known game for kids, the rules of which state that each participant aims to hit one of the opponent's marbles so that it would move out from the playing circle to get a turn. Imaginary, but true, similar logic seems to apply to the international relations and the distribution of power, for instance, while dealing with a polarity issue.

Not only did such a metaphor appear spontaneously but also as a reference to a quote of the House Intelligence Committee Chairman, Mike Rogers.

“`Well, I think Putin is playing chess, and I think we're playing marbles. And I don't think it's even close.' <..> Actually, it turns out that Obama was the one playing chess and Putin was the one playing marbles, and it wouldn't be wrong to say today that Putin's lost most of his -- in both senses of the word.” (Friedman, 2014)