New information technologies and media consumption patterns have enabled aggressive practices that are qualitatively different from old-style propaganda. Actors no longer rely on secrecy, but can openly make use of social media and media outlets in foreign languages to destabilize other states and societies from within. Strategic narratives have become a key means in this endeavour. To expose the discursive (harmful) capacity of strategic narratives, the article suggests detailed analysis based on a narrative ontology. The analytical framework is applied in an exploratory case study of the Russian state-sponsored broadcasting company Sputnik’s strategic narrative about Sweden from 2014 to 2018. In addition to unmasking Sputnik’s strategic narrative, the article fills a gap in previous research in particular by exposing three antagonistic narrative strategies labelled ‘suppression’, ‘destruction’ and ‘direction’. These strategies reflect general driving forces in the security sphere and can inspire and structure future research into antagonistic strategic narration.
Projection of strategic narratives to gain competitive advantages is a central feature in the global competition for status and power. This article presents a comparative narrative analysis of how the Russian state sponsored news platform Sputnik narrates Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden 2014-2019. The objectives are to uncover what negative work strategic narratives can perform and to decipher how adverse narratives are constructed. The findings suggest that Sputnik uses a mix of standard strategies and tailor-made narratives, working to destruct, direct and suppress the Nordics. The analysis exposed distinct differences as Sputnik narrated Sweden and Denmark more negatively than Norway and Finland. The narratives can serve to divide and weaken the Nordics and the EU, and undermine international reputations of each state. The strategy of division through narratives is particularly problematic as polarization challenges Western democracies and the EU. The article furthers narrative research by testing a recently crafted analytical framework and by presenting findings that indicate a need for a broadened research agenda. Whereas previous research has primarily centred on how malign information influence can harm democracy, our results indicate that narratives can cause a broader variety of harms.
The globalized security situation characterized by transnational threats and international interventionism in “new wars,” connect non traditional local actors and traditional global actors to one another in unprecedented ways. We argue that children in particular need to be highlighted because they are highly pertinent to the globalized security situation, yet they make up one of the few agents that have remained non‐politicized in the eyes of the scholarly community. The article suggests a framework of analysis that can generate analyses on security of traditional as well as non‐traditional agents. Placing non‐traditional groups in the center of attention serves to mirror the complexities of the current security situation better.
The new media situation gives fuel to increased competition between narratives. In the sphere of security this poses challenges to government strategic narratives. Scholars, drawing on findings from the Anglo-Saxon sphere, suggest that the new media activism gives rise to counter-hegemonic narratives that thrive on and through social media sites. We argue that the emergence of counter-narratives in the sphere of security depends upon a few key dynamics that might vary with political context such as political culture, the size of the blogosphere, the debate in mainstream media and socialization processes within the military organization. Our case study of Swedish blogging about Sweden’s military contribution to the International Security Assistance Force mission in Afghanistan suggests that blogs are mainly used to sustain – and not to challenge – the governmental narrative. This invites us to question the significance of new media platforms as counter-hegemonic forces in communities beyond the Anglo-Saxon sphere.
This article suggests a diagnostic framework of public communication intended to capture new communication strategies used by Armed Forces across Europe to legitimize new tasks and recruit new personnel. Three distinct communicative models that impact differently on democratic values and public support are suggested: an Old Public Administration (OPA) model influenced by bureaucratic values, a New Public Management (NPM) model fuelled by market values and a deliberative model labelled 'New Public Service' (NPS) that is largely influenced by proponents of 'e-democracy'. A case study of the communication of the Swedish Armed Forces identifies a lingering bureaucratic (OPA) ideal. The market ideal (NPM) however clearly dominates. The article concludes that communication along market purposes, principles and practices risks distancing Armed Forces further from society. Yet, an embryonic deliberative ideal (NPS)-much fuelled by the use of social media such as blogs-was also identified. This growing ideal holds the potential of infusing deliberative vigor into the organization and presumably facilitates the bridging of the gap to society.
Scholars, states and organisations have warned that authoritarian regimes and other hostile actors are projecting information to inflict harm upon others. Yet, there is little agreement on the nature of this threat. This is mirrored in the plethora of labels in use, ranging from "disinformation" to "sharp power" and "information warfare". In order to investigate this menace further, we turn our focus to ordinary people's anxieties, since a better understanding of threat perceptions will also provide a better understanding of the problem. We conducted a comprehensive case study comprising focus group discussions (n: 97) and an extensive survey (n: 2046) among Swedish citizens. We asked: To what extent do people worry about information influence and why? What can this tell us about the nature of this problem or threat? The empirical results suggest that respondents were first and foremost worried about societal cohesion and democracy. They also identified a risk that information influence can undermine trust in societal institutions and the EU. Based on our findings, we suggest that "malign information influence" is an appropriate label to be used in future research. Finally, we propose directions for future systematic research on how malign information infuence is received and processed in different national contexts.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.