Mass Media, Propaganda and Public Opinion

Abstract

This paper examines the relationship between mass media and public opinion. It explores the difference between mass media as a dispenser of both information and propaganda. After discussing the concept of propaganda, the paper examines mass media in the United States. It investigates whether propaganda can be issued through mass media when the government does not have direct and exclusive control of the channels of mass communication. The paper uses the Iraq War as a case to examine the possible use of propaganda in the mass media to sway public opinion. It then looks at both government strategies and programs that the Bush administration used to influence mass media content and the relationship between corporate ownership and censorship as another means of influencing public opinion.

Overview

The mass media refers to both domestic and international channels of news and information distribution, These include media such as newspapers, radio, television, and Internet that reach a vast majority of citizens in all developed countries. The mass media shapes public opinion more than anything else in society, particularly because it is a central broadcast source that has, since its inception, carried and reinforced all the cultural nuances that comprise mainstream society at any given time. For example, one can easily tell that a 1950s newscast originated from that decade. Some are often amused at perceiving its dated cultural contexts—though they may rarely perceive anything odd about \contemporary newscasts. Aside from the cultural context, news items are important since they serve as the currency of public discussion and exchange. This activity is also increasingly part of the mass media, Americans vicariously debate issues through the many "pundits" on forums and talk shows that, in effect, represent the "national discussion." The power of the mass media to influence public opinion is probably why many writers, educators, and political philosophers have pointed out how vital it is in a democracy that the mass media inform and educate the public on important issues (Champlin & Knoedler, 2008, p. 133). However, people should also consider the process by which an event is designated as an important issue for the mass media. What should be of question is whether the act of repeatedly presenting a news item can actually create ca national issue that is, in reality, invalid or unwarranted. Finally, people should search for the line between the honest presentation of information and the dishonest propagation of propaganda.

The Power of Propaganda. Propaganda is deliberately misleading or deceptive information that is widely publicized to promote an idea, policy, or cause. The information is deliberately spread so as to sway public opinion in favor of a specific agenda created by those in power. Propaganda often contains false information—even lies—and false or hidden assumptions. A notable historical example of promoting propaganda occurred in Nazi Germany when the mass media repeatedly presented "The Jewish Question" as a national issue. It did become such after "The Jewish Question" began to inundate German print and airwaves. The Nazi government used mass media to persuade the majority of Germans to believe that a very important question was, "What are we going to do about all the Jews in our country?" By thus manipulating the content of the mass media, by flooding the communication channels of mass media with the same "problem" over an extended period, the Nazi government created a false narrative that was, in fact, its own agenda. There is always a certain presumption in all propaganda, i.e., that the question itself is never questioned. This is why people should always consider the process and reasons that something becomes an important national issue. People should also examine whether a specific group has something to gain from creating the national "problem/issue," as this will often indicate the source of the propaganda.

Who Controls the Media? A government does not have to directly control all the channels of mass media in order to control its content, such as existed in the former Soviet Union or current-day China. If a government can shape public opinion through propaganda without direct control of communication channels, it begs the question of how it is able to accomplish this. It also prompts questions on how the content and tone of national news can remain uniform. Other questions arise on how propaganda becomes widespread and consistent even when the mass media is privately owned.

Cameron Doudu, an African writer from Ghana, was quite surprised by the content of the British media when he visited England. Doudu observed that the British media has a very specific point of view on foreign news, and he noticed that particularly, any news about Africa seemed to follow a government agenda. He concluded, "the uniformity of thought in the British media is sometimes astounding. It is as if they all get their line about particular countries from one source" (2008, p. 20). Doudu then notes that the British media actually does get its information on Africa from one main source, the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). Doudu found that, "the FCO holds regular briefings for the media, at which the British government line on foreign countries is staked out, but with the understanding that if the correspondents who attend the briefings use anything coming out of the briefings, they won't attribute it to the Foreign Office" (Doudu, 2008, p. 19).

