3. Hypotheses and argumentation

Text, discourse, conversation. Defining the overall strategy of any political discourse we can address to us-them distinction. According to Carl Schmitt, this distinction is the essence of politics. He defined the political as existential public struggle of us and them. It is crucial for discursive construction of political identities to stress this distinction and emphasize positive presentation of «Us» and negative presentation of «Them». This aim can be achieved by discursive emphasizing Our good things, and Their bad things, and de-emphasizing Our bad things, and Their good things.

The level of meaning is the crucial aspect of discourse analysis. It enables to reveal signifier-signified relations. To do this we will scrutinized the following aspects:

Topics as semantic macrostructures. Selection of topics substantially determines the content of discourse, the very formulation of topics contain a bias about Us and Them.

Local meanings and coherence. Positive/Negative Meanings for Us/Them can be grasped by the following parameters:

* manifestation (explicit versus implicit),

* precision (precise versus vague),

* granularity (detailed/fine versus broad, rough),

* level (general versus specific, detailed),

* modality (we/they must/should),

* evidentiality (we have the truth versus they are misguided),

* local coherence (based on biased models),

* disclaimers (denying our bad things, «We are not racists, but…»).

Lexicon. Using certain lexicon could shape audience's perception of problem issue. Selecting positive and negative terms for Us/Them (e.g. «terrorist» versus «freedom fighter») adds certain connotations to political actors.

Each meaning is shaped in certain discursive form. Scrutinizing forms we will focus on the following aspects.

· Syntax (emphasize and deemphasize of positive/negative agency of Us/Them),

§ cleft versus non-cleft sentences («It is X who…»),

§ active versus passives («USA invades Iraq» versus «Iraq invaded by USA»).

§ full clauses/propositions versus nominalizations (the invasion of Iraq).

· Sound structures (intonation, etc., emphasizing and deemphasizing Our/Their good/bad things).

· Format of the message. Including schema of representation the format of the message construct the superstructure which implicitly influence audience's perception. On this level, we will focus on positive and negative meanings for Us/Them in:

§ dominant categories (e.g. headlines, titles, summaries, sonclusions) versus non-dominant categories,

§ argumentation structures (stereotypical arguments, e.g. «For their own good»),

§ fallacies that falsely conclude Our/Their good/bad things, e.g. overgeneralizations, authority, etc.

· Rhetorical structures.

§ Forms: Repetition

§ Meanings: Comparisons, metaphors, metonymies, irony; euphemisms, hyperboles, number games, etc.

5. Results and discussion

Evidence from TV-Rain

Due to the specific features of television format in case of TV-Rain, we scrutinized newscasts rather than interviews. Table 2 (Attachments) contents the full list of analyzed news stories. We collected newscasts from a day and a following day of the event. Key words of the search - «Syria», «Turkey», «ISIS», «IS», «Assad».

TV-Rain provided an extensive coverage of Russian military invasion in Syria. In total, 125 newscasts were collected. The topic dominated on the agenda on TV-Rain during the first months of Russian military invasion in Syria. The most covered issue was an accident with Sukhoi Su-24 strike aircraft, which was shot down by Turkish Air Force.

TV-Rain provided both thematic and episodic frames for news issues. Moreover, one newscast could contain both episodic and thematic types of framing. The former predominated in the first day of the event, the latter - on the second. Moreover, there was the central topic of Russian military invasion, which covered all relevant events. This feature shows that TV-Rain constructs its own way of covering of the topic.

The titles of TV-Rain newscasts are predominantly neutral. The most widespread way of formulation the titles was to provide the source of information, the subject of action and brief description of the very action.

The Head of Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs: Ankara provided evidences of Su-34 violations of Turkish borders (01 February 2016)

Foreign-office: Putin «undermines» the resolution of the Syrian conflict (02 February 2016)

The USA accused Syria in oil trading with IS (11 December 2015)

Nevertheless, the logic of media presupposes the bias as a primary condition of media coverage due to the complexity of reality, which should be reduced in a particular way in order to be perceived. So the question is, where are the borders of TV-Rain bias and whether it is political in nature?

