Using the country image repair framework, this study analyzed two opinion columns in major Russian state-controlled media outlets with content related to the Russian–Ukraine conflict, Russia Today (RT) and Sputnik, from 24 February 2022 to 20 May 2022. A thematic content analysis was used to examine 60 articles by RT and 70 articles on Sputnik. Results from the analysis determined that the five strategies of country image repair, except for mortification, were used in an attempt to legitimize the conflict in Ukraine and restore the image of Russia. Theoretical and practical implications of the results are discussed in the context of a repressive news media environment.
AlyukovM (2021) News reception and authoritarian control in a hybrid media system: Russian TV viewers and the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Politics. DOI: 10.1177/02633957211041440.
BenoitWL (2006) Image repair in President Bush’s April 2004 news conference. Public Relations Review, 32(2): 137–143.
4.
BenoitWL (2015) Accounts, Excuses, Apologies: Image Repair Theory and Research, 2nd edn.Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
5.
BinghamAJWitkowskyP (2022) Deductive and inductive approaches to qualitative data analysis. In: VanoverC, et al. (eds) Analyzing and Interpreting Qualitative Data: After the Interview. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 133–146.
6.
BlackwillRDGordonPH (2018) Containing Russia. New York, NY: Council on Foreign Relations Press.
7.
BoatwrightBCPyleAS (2023) ‘Don’t mess with Ukrainian farmers’: An examination of Ukraine and Kyiv’s official Twitter accounts as crisis communication, public diplomacy, and nation building during the Russian invasion. Public Relations Review49(3).
8.
BodrunovaSSLitvinenkoANigmatullinaK (2021) Who is the censor? Self-censorship of Russian journalists in professional routines and social networking. Journalism22(12): 2919–2937.
ByrneSKlemB (2015) Constructing legitimacy in post-war transition: The return of ‘normal’ politics in Nepal and Sri Lanka?Geoforum66: 224–233.
11.
CainG (2014) Kill one to warn one hundred: The politics of press censorship in Vietnam. International Journal of Press/Politics19(1): 85–107.
12.
CamajL (2016) Governments’ uses and misuses of freedom of information laws in emerging European democracies: FOI laws’ impact on news agenda-building in Albania, Kosovo, and Montenegro. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly93(4): 923–945.
13.
CarmackD (2022) US must implement lessons on” hybrid” conflict from Ukraine war. Heritage Foundation.
14.
ChanS (1994) State-press relationship revisited: A comparison of foreign policy coverage on the Hong Kong 1997 issue by three newspapers. Gazette (Leiden, Netherlands)53(1–2): 135–145.
15.
ChanCK (2022) Shifting journalistic paradigm in post-2019 Hong Kong: the state–society relationship and the press. Chinese Journal of Communication15(3): 463–480.
16.
CheongIM (2022) The Buffalo shooter drew from the same ideas as Western-backed Ukrainian neo-Nazis. Russia Today.
17.
CherneyAMurphyK (2013) Policing terrorism with procedural justice: The role of police legitimacy and law legitimacy. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology46(3): 403–421.
18.
ChungJYBergerBKDeCosterJ (2016) Developing measurement scales of organizational and issue legitimacy: A case of direct-to-consumer advertising in the pharmaceutical industry. Journal of Business Ethics137(2): 405–413.
19.
CulbertD (1998) Television’s visual impact on decision-making in the USA, 1968: The Tet Offensive and Chicago’s democratic national convention. Journal of Contemporary History33(3): 419–449.
20.
DeeganC (2002) Introduction: The legitimizing effect of social and environmental disclosures – a theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal15(3): 282–311.
21.
DimitrovaDVStrömbäckJ (2005) Mission accomplished? Framing of the Iraq War in the elite newspapers in Sweden and the United States. Gazette (Leiden, Netherlands)67(5): 399–417.
22.
El GodyA (2007) New media, new audience, new topics, and new forms of censorship in the Middle East. In: SeibP (ed.) New Media and the New Middle East. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 213–234.
23.
EntmanRM (2004) Projections of Power: Framing News, Public Opinion, and US Foreign Policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
24.
FomenkoT (2022) Liz Truss’s militant rhetoric is another sign that post-Brexit Britain is dangerously delusional: The foreign secretary’s campaign against China and Russia indicates that London has lost the plot. Russia Today.
