Framing “self” and “other”: An international competition over the presentation of the YPJ by the American and Russian media

Introduction

The Syrian civil war remains one of the most complex and unresolved conflicts in the world despite the collapse of the Baath regime on 8 December 2024 because of the multiplicity of competing actors. On the one hand, the regime and the opposition competed. On the other, states such as the United States and Russia have engaged in intense geopolitical competition (İpek, 2022: 343), shaped in part by Cold War-era policy priorities and practices (Saull, 2012: 60–61). In this regard, the United States, at least discursively, aligned itself with the official Syrian opposition (Philips, 2018: 75, 144) particularly by the emergence of Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham (ISIS), while Russia perceived the Assad regime as a main ally for the strategic importance of Syria in maintaining its strategic interests which started during the times of the Soviet Union (Kreutz, 2007). For instance, the Obama administration was reluctant to engage in the Syrian civil war in spite of the utilization of chemical weapons by the Assad regime against the civilians in 2013, which was defined as a redline for the United States for intervention by President Obama (Demir, 2025: 2). However, following the emergence of ISIS as a serious menace, the Obama administration abandoned the ambiguous policy of regime change in Syria and prioritized degrading and defeating ISIS (Yacoubian, 2017: 5). This shift signalled a more selective engagement in the conflict and a departure from its primarily discursive alignment with the official Syrian opposition and its military wing, the Free Syrian Army (FSA) (Demir, 2023a). Meanwhile, Russia began providing extensive air and ground support to the Assad regime from September 2015 onward, officially justified as counterterrorism against ISIS but effectively aimed at consolidating the regime’s position against the opposition (Freire and Heller, 2018: 1202). This intervention proved decisive in altering the dynamics of the war and strengthening the regime’s control over the country (Tabak, 2015).

Ultimately, both the United States and Russia sought to justify their either willing or unwilling intervention in the Syrian civil war for defeating ISIS by interacting with forces having the same purposes (Knights and Wilgenburg, 2021: 78; Freire and Heller, 2018: 1202). Despite their geopolitical rivalry and divergent policy priorities, both powers supported the military wings of the Democratic Union Party (PYD) – namely the YPG and YPJ – in their fight against ISIS, particularly following the siege of Kobane. These groups are affiliated with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) in Türkiye and found opportunities to implement aspects of the PKK’s model of governance with the civil war (Demir, 2022: 161–162). Moreover, the YPJ emerged as a significant factor in shaping US cooperation with the YPG, serving as a discursive tool for legitimizing US foreign policy against ISIS (Demir, 2023b).

In addition, the YPJ became a prominent subject in international media coverage following their resistance to ISIS. This visibility aligns with a broader media tendency to portray women, mothers, children, and minorities as “ideal victims” (Gerbner, 1980; Hoijer, 2004; Moeller, 1999), a category into which the YPJ arguably fits, given their identity as women and members of a Syrian Kurdish minority group. At the same time, representations are shaped by cultural perceptions: in some contexts, violence against women is normalized and not necessarily framed through victimization. From a broader perspective, Syria’s location in the Middle East – a region historically constructed as the “Other” (Said, 1978) – further informs such representations. Within Western media narratives, ISIS is a brutal actor in thinking of having every right to assault women, and YPJ have been fighting this brutal organization. This contrast makes it analytically important to position both the YPJ and ISIS at the centre of inquiry. Recent studies suggest that Western media tend to construct two dominant images of women during the Syrian civil war as victims and heroes, depending on their relationship to ISIS. Women associated with ISIS’s brutality – such as Arab or Christian women, Yazidi women, and ISIS brides – are typically depicted as victims, whereas YPJ fighters are portrayed as heroic figures (Demir, 2023b: 152).

