Category: Politics

  • Support for Nigel Farage and Reform UK strengthens with TikTok success

    Support for Nigel Farage and Reform UK strengthens with TikTok success

    At the time of writing, Nigel Farage and Reform UK have, combined, over one-point-five million TikTok followers. Alone, Reform UK has over 386 thousand TikTok followers

    Obviously, TikTok is not entirely reputable for gauging voter opinion, but with just under 25 million British users, according to DataReportal, Farage and Reform UK could certainly be set to disrupt the status quo of British politics.

    A YouGov poll from January 2025 found that 25% of voters would vote for Reform UK in a snap election, perhaps indicating that a shift is already underway.

    Matthew Smith, the head of data journalism at YouGov, reported that as of February 2025, 66% of Britons held unfavourable views of Keir Starmer. Nigel Farage, despite being one of the most divisive politicians amongst those included in the poll, still received 30% of voter approval, the most of any UK politician.

    But questions over the legitimacy and honesty of Reform UK’s rhetoric have arisen, with opposers believing that Farage capitalises on fearmongering and misinformation with issues like immigration and justice. His relationship with Donald Trump has also brought his personal ethicality into question.

    Right-wing channels playing to the media shift

    Dr Jarad Ahmed lectures in journalism, politics and communications at the University of Sheffield and directs the International Public and Political Communications Masters course. His research centres on how mainstream media reported controversial topics, specifically how the BBC portrayed Al-Qaeda’s terror threat from 2001 to 2011.

    Ahmed’s knowledge of the workings of mainstream media allowed him to see how less conventional broadcasters compromise the traditional media’s ability to report and be heard.

    About GB news, Ahmed says: “They’re riding the wave of the lack of trust in mainstream media and by continuously pumping out this misinformation and labelling it as entertainment, they’re undermining the role that journalists play in a democracy.”

    Ahmed did disclose, though, that the move to more scandalous stories, as opposed to ones that people should be reading about, has happened across the board, even at the BBC. He cites the declines in newspaper readership and trust in the media as key reasons for this change, as it would be unsustainable to stick to traditional journalistic practises.

    In the year 2022/2023, the House of Commons library reported that 65% of the BBC’s over £5.7 bn total income came from licence fee revenues. According to Ahmed, if people are going to spend £159 annually for the BBC, they will demand to see the news they want.

    However, during the pandemic, a phenomenon occurred which seemed to reverse a lot of the trends we had seen.

    “People naturally moved to legacy brands like the BBC, The Times, and The Guardian because people wanted accurate, regulated information but because there was so much news out there that was depressing, people turned away from it… instead, they turned to channels like GB news.”

    Dr Jarad Ahmed

    As well as being entertaining, channels like GB News and Nigel Farage’s social media pages also go some way in offering comfort, Ahmed thinks. By taking complicated situations and offering comparatively simple solutions, viewers get a sense of stability and that their problems can be rectified.

    Farage may use this method to punish the incumbent party when they appear lost in a situation, and given Reform UK’s staggering insurgence in support, this method is proving effective.

    Reform UK MP for Ashfield and the party’s Chief Whip, Lee Anderson, has also adopted these tactics of over-simplifying complex issues to garner support, like when he ripped up a letter ordering him to pay his BBC licence fee at the Reform UK party conference in Birmingham.

    Politicians assembling media teams

    Ahmed spoke of a metaphorical revolving door, in which those high up in the media are recruited by politicians to make their ideas more palatable to the masses.

    “Editors and producers will go into politics because politicians have realised that people don’t trust them, so they need people in PR, marketing, and television to make their policies more media friendly… So many people are now making podcasts about these issues,” says Ahmed.

    An example of this is the ‘The Rest Is Politics’ podcast which is hosted by ex-Labour strategist, Alastair Campbell, and former Conservative front bench minister, Rory Stewart. Campbell previously worked in journalism as the political editor of the Daily Mirror and then Today before he became Tony Blair’s press secretary.

    While they perform a different role in the political media to Farage, the action of using the media as a way of creating discourse and an agenda is certainly apparent.

    Dr Donatella Bonansinga is a Research Fellow at the University of Southampton, where she investigates populist activity and narratives and how they exist within the radical left and right. Specifically, she deals with populism and how it reacts to feelings of anger, fear, pride and hope, and how populism is visually communicated on platforms such as Instagram and TikTok.