Doudu also makes observations that compare the US mass media to the British mass media. Rather than news about Africa that is biased by government agenda, the U.S. mainstream media does not even report on Africa. Doudu writes, "Days can go by when the entire African continent ceases to exist," to the point that it seemed to him as though he "was on a completely different planet" (Doudu, 2008, p. 18). Granted, the geopolitical significance of Africa is much less for the United States than other regions of the globe. Nonetheless, this argument assumes that a government's decision on national interests highly influences the evening news.

The Case of Iraq. Doudu could make such observations because he traveled and could critically compare mass media content among nations. Still, citizens from their respective nations generally are not able to see beyond their own mass media. For example, if one looks at the global media coverage of Saddam Hussein before the United States attacked Iraq, the U.S. national media was unique in its portrayal of Hussein as a danger. For the first few months, the media outside the United States gave nearly no coverage to this issue. In fact, news coverage of Iraq outside the United States mainly conveyed how Iraq seemed very important only to the U.S. media. The implications were that the US government seemed intent on invading Iraq. It soon became quite apparent that the U.S. government had an agenda, and the U.S. mass media was being used to try to shape American public opinion in support of that agenda. Americans assumed their evening news reflected world news concerns rather than narrow national interests. Ironically, America's narrow national interests actually became the primary news concern for the rest of the world.

The Master Narrative.Champlin and Knoedler (2008) create the concept of a "master narrative" that they believe controls mass media content, and assert that the government and corporate sources construct the nation's Master Narrative. Just as Doudu observes that the FCO shapes British public opinion through its briefings with the mass media, Champlin and Knoedler argue that the U.S. government does the same through similar departments. The "master narrative" is rarely challenged by competing views, and "it is important to note that, over the past seven years, this official narrative has been framed by the Bush administration, which includes some of the most accomplished spinners and rhetoricians seen in modern politics" (Champlin & Knoedler, 2008, p. 140).

Deconstructing "Spin". It is important to examine this modern term, "spin." How does producing spin or "spinning the facts" to garner public support for a war differ from using propaganda to sway public opinion to support a war? New spin is actually old propaganda—except "spin" seems more insidious and subtle since the term suggests it contains the basic truth that is merely "spun" enough to create a desired effect. This is the post-post-modern political perspective on the value of truth. The term "spin" is essentially "propaganda" with a new face that is "spun" to justify telling "near-truths" that are in fact plain lies. Thus, the term "spin" can be considered as synonymous with the term "propaganda." The subtle process of "spinning" a news story is the main reason that Champlin & Knoedler warn reporters that their assumptions “that official press releases require less research and investigation than other sources are not valid” (Champlin & Knoedler, 2008, p. 140). In fact it is a dangerously invalid assumption that can lead to the mass media promoting wars based on "spin"—or essentially, based on "propaganda." As White (2005) observes,

… modern politics is carefully filtered and treated through the alchemy of public relations and spin to create a political discourse that, when reported in the newspapers and on television is far from honest, fair, or delivered with a sense of duty to the public (p. 653).

Even America's public media has been affected by the propensity to follow the master narrative. In other words, the ultimate triumph of spin is when it is considered straight news. Solomon (2008) writes that National Public Radio (NPR) coverage of the Iraq War seemed little different than the coverage given by the commercial mass media. The author notes that, when NPR covered a large-scale military assault in March 2008 in Basra, the NPR reporter told listeners, "There is no doubt that this operation needed to happen" (Solomon, 2008, p. 36). Solomon then observes that, "such flat-out statements, uttered with journalistic tones and without attribution, are routine for the U.S. media establishment … If you're pro-war, you're objective. But if you're anti-war, you're biased" (p. 36). For Solomon, journalists have come to a point where they no longer perceive spin. Solomon also gives an interesting description of what is essentially Champlin and Knoedler's concept of a master narrative. The critical aspects of reporting largely amount to quibbling over small tactical differences or other minor policy shortcomings, but the overall policy itself is never questioned; "the underlying and shared assumptions" writes Solomon, "are imperial" (Solomon, 2008, p. 36). Thus, the "master narrative" can also be viewed as the nation's underlying and shared assumptions, and Solomon believes these assumptions are largely based on an imperialist mentality. The mentality itself is never questioned because no one actually notices it. As White puts it, "media machinations, public relations and political image-making today play a significant role in shaping popular and political culture and the ideas which drive the democratic process. There is too little truth and honesty and too much spin" (White, 2005, p. 652).

