Techniques of manipulation in the articles of the newspaper The New York Times

Sintserov Leonid Leonidovich Postgraduate student, Department of Source Studies, Lomonosov Moscow State University 119192, Russia, g. Moscow, ul. Lomonosovskii Prospekt, 27 k4, kab. 400 sincerov.leonid@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

The mass media have long been an integral part of everyday life, especially noticeable in the digital age, when we began to learn news not only from newspapers and TV screens, but also from the main pages of search sites, social networks and messengers. Often, the average citizen does not fully understand the full power of the media, their influence on readers, how the media form the agenda, direct our attention to certain events, help us form an opinion and a view of what is happening in the world. But it is necessary for the reader to understand this in order to be able to evaluate the information critically and ultimately resist brute manipulation. How does the media manage to create a picture of the world and impose it on the reader? What methods do professional journalists and publications use for this?

In this article we will analyze manipulative techniques in the texts of publications used by the media. We will investigate this by the example of the changing image of the USSR in American society. For this purpose, the period of Perestroika was chosen and its reflection on the pages of one of the most popular American newspapers, The New York Times (hereinafter the New York Times).

The relevance of the selected period is due to two facts. Firstly, the period under review is the "golden age" of the American "paper" press, which has not yet experienced a drop in circulation under the pressure of the Internet and universal virtualization.  Moreover, since the mid-1980s, the New York Times finally acquired the status of a national newspaper and began to be published throughout the country, and at the end of the decade and at the very beginning of the 1990s, its circulation reached a historic maximum. Thus, it was the time of the greatest influence of the New York Times in the information space of the United States and the entire English-speaking world.

Finally, the relevance of the period under study is also determined by the world-historical context, the depth of global transformations that shook the world at the turn of the 1980s and 1990s. It is no coincidence, according to the famous British historian E. Hobsbawm, that the "short twentieth century" dates from 1914-1991 ^[14], and the American political scientist F. Fukuyama in his works of 1989 and 1992 proclaimed the "end of history" and the triumph of the liberal world order^[13]. The bipolar world that emerged after the Second World War has sunk into oblivion, and the events that unfolded in these years in our country are often called the "second revolution", no less radical than the revolution of 1917 ^[13,14].

In addition to the above, I would like to refer to a quote from the memoirs of Mikhail Gorbachev: "Sometimes it seemed to me that the significance of perestroika was better understood abroad than in the country" ^[3].

To study the qualitative features of a large volume of press materials, content analysis was used ^{[7, pp.364-369]}, including to identify certain query words related directly or indirectly to the image of the Soviet Union. For this purpose, a kind of form was created, which formed the basis of Table 1. and a count of all newspaper publications devoted to the USSR for the period from 1987 to 1991 was carried out. For this purpose, the sections "World" and "Opinions" were selected. The first section provides an overview of all the most important world news. The second section is devoted to personal reactions of the professional and expert community to world events. As a result of calculations, it was revealed that about 20% of the news on average is devoted to the Soviet Union. In a similar way, it was determined what percentage of the total number of news devoted to the USSR are different topics of interest to the American reader. For example, it can be traced that the name of Mikhail Gorbachev is consistently mentioned in the range from 45 to 50% of all news about the USSR, while the mention of Boris Yeltsin is growing from 2% to 25% in parallel with how the politician rises. Similarly, one can observe how the mention of the Baltic countries reaches 19% in 1991, probably due to the activity of independence movements in these regions (see the table).

Table. Thematic structure of publications in the newspaper

               The New York Times, dedicated to the USSR, 1987-1991.

Compiled according to the calculations of the author on the basis of the newspaper archive

 New York Times

Returning to the elaboration of the topic, we note that the issues of speech manipulation and image creation in the media are widely studied in various scientific fields. We find similar works among historians and political scientists, as well as in journalism and philology. It is worth recalling the works of Rudolf Sultzman on propaganda, V.V. Barabash, G.A. Bordyugov, E.A. Kotelenets on propaganda and the image of Russia abroad, as well as E.V. Lapteva's dissertation on the study of Russia in the USA, and finally, the works of L. D. Dergacheva in the field of source studies of periodicals ^[5,1,4].

The topic of creating an image of another state through the media is also widely studied. For example, E. V. Chernenko's dissertation "The image of post-Soviet Russia in the German illustrated magazine "Spiegel" ^[15], where the author recreates the holistic image of Russia after the collapse of the USSR, based on the materials of the newspaper "Spiegel", and, among other things, reveals the methods of manipulation used by the German media. Also of interest is D. S. Sekirinsky's dissertation "American Society and the Changing Soviet Union: the perception of the United States by the socio-political transformation of the period of Perestroika", which uses a number of sources, including materials from the American press. One of the results of D. S. Sekirinsky's work was the identification of the most important role of the American periodical press in changing the image of the USSR ^[11]. It is worth, of course, referring to the works of A.G. Golikov, where the influence of political caricature in the press on the formation of an image is considered ^[2].

