Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

The Information Dimension of the Syrian Conflict in the Context of the US-Russian Confrontation in the Middle East

Introduction

In general, by analyzing previous literature, it became obvious that there is a number of books and articles which are devoted to the history of the “infowar” phenomenon and also try to explain the very gist of it. For example, Leo Bogart Bogart L., Bogart, A. Cool words, cold war: a new look at USIA's Premises for propaganda. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1995. presents the reassessment of the Cold War premises of American Propaganda which brings the original 1954 study up to date and places it into historical context. His work is a careful examination of the principles and beliefs that have guided American propaganda operations including the problems that currently face American information policy. It summarizes an empirical study based on extensive interviews of the agency's executives and operatives that is updated by the new interviews reflected in this edition, and that helps USIA guide and plan its own research and improve its operations.

David W. Guth Guth D. W. Black, White, and Shades of Gray: The Sixty-Year Debate Over Propaganda Versus Public Diplomacy. Journal of Promotion Management, Vol 14: pp. 309-25, 2009. in his study explores public debates over the use of U.S. “soft power”--international government-to-people communication, generally classified by proponents as informational “public diplomacy” and critics as persuasive “propaganda” efforts. The focus is on challenges emerging during both the Cold War and the War on Terror. The author examines the 1953 debate over the role of U.S. propaganda, and shows how many of the same issues reemerged following 9/11 terror attacks.

Dennis M. Murphy Murphy, D.M., White, J.F. Propaganda: can a word decide a war? Parameters, 37 (3), 2007. Pp.15-27. focuses on historic cases of American propaganda and also on the National Strategy for Public Diplomacy and Strategic Communication in the U.S. It perceived as a positive step in competing against propaganda. Additionally, it remained to be seen whether process can be instituted in a way to go beyond political cycles or nation's leadership is able to change the tendency of using information as power.

Some historic overview to the use of propaganda in Soviet Russia is given by Boris V. Bruk Bruk, B. V. International Propaganda: The Russian Version. Princeton: Institute of Modern Russia, 2013.. Speaking of these days, the author enumerates several entities which are, according to his view, serve propagandist purpose: from media like RT, global PR-agencies up to meetings like the Valdai Club and organizations like Rossotrudnichestvo. The author comes to conclusion that in many present situations propaganda is counterproductive in diplomatic issues.

A. Kudors and A. Pabriks Kudors, A., Pabriks, A. The War in Syria: Lessons for the West. The Centre for East European Policy Studies. Riga: University of Latvia Press, 2016. analyze both American and Russian involvement and strategies in Syria along with cooperation and competition issues. Problems of European Union as refugee crisis and consequent diplomatic crisis are touched upon (concepts of nation security and human security are juxtaposed in this context). Some neighbouring countries like Turkey or Iran are in focus too, but the most attention is drawn to Russian strategies in Syria and Russian propaganda. Additionally, some attention is devoted to strategic communications of ISIS. In conclusion, authors give their estimation of the situation and players proving Russia “capable” in diplomatic and military cooperation and the US as a remaining “steadfast actor”.

The role of traditional and new media in American policy-making is observed by Lyse Doucet Doucet, L. Syria & the CNN Effect: What Role Does the Media Play in Policy-Making? MA: Daedalus, Vol. 147 Issue 1, 2018. Pp. 141-157.. The author focuses on the cases of two major chemical attacks in Syria and contrast B. Obama's and D. Trump's decision-making processes. The United States is put as a key actor in this conflict, but the author underlines similar observations for other Western allies. Moreover, major impact of media is highlighted but they are not perceived as a major power in these events.

Contribution to the field. In this research, conceptual-theoretical findings of international conflicts media coverage are applied to the Syrian conflict. These results not only define and describe the images constructed by the two countries' mass media with regards to the Syrian conflict, but also contrast it with strategic interests and geopolitical aspirations of the United States and Russia in the region.

