The image of the Chechen War on the pages of the American daily newspaper The New York Times: headline review

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

The media has long been an integral part of our daily lives. They largely shape the information space in which a modern person lives, including determining the information agenda, influencing people's perception of the world around them, shaping the views of the audience, setting trends, creating new heroes or, conversely, destroying the reputation of the old ones. Undoubtedly, the periodical press also plays an important role in this, which helps a person to form his attitude to the events of everyday life, to direct the opinion of the public in a certain direction.

If in the second half of the 20th century the circulation of newspapers increased, then since the 2010s the circulation of printed publications has been steadily decreasing, and digital services are replacing them ^[1]. Reputable world publications do not resist this trend, but strive to lead a new trend towards digitalization ^[2]. It is important to clarify that despite the general digitalization, the basic principles of editorial offices have not undergone significant changes in relation to the work of journalists, the ethical and professional foundations laid back in the period of the hegemony of the print press are relevant to this day.

The above factors determine the interest in studying the press as a historical source, in addition, the information capabilities of periodicals have not been fully studied.

For this work, the author selected materials from the authoritative American newspaper The New York Times as a source, which at the end of the 20th century reached peak figures in newspaper circulation – more than 1 million copies per day, and also finally gained the status of a national publication^[3]. Research shows that readers of The New York Times are, on average, the most educated and well-off American citizens ^{[4, 5]}. During the study period (and to this day) The New York Times had a correspondent office in Moscow, where several journalists worked at the same time, who traveled around the country and could personally observe many events. In addition, The New York Times is traditionally considered a publication with a democratic bias. Since Bill Clinton was the president of the United States during the period under study, who was elected from the Democratic Party, it can be assumed that the newspaper's views on world political events could significantly coincide with the opinion of the presidential administration ^{[6, pp. 92-104]}; ^[7].

The object of the study was the newspaper headlines devoted to the First and Second wars in the Chechen Republic. Since the size of The New York Times newspaper on Sundays reached several hundred pages, even the most curious and devoted readers could not master such a volume. Often, the newspaper was flipped through and stopped either on favorite or on topics that interested the reader. It is in this aspect that the headlines of the newspaper are important, which were not only supposed to motivate the reader to familiarize himself with the publication, but also to lay in his mind a ready-made thought, a certain view of the event, a finished image. For these purposes, the journalists of the publication and the editorial staff used speech manipulation techniques that made it possible to make the impact on the reader unobvious, even hidden.

In this regard, it is worth recalling the work of academician I.D. Kovalchenko, who noted the growing need to identify information that is not directly expressed in a historical source, including by increasing its informative impact ^[8]. In this article, this goal will be achieved through a study of the choice of certain lexical units by The New York Times in describing the conflict in the Chechen Republic, as well as an analysis of the number of their use and tonality.

The choice of a topic for research is not accidental either. The operation launched in the mid-1990s to restore constitutional order in the Chechen Republic turned into a full-scale war, which destabilized this region of the North Caucasus for many years. For Russia, the conflict has resulted in heavy civilian and military losses, tens of thousands of refugees forced to leave the troubled region, and destroyed infrastructure in settlements on the territory of Chechnya. Finally, as a result of the fighting, militant groups became more active, which subsequently initiated a number of terrorist acts in many other regions of Russia ^[9].

The conflict in the Chechen Republic has attracted the attention of not only the Russian public, but also foreign ones. It is no coincidence that the war in Chechnya is called the "first television war", because its events were covered in detail by journalists almost live on television ^[10]. Of course, the reaction to the conflict was quite violent both in the public environment and among politicians. During the First Chechen War, Russian and foreign journalists received wide access to work in the combat zone, so that the world community had the opportunity to learn in detail about events from the front line in the North Caucasus ^[11]. That is why it can be said that journalists of news outlets from around the world became direct witnesses of the war in the Chechen Republic, and their views were reflected in television reports and newspaper texts, which were then widely broadcast to the public abroad.

The researchers point out that the image of Russia in the United States was undulating and depended on the political situation. After the long years of the Cold War, when our country was presented by the Americans as a rival and even an enemy, with the beginning of the policy of Perestroika, relations between the countries began to improve. Therefore, it is safe to say that the chosen period for the study is just an example of a significant warming in relations between the United States and Russia ^[12].