Finally, previous research highlights two key points. First, the positions of Voice of America (VOA) and Sputnik towards the YPJ and ISIS are largely shaped by the foreign policy orientations of the United States and Russia (Demir and Doğan, 2025). Second, both outlets portray YPJ women as culturally, ideologically, politically, and practically distinct from ISIS, positioning them closer to the West (Demir and Doğan, 2025: 4158). In this regard, approaching the representation of the YPJ through the framework of “Self” and “Other” within the context of international framing competition provides a useful lens for examining the political, cultural, and ideological rivalry between the United States and Russia, as well as the relative proximities and distances constructed by these state-sponsored media outlets vis-à-vis the YPJ and ISIS. Accordingly, this study investigates the competition between these media outlets over the representation of the YPJ through the lens of the “Self” and “Other” framework by addressing the following research questions:

The article proceeds as follows: The first section reviews debates on “Self” and “Other” in media studies. The next section outlines the theoretical framework of international framing competition through the lens of “Self” and “Other,” elaborating on the key concepts of political and cultural proximity and distance, as well as introducing the notions of ideological proximity and distance. The subsequent section details the methodology, followed by the presentation of the empirical findings. The article argues that political proximity is a key determinant in explaining the international framing competition over the YPJ in American and Russian media, as it is closely linked to the national interests and foreign policy priorities of the United States and Russia in Syria. However, it also contends that Sputnik demonstrates a degree of ideological proximity and sympathy towards the YPJ in its framing, thereby intensifying its competition with VOA.

Self and Other in media studies

The existing literature on the “Self” and “Other” dichotomy in media studies highlights how media representations construct collective identities, reinforce power hierarchies and reproduce ideological boundaries. Edward Said (1978) pioneered this critique by revealing how Western media framed the East as the exotic “Other,” legitimizing colonial hierarchies and narratives. Teun van Dijk (2008) further demonstrates how political elites and mass media construct “us versus them” dichotomy that legitimizes exclusionary policies. Markina (2020) expands on this by distinguishing between pathological forms of othering – such as depersonification, fragmentation, fetishization, exotization, pathologization, homogenization – and non-pathological alternatives, including the creation of positive or ambivalent stereotypes. Her work illustrates how the media can either extend or challenge entrenched narratives of difference. Likewise, Fürsich (2010) examines cultural implications of “Self” and “Other” dichotomy and argues that media outlets shape both the representation of marginalized groups and the broader cultural narratives constructed through these portrayals. Dvir-Gvirsman (2019) extends this analysis by focusing on ideological implications of media consumption, revealing how audiences’ political identities influence their preferences by media. This process not only solidifies the binary distinction between “Self” and “Other,” but also emphasizes the role of media in fostering ideological boundaries within a polarized society. Collectively, those frameworks highlight how representation practices reflect and reinforce socio-political boundaries.

Feminist media scholarship further contextualizes this binary within gendered power relations and traditional gender roles where media plays a crucial role in reinforcing gendered norms and stereotypes. Studies consistently emphasize that media often constructs masculinity (the idealized Self) as active, rational and dominant while femininity (the marginalized Other) is portrayed as passive, emotional and subordinate (Gill, 2007; Lloyd and Kay, 2021). Lloyd and Kay (2021), for instance, discuss how transnational media practices intersect with political contexts, arguing that media representations often transcend national boundaries yet continue to propagate gendered narratives that position women as “Other.” Similarly, Höijer (2004) highlights the infantilization of women in media narratives, where women are portrayed as innocent victims rather than agents. Zayer et al. (2012) examine popular media’s role in constructing gender identities through discourses of domesticity, authenticity and sexuality, revealing that media often portrays women in traditional gender roles, while men are depicted as autonomous and rational.

This binary has also shaped international media’s presentation of YPJ in fighting ISIS. Studies examine how YPJ are positioned within Western media narratives as “Self” in contrast to the demonized “Other,” represented by ISIS (Gunaydin, 2023; Şimşek and Jongerden, 2018). Toivanen and Baser (2016) show that while ISIS women are portrayed as brainwashed victims, YPJ women are celebrated as emancipated brave-heart heroines. In this context, the dominant narrative constructs YPJ’s bravery and heroism as markers of alliance with the West. Del Re (2015) argues that the heightened media attention on YPJ stemmed from the global fear of ISIS emphasizing that YPJ emerged as a central actor in the broader struggle against both ISIS and the Assad regime. Building on this, Demir and Doğan (2025) demonstrate how American and Russian media instrumentalized images of YPJ to legitimize their counter-ISIS strategies in Syria. By framing their involvement as a support for a progressive and feminist cause, both states sought to generate public approval and moral justification for their intervention. However, Toivanen and Baser (2016) note that in British and French media, such portrayals often shifted focus from ideological agency to physical appearance and personal background, thereby reproducing orientalist and gendered images within otherwise celebratory narratives.