The structure of the work reflects research objectives. Hence, the first chapter explores major concepts used in conceptual studies of information warfare, some well-known historic examples of propaganda during prominent conflicts and an overview of popular tools and practices of information warfare. The second, third, fourth and fifth chapters follow the unified research design: they provide the results of content analysis of Russian and American media and assess their correlation to the official positions. The second one is devoted to the causes of the war. The third chapter is dedicated to Bashar al-Assad's presidency, its role in the conflict and its image in the media. The third one focuses on the Syrian opposition and different approaches to its categorization within the continuum of “radical” vs. “moderate”. The fifth chapter outlines major international efforts for peaceful conflict settlement. The last chapter provides an overall conclusion to the dissertation.

Approbation. Some conceptual and methodological approaches adopted in this research were presented at the meetings and seminars at RT during the author's internship there in February 2018, feedback received from RT analysts allowed to refine the research design of this study.

Chapter 1. Media Strategies and Coverage of International Military Conflicts

1.1 Defining the basic concepts (information warfare, propaganda, public diplomacy, strategic communication)

Presently, mass media are considered to be one of the most vital institutions which performs various functions: inform, report about events, enlighten, educate, disseminate culture, entertain and advertise. At the same time, they affect not only consciousness, values, ideals, outlook of the audience, but also conduct the collective actions of people - behaviour. Media space appears to be a place for public dialogue and supposed to create a platform for an exchange of ideas and opinions.

Thus, mass media play a pivotal role in forming and operating of public conscience. With its help, perception and interpretation of reality and current affairs are carried out through it and with its help. Mass media no longer reflect reality, but rather constructs it, according to its rules and preferences.

A well-known metaphor about mass media as the forth branch of power is relevant as never before. Evidently, it is not official in the legal aspect like the legislative, executive and judicial branches, but its capability to influence public opinion and, on some occasions, even to control the course of events is indisputable. A famous German historian and philosopher of history, Oswald Spengler, in the beginning of the 20th century wrote in his book “The Decline of the West”: “A small number of superior heads, whose names are very likely not the best-known, settle everything, while below them are the great mass of second-rate politicians - rhetors, tribunes, deputies, journalists - selected through a provincially-conceived franchise to keep alive the illusion of popular self-determination.” Spengler, O. The Decline of the West. Vol. I: Introduction, trans. and ed. C. F. Atkinson, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1926. P.35.

It is likely that if Spengler could have foreseen the rapid development of online media, his suppositions would have been even bolder. Scientific and technical progress appears to be a key factor in the development of information society and mass media, which, in turn, allows it to erase boundaries in the information field; now, it can be easily intersected by global networks which provides instant dissemination of information. Thus, the distance between the very event and its media representation is eliminated. The event is broadcasted to the viewer in the same moment when it is happening, and the viewer becomes a direct participant as a result. But as it was already mentioned mass media rarely reflect reality as it is. One of the reasons for that is pursuit of dominance on the world scale as well as in military conflicts.

As a result, the notion of “information warfare” was introduced; it refers to the use of information and its capabilities as a tool of warfare, being evidently more applicable in the military domain. There is no universal definition of this concept, but the one which is widely accepted was introduced by Brian Nichipaulk and presents information warfare as “the process of protecting one's own sources of battlefield information and, at the same time, seeking to deny, degrade, corrupt, or destroy the enemy's sources of battlefield information”. Nichiporuk, B. U.S: Military opportunities: Information-warfare concepts of operation. in Zalmay K., White J.O., and Marshall A.W., eds. Strategic Appraisal: The Changing Role on Information Warfare. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 1999. P.188. In this context, several other concepts, which are sometimes considered as interchangeable with information warfare, are to be defined, such as propaganda, information operations, public diplomacy and strategic communication.

The latter is, possibly, one of the most ambiguous terms in the scholarly field. Nevertheless, the definition offered by Paul Christopher seems to be inclusive enough: “Strategic communication is coordinated actions, messages, images, and other forms of signaling or engagement intended to inform, influence, or persuade selected audiences in support of national objectives.” Paul, C. Strategic Communication: Origins, Concepts, and Current Debates. Westport, Conn.: Praeger Security International, 2011. P. 21. Alternative view was offered by Kirk Hallahan, who described strategic communication as “purposeful communication activities which are used by organizational (or national) leaders and members to accomplish a certain mission”. Hallahan, K., Holtzhausen, D., van Ruler, B., Verиic, D., & Sriramesh, K. Defining strategic communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 1(1), 3-35, 2007. P.27.