    Though Farage’s time on social media may, at first, appear to be a success story in terms of followers in comparison to his counterparts, Bonansinga believes this could be a slightly reductionist perspective.

    “I would say that establishing ‘success’ is particularly complicated on platforms such as TikTok because it means different things to different people. By looking at audience engagement or how many times established media picks up what a political actor says or does on TikTok, we can track how their message is amplified to a wider audience.”

    Donatella Bonansinga

    Farage has bridged the gap between established and social media himself, making appearances on GB News, LBC, and This Morning. While each of these shows ranges in their depth of political commentary, it is Farage’s personality which makes him so watchable.

    He continues this public image on his social media and is doing very well with younger voters as a result. Many right-wing politicians have secured healthy social media presences, which have translated to good performances in elections.

    Topham Guerin is a digital strategy firm which has worked on many political campaigns, such as Boris Johnson’s 2019 landslide victory and Christopher Luxon’s win in the New Zealand election of 2023. The latter is important because of how much campaigning took place online.

    With the help of Topham Guerin, Luxon and the New Zealand National Party were able to connect with 18 to 34-year-old’s, driving themselves up the polls. They did this by using TikTok filters, following trends, and even developing a game called ‘Tax Relief Rush’ which, in the company’s words, converted political messaging into interactive entertainment.

    When asked about the importance of social media in modern politics, Ben Guerin, a co-founder of Topham Guerin, said it would be negligent for a party to ignore it, and in a conversation with Politico, Guerin said: “This was an election where we had an old, white man, who is on the right side of politics, achieve 75% of all those views among 18- to 35-year old’s.”

    “We were able to prove that the right can actually win younger voters when you talk to people where they are and in the language that they’re using.”

    Ben Guerin via Politico

    Bonansinga commented on the effects of Farage’s rhetoric on young and impressionable viewers and explained how she feared that young people may not always be able to decipher between reasonable and problematic political messages.

    With snappy videos, memorable taglines and an apparent connection to the working class, Bonansinga feels Farage is making serious inroads with a demographic which is proving to be easier to persuade.

    “I say easier to persuade because teenagers on the platform have not lived through the times when Farage and his ideas were considered ‘radical’ if not ‘extreme’,” Bonansinga says.

    Bonansinga’s research also looks into the idea of who the ’emerging’ and who the ‘established’ groups are in politics, and what makes them such. A predicate of someone in the ’emerging’ category tends to be that their ideas go against the conventional grain of the ‘established’, but Farage’s ideas are becoming more mainstream all the time, particularly concerning immigration.

    The rise in popularity of these once-rogue ideas puts pressure on the bigger parties to adopt variations of these ideas to get support for their side. We have seen this recently with both the Conservatives and Labour, the former using the simple slogan: ‘Stop The Boats’ in 2023, and the latter opting for ‘Smash the Gangs’ in their recent election win.

    In the age of the idea of diversity in politics being more prevalent than ever, the fact that both parties went with strong anti-immigration messages perhaps proves Farage’s grip over what the dominant parties feel they have to promote to keep Reform UK at bay.

    Anger, fear, pride and hope

    Bonansinga’s research has evaluated how Reform UK’s social media interacts with anger, fear, pride and hope; the first two are aimed at the groups that they oppose, such as immigrants and minorities, and the last two are what they try to inject into rallies and campaigns to muster feelings of latent patriotism.

    Her research into anger found that: “Reform’s communication helps people make sense of insecurity by clearly identifying those who are allegedly responsible, for example, your job insecurity is due to immigrants stealing your opportunities.”

    Similarly, with pride, Reform UK uses it to glorify the virtues of the people. They often talk about the greatness of Britain, especially in the past, and compare it to today where they believe Britons are being left behind.

    This emphasis on having pride in Britain’s history clashes with the more liberal point of view that things like the British Empire are not something to be proud of, saying it was a source of oppression.

    In a video on his YouTube channel titled: ‘Farage SLAMS woke education system.’, he spoke about the deterioration of national pride amongst young people, saying: “when you think of this little island, the amazing things we’ve done for the world, be it innovation, development, the spread of Christianity, why are our kids our being told that everything about our past is poisonous?”