The Downing Street Memo. White (2005) makes an interesting observation that once again points out the differences among national media. He observes that in May 2005 the British Sunday Times revealed details of what came to be known in England as the "Downing Street Memo." The memo was a confidential record of a meeting in 2002 between Prime Minister Tony Blair with his advisers. At the meeting, they discussed the United States' strategy to go to war with Iraq by "fixing" (i.e., "spinning") the intelligence information to justify their war objective. White notes that, while the news story was thoroughly reported in the UK and throughout the rest of Europe, the story was hardly reported in the United States media at all (White, 2005, p. 656). Once again, one sees the difference between US and British or European media coverage, and one should note the way the US mass media seems to operate as one voice —or, in this case, as one silence.

The Declining Function of Journalism. Champlin and Knoedler note that the U.S. mass media has increasingly gone in two directions that have been detrimental to the democracy-watchdog function of journalism. First, the media has increasingly pursued the tabloid variety of news stories, such that famous people tried for murder or child molestation are in the national spotlight for many weeks. Second, journalists have become much weaker in investigating facts or searching for truth. They note that, in the case of the war in Iraq, journalists displayed a distinct "lack of zealousness in the pursuit of the salient information about the links between the 9/11 terrorists and Iraq, or the extent of the development of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in Iraq" (2008, p. 134). Champlin and Knoedler argue that the media failed to identify and analyze the problem, nd quickly passed on to the assumption that Iraq was a burning issue, after which many pundits and reporters made fervent calls for action. They also mention Al Gore's 2007 book The Assault on Reason , in which Gore argues that the U.S. mass media "pay insufficient attention to factual reporting and analysis of important issues and, in so doing, undermine our ability to find the best solutions" (cited in Champlin & Knoedler, 2008, p. 134). In short, the mass media quickly shaped public opinion such that war became a forgone conclusion. Did the U.S. mass media in effect collectively broadcast propaganda?

Further Insights

White notes that the journalist community in America has experienced a lot of self-doubt and frustration for their "failure to challenge the spin and dishonesty of the White House information machine" (2005, p. 653). He accurately observes that, in the weeks and months that built up to the Iraq war, the U.S. media was "remarkably acquiescent"; that the Bush administration persistently presented a one-sided story of the "need to confront Saddam—the policy of 'regime change'"—but the policy was not actually questioned at all (White, 2005, p. 653). This resonates with Solomon's argument above, that the critical aspects of reporting were merely quibbling over small tactical defects or other minor policy shortcomings, but the underlying imperialist policy itself was never questioned (Solomon, 2008, p. 36).

An editorial in The Nation points out the basic failures of the mass media:

There are always honorable exceptions, but the tendency of the corporate press is to serve as stenographer for the powerful rather than the muscular check and balance intended by the country's founders. Rapid consolidation has brought us dumbed-down media, with broadcast and cable networks that rarely challenge the status quo, even as they maintain their monopolistic stranglehold on the airwaves. What do the people get in return? A diet of "news" and commentary with retired generals telling us quagmire wars are going well, former CEOs telling us a sputtering economy is "basically sound" and former political aides telling us presidential campaigns are about lapel pins and made-up scandals ("Our Lapdog Media," 2008, p. 3).

How Propaganda Infiltrates the Media. But what has caused this complicity? Many things have caused the merger of government agenda and mass media news. By examining the government's strategies, it is all too clear that controlling the content of the mass media was the primary intention. White (2005) observes that "the U.S. administration under George Bush has become its own news and spin machine and has been spectacularly successful in selling government propaganda as genuine news" (p. 657). He then describes various ways the government achieved this: Federal agencies buy so-called 'independent' columnists, and government agencies hire PR companies to make Video News Releases (VNRs) that circulate into mainstream news sources. White observes that even national networks—including Fox and ABC—"have been using these fake news clips and some have even been altering them slightly to give them a home-made look" (p. 657). White then cites the New York Times, which claimed that over 20 federal agencies, including the State Department and the Defense Department, make up their own news, "all of which extol the virtues of the Bush regime and its policies."

