In international politics, the strategic narratives of different governments compete for public attention and support. The Russian government’s narrative has prompted western concern due to fears that it exerts a destabilizing effect on societies in Eastern Europe and elsewhere. However, the behavior and thought processes of news consumers targeted by contradictory strategic narratives are rarely subjected to analysis. This paper examines how Ukrainian news consumers decide where to get their news and what to believe in a media environment where “propaganda” and “disinformation” are regarded as major threats to national security. Evidence comes from thirty audio-diaries and in-depth interviews conducted in 2016 among adult residents of Odesa Region. Through qualitative analysis of the diary and interview transcripts, the paper reveals how participants judged the credibility of news and narratives based on their priorities (what they considered important), not just “facts” (what they believed had happened). The attribution of importance to different foreign policy issues was associated, in turn, with varying personal experiences, memories, and individual cross-border relationships.
AlthausScott L.TewksburyDavid. 2000. “Patterns of Internet and Traditional News Media Use in a Networked Community.” Political Communication17 (1): 21–45.
2.
BestSamuel J.ChmielewskiBrianKruegerBrian S.2005. “Selective Exposure to Online Foreign News during the Conflict with Iraq.” The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics10 (4): 52–70.
3.
BlumlerJay G.KatzElihu. 1974. The Uses of Mass Communications: Current Perspectives on Gratifications Research. Beverly Hills: Sage.
4.
BraunVirginiaClarkeVictoria. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology3 (2): 77–101.
5.
ChoiJunho H.WattJames H.LynchMichael. 2006. “Perceptions of News Credibility about the War in Iraq: Why War Opponents Perceived the Internet as the Most Credible Medium.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication12 (1): 209–29.
6.
CooperRogerTang. 2009. “Predicting Audience Exposure to Television in Today’s Media Environment: An Empirical Integration of Active-Audience and Structural Theories.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media53 (3): 400–18.
7.
Dvir-GvirsmanShiraTsfatiYarivMenchen-TrevinoEricka. 2014. “The Extent and Nature of Ideological Selective Exposure Online: Combining Survey Responses with Actual Web Log Data from the 2013 Israeli Elections.” New Media & Society18 (5): 857–77.
8.
EntmanRobert. 2008. “Theorizing Mediated Public Diplomacy: The U.S. Case.” The International Journal of Press/Politics13 (2): 87–102.
9.
FeklyuninaValentinaRomanova.Valentyna2017. “Ukraine and Triangular Diplomacy: Kyiv’s Legitimacy Dilemmas in the Midst of the Crisis.” In Triangular Diplomacy among the United States, the European Union and the Russian Federation: Responses to the Crisis in Ukraine, ed. BirchfieldVicki L.YoungAlasdair R. (pp. 143–167). Palgrave Macmillan.
10.
FeldmanLaurenStroudNatalie JominiBimberBruceWojcieszakMagdalena. 2013. “Assessing Selective Exposure in Experiments: The Implications of Different Methodological Choices.” Communication Methods and Measures7 (3–4): 172–94.
11.
FestingerLeon. 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
12.
FlanaginAndrew J.MetzgerMiriam J.2007. “The Role of Site Features, User Attributes, and Information Verification Behaviors on the Perceived Credibility of Web-Based Information.” New Media & Society9 (2): 319–42.
13.
FlaxmanSethGoelSharadRaoJustin M.2016. “Filter Bubbles, Echo Chambers, and Online News Consumption.” Special issue, Public Opinion Quarterly80:298–320.
14.
FoggB. J.SoohooCathyDanielsonDavid R.2003. “How Do Users Evaluate the Credibility of Web Sites? A Study with over 2,500 Participants.” Paper read at DUX ’03 Conference on Designing for User Experiences, New York, June 6.
15.
FreedmanLawrence. 2006. The Transformation of Strategic Affairs. Kindle Edition. Abingdon: Routledge (for the International Institute for Strategic Studies).
16.
FreemanKrisandra S.SpyridakisJan H.2004. “An Examination of Factors that Affect the Credibility of Online Health Information.” Technical Communication51 (2): 239–63.
17.
FreyDieter. 1986. “Recent Research on Selective Exposure to Information.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology19:41–80.
18.
GarrettR. Kelly. 2009. “Politically Motivated Reinforcement Seeking: Reframing the Selective Exposure Debate.” Journal of Communication59 (4): 676–99.
19.
GazianoCecilieMcGrathKristin. 1986. “Measuring the Concept of Credibility.” Journalism Quarterly63 (3): 451–62.
20.
GuessAndrew M.2016. “Media Choice and Moderation: Evidence from Online Tracking Data.” Working paper, New York: Social Media and Political Participation (SMaPP) Lab, New York University.