    Lastly, Reform uses hope as a means of identifying themselves as the only hope for a better future. With them, we can hope for better security and a reversal back to what we once were.

    “Reform appeals to this emotion when presenting itself as the ‘ only solution’ to Britain’s problems and the only party capable of ‘saving’ the country. In the party’s narrative, hope is very much intertwined with the idea of salvation,”

    Dr Donatella Bonansinga.

    Another important word that can be related to Reform UK that they are not likely to boast about is insecurity. For some analysts, they are guilty of playing up to fears of certain regions of the UK.

    All four constituencies that Reform UK currently hold voted for Brexit and are in regions that have struggled with deindustrialisation. Ashfield was once a productive mining area but as of December 2023, less than 65% of people were in employment, according to the Office for National Statistics.

    Skegness and Boston, South Basildon and East Thurrock, and Clacton, would all have seen a decline due to the reduction of the fishing industry. Nigel Farage and other brexiteers were keen to blame the EU for this drop-off.

    Bonansinga believes Farage is selecting each of his political enemies and finding reasons why they threaten British national security.

    She says: “According to the party, migrants are threatening what it means to be British; woke and climate activists are creating a cultural war; political elites are unresponsive to the demands of the people and as such are threatening the very essence of democracy.”

  • Trump and Musk: The social media campaign becomes the social media presidency

    Trump and Musk: The social media campaign becomes the social media presidency

    Throughout the nearly 100 days that Donald Trump has spent in office, his social media presence has not ceased once

    Few have used social media in a campaign the way Trump has. And even fewer have recruited a social media mogul to take a position in office.

    Though the pair began on rocky terms, Trump’s welcoming back onto X (formerly known as Twitter) appeared to build a bridge. Musk gradually aligned closer with Trump’s policies, and now finds himself in the role of Senior Advisor to the President for the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

    As the world watches on, political scientists try to decipher and plot Trump’s next moves, but weekly, paradigm-shifting events are make this very difficult.

    Professor Jason Gainous has research interests in Digital Political Communication. American-born, he now works at the University of Sharjah in the UAE, and co-authored ‘Tweeting to power: The social media revolution in American politics’.

    Over a decade on from the publishing of the paper, Gainous has seen the expansion of social media in American politics, and believes it will only continue but with worrying consequences.

    The mood during our conversation on 7th February was one of trepidation; even the most wised-up of commentators could not have predicted Trump’s plans for tariffs and his executive orders, which have covered everything from showerhead pressure to the TikTok ban. However, Gainous did have some suspicions that have recently started to materialise.

    Trump’s X domination

    Gainous began speaking about Trump’s reintroduction on X. Initially, the president used his platform, Truth Social, but came back to X after a referendum set up by Musk on 22nd November 2022. Upon the result, in which 51.8% of respondents voted for Trump’s return, Musk tweeted, “The people have spoken. Trump will be reinstated. Vox Populi, Vox Dei.”

    Yet Trump did not follow the social media playbook in the way that other politicians have. While they posted press releases and pictures from events which make them look favourable, Trump’s methods have been far less orthodox.

    Gainous says: “Trump comes along and he just says anything, contradicts himself, doesn’t worry about grammar. He always had this motto which is ‘there is no such thing as bad press’ and so what he was able to do initially before Twitter turned to X was just dominate the agenda.”

    According to Gainous, Trump’s tactics were to be as inflammatory as possible, in an effort to have all of the media spotlight on him. The right-wing press would praise his attacks on liberals and their policies, and the left would demonise him and call for his head. Whatever opinion the coverage took, it was still coverage.

    It goes deeper, with Trump attempting to siphon off enough people who trust neither aspects of the coverage, to look to him as a beacon of truth in an environment of lies.

    Trump’s strategy of being chaotic and boisterous on social media was facilitated by Musk’s changes to X’s algorithms. Overnight, users began seeing what everyone else was paying attention to, so when Trump would make an outrageous claim about someone and users stopped scrolling to read it, it would appear on your timeline, too.

    “The first thing I saw was violence and fights, not political violence but people fighting outside a pub, and another thing I noticed was what in the US what we call rubbernecking, which is when there’s an accident and you slow down and look.”