Studies also frame YPJ as a symbol of female empowerment, emphasizing their role in contesting patriarchal structures and gender norms. Tank (2017), for instance, argues that the YPJ not only struggles with ISIS, but also challenges traditional norms and patriarchal structures. Similarly, Drummond et al. (2021) argue that YPJ plays a significant role in the insurgency, and its presence is noted for confronting normative gender expectations and reshaping the dynamics of the regional conflict. Şimşek and Jongerden (2018) expand this perspective by suggesting that militarization of Kurdish women serves as a means of challenging hegemonic gender roles and allowing for new conceptions of gender roles in the Middle East. Central to this ideological repositioning is the concept of Jineology – a feminist epistemology promoted by PKK that places women at the centre of social liberation. Dean (2019) and Düzgün (2016) emphasize that Jineology not only redefines gender roles, but also constructs YPJ as subjects of political agency and repositions them as empowered “Self” within regional and global narratives. This paper develops a new perspective with regard to the tendency of framing YPJ and conceptualizes the international framing competition between VOA and Sputnik International over YPJ through the lenses of “Self” and “Other” framework.

International framing competition through the self and other framework

While framing conflicts or civil wars, media tend to present events as a struggle between opposite sides, competing interests or a battle between “good” and “evil” (Paukovic and Rosko, 2023: 173). In this study, we conceptualize competition over the representation of YPJ women by the American and Russian media outlets through the “Self” and “Other” dichotomy by comparing framing patterns and competition between the United States and Russia. The concept of international framing competition was introduced by Knüpfer and Entman (2018) to capture the divergent and often conflicting approaches of states and their media systems in framing events such as conflicts, civil wars, and insurgencies. In this process, state institutions and affiliated media prioritize national political interests when presenting information (Knüpfer and Entman, 2018: 483). Therefore, media outlets of competing nation-states may represent the same events from different perspectives, assigning meaning in line with their respective national interests and foreign policy priorities. The existing literature tends to approach international framing competition through the framing functions identified by Robert Entman (1993). For instance, Hammond (2018) analyses the competition over framing the Bosnian conflict mainly through one of the four framing functions of Entman (1993), the definition of problem, “ethnic war” versus “genocide” while one side perceives and defines the conflict as an ethnic war but the other as genocide. Similarly, Demir and Doğan (2025) conceptualize Entman’s four framing functions, defining problem, identifying main responsible actors, providing solutions and making moral judgements over the solution in the context of international framing competition to address the framing patterns of the state-sponsored media outlet of the United States and Russia over YPJ. This article, however, develops a new perspective over international framing competition by conceptualizing the framing patterns and competition of VOA and Sputnik over YPJ through the lenses of “Self” and “Other” theoretical framework.

The “Self” and “Other” dichotomy constitutes one of the most fundamental mechanisms of identity construction, as the existence of the “Other” enables the recognition of the “Self.” The relationship between “Self” and “Other” thus unfolds within a dialectic of identification and alienation (Doğan, 2022). Those excluded from “Self” – strangers, monsters or outsiders – destabilize its perceived integrity and boundaries, generating existential insecurity (Kearney, 2005). In this sense, the “Other” is not merely a reflection of difference but a challenge to the stability of the “Self,” which is defined through the alienation or perceived threat posed by the “Other” (Neumann, 1996). The elimination of this inherent insecurity becomes possible only when the “Other” is brought under the control of the “Self.” Otherization, therefore, does not aim for inclusion or resemblance but rather for radical exclusion, relegating the “Other” beyond symbolic borders of the “Self” (Kristeva, 1982). In this sense, otherization can be understood as an act of expulsion, whereby boundaries between the “Self” and the “Other” are sharply delineated that the “Other” is often positioned outside the accepted norms and boundaries (Staines, 2023). This process constructs identities by defining the “Self” as good, rational, superior, and the “Other” as deviant or undesirable. Accordingly, the “Other” signifies difference from the “Self” and is constituted in relation to it. The “Other” emerges where the boundaries of the “Self” end, forming the outer boundary of the “Self” (Doğan, 2022; Keller, 1996; Lloyd, 1993).

