International Media Policy: The Ukrainian Crisis - Research Paper Example

International Media Policy: The Ukrainian Crisis       Introduction The Ukrainian crisis has generated global interest as major powers in the world take a position in efforts to find a solution to political situation in the country. As the crisis continues to unfold, the role of Russia in political instability that has led to disintegration of Ukraine has been the focus for many analysts of the situation. Two global powers, United States and Russia, have reemerged as antagonistic forces with contradicting views of the genesis of the Ukrainian crisis and the best approach in finding a lasting solution that will be the best for civilians in the country. The opposing views presented by United States and Russia have also been reflected in the approach to the crisis taken by different media outlets reporting from these countries. This essay presents an analysis of the perceptions of Ukrainian crisis as presented by media outlets in both United States and Russia. Based on the two approaches taken by media outlets in the two countries, the essay explores why the content varies especially in the context of media policies adopted by United States and Russia. United States Media coverage of Ukraine crisis News outlet in the united states and western countries in general have continued to describe the Euromaidan as pro-democracy uprising that led to of president Victor Yanukovych from power and has been attributed as resulting from his reluctance to pursue interests of Ukrainian citizens. To legitimize the ouster of Yanukovych, the United States media referred to the former president as "corrupt" while highlighting the volume of wealth accumulated over the period of his presidency (The Editorial Board, 2014). When the transitional government was instituted, media agencies and United States saw it as a legitimate authority that had been installed by the people to represent their interests. While the transitional government under Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk and President Petro Poroshenko was widely welcomed and actively supported by United States media and government, the Russian president Vladimir Putin continued to be criticized for what was noted as his role in the escalation of violence in Ukraine. The Russian president was depicted as being brutal and autocratic with news agencies highlighting his background as a soviet KGB . In the recently concluded G20 summit, the United States media sought to highlight the isolation of the Russian president by publishing news about reproach by the rest of leaders attending the summit. Putin is seen as sponsoring the destabilization of neighboring states in order to keep them depended on Moscow while also dictating the countries’ future relations with the rest of the world especially western countries (Associated Press, 2014). Negative depiction of the Russian president and authority in general has also been extended to the pro-Russian and anti-government armed factions fighting against the Ukrainian authority. Instead of using terms such as self-defense fighters that had been prevalent in the Russian media, news outlets in the United States used terms such as "rebels" and "separatists to refer to the group that was largely seen as comprising mercenaries and individuals motivated by imperial motivations (The Editorial Board, 2014). The same attitude was depicted when analysts in the United States media were assessing the referendum on Crimea, which many saw as being propagated by Russia as t sought to annex the region. Therefore, United States media perceived considered the process and referendum exercise itself as illegitimate and one that was being forced on the people due to the increased number of armed men. There were also increased reports that most of the fighters were actually Special Forces from the Russian army, which indicated the crisis was not an internal affair for the people of Ukraine but a Russian machination to annex part of the Ukrainian territory. The perception held by United States media was summarized by the vocal criticism of Western leaders including president Barrack Obama for motivating Putin to commit atrocities in Ukraine due to their tough talk and less action. The writer also highlighted how the United States and other western countries failed to reflect on magnitude of the problem affecting Ukrainian authority by referring to Russian involvement in Crimea as an "incursion" and "aggression instead of "invasion." The press has also castigated President Barrack Obama and European leaders accusing them of refusing to send military aid to the Ukrainian government to prevent escalation. The United States’ search for non-military solution is strategy the Washington Post sees as encouraging the Russian president to increase his military presence inside Ukrainian to escalate his own aggression in the region (Editorial Board, 2014). There have also been writers in the United States who have adopted a stance similar to that of the Russian media by calling the Ukrainian government a regime controlled by neo-Nazi and that the crisis in the country was because of the United States and European Union sponsorship of fascist forces. The this light, writes such as John Pilger writing for The Guardian have argued that the united states should also be blamed for the attacks that killed ethnic Russians in Ukraine while also recognizing Putin as the only leader who has been steadfast in condemning the rise of modern fascism (Pilger, 2014). The Russian Media coverage of Ukraine crisis From the beginning of the crisis, multiple media platforms within Russia have continued to indicate the situation in Ukraine as one that was initiated by the Ukrainian government. Russian media in support of the regime have come out to argue that the Euromaidan conflict, which instigated the conflict, was the work of ultranationalist groups, fascist and anti-Semitic factions including the one known as Right Sector. This perception of the conflict provided ground for the crisis to be labeled part of a violent coup responsible for ouster of a legitimately elected government (Sukhov, 2014). After the removal from power of Russian-backed President Viktor Yanukovych, parliament voted to introduce Arseniy Yatsenyuk as the transitional Prime Minister, a post he maintained after the election of Petro Poroshenko as the new Ukrainian President. This event drew further reaction from news outlet in Russia many of which described the development as capture of power by a