IbrahimM (2012) Thematic analysis: A critical review of its process and evaluation. West East Journal of Social Sciences1(1): 39–47.
38.
JagtapSTrollmanHTrollmanF, et al. (2022) The Russia-Ukraine conflict: Its implications for the global food supply chains. Foods11(14): 2098
39.
KazunAKazunA (2019) How state-controlled media can set the agenda on the Internet: Coverage of three tragedies on different types of Russian media. Demokratizatsiya: The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization27(3): 371–398.
40.
KeaneDBlakeE (2022) What is the home for Ukraine Refugees scheme and how do you apply?Evening Standard, 14March (accessed 30 October 2022).
41.
KeytonJ (2006) Communication research: Asking questions, finding answers. New york: McGraw-Hill Education.
42.
KorovkinVMakarinA (2022) Production networks and war: Evidence from Ukraine. SSRN 3969161.
43.
KovalikD (2020) No More War. New York, NY: Hot Books.
Lange-IonatamishviliESvetokaSGeersK (2015) Strategic communications and social media in the Russia–Ukraine conflict. In: GeersK (ed.) Cyber War in Perspective: Russian Aggression against Ukraine. Tallinn, Estonia: NATO Cooperative Cyber Defense Centre of Excellence Tallinn, 103–111.
46.
LaukE (1999) Practice of Soviet censorship in the press: The case of Estonia. Nordicom Review20(2): 19–31.
47.
LiQZengZSunS, et al. (2023). Constructing a spatiotemporal situational awareness framework to sense the dynamic evolution of online public opinion on social media. The Electronic Library41(5): 722–749.
48.
LiadzeI.MacchiarelliC.Mortimer-LeeP.Sanchez JuaninoP. (2023). Economic costs of the Russia-Ukraine war. The World Economy, 46(4), 874–886.
49.
LivelyDE (1992) Modern media and the First Amendment: Rediscovering freedom of the press. Washington Law Review67: 599.
50.
LuongDNAVuHT (2022) The US media on the Vietnam war and beyond: In the name of objectivity. Journalism and Foreign Policy . Routledge, 148–163.
51.
MedovkinaL (2019, July) Russian-American informatin conflict as a determining factor of Russian media discourse development. In: 1st International Scientific Practical Conference:” The Individual and Society in the Modern Geopolitical Environment”(ISMGE 2019). Atlantis Press, 466–470.
52.
MelladoC (2014) Professional roles in news content. Journalism Studies16(4): 596–614.
53.
MelladoC, et al. (2017) The hybridization of journalistic cultures: A comparative study of journalistic role performance. Journal of Communication67(6): 944–967.
54.
OatesSLokotT (2011) Twilight of the gods? How the Internet challenged Russian television news frames in the winter protests of 2011–12. SSRN. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2286727.
55.
OatesS, et al. (2021) Network news: The convergence of the Russophobia narrative in Russian propaganda and Fox News in election 2020. SSRN. DOI: 10.2139/3934064.
56.
O’BoyleJBhallaN (2022) Public diplomacy and the 2022 Ukraine war: Content analysis of U.S. and Indian news frames of the neutral stand. In: AJEMC Conference 2002, Detroit, MI.
57.
O’DonovanG (2002) Environmental disclosures in the annual report: Extending the applicability and predictive power of legitimacy theory. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal15(3): 344–371.
58.
OliveiraM, et al. (2013) Thematic content analysis: Is there a difference between the support provided by the Maxqda’ and Nvivo software packages? In: ECRM2013-Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Research Methods: ECRM 2013. Academic Conferences and Publishing Limited. Available at: https://books.google.com/books?id=hbYVBAAAQBAJ (accessed)
59.
PaskhalisTRosenfeldBTertytchnayaK (2022) Independent media under pressure: Evidence from Russia. Post-Soviet Affairs38(3): 155–174.
60.
PeijuanCTingLPPangA (2009) Managing a nation’s image during a crisis: A study of the Chinese government’s image repair efforts in the ‘Made in China’ controversy. Public Relations Review35(3): 213–218.
61.
RadwanskiW (2022) Ex-UN expert: Kissinger’s solution to the Ukraine crisis is safer for the US & EU than Soros’ gamble. Sputnik Global, 28May.
62.
