I have been tasked to write a media report about a conflict (in my case the annexation of Crimea) for an assignment due soon.
I have decided to compare The following documentaries:
Crimea for Dummies by Russia Today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xURFKxliGh8
Ukraine Today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RU6wFr9pwZE
Select a suitable method, or productive combination of methods, to analyse this (whether, for example, content analysis, semiotics or another form of visual analysis, critical linguistics or discourse analysis).
What method would you recommend to analyse and compare the two? I’ve looked at a content analysis, but the methodologies and their results (formulas, symbols and numbers etc.) have completely discombobulated me.
I also have also not got a clue on how to create a code book, since i’ve struggled to find a single study which compares two visual documentaries like above.
I have been been told to explain why these broadcasters. I have done already done this. but I’ve also been told that I could “Maybe - differing accounts of the rationale for war? different thematic focus’ and what this may mean/suggest? Different voices in play, and what this may mean etc/“
I am stressed out and am feeling extremely stupid at this present time.
Any help would be appreciated.
One possible initial approach would be to transcribe the documetaries (or try to get the script) and analyze the language (counting words, for example). Also, if you have the script or a transcription, performing content analysis should be "easier".
This question is very tricky. There is a generic body of activity, which will probably give more depth of answers than the confrontation of two very contrasted although professionally published views. You know Wikipedia. The generic term of such activity as Wikipedia is Commons Based Peer Production. An interesting EU project names P2P value has worked on it. Look it up. I have heard some years ago at a conference, a presentation on the study of the edition of a controversial Wikipedia article, with two very polarised groups with different opinions rewriting what the others had drafted. A trace of how people opposed each other through the sentences was very visible and analysable.
Analysing the language to understand history, even history happening now, is not new.
You probably want to establish:
-facts
-opinions
-intents
-bias.
You may also trace methods and influence of methods.
To do this, you need to start from a model of:
-players on the ground
-confrontations
-"big brothers" behind the players on the ground, clearly foreign influence included.
-propaganda (bias in speech and claims).
Wars are sometimes fought by proxy.
You may be inspired by previous work on other conflicts, and the methodology used. Why not do a search on the language used in conflict times?
Just from the top of my mind, I remember a book by German linguist Viktor Klemperer with title "LTI" (referring to Latin Lingua Tertii Imperii, the language of the Third Reich). In this book, starting from a glossary of key words, the author analyses myths and propaganda which were instrumental in "controlling by the language" during this dark era of Germany.
Since it is the theme (violence) that is to be analyzed, maybe a semiotic approach (to draw the inferences of certain representations) and linguistics ( as in to consider the culturally added value for certain representations) could be considered. I'm a research scholar who have just begun research. This is just my observation.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Atmospheric Sciences
- Climate Science
- Climate Change