Реторика, медии, семиотика

Rhetoric, Media, Semiotics

DOI 10.55206/QGYR4841

 

Pavleta Nachevska

Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”

E-mail: p.nachevska@gmail.com

Abstrasct: The media play a crucial role in shaping public agenda, particularly in the context of geopolitical conflicts. The ongoing hybrid war between Russia and Ukraine, which began before 2022, underscores the significant influence of the media in shaping public opinion. This study hypothesizes that the portrayal of aggression by one or the other side is a powerful mechanism for influencing public perceptions and garnering support. The focus of this research is on media publi­cations from diverse countries, including members of the European Union, Russia and Ukraine, regarding the war. The central research question is to examine how mediatization manifests differently across these countries. The hypothesis posits that variations in media ecosystems, societal traditions, and cultural factors play a pivotal role in shaping the manifestation of mediatization in these contexts. Furthermore, the study explores how media outlets and journalists emphasize the potential for catastrophic consequences, thereby influencing public opinion and policy discussions. The central problem addressed in this research is that media outlets and journalists often highlight the potential for catastrophic outcomes, thereby shaping public opinion and influencing policy discourse. To investigate this, the study employs situational analysis as its methodology, aiming to capture the complexity and variability of media representations across different national contexts.

Keywords: media, mediatization, situational analysis, hybrid war, context, fac­tors, manifestations.

Introduction

What is „mediatization”? Knut Lundby, professor emeritus in Media studies, University of Oslo, describes „mediatization” as processes that “affect almost all areas of social and cultural life, transforming them through the influence of media”. [1]

The mass media – newspapers, radio, television, and the internet – in­cluding e-mail and blogs – are usually less influential than the social environ­ment, but they are still significant, especially in affirming attitudes and opinions that are already established. The news media focus the public’s attention on certain personalities and issues, leading many people to form opinions about them. The mass media can also reinforce latent attitudes and “activate” them, prompting people to take action. It plays key role by letting individuals know what other people think and by giving political leaders large audiences. In this way the „mediatization” make it possible for public opinion to influence large numbers of individuals and wide geographic areas. In countries where important news is suppressed by the government, a great deal of information is transmitted by rumors. Word of mouth (or other forms of person-to-person communication, such as text messaging) thus becomes the vehicle for underground public opinion in totalitarian countries, even though these processes are slower and usually involve fewer people than in countries where the media network is dense and uncontrolled. [2]

Fear is a powerful emotion that can significantly influence human behavior and decision-making. Both media and political entities often use fear as a tool to achieve various objectives, from capturing attention to shaping public opinion and policy.

Fearful and alarming news stories tend to capture more attention than neutral or positive ones, because fear triggers a strong emotional response.

Media often highlights dangers, threats, and crises to attract viewers and clicks, which can boost ratings and advertising revenue. Furthermore, headlines are often designed to evoke fear, creating a sense of urgency and importance around certain issues.

Fear can be used to justify disputable or unpopular policies. By empha­sizing the dangers and risks, political leaders can persuade the public to accept measures they might otherwise oppose.

For example, fear of terrorism is used to justify surveillance programs and restrictions on civil liberties. Fear against Nazis, is used by president Putin in order to provoke hatred against Ukraine among Russians and to explain his military aggression.

Situational analysis

The hybrid war that Russia is waging against Ukraine dates back before 2022 and is developing on many levels, with the media definitely having a major impact. The threat of aggression from one or the other side is a potent tool for shaping public perceptions and support. Both Western countries and Russia use mass media to mediatize these threats, but their strategies and objectives can differ significantly.

Western media often employ sensation to capture audience attention. Headlines and news stories about missile threats are designed to evoke fear and urgency. This approach can lead to heightened public anxiety and a sense of imminent danger.

For example, media coverage of Russian missile capabilities and threats often emphasizes the potential for catastrophic outcomes, which can influence public opinion and policy discussions. [3] The media in Western countries play an important role in setting the public agenda. Focusing on missile threats can prioritize these issues over others, making them seem more important. Thus, politicians in Western countries may use the media to justify increased defense spending, military interventions and can also influence electoral processes, as candidates position themselves strongly on national security to appeal to voters. [4]

On the other hand, „mediatization” in Russia has completely different expressions and uses different techniques, because the media in Russia are totally controlled by the state and propaganda is used to shape public opinion. State-controlled media amplifies the perceived threat from the West, creating a climate of fear and suspicion. [5] The „mediatization” of missile threats also serves to distract the public from domestic issues, focusing attention on external enemies and rallying support for the government. By portraying itself as under constant threat, the Russian government uses media coverage of missile threats to justify its military aggression abroad and legitimize its defense spending and huge losses of military personnel. [6]

The „mediatization” of missile threats is a powerful tool used by both Western countries and Russia to influence public perception and political agendas, but with different means and outcome.