21.
GuntherAlbert C.1992. “Biased Press or Biased Public? Attitudes towards Media Coverage of Social Groups.” Public Opinion Quarterly56:147–67.
22.
HasebrinkUweDomeyerHanna. 2012. “Media Repertoires as Patterns of Behaviour and as Meaningful Practices: A Multimethod Approach to Media Use in Converging Media Environments.” Participations: Journal of Audience & Reception Studies9 (2): 757–79.
23.
HasebrinkUwePoppJutta. 2006. “Media Repertoires as a Result of Selective Media Use. A Conceptual Approach to the Analysis of Patterns of Exposure.” Communications31 (3): 369–87.
24.
HilligossBrianRiehSoo Young. 2008. “Developing a Unifying Framework of Credibility Assessment: Construct, Heuristics, and Interaction in Context.” Information Processing & Management44 (4): 1467–84.
25.
HolbertR. LanceGarrettR. KellyGleasonLaurel S.2010. “A New Era of Minimal Effects? A Response to Bennett and Iyengar.” Journal of Communication60 (1): 15–34.
26.
HovlandCarl I.WeissWalter. 1951. “The Influence of Source Credibility on Communication Effectiveness.” Public Opinion Quarterly15 (4): 635–50.
27.
IyengarShantoHahnKyu S.2009. “Red Media, Blue Media: Evidence of Ideological Selectivity in Media Use.” Journal of Communication59 (1): 19–39.
28.
JensenKlaus Bruhn. 1987. “Qualitative Audience Research: Towards an Integrative Approach to Reception.” Critical Studies in Mass Communication4 (1): 21–36.
29.
JohnsonThomas J.ZhangWeiwuBichardShannon L.2011. “Voices of Convergence or Conflict? A Path Analysis Investigation of Selective Exposure to Political Websites.” Social Science Computer Review29 (4): 449–69.
30.
KarpfDavidKreissDanielNielsenRasmus Kleis. 2015. “The Role of Qualitative Methods in Political Communication Research: Past, Present, and Future.” International Journal of Communication9: 1888–1906.
31.
KhaldarovaIrinaPanttiMervi. 2016. “Fake News: The Narrative Battle over the Ukrainian Conflict.” Journalism Practice10 (7): 891–901.
32.
KiousisSpiro. 2001. “Public Trust or Mistrust? Perceptions of Media Credibility in the Information Age.” Mass Communication and Society4 (4): 381–403.
33.
Knobloch-WesterwickSilviaMengJingbo. 2011. “Reinforcement of the Political Self through Selective Exposure to Political Messages.” Journal of Communication61 (2): 349–68.
34.
LevitskyStevenWayLucan. 2010. Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes in the Post-Cold War Era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35.
LiebesTamarKatzElihu. 1986. “Patterns of Involvement in Television Fiction: A Comparative Analysis.” European Journal of Communication1 (2): 151–71.
36.
LivingstoneSonia. 1993. “The Rise and Fall of Audience Research: An Old Story with a New Ending.” Journal of Communication43 (4): 5–12.
37.
LivioOrenCohen.Jonathan2016. “Fool Me Once, Shame on You: Direct Personal Experience and Media Trust.” Journalism. Published electronically September26. doi:10.1177/1464884916671331.
38.
Mac GintyRogerFirchowPamina. 2016. “Top-Down and Bottom-Up Narratives of Peace and Conflict.” Politics36 (3): 308–23.
39.
MelissenJan. 2005. The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
40.
MetzgerMiriam J.FlanaginAndrew J.EyalKerenLemusDaisy R.McCannRobert M.2003. “Credibility for the 21st Century: Integrating Perspectives on Source, Message, and Media Credibility in the Contemporary Media Environment.” Annals of the International Communication Association27 (1): 293–335.
41.
MetzgerMiriam J.FlanaginAndrew J.MeddersRyan B.2010. “Social and Heuristic Approaches to Credibility Evaluation Online.” Journal of Communication60 (3): 413–39.
42.
MeyerPhilip. 1988. “Defining and Measuring Credibility of Newspapers: Developing an Index.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly65 (3): 567–74.
43.
MiskimmonAlisterO’LoughlinBenRoselleLaura. 2013. Strategic Narratives: Communication Power and the New World Order. New York: Routledge.
44.
NyeJoseph. 2004. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: Public Affairs.
45.
NyeJoseph. 2011. The Future of Power. New York: Public Affairs.
46.
OjalaMarkusPanttiMerviKangasJarkko. 2017. “Whose War, Whose Fault? Visual Framing of the Ukraine Conflict in Western European Newspapers.” International Journal of Communication11:474–98.
47.