Philosophically, this dichotomy is rooted in Enlightenment rationality and Cartesian dualism, which established binaries such as male/female, native/foreign, colonizer/colonized and civilized/barbaric (Bhambra, 2007). Within this framework, the modern, rational “Self” is positioned as the agent of progress and reason, while the “Other” was cast as irrational, backward and primitive (Kearney, 2005; Keller, 1996). This epistemological hierarchy, grounded in surveillance and control, enables the “Self” to sustain its ontological integrity through the exclusion of what lies beyond its boundaries (Taylor, 1989). Thus, the ontological integrity of the “Self” depends on the existence of the “Other,” while the epistemological understanding of the “Self” is shaped by the perceived potential of the “Other” to disrupt its established order. Hegel’s master–slave dialectic further illustrates this interdependence binary relations. According to Hegel (1977), self-consciousness emerges through recognition by “Other.” The master’s identity, though seemingly dominant, remains dependent on the slave’s acknowledgement, revealing that domination and dependency are mutually constitutive (Lloyd, 1993). Thus, the “Other” is established as the object of an epistemic praxis aimed at recognizing the “Self” (Tabak and Doğan, 2024). Within the epistemological construction of the “Self,” the “Other” plays a pivotal role in determining its identity and establishing its boundaries. The function of the “Other” is not to comprehend what the “Self” is, but rather to signify what it is not. This dialectic demonstrates that Self’s authority and meaning exist only in relation to the “Other.”

Later feminist and postcolonial critiques reveal the hierarchical nature of this relationship. Haraway (1987) identifies persistent Western dualisms – those legitimizing the domination of women, people of colour, nature, workers and animals – as structural mechanisms that sustain domination over all constructed “Others.” While the “Self” continues its existence with those it dominates, those on the other side of the opposition are marked as “inappropriate/d Others” in Haraway’s words (1992). In this sense, being an inappropriate/d other means not conforming to the masks of the “Self” and the “Other” presented by modern Western narratives regarding multicultural, ethnic, racial, national and sexual identities. Being inappropriate/d is not only being marked as the “Other,” but also not conforming to categorical classifications, dislocating from the existing maps that determine the types of actors and narratives, and not being fixed by difference. Consequently, the process of otherization reinforces Self’s integrity by defining what the “Self” is not, legitimizing cultural and political hierarchies. In political terms, this relation manifests through the formation of boundaries between an in-group and an out-group. The perceived backwardness of the “Other” renders it excluded from the in-group and justifies differential treatment, including oppression (Staines, 2023). The concept of otherization, thus, provides a framework that imbues the processes of othering practices of the nation-states with meaning and legitimacy. Nation-states reproduce this logic by pathologizing and marginalizing external actors as threats to their communal integrity.

Within this framework, the representation of YPJ in the American and Russian media can be interpreted as an extension of this logic. There is a tendency of representing YPJ women as a progressive, rational and emancipated “Self,” while portraying ISIS as the barbaric “Other” in the state-sponsored media outlets of the United States and Russia. As addressed above, this paper aims to develop a new perspective over international framing competition by conceptualizing the framing patterns of VOA and Sputnik over YPJ through the lenses of “Self” and “Other” theoretical framework. In doing so, we identify praising and blaming patterns of VOA and Sputnik International for representing the actors as the “Self” and the “Other” through specific thematic constructions. Therefore, blame becomes one of the significant concepts with praise. The study of blame in particular media framing has acquired significance within the last decade (Friedman and Herfroy-Mischler, 2020; Hameleers et al., 2017; Herfroy-Mischler and Friedman, 2020). While framing conflicts and civil wars, there have been studies concentrating on the nationality of media outlets such as Israeli, Palestinian and American, and their blame attribution to actors (Friedman and Herfroy-Mischler, 2020). We may see studies questioning the ethical basis of blame in framing through blame (Herfroy-Mischler and Friedman, 2020). Building on this literature, this study offers a new perspective by assessing the sympathy/praise afforded to actor(s) perceived as “Self” and blame attributed to actor(s) presented as “Other” in the coverage of VOA and Sputnik.