TV-Rain covered various aspects of the topic: global politics, domestic economic and political consequences of the military invasion, the condition of public opinion, etc. It provided an exhaustive picture of the topic attracting different sources of information and covering the vast set of issues.

As it has been already mentioned, in the beginning of the Russian military invasion in Syria TV-Rain newscasts promoted predominantly episodic frames. It was mirrored in the lack of contextual information in newscasts discourse. Thus, TV-Rain avoided the promotion of any presuppositions on the topic. Moreover, providing the contextual information TV-Rain covered official's actions and statements which enabled to minimize its own biased statements.

In the end of the operation TV-Rain newscasts provided contextual information according to the thematic frame which was constructed during the operation. Scrutinizing the latest newscasts enable to reconstruct this frame. According to TV-Rain, the problem issue is political tension in Syria. The manner of problem issue articulation was relatively neutral: in the newscasts TV-Rain did not used politically biased signifiers such as «civil war», «war against terrorists», «anti-governmental riots», etc. It used predominantly neutral diplomatic clichйs, which let it be relatively objective in the formulation of the problem issue, and avoided the use of non-consensual vocabulary (e.g. «terrorists» versus «insurgent fighters» covering the activity of Free Syrian Army).

In the TV-Rain thematic frame there was only one recognized cause of the problem issue - ISIS's activity in Syria and Iraq. TV-Rain did not called other countries or organizations as causes of the Syrian conflict. There were a plethora of sensitive issues, which were solved by the use of quotes or naming the source and highlighting the particularity of the point of view. For instance, TV-Rain avoided the coverage and direct naming of Free Syrian Army. It covered its activity only as what is dependent on other actors, rather than as an independent political actor. There was a set of legitimate political actors, which made different statements on this issue.

In the newscast The Kremlin contested the existence of «Free Syrian Army» (30 September 2015) TV-Rain mentioned Dmitry Peskov (Putin's press secretary), Russian Ministry of Defense, Pentagon, NATO and Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. «Free Syrian Army» was described in the end of the paragraph as an armed Syrian opposition.

TV-Rain newscasts avoided moral obligations and offered solutions. The majority of materials contained only first and second components of frame (articulation of the problem issue and defining causes). Thereof, we cannot conclude that there is a political bias in TV-Rain framing of Russian military invasion in Syria on the level of direct framing.

In opposite to «Echo of Moscow» TV-Rain attracts much more sources of information. Moreover, it covers activity of many political actors: states, politicians, civil society organizations, public intellectuals, deputies of the State Duma and so on. At the same time, TV-Rain privileges one points discriminating the others. For instance, providing a lack of analytic discourse in newscasts, it put comments of Stanislav Belkovsky in this section. Stanislav Belkovsky is a Russian «political scientist» and communication specialist; he is a commentator on a variety of political issues, including Ukraine, Syria, Putin's worldview, Russian oligarchs, etc. Since 2014, Stanislav Belkovsky works at TV-Rain as a main specialist on all issues. According to TV-Rain advertising, Stanislav Belkovsky knows answers on all interesting questions. Putting his comments in the newscasts section can be considered as the channel's own content promotion. Nevertheless, it privileges Belkovsky's analytic point of view over all others analytic points.

In his interview from 24 November 2015, Belkovsky contextualized an accident with Russian aircraft in his personal discursive framework. He argued that the main reason of the accident was the contestation of two egos - Putin and Erdogan's, rather than national interest of Turkey, which tried to restrain Russian activity in the Near East. Nevertheless, he accused Russian forces in permanent violation of Turkish state borders. Despite these statements corresponds to legitimate point of view in public space, locating them in newscast section groundlessly privileges one particular polemical point of view over the others.