“Public diplomacy” is another concept of shared misunderstanding, particularly the relationship between strategic communication and public diplomacy. Some scholars tend to consider these notions interchangeable, while others define public diplomacy as being subordinate to strategic communication or vice versa. Undoubtedly, there is a certain overlap, but more traditionally public diplomacy is thought to be focused on “government engagement, outreach, and broadcast”. Strategic communication encompasses not only these but also some features of “information operations as well as the communicative value of policies and more importantly actions.” Ibid. Another definition which is often referred to was given by Congressional Research Service in 2009 report. They imply that public diplomacy outlines governmental attempts “to conduct foreign policy and promote national interests through direct outreach and communication with the population of a foreign country” Kennon H., Nakamura, Weed M.C. U.S. Public Diplomacy: Background and Current Issues. Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, Washington, D.C., December 18, 2009. P.3.

When discussing information operations, it is important to specify that this term is more applicable to military domain, a popular subject in American academia. Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US defines it as: “the integrated employment of the core capabilities of electronic warfare, computer network operations, psychological operations, military deception, and operations security, in concert with specified supporting and related capabilities to influence, disrupt, corrupt or usurp adversarial human and automated decision making while protecting our own.” Joint Chiefs of Staff, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, Washington, D.C., Joint Publication 1-02, April 12, 2001. Following this logic, information operations are definitely subordinate to strategic communication. Other definitions also focus on the use of tools to control the flow of one's own information and that of an opponent for the purpose of revealing the opponent's strategy.

Propaganda is distinctly different from the other terms mentioned. Generally, propaganda has a very strong and distinctive negative connotation regardless of suggested definitions. In modern discourse it implies deception and manipulation. In addition, there are certain features that identify propaganda as: “the veracity of the content, the presence or absence of intention to influence, candor about that intention to influence, whether manipulation is involved.” Paul, C. Strategic Communication: Origins, Concepts, and Current Debates, Westport, Conn.: Praeger Security International, 2011. P.44. Another definition is represented in Jowett and O'Donnell's book “Propaganda and Persuasion” where propaganda is perceived as a “deliberate and systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behaviour to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist.” Jowett G.S., O'Donnell V. Propaganda and Persuasion. Los Angeles: Sage, 2012. P.7. One of the most prominent works devoted to propaganda is a book by Nicholas Jackson O'Shaughnessy “Politics and Propaganda”. He suggests that it is a combination of symbolism, rhetoric and myth, where symbols can be “read” differently or be reused, rhetoric has to “resonate” with feelings and myth, being a key part of propaganda, acquires “power of narrative”. O'Shaughnessy, N.J. Politics and Propaganda: Weapons of Mass Seduction. Manchester: University Press, 2004. P. 65.

Hence, the main difference between these concepts can be presented as follows. Public diplomacy is done by diplomats and officials while strategic communications are performed by military officers. There is still a wide overlap between them, but strategic communication is a broader term which also encompasses information operations. Propaganda differs from other types of political communication because of its one-way direction of communication. While public diplomacy, for example, aims at mutual interaction and relationship-building, propaganda focuses on manipulation and deception. Democracies, for the most part, rarely turn to direct propaganda. They tend to substitute the term with notions like “public diplomacy”, “information operations” or “strategic communication” to justify their information activities meant to influence perceptions of audiences.

1.2 The evolution of media coverage of military conflicts

Conflicts in society have been in different shapes and forms for thousands of years: from interpersonal and family up to social-class and transnational ones. Disagreement and violence often get a radical turn and result in an armed conflict. This method was to settle territorial, national, inter-ethnic, sectarian, and international disputes through the use of military struggle.