Background, contemporary means, and argumentations

The events discussed above are not new. During the Cold War era (1946-1991) intense geopolitical tension between the United States and the Soviet Union, along with their respective allies occurred. Churchill’s speech in Fulton on March 5, 1946, is considered to mark the beginning of the Cold War. One of the most significant aspects of this period was the fear of nuclear war. The media played a crucial role in propagating this fear. At that time, mass communications looked different and used different methods. The most important tools then were television, radio, newspapers, magazines, and public service announcements. Civil defense films were broadcast to educate the public on how to survive a nuclear attack. Public service announcements on radio and television provided information on bomb shelters, storing up supplies, and other preparedness mea­sures. These announcements aimed to instill a sense of alertness and readiness among the population.

Media logic refers to the norms, values, and formats that guide how media organizations produce and present content. This concept is crucial to under­standing how threats and fear are communicated to the public. Media logic dictates that certain events are more newsworthy than others based on factors like timeliness, proximity, impact, and human interest. Threats and crises often meet these criteria because they are immediate, impactful, and emotionally engaging.

Another technique used to steer public opinion in one direction or another is emphasizing certain aspects in the news over others in order to frame threats and amplify fear. Using visual elements like images and fragmented videos is also a powerful tool to direct the viewers’ impressions in a certain path.

The language used in news reports and headlines is designed to be compelling and evocative. Words like “crisis,” “threat,” “danger,” and “catas­trophe” are commonly used to describe events.

Thus, it helps to create a sense of urgency, encouraging the audience to pay attention. Repeated broadcast of headlines related to threats reinforces their perceived importance.

There are many examples of certain events which the media have covered and broadcast in a way that has intensified the public fear. Some of them were The Cuban Missile Crisis (1962), North Korean Missile Tests (Ongoing), Covid Pandemic (2020-2022), Mpox outbreak (2022), the nuclear threats against the world made by the Russian President Vladimir Putin and his political allies (ongoing), etc. The latter is quite essential, impacts on public opinion, both within Russia and internationally and lasts over a prolonged period of time in the development of the ongoing warfare in Ukraine.

By emphasizing the potential for nuclear conflict, Russian government can increase the public support around the country’s leadership and its policies. The narrative of defending the nation against Western aggression reinforces the government’s legitimacy and strengthens its hold on power. Nuclear threats are often framed within a context of national pride and strength. By showcasing Russia’s military capabilities, the government aims to encourage a sense of unity and pride among the population. This approach can create a collective identity centered around the idea of Russia as a powerful and resilient nation, capable of standing up to external threats [7]

On the other hand, constant nuclear threats, used by the President Putin and broadcast by the media can lead to different effects among the societies in the Western countries. Continuous coverage and sensationalist headlines regarding the nuclear threats can provoke heightened fear and anxiety, increased support for defense programs and spending, but they can also lead to political polarization in different political groups to support their agendas. For example, some may argue for diplomatic solutions, while others may advocate for a more aggressive military response. This certainly can lead to intense political debates and influence of electoral outcomes. [8]

It is especially important to understand how governments often use the media to shape public opinion, but it is substantial to know how governments manage to establish control over the mass media.

Governments may own media directly or may provide funding to private media companies. Ownership and funding media can influence editorial deci­sions and ensure favorable coverage. Governments can also use regulatory au­thori­ties to put pressure on media organizations. This can include imposing fines, revoking licenses, or creating restrictive laws that limit press freedom.[9] In some countries, governments censor content is critical for their policies or leadership. This can involve pre-publication censorship. [10] Governments may also spread propaganda or disinformation using mass media to shape public perception. This can involve creating false chronicle or manipulating facts to support government agendas. Journalists and media outlets that criticize the government may face intimidation, harassment, or even violence. This creates a climate of fear that discourages independent reporting. [11]

The psychological and social effects of the „mediatization” of nuclear threats should also not be underestimated. Continuous media coverage of missile threats can heighten anxiety and fear among the population. People may develop a persistent sense of dread and worry about their safety and the safety of their loved ones. Individuals may become hyper vigilant, to develop Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and can experience collective trauma, where the shared experience of threat and fear affects the social fabric. This can lead to increased social tension, mistrust, and a breakdown in community cohesion. Over time, constant exposure to threats can lead to desensitization, where individuals become numb to the dangers. This can result in a lack of appropriate response to actual threats and a general sense of apathy. [12] Chronic stress from ongoing threats can lead to long-term health problems including cardiovascular issues, weakened immune system, and mental health disorders such as depression and anxiety.

The constant fear of military threat can also influence the public behavior and societal responses in several ways. Some behavioral changes such as building shelters, stocking up on emergency supplies, and participating in trainings as well avoiding certain areas can lead to changes in daily routines. Probable social dynamic impacts should also be taken into consideration. In some cases, the shared experience of constant threat can strengthen community bonds as people come together to support each other [13], but in other cases (e.g. COVID-19 pandemic) this leads to division and antagonism in societies. The political and civic impact from constant missile threats should also not be underestimated. Individuals could be engaged in political activism, advocating for policies aimed at reducing the threat, such as disarmament or peace initiatives or exactly the opposite – supporting military doctrines and movements. Public trust in govern­ment can be affected, either positively if the government is seen as effectively managing the threat, or negatively if it is perceived as failing to protect the population.

The whole of the above-mentioned impacts could result in economic consequences like market fluctuations and allocation of resources to defense and emergency preparedness, potentially at the expense of other public services. [14]

In the world that we live in, with constantly emerging military conflicts, it is crucial for the societies to build resilience mechanisms against the „mediatiza­tion” of military threats. Very important means are educating the public on how to critically evaluate media sources and recognize sensationalism, encouraging the use of reliable fact-checking, implementing programs that focus on building community resilience and mental health support. On the other hand, governments should support these processes by encouraging and regulating ethical reporting standards of mass media and ensuring government transparency and clear com­mu­nication during crises. [15]

Summary and implications for the future

The „mediatization” of people’s fears is not a phenomenon of the modern times. Even in the past, mass communication and the media have used fear to shape public opinion in specific directions and to contribute to the political aspirations of different actors on the political scene. There is a big difference in the techniques used for „mediatization” in Western free societies and in societies that live under authoritarian regimes. Objectives most often also differ. In some societies, „mediatization” escalates into full-scale propaganda and total manipu­la­tion, while in others, it merely attempts to focus and deepen the audience’s concerns on a given topic. Eastern European countries, as well as Bulgaria, are no exception to the deepening threats of „mediatization”. Unfortunately, this trend escalates by the growing number of conflict zones around the world, as well as the massive use of social networks without checking the sources. The expected effect is that more and more countries will lose their democratic potential, as well as the capacity of their institutions. In order to mitigate the risk of „mediatiza­tion”, education has to be improved so that people are capable of critical thinking and believing in science, not cults. It is also very important that authorities regulate the media objectively and impartially, which societies must monitor and lead on.

References and Notes

[1] Lundby, K. (Ed.). (2020). Mediatization: Concept, changes, consequences. Springer.

[2] Britannica. (n.d.). What is a blog, benefits & tips. Britannica. March 20, 2025. https://www.britannica.com/technology/blog. Retrieved on 20.03.2025.

[3] The Conversation. (2022, October 11). Putin’s nuclear threats aim to scare the West – but Ukraine’s allies are now calling his bluff. The Conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com. Retrieved on 20.03.2025.

[4] International Research Journal of Humanities and Interdisciplinary Studies. (2021). The role of media in shaping public perception of political issues. International Research Journal of Humanities and Interdisciplinary Studies. https://irjhis.com. Retrieved on 20.03.2025.

[5] Kazun, A. (2022). Agenda-setting in Russian media. International Journal of Communication, 16, 4549–4569. https://ijoc.org. Retrieved on 20.03.2025.

[6] Center for Naval Analyses. (2021). Mapping Russian media network: Media’s role in Russian foreign policy and decision-making. CNA https://www.cna.org. Retrieved on 20.03.2025.

[7] The Moscow Times. (2022, October 5). Putin’s nuclear threats scare Russians too. The Moscow Times. https://www.themoscowtimes.com. Retrieved on 20.03.2025.

[8] NBC News. (2023, January 27). Putin approves new nuclear weapons doctrine for Russia. Here’s what it means. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com. Retrieved on 20.03.2025.

[9] Freedom House. (2021). Media freedom: A downward spiral. Freedom House. https://freedomhouse.org. Retrieved on 20.03.2025.