According to White, the Bush Administration spent $254 million dollars on contracts with public relations firms during its push for a war in Iraq; in 2006, the Congressional Government Accountability Office released a report that the administration had spent more than $1.6 billion on public relations and other media expenditures. White argues that the mass media was complicit because the PR material was produced with a big budget and looked very professional, the VNRs were thus inexpensive and easy to use, and the content conveniently seemed like legitimate news produced by real journalists (White, 2005, p. 657). Complementing White's information, Champlin and Knoedler observe that "distinctions between economic news, official information and political advertising were completely eliminated when the Bush administration actually developed and issued fake news reports on Social Security and the Medicare prescription drug plans to be broadcast on local news stations" (Champlin & Knoedler, 2008, p. 140). Thus, the use of VNRs became widespread, but the American public was unaware of who was supplying much of its news—and ironically, Americans paid for the propaganda to which they were unwittingly exposed. According to former White House press secretary Scott McClellan, "the administration engaged in a 'political propaganda campaign' to 'sell' the Iraq war" (cited in Jackson, 2008, p. 3).

The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) took exception to yet another strategy of the federal government to infiltrate the media with spin. A New York Times article exposed the federal government's strategy in using "analysts as a 'media Trojan horse' to spread the administration's perspective on the Iraq war" ("SPJ leaders express concern," 2008, p. 2). More than seventy-five former military officers, many of whom have ties to defense contractors profiting on the Iraq war, became "military analysts" who sold the Bush administration's propaganda on the war's progress, by "regurgitating Pentagon talking points on cable news shows and op-ed pages" ("Pentagon Pundits," 2008, p. 5). Another alarming aspect of the New York Times article is the evidence that few national television networks actually understand “their own analysts' financial ties to defense industry contractors doing business with the U.S. military” ("SPJ leaders express concern," 2008, p. 4).

Nonetheless, some were not impressed with the SPJ's indignation. The Nation editorial observed that, "more than five years into a war that was spun into being and that continues to be spun as a surging success, top journalists are shocked, shocked to learn that there is spinning going on" ("Our Lapdog Media," 2008, p. 3). It further observed that, while the Pentagon might have changed its PR practices once it was finally under scrutiny, the American people were nevertheless "still stuck with 'please lie to me' mass media that invite manipulation by government and well-connected private interests" (p. 3). As the editor notes, it is not just government that controls the message, corporations seem to work quite harmoniously with the government's agenda.

Media is Big Business. White follows the decisions of media magnate Rupert Murdoch as an example of how business censors the mass media, but this is only one example, and there are many others where the desire for advertising revenue injures good investigative journalism, or where interest groups apply unethical pressure to kill a troublesome story. Business decisions are primarily financial, and this can silence journalistic opposition. For example, Rupert Murdoch cut the BBC from the bundle of satellite channels his company offered to Chinese viewers because the Communist leadership was upset with the channel’s coverage of Tiananmen Square. Jonathan Mirsky, a well-known correspondent of The Times (now owned by Rupert Murdoch), resigned because the paper declined to run his articles covering Chinese dissidents. Harper Collins, under instructions from its owner (again, Rupert Murdoch), terminated the publishing contract of Chris Patten,the last governor of Hong Kong, because his book was quite critical of China. As White observes, "News International and other major media conglomerates provide much evidence that despite emphatic statements from international organizations and human rights groups that media products are not like other economic products because they have a social, cultural and democratic value, the treatment of news and information as a commodity continues to override or interfere with the duty of journalists to inform their audience" (White, 2005, p. 660). Thus, it is not just government buying PR power and VNRs and payrolling the "objective" pundits we see in the mass media, big business itself also operates to control news that may cause any loss of profits.