Recently mass media, and especially online media, have become a powerful and widely-used weapon in armed conflicts. Informational aspects of modern conflicts are planned as thoroughly as military aspects. Thus, a war is fought not only on a real battlefield but on a virtual one as well. The struggle for the legitimacy in the court of public opinion and army morale are as important as the war itself. Georgii Pocheptsov, in his book “Information warfare”, highlights the similar idea: “Nowadays in developed countries not a single action is possible without corresponding information support. Wars should look justified, enemies - the cruelest, our soldiers - real heroes.” Pocheptsov, G. Information warfare. URL: http://ligis.ru/librari_2/049/contents.html Date of access: 23.10.2017

The significance of the mass media and its role during military conflicts is increasing, particularly due to the rapid development of means of communication technologies. These changes have challenged the traditional patterns of information flows and transformed the global mediascape. It implies not only the variety of perspectives available, but also cultural, social and political interpretations which media outlets now instantly provide.

It is believed that in the context of military conflicts modern technologies have also influenced media strategies. Propaganda has become part and parcel of media coverage during wartime. This fact is the reason why governments and officials of various countries tend to establish control over disseminated information. Rapid development of communication technologies has undermined such efforts, since there is no monopoly over information, and a plethora of wider perspectives is available.

Within this framework, the question of coverage and perception of conflicts becomes of paramount importance both for policy makers and media organizations. In this respect, the media industry turns into a crucial battlefield where winning both domestic and international public support is at stake. As a result, it can affect the audience with negative influence, contribute to escalation of the conflict, or participate in its peaceful settlement and restoration of relationships after it.

One of the most significant tasks at the preparatory stage of information warfare is the use of mass media for misleading a potential enemy, bringing discredit upon military and political leaders, as well as restricting outreach activities of the enemy all the way to partial or total media blackout.

As a result, the struggle for interpretation of reality occurs. According to theory of war types by an American sociologist Alvin Toffler, wars of the agrarian period were waged because of territorial disputes, wars of the industrial period - for facilities and means of production, while wars of the informational period - for means of information and knowledge processing. Among other spheres of warfare, like land, sea, air and space, now the information sphere (infosphere) is also included. Toffler, A. The Third Wave. New York: Bantam Books, 1981. P.135.

What can be observed now is predominantly media wars. The main events are unfolding on newspapers' pages, TV screens, radio programs and on the Internet. The prevalence of military forces, numbers of war prisoners or captured cities are not valid any more, what only matters is the way it is told. Mass media narratives are being compiled of carefully selected clips, close-ups, camera angles, descriptions and witnesses' interviews. Without any doubt, there are certain people responsible for choosing “the right angles”. Thus, that is how a new reality is being constructed for the public.

A turning point in this info-military sphere that gave a proper understanding of the impact of mass media on military, economic and foreign policies of a country occurred after the failure of the American military operation in Vietnam. More than once, the United States claimed that the reasons of their defeat were mainly connected with some crucial oversights in information warfare rather than with the lack of financial and personnel capabilities or the USSR support to Vietnamese forces. Indeed, pictures of coffins sent back from the front caused the rise of civic protest movement. Apart from protests, there was a division inside the government which enabled mass media to criticize current foreign policies and the political establishment. Negative image of American military in and outside the United States as well as negative attitude to the war in Vietnam among public are considered as the most significant reasons for the failure of this campaign.

During that time the increasing dominance of images in mass media was not so obvious to adherents of psychological and covert operations who were slow to realize the potential of images, and especially of those that were altered. The latter consisted of “manipulating images; staging events to be photographed or filmed; changing captions for images to appear to be something other than they really were; focusing on certain things and not others and creating photomontages. These forms of image manipulation create an altered reality for the viewer and provide a powerful weapon to those who would practice propaganda or deception”. Macdonald, S. Propaganda and Information Warfare in the Twenty-First Century: Altered Images and Deception Operations. Oxon: Routledge, 2007. P.112.

Ensuing analysis of Vietnam campaign led to certain conclusions regarding the role of information factor in the course of military actions, which can also be relevant in the situations when the groundwork is laid for participation in military conflicts. The main objective is the creation of positive national and international image and public opinion with respect to foreign policy of the country.

