The ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine has captivated global attention, sparking heated debates and shaping international relations. Geopolitical complexities often overshadow the crucial, and frequently ignored, power of naming. This article addresses the framing of the conflict by comparing the naming terms used by Russian, US and Chinese media to refer to the Russia–Ukraine conflict. The research focuses on the pragmatic implications of naming terms, exploring how they influence understanding of the event’s causes and consequences, and contribute to the construction of narratives. The analysis reveals that the media outlets from Russia, the US and China have taken different stances in presenting the situation in Ukraine, reflecting the unique geopolitical interests and values of their respective countries. The study shows that, through the use of specific descriptors, media outlets construct narratives in order to influence public perceptions of the conflict and to present political actors positively, negatively, or neutrally.
AlluhaidahM (2023) A critical discourse analysis of Al Jazeera’s online coverage of the war in Yemen before and after the5June2017 gulf crisis. Discourse and Communication17(5): 553–589. DOI: 10.1177/17504813231163769.
2.
BakerPMcEneryT (2005) A corpus-based approach to discourses of refugees in UN and newspaper texts. Journal of Language and Politics4(2): 197–226. DOI: 10.1075/jlp.4.2.04bak.
3.
BarkhoL (2007) Unpacking the discursive and social links in BBC, CNN and Al-Jazeera’s Middle East reporting. Journal of Arab and Muslim Media Research1(1): 11–29.
4.
BatesonG (1955) A Theory of Play and Fantasy. Psychiatric Research Reports. Seabury Press.
5.
BerrocalM (2017) Proximizing the Ukraine conflict: The case of the United States and the Czech Republic. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics13(2): 65085. DOI: 10.1515/lpp-2017-0016.
6.
BorahP (2011) Conceptual issues in framing theory: A systematic examination of a decade’s literature. Journal of Communication61(2): 246–263. DOI: 10.1111/ j.1460-2466.2011.01539.x.
7.
BoykoffM (2011) Who Speaks for the Climate: Making Sense of Media Reporting on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8.
BreezeR (2014) Perspectives on North and South: The 2012 financial crisis in Spain seen through two major British newspapers. Discourse & Communication8(3): 241–259. DOI: 10.1177/1750481314537572.
9.
BrujicM (2019) Epidemic in the Time of the COVID-19 Pandemic: News media framing of the MMR vaccination controversy in Serbia. Social Science & Medicine358(1): 117225. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.117225.
10.
BruscellaJS (2015) ‘It’s more than just a name’: A theoretical approach to eradicating terrorism through propositions of organizational naming. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism38(9): 759–775. DOI: 10.1080/1057610X.2015.1038107.
11.
CrilleyR, et al. (2020) Understanding RT’s audiences: Exposure not endorsement for Twitter followers of Russian State-sponsored media. International Journal of Press/Politics27(1): 220–242. DOI: 10.1177/1940161220980692.
12.
DamanhouryKSalehF (2017) Is it the same fight? Comparative analysis of CNN and Al Jazeera America’s online coverage of the 2014 Gaza War. Journal of Arab and Muslim Media Research10(1): 85–103. DOI: 10.1386/jammr.10.1.85_1.
13.
DanyleiloO (2023). Shaping narratives in the hybrid war: The concept of ‘Crimea’ in Ukrainian media discourse (2014–2020). Grail of Science33: 274–277. DOI: 10.36074/grail-of-science.10.11.2023.42.
14.
De Borja NavarroFYehA (2022) The dangerous discourse of ‘Us’ vs. ‘Them’:’ Spain’s VOX discursive practices. Journal of Nationalism, Memory & Language Politics16(1): 1–23. DOI: 10.2478/jnmlp-2022-0005.
15.
De VreeseC (2005) News framing: Theory and typology, Information Design Journal13(1): 51–62. DOI: 10.1075/idjdd.13.1.06vre.
16.
De VreeseCLechelerS (2012) News framing research: An overview and new developments. In: SemetkoHAScammellH (eds) The Sage Handbook of Political Communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 292–306.
17.
EdelmanMJ (1993) Contestable categories and public opinion. Political Communication10(3): 231–242.
18.
EntmanR (1993) Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication43(4): 51–58. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
19.
GamsonWAModiglianiA (1989) Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power. American Journal of Sociology95: l–37.
20.
García MarrugoA (2013) What‘s in a name? The representation of illegal actors in the internal conflict in the Colombian press. Discourse & Society24(4). DOI: 10.1177/0957926513482063.
21.
GerhardsJSchäferMS (2014) International terrorism, domestic coverage? How terrorist attacks are presented in the news of CNN, Al Jazeera, the BBC, and ARD. International Communication Gazette76(1): 3–26.