A widely accepted definition of blame is an act of wrongdoing or an act of attributing responsibility for a wrongdoing actor (Hood, 2011; Sulitzeanu-Kenan and Hood, 2005). Studies framing conflicts and civil wars, mainly attributed blame to actions of an actor, and it was mainly based on virtue, particularly the lack of virtue that allows us to assess actions of blamed actor(s) (Herfroy-Mischler & Friedman, 2020: 1194). The “good” and “evil” in media framing, therefore, can be assessed through actions of actors and actors’ association with some virtues. Accordingly, the “evil” can be represented in the context of “Other” because of negative actions of actors when they are perceived lacking some virtues. Particularly, in a conflict or a civil war, an actor can be blamed by looking at its repeated negative actions, which lacks some human virtues like ISIS. The media framing represents negative actions and the negative character of an actor to portray the “evil” (Herfroy-Mischler & Friedman, 2020: 1194).

Following this logic, analysing the framing of the YPJ by American and Russian media requires identifying which actors are praised or blamed, particularly those portrayed as primarily responsible for events, as well as those depicted as opposing or resisting this perceived “evil.” This approach aligns with Entman’s (1993) framing functions, particularly the ones defining problems, identifying responsible actors, making moral judgements regarding actions of responsible actors. In this logic, ISIS is the main responsible actor for happenings and blamed as “evil” and represented as the “Other.” Those media outlets mainly focused on the actions of ISIS, and judged its overall character, which lacks some human virtues and mainly Western virtues. In addition, the media framing tends to blame and praise actors by positioning them in accordance with proximity and distance to some values (Herfroy-Mischler & Friedman, 2020: 1193). Therefore, the blamed and praised actors are represented by different media systems of different nations in assessing how those actors are associated with some specific values (Friedman and Hefroy-Mischler, 2020: 1875). The existing literature also indicates media systems of different nations are more likely to attribute blame to actors that are culturally distant from values of their countries (Friedman and Hefroy-Mischler, 2020: 1882). With the same logic, those media systems mainly tend to praise actors that are culturally proximate to values of their countries. Ultimately, the concept of political, cultural and ideological proximities and distances play a significant role for assessing praised and blamed actors as “Self” or “Other” and conceptualizing the international framing competition between different national media systems through Self and Other theoretical framework.

Political proximity explains shared political interests or policy priorities between groups (Sheafer et al., 2014: 150). We apply political proximity to explain the international framing competition between the media outlets of competing powers – United States and Russia – over framing of actors through blaming or praising. In this regard, political proximity addresses the shared political interests and policy priorities between praising agencies (VOA and Sputnik International) and praised actors by those agencies. As one of the significant conceptual contributions of this research, the concept of political distance addresses two important points. The first one is the competing political interests or foreign policy priorities between framing agencies of the US and Russian governments. The second one refers to different political interests or policy priorities between framing agencies and the blamed actors such as ISIS. Similarly, the concepts of cultural proximity and cultural distance also gain significance. Cultural proximity explains cultural, political, economic, linguistic connections, worldviews and values between media systems of different nations and their framing approaches towards the framed actors. Cultural distance, therefore, refers to cultural, political, economic and linguistic disconnections, worldviews, values or distances between framing agencies and the framed actors (Hanush, 2008: 341). As will be addressed below in analysing the collated data, cultural proximity addresses the perceived and praised cultural, political and economic similarities, worldviews and values between framing agencies and the framed actors. Cultural distance, on the other hand, explains perceived and blamed cultural, political and economic distances, worldviews and values between framing agencies and the framed actors.