A detailed classification of speech manipulation techniques is contained in G. A. Kopnina's work "Speech manipulation" (2017), which examines the manipulation techniques used in journalism and their impact on the perception of the content of articles^[8]; S. G. Kara-Murzy "Manipulation of consciousness", where the author describes the basics of manipulative methods, the psychology of their perception by the audience, including such techniques as stereotyping, information selection, fragmentation and much more, and also pays attention to enhancing the effect of combining different manipulative techniques^[6].

In his book "Manipulations of Consciousness" S.G. Kara-Murza offers the following categories of techniques: fabrication of facts, selection of reality events, changes in the meaning of words and concepts, stereotyping, affirmation and repetition, and so on. In the work of G.A. Kopnina, we also find the following methods of speech manipulation: selection of information (in fact, the same selection of reality events), silence about any facts, distortion of information, confusion of fact and opinion, finally, from paralogical techniques, we note the identification of someone with a negative or positive social group and the transfer of the opinion of several persons to a representative group^[8]. It is also worth noting several important points. Firstly, a clear differentiation of techniques is hardly possible, because they can often work in symbiosis.  Secondly, the boundaries between manipulation tactics and manipulation techniques are often blurred, which can make it difficult to identify each of them. Finally, in the context of manipulation, it is appropriate to use basic stylistic techniques, the potential of which will be discussed further.

In this article, using the example of publications devoted to the Soviet Union during the Perestroika period, we will identify the most indicative methods of speech manipulation. Let's turn directly to the examples that will help us understand how the New York Times forms the image of the USSR in the eyes of the American reader.

The first such technique is affirmation and repetition. We can find this kind of reception in publications devoted to the Baltic Republics. Since 1988, the newspaper has been covering in detail the events related to the independence movements in Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia. The average American reader is not familiar with the history of the Baltic countries, so most publications on these republics begin with a brief excursion into the history of the Baltic republics being part of the USSR. "Estonia and Latvia, as well as Lithuania, had the status of independent states between the World Wars and were forcibly incorporated into the Soviet Union in 1940. The Baltic States were annexed by Stalin during World War II, and this step has not yet been recognized by the United States as legal" ^[20]. In fact, this fragment goes through a number of articles in the newspaper without changes. This brief and affirmative form of presentation of information seems to make the data presented indisputable. At the same time, there is such a technique as information selection, because this kind of description excludes a large layer of information and gives the reader a very limited idea of the republics that have almost half a century of existence as part of the Soviet Union.

One of the non–obvious ways to manipulate the reader's consciousness is to mix fact and opinion ^[8]. We can meet such a reception when describing the events of the first visit to B. In 1989, a striking episode was Boris Yeltsin's walk through New York and acquaintance with American life, when a Soviet politician visits one of the shops and only states the fact: "Everything is so clean, so tidy despite the fact that only one person managed it all" ^[17]. At the same time, the newspaper's journalists hasten to note that, apparently, this was the most impressive event of the entire trip for a Soviet politician. Such a mixture of unremarkable facts - Boris Yeltsin's walk and a very ironic comment-opinion - creates an image of a slightly frivolous and limited person in the reader, journalists actually ridicule the Russian politician.

The newspaper often uses stereotyping, especially effectively this technique works together with the identification of the actor with a social group and the transfer of the opinion of one or more people to a representative group. We can find these techniques in creating the image of Academician A.D. Sakharov on the pages of the newspaper. A. D. Sakharov is often identified with dissidents, cultural figures, fighters for human rights and intellectuals in general. These social groups have a reputation for adhering to democratic values, which is so close and understandable to the American reader. Here are some examples of this kind of identification: "The Nobel Peace Prize laureate continues to speak on behalf of political prisoners" ^[22]. In fact, there are two identifications here at once – with political prisoners and Nobel Prize laureates. In another passage, "Sakharov repeats his calls for the release of imprisoned dissidents" ^[16], attention can be drawn not only to identification with a social group, but also to the regularity of Sakharov's actions. "Sakharov reflects what seems to be the point of view of many Soviet intellectuals..."^[18]. Similarly to the previous examples, one can observe identification here, thanks to which the American reader has a stable stereotype of the personality of A.D. Sakharov. Note that nowhere does the newspaper mention Sakharov's role in the development of the hydrogen bomb, which is also a kind of information selection.