The American government has successfully drawn a conclusion from that case and, consequently, governmental control over the mass media industry has considerably increased. Since then, all American crisis and wartime policies are elaborated in terms of the information factor as a dominating factor. It was noticeable during various conflicts at the end of the 20^th and the beginning of the 21^st centuries, namely during American actions on Haiti in 1994, “peacekeeping” operation of NATO in Bosnia and Herzegovina and especially during military operations of the United States and the coalition in Iraq.

The beginning of the Gulf War gave a boost to enhancing the influence of American media, in particular, CNN. That war proved to be the finest hour for CNN as it was broadcasting live all the military actions from day one. Viewers got to know what was happening on the battlefield from news reports by CNN, other channels relayed their broadcasts with the logo, and the “live” streaming became a trademark of full-time broadcasting.

Thus, the “CNN effect” as a term appeared; it implies a sharp increase of media influence and vast media outreach in times of crisis in a country or in the world. This phenomenon can also be explained by the participation effect created with the use of live streaming, where any viewer can find himself in the thick of events.

Scholars could not come up with a unified definition of the CNN effect, as some of them were focused only on policymaking and its impact on humanitarian interventions, while others presented it as a new approach of dealing with international relations.

Thus, for example, Samuel Feist defined this phenomenon as “a theory that compelling television images, such as images of a humanitarian crisis, cause U.S. policymakers to intervene in a situation when such an intervention might otherwise not be in the U.S. national interest.” Feist S. Facing Down the Global Village: The Media Impact. in R. Kugler and E. Frost, eds., The Global Century. Washington, D.C.: National Defense University Press, 2001. P. 713. Philip Seib presented the CNN effect as “presumed to illustrate the dynamic tension that exists between real-time television news and policymaking, with the news having the upper hand in terms of influence.” Seib P. The Global Journalist: News and Conscience in a World of Conflict. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2002. P. 27. Johanna Neuman widened the definition by adding to intervention the impact of coverage on the initial decisions as well as on subsequent intervention phases including long-term deployment and exit strategies. Neuman, J. Lights, Camera, War: is media technology driving international politics. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1996. P.15.

Many scholars doubt the effectiveness of the CNN effect on policy making processes. Several studies on the US intervention in Somalia that were carried out had no correlation. Thus, Jonathan Mermin considered this case as “evidence of the power of governments to move television” and not the opposite way. Mermin J. Television News and American Intervention in Somalia: The Myth of a Media-Driven Foreign Policy. Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 112, 1997. P. 385. Steven Livingston and Todd Eachus conducted a thorough content analysis and interviews with decision-makers in Washington and Africa, and came to the conclusion that the U.S. decision “was the result of diplomatic and bureaucratic operations, with news coverage coming in response to those decisions” (emphasis added). Livingston S., Eachus T. Humanitarian Crises and U.S. Foreign Policy: Somalia and the CNN effect reconsidered. Political Communication 12(4): 413-429, 1995. P. 415. Furthermore, Piers Robinson suggested a model of policy-media interaction which implies that “media influence is likely to occur when policy is uncertain and media coverage is critically framed and empathizes with suffering people. While in case policy is certain, media influence is unlikely to occur.” Robinson P. The Policy-Media Interaction Model: Measuring Media Power during Humanitarian Crisis. Journal of Peace Research, 37(5), pp.613-633., 2000. P. 627.

Nevertheless, in many studies, correlation between coverage and policy causes confusion. In this situation it is crucial to differentiate between examples when a government decides to intervene and consequently encourages media coverage and those when a government is unwilling, and therefore, opposes media pressure. In this context, “control” and “pressure” are two different notions, and it is not likely that mass media is able to force policymakers, rather to put some pressure.

What really makes an impact is rapid development of global television and online media. Now, authorities, diplomats, experts and military or intelligence officers are challenged by real-time coverage. Namely, they have to find a way to compete with it and at the same time to avoid compromising their professional standards. Thus, if they jump at a conclusion without verifying information or relying on incomplete facts because of time pressure, their analysis and decisions can suffer a lot. Alternatively, if they carry out a thorough research and verification and come out with in-depth reports and analysis, these can already be irrelevant. Time for official response, evaluation of events and news production shrunk, which affects reflection of reality, since journalists have to use questionable sources and unreliable information.