Sometimes TV-Rain provided its own analytic materials to describe the situation in Syria. The article «Eight things you should know about Russian military invasion in Syria, 30 September 2015» (30 September 2015) starts with the statement that the international coalition's activity in Syria was substantially ineffective. Providing the opinion of Russian scholars, TV-Rain states that along with the international coalition Russian air forces will destroy ISIS. During the material TV-Rain promotes the position of Russian officials stating that Russia waited for official request from the Syrian government.

Nevertheless, as we have already mentioned, all context models are ideologically biased. According to Zizek, ideology is a modus operandi of reality, which makes it perceivable and understandable. TV-Rain constructed the context through the contestation of frames in public space. Thereof, the context of Russian military invasion in Syria was a product of the very media coverage. Providing the variety of sources and privileging officials over all other sources of information, TV-Rain constructed vast predominantly nationalistic frame, which covered the variety of political discourses.

According to Carl Schmitt, the nation-state is the supreme form of association, which covers all other distinction and forms social of pluralism. The majority of contemporary scholars considers this idea as the apology of totalitarian state, oppression of social pluralism and democratic rule. At the same time, several authors argue that the authentic thought of Schmitt is devoted to the idea of nation-state as a supreme discursive form, which is like an umbrella for all other political and social identifications. Thereof, nationalist discursive framework in this sense is devoted to a set of legitimate political discourses, which contest each other in public sphere.

For instance, in the material «RBC has ascertained on Russian air forces aims in Syria» (30 September 2015) TV-Rain narrated about Russian military strategy in Syria. Russia as a nation-state was the main actor in that story. Moreover, Russian positive role was implicitly stated by the highlighting the negative role of ISIS. The story contextually emphasized Russian positive satellites - Iraq and USA.

«RBC has ascertained on Russian air forces aims in Syria» (30 September 2015)

The source close to the Kremlin stated… the idea of military support occurred when the coalition headed by the USA manifested its inability to stop the expansion of the «Islamic State»

Iraq government has decided to cooperate with Moscow on that issue.

Nationalistic frame here is discursively hidden by non-nationalistic signifiers. Using the synecdoche enables to avoid direct naming of the authentic actors and metaphorically present them by other names. «The Kremlin» designates «Russia» as a political actor who make important decisions. Then, «Russia» is substituted by «Moscow». This substitution is rhetorical rather than substantial because it does not devote to Moscow as a federal city of Russia. Thus, hidden nationalistic framework is hidden on the level of signifiers, but is present on the level of signified.

Despite in the story TV-Rain focuses on activities of nation-states, it highlights other political actors - United Nations (as an independent actor rather than the board of nations), the Russian Federation Council, Syrian Army. All of these actors are presented as subjects of particular actions.

Despite nationalistic frame covers a variety of political actors, it generates certain bias in news procession. Due to the supremeness of the state, foreign citizens statements are also articulated in the nationalistic frame. For instance, the article «The Investigating Committee has opened the criminal case on Gerashenko's call to collect information about Russian militaries in Syria» (07 October 2015) narrates about Russian state reaction on the statement of private actor. Anton Gerashenko is a deputy of the Ukrainian Supreme Council. Despite the private character of the statement, the story implicitly stresses Russian-Ukrainian relations.

Moreover, the primary role of nationalistic discourse in TV-Rain media-coverage is presented in titles. The majority of titles contains references on nation-states and national predicates (e.g. «russian», «american»). At the same time, Russian issues are sometimes articulated without such signifiers. Nevertheless, it made an implicit impact on the coverage due to the general frame.

Despite the nationalistic bias TV-Rain remains relatively impartial. As it has been mentioned, every media contains a bias as a primary condition of media coverage. Also, we have stated that democracy is the political project. Promoting the vast nationalistic frame TV-Rain provides a domain for discussing of foreign and domestic issues. Moreover, in circumstances of military conflict all non-nationalistic media frames become inevitably politicized. While political identity in constituted outside, military conflict is devoted to Schnitt's essence of politics and produces primary political identification.