Since the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was passed, media ownership has increasingly consolidated to a handful of giant corporations. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) deregulation has expanded the commercial power of giant companies such as AOL Time Warner, Viacom, and Disney. Deregulation has at the same time increased their political power. In turn, these companies invest in lobbying for even greater media ownership deregulation; these companies pumped more than $1 billion into Washington, DC, lobbyists and political campaigns, according to the Center for Public Integrity, an investigative journalists' group in Washington (White, 2005, p. 665).

Digital innovations, which began in the 1990s, reached critical mass in the twenty-first century. Mass communication capabilities, which had previously been exclusive to media outlets largely because of cost, were now available to practically anyone with a smartphone. Government attempts to set a false narrative could be countered by easily obtained video or photographs that demonstrate a more factual depiction of events. The Iranian government encountered this situation as it sought to suppress news of large protests concerning its murder of a female dissident in 2022. Common citizens vie to have self-created media “go viral” on platforms such as social media, where it can potentially be viewed by millions of people throughout the globe. Governments have resorted to more old-fashioned measures to deal with this technology. Government security forces now seek not so much as to dictate news coverage but to prosecute those who disseminate factual information. The Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 is a prime example. President Vladimir Putin of Russia soon levied extremely harsh penalties on those who describe the war in non-approved manners. The fear of retribution, including many years of imprisonment, has been effective in dampening the flow of anti-government sentiments. This democratization of mass media has come with other social costs. The emerging capabilities of Artificial Intelligence will exponentially place the power of communication in the hands of individuals. Unfortunately, this same technology will allow the creation of “Deep Fakes,” or manufactured media indistinguishable from actual human productions. These capabilities in the hands of extremist groups will make their dissemination of false narratives more efficient and credible.

Conclusion

The mass media establishes the issues for Americans, but apparently many aspects of how the system operates are disadvantageous to supporting a democracy. A lot of money and power, from both government and corporations, is spent on using the mass media to shape public opinion rather than objectively informing the public so that it can shape its own opinions. The final question people are left pondering, a question that is central to reforming the way the mass media operates, is "At what point is it propaganda when the mass media shapes public opinion?"

Terms & Concepts

Downing Street Memo: A British government memo that recorded the head of the British intelligence as stating that, based on what he gathered during a visit to Washington, “Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” The memo also recorded Foreign Secretary Jack Straw as saying that it was clear that President Bush had “made up his mind” to take military action but that “the case was thin”, and the Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith as stating that justifying the invasion on legal grounds would be difficult.

Federal Communications Commission (FCC): A United States government agency established by the Communications Act of 1934 to regulate all non-federal use of the radio spectrum (including radio and television broadcasting), and all interstate telecommunications (wire, satellite and cable) as well as all international communications that originate or terminate in the United States.

Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO): The department of the British government charged with promoting the interests of the United Kingdom overseas. It was created in 1968 by merging the Foreign Office and the Commonwealth Office.

Master Narrative: is a dominant, though usually unnoticed, paradigm that serves as an organizing principle. It provides the base logic and reasoning for and maintains a system of thought and confers legitimacy on the minor narratives that branch from and depend on it. The veracity of master narratives tends to be assumed because their vastness and deep interconnections cause them to appear obvious and complete.

National Public Radio (NPR): Created in 1970 by the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, this non-profit membership media organization is a national syndicator to hundreds of radio stations in the United States.

Propaganda: Deliberately misleading or deceptive information that is widely publicized in order to promote an idea, policy, or cause.

Video News Release (VNR): A video segment provided to televised news programs for the purpose of shaping public opinion about a policy, idea, person, or product. They are often created and released by public relations firms, advertising agencies, marketing firms, corporations, or government agencies.

Bibliography

Brewer, S.A. (2009). Why America fights: Patriotism and war propaganda from the Philippines to Iraq. New York: Oxford University Press.