Nevertheless, over time CNN has lost its credibility and is no longer associated with “independent” broadcasting. It happened so, mostly, because of the development and popularization of social networks (social media), which enable people to get alternative “truths” revealed by direct participants, ordinary people. Channels' livestreams have been replaced by livestreams in Facebook and other social networks. Newspapers and television have also been replaced by digital media. Consequently, the phenomenon of the “CNN effect” became irrelevant too.

Recently, the time between the outbreak of military actions, no matter how far they might be, and information reaching international public has reduced immensely. More importantly is that parties to a conflict can become a “media outlet” themselves by posting materials from the ground. Even in cases when mainstream media does not consider events to be “newsworthy”, digital and social media can fill the gap. Stuart A. Citizen Journalism: Global Perspectives. New York: Peter Lang, 2009. P. 134.

Therefore, a new concept, “citizen journalism”, appeared. It implies the engagement of a person in the act of news production (gathering of information and reporting) about issues that may resonate the national agenda. Some scholars defined it as “democratization of the multimedia technologies by the people and for the people”. Okorie, N. Oyedepo, T., Usaini, S. Internet, blogs and citizen journalism: promises and pitfalls to national development. Journal of Media and Aesthetics, Special issue, January 2012. P.160.

Undeniably, citizen journalism has a significant influence on traditional media. Moreover, this concept can be widened to those who have journalistic degree or training. More and more professional journalists start blogs or channels to comment on news stories and sometimes touch upon topics usually avoided by mainstream media. In addition, citizen journalism has become such a wide-spread phenomenon that some media outlets accept materials and stories from readers. Evidently, now it turned into a tool to reinvent and reshape traditional media practices.

Thus, the Internet has become a crucial factor in constructing our reality, which has already been proven by the wide application of instruments during the information campaign in the 2008 South Osetian-Georgian conflict and the “Arab Spring” in 2010-11 mainly by means of Twitter and Facebook.

The first attempts to use social media as a tool of political mobilization occurred in 2008 in Egypt and in 2009 in Iran, but its real impact became noticeable in 2011 during the protests in Egypt and Tunisia. Social media provided rapid information exchange and, consequently, enabled to coordinate the masses. Moreover, its ability to break governmental monopoly over information flows and present alternative perspectives led to neutralizing the effect of traditional media. The use of the very same social networks by the opposition could be observed during the ongoing Syrian conflict. Nevertheless, in influencing international public attitudes, traditional media still play a pivotal role, which will be addressed in the next chapters.

1.3 Elements and media tools of information warfare

With advances in news technologies more intricate and subtle, media practices and tools were developed. As mentioned above, that role of mass media is integral in conflicts as it tends to shift focus in a favourable manner or alter reality completely. Thus, it is worth mentioning some strategies and tools that are widely-used by media outlets.

First of all, particular patterns and components of information warfare in conflicts should be mentioned:

1) Psychological operations - the use of information in order to influence the personnel of the enemy and targeted audience; such information like the use of the Internet to convince people to subscribe to a specific cause or doctrine.

2) Electronic warfare - prevents the enemy from obtaining accurate information; widely used by terrorist organizations, political hackers, and rival countries through the use of the Internet.

3) Misinformation or fake news - provides the enemy with deceptive facts about the military capabilities or strategies.

4) Physical destruction - can be a part of information warfare if it is aimed at affecting elements of information systems.

5) Security measures - are aimed at preventing the enemy from finding out the capabilities and intentions, as well as preventing any breaches in the information systems.

6) Direct information attacks - misrepresentation of information (corruption of information) without visible alteration of the context, its original structure and location.