    Prof Jason Gainous

    Trump’s defiance of the political status quo has acted as a source of excitement and refreshment for his supporters, but a source of disgust and alarm for his haters, which, in turn, spurs on his supporters further.

    One of the most inexplicable things to come out of Trump’s second success in the bid for the presidency has been the level of Elon Musk’s involvement in proceedings. Musk first joined Trump’s team in December 2016, but he now appears to hold more of a senior position in the executive branch.

    On Musk, Gainous pointed out that the SpaceX owner has autism, which can be a catalyst for innovation and creativity, but that those with neurodivergent minds can also be liable for traits of being unempathetic and narcissistic.

    The Elon factor

    Gainous says: “They are both, in certain ways, tremendous creatives in that they take different approaches in how they engage with people, the issue is I don’t think they understand the complexities of collective behaviour and how their actions will shape culture in 15 years because they’re both profit guys.”

    The DOGE’s role is to cut government spending right down to its core, but the changes have been nothing short of wholesale. DEIA (diversity, equality, inclusion, and accessibility) programmes, the Department for Education, and the United States Agency for International Development have all faced drastic cuts, according to Fox.

    All of the DOGE’s cuts have been listed on their website for transparency, and at the time of its conception, Musk said, via X: “We will have a leader board for the most insanely dumb spending of your tax dollars. This will be both extremely tragic and extremely entertaining.”

    Gainous referred to Trump and Musk as circus showmen, playing up to the audience and keeping them coming back for more. They are doing this through their monumental decisions in personnel change, such as the removal of Joint Chief of Staff, General Mark Milley, and Democratic Federal Elections Committee (FEC) chair Ellen Weintraub, who believes her dismissal was illegal.

    Musk’s Nazi-esque salute at Trump’s inauguration speech was also an effort to garner the shock factor, Gainous believes. He did admit that this cannot be taken as conclusive evidence that Musk holds Nazi ideals, but his claim that it was a Roman salute was just an excuse.

    Amid all the chaos, Gainous sensed that major issues could arise from Trump’s turbulent style of governing, though he did hold out some hope that a method to the madness may appear in the future.

    “Unless all of the top thinking economists and professionals are wrong, we could see huge economic consequences, global instability, shifting power alliances which lead to uncertainty or, which I think is much less likely, their craziness will take us somewhere better.”

    Prof Jason Gainous

    On 19th March, the Deputy Ruler of Abu Dhabi and National Security Adviser, His Highness Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan met with Trump and other senior officials to discuss and enhance the two countries’ shared interests.

    H.H. Sheikh Tahnoon thanked Trump for his hospitality and engaged in conversation about AI, technology, infrastructure, and healthcare. While these topics hold great importance, the Emirati people do not necessarily hold Trump in the same regard.

    Gainous says: “I live in the UAE and they love Trump, and with my students not being Western, they don’t think about being left, right, conservative, it doesn’t mean anything to them, they think about Trump purely through the performative stuff.”

    It is commonly said that, as an electorate, we should be exposed to each side of an argument and hear out the opposition before making our choices when voting. Echo chambers are common results of algorithms on social media, as they redistribute the content that we interact with the most.

    Some of Gainous’ early research disproves the idea of the necessity of variation of the information we seek. He worked on a theory known as selective exposure which says that if someone finds information that backs up their pre-set dispositions, they are more likely to go to the polls.

    Using algorithms to learn the electorate

    There are arguments on both sides as to whether surrounding yourself with like-minded people and thoughts is good or bad, but there are other aspects to algorithms which may be less visible to users but should be of serious concern.

    “While social media didn’t set out to create algorithms that create polarisation, companies use the algorithms so people get what they want out of their digital experience so that companies can sell their data to advertisers and businesses who can figure out what sections of the population want,” says Gainous.

    Algorithms can also be used to pump out miscommunication. If an algorithm gets hold of something that has been created with artificial intelligence but people believe it and react to it, the algorithm will keep pushing it out, unaware of the deceit.

    This was of particular concern in the recent presidential election; Musk and Trump were using X to springboard their campaign and weaken Biden’s, and fears of Russian, Chinese and Iranian interference had analytics companies, such as the Microsoft Threat Analysis Centre (MTAC), highly suspicious.

    “Russian actors continue to integrate generative AI into their content, Iranian groups ramp up their preparations to enable cyber-influence operations, while Chinese actors shift focus to several down-ballot candidates and members of Congress.”