fascist, junta and illegitimate government. As the conflict progressed, the Russian media has argued authorities in Kiev was responsible for allowing anarchy to prevail in Ukraine claiming the country had fallen into the powers of "banderovtsy", a term used to describe supporters of Stepan Bandera, a Ukrainian nationalist (Sukhov, 2014). One of the strategies that have been used to gain support from those pro-Russian population is to highlight authorities in Kiev as one that was persecuting innocent Russian-speaking civilians. News outlets in Russia expressed concerns that the number of displaced people in Ukraine was going to rise especially with the targeting of Russian-speaking populations being propagated by the Ukrainian government. It was argued that many civilians in eastern and southern Ukraine had been targeted through violence directed on synagogues and churches (Sukhov, 2014). Russian media airing of news about violence against Russian-speaking populations in eastern and southern Ukraine seemed to a preparation for Russia to undertake a military action seen as protecting civilians in Crimea. Justification of Russian military intervention in Crimea were also given with the Russian media claiming this was made necessary by the continued western media and authorities disregard of violence against civilians in Crimea. Therefore, Military action by Russia was painted as one that aimed at protecting democratic and basic human rights of the civilians in these areas. Russian news outlets went as far as referring to the situation in Crimea as a Russian Spring to draw comparison with other past pro-democracy uprisings such the Arab Spring and Prague Spring. The Russian media has also focused their attention on different anti-government groups fighting Kiev troops in some southern and eastern Ukraine with many of them referring to the groups as "local civilians who have taken up arms to fight for their democratic rights and self-defense forces (The Voice of Russia, 2014). To further argue for the plight of the population in eastern and southern parts of Ukraine, there was Russian media claim of many unmarked graves of innocent people massacred and buried by the Ukrainian army and that this report were verified by OSCE monitors (Pravda, 2014). Political and social issues in Russia and United States of America and impact on media Analysis of the political and social issues in Russia and United States highlights why the media in these countries have a different opinion of the Ukrainian crisis. Focus on how the media in different countries report on particular international issues is based on the realization of the role played by the media in tailoring national image especially due to globalization that has made the world a global village (Zhang and Meadows III, 2012; Melody, 2011). The importance of developing a positive national branding leads to the analysis of how countries use the media to influence aspects such as international relations, international perception, and public diplomacy (Zhang and Meadows III, 2012). Although there exists multiple reasons that might contribute to the way the media in these countries report about the Ukrainian crisis, this essay focuses on the government relation with the media as the main areas of analysis. Both the United States and Russian constitution provides for independence of the media through provisions relating to aspects such as freedom of speech and media. United States is a liberal society with citizens being accorded a large spectrum in terms of how they can exercise their rights and freedom. The media in the United States largely owned by private organizations with the government having minimal control over what they should publish as long as such content do not contravene aspects of the constitution and is based on existing facts. However, there are writers who have highlighted government control in Russia as authorities often use different applications of the law to undertake various bureaucratic media censorship. Government ownership and control of the media reflects what Waisbord (2013) perceives as the development of statism with governments introducing measures to reduce the powers of dominant media agencies perceived as pursuing “conservative economic and political interests” (134). The author notes some of the methods used to control the media industry including strategies such as financing state-owned media and rewarding pro-government private media owners with government contracts and advertising opportunities. Motivation for media control by the government stems from the perception “media as agents of social reproduction” (Freedman 2008, p. 6). Freeman sees the media as playing an important role in the “production and reproduction of social relations” through providing an avenue for social communication. However, the importance of the media is seen its active determination of a range of issues including those given a platform to speak, form and what to say, access to audience, purpose of communication in addition to influencing desired effects on the audience. These capabilities of the media are therefore important in structuring the political social and economic fortunes of a given society. In the past years, there have been a number of criminal investigations targeting specific media outlet although the role of powerful political figures has also been evident in such legal problems facing the some media houses. These approach to media freedom has resulted in many of the media houses located inside Russia developing self-censorship by avoiding coverage of controversial news or bowing to government pressure that demand them to focus on pro-Russian aspect of certain issues (White, 2011). Therefore, while the two countries have constitutional provisions that should allow the media to exercise their rights on what to report and the focus to take, Russian media have increasingly found it difficult to present what might be seen as anti-government sentiments for fear of facing both legal and political sanctions. Licensing of the media outlets is also an area that the government exercises control of the media as it allows for the determination of particular news agencies to be allowed to operate while others are locked out of the communication platform. The Russian government has been keen to allow operation of news outlets that would report what is considered favorable to regime, a situation that locks many potential independent media outlets out of practice. Majority of the mainstream media reporting from Russia are either government