The transformations that took place in Russia at the end of the XX century, of course, were revolutionary in nature, so that in the United States they watched with great curiosity the main events of the socio-political life of our country. That is why the Military conflict in the Chechen Republic was watched in the United States with both interest and concern.

In the historiography of the chosen topic, two areas of research can be distinguished:   

1. Works devoted to the image of war in the domestic media, which will further help to understand how this image correlates with the representation of American journalists.
2. Works devoted to the view of the Chechen war from the United States, how it was perceived by political elites, how the events of the war were broadcast by the American media. These studies will also help to understand how U.S. foreign policy and the media relate to each other.

The first group of historiography includes the dissertation of historian V. F. Tsvetkova "The Chechen conflict in the domestic periodical press", where the author notes that the First Chechen War took place in conditions of maximum openness, since the media had the opportunity to fully cover the fighting almost without restrictions ^[13]. Journalists actively criticized the actions of the central authorities, which led to the fading of public support for the fighting and to their total rejection. However, the situation changed by the beginning of the Second Chechen Company, when, according to the author, the state began to control the information field, which led to the recognition of the second military company by the Russian public as an "anti-terrorist operation". I. E. Kaloeva comes to similar conclusions in her dissertation: if during the first military campaign in the North Caucasus, the authorities were faced with the complete information unpreparedness of Russian society for a positive perception of the outbreak of war, then by the beginning of the Second Chechen campaign, the mistakes were taken into account. It was possible not only to consolidate Russian society around the idea of fighting terrorism in the North Caucasus, but also, more importantly, to legitimize the fighting in Chechnya in the public consciousness ^[14].

In the article "The First Chechen War in the materials of the Russian media", E. A. Markov gives examples from the most authoritative Russian newspapers of the period under study and the points of view expressed there regarding the conflict in Chechnya. The author notes that the media was characterized by criticism of the decisions taken by the Russian authorities and the fighting itself, and the media also emphasized the anti-national nature of the war. According to the author, the Russian leadership did not have time to prepare public consciousness for the need to conduct military operations in Chechnya, as a result of which both in society and in the media, as well as among members of the government and parliament, there was no unity of views necessary to support military action. However, E. A. Markov points out that by the beginning of the Second Chechen War, the mistakes made in the first campaign had been taken into account. Both the media and a significant part of Russian society supported the military operation, and the new Chechen campaign was held under the slogans of "liquidation of separatist armed formations ^[15].

Thus, researchers agree that during the First Chechen War, most Russian media were in opposition to the official state line and harshly criticized the actions of the authorities, but by the beginning of the Second Chechen War, the country's leadership managed to do "work on mistakes" and consolidate society around the topic of combating terrorism in the North Caucasus, thanks to which actions The armies in the Chechen Republic eventually received popular approval ^[16].

The second group of historical studies reflects the view of the Chechen conflict in the United States. It is noteworthy that he did not remain united and unchanged throughout both Chechen campaigns. For example, in the monograph A.V. Malashenko, D. V. Trenin "Time of the South. Russia in Chechnya, Chechnya in Russia", released by the Carnegie Institution, talks about the differences in the attitude of the US leadership to the Chechen wars.  For example, during the First Chechen Campaign, the US leadership was generally condescending to the actions of the Yeltsin administration in the North Caucasus. Four years later, the situation changed, and the United States openly condemned the inadequate, in their view, use of force by federal troops during a counter-terrorism operation ^{[17, p.216]}.

A similar point of view can be found in the materials of the National Security Archive, where, referring to the reports of the US Department of Defense Intelligence Agency, it is said that the US leadership refrains from harsh criticism of Russia's actions in the North Caucasus and unambiguous assessments during the First Chechen War ^[18]. Apparently, this is done in order to avoid a possible weakening of the image of President Yeltsin, who is considered a democratic "ally" in the United States ^[19].