22.
GitlinT (1980) The Whole World Is Watching: Mass Media in the Making and Unmaking of the New Left. Berkeley: University of California Press.
23.
GodefroidtABerbersAD’HaenensL (2016) What’s in a frame? A comparative content analysis of American, British, French, and Russian news articles. International Communication Gazette78(8): 777–801. DOI: 10.1177/1748048516640482.
24.
GoffmanE (1974) Frame Analysis. An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
25.
HammondP (2018) When frames collide: ‘Ethnic war’ and ‘genocide’. Media, War & Conflict11(4): 434–445. DOI: 10.1177/1750635218776994.
26.
JorisWPuustinenLD’HaenensL (2018) More news from the Euro front: How the press has been framing the Euro crisis in five EU countries. International Communication Gazette80(3): 174–194. DOI: 10.1177/1748048518754375.
27.
KahnemanDTverskyA (1979) Prospect theory: Analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica47: 263–291.
28.
LakoffGWehlingE (2016) Your Brain’s Politics: How the Science of Mind Explains the Political Divide. Imprint Academic.
MenneckeO (2024) The ground of Putin’s war. Journal of Language and Politics23(2): 197–218. DOI: 10.1075/jlp.22110.men
31.
MusolffA (2023) Trump’s framing of COVID as war and conspiracy theories. In: ThielemannNWeissD (eds) Remedies Against the Pandemic: How Politicians Communicate their Crisis Management. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 258–277.
32.
MuzykantVLRuiqiH (2024) Features of Chinese media coverage of the special military operation (SMO) in Ukraine. Theoretical and Practical Issues of Journalism13(1): 52–68. DOI: 10.17150/2308-6203.2024.13(1).
33.
NguyenN, et al. (2024) When the media goes to war: How Russian news media defend the country’s image during the conflict with Ukraine. Media, War & Conflict17(4): 482–500. DOI: 10.1177/17506352241231866.
34.
RogersRBen-DavidA (2010) Coming to terms: A conflict analysis of the usage, in official and unofficial sources, of ‘security fence’,‘apartheid wall’, and other terms for the structure between Israel and the Palestinian territories. Media, War & Conflict3(2): 202–229. DOI: 10.1177/1750635210363924.
35.
ScheufeleDATewksburyD (2007) Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication57(1): 9–20. DOI: 10.1111/j.0021-9916.2007.00326.x.
36.
SpencerA (2012) The social construction of terrorism: Media, metaphors and policy implications, Journal of International Relations and Development15: 393–419. DOI: 10.1057/jird.2012.4.
37.
SunW (2022) Division of Chinese opinion on Russia–Ukraine war: Analyzing key actors’ strategic framing on Weibo. European Journal of Law and Political Science1(5): 48–56. DOI: 10.24018/ejpolitics.2022.1.5.45.
38.
TuchmanG (1978) Making News: A Study in the Construction of Reality. New York, NY: Free Press.
39.
Van GorpB (2010) Strategies to take subjectivity out of framing analysis. In: D’AngeloPKuypersJ (eds) Doing News Framing Analysis: Empirical and Theoretical Perspectives. New York: Routledge, 84–109.
40.
Van DijkTA (1995) Power and the news media. Political Communication and Action6(1): 9–36.
41.
Van DijkTA (1998a) Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: Sage.
42.
Van DijkTA (1998b) Opinions and ideologies in the Press. In: BellAGarrettP (eds) Approaches to Media Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell, 21–63.
43.
WeickKSutcliffKMObstfeldD (2005) Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organizing Science16(4): 409–421.
44.
WidiastutiTSuaibNRNagibAN (2024) Van Dijk’s discourse analysis of Palestine vs Israel coverage on NBC news and Liputan6. Communication and Linguistics Studies10(4): 75–80. DOI: 10.11648/j.cls.20241004.11.
45.
WodakR (2016) Mediation between discourse and society: Assessing cognitive approaches in CDA. Discourse studies8(1): 179–190. DOI: 10.1177/1461445606059566.
46.
ZappavignaM (2022) Social media quotation practices and ambient affiliation: Weaponising ironic quotation for humorous ridicule in political discourse. Journal of Pragmatics191: 98–112. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2021.12.003.
47.
ZarefskyD (2004) Presidential rhetoric and the power of definition. Presidential Studies Quarterly34(3): 607–619. DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-5705.2004.00214.x.
48.
ZhangZ (2023) How Chinese short video news cover Russia–Ukraine Conflict: A case study of Pengpai’s DouyinAccount. Proceedings of the International Conference on Global Politics and Socio-Humanities21(1): 115–120. DOI: 10.54254/2753-7048/21/20230102.