Results: evidence from Novaya gazeta

Data was collected through Factiva. Key words - «Syria», «Turkey», «ISIS», «IS», «Assad». Period of time - 30 September 2015 - 15 March 2016.

The beginning of Russian military invasion in Syria was covered with an agenda bias. Unlike Echo of Moscow and TV-Rain Novaya gazeta extensively scrutinized the issue, whether Russian air forces attacked Free Syrian Army or ISIS? This issue was articulated in American public sphere and contextualized on Russian agenda as one of controversial issues of the military operation. For instance, TV-Rain always accompanied all messages on this issue by references to sources and providing an opposite views. Unlike TV-Rain, Novaya gazeta articulated this issue as a common knowledge and provided a number of opinions in support of this point of view. There were three articles in the issue of 2 October 2015, which were devoted to Russian military invasion in Syria. Their titles are presented below:

«Polite» airstrikes have caught the USA flatfooted» (2 October 2015)

Far from target? (2 October 2015)

Whether there were terrorists on the opposition-controlled territory? (2 October 2015)

Thus, the issue agenda was constructed around this topic. Moreover, Novaya gazeta labels Free Syrian Army as «terrorists». The status of Free Syrian Army in Syrian civil war is contested by Russia, the USA, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey. While Russia and Iran consider Free Syrian Army as terrorists, the USA, Turkey and Saudi Arabia argue that they are a moderate Syrian opposition. Thereof, Free Syrian Army is a controversial actor, who media coverage is inevitably sensitive. Labeling them as «opposition» and opposing them to «terrorists» Novaya gazeta privileges the position of the USA, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Moreover, these articles were published in the beginning of the operation. Thereof, covering Russian military invasion in Syria Novaya gazeta was substantially biased and privileged the international coalition's particular view on the Syrian civil war.

For example, in the article «Polite» airstrikes have caught the USA flatfooted» (2 October 2015) the author considers disputes and current agenda in the American politics. He describes tension between John McCain and Rand Paul he implicitly contextualizes their disagreement in the issue of Russian attack against the Syrian moderate opposition and civilians. However, the author mentions that Russia does not approve the attacks against the Syrian opposition. Nevertheless, it is mentioned only contextually and presented as a particular position of one of political actor. Moreover, this actor as presented as a negative hero of the narrative.

In October Novaya gazeta focused on economic and political consequences of the operation. This issues were covered critically or neutrally. Nevertheless, even in formally neutral articles Novaya gazeta promoted critical evaluations. For instance, the article «The war on terrorism has a price» (7 October 2015) contained controversial coverage of the financial aspect of the Russian military invasion in Syria. Stating that Russian military expenditure on the invasion is far less than coalition's one and providing arguments in favor of the relatively low economic costs of the operation, the author implicitly highlighted the opposite point of view using such constructions as «cannot be considered as tremendous». Moreover, in the end of the article the issue was covered by the critical frame: the author stated that despite the absence of catastrophic economic consequences of the Russian military invasion in Syria, the issue of its reasons is still open due to the tension with Sunni world and low probability of economic sanctions cancellation.

During the military campaign Novaya gazeta connected the Russian ivasion with such topics as the Ukrainian crisis, the Afghan war, the Cold war, the contestation between Russia and the USA, the possibility of nuclear war, etc. On the other hand, unlike Echo of Moscow and TV-Rain Novaya gazeta provide a lack of information both factual and analytic on the accident with Sukhoi Su-24 strike aircraft, which was shot down by a Turkish Air Force.

«How to take out the Turkish knife?» (27 November 2015) was the sole article, which was devoted to the accident. In this article the author critically evaluates Russian and Turkish military opportunities, concluding that Russia should be more moderate in relations with Turkey in order to avoid a war. Moreover, the author states that if it were a war between Russia and Turkey, the former would inevitably be defeated. Thereof, the article is devoted to Russian foreign policy rather than the accident.