In the work of American researcher Mike Bowker "Western Views on the Chechen Conflict", the author notes differences in the perception of the war in the Chechen Republic among politicians and journalists. M. Bowker writes that the West refused to recognize Chechnya's claims to independence and recognized Russia's right to defend its territorial integrity. Criticism of the actions of the Russian government in Chechnya was mostly related to the violation of human rights and freedoms by soldiers and aggressive methods of warfare. At the same time, according to M. Bowker, the Western media sought to show the war in Chechnya as a national liberation war and strongly sympathized with the Chechens, while harshly criticizing the actions of the Russian authorities ^[20].

B. Hanlon's research became important for this article, where the author tried to recreate the image of the Chechen conflict based on the publications of major American newspapers. B. Hanlon focuses on the vocabulary that American journalists choose to describe the conflict in Chechnya. Thus, according to the author, in 1999, after a number of terrorist attacks in Russia, for which Chechen militants were blamed, American journalists avoided using formulations characterizing them as terrorists, largely focusing on their involvement in the separatist movement ^[21].

Turning directly to the image of the Chechen war in the headlines of The New York Times, it is necessary to answer the question: was the topic of Russia important and interesting for the newspaper and readers in the 1990s? What place did Russia occupy in relation to other world news?

To do this, based on the digital archive of The New York Times, which contains all the news ever published in the newspaper, calculations were made of publications mentioning Russia in the international news section for the period from 1992 to early 2000. Calculations have shown that, on average, Russia is mentioned in 10% of all world politics news. For comparison, France and the United Kingdom are also mentioned in an average of 10% of all international news, Canada, neighboring to the United States, occupied no more than 5% in the newspaper ^[22].

However, during the entire study period, about 15 months were revealed when the average indicator was significantly exceeded, while reaching 15% of news about Russia from the total number of publications. This suggests that there were certain periods when events in Russia aroused the greatest interest of American readers and the editorial staff of The New York Times, including the months of the active stage of fighting in the Chechen Republic – December 1994, January 1995, December 1999, when the number of news with the mention of Russia, it exceeded the average. Subsequently, a qualitative analysis of the newspaper's materials was carried out, which confirmed the connection of peak indicators with the events in the Chechen Republic.

As for the reflection of the image of the Chechen War in the American periodical press and the transformation of this image, one of the key aspects to study are the headlines of news publications on the relevant topic. It is important to recall that the volume of daily newspapers in the 1990s reached several hundred pages, as a result of which the reader often did not have the opportunity to read in detail all the articles devoted not only to the events in the Chechen Republic, but also to the entire international agenda. That is why the headlines of news publications carry significant research potential, as the most concise form of conveying key information to the reader, which has the strongest manipulative potential.

Thus, in order to identify the peculiarities of the transformation of the image of the military conflict in Chechnya, based on the headlines of The New York Times newspaper, a research plan was drawn up consisting of the following tasks:

1. Identification of time periods of equivalent size and content related to the First and Second Chechen Wars, for which you can study the headlines of The New York Times;
2. Identification of the number of headlines with direct reference to the conflicts in Chechnya for the selected time periods;
3. Counting the lexical units that describe the forces opposing the federal troops;
4. Calculation of the ratio of lexical units used in selected time periods;
5. To establish the specifics of the transformation of the image of the military conflict in Chechnya based on the use of specific lexical units by journalists.

In order to determine how the headlines on the Chechen conflict in The New York Times changed, two months of the most active phase of hostilities during the First Chechen War and also two months during the Second Chechen War were allocated for content analysis. Thus, the following time intervals were selected: December and January 1994-1995, related to the first Chechen War and representing the period of the active stage of the battles for the city of Grozny; and December and January 1999-2000, related to the Second Chechen War and representing the period of the encirclement of Grozny and the offensive operation of federal troops.

Further, in each time period, the number of headlines mentioning the conflict in Chechnya was calculated, and calculations were also made regarding the number of different lexical units describing the participants in the conflict.

Table 1. The table shows the selected time periods for the study, the number of headlines mentioning the war in the Chechen Republic in each time period, as well as the number of lexical units used to describe the forces opposing the federal government. 