    Clint Watts, General Manager of MTAC

    Lee Rainie, Director of the Imagining the Digital Future Centre at the, coincidentally named, Elon University in North Carolina, conducted a survey about the American electorate’s feelings about AI. 69% of respondents said they were not confident their fellow citizens could detect faked videos and audio.

    With the ever-growing advancement of AI on social platforms, and it being manipulated to empower people’s misconceptions and stereotypes, it puts pressure on the ability of authorities to govern the masses and fend off lies that AI can disseminate so convincingly.

    One of Gainous’ chief concerns was that, at its worst, AI could fracture how society has worked and been run for centuries, with the alternative being frighteningly unknown. This comes as AI’s place in public life becomes more apparent.

    He says: “My main concern about it is that it may be the end of democracy as a legitimate way to govern because if we are relying on people to have a reasonable level of information to make choices, it calls into question what is reasonable?”

    Dr Hannah Wilkinson is an Assistant Professor of Criminology at the University of Nottingham, where she teaches a module on war and state violence. Her research has involved how identities and experiences are shaped through interactions with state institutions.

    She identified how social media and technology was used on the campaign trail to analyse how people were leaning but focused on those who appeared undecided. This seems to be a common theme, with Reform UK aiming their social media activity at those whose opinions are yet to be fully formed.

    After the televised debate on 16th September, NPR reached out to listeners who had said they were unsure of who to vote for in the lead-up to the election. Many felt unconvinced by both candidates’ performances in the debate, showing the importance of picking up votes online.

    “From what is known, the key focus of social media campaigns to influence voting were aimed at ‘persuadable’ voters – people who were not ‘obviously’ – from their online presence – decided one way or another.”

    Dr Hannah Wilkinson

    But, according to Wilkinson, parties have been trying to gain the edge, financially, for years, and so socical media is not necessarily the only contributor to a candidate picking up extra votes.

    While both Trump and Harris spent extraordinary amounts, Harris’ literally billion dollar campaign ended with her being the first Democratic nominee in 2 decades to lose the national popular vote. While she did invest in online endorsement, huge rallies and concerts failed to harvest the needed support.

    Trump, however, had his connections with Musk but also other media giants like Joe Rogan, which allowed him to tap into ‘persuadable’ voters, yet only accumulating half of the expenses that Harris did.

    “Journalists must also take into account the financial backing of political parties as these are rarely ‘balanced’ and so again, have the potential to undermine democracy in terms of ‘free choice’ – when one party can pay for mass exposure, for example,” says Wilkinson.

  • Putin continues with media manipulation as Ukraine war lengthens

    Putin continues with media manipulation as Ukraine war lengthens

    Three years on from Russia’s invasion, there appears to be no sign of their forces letting up. Meanwhile, Putin’s misuse of the media supports his ultimate goal of Ukrainian annihilation

    The 24th February 2022 saw the beginning of Russia’s offensive in Ukraine, a ‘special military operation’ as described by Vladimir Putin, that is still raging today. Weeks before, Putin had begun spreading falsehoods about Ukraine to muster Russian animosity.

    In an issue of The Russian Analytical Digest from May 2024, Dr Jade McGlynn, a researcher of War Studies at Kings College London, wrote about Russian propaganda tactics through media arms. She wrote of a two-tiered propaganda system being used, differentiating news between Russians and occupied Ukrainians.

    McGlynn said that in occupied territories, Ukrainians were essentially force-fed Russian narratives, due to the mandatory installation of Russian satellite channels and the removal of Ukrainian ones. The packages were encrypted so those whom the messages were not intended for could not see what was broadcasted.

    Also, occupied Ukrainians were given Russian passports and were threatened with the removal of their children and food provisions if they did not accept them. Then, they were told that they might as well disregard their Ukrainian nationality, as any Ukrainian soldiers who saw the passports would treat the civilians as traitors.

    Criticism and even speculation over Russian affairs have proven to be a risky task but many scholars, globally, are conducting research, attempting to understand Putin’s plans and their effects on the people he is aiming to make his own.

    Dr Joanna Szostek is a senior lecturer in political communication at the University of Glasgow and is an associate fellow of the Russia and Eurasia Programme at The Royal Institute of International Affairs. Her research investigates the reception of strategic narratives and the challenge of autocracies exerting influence on democratic states.

