Transmedia Engagement: AI-Driven Frame Analysis of the U.S. Digital Diplomacy in Russia

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.

1. 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].

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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].

6. Zinovieva E.S. US Digital Diplomacy: Opportunities and Threats to International Security. Indeks Besopasnosty [Security Index]. 2013; 19(1):213–228 [In Russian].

7. 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].

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. Bjola C., Zaiotti R., eds. Digital diplomacy and international organisations: Autonomy, legitimacy and contestation. Routledge; 2020 [In English].

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. Dizard Jr W. Digital diplomacy: US foreign policy in the information age. Bloomsbury Publishing USA; 2001 [In English].

14. 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.

15. 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].

16. Goffman E. Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harvard University Press; 1974 [In English].

17. Jenkins H. Convergence Culture: Where old and new media collide. New York University Press; 2006:307–319 [In English].

18. Johnston H. Comparative Frame Analysis. In: Frames of protest: Social movements and the framing perspective. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. 2005; 237–260 [In English].

19. 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.

20. Lüfkens M. Twiplomacia. Otázky žurnalistiky. 2013; 56(3-4):121–132 [In Slovak].

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. Manor I. Framing Adversaries: Digital Diplomacy and Moral De-Legitimization. In The 9th PanEuropean Conference on International Relations. 2015 [In English].

24. 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.

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. 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.

28. 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.

29. 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.