Previous research found that when criticized for censorship, internet controls, or lack of a free media, Russia responded by deflecting attention onto countries with which it was in conflict. Specifically, research using English-language reporting from TASS and the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs found that criticism by international press and internet freedom NGOs Reporters without Borders and Freedom House was often redirected by Russia to highlight Georgian, U.S., or Ukrainian performance negatives in the same NGO reporting. This research attempts to determine if a similar pattern emerges from the state media outlet Russia Today, using English language reporting from June 2006 to January 2020 (just over 212,000 articles).
A search of Russia Today reporting for articles referencing the annual U.S. State Department’s human rights report found only eight articles, which brings us to an initial finding – in all of the Russia Today articles referencing the State Department’s report, the focus is not on Russia’s performance. Rather, the focus is on negative aspects of the U.S. human rights record, though the mention in 2015 focuses more on Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation and her run for the presidency than the U.S. government. While this is in line with previous research, given the overall paucity of articles referencing the State Department’s reports, the remainder of this brief will focus on the two NGOs.
Russia Today mentions the two NGOs and their reports more often than the State Department reports: 57 articles mention Freedom House and 116 mention Reporters Without Borders. There are no mentions of either in 2006 or 2007, mentions appear in 2008, recede or disappear altogether from 2009-2012, then increase again and remain relatively high from 2013 through the end of 2019 (after which the database ends).
In addition to the number of articles containing the terms, we also measured the sentiment of all of the articles in the database using Google Natural Language tools. This provided a scale from -1 (very negative) to 1 (very positive), with zero as neutral. Comparing the baseline sentiment for all reporting with sentiment in articles containing the two NGOs provides an additional analytic tool.
Russia Today Articles and Polarity/Sentiment
The image below shows the sentiment for all Russia Today reporting in the database, approximately 212,000 articles covering every available report from 21 June 2006 to 9 January 2020. The higher and bluer the line, the more positive the sentiment; the lower and redder the line, the more negative the sentiment.
From the chart below we can see that overall monthly sentiment during the period is positive. The dip in September 2012 could be related to large anti-Putin demonstrations that month. The July 2007 peak tracks with the International Olympic Committee’s July announcement awarding the 2014 Winter Olympics to Sochi, Russia.
With the baseline established, next is a comparison of that baseline against stories referencing the NGOs. As shown in the images below, articles that contain either (or both) ‘Freedom House’ or ‘Reporters Without Borders’ are much more negative than the baseline.
While the baseline of all Russia Today reporting never dropped into negative sentiment for the month, the two charts above show the NGO-related articles frequently generated average sentiment scores below zero. On the surface this finding is not altogether surprising, since many of the NGO reports criticize Russian performance. However, a closer look at the narratives associated with many of the articles reveals a more complex picture, one that echoes the finding above on the State Department’s annual human rights report.
The tables below show the five most negative and most positive articles/months:
Highest Negative Sentiment
| Russia Today Baseline | With ‘Freedom House’ | With ‘Reporters Without Borders’ |
| Sep 2012 – 0.0009 | Apr 2010 – -0.0969 | Oct 2008 – -0.1875 |
| Apr 2007 – 0.0038 | Nov 2015 – -0.0685 | Aug 2013 – -0.1402 |
| Mar 2007 – 0.0044 | Jun 2013 – -0.0580 | Sep 2009 – -0.0989 |
| Oct 2012 – 0.0080 | Mar 2010 – -0.0541 | Sep 2008 – -0.0974 |
| Feb 2007 – 0.0081 | Aug 2015 – -0.0505 | Apr 2017 – -0.0740 |
Of note, the four most negative are from Reporter’s Without Borders and three of the four most negative stories focus on Georgia and occur in 2008 and 2009 (Russia and Georgia fought a war in August 2008). The August 2013 article focuses on post-coup unrest in Egypt and the April 2017 story focuses on French criticisms of Russian state media for being propaganda outlets. None of the Russia Today articles focus on Russia.
The Freedom House results are more varied: the June 2013 story is about Freedom House getting banned from Egypt; April and March 2010 focus on Kyrgyzstan’s poor Freedom House ranking in stories on U.S. use of a Kyrgyz military base, Kyrgyzstan’s ‘Tulip Revolution’, and discussions of tougher Kyrgyz policies toward Russia. The story in Nov 2015 focuses on George Soros and associated groups getting labeled “undesirable” by the Russian government, with Russian citizens and organizations banned from working on their projects. Undesirable groups are also the focus of the Aug 2015 article, though this time the groups are the U.S. “motorcycle clubs” Hells Angels and Bandidos, accused of being possible fronts for a U.S.-backed “color revolution” in Russia.
Highest Positive Sentiment
| Russia Today Baseline | With ‘Freedom House’ | With ‘Reporters Without Borders’ |
| Jul 2007 – 0.0571 | Oct 2013 – 0.1411 | Oct 2017 – 0.1781 |
| Oct 2006 – 0.0568 | Jan 2015 – 0.1271 | Mar 2017 – 0.1524 |
| Sep 2007 – 0.0551 | Apr 2015 – 0.1133 | May 2016 – 0.1240 |
| Oct 2010 – 0.0500 | Nov 2013 – 0.0932 | Dec 2009 – 0.1048 |
| Mar 2010 – 0.0500 | Oct 2014 – 0.0921 | May 2017 – 0.0989 |
The Oct 2013 article on Freedom House discusses the NGO’s just released internet freedom report, with criticisms of Iran, Cuba, China, Syria and the U.S., praise for other countries, and mentions Russia’s pioneering role (along with China) in paying commentators [for pro-gov’t postings] and using “indirect methods” of repression. There are two articles in January 2015, one on “self-censorship” by writers in democratic countries and the other on Saudi Arabia’s (recently deceased) King Abdullah and the Saudi’s poor standing in Freedom House reports. The April 2015 articles focus on improved U.S.-Cuban ties and related benefits to Cuban tourism. Nov 2013 focuses on biased (i.e. anti-Russian) coverage in Western media, mainly in terms of support for Ukraine. Finally, the Oct 2014 story focuses on U.S. support for organizations like Freedom House that advance U.S. interests, including in Ukraine and Hong Kong.
The October 2017 Reporters Without Borders story is focused on Malta and the killing of a well-known Maltese investigative journalist. The March 2017 story is about a “far-right French mayor” in court on charges of inciting hatred. There are three stories in May 2016 mentioning Reporters Without Borders; all three refer to Turkey and focus on decreasing freedom of expression under Turkish President Erdogan and a disagreement between the EU and Turkey on treatment of refugees. The December 2009 story talks about increasing restrictions in Turkmenistan on internet access. Finally, the May 2017 story criticizes the “suicidal and self-defeating” measures taken by Ukraine’s government to ban “anything Russian.”
Conclusion
The findings here are in line with previous research using data from TASS and the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs – when Russian state media mentions Freedom House or Reporters without Borders, the focus is typically on discrediting the performance of other countries. Often (i.e. Georgia), the countries gaining the most attention are ones with which Russia is in conflict. Upon the cessation of that conflict, or the start of a larger conflict elsewhere, the focus shifts to a different country.
The previous research focused on negative sentiment; this research also includes articles with positive sentiment, but the findings are similar – an ongoing attempt at misdirection. There appears to be an active, years-old campaign by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and state media to refocus attention away from Russia’s record. The targets of the deflection are often countries with which Russia is in conflict or has concerns; less commonly Moscow targets individuals, for example George Soros or Hillary Clinton.
Previous research into North Korea did not find a similar misdirection effort. Future research will examine China’s and Iran’s approach to the NGOs.