Based on information above, the most significant impact of mass media is during the ongoing conflict, that is why it is necessary to pinpoint which tools and strategies exactly are used during this period for affecting people's hearts and minds. According to Batasheva Anna, some linguistic and stylistic devices come in handy for interpretation of media coverage:

1. Common linguistic devices:

- precedent (references to previous events, successful or ineffective military operations, for example, can form certain perceptions of a current conflict);

- metaphors (journalists tend to use metaphors to make the narrative more descriptive, for example, to praise actions of one side and condemn actions of another party);

- labels (a widely-used technique intended to differentiate sides, often used for underlining friend-enemy opposition).

2. Stylistic devices:

- context (a crucial part of coverage as a particular context can create wrong impressions and influence perception);

- connotation (positive and negative connotations indicate the overall sentiment of the text).

- evaluation (widely-used in media articles for assessing actions of countries, organizations, officials etc.).

- presupposition (presuppositions and unproven allegations can come across in many articles);

- sentiment (closely connected with connotations).

3. Additional elements:

- details (on the basis of the fact what exactly details are provided or absent, it is possible to identify how a certain image was constructed by media);

- composition (composition of the text is very important, especially the layout of details)

- references to experts (argumentation choice defines the editorial policy of media outlets)

All these techniques and elements are closely interconnected: context influences connotation, evaluation is reflected both in context and word choice (metaphor, label, precedent), whereas presupposition and sentiment is reflected in the whole text. These linguostylistic devices are mainly used in articles of high public significance: military or political confrontations, conflicts, political turmoil. Batasheva A. Lingvisticheskie sposoby interpretatsii mediasobytiia (na primere osveshcheniia conflicta v Syrii v izdaniyakh “Kommersant” i “Die Zeit”) [Linguo-stylistic Methods of Media Events Interpretation (at the example of the Syrian Conflict's Coverage in “Kommersant” and “Die Zeit”)], Vestnik of North-Eastern Federal University, No 5 (61), 2017. P.81.

Apart from aforementioned linguostylistic devices, there are certain features which indicate a planned information campaign and can be considered as a part of information warfare:

- Intensity: not a passing reference, but a repetitive coverage;

- Sudden appearance on the agenda as well as abrupt disappearance;

- Consistency: a lot of channels start broadcasting and discussing this topic;

- Famous journalists, scholars and channels focus mainly on this topic;

- Negative representation goes beyond the mark;

- Introduction of authorities as “talking heads”;

- Detailed and vivid visualization: dramatic, emotional images and footage from different parts of the world.

In addition, the practice to hand the microphone to authorities, government representatives, army generals or experts is often used. It serves as a tool aiming to reassure audience that everything is under control. The reason why it happens is that, during armed conflicts, mass media leaves its position of a watchdog and puts all the effort in supporting national interests or, in other words, interests of the government. Nacos, B. L. The Press, Presidents, and Crises. New York: Columbia University Press, 1990. P.236. At such times, objectivity, plurality of voices and other journalistic values are usually abandoned. The reasons for this phenomenon can be different: governmental pressure, pursuing of ratings or profit. Moreover, entertainment component has become a part of news industry and, consequently, the focus has shifted to drama, live action, creativity. Now a media outlet has to provide viewers with unique stories, scoops and exclusive footage on a regular basis to be able to compete with others and keep its audience attached.

Another distinctive aspect of modern conflict coverage is the representation of the opposite side for evaluation. This tool can also be identified as “talking heads” technique aimed at creating a certain image of the adversaries. It is possible for the audience to identify militants and political leaders of the enemy; citizens from both sides are also represented as well as journalists in the field. And if in case of media all accents and assessments are already made, social networks and digital sources can provide authentic information and real picture of events.

What appears to be even more crucial is distinctive attitudinal effects of mass media and, namely, the particular characteristics and features of the public that affect how they process messages of media. Thus, American scholars of Stanford university, Iyengar and Simon, have identified three main classes of media effects which are used in controlling mass perception Iyengar, S., Simon, A. News coverage of the gulf crisis and public opinion. In W. L. Bennett & D. I. Paletz (Eds.). The media, public opinion, and U.S. foreign policy in the Gulf War, Ch. 8, pp.167 - 185. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994. P. 173.: