Media outlets RT and Sputnik perform a "damage control" function for the Russian state during incidents such as the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal and deploy a range of tactics to project Russian strength and construct news agendas.

This is the first comprehensive study of how RT and Sputnik sow confusion and division in the UK and beyond. It is based on an analysis of nearly 12,000 articles published in English by the two outlets and over 150,000 online articles by UK news outlets. The articles were collected between May and June 2017, and in March 2018, in the immediate aftermath of the Skripal poisoning.
The Skripal poisoning

RT and Sputnik published 138 separate and contradictory narratives about the Skripal poisoning across 735 articles in the four weeks following the incident, incorporating the views of a "parallel commentariat" and amplifying Russian government sources.

European and North American democracies

RT and Sputnik coverage of European and North American democracies – including the UK, US, France, Germany, Sweden, Italy and Ukraine – was overwhelmingly focused on issues of social and political dysfunction, including coverage of the negative effects of immigration...

The most frequently repeated narratives supporting the Russian position asserted that Russia’s willingness to cooperate was being rejected by the West, that there was no evidence to prove Russian guilt, and that the Western response was driven by ‘Russophobia’ and hysteria.

Coverage of NATO by RT and Sputnik was both prominent and overwhelmingly negative. 617 articles mentioning NATO were published over the eight weeks sampled in 2017 and 2018, approximately 5% of total output by the Russian sites; of these, 80% contained criticism of the alliance.• NATO was characterised as both aggressive and threatening, and simultaneously weak and incapable: 280 articles criticised NATO as expansionist and aggressive, as illegal or illegitimate, as being untrustworthy or duplicitous to its own members and to opponents, or outlined instances of failures, mistakes or incompetence by NATO personnel. 181 articles focused on disharmony and conflict within NATO, and international friction between member states. 80 articles contained the assertion or implication that NATO membership had a detrimental effect on (particularly new or smaller) members, and 168 articles justified Russian military build-up or offensive policies as a valid and necessary response to NATO.

Coverage of NATO by RT and Sputnik was both prominent and overwhelmingly negative.

RT (formerly Russia Today) and Sputnik are usually the first to be named in discussions of Russian information campaigns via the mass media. But they are only the most visible elements in a very wide range of different outlets, both those which are avowed and those which conceal their elements, tailoring their output to the expectations of their intended readers and viewers. The media effort is thus able to adopt a different approach for different forums, ranging from simple fabrication, through confusion with half-truths, to sophisticated argument. Even those parts of Russian information campaigns that are visible to audiences in any one language are only part of a broad multilingual front, including not only state-backed media and trolling, but also fake media – sock puppet websites set up to resemble genuine news outlets, but seeding their news feeds with false or contentious reporting that ties in with Russian narratives.112 The nature of the internet means that the effective placing of disinformation in reputable news outlets is vastly cheaper, simpler, and more permanent than in previous decades when the primary medium was newspapers.

Mike_L wrote:
The Sputnik and RT depictions are entirely reasonable, but are presented as evidence of unhinged Russian propaganda. Just more typically facile Russia-bashing.

In particular, the consistent portrayal of Western governments as untrustworthy partners (in contrast with ‘honest, reasonable’ Russia – as the most frequently recorded narrative in this study attests), driven by dishonest or hypocritical goals and both dangerously aggressive and simultaneously weak and unstable...

The most frequently repeated narratives supporting the Russian position asserted that Russia’s willingness to cooperate was being rejected by the West, that there was no evidence to prove Russian guilt, and that the Western response was driven by ‘Russophobia’ and hysteria.

A series of 11 narratives denoted justifications or explanations of the Russian government’s response. This included by far the most common narrative included in the sample: that Russia is being reasonable and offering to cooperate, while Western governments are refusing to do so. In total, this narrative featured in 248 articles, over one-third of all Skripal articles on RT and Sputnik. The very high frequency of this narrative is partly driven by the fact that it was frequently made by senior figures such as Dmitry Peskov, Sergey Lavrov and – in one rare intervention by the President – Vladimir Putin, but mostly through frequent repetitions in the editorial text of Sputnik articles.

NATO was characterised both as aggressive and threatening, and simultaneously weak and incapable: 280 articles criticised NATO as expansionist and aggressive, as illegal or illegitimate, as being untrustworthy or duplicitous to its own members and to opponents

The Finnish Institute of International Affairs (2016) identified information warfare strategies in how Russia projected narratives at European media...

One common target of such narratives is NATO, the defensive alliance of European and North American states viewed by Russia as a proxy for American interests and a threat to Russia’s security and strategic interests. Fear of NATO enlargement is a key driver of Russia’s international policy, as is distrust of the motivations of members of the alliance following its expansion into what Russia perceives as its own sphere of influence following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

This section analyses how RT and Sputnik portray Russia’s international opponents to English-speaking audiences, how they project Russian military strength, and the extent to which media in the UK pick up and replicate Russian propaganda on its military technology and capability. A content analysis of RT and Sputnik coverage of NATO shows the key frames in how Russian media present the alliance on issues of legitimacy, aggression, trustworthiness, and the legitimacy of Russian actions in relation to NATO.

Representing the enemy: RT and Sputnik coverage of NATO
This analysis is based on eight weeks of RT and Sputnik coverage, spread over two four-week samples: 11th May – 7th June 2017 and 4th – 31st March 2018. Each sample immediately followed or spanned events that pushed the Russian military and NATO to the top of the agenda on RT and Sputnik.114 On 9th May 2017, Russia held its Victory Day celebrations, culminating in the annual Red Square military parade. On 17th May, President Putin announced the drafting of a new framework document for defence budgeting, procurement and development,115while on 24th May Minister of Defence Sergey Shoygu outlined plans for the acquisition of aircraft, air defence systems and submarines.116 The NATO Brussels summit took place on 27th May, during the third week of the 2017 sample.In 2018, the sample began three days after Vladimir Putin’s speech to the Federal Assembly on 1st March, where the Russian President cited NATO’s eastward expansion and missile defence systems as the motivation for his presentation of a range of new Russian weapons.117March 2018 also saw NATO training exercises in Estonia and the signing of an agreement by Poland to purchase the Patriot missile defence system from the US.1

Conclusions
The coverage of NATO observed on RT and Sputnik is not surprising – it is hardly groundbreaking that Russia does not like NATO and its government-owned news outlets do not present it in a positive light. It does, however, invite more analysis of what English-language output on RT and Sputnik is for – a disinformation campaign to harm the public image of NATO in the West, or a news aggregator for domestic Russian audiences about the aggression and incompetence of a key enemy? It is certainly possible to have it both ways, and the coverage does follow closely traditional Russian state narratives about the aggression, expansion and illegitimacy of NATO and the justification for Russian military spending and offensive foreign policy in Europe. This is exemplified in the consistent paradox that NATO is dangerous enough to warrant Russian military posturing and spending, and that it is simultaneously weak and incompetent and therefore no match for Russia’s supremacy in military hardware. Another key theme – that NATO is riven by internal disagreements and that smaller members are bullied by larger ones, particularly the United States – indicates that Russian media consistently portray disfunction, distrust and malaise within the alliance. This prefigures the analysis in the following section, which shows that systemic dysfunction is the main lens through which most, if not all, coverage of the West by RT and Sputnik is portrayed.

Animavore wrote:Mike. Remember when we were in South Africa and what you said to me?

Spearthrower wrote:

Mike_L wrote:
The Sputnik and RT depictions are entirely reasonable, but are presented as evidence of unhinged Russian propaganda. Just more typically facile Russia-bashing.

https://www.kcl.ac.uk/policy-institute/ ... g-news.pdf

In particular, the consistent portrayal of Western governments as untrustworthy partners (in contrast with ‘honest, reasonable’ Russia – as the most frequently recorded narrative in this study attests), driven by dishonest or hypocritical goals and both dangerously aggressive and simultaneously weak and unstable...

The most frequently repeated narratives supporting the Russian position asserted that Russia’s willingness to cooperate was being rejected by the West, that there was no evidence to prove Russian guilt, and that the Western response was driven by ‘Russophobia’ and hysteria.

A series of 11 narratives denoted justifications or explanations of the Russian government’s response. This included by far the most common narrative included in the sample: that Russia is being reasonable and offering to cooperate, while Western governments are refusing to do so. In total, this narrative featured in 248 articles, over one-third of all Skripal articles on RT and Sputnik. The very high frequency of this narrative is partly driven by the fact that it was frequently made by senior figures such as Dmitry Peskov, Sergey Lavrov and – in one rare intervention by the President – Vladimir Putin, but mostly through frequent repetitions in the editorial text of Sputnik articles.

NATO was characterised both as aggressive and threatening, and simultaneously weak and incapable: 280 articles criticised NATO as expansionist and aggressive, as illegal or illegitimate, as being untrustworthy or duplicitous to its own members and to opponents

The Finnish Institute of International Affairs (2016) identified information warfare strategies in how Russia projected narratives at European media...

One common target of such narratives is NATO, the defensive alliance of European and North American states viewed by Russia as a proxy for American interests and a threat to Russia’s security and strategic interests. Fear of NATO enlargement is a key driver of Russia’s international policy, as is distrust of the motivations of members of the alliance following its expansion into what Russia perceives as its own sphere of influence following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

This section analyses how RT and Sputnik portray Russia’s international opponents to English-speaking audiences, how they project Russian military strength, and the extent to which media in the UK pick up and replicate Russian propaganda on its military technology and capability. A content analysis of RT and Sputnik coverage of NATO shows the key frames in how Russian media present the alliance on issues of legitimacy, aggression, trustworthiness, and the legitimacy of Russian actions in relation to NATO.

Representing the enemy: RT and Sputnik coverage of NATO
This analysis is based on eight weeks of RT and Sputnik coverage, spread over two four-week samples: 11th May – 7th June 2017 and 4th – 31st March 2018. Each sample immediately followed or spanned events that pushed the Russian military and NATO to the top of the agenda on RT and Sputnik.114 On 9th May 2017, Russia held its Victory Day celebrations, culminating in the annual Red Square military parade. On 17th May, President Putin announced the drafting of a new framework document for defence budgeting, procurement and development,115while on 24th May Minister of Defence Sergey Shoygu outlined plans for the acquisition of aircraft, air defence systems and submarines.116 The NATO Brussels summit took place on 27th May, during the third week of the 2017 sample.In 2018, the sample began three days after Vladimir Putin’s speech to the Federal Assembly on 1st March, where the Russian President cited NATO’s eastward expansion and missile defence systems as the motivation for his presentation of a range of new Russian weapons.117March 2018 also saw NATO training exercises in Estonia and the signing of an agreement by Poland to purchase the Patriot missile defence system from the US.1

Pelageya wanna cracker?

Mike_L wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:
Pelageya wanna cracker?

So you separate one of my sentences from the explanatory ones that preceded it, and use it as basis for an insult.
That kind of trash-posting makes my own trash-posting look sophisticated by comparison.
Neither of us is going to concede to the other. We're both wasting our time.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Mike_L wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:
Pelageya wanna cracker?

So you separate one of my sentences from the explanatory ones that preceded it, and use it as basis for an insult.
That kind of trash-posting makes my own trash-posting look sophisticated by comparison.
Neither of us is going to concede to the other. We're both wasting our time.

Of course Russia depicts NATO as an enemy. How did you show that was unreasonable?

Mike_L wrote:NATO is Russia's enemy, and conducts war games to make that point. So of course Russian reporting on NATO is going to be "both prominent and overwhelmingly negative."
The Sputnik and RT depictions are entirely reasonable, but are presented as evidence of unhinged Russian propaganda. Just more typically facile Russia-bashing.

Cito di Pense wrote:How did you show NATO's hostility to Russia was unreasonable?

The situation is that NATO and Russia do not have a cordial relationship.

And you want to show that's NATO's problem. Fuck off, with that. You're trying to defend Russia, so you should stick to pointing out all the great stuff that Russia does in the world...

...but that's not working out for you, is it?

If there's an adversarial relationship that's unjustified. you ought to be explaining how it's unjustified, instead of implying that arguments like this are a waste of your time.

You think Russia's terrific, but you won't say why.

All you know is that NATO and the US need a counterbalance. You can't explain why...

Mike_L wrote:
So you separate one of my sentences from the explanatory ones that preceded it, and use it as basis for an insult.
That kind of trash-posting makes my own trash-posting look sophisticated by comparison.
Neither of us is going to concede to the other. We're both wasting our time.

Mike_L wrote:
I have explained why. Every allusion I've made to Iraq, Libya and Syria is an explanation why.

Spearthrower wrote:

Mike_L wrote:
So you separate one of my sentences from the explanatory ones that preceded it, and use it as basis for an insult.
That kind of trash-posting makes my own trash-posting look sophisticated by comparison.
Neither of us is going to concede to the other. We're both wasting our time.

