'Who contributes more?' How Ukrainian media construed migrants' life strategies vs. what the Ukrainian public wanted to know

The study examines how Ukrainian top media (2015–2018) framed migrants and migration, and how this aligned with public information needs. Grounded in media influence and framing theories (Strohmeier; Lakoff), and the notion that news reflects existing social contexts (Mathison) in a post-factual media environment, the authors ask: (1) What is the tone of discourse on migrants and what components does it offer to Ukrainian audiences? (2) Are different types of migrants presented identically, or are positive/negative hidden meanings attached selectively? (3) Does media discourse form a complex image of migrants in an (inter)national context, or create mosaic content? Using the MAD international project’s Ukrainian component, the study applies sociological discourse analysis to top media outputs and explores public perceptions via focus groups to assess gaps between media constructions and audience expectations.

The paper situates its inquiry within framing theory (Lakoff; Goffman; Yanow & Van Hulst) and critical discourse analysis (van Dijk), emphasizing how media frames shape perceptions of migrants through meaning-making, selection, categorization, and identity framing. It references the tendency of audiences to prefer sensational over substantive content (Marakasova & Chudova) and the 'post-factual age' (Kunushevci). The authors draw on sociological discourse analysis (Ruiz) and Bourdieu’s concepts of fields and authority to interpret quotation practices and ideological polarization (Us vs. Them) in migration discourse. Prior Ukrainian media research is cited on terminology misuse around 'migrant' vs. 'refugee' (Kostryba), Russian propaganda narratives (Bakhteev), limited coverage of IDPs (Yaroshenko), oligarchic media ownership and paid content ('jeansa') (Lihachova), and broader trends in media trust and consumption. The study also engages with de-othering literature (Kutsenko et al.) and notes cross-national examples of xenophobic media portrayals (Tkalich).

Design: Three-stage sociological discourse analysis integrating textual, contextual, and ideological levels (Ruiz). Data sources: Fifteen top Ukrainian media (printed/TV/online; state vs. private): Uryadovyy Kuryer, Vesti, Sehodnia, Den’, Hazeta po-ukrayins’ky, UA:Pershyy, TRK Ukrayina, 1+1, Inter, ICTV, Ukrayins’ka Pravda, Tsenzor.net, Radio Svoboda, Strana, 24.ua. Timeframe: 01/01/2015–12/31/2018. Sampling and coding: • Quantitative content analysis: >39,000 keyword-mentioning publications identified via Mediateka (Center for Content Analysis); 12,000 messages sampled and manually coded for latent meanings and tone (positive/neutral/negative triad). • Qualitative content analysis: Subsample from every February (2015–2018), selecting every 10th text; 355 texts from 2036 after removing duplicates and marginal mentions. Coding emphasized implicit meanings (implications) of migrants’ life strategies (active vs. passive), following a paradigmatic approach focusing on sets of meaning-bearing units. Intercoder agreement on a test sample: 71.5%. • Semantic analysis: Automated 'Advego' tool to extract semantic cores, focusing on politonyms and ethnonyms linked to migrants. • Discourse position analysis: Compared discourse across ownership (state/private), audiovisual type (press/TV/online), and trust/popularity strata (based on InMind and KIIS surveys). • Critical discourse analysis (sociocognitive dimension): Assessed quotation hierarchies and access profiles, mapping which actors (bureaucratic, scientific, economic, etc.) were cited and how 'goodness/badness' polarizations appeared. • Focus group interviews (FGI): Conducted by Kyiv International Institute of Sociology in Kyiv, Kharkiv, and L’viv (Dec 2019). Three groups (n=8 each; total n=24), active media users across ages, education, income, balanced by gender. Frequently used media included Ukr.net, Strana.ua, Tsenzor.net, Ukrayinska Pravda, Radio Liberty, Channel 24, TSN. Ethical compliance: Center for Content Analysis and KIIS adhered to professional codes (SAU, ESOMAR, AAPOR, WAPOR).

