Диссертация (1136841), страница 20
Текст из файла (страница 20)
42However, such optimism with respect to the economic sanctions issurprising. Thus, the measures, which initially had a negative intention andwere applied as a “punishment” for Russian foreign-policy decisions, werereceived with unexpected enthusiasm in the citizenry. Since public opinionon these issues is influenced by the mass media, we will pay attention tothe media framing 43 of sanctions and, especially, to the strategies of itsdeproblematization.Media-Constructed Problems and “Non-Problems”In this study, we assume that the population’s assessment of certain issuesas important and relevant is largely connected with how the mediadiscusses them.
According to agenda-setting theory, the intensity of thedebate in the media can influence people’s perception of certain events asVladimir Mau. 2016. “Between Crises and Sanctions: Economic Policy of the RussianFederation.” Post-Soviet Affairs 32 (4): 350–377.39For example, the VTsIOM press release “Anti-Russian sanctions: Causes andConsequences”, August 14, 2014. URL: http://wciom.ru/index.php?id=236&uid=114934.40For example, http://wciom.ru/index.php?id=236&uid=115168.41For example, http://wciom.ru/index.php?id=236&uid=115517.42Anastasia Kazun. 2014.
“Otnoshenie Naseleniya K Vstupleniyu Rossii v VTO [PublicAttitude Towards Russia’s Accession to the WTO].” Monitoring obshchestvennogo mneniya:ekonomicheskie i sotsial’nye izmeneniya 124:6, p. 98–111.43Dietram Scheufele. 1999. “Framing as a Theory of Media Effects.” Journal ofCommunication 49 (1): 103–122.3873Framing Sanctions in the Russian Media74important.44 Thus, for example, there is a link between popular perceptionsabout the most important issues in candidates’ programs and the frequencyof references to these issues in the media.45 Numerous empirical exampleshave illustrated this theory: The Gulf War,46 Watergate,47 environmentalpollution,48 and even organ donation.49As work on agenda-setting theory evolved, researchers added morenuance to our understanding of it.
Accordingly, some proposed drawingattention to the specific characteristics of the situation or the person whoshapes public opinion. This modification of the theory was called secondlevel agenda-setting. For example, if a study of the discussion in the U.S.media about foreign countries shows that widely discussed countries areperceived as important to U.S.
interests, this result corresponds to theclassical theoretical model – so-called first level agenda-setting. While aconclusion about the correlation between a number of negative articlesabout a country in the media and the percent of people who perceive thecountry as unfriendly for the U.S. relates to second level agenda-setting.50Later, these ideas were developed into the network agenda-setting model,according to which different agendas can be combined in “bundles.” 51Therefore, researchers should pay attention not only to specific issues(information about which is regarded as independent), but to theconnections between different issues.Thus, we can assume that the mass media, to a certain extent,construct social problems and attract public attention to these issues.
Thebackground of such a constructivist approach to social problems is suppliedJames W. Dearing, Everett Rogers. 1996. Agenda-setting. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Maxwell E. McCombs, Donald Shaw. 1972. “The Agenda-Setting Function of MassMedia”. Public Opinion Quarterly 2: 176–187.46Shanto Iyengar, Adam Simon. 1993. “News Coverage of the Gulf Crisis and PublicOpinion: A Study of Agenda-Setting, Priming, and Framing”. Communication Research 3:365–383.47David H. Weaver, Maxwell E. McCombs, Charles Spellman. 1975. “Watergate and theMedia: A Case Study of Agenda-Setting”. American Politics Quarterly 4: 458–472.48Christine R.
Ader. 1995. “A Longitudinal Study of Agenda Setting for the Issue ofEnvironmental Pollution.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 2: 300–311.49Thomas H. Feeley, Aisha K. O’Mally, Jessica M. Covert. 2016. “A Content Analysis ofOrgan Donation Stories Printed in U.S.
Newspapers: Application of Newsworthiness”.Health Communication 4: 495–503.50Wayne Wanta, Guy Golan, Cheolhan Lee. 2004. “Agenda Setting and International News:Media Influence on Public Perceptions of Foreign Nations”. Journalism and MassCommunication Quarterly 2: 364–377.51Hong Tien Vu, Lei Guo, Maxwell E. McCombs. 2014. “Exploring ‘‘the World Outside andthe Pictures in Our Heads: A Network Agenda-Setting Study.” Journalism & MassCommunication Quarterly 91: 669-686.444574Framing Sanctions in the Russian Media75by a paper published by Richard Fuller and Richard Myers,52 who notedthat the existence a negative fact does not necessarily make it a problem.For example, discrimination against the black population was observed inthe southern and northern states in the U.S.
However, this discriminationwas not defined as problematic at all times and in all places. Guided by thislogic, the proponents of this approach believe that when we study povertywe must seek to understand what makes poverty a social problem and whyindividuals define it as such. However, this statement should not imply thatthe numerous researchers who have studied poverty or its causes have beencounterproductive.53A significant role in the process of constructing problems is playedby the representatives of various interest groups, which try to change asituation.54 In addition, the lack of effective action to solve a problem couldresult in increased media attention on the problem. However, governmentaction to address a problem can attract even more public attention.55 Thus,a problem in the process of being formulated in the public space becomesa form of leverage, which requires specific action by the authorities.
Thus,they have a need to develop strategies to deproblematize a situation(counter-rhetorical strategies), i.e., to construct “non-problems.”Of course, the simplest way to divert attention from a problem is toeliminate it from the information agenda, for example, by a ban on mediadiscussion of an issue.23 However, implementating this strategy requiresmany resources (e.g., power, administrative resources). 56 In addition, intoday’s society, opportunities to control mass communications are limitedbecause of the emergence of new communication channels and theincreasing importance of the Internet. In this context, more complexmechanisms for decreasing public attention on issues have partly replacedbans and taboos. One strategy with which to perform deproblematizationRichard C.Fuller, and Richard R.
Myers. 1941. “The Natural History of a Social Problem.”American Sociological Review 6 (3): 320–329.53Joel Best. 2003. “Social Problems.” In Handbook of Symbolic Interactionism, WalnutCreek, CA: AltaMira Press, p. 981–996.54Herbert Blumer. 1971. “Social Problems as Collective Behavior.” Social Problems 18 (3):298–306; Malcolm Spector, and John Kitsuse. 1987.
Constructing Social Problems. NewBrunswick: Transaction Publishers.55Michelle Wolfe, Bryan D. Jones, and Frank R. Baumgartner. 2013. “A Failure toCommunicate: Agenda Setting in Media and Policy Studies.” Political Communication 30(2) 175–192.
23 Murray Edelman. 1988. Constructing the Political Spectacle. University ofChicago Press.56Olessia Koltsova. 2000. “Kto i Kak Vliyaet Na Proizvodstvo Novostey v SovremennoyRossii [Who and How to Affect the Production of News in Modern Russia].” Pro et Contra4:5, p. 82–108.5275Framing Sanctions in the Russian Media76resembles a rethinking of priorities. It is possible to focus on issues that aremore convenient for the government and not to pay attention to other,negative facts. This strategy was clearly illustrated in an article byYasaveev, in which he demonstrated that federal Russian TV channels paidparticular attention to the problems of terrorism, crime and drug abusewhile ignoring the problems of alcoholism and corruption.57 The possibleexplanation of this effect is governmental media policy.However, the range of strategies used to deproblematize variousissues is substantially wider.
58 Counter-rhetoric strategies can deny theimportance and urgency of a problem as such (unsympathetic counterrhetoric) or refute suggested ways to solve it (sympathetic counterrhetoric). In the first case, it is possible to present counterexamples, or asituation can be represented as a series of unrelated incidents. Additionally,attempts can be made to discredit the participants in a discussion. Whensympathetic counter-rhetoric is used in a discussion, a problem may bedescribed as inevitable and ways of solving it as no less dangerous than theproblem itself.59Empirical research on deproblematization strategies in the Russianmass media focus on a variety of issues, from the excess of glamor in thepublic space 60 to Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organization(WTO)61.
Generally, all of the strategies described by Ibarra and Kitsuseare used in Russian public debate.62Iskander Yasaveev. 2006. “Konstruirovanie «Ne-Problem»: Strategii DeproblematizatsiiSituatsiy [Construction of a ‘Non-Problem’: Strategies for Deproblematizing Situations].”Zhurnal sotsiologii i sotsial’noy antropologii, 9 (1): 91–100.58Peter Ibarra, and John Kitsuse. 2003. “Claims-Making Discourse and VernacularResources.” In Challenges and Choices: Constructionist Perspectives on Social Problems,N.Y.: Aldine de Gruyter, p. 17–50.59Ibid.60Evgenia Nim. 2010.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