[10] Gehlbach, S., & Sonin, K. (2021). Government control of the media. Journal of Politics, 82(3), 1085–1101. https://doi.org/10.1086/714829.

[11] Freedom House. (2021). Media freedom: A downward spiral. Freedom House. https://freedomhouse.org. Retrieved on 20.03.2025.

[12] American Psychological Association. (2022, September). Stress of mass shootings causing cascade of collective traumas. Monitor on Psychology. https://www. apa.org/ monitor/2022/09/news-mass-shootings-collective-traumas. Retrieved on 20.03.2025.

[13] Oxford Academic. (2021). Social problems, threat and emotions: Mobilizing and attitudinal outcomes of a ballistic missile scare. Social Problems, 68(4), 579–602. https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spab011.

[14] Total Military Insight. (2023, March 10). Public perception of missile warfare: Insights and implications. Total Military Insight. https://totalmilitaryinsight.com/ public-perception-of-missile-warfare/. Retrieved on 20.03.2025.

[15] Society For Peace. (2023, March 5). Navigating a fear society: Understanding and overcoming anxiety in a turbulent world. Society for Peace. https:// societyforpeace.com/fear-society/. Retrieved on 20.03.2025.

Bibliography

American Psychological Association. (2022, September). Stress of mass shootings causing cascade of collective traumas. Monitor on Psychology. https://www. apa.org/monitor/2022/09/news-mass-shootings-collective-traumas. Retrieved on 20.03.2025.

Britannica. (n.d.). What is a blog, benefits & tips. Britannica. March 20, 2025, from https://www.britannica.com/technology/blog. Retrieved on 20.03.2025.

Center for Naval Analyses. (2021). Mapping Russian media network: Media’s role in Russian foreign policy and decision-making. CNA https://www.cna.org. Re­trieved on 20.03.2025.

Freedom House. (2021). Media freedom: A downward spiral. Freedom House. https:// freedomhouse.org. Retrieved on 20.03.2025.

Gehlbach, S., & Sonin, K. (2021). Government control of the media. Journal of Politics, 82(3), 1085–1101. https://doi.org/10.1086/714829.

International Research Journal of Humanities and Interdisciplinary Studies. (2021). The role of media in shaping public perception of political issues. International Research Journal of Humanities and Interdisciplinary Studies. https://irjhis.com. Retrieved on 20.03.2025.

Kazun, A. (2022). Agenda-setting in Russian media. International Journal of Com­munica­tion, 16, 4549–4569. https://ijoc.org. Retrieved on 20.03.2025.

Lundby, K. (Ed.). (2020). Mediatization: Concept, changes, consequences. Springer.

NBC News. (2023, January 27). Putin approves new nuclear weapons doctrine for Russia. Here’s what it means. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com. Retrieved on 20.03.2025.

Oxford Academic. (2021). Social problems, threat and emotions: Mobilizing and attitudinal outcomes of a ballistic missile scare. Social Problems, 68(4), 579–602. https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spab011.

Society For Peace. (2023, March 5). Navigating a fear society: Understanding and overcoming anxiety in a turbulent world. Society for Peace. https:// societyforpeace.com/fear-society/. Retrieved on 20.03.2025.

The Conversation. (2022, October 11). Putin’s nuclear threats aim to scare the West – but Ukraine’s allies are now calling his bluff. The Conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com. Retrieved on 20.03.2025.

The Moscow Times. (2022, October 5). Putin’s nuclear threats scare Russians too. The Moscow Times. https://www.themoscowtimes.com. Retrieved on 20.03.2025.

Total Military Insight. (2023, March 10). Public perception of missile warfare: Insights and implications. Total Military Insight. https://totalmilitaryinsight.com/public-perception-of-missile-warfare/. Retrieved on 20.03.2025.

Pavleta Nachevska. MA student. Course: Media and political pathologies, Master’s Degree Program “Political Pathologies of the Global World“. Department of Political Sciences. Faculty of Philosophy. Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”.

Manuscript was submitted: 10.06.2025.

Double Blind Peer Reviews: from 11.08.2025 till 11.09.2025.

Accepted: 12.09.2025.

Брой 65 на сп. „Реторика и комуникации“ (октомври 2025 г.) се издава с финансовата помощ на Фонд научни изследвания, договор № КП-06-НП6/48 от 04 декември 2024 г.

Issue 65 of the Rhetoric and Communications Journal (October 2025) is published with the financial support of the Scientific Research Fund, Contract No. KP-06-NP6/48 of December 04, 2024.