    Russian’s attempting to block out the noise

    Szostek has been analysing Russian state media since Putin came to power. She said: “The state took over a few television channels that were relatively independent in his first year but then over the last 25 years that he’s been in power, the space for independent media in Russia has grown so small now to the point where it’s almost non-existent.”

    Academics like Szostek ignore Russian public opinion polls, believing that citizens are unable to express any feelings which do not actively condone Russian foreign policy. Some Russians have also been brainwashed by Putin’s lies in the media about the history of Ukraine.

    There is a prevailing sense that many Russians are trying to block out politics from their day-to-day lives. This is not necessarily out of indifference or malice toward the plight of the Ukrainians but rather a feeling that they are powerless and voiceless and so would rather go about their life and try to maintain something like normality.

    Szostek added to this with a sentiment of condemnation from Russia’s elite, saying: “I think there are people who are more pragmatic, who would like the war to end and would like to go back to doing business and being free to travel without sanctions.”

    Szostek’s most in-depth research came during field work in Ukraine which she conducted between 2015 and 2021, where she investigated how conversing political narratives varied and were received. She reviewed how both Ukrainian and Russian news reports interacted with the public, how it was disseminated and what it meant for public opinion.

    She said that one of her main conclusions was that people were more likely to trust news that aligned with their priorities rather than news that reported honest facts. Russian news outlets clocked this attitude quickly and manipulated their outputs to rile further Ukrainian discontent, according to Szostek.

    “Some Ukrainians at the time were very negative about the state of affairs of their country so anything that reinforced that negativity would be repeated. That’s what the Russian state was trying to do with their propaganda in Ukraine, saying how there are Nazis everywhere and the economy’s collapsing.”

    Dr Joanna Szostek

    Her final words broke down the feeling within Ukrainians now, that perhaps despair was not the lead emotion in the country and their national pride still stands strong.

    Szostek said: “The Russian media have next to no credibility in most of Ukraine that is not occupied but what happens in the occupied territories becomes a more difficult question because those parts of Ukraine have been sucked into the Russian media environment.

    “There’s determination in the Ukrainians that I speak to and recognition that giving up isn’t an option because Russia is out to destroy the whole idea of being Ukrainian.”

    The future of Russia with Putin at the helm may appear bleak, but the 72-year-old ex-KGB man has an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court, specifically for the forced deportation and unlawful transfer of children from occupied areas of Ukraine to Russia.

    Also, Russian crypto coin mogul, Alex Konanykhin, posted to LinkedIn that he would pay one million dollars to anyone who handed Putin or his Commissioner for Children’s Rights, Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova, over to the International Crime Court.

    Putin’s use of propaganda to equally buoy Russian support and deflate Ukrainian patriotism has been felt in every media element from billboards to radio bulletins. Propaganda has been a device of media manipulation enacted by Russian autocrats since the days of the Soviet Union.

    Russians today are more literate, in both the traditional and digital sense, with over 70% of Russians being digitally literate in 2023, according to the NAFI Research Centre. However, Putin’s lock on state media and continued denigration of Ukrainian sovereignty is an overt link to the USSR.

    Media propaganda

    Opposing news companies, like Meduza, which is now based in Latvia, and The Moscow Times, which is now in Amsterdam, are operational but they have had to flee Russia.

    Professor Paul Goode is an Associate Professor and McMillan Chair of Russian Studies at the Institute of European, Russian and Eurasian Studies at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada. His research explores nationalism and authoritarianism in Russia.

    The link between nationalism and propaganda is a key connection for Goode and he believes it to be one of the foremost strategies in normalising the devourment of Ukraine for non-combatants on either side of the conflict.

    “Ukrainians have been deceived, that they are essentially Russian, that Ukraine is not a viable state and what Russia is doing is rewriting a historical injustice that came after the collapse of the Soviet Union.”

    Prof Paul Goode on Russia’s perspective of Ukraine

    The Russian state and compliant companies, like Gazprom, have been known to allow what Goode described as ‘ideological entrepreneurs’ the chance to promote the war effort themselves. Some will even use this opportunity as a ladder up into Russian media.