owned, have the state as major stakeholder or owned by individuals who have closer ties with the state (White, 2011). There has been criticism of the broadcaster from some who believe its function is to spread government propaganda as seen from the large portion of time spend highlighting the positive contributions of the government while negating news items might not paint a favorable picture about the government. Although there is an increased consolidation in media ownership in the United States, this is part of private ownership without any relation to government control to determine the use and access of information by the citizens (Downing, 2004). This development is contrary to what Cuilenburg and McQuail (2003) asserts in his analysis of the development of media policy from end of the Second World War to current practices in different countries. According to the authors, the world is currently experiencing a third phase in paradigm shift where technological, economic and social trends have resulted in great changes to global perception of media policy. This supposed to be phase in development of communication where governments realize the importance of regulating against the creation of monopolies and increased privatization of media communication. The aspect of growth in media communication as conceived by Cuilenburg and McQuail (2003) has been experienced in United States society where there is greater reduction in monopolies although with check and balances to prevent what the authors refer to as negative expression of media freedom. Conclusion From the foregoing, media coverage of the Ukrainian crisis has greatly been influenced by the social and political conditions of the countries in which the media agencies operate. This is especially true of the perspectives adopted by media outlets in the United States and Russia. This essay has presented the Russian media’s support of groups fighting against the Ukrainian government with authorities in Kiev being castigated for what waiters in Russia see as committing atrocities against ethnic Russian civilians in southern and eastern Ukraine. However, the United States media has adopted a different perception of the crisis with a majority condemning Russian activities in Ukraine. The media in United States has also singled out Russian president Putin as one responsible for escalation of the conflict in Russia. Support of Russian authorities by domestic media has been attributed to the media ownership and control by the government. The essay has identified the media as an important contributor to national branding, which means governments will feel the need of controlling media outlets in order to determine the kind of information being released and the targeted audience to receive such communications. Politically motivated investigations against media houses have led to a situation where media outlets cannot oppose government stand on issues of international interest such as the Ukrainian crisis. Instead, media houses with considerable government stakes and those owned by pro-government individuals have been used as propagandists for the government. This development has been contrasted by the situation in United States where government ownership and control of the media is reduced significantly. The situation in United States provides ground for media outlets to present their own perspective of the Ukrainian crisis including criticism of the United States government for not acting decisively to arm the forces fighting pro-Russian forces. References Associated Press, 2014. Putin: Russia wont allow a rebel defeat in Ukraine. USA Today, [online] 17 November. Available at: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/11/17/vladimir-putin-ukraine-rebels/19174213/ [Accessed 19 November 2014]. Cuilenburg, J. & McQuail, D., 2003. Media policy paradigm shifts. European Journal of Communication, 18 (2), 181-207. Downing, J. ed., 2004. The SAGE handbook of media studies. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE. Editorial Board, 2014. Provide Ukraine with the military aid it needs to deter Russia’s aggression. The Washington Post, [online] 19 September 2014. Available at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/provide-ukraine-with-the-military-aid-it-needs-to-deter-russias-aggression/2014/09/19/dd4bba46-400f-11e4-9587-5dafd96295f0_story.html [Accessed 19 November 2014]. Freedman, D., 2008. The politics of media policy. London: Polity. Melody, W. H., 2011. Whose global village. In Mansell, Robin and Marc Roboy (ed.) The handbook of global media and communication policy. New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell, pp.58-78. Pilger, J., 2014. In Ukraine, the US is dragging us towards war with Russia: Washingtons role in Ukraine, and its backing for the regimes neo-Nazis, has huge implications for the rest of the world. The Guardian, [online] 13 May. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/13/ukraine-us-war-russia-john-pilger [Accessed 19 November 2014]. Pravda, 2014. Victims found in mass graves in Ukraine lack internal organs. Pravda.ru, [online] 25 September. Available at: http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/crimes/25-09-2014/128612-ukraine_organ_trafficking-0/ [Accessed 19 November 2014]. Sukhov, O., 2013. The media war behind the Ukraine crisis. The Moscow Times, [Online] 11 March 2014. Available at: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/the-media-war-behind-the-ukraine-crisis/495920.html [Accessed 19 November 2014]. The Editorial Board, 2014. Hope, and hard work, in Ukraine. The New York Times, [online] 28 October 2014. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/opinion/hope-and-hard-work-in-ukraine.html [Accessed 19 November 2014]. The Voice of Russia, 2014. Self-defense fighters downed two Ukrainian strike aircraft. Sputnik News, [online] 16 July. Available at: http://sputniknews.com/voiceofrussia/news/2014_07_16/Self-defense-fighters-downed-two-Ukrainian-strike-aircraft-Donetsk-Peoples-Republic-9468/ [Accessed 19 November 2014]. Waisbord, S., 2013. Media policies and the blindspots of media globalization: insights from Latin America. Media, Culture and Society, January 2013, 35(1), 132-138. White, S., 2011. Understanding Russian Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zhang, C. & Meadows III, C. W., 2012. International coverage, foreign policy, and national image: Exploring the Complexities of Media Coverage, Public Opinion, and Presidential Agenda. International Journal of Communication, 6, 76-95. Read More