Since the beginning of the Russian military invasion in Syria Novaya gazeta provided thematic type of framing. In case of Novaya gazeta it is better to talk about critical framing. This frame covers the majority of articles despite the different topics. Unlike TV-Rain, there were no domination of nationalistic discourse and construction of nationalistic frame in Novaya gazeta media coverage. Novaya gazeta focused on various range of actors (Russian mass media, Russian state, foreign and domestic officials, state-owned and private companies, military structures, etc.) and critically evaluated their activities. Considering Novaya gazeta titles, we revealed the widespread use of synecdoche, tropes, rhetorical questions and other forms of expression. The widespread use of such forms is an attribute of biased media coverage: rhetorical forms enables to construct and directly evaluate «Us» and «Them».

Novaya gazeta is characterized by the exhaustive framing of covering issues. In Entman's terms Novaya gazeta exhaustively provided all four components of frame. Below we deconstruct the Novaya gazeta's critical frame, which was extensively used in media coverage of the Russian military invasion in Syria.

First, defining the problem issue. Due to the articles format, each considered issue was articulated in detail. Novaya gazeta articles presupposes relatively large extent which enables to extensively discuss the problem issue. Thereof, the majority of articles starts from the elaboration of the problem. Unlike TV-Rain Novaya gazeta articles provide a lack of sources of information and external references. Nevertheless, it provides an exhaustive information on the problem issue during the articulation.

We can define several problems, which were permanently discussed in Novaya gazeta during the Russian military invasion in Syria:

· The problem of sanctions - Russia considers its participation in the Syrian conflict as a way for achieving the cancellations of economic sanctions.

· The problem of domestic support - Putin uses the Syrian campaign as a way to increase his own popularity.

· Global security - Russian military invasion as a way to achieve the peaceful resolution of the Syrian problem and defeat ISIS.

· National security - terroristic attacks on Russian territory as the consequence of the military invasion.

· Withdrawal from Syria - how to leave Syria minimizing costs?

Defining causes Novaya gazeta focused on a variety of factors. Depending on the problem definition, it articulated causes differently. Unlike TV-Rain Novaya gazeta did not considered ISIS activity as the main reason and rational of Russian foreign policy and international relations. There were several articles, which challenged the declared aims of Russian military invasion. Moreover, Novaya gazeta tends to consider Russian military and foreign activity as a main reason of articulated problem issues. Thereof, this way of causes definition enables to criticize the government and the president on the following step of fraiming - moral obligations.

Despite Novaya gazeta stresses the negative consequences of Russian activity in Syria and directly articulate its blame, there was a lack of authentic moral discourse in the articles. Moral obligations were articulated in the utilitarian logic with the predominance of costs-benefits logic of effectiveness. The majority of articles stressed negative political, economic or reputational consequences of the Syrian operation. Thus, moral obligations and moral political discourse were substituted by instrumental political discourse.

Thereof, supposing solutions were articulated in the logic of effectiveness, rather than in moral discourse. This logic was expressed by the following constructions: «it would be useful now», «national interest», «pragmatically we have to», etc. Critical frame considers such vision of the political reality as realistic vision. Nevertheless, such «realistic» vision undermine the political contestation between different frames due to the reduction of moral component. The lack of moral discourse leads to the unification of all frames under the umbrella of economic logic of effectiveness.

As we have already mentioned, critical frame is a thematic frame. It contextualized the Syrian topic in the following topics:

· Global isolation of Russia as the consequence of the Ukrainian crisis;

· Economic problems in Russia as the consequence of EU economic sanctions;

· Russian-American relation and the return of the cold war.

Due to this contextualization Syrian topic lost its unique discourse and autonomy from other topics. It was connected with other foreign policy issues and topics. One the one hand, this connection provides a kind of intertextuality effect. One the other hand, there was a lack of intertextuality due to the lack of moral discourse, which undermines contestation of different frames.