This interview could have been simply one more episode in the fierce narrative battle between British and Russian authorities. However, this does not appear to have been the case, according to the latest research from the “Reframing Russia” project, which looks at the state broadcaster’s efforts to reshape Russia’s external image. The data suggest that — for RT, at least — this broadcast backfired.
RT has tried to discredit the British case
In its earliest reporting on the Salisbury poisoning, RT sought to draw into question key elements of the official British case. RT headlines focused not on the case itself, but on how the U.K. media was reporting it. One headline, for instance, read “Blame precedes evidence.”
RT’s reporting was factually accurate, based around statements from the police or headlines generated in mainstream media outlets. However, the network told the story from the Russian point of view, with Russia merely responding to other states’ actions.
RT relied heavily on a particular selection of guests who highlighted inconsistencies in official U.K. accounts. Russia’s ambassador to Britain gave his thoughts in op-eds and interviews. “Putin’s former spin doctor” Alexander Nekrassov was another repeat commentator.
Likewise, former British intelligence officials Charles Shoebridge and Annie Machon contributed to several talk shows. Machon and Nekrassov also provided commentary for the BBC, but other regularly featured experts gave conspiratorial contributions unlikely to be hosted on other networks.
The tone of RT’s programming tended to vary dramatically, depending on the program and the journalist hosting it. One consistent theme throughout the Skripal coverage was the network’s critiques of Western political institutions and Western media. RT coverage also employed dismissive irony, humor and informality — and used social media responses to show there was wider skepticism about British claims.
Did this strategy work? Yes — but only initially.
Our social media research suggests that, initially, English-speaking RT audiences accepted RT’s skepticism about official British accounts of the poisoning. RT’s YouTube “Skripal” playlist of 60 videos has more than 1.6 million combined views and more than 32,000 comments. These videos were upvoted a total of 32,000 times, compared with only 4,200 downvotes, which suggests that viewers largely agree with their content.
To understand how audiences were reacting to RT’s reporting, we analyzed the top 100 most-liked comments on two specific videos discussing the Skripal case. On one video, 73 percent of the comments suggested that there was a conspiracy at work, with claims such as “it is more likely the CIA poisoned them to place blame on Russia.” Some 44 percent of comments were critical of the U.K. and its allies, and 27 percent noted inconsistencies in British claims. Only 4 of the comments were critical of Russia, Putin or RT’s claims.
In response to another video, 35 percent of commentators suggested conspiracy theories, 95 percent of the comments were critical of the U.K., and 26 percent suggested inconsistencies in the British narrative. Only one of Perhaps the response of English-speaking audiences is no real concern, if the main purpose of the interview was designed more for domestic audiences. But if that was the intent, the interview also appears to have failed. Russia’s state-controlled domestic TV ignored the video’s critical reception, but newspapers have not been so forgiving. And the YouTube comments on RT’s Russian version of the interview have been just as negative as those in English. One viewer said: “Until today I perceived this Skripal story as Britain’s provocation. But once I saw these two idiots, my view has been shaken.”
To date, RT has pitched itself as a network at ease with the new digital world, prepared to tell uncomfortable truths in a media environment dominated by the institutions and power structures of the “West.”Criticism of the network, RT suggests, is fueled by Russophobes frightened at its challenge to those in power.
The poor reception to the Skripal suspects’ interview shows the fragility of RT’s position — and its ability to act as a soft power instrument of the Russian state — along with its failure to judge online audiences. As one comment on RT’s interview put it: “by posting this video and also not disabling comments you’ve totally screwed yourselves.”the top 100 comments was critical of Russia — but it also stated that the U.K. government was similarly untrustworthy.
And then the interview landedPerhaps the response of English-speaking audiences is no real concern, if the main purpose of the interview was designed more for domestic audiences. But if that was the intent, the interview also appears to have failed. Russia’s state-controlled domestic TV ignored the video’s critical reception, but newspapers have not been so forgiving. And the YouTube comments on RT’s Russian version of the interview have been just as negative as those in English. One viewer said: “Until today I perceived this Skripal story as Britain’s provocation. But once I saw these two idiots, my view has been shaken.”
To date, RT has pitched itself as a network at ease with the new digital world, prepared to tell uncomfortable truths in a media environment dominated by the institutions and power structures of the “West.”Criticism of the network, RT suggests, is fueled by Russophobes frightened at its challenge to those in power.
The poor reception to the Skripal suspects’ interview shows the fragility of RT’s position — and its ability to act as a soft power instrument of the Russian state — along with its failure to judge online audiences. As one comment on RT’s interview put it: “by posting this video and also not disabling comments you’ve totally screwed yourselves.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com ... 9fdcc
чукча
