Media events, speech events and propagandistic techniques of legitimation: a multimodal analysis of the Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis' public addresses on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic significantly increased the public's need for information and guidance. Governments worldwide responded by frequently broadcasting public addresses and press conferences, leveraging media events to disseminate information. This study focuses on the televised public addresses of Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis during the pandemic's initial eight months. The Greek media landscape, characterized by "intense political parallelism" and Mitsotakis’s control over key media outlets, created a context where his addresses became primary sources of information. The paper investigates how these addresses functioned as propagandistic media and speech events, aiming to legitimize the government's pandemic strategy through a multimodal analysis of their visual and linguistic features. The study explores how these addresses utilized nationalist narratives, and examined the techniques of legitimization employed, to understand their impact on public opinion.

The paper draws on existing theories of media events, initially explored by Lang and Lang, and further developed by Boorstin (pseudo-events) and Dayan and Katz (media events as live broadcasts with specific structural and symbolic characteristics, often unifying audiences on a nationalist basis). The study also incorporates van Leeuwen's framework of four legitimization categories: authorization, moral evaluation, rationalization, and mythopoesis; and examines how these categories relate to propagandistic techniques that appeal to both emotions (positive and negative) and logic. The intense political parallelism in the Greek media system (Hallin and Mancini) and the government's influence over information flow are also considered in the context of the research.

The research employed a multimodal analysis, focusing on both visual and verbal elements within Mitsotakis' twelve public addresses delivered between March and October 2020. These addresses, available on the prime minister's website, were analyzed using both qualitative and quantitative methods. The unit of analysis was the "statement-bite," a meaningful declarative sentence or sentence component. The analysis explored visual elements (symbols in the background of videos, such as the Greek flag, EU flag, and religious icons), and verbal elements (linguistic choices, appeals to emotions, and usage of legitimization techniques). Quantitative data was collected on the frequency of different legitimization categories and emotional appeals. The data collected from the analysis was then used to answer the research questions and test the hypothesis.

The analysis revealed several key findings. Firstly, Mitsotakis' addresses consistently exhibited nation-centric visual and verbal features. Visual symbols in the background reinforced a sense of national unity, while verbal appeals (e.g., the frequent use of "my fellow citizens") created an inclusive "us" versus "them" dichotomy, positioning the government and citizens as a united front against the pandemic. The March 25th address, coinciding with a national holiday, particularly emphasized historical references to reinforce this nationalistic narrative. Secondly, Mitsotakis' legitimization strategies predominantly employed rationalization (explaining governmental actions and policies), followed by authorization (emphasizing his authority as prime minister), moral evaluation (appealing to values like solidarity and responsibility), and mythopoesis (rewarding responsible behavior and punishing irresponsible actions). Quantitatively, rationalization appeared most frequently (115 times), followed by authorization (51 times) and moral evaluation (48 times). Finally, while Mitsotakis generally evoked positive emotions (hope, optimism) to instill confidence, he strategically used appeals to fear, particularly in times of escalating cases, to justify restrictive measures. Positive emotional appeals significantly outnumbered negative ones (57 versus 25).

The findings demonstrate how Mitsotakis' public addresses strategically employed media events and speech events to legitimize the government's pandemic response, drawing upon nationalist sentiment and propagandistic techniques. The consistent use of nation-centric imagery and language fostered a sense of national unity and collective responsibility. The dominance of rationalization as a legitimization strategy suggests an attempt to present the government's response as logical, effective, and data-driven. The strategic use of positive and negative emotional appeals highlights a calculated attempt to manage public opinion and support for restrictive measures. These strategies demonstrate the intricate relationship between political communication, public perception, and the management of a national crisis.

This study contributes to our understanding of political communication during health crises by providing a detailed analysis of how media events can be used to shape public opinion and legitimize government actions. The multimodal analysis presented a framework for analyzing similar communication strategies employed by other political leaders globally. Future research could extend this analysis to other countries and leaders, comparing their strategies and examining the effectiveness of different approaches in managing public perception during a pandemic.

The study's focus on a single country and leader limits the generalizability of the findings. Future research should incorporate a comparative analysis across different countries and political systems to better understand the varying contexts and effects of such communication strategies. Additionally, the reliance on publicly available data may not capture the full complexity of the communication strategies employed.