rusworldРоссия и мир: научный диалогRussia & World: Sc. Dialogue2782-3067НИИРК10.53658/RW2024-4-4(14)-63-85rusworld-275Research ArticleМЕЖДУНАРОДНЫЕ, ГЛОБАЛЬНЫЕ И РЕГИОНАЛЬНЫЕ ПРОЦЕССЫ. Международные отношения, глобальные и региональные исследованияINTERNATIONAL, GLOBAL AND REGIONAL PROCESSES. International relations, global and regional studiesТрансмедийное вовлечение: фрейм-анализ цифровой дипломатии США в России при помощи искусственного интеллектаTransmedia Engagement: AI-Driven Frame Analysis of the U.S. Digital Diplomacy in Russiahttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-7118-8632БазлуцкаяМ. М.BazlutckaiaM. M.

Базлуцкая Мария Михайловна - Аспирант кафедры мировых политических процессов,

119454, г. Москва, пр-т Вернадского, 76.

Mariia M. Bazlutckaia - Postgraduate student of the Department of World Political Processes,

76, prospect Vernadskogo, Moscow, 119454.

m.bazlutskaya@gmail.comhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-6853-6253СытникА. Н.SytnikA. N.

Сытник Анна Николаевна - Кандидат политических наук. Доцент кафедры американских исследований,

199034, г. Санкт-Петербург, Университетская наб., 7–9.

Anna N. Sytnik - CandSc. (Polit.). Assistant Professor,

7-9, Universitetskaya nab., Saint-Petersburg, 199034.

a.sytnik@spbu.ruМосковский государственный институт международных отношений (университет) Министерства иностранных дел Российской ФедерацииРоссияMoscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO University)Russian FederationСанкт-Петербургский государственный университетРоссияSt. Petersburg State UniversityRussian Federation202401122024046385Copyright © Базлуцкая М.М., Сытник А.Н., 20242024Базлуцкая М.М., Сытник А.Н.Bazlutckaia M.M., Sytnik A.N.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.russia-world.ru/jour/article/view/275

В условиях глубочайшего геополитического кризиса цифровая дипломатия претерпевает изменения. Если во время пандемии COVID-19 внутренние вызовы привели к появлению гибридной, или смешанной, дипломатии, то сегодня этот феномен пытается пережить внешнюю фрагментацию Интернета и деплатформинг. Эти факторы влияют на изменение роли министерств иностранных дел, которые из исключительно первичного источника информации превращаются в трансмедийные холдинги. Авторы утверждают, что цифровая дипломатия США в России может служить примером такой эволюции. С помощью теории трансмедийного вовлечения авторы показывают, что цифровая дипломатия США зависит не только от работы Государственного департамента или Агентства по глобальным медиа, но получает более широкий охват благодаря распространению сообщений сетью медиаисточников, которые придерживаются аналогичных с этими ведомствами фреймов. Иллюстрируется это с помощью фрейм-анализа почти 6 000 публикаций из социальной сети X, размещенных на официальных аккаунтах американской цифровой дипломатии и организаций, признаваемых США в качестве российских «независимых СМИ». Анализ охватывает четыре крупнейших кризиса в отношениях между Россией и США, приходящихся на 2011, 2012, 2014 и 2022 гг., и проводится с помощью таких инструментов, как ChatGPT, Gephi и Voyant Tools. Статья восполняет пробел в исследовании цифровой дипломатии США в России и делает качественный прорыв в изучении текстовых фреймов с помощью технологий искусственного интеллекта.

In the context of the deepest geopolitical crisis, digital diplomacy is undergoing changes. If during the COVID-19 pandemic, internal challenges led to the emergence of hybrid or mixed diplomacy, today this phenomenon is trying to survive the external fragmentation of the Internet and de-platforming. These factors influence the changing role of foreign ministries, which are turning from an exclusively primary source of information into transmedia holdings. The authors argue that US digital diplomacy in Russia can serve as an example of such an evolution. Using the theory of transmedia engagement, the authors show that US digital diplomacy depends not only on the work of the State Department or the Agency for Global Media, but receives a wider reach due to the dissemination of messages by a network of media sources that adhere to similar frames as these departments. The authors illustrate this through a frame analysis of nearly 6,000 publications from the social network X, posted on official accounts of American digital diplomacy and organizations recognized by the United States as Russian “independent” media. The analysis covers the four major crises in US-Russia relations, occurring in 2011, 2012, 2014, and 2022, and is conducted using tools such as ChatGPT, Gephi, and Voyant Tools. The article fills a gap in the study of US digital diplomacy in Russia and makes a qualitative breakthrough in the study of text frames using artificial intelligence technologies.

цифровая дипломатиясоциальные сетиСШАРоссияискусственный интеллектChatGPTVoyant ToolsGephidigital diplomacysocial mediaUSARussiaartificial intelligenceChatGPTVoyant ToolsGephiReferencesАнтюхова Е.А. Основные направления публичной дипломатии НАТО в эпоху глобализации [US Digital Diplomacy as a Segment of NATO Public Diplomacy] // Ученые записки Орловского государственного университета. Серия: Гуманитарные и социальные науки. 2016. № 3(72). С. 21–27.Antyukhova E. 2016. US Digital Diplomacy as a Segment of NATO Public Diplomacy. Uchenye zapiski Orlovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Gumanitarnye i social’nye nauki. [Scientific Notes of Orel State University. Series: Humanities and Social Sciences] 2016; 3(29):11–14 [In Russian].Базлуцкая М.М., Сытник А.Н. Игровое пространство «информационного беспорядка» [Game Space of «Information Disoder»] // Россия в глобальной политике. 2024. Т. 22. № 4. С. 122–136. https://doi.org/10.31278/1810-6439-2024-22-4-122-136.Bazlutckaia M.M., Sytnik A.N. Frame analysis in Russian with ChatGPT. Media v sovremennom mire [Media in a modern world]. 2023; 2:7–8 [In Russian]. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4552994.Базлуцкая М.М., Сытник А.Н. Рамочный анализ данных на русском языке с помощью ChatGPT [Frame analysis in Russian with ChatGPT] // Медиа в современном мире. 2023. С. 7–8.Bazlutckaia M.M., Sytnik A.N. Game Space of «Information Disoder» // Rossija v globalnoj politike [Russia in Global Affairs]. 2024; 22(4):122–136 [In Russian]. https://doi.org/10.31278/1810-64392024-22-4-122-136.Базлуцкая М.М., Сытник А.Н., Цветкова Н.А. Вовлеченность аудитории как показатель эффективности цифровой дипломатии [Evaluating Audience Engagement as a Measure of Digital Diplomacy Effectiveness] // Вестник МГИМО-Университета. 2024. Т. 17. № 4. С. 48–82. https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2024-4-97-48-82.Bazlutckaia M.M., Sytnik A.N., Tsvetkova N.A. Evaluating Audience Engagement as a Measure of Digital Diplomacy Effectiveness. MGIMO Review of International Relations. 2024; 17(4):48–82 [In Russian]. https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2024-4-97-48-82.Бодрунова С.С. Термин «фрейминг» в политической коммуникативистике: рождение и созревание большой идеи в теории медиаэффектов [Framing as a term in political communication studies: How a big idea grew and matured in the media effects theory] // Журнал политических исследований. 2019. Т. 3. № 4. С. 127–141.Bodrunova S.S. Framing as a term in political communication studies: How a big idea grew and matured in the media effects theory. Zhurnal politicheskikh issledovanij [Journal of political studies]. 2019; 3(4):127–141 [In Russian].Зиновьева Е.С. Цифровая дипломатия США: возможности и угрозы для международной безопасности [US Digital Diplomacy: Opportunities and Threats to International Security] // Индекс безопасности. 2013. Т. 19. № 1. С. 213–228.Zinovieva E.S. US Digital Diplomacy: Opportunities and Threats to International Security. Indeks Besopasnosty [Security Index]. 2013; 19(1):213–228 [In Russian].Цветкова Н.А. Цифровизация публичной дипломатии США [Digitalization of US Public Diplomacy] // Актуальные проблемы мировой политики. Ежегодный альманах. 2020. Т. 10. С. 432–443.Tsvetkova N.A. 2020. Digitalization of US Public Diplomacy. In: Digest of World Politics Annual Review. Edited by T. Nemchinova. 2020; 10:432–443 [In Russian].Ali M., Hassan N. A survey of computational framing analysis approaches // Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2022:9335–9348 [In English]. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.633.Ali M., Hassan N. A survey of computational framing analysis approaches. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2022:9335–9348 [In English]. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.633.Bjola C., Manor I. The rise of hybrid diplomacy: from digital adaptation to digital adoption // International Affairs. 2022; Vol. 98(2):471–491. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiac005.Bjola C., Manor I. The rise of hybrid diplomacy: from digital adaptation to digital adoption. International Affairs. 2022; 98(2):471–491 [In English]. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiac005.Bjola C., Zaiotti R., eds. Digital diplomacy and international organisations: Autonomy, legitimacy and contestation. Routledge, 2020.Bjola C., Zaiotti R., eds. Digital diplomacy and international organisations: Autonomy, legitimacy and contestation. Routledge; 2020 [In English].Burscher B., Odijk D., Vliegenthart R., De Rijke M., De Vreese C.H. Teaching the computer to code frames in news: Comparing two supervised machine learning approaches to frame analysis // Communication Methods and Measures. 2014; Vol. 8(3):190–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2014.937527.Burscher B., Odijk D., Vliegenthart R., De Rijke M., De Vreese C.H. Teaching the computer to code frames in news: Comparing two supervised machine learning approaches to frame analysis. Communication Methods and Measures. 2014; 8(3):190–206 [In English]. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2014.937527.Cull N.J. Public diplomacy: Taxonomies and histories // The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 2008; Vol. 616(1):31–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716207311952.Cull N.J. Public diplomacy: Taxonomies and histories. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 2008; 616(1):31–54 [In English]. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716207311952.Dizard Jr W. Digital diplomacy: US foreign policy in the information age. Bloomsbury Publishing USA; 2001.Dizard Jr W. Digital diplomacy: US foreign policy in the information age. Bloomsbury Publishing USA; 2001 [In English].Entman R.M. Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm // Journal of Communication. 1993; Vol. 43(4):51–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x.Entman R.M. Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication. 1993; 43(4):51–58 [In English]. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x.Gamson W.A., Modigliani A. Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach // American Journal of Sociology. 1989; Vol. 95(1):1–37.Gamson W.A., Modigliani A. Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology. 1989; 95(1):1–37 [In English].Goffman E. Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harvard University Press; 1974.Goffman E. Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harvard University Press; 1974 [In English].Jenkins H. Convergence Culture: Where old and new media collide. New York University Press; 2006:307–319.Jenkins H. Convergence Culture: Where old and new media collide. New York University Press; 2006:307–319 [In English].Johnston H. Comparative Frame Analysis. In: Frames of protest: Social movements and the framing perspective. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. 2005; 237–260.Johnston H. Comparative Frame Analysis. In: Frames of protest: Social movements and the framing perspective. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. 2005; 237–260 [In English].Krippendorff K. Computing Krippendorff’s Alpha-Reliability. Annenberg School for Communication Departmental Papers. 2011. URL: https://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers/43.Krippendorff K. Computing Krippendorff’s Alpha-Reliability. Annenberg School for Communication Departmental Papers. 2011 [In English]. Available at: https://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers/43.Lüfkens M. Twiplomacia. Otázky žurnalistiky. 2013; Vol. 56(3–4):121–132 [In Slovak].Lüfkens M. Twiplomacia. Otázky žurnalistiky. 2013; 56(3-4):121–132 [In Slovak].Manor I., Crilley R. The Mediatisation of Ministries of Foreign Affairs: Diplomacy in the New Media Ecology // Ministries of Foreign Affairs in the World. 2022:273–298. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004505889_014.Manor I., Crilley R. The Mediatisation of Ministries of Foreign Affairs: Diplomacy in the New Media Ecology. In Ministries of Foreign Affairs in the World. 2022:273–298 [In English]. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004505889_014.Manor I., Crilley R. Visually Framing the Gaza War of 2014: The Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Twitter // Media, War and Conflict. 2018; Vol. 11(3):369–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750635218780564.Manor I., Crilley R. Visually Framing the Gaza War of 2014: The Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Twitter. Media, War and Conflict. 2018; Vol. 11(3):369–391 [In English]. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750635218780564.Manor I. Framing Adversaries: Digital Diplomacy and Moral De-Legitimization // The 9th Pan-European Conference on International Relations. 2015.Manor I. Framing Adversaries: Digital Diplomacy and Moral De-Legitimization. In The 9th PanEuropean Conference on International Relations. 2015 [In English].Melissen J., de Keulenaar E.V. Critical digital diplomacy as a global challenge: The South Korean experience // Global Policy. 2017; Vol. 8(3):294–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12425.Melissen J., de Keulenaar E.V. Critical digital diplomacy as a global challenge: The South Korean experience. Global Policy. 2017; 8(3):294–302 [In English]. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12425.Pamment J. Digital Diplomacy as Transmedia Engagement: Aligning Theories of Participatory Culture with International Advocacy Campaigns // New Media and Society. 2016; Vol. 18(9):2046– 2062. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815577792.Pamment J. Digital Diplomacy as Transmedia Engagement: Aligning Theories of Participatory Culture with International Advocacy Campaigns. New Media and Society. 2016; 18(9):2046–2062 [In English]. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815577792.Prier J. Commanding the trend: Social media as information warfare // Strategic Studies Quarterly. 2017; Vol. 11(4):50–85. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/26271634.Prier J. Commanding the trend: Social media as information warfare. Strategic Studies Quarterly. 2017; 11(4):50–85 [In English]. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/26271634.Scott W.A. Reliability of content analysis: The case of nominal scale coding // Public Opinion Quarterly. 1955; Vol. 19(3):321–325. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2746450.Scott W.A. Reliability of content analysis: The case of nominal scale coding. Public Opinion Quarterly. 1955; 19(3):321–325 [In English]. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2746450.Semetko H.A., Valkenburg P.M. Framing European politics: A content analysis of press and television news // Journal of communication. 2000; Vol. 50(2):93–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02843.x.Semetko H.A., Valkenburg P.M. Framing European politics: A content analysis of press and television news. Journal of communication. 2000; 50(2):93–109 [In English]. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02843.x.Tsvetkova N.A. Dealing with a resurgent Russia: Engagement and deterrence in US international broadcasting, 2013–2019 // Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. International Relations. 2019; Vol. 12(4):435–449. https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/spbu06.2019.403.Tsvetkova N.A. Dealing with a resurgent Russia: Engagement and deterrence in US international broadcasting, 2013–2019. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. International Relations. 2019; 12(4):435–449 [In English]. https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/spbu06.2019.403.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.