    Goode believes that a new leader would still be a ‘creature of Putin’s regime’ as much of the opposition in Russia, on all fronts, has been smashed. But media-based sabotage could come into play for candidates to ruin each other’s reputations.

    Goode said: “Especially now with the spread of deep fakes and AI, the media is a particularly efficient way of carrying out sabotage and so it’s possible that you could see some diversity emerge and the breakdown of central control.”

    The authoritarian nature of Russia’s leadership has forced TV channels of all genres to play by the rules of the executive. Ones that have failed to comply or opposed government stances have been shut down or were sometimes even run out of the country, as was the case with Dazhd Television.

    As a way of not supporting the regime while staying on the air, many channels report the bare minimum about the war, opting for less controversial topics like lifestyle.

    Goode said that this was especially the case amongst regional broadcasters, who opt for subjects like economics. Some may run stories about how local heroes are overcoming sanctions but nothing else, politically, is reported.

    Russia’s ability to silence stretches even as far as academics and students. Dara Melnyk is a higher education transformation consultant who worked at the Moscow School of Management when the war broke out. She wrote in the University World News publication of rectors mysteriously losing their jobs and being deported due to their contempt for Russia’s offensive in Ukraine.

    “If previously walking on thin ice was a part of the job of a top manager at Russian universities, now it is the job. Speak the truth and you are done…The sound of silence is dreadful. If the communication lines with Russian universities are cut, it will become harrowing.”

    Dara Melnyk via the University World News

    But fear and the need to lie low is a stark reality for many who are even indirectly attached to Russia. This interviewee, who will be referred to as Dr Greene, has asked to remain anonymous due to their personal ties with the country. They have worked extensively in Russia for many years, studying its interactions with politics and religion. They are now a deputy head of the international relations course at a top British university.

    Their view of media was the expected, uncomfortable tale of state control and institutionalised self-censorship, but what the government has offered as an alternative does nothing to ease concerns.

    A return to Soviet censorship?

    Greene said: “They’ll discuss matters such as if there’s a shortage of eggs or butter but with no implicit criticism of anyone high up but rather for low-level bureaucracy. It’s funny, it’s a little bit of a game but you know what your limits are.”

    They also said that censorship over social media and traditional media acts very differently because, like in the West, anyone can have a say and appear just as advised as experts.

    This relative freedom has allowed pro-war ‘commentators’ a platform which they use to call for Putin to be even more aggressive, but they may also report the deaths of soldiers, which the state reports inaccurately if at all. They are arrested but, according to Greene, these arrests never normally lead to punishment as many bloggers will have protectors within the government.

    The Russian authority’s grip over social media can also be seen through their handling of sites such as Facebook and YouTube, says Greene. Facebook is monitored constantly and while it is not illegal to access it, viewing content that criticises Russia is illegal and can even be viewed as an act of terrorism. YouTube has had its transmission rates lowered by so much that it is virtually impossible to get through a video.

    Greene spoke of someone they knew who grew up in Soviet times who now goes between Russia and the UK. They say that no one speaks in places where conversations can be tracked. This attitude was commonplace at the height of the Soviet Union.

    They said: “She went to her hairdresser in Moscow and, like hairdressers everywhere, they talk to you a lot, but she said suddenly they were much cagier, and she noticed people saying ‘let’s go and talk in the park’ rather than in apartments or in the café.”

    When the USSR fell and Boris Yeltsin became president, the media could freely comment and even mock him. This allowed some to feel that the age of censorship was over in the new Russia, but Putin’s ascension has reversed this attitude entirely.

    “Russian TV used to have a show which was similar to Spitting Image which used to lampoon politicians. Yeltsin didn’t like it but he said ‘that’s freedom for you’. Putin closed it down within a year.”

    Dr Greene

    Not all media companies that have been forced out of Russia are always critical, with papers like The Moscow Times and Meduza running stories about the failures of the Russian opposition and when the war is going badly for Ukraine.

    For Greene, Russian news organisations must be devoted to Putin otherwise they become outlawed. A range of deterrents are imposed to stop opposing opinions on the airways, and these deterrents can be much harsher than having your broadcasting licence revoked, like we would in the UK.

    Deterrents include cyber-attacks and physical violence toward journalists, who are then tried in absentia while they reside in a country that will not deport them back to Russia, should they be found guilty.