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 paper examines how the SARS‑CoV‑2 pandemic, as a holistic and highly mediated crisis, heightened public need for orientation and foregrounded government leaders’ televised public addresses as key information vehicles. In Greece, intense political parallelism and strengthened executive control over major public media created a communication environment where official sources dominated coverage. The conservative government of Kyriakos Mitsotakis instituted early lockdowns and heavily publicized early successes, while later facing rising cases in late 2020. Mitsotakis delivered at least 12 televised public addresses between March and October 2020, averaging more than one per month, making them an apt case for exploring media and speech events as carriers of governmental propaganda and legitimation in crisis. The study’s main research question is: In which ways does K. Mitsotakis seek to legitimize in his public addresses the Greek government’s policies on tackling the pandemic, under the rationale of (propagandistic) media and speech events? Supporting items include: RH1 expecting nation‑centric visual and/or verbal semantic features; RQ1 whether the addresses construct opposing “sides”; RQ2 which legitimation category is most frequent; and RQ3 whether emotional appeals are predominantly positive or negative. The purpose is both to analyze the Greek case and to propose a replicable framework for examining similar addresses internationally, given the resurgence of nation‑centric, ritualized media events during health crises.

The paper reviews theories of mediation and media events, noting how media define and represent social reality (Lippmann; Thompson; Silverstone; Couldry). It contrasts Boorstin’s pseudo‑events—pre‑planned, media‑oriented spectacles—with Dayan and Katz’s media events, characterized by interruption of routine programming, live broadcast, pre‑planning, focus on protagonists, ritual tone, and a unifying, nation‑centric grammar. Critiques highlight exclusions of traumatic events, class and ideological dynamics, and overemphasis on television. Political speeches are treated as pre‑planned speech events designed to legitimize actions or policies. Drawing on van Leeuwen, the paper outlines four legitimization strategies: authorization, moral evaluation, rationalization, and mythopoesis, which may co‑occur. Propaganda is approached as intentional mass communication serving ideological aims, operating through emotional appeals (positive or negative) and rational appeals (often selective or incomplete), aligning with Reyes’ legitimation through emotions and rationality. This framework motivates a multimodal examination of visual nation‑centric cues, discursive construction of ‘us’ versus ‘other,’ and the deployment of legitimization strategies and emotional appeals in Mitsotakis’ addresses.

The study employs multimodal analysis to examine both visual and verbal‑linguistic elements of Kyriakos Mitsotakis’ televised public addresses on COVID‑19. Data comprise 12 addresses delivered on 03/11, 03/17, 03/19, 03/22, 03/25, 04/13, 04/18, 04/28, 05/20, 09/24, 10/22, and 10/31 of 2020. Videos and transcripts were sourced from www.primeminister.gr. Nine of the 12 addresses occurred during the first national lockdown. The analysis integrates qualitative interpretation with quantitative coding. The unit of analysis is the “statement‑bite,” defined as a meaningful declarative sentence or component that can stand as one. Coding dimensions include: (a) visual and verbal nation‑centric features (e.g., national/religious symbols, nation‑address terms); (b) construction of ‘us’ versus ‘other’; (c) legitimization categories (authorization, moral evaluation, rationalization, mythopoesis); and (d) emotional evocations (positive vs negative) and appeals to logic. Frequencies of coded instances were calculated across addresses to identify predominant strategies.

- Structurally, the addresses fit media event criteria: pre‑announced, live, interrupting regular programming, focused on the PM as protagonist, attracting large audiences. - Visual nation‑centric cues were prominent: recurring Greek and EU flags; in several addresses, an icon of the Virgin Mary behind the PM; on 03/25 an outdoor shot with the Acropolis and an olive tree symbolizing historical continuity; Easter message outdoors. These visuals construct a sense of belonging to the Greek nation (and secondarily the EU), with a religious dimension. - Verbal nation‑centric framing was pervasive: most addresses opened with “my fellow citizens” or “my compatriots,” reinforcing unity. Nation‑centric verbal features totaled 50 instances across 12 addresses (mean 4.17 per address), peaking on 03/25. - ‘Us’ vs ‘other’: The discourse systematically created a collective ‘we’ against the ‘enemy’ (the coronavirus), emphasizing solidarity and discipline (e.g., “we repelled the pandemic’s first waves”). - Mythopoesis: Citizens were praised and symbolically rewarded (“you tamed the first wave”; “little heroes”); health workers were lauded (“heroes in green and white T‑shirts”), compared to revolutionary figures; threats of punishment targeted those acting “antisocially” or spreading misinformation. - Authorization: Frequent assertions of personal and institutional authority (“I choose to communicate more often…”, commitment to protect every Greek life), underscoring decisive leadership. - Moral evaluation: Appeals to solidarity (in every address), discipline, unity, responsibility; fostering a renewed “national self‑confidence.” - Rationalization: Detailed policy measures were repeatedly outlined. Examples include: adding ICU beds and equipment; hiring 2,000 nurses/specialists (03/19); increasing ICU capacity from 557 to nearly 1,000 and hiring ~6,200 nurses/doctors (09/24); economic support exceeding €14 billion, an additional €10 billion in liquidity and EU funds; 750,000 workers receiving €800; ~200,000 unemployed benefit extensions; suspensions of tax/insurance for >500,000 companies; 85,000 scientists in paid distance‑learning programs (04/13). - Frequency of legitimization categories (total counts across addresses): rationalization 115 (most frequent), authorization 51, moral evaluation 48, mythopoesis 33. - Emotional appeals: Positive appeals (hope/optimism) 57 vs negative (fear/uncertainty) 25. Closures often stressed hope (“We can and we will do it!”). Negative appeals clustered early (March) and late (October), preceding lockdowns, to prime acceptance of restrictive measures.

The findings show that Mitsotakis’ televised addresses functioned as nation‑centric media events and persuasive speech events within a Greek media environment characterized by political parallelism and heavy reliance on official sources. Multimodal cues—national and religious symbols combined with inclusive openings—constructed unity and ‘Greekness,’ aligning with the governing party’s conservative ideological profile. In legitimizing pandemic policies, rationalization dominated via enumerated health system and economic measures, complemented by personal authorization and moral appeals to solidarity and responsibility, and mythopoetic praise of citizens and health workers. Emotional strategy balanced optimism with episodic fear to motivate compliance, particularly before announcing stricter measures. These dynamics suggest that crisis communication leveraged ritualized, unifying media formats to propagate government narratives and legitimize policy choices. The study’s framework demonstrates how multimodal analysis can reveal the interplay of national symbolism, legitimation strategies, and affect in political crisis communication.

The study contributes a multimodal framework for analyzing leaders’ public addresses as propagandistic media and speech events during crises. Applied to 12 addresses by Greece’s PM in 2020, it shows systematic deployment of national symbols and inclusive language, predominant rationalization of policy, supporting authorization and moral evaluation, and a tilt toward positive emotional appeals, with strategic use of fear preceding restrictions. These addresses served as a central tool for managing public communication about COVID‑19 and reframing the pandemic as a national endeavor. Future research should extend the framework to comparative international analyses of leaders’ addresses, assessing cross‑national variation in nationalist connotations, emotional balance, and legitimation strategies across different media systems and phases of the pandemic.

The categorization of legitimization strategies is primarily qualitative; categories are not fixed and often overlap within a single speech segment. For quantitative reporting, instances that fit both authorization and rationalization were, by design, double‑counted to acknowledge their twofold meaning, which may inflate totals for these categories.