Search

Recent transformations in the media and communications environment have prompted states to invest heavily in external communications to pursue inter-state competition. Among authoritarian countries, Russia and China have invested particularly heavily in international news, through outlets like RT and CGTN. However, few comparative studies have examined the differences between authoritarian states' use of international news for geopolitical purposes. This article conducts a comparative, mixed-method, multi-platform content analysis of RT and CGTN's 2020 US election coverage. Based on multiple differences between the outlets' content, it argues that they adopt two distinct international propaganda models. RT operates a "partisan parasite" model, imitating a partisan outlet in the US' media ecology, while CGTN employs a "surface neutrality" model, which cloaks pro-China propaganda with a superficial impression of impartiality. Explicating these models using original empirical evidence, the paper advances theory on the evolving use of international news media as a geopolitical tool. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recently, authoritarian states have invested heavily in state-sponsored international news. Some states have instrumentalised this news geopolitically, with Russian electoral interference especially prominent. In comparison, we know less about how China's international news outlets cover – and try to influence – other countries' politics. This article asks whether China used its state-sponsored media to influence the 2020 US election. It examines CGTN's coverage of the election and the 2021 Capitol riots, across its website, Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. Tellingly, it finds no concerted effort to influence the outcome. CGTN's coverage was mostly cautious and neutral. Contrastingly, its geopolitical coverage of the US and China was entirely one-sided, persistently excoriating the US while praising China. We identify three news values differentiating CGTN's coverage: deference, relevance (to China), and national sovereignty. These news values reveal CGTN's geopolitical function: to convey Chinese media's apparent impartiality, while promoting China at its competitors' expense. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2019, the authors led a workshop at King's College London examining how to study 4chan and assess their association with the Alt-Right. Unbeknownst to the authors, a participant was a 4chan user and started a mid-workshop thread on its notorious /pol/ (politically incorrect) board. It gained significant attention. Reviewing it later, the authors realised that this parallel thread illustrates perfectly the challenges researching 4chan – and similar – communities. We conducted discourse analysis on this unique dataset, providing an alternative perspective to predominant anthropological and informatic approaches. Our analysis enhances understanding of 'free-extremist' communities such as 4chan in several ways. It assesses how the /pol/ community responds to observation and provides new insights into roles influencers might have in radicalising others. It illustrates the value of discourse analysis in evaluating users' associations with the Alt-Right. Finally, it proposes ways researchers can overcome the challenges faced when analysing such communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Insurgencies are routinely conceptualised using a binary opposition between states and rebels. However, this neglects the complexity of their interaction, especially their collaboration. Although rebel-state collaboration is found throughout the history of insurgency, we lack a full explanation of why it occurs. This article endeavours to take the first step in developing a comprehensive theory by analysing rebel-state collaboration in two heuristic case studies: Afghanistan and Syria. Through process tracing, we find four mechanisms that can explain collaboration: 1) to prevent a costly military stalemate, 2) to gain or maintain legitimacy, 3) because external threats incentivise a mutually beneficial alliance, and 4) because both have to operate under the constraints of the pre-existing political economy. The relative weight of each varies, reflecting the fluid and contextual nature of wartime political orders. Contrasting with more popular explanations, we argue rebels and states are willing to collaborate even when the other benefits too, providing they believe their relative gains would be higher than their opponents, or the costs of competing would be too large. In providing a fuller explanation of rebel-state collaboration, we advocate a rethink about how to capture and analyse the complex and dynamic interactions between rebels and states. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

David Patrikarakos WAR IN 140 CHARACTERS How social media is reshaping conflict in the twenty-first century 320pp. Basic Books. 25 [pounds sterling]. 978 465 09614 5 A century ago. T. [...]

Strategic narratives are increasingly considered important for domestic and international support for foreign policy. However, debate continues about why some strategic narratives successfully shape policy outcomes, while others are rejected. How states construct strategic narratives is well established. We know less about how states appropriate the strategic narratives of others, and the role this plays in policy adoption. Addressing this, we introduce a theoretical framework to trace the relationship between strategic narratives and policy adoption. Its central premise is that a state is more likely to adopt a new policy if it can strategically narrate about it in a way that promises material gain but without undermining its ontological security. We test our framework using states' responses to China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Examining the Second Belt and Road Forum in 2019, we trace how far China's strategic narratives are appropriated by multiple states – Kazakhstan, Italy, United Kingdom, Netherlands, United States, India, and Mexico. Countries appropriate China's narrative emphasis on connectivity, trade, and prosperity. However, they contest that China's intentions are benign, based on its human rights record, assertive foreign policy, and fears of indebtedness. Finally, we discuss our framework's utility in explaining what makes strategic narratives persuasive in International Relations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]