The article is devoted to the issue to what extent mass media produces strong attitudes in an authoritarian political environment. A growing body of research scrutinizes how contemporary autocracies use media to promote legitimizing messages and undermine opposition. This study contributes to the literature by showing whether public opinion formed under authoritarianism is strong in the face of counterframing. While Russian state-owned TV-channels extensively promoted the idea that Donald Trump’s victory will be positive for Russian-American relations, we run an experimental study with various treatments. We revealed two major findings: (1) participants are strongly exposed to counterframing and (2) those who watch news on state-owned TV-channels are more susceptible to the counterframing effect.
AaroeL (2011) Investigating frame strength: The case of episodic and thematic frames. Political Communication28(2): 207–226.
2.
BeckerJ (2004) Lessons from Russia: A neo-authoritarian media system. European Journal of Communication19(2): 139–163.
3.
BennettLIyengarS (2008) A new era of minimal effects? he changing foundations of political communication. Journal of Communication58(4): 707–731.
4.
BodrunovaSLitvinenkoA (2013) Hybridization of the media system in Russia: Technological and political aspects. World of Media. Journal of Russian Media and Journalism Studies3: 37–49.
HolbrookABerentMKrosnickJet al. (2005) Attitude importance and the accumulation of attitude-relevant knowledge in memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology88(5): 749–769.
23.
HowardP (2011) The Digital Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Information Technology and Political Islam. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24.
IyengarS (1990) Framing responsibility for political issues: The case of poverty. Political Behavior12(1): 19–40.
25.
IyengarS (1991) Is Anyone Responsible? How Television Frames Political Issues. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
26.
JiangJYangD (2016) Lying or believing? Measuring preference falsification from a political Purge in China. Comparative Political Studies49(5): 600–634.
27.
KahnemannDTverskyA (1984) Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist39(4): 341–350.
28.
KashirskikhO (2012) Publichnaya sfera i legitimnost’ personalistskoy sistemy vlasti v Rossii’ [Public sphere and legitimacy of personalistic rule in Russia]. Russian Public Opinion Gerald112(2): 63–72.
29.
KernHLHainmuellerJ (2009) Opium for the masses: How Foreign media can stabilize authoritarian regimes?Political Analysis17(4): 377–399.
30.
KiriyaI (2014) Social media as a tool of political isolation in the Russian public sphere. Journal of Print and Media Technology Research3(2): 131–138.
31.
KlofstadC (2011) Civic Talk: Peers, Politics, and the Future of Democracy. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
32.
KrosnickJPettyR (1995) Attitude strength: An overview. In: PettyREKrosnickJA (eds) Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 1–24.
33.
KuranT (1997) Private Truths, Public Lies: The Social Consequences of Preference Falsification. London; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
34.
LedenevaA (2006) How Russia Really Works: The Informal Practices that Shaped Post-Soviet Politics and Business. Ithaca, NY; London: Cornell University Press.
35.
LeeN-JMcLeodDShahD (2008) Framing policy debates: Issue dualism, journalistic frames and opinions on controversial policy issues. Communication Research35(5): 695–718.
McCombsM (2004) Setting the Agenda: The Mass Media and Public Opinion. Cambridge: Polity Press.
40.
MansbridgeJ (1999) Everyday talk in the deliberative system. In: MacedoS (ed.) Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 211–239.
41.
MatthesJSchemerC (2012) Diachronic framing effects in competitive opinion environments. Political Communication29(3): 319–339.
42.
MickiewiczE (2008) Television, Power, and the Public in Russia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43.
MollenSHollandRRuiterRet al. (2016) When the frame fits the social picture: The effects of framed social norm messages on healthy and unhealthy food consumption. Communication Research. Epub ahead of print 12May. DOI: 10.1177/0093650216644648.
44.
MutzDMartinP (2001) Facilitating communication across lines of political difference: The role of mass media. American Political Science Review95(1): 97–114.
45.
NelsonTOxleyZClawsonR (1997) Toward a psychology of framing effects. Political Behavior19(3): 221–246.
46.
NisbetEHartSMyersTet al. (2013) Attitude change in competitive framing environments? Open-/Closed-Mindedness, framing effects, and climate change. Journal of Communication63(4): 766–785.
47.
PetrovNLipmanMHaleH (2014) Three dilemmas of hybrid regime governance: Russia from Putin to Putin. Post-Soviet Affairs30(1): 1–26.
48.
ReuterOJSzakonyiD (2015) Online social media and political awareness in authoritarian regimes. British Journal of Political Science45(1): 29–51.
49.
SchedlerA (2013) The Politics of Uncertainty: Sustaining and Subverting Electoral Authoritarianism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
50.
SchimpfosslEYablokovI (2014) Coercion or conformism? Censorship and self-censorship among Russian media personalities and reporters in the 2010s’. Demokratizatsiya22(2): 295–311.
51.
ShenLKollarLMM (2015) Testing moderators message framing effect: A motivational approach. Communication Research42(5): 626–648.
52.
ShoemakerPReeseS (1996) Mediating the Message: Theories of Influences on Mass Media Content. New York: Longman.
53.
SiebertFSPetersonTSchrammW (1956) Four Theories of the Press: The Authoritarian, Libertarian, Social Responsibility, and Soviet Communist Concepts of What the Press Should Be and Do. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
54.
SimonAXenosM (2000) Media framing and effective public deliberation. Political Communication17(4): 363–376.
55.
SimonR (2004) Media, myth and reality in Russia’s state-managed democracy. Parliamentary Affairs57(1): 169–184.
56.
SimonsGStrovskyD (2006) ‘Censorship in contemporary Russian journalism in the age of the war against terrorism: a historical perspective. European Journal of Communication21(2): 189–211.
57.
StockmanDGallagherM (2011) Remote control: How the media sustain authoritarian rule in China. Comparative Political Studies44(4): 436–467.
58.
TangMHuheN (2014) Alternative framing: The effect of the internet on political support in authoritarian China. International Political Science Review35(5): 559–576.
59.
AAPOR: The American Association for Public Opinion Research (2016) Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys, 9th edn.Amsterdam: AAPOR.
60.
ToepflF (2011) Managing public outrage: Power, scandal and new media in contemporary Russia. New Media & Society13(8): 1301–1319.
61.
VartanovaE (2012) The Russian media model in the context of post-soviet dynamics. In: HallinDManciniP (eds) Comparing Media Systems beyond the Western World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 119–142.
62.
VartanovaE (2013) Postsovetskie transformatsii rossiiskikh SMI i zhurnalistiki [Post-Soviet Transformations of Russian Mass Media and Journalism]. Moskva, Russia: Mediamir.
ZhuJLuJShiT (2013) When grapevine news meets mass media: Different information sources and popular perceptions of government corruption in mainland China. Comparative Political Studies46(8): 920–946.