Budak, C., Goel, S., & Rao, J. M. (2016). Fair and balanced? Quantifying media bias through crowdsourced content analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80, 250–271. Retrieved February 13, 2018, from EBSCO Online Database Sociology Source Ultimate. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sxi&AN=114678728&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Champlin, D. & Knoedler, J. (2008). American prosperity and the "Race to the Bottom": Why won't the media ask the right questions? Journal of Economic Issues;,42 ,133–151. Retrieved August 11, 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=31204503&site=ehost-live

Doudu, C. (2008). Beware the propaganda. New African, 474,16–20. Retrieved August 11, 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=32518592&site=ehost-live.

(2008, Aug. 18).Has fake news become the real news? Retrieved August 18, 2008, from Center for Media and Democracy, PR Watch Website: http://www.prwatch.org/node/7672.

Jackson, D. (2008, May 30). McClellan disputes "disgruntled" label. USA Today. Retrieved August 11, 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier.

(2008). Our lapdog media [Editorial]. The Nation, 286, 3. Retrieved August 14, 2008 ,from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=31847478&site=ehost-live.

(2008). Pentagon pundits. The Nation, 286, 5. Retrieved August 14, 2008, from EBSCO online databases Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=31767407&site=ehost-live.

Solomon, N. (2008). NPR News: National Pentagon Radio? Humanist; 68, 36. Retrieved August 14, 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=31861132&site=ehost-live.

(2008). SPJ leaders express concern over Pentagon's operation. Quill, 96,6. Retrieved August 14, 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=33133194&site=ehost-live.

Welch, D. (2013). Propaganda, power and persuasion: From World War I to wikileaks.. New York: I.B. Tauris.

White, A. (2005). Truth, honesty and spin.Democratization, 2 ,651–667. Retrieved August 14, 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=19216007&site=ehost-live.

Suggested Reading

Alterman, J. (2022, October 18). Protest, Social Media, and censorship in Iran. Center for Strategic and International Studies. Retrieved June 19, 2023, from https://www.csis.org/analysis/protest-social-media-and-censorship-iran.

Auerbach, J., & Castronovo, R. (2013). The Oxford handbook of propaganda studies. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bianchi, A., and Greipl, A. (2022, November 17). States’ prevention of terrorism and the Rule of Law: Challenging the ‘magic’ of Artificial Intelligence (AI). The International Centre for Counter-Terrorism. Retrieved June 19, 2023, from https://www.icct.nl/publication/states-prevention-terrorism-and-rule-law-challenging-magic-artificial-intelligence-ai.

Bah, U. (2008). Daniel Lerner, Cold War propaganda and US development communication research: An historical critique. Journal of Third World Studies, 25, 183–198. Retrieved August 14, 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=31692294&site=ehost-live.

Duncombe, S. (2008). FDR's democratic propaganda. Nation; 286, 28–29. Retrieved August 14, 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=31368144&site=ehost-live.

Eggerton, J. (2008). Attack on White House propaganda.Broadcasting & Cable, 138 , 26. Retrieved August 14, 2008 from EBSCO online database Business Source Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=32602431&site=ehost-live.

Goldstein, S. (2008). A strategic failure: American information control policy in occupied Iraq. Military Review, 88, 58–65. Retrieved August 14, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=31413981&site=ehost-live.

Najjab, J. (2008). The man who pushed America to war. Washington Report on Middle East Affairs; 27, 61–62. Retrieved August 14, 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=32458258&site=ehost-live

(2008, July 14).Witnessing the war dead, from afar. New York Times. Retrieved June 19, 2023, from https://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14mon3.html.

Troianovski, A., and Safronova, V. (2022, March 4.). Russia takes censorship to new extremes, stifling war coverage The New York Times. Retrieved June 19, 2023, from https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/04/world/europe/russia-censorship-media-crackdown.html

Wlezien, C., Soroka, S., & Stecula, D. (2017). A cross-national analysis of the causes and consequences of economic news. Social Science Quarterly, 98(3), 1010–1025. Retrieved February 13, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Sociology Source Ultimate. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sxi&AN=124906835&site=ehost-live&scope=site