Finally, we can distinguish such a technique as clipping. One of the basic techniques for creating the image of the USSR are cliched expressions^[6]. So, journalists created the cliche "shadowy Kremlin", which, depending on the context of the publication, can be translated as a gloomy Kremlin, a gloomy Kremlin, a ghostly Kremlin, a mysterious Kremlin – a kind of habitat of dark forces.

Of course, the examples mentioned above perfectly cope with their task – the formation of a certain position in the reader on various issues. However, the most effective may be the use of artistic techniques for manipulative purposes, the potential of which is not always fully appreciated. So, for example, in the descriptions of the persons of the Soviet perestroika, we can often find such a technique as "periphrase", that is, "a descriptive expression replacing the word" ^{[10, p. 172]}.

 The periphrasis in the description of political figures, among other things, sets a certain tone. The periphrases that are used to replace the name of M. S. Gorbachev in the text are "the leader of the USSR" or the affectionate "Gorby", it would seem, are unremarkable, but the contrast is interesting here. In parallel, we can find many periphrases to replace the name of Boris Yeltsin in the text, such as "Gorbachev's rival and fierce critic", "Gorbachev's enemy", "rebellious critic", "leader of the opposition", "Gorbachev's former like-minded friend", "former ally" and later, when B. N. Yeltsin becomes President of Russia, he acquires the status of "Gorbachev's main political rival" and "Gorbachev's main political competitor." As we can observe, such phrases, which carry a clear negative connotation and create an image of a traitor and an extremely unreliable person in the reader, in this case work perfectly to create a negative image of Boris Yeltsin.

The antithesis is also used in publications – a kind of stylistic opposition [ibid.]. This technique largely allows you to show contrasts: good and bad, good and evil, old and new. "When Mr. Gorbachev, who is 56 years old, said that it was time to fill in the blank pages in Soviet history, paving the way for a revision of the Stalin era, Mr. Ligachev, who is 66 years old, soon warned him against turning to the past."^[21] There is a clear contrast between the fears of the outgoing age-old past and the prospects of a younger and fearless future.

We see a similar technique in another context: "A fragile but indomitable 67-year-old human rights activist and a charismatic 57-year-old communist leader had two short conversations, including the first phone call, and yet both of them are important elements of the changes taking place here: one person is strength, the other is conscience" ^[19]. There is an obvious contrast between the relatively young and bright leader of the USSR and the elderly and wise academician, who, united, look like a promising team of reformers.

The hyperbole present in the publications conveys to the reader the emotional component of the event. "Burst of applause", "flurry of applause" - such combinations reflect the atmosphere of delight, which, thanks to this artistic technique, is transmitted from the viewer of any performance through the newspaper to the reader. In this case, the applause is a reaction to Gorbachev's speeches, and the hyperbole reflects the extremely enthusiastic reaction of the audience to these speeches.

In publications, you can find different types of detailed comparisons. For example: "Mikhail Gorbachev at the 28th party Congress stood on two galloping horses, like a Moscow Circus star, waving a whip first in front of one and then in front of the other horse so that they would not run too far. Almost to the grand finale, both horses – conservatives and reformers – were in a foam, they were united by the realization that otherwise there would have been no circus act" ^[23]. This detailed comparison in one part develops the metaphor of the circus arena (political arena), where Mikhail Gorbachev is shown as a unique artist in his genre who does tricks that require a high level of skill.

Summing up, it is important to note that artistic techniques do not always serve as a tool for influencing the reader's consciousness, but their use can make it tactically easier to carry out manipulation. After all, these techniques are well known to us from childhood from fiction. We have long been accustomed to their forms and easily perceive them. By finding patterns of these techniques, we can identify elements of manipulation.

Although the texts of publications in the New York Times are filled with various kinds of speech manipulation techniques, it is not at all necessary that the techniques used in the texts can carry a conscious goal of influencing the reader. Based on the editorial policy, each employee can put their ideas and meanings into the published materials.

As the volume of extracted information increases, the volume of implicit information also increases. According to I.D. Kovalchenko, a theoretically limitless expansion of the source's potential is possible as a result of the researcher revealing previously unobvious information in it ^{[7, pp.122-123]}.  It is for this purpose that the historian's knowledge and understanding of the principles of manipulative techniques can serve.

Finally, the study of manipulation techniques used by the New York Times at the end of the last century has by no means lost its relevance. We find all the same techniques in modern media. The difference lies only in the adaptation of these techniques to the specifics of the space where they are published – social network, newspaper, website, messenger, etc. Accordingly, the relevance of studying manipulative techniques in the periodical press also lies in the fact that these techniques can be safely extrapolated to any types of mass media.