The study “The power of naming in a time of conflict” by Olga Boginskaya from Irkutsk National Research Technical University looked at how media in Russia, the US, and China used terms to refer to the Russia-Ukraine conflict – how they named it – and how they thus constructed narratives about it to influence public perceptions.
Despite the intense global scrutiny directed at the Russia-Ukraine conflict, previous research has often overlooked the power of naming in relation to the conflict. The role of naming is well-established in discourse studies, for example: Breeze (2014); Danyleilo (2023); Hammond (2018); García Marrugo (2013); Rogers and Ben-David (2010).
Here are the goals guiding the research:
(1) ”To identify naming terms used by the Russian, US and Chinese media outlets to refer to the conflict and to calculate their frequencies”;
(2) ”To identify the pragmatic functions of these terms and their role in framing the conflict”.
The media corpora for the analysis came from Russia Today and Tass from Russia, NBC News and The Washington Post from the US, and China Daily and Global Times from China. Russia Today, or RT, is a state-funded international news organization that conveys a Russian, pro-government viewpoint. TASS (Telegraph Agency of the Soviet Union) is also pro-Russian and fully owned by the government.
NBC News is a major news organization with a significant influence. The Washington Post has the third largest print circulation in the country and is considered a significant force in the news media industry.
China Daily is China’s national English-language newspaper, and seeks to offer a window to China for international readers, and is state-owned. Global Times is a state-owned tabloid closely affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party, reflecting China’s official stance in foreign matters.
News stories with a tag “Ukraine” were collected, dating between 24 February 2022 and 1 November 2024. The selection was narrowed to 30 articles from each outlet, meaning 60 per country. This was deemed sufficient for a mainly qualitative comparison.
There were stark differences between the countries. The Russian media favored “special military operation”, “military operation”, and avoided “war”, while the US media used “war” the most, followed by “invasion”. China used “conflict” and “crisis”, and also used, to some extent, “special military operation” and “military operation”.
It was shown in the analysis that the terms the Russian media chose focused on legitimizing and validating the situation, and less on downplaying, while the US media was highly critical and negatively assessed Russia. This mirrored the official US policy – denouncing Russia.
According to the author, the Chinese media focused on presenting the facts in a balanced manner – indicating a lack of interest in casting blame. Their language was the most detached and strategic with terms like “geopolitical game”.
Thus, the naming demonstrated by the Russian media sought to legitimize Russia’s actions and sought to frame the conflict as a defensive response, promoting Russia and criticizing the opposition (the West). Van Dijk’s Ideological Square was employed there.
As a polar opposite, the Western (US) media sought to frame the US as a defender of democracy, freedom, Ukrainian integrity, and international law, and Russia as an aggressor violating international law and human rights.
China did not present itself in a similar manner, but the Ideological Square may still offer insights into their naming conventions. China presented itself as a responsible global actor seeking to resolve the conflict through diplomacy and dialogue. The use of the term “geopolitical game” subtly casts the US as player of that game and suggests it contributes to the instability and escalation.
The findings are in accordance, and add further credibility to studies that suggest that the media plays a crucial role in constructing reality and that news events are far from impartial.
The article “The power of naming in a time of conflict” by Olga Boginskaya is in Media, War & Conflict.
Picture: chess by Tamara Gak.
License Unsplash.