Rather, I showed examples of how you're repeatedly emulating the exact methodology of propaganda dissemination employed by RT.

I don't care whether you concede or not, I don't care if you pretend it's an insult so you can avoid the substance, I don't care if you label it 'trash-posting' or any other name: the vapid bullshit you're bringing here will be contested.

If people want to slurp on the RT Kool Aid they can go and fucking read their website or watch their channel; they don't need you acting as a RT proxy regurgitating uncritically swallowed bullshit and championing it here.

I tried reasoning with you on the basis that I think you're a decent chap, and frankly I think you're heading down a path that is unhealthy and absurd, but I was clearly getting nowhere doing that. You toss out distraction whenever you're pinned on a point; you repeatedly engage in tu quoque even though the problem with that has already been explained to you; you keep using the same methodology employed by these bullshit artists, and just because you're a decent chap, you don't get a free pass to disseminate nonsense on this forum. You even got upset by assumed criticism of Catherine the fucking Great - a woman dead over 200 years, for Christ's sakes - that's how far down the rabbit hole you've fallen.

I told you I am going to stop bothering with you, the person, and just focus on the screed you're promulgating, and you responded in the affirmative acknowledging it; fairly warned, and this is what it entails. Sorry if it pisses you off, but perhaps you should consider whether it's justified or not given the nature of this webforum and the standards of skepticism applied in other areas.

Spinozasgalt wrote:Saw on Twitter that Alexei Navalny, who's been sentenced to 30 days in prison for his role in those protests, had developed a "severe allergic reaction".

Mike_L wrote:
You found some matching words and highlighted them in red.

Mike_L wrote:
If it's just "vapid bullshit", then why do you feel the need to contest it so vigorously...

Mike_L wrote:... often with multiple posts in response to just one of mine?

Mike_L wrote:

If people want to slurp on the RT Kool Aid they can go and fucking read their website or watch their channel; they don't need you acting as a RT proxy regurgitating uncritically swallowed bullshit and championing it here.

Who is "they"? On whose behalf are you speaking? Can't these others decide for themselves which forum posts they do or don't want to read? What is it that they want? Have you asked them? Do they perhaps want an echo chamber...?

Mike_L wrote:"Putin is bad."
"Yeah. Totally."
"Absolutely evil."
"I gave your Putin-hating post a thumbs-up."
"Thanks. I returned the favor. I'd give it, like, a dozen thumbs up if I could."
"I love you as much as I hate Putin."
"I love you more, because I hate Putin more."

Mike_L wrote:

I tried reasoning with you on the basis that I think you're a decent chap, and frankly I think you're heading down a path that is unhealthy and absurd, but I was clearly getting nowhere doing that. You toss out distraction whenever you're pinned on a point; you repeatedly engage in tu quoque even though the problem with that has already been explained to you; you keep using the same methodology employed by these bullshit artists, and just because you're a decent chap, you don't get a free pass to disseminate nonsense on this forum. You even got upset by assumed criticism of Catherine the fucking Great - a woman dead over 200 years, for Christ's sakes - that's how far down the rabbit hole you've fallen.

That's Empress Catherine the Great, if you don't mind!

Mike_L wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:Which is not only incredibly naive to believe that vote is legitimate, but is also very similar to how Russia came about annexing Crimea in the first place under Catherine.

If you're going to bash Empress Catherine over Crimea, then you can just as well bash King George III over modern-day Australia or bash Queen Isabella over modern-day America. Pointless.

Mike_L wrote:
Like the standards on display in the 'Trump Watch' thread maybe? The thread where debate is near-absent, and each poster simply tries to outdo the other in inventing new Trump nicknames?

Mike_L wrote:Do you want a 'Putin Watch' thread where all those who loathe the guy assemble for two (or more) minutes hate before shuffling together for a virtual group hug?

Spinozasgalt wrote:Saw on Twitter that Alexei Navalny, who's been sentenced to 30 days in prison for his role in those protests, had developed a "severe allergic reaction".

Mike_L wrote:Can't these others decide for themselves which forum posts they do or don't want to read? What is it that they want? Have you asked them? Do they perhaps want an echo chamber...?

Cito di Pense wrote:

Mike_L wrote:Can't these others decide for themselves which forum posts they do or don't want to read? What is it that they want? Have you asked them? Do they perhaps want an echo chamber...?

You know how creotards like to produce the phrase, "teach the controversy".