By introducing a new perspective on international framing competition through the analysis of VOA and Sputnik International’s representations of the YPJ within the “Self” and “Other” framework, this article also offers an additional conceptual contribution. They are notions of ideological proximity and ideological distance. Ideological proximity refers to ideological alignment between framing agencies and framed actors, whereas ideological distance denotes ideological divergence between them. The concept of ideological proximity is developed to capture both the ideological similarities between framing agencies and framed actors and the corresponding framing tendencies towards ideologically aligned actors. This is particularly evident in Sputnik International’s portrayal of the YPJ-YPG and the PYD. First, the PYD is the Syrian affiliate of the PKK. During its formation, PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan characterized the movement as a leftist “national liberation movement,” grounded in Marxist-Leninist, state-oriented socialism and articulated through anti-capitalist rhetoric (Demir, 2023a: 31). These ideological foundations parallel Soviet-era conceptions of national self-determination and nationality (Akkaya, 2020: 733). As the PYD draws on Öcalan’s ideological framework, the relative sympathy shown by Soviet and later Russian actors towards the PYD and its military wings, the YPG and YPJ, can be understood in terms of this ideological affinity. Consistent with this position, the Russian government has not designated the PKK as a terrorist organization (Demir and Doğan, 2025) and has engaged with the PYD during the Syrian civil war, both to bolster the Assad regime and to counter Türkiye’s support for the Syrian opposition (Akbal, 2025: 415–416). Second, Islamist groups, particularly in the context of the Chechnya issue, have long been perceived by Russian officials as ideologically distant and as security threats. This perception has been extended to organizations such as ISIS (Jorge and Trujillo, 2025: 6). This dynamic helps explain the notion of ideological distance between Russia and negatively framed actors such as ISIS. Accordingly, ideological distance captures both the ideological divergence between framing agencies and framed actors and the corresponding framing tendencies towards ideologically distant actors. In practice, this is reflected in the ways VOA and Sputnik International frame and attribute blame to ISIS, often emphasizing its perceived deviance and extremity.

Methodology

This article develops a new perspective on international framing competition by conceptualizing the framing patterns and rivalry between VOA and Sputnik over the YPJ through the “Self” and “Other” framework. Its primary contribution lies in reconceptualizing international framing competition within this dichotomy. To achieve this aim, the study adopts a constructivist approach, employing inductive thematic content analysis to identify and construct themes in the coverage of VOA and Sputnik International. This analytical process is supported by statistical calculations as part of the researchers’ interpretive framework, reflecting the reflexive nature of thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2023: 3), as well as by the visual presentation of the identified themes on the websites of the two outlets. Accordingly, this section outlines the processes of data collection and data analysis.

The data for this study are collected through the websites of VOA and Sputnik International, of the United States and Russia. VOA was established by the US government as an international news organization producing television, radio and digital content in approximately 40 languages (Grieco et al., 2019: 120), including Kurdish (Omar, 2015), with the aim of contributing to the Kurdish media landscape and disseminating the US perspectives to Kurdish audiences (Seldin, 2019). Sputnik was established as a multimedia platform providing news, digital content in approximately 30 languages across the world (Rawnsley, 2015: 278). Although Sputnik operated a Kurdish-language website until June 2018, it was subsequently closed (Khalidi, 2018). The platform was designed to promote Russian strategic narratives to international audiences (Nae, 2022: 367) and to counter what is perceived as an “anti-Russian bias” in global media (Rawnsley, 2015: 278). The dataset covers news content published between the outbreak of the Syrian conflict in March 2011 and the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024. This 13-year timeframe was selected to capture the dynamic nature of framing processes, as shifts in events over time may influence both the content and scope of media framing (Demir, 2023a). Data collection was conducted using the keywords “YPJ,” “YPG,” “Kurdish female fighters,” “female fighters,” “women fighters,” “Kurdish women,” and “female recruits.” The term “YPG” was included because the YPJ operates as its female unit, and international media frequently refer to the YPJ within broader coverage of the YPG (Demir and Doğan, 2025). After removing duplicate entries, a total of 2887 news items were identified referring to the YPJ, YPG, Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), Syrian Kurds and Kurdish female fighters, including 824 from VOA and 2135 from Sputnik International. Ultimately, there were 66 news content on VOA and 42 news content on Sputnik International which specifically focus on the YPJ and provide detailed information over this group. In addition to the specific analysis of those 108 news contents over the YPJ, other 2887 items including and referring to the YPJ, YPG, SDF, Syrian Kurds and Kurdish female fighters have been analysed to find out statements/sentences regarding the framework of “Self” and “Other.” In here, the main criteria for identifying statements for “Self and Other” were the inclusion of YPJ either as a specific coverage or as a general one in the context of assessing the YPG, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), Syrian Kurds and the Kurdish female fighters during the analysed time period.