• Tone and topics: Neutral tone predominated across keywords, with negative peaks tied to EU 'migration crisis' narratives (2015), terrorism/crime associations, and U.S. policy coverage. Positive tone was driven by assistance stories and personal narratives (e.g., IDPs). • Terminology: Frequent conflation of 'refugees' and 'illegal migrants' mirrored EU crisis coverage; conceptual literacy was low. • Temporal dynamics: Peak attention to 'migrants' in Sept 2015; attention to IDPs decreased 2015–2018 alongside reduced hostilities. • IDPs: Coverage often neutral; positive TV stories focused on personal cases; online outlets emphasized policy problems. Evidence of 'jeansa' in IDP-related content (e.g., Akhmetov foundation messaging concentrated on TRK Ukrayina and Segodnya). State media under-covered legislative issues (e.g., voting rights). • Labor migrants ('zarobitchany'): Mostly neutral; positive spikes via remittance statistics framed as economically beneficial; limited state media engagement; uptick in 2018 due to policy and government attention; little reflection of illegal employment realities despite Eurostat indicating Ukrainians among largest groups of illegal migrants in the EU (2019 figures published 2020). • Semantic cores: Polity references dominated (Donetsk/Luhansk regions, ATO/war zone, Ukraine, Europe); ethnonyms increased for 'Ukrainians' over time, aligning with Ukrainianisation and strengthened national identity. • Implicit life-strategy implications: Active strategy implications included adaptability, expressing civic position, working plus charity, and using opportunities. Passive strategy implications centered on dependence on aid, prevalence of fraud/complaints, and indebtedness to benefactors. • Media-type differences: Messages implying active strategies were less present in state-controlled and in the most trusted/popular media, and less frequent in printed media overall. Specific active implications ('Migrants deserve respect', 'Migrants caught a wave', 'Migrants are helpful') varied by ownership/type/trust strata; the most trusted/popular media largely avoided 'opportunity use' and 'civic position' glorifications. • Quotation hierarchies: All outlets leaned on bureaucratic, scientific, and economic field authorities; actor ordering could frame pro/anti-migrant stances regardless of quote counts. • Group images: Two 'good' categories dominated—internal migrants (IDPs) and emigrants from Ukraine—yet IDPs simultaneously had the highest presence of passive implications. No clear pattern by media subtype identified a consistently harsher or kinder outlet set, suggesting an ongoing 'soap opera' treatment of internal migration. • Public information needs (FGIs): Participants wanted more practical, objective information about conditions and support for Ukrainian emigrants and IDPs (embassy services, rights, risks, material aid), indicating a preference for 'passive' images for Ukrainian migrants (what is provided to them) and an 'active' image for immigrants into Ukraine.

Addressing the research questions: (1) Tone was predominantly neutral, with negativity clustered around 'others' (illegal migrants/refugees in the EU) and positivity around 'our own' (IDPs), illustrating classic othering and agenda tendencies. (2) Media did not treat migrant categories identically: internal migrants and emigrants from Ukraine were framed as 'good,' yet IDPs simultaneously bore the heaviest passive implications, reinforcing dependency narratives. (3) The discourse produced mosaic, event-driven content rather than a complex, coherent picture, with low terminological precision and reliance on authority quotations that subtly encode ideological positions. Significance: Findings reveal superficiality and selectivity in Ukrainian media’s migration coverage during 2015–2018, with an emphasis on emotional and episodic frames and avoidance of potentially contentious 'active' portrayals in high-trust outlets. The public’s desire for concrete, service-oriented information indicates a gap between media constructions and audience needs; media could play a corrective, integrative role by improving conceptual clarity, balancing frames across migrant groups, and aligning content with practical concerns to reduce othering and support social integration.

The study demonstrates that Ukrainian top media (2015–2018) largely portrayed migrants through neutral but selective frames: positive tones for 'own' groups (especially IDPs) coexisted with strong passive implications that risk entrenching dependency images; negativity clustered around 'others' abroad. Active life strategy implications were less visible in state and in the most trusted/popular outlets and underrepresented in print. Media relied heavily on bureaucratic/scientific/economic authorities, shaping implicit pro/anti-migrant hierarchies. Focus groups exposed a clear public demand for practical, objective, and service-oriented information about Ukrainian emigrants and IDPs, and balanced portrayals of immigrants in Ukraine. Contributions: a multi-method map of implicit life-strategy constructions across media types and trust strata; identification of quotation hierarchies and group-specific framing; articulation of a media–public information gap. Future research could extend the timeframe beyond 2018 (including post-2019 shifts), compare Ukrainian coverage with other national contexts, deepen analysis of labor migration and illegal employment frames, and experimentally test how specific frames influence public attitudes and policy preferences.

• Temporal and sampling constraints: Intensive qualitative/semantic analyses relied on messages from every February (2015–2018), which may miss seasonal or crisis-specific dynamics in other months. • Media scope: Focus on 15 'top' outlets may not capture regional/local media or social media-native ecosystems. • Coding and tools: Latent manual coding with 71.5% intercoder agreement indicates moderate reliability; automated semantic analysis (Advego) has inherent NLP limitations. • Modality: Video/audio were analyzed via transcripts, potentially losing paralinguistic cues. • CDA scope: The critical discourse analysis component was narrowed to a few general intentions due to theoretical diversity and practical constraints, limiting depth on ideology. • Generalizability: Findings pertain to Ukraine’s media environment in 2015–2018 and may not generalize to later periods or different media systems.