Based on the studied headlines, Table 1 was compiled, which presents calculations reflecting the choice of certain lexical units by American journalists in the name of forces opposing the federal troops of Russia, as well as the frequency of their mention. So, in the period from December to January 1994-1995, 40% of the headlines devoted to the First Chechen War used the words "Rebels" or "Secessionists", which can be translated as "separatists", "rebels" and "rebels". From the point of view of state power, it can be said that these lexical units have rather a negative connotation, since they denote a group of people who seek to separate from the state, using not only political, but also power mechanisms. However, we are more interested in what meanings the journalists of The New York Times lay down using such vocabulary. For example, newspaper journalists use the words "Rebels" or "Secessionists" when describing the Yemeni Houthis, who in 2024 in the United States were included in the list of global special purpose terrorists (SDGT) ^[23]. That is, it is safe to say that this vocabulary is used by journalists of The New York Times in a negative way.

60% of the headlines mention words that focus on national, ethnic and territorial features – these are the words "Chechnya/Chechen", "Caucasians/Caucasian", "Grozny" (the capital of the Chechen Republic). Since the American reader is little familiar with the causes of the conflict, its features and the main actors, this vocabulary is used by journalists to reveal the essence of the events taking place: where is the Chechen Republic, who is its leader, where is the epicenter of the fighting.

It is worth noting that during the selected time period, slightly more than 1% of the headlines mention the words "Civilians" and "Refugees", which translates as "civilians" and "refugees", respectively. That is, the headlines of the newspaper almost do not touch on the topic of the civilian population, which, of course, has been suffering since the very beginning of the armed conflict.

Based on the headlines and the frequency of mentioning lexical units, the reader of The New York Times can conclude that in almost half of the cases, journalists point to the confrontation between Russian federal forces and illegal armed groups, which can legitimize the actions of the Russian military in the eyes of the reader. In addition, references to vocabulary referring to refugees and civilians are minimized, which takes this topic out of the audience's field of view. Words with a national-ethnic meaning are used to clarify the essence of the conflict.

From December to January 1999-2000, during the active phase of the Second Chechen War, the frequency of use of lexical units varies: only 12% of headlines use words denoting rebels, separatists and rebels ("Rebels" or "Secessionists"), which is more than 3 times less common than during the First Chechen War. However, the use of words denoting ethnicity is increasing from 60% to 91%. Also, 11% of the headlines use vocabulary referring to civilians or refugees. It should be noted that the headlines do not contain any lexical units denoting criminals or terrorists, although by the early 2000s a number of terrorist acts and murders had occurred in Russia, for which Chechen warlords claimed responsibility.

Based on the use of lexical units by journalists in the headlines in this time period, the reader can conclude that the Russian military is fighting primarily with the people of the Chechen Republic, and not with individual armed formations. Since the vocabulary denoting separatism has been minimized, the number of vocabulary denoting nationality has been significantly increased.Thus, the conflict in Chechnya acquires the image of a new colonial war, where Russia is trying to subjugate the Chechen people, which in general can cause empathy in the American reader towards the Chechen side. In addition, the choice of lexical units indirectly indicates that Russian troops are waging war against civilians, including, since words denoting civilians are used 10 times more often.

Thus, based on the study of the lexical units used by The New York Times journalists in the headlines of articles devoted to the First and Second Chechen wars, a number of conclusions can be drawn about the change in the formation of the image of the Chechen conflict. If during the First Chechen War, American journalists noted that Russian troops were fighting separatist forces, then the use of lexical units during the second Chechen War indicates that the struggle is already going on with the civilian population, as a result of which civilians suffer and refugees leave the region. According to the studied historiography, such an interpretation by The New York Times journalists of the events in Chechnya corresponds to the general rhetoric of the US leadership: during the first Chechen War, the US leadership noted the legitimacy of the struggle of the Russian authorities against separatist sentiments and the use of the army, whereas during the second Chechen War, the emphasis was shifted towards criticizing the Russian leadership for the excessive use of armed forces against the violation of human rights and freedoms in the Chechen Republic, as well as a direct impact on the destabilization of the North Caucasus region.

In addition, it is possible to draw a parallel with how the coverage of the war in the Chechen Republic in the domestic media has changed. If the American media moved from partial acceptance of the war to its criticism, then in Russian journalism the process was reversed – from criticism of the war to its acceptance and partial approval.