ReisigMDLloydC (2009) Procedural justice, police legitimacy, and helping the police fight crime: Results from a survey of Jamaican adolescents. Police Quarterly12(1): 42–62.
63.
Reporters Without Borders (2021) Press freedom index. Reporters Without Borders. Available at: https://rsf.org/en/index?year=2021 (accessed 20 December 2023).
64.
RimpiläinenE (2020) Victims, villains, or geopolitical tools? Representations of Donbas displacement in Ukrainian and Russian government media. Europe–Asia Studies72(3): 481–504.
65.
RomanNWantaWBuniakI (2017) Information wars: Eastern Ukraine military conflict coverage in the Russian, Ukrainian, and US newscasts. International Communication Gazette79(4): 357–378.
66.
SaldañaJOmastaM (2018) Qualitative Research: Analyzing Life. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
67.
ShawM (2002) Risk-transfer militarism, small massacres, and the historic legitimacy of war. International Relations16(3): 343–359.
68.
SimonsG (2015) Russian media and censorship: A means or an end?Russian Journal of Communication7(3): 300–312.
69.
SiriyuvasakU (2007) New media for civil society and political censorship in Thailand. Asia Rights Journal8: 1–12.
70.
SuchmanMC (1995) Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review20(3): 571.
71.
SzostekJHutchingsS (2015) Dominant narratives in Russian political and media discourse during the Ukraine crisis. In: Pikulicka-WilczewskaASakwaR (eds) Ukraine and Russia: People, Politics, Propaganda and Perspectives. Bristol: E-international Relations, 183–196.
72.
TaiQ (2014) China’s media censorship: A dynamic and diversified regime. Journal of East Asian Studies14(2): 185–210.
73.
TolzVHutchingsS (2023) Truth with a Z: Disinformation, war in Ukraine, and Russia’s contradictory discourse of imperial identity. Post-Soviet Affairs39(5): 347–365.
74.
TolzVTeperY (2018) Broadcasting agi-tainment: A new media strategy of Putin’s third presidency. Post-Soviet Affairs34(4): 213–227.
75.
TongJ (2009) Press self-censorship in China: A case study in the transformation of discourse. Discourse & Society20(5): 593–612.
76.
UnwalaAGhoriS (2016) Brandishing the cybered bear: Information war and the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Military Cyber Affairs1(1): 7.
77.
US–China Economic and| Security Review Commission (2022) Summary: China’s Position on Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine: Key Events and Statements from February 21, 2022 through September 28, 2022. Available at: https://www.uscc.gov/research/chinas-position-russias-invasion-ukraine (accessed 5 February 2024).
78.
VartanovaE (2012) The Russian media model in the context of post-Soviet dynamics. In: HallinDCManciniP (eds) Comparing media systems beyond the Western world. Cambridge University Press, 119–142.
79.
VoltmerK (2008) Comparing media systems in new democracies: East meets South meets West. Central European Journal of Communication1(1): 23–40.
80.
VuHTLeeT-T (2012) State–press relations revisited: A case study on how American media portray post-war Vietnam. Asian Journal of Communication22(6): 549–565.
81.
VuHT, et al. (2023) The gap between what they say and what they do: Journalists’ role conception and role performance in socialist-communist context. Journalism Studies24(2): 288–307.
82.
WagnssonC (2023) The paperboys of Russian messaging: RT/Sputnik audiences as vehicles for malign information influence. Information, Communication & Society26(9): 1849–1867.
83.
WigginsBE (2016) Crimea River: Directionality in memes from the Russia–Ukraine conflict. International Journal of Communication, 10, 35.
84.
WigreiserA (2022) How peace is slowly returning to the devastated Donbas city of Mariupol. Russia Today.
85.
ZallerJChiuD (1996) Government’s little helper: U.S. press coverage of foreign policy crises, 1945–1991. Political Communication13(4): 385–405.
86.
ZhangJBenoitWL (2004) Message strategies of Saudi Arabia’s image restoration campaign after 9/11. Public Relations Review30(2): 161–167.
87.
ZhangEBenoitWL (2009) Former Minister Zhang’s discourse on SARS: Government’s image restoration or destruction?Public Relations Review35(3): 240–246.
88.
ŽuffováMCarliniR (2021) Safety of Journalists in Europe: Threats and Best Practices to Tackle Them. Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Research Paper No. RSCAS, 43. San Domenico di Fiesole, Italy: European University Institute.