PapacharissiZizi. 2008. “Uses and Gratifications.” In An Integrated Approach to Communication Theory and Research, 2nd Edition, ed. StacksDon W.SalwenMichael B. (pp. 137–152). New York: Routledge.
48.
PettyRichard E.CacioppoJohn T.1979. “Issue Involvement Can Increase or Decrease Persuasion by Enhancing Message-Relevant Cognitive Responses.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology37 (10): 1915–26.
49.
PettyRichard E.CacioppoJohn T.1986. “The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology19:123–205.
50.
PiriePaul S.1996. “National Identity and Politics in Southern and Eastern Ukraine.” Europe-Asia Studies48 (7): 1079–1104.
51.
PomerantsevPeterWeissMichael. 2014. The Menace of Unreality: How the Kremlin Weaponizes Information, Culture and Money. New York: Institute of Modern Russia.
52.
PriceMonroe Edwin. 2015. Free Expression, Globalism and the New Strategic Communication. Kindle Edition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
53.
RiehSoo YoungDanielsonDavid R.2007. “Credibility: A Multidisciplinary Framework.” Annual Review of Information Science and Technology41:307–64.
54.
RoselleLauraMiskimmonAlisterO’LoughlinBen. 2014. “Strategic Narrative: A New Means to Understand Soft Power.” Media, War & Conflict7 (1): 70–84.
55.
SchrøderKim Christian. 1994. “Audience Semiotics, Interpretive Communities and the ‘Ethnographic Turn’ in Media Research.” Media, Culture & Society16:337–47.
56.
SearsDavid O.FreedmanJonathan L.1967. “Selective Exposure to Information: A Critical Review.” Public Opinion Quarterly31 (2): 194–213.
57.
SeibPhilip. 2012. Real-Time Diplomacy: Politics and Power in the Social Media Era. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
58.
SelfCharles C.2009. “Credibility.” In An Integrated Approach to Communication Theory and Research, 2nd Edition, ed. StacksDon W.SalwenMichael B. (pp. 435–456). New York: Routledge.
59.
SheaferTamirGabayItay. 2009. “Mediated Public Diplomacy: A Strategic Contest over International Agenda Building and Frame Building.” Political Communication26 (4): 447–67.
60.
SongHyunjin. 2017. “Why Do People (Sometimes) Become Selective about News? The Role of Emotions and Partisan Differences in Selective Approach and Avoidance.” Mass Communication and Society20 (1): 47–67.
61.
StroudNatalie Jomini. 2008. “Media Use and Political Predispositions: Revisiting the Concept of Selective Exposure.” Political Behavior30 (3): 341–66.
62.
SundarS. Shyam. 2008. “The MAIN Model: A Heuristic Approach to Understanding Technology Effects on Credibility.” In Digital Media, Youth, and Credibility, ed. MetzgerMiriam J.FlanaginAndrew J. (pp. 73–100). Cambridge: The MIT Press.
SzostekJoanna.2016. “News Media Repertoires and Strategic Narrative Reception: A Paradox of Dis/Belief in Authoritarian Russia.” New Media & Society. Published electronically July7. doi:10.1177/1461444816656638.
65.
SzostekJoanna. 2017a. “Defence and Promotion of Desired State Identity in Russia’s Strategic Narrative.” Geopolitics22 (3): 571–93.
66.
SzostekJoanna. 2017b. “The Power and Limits of Russia’s Strategic Narrative in Ukraine: The Role of Linkage.” Perspectives on Politics15 (2): 379–95.
67.
TanejaHarshWebsterJames G.MalthouseEdward C.KsiazekThomas B.2012. “Media Consumption across Platforms: Identifying User-Defined Repertoires.” New Media & Society14 (6): 951–68.
68.
ThorsonKjerstinVragaEmilyEkdaleBrian. 2010. “Credibility in Context: How Uncivil Online Commentary Affects News Credibility.” Mass Communication and Society13 (3): 289–313.
69.
Van den BulckJan. 2006. “Television News Avoidance: Exploratory Results from a One-Year Follow-Up Study.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media50 (2): 231–52.
70.
WalkerChristopher. 2016. “The Hijacking of ‘Soft Power.’”Journal of Democracy27 (1): 49–63.
71.
WathenC. NadineBurkellJacquelyn. 2002. “Believe It or Not: Factors Influencing Credibility on the Web.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology53 (2): 134–44.
72.
WonnebergerAnkeSchoenbachKlausvan MeursLex. 2011. “Interest in News and Politics—or Situational Determinants? Why People Watch the News.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media55 (3): 325–43.
73.
YuanElaine. 2011. “News Consumption across Multiple Media Platforms.” Information, Communication & Society14 (7): 998–1016.
74.
ZallerJohn R.1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Kindle Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