The data analysis process proceeds as follows. First, to identify recurring and salient themes in the news content of VOA and Sputnik International, we employed an inductive thematic content analysis informed by Entman’s framing approach, which involves selecting certain elements of perceived reality and making them more visible and salient in a communicative text (Entman, 1993: 51–52). Thematic content analysis, in this context, refers to the process of identifying patterns and constructing themes from the data (Maguire and Delahunt, 2017: 3352). An inductive approach was preferred in order to derive themes directly from the data, rather than imposing predefined categories. This data-driven method facilitates the identification of recurring patterns (Braun and Clarke, 2006: 83) and supports the coherent construction of themes (Braun and Clarke, 2023: 3). In doing so, the analysis moves beyond merely summarizing topics and instead seeks to capture underlying meanings, producing themes that reflect interpretive, meaning-based narratives (Braun and Clarke, 2023: 3). This approach enhances analytical rigour by minimizing the imposition of predetermined interpretations and strengthening the reliability of the findings. It also allows for flexibility, enabling the incorporation of multiple dimensions related to central ideas during the process of theme construction. Accordingly, the analysis follows the steps outlined below.

First, the news content was organized chronologically, covering the period from March 2011 to 8 December 2024. Our unit of analysis was mainly the paragraph, especially the ones referring to “YPJ,” “YPG,” “Kurdish Female Fighters,” “Female Fighters” and “Woman Fighters,” “Kurdish Women,” “Female Recruits,” “Kurdish Warriors” and “Female Soldiers.” Coding through paragraphs allowed us to understand the frequency of references (Clubb & O’Connor, 2019: 354) and mainly statements regarding YPJ. Specifically, we searched for statements reflecting meanings regarding the perceptions over “Self” and “Other” in those news contents. Therefore, statements are sometimes defined and/or represented the entire paragraph, sometimes they were only one sentence or a few sentences in a paragraph. In this way, we had a chance to classify positive and supportive statements for the praised actor in the context of “Self” and negative statements for the blamed actor in the context of “Other” in accordance with the theoretical premises of the “Self” and “Other” dichotomy presented below. With an initial look, the coding categories might be seen predetermined or biased as a limitation of the paper. However, there is no pre-determination of themes from the data as explained above. Instead, the theoretical explanations over the nature of the “Self” and “Other” dichotomy directed us to reach out statements regarding the perception of “Self” and “Other” in the news contents of VOA and Sputnik International. Our analysis also indicates that news contents on those media outlets underpins such theoretical biases.

Second, to construct repeated themes for “Self” and “Other” debate in texts, we checked statements in accordance with the premises of “Self” and “Other” like below.

Themes for self on VOA and Sputnik

Pie chart 1 demonstrates themes constructed regarding “Self” on VOA. Totally, there are 274 statements referring to the perception of “Self.” Thirty out of 274 (11%) are about braveness of YPJ, 110 out of 274 (40%) underline trustfulness and effectiveness of YPJ alongside YPG, 49 out of 274 (18%) are about YPJ fighting traditional Middle Eastern gender norms, 62 out of 274 (23%) differentiate YPJ from ISIS, and 23 out of 274 (8%) are about foreigners in YPJ as the core and meaning-based interpretive themes.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Pie Chart 1

Themes for “Self” on VOA.

Pie chart 2 shows themes constructed regarding “Self” on Sputnik International. Totally, there are 187 statements referring to the perception of “Self.” Seventy-five out of 187 (% 41) are about braveness of Kurdish women, 46 out of 187 (% 25) underline purposes of Kurdish women, 52 out of 187 (28%) differentiate YPJ from Daesh and 1 out of 187 (0.5%) is about foreigners in YPJ, and 7 out of 187 (% 5.5) are about the Syrian regime as “Self,” which is normally out of this analysis but it is provided to strengthen statistics as the core and meaning-based interpretive themes.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Pie Chart 2.

Themes for “Self” on Sputnik International.

Similar themes for framing “self”

Separate themes for framing “self”

Themes for “other” on VOA and Sputnik

Pie Chart 3 illustrates the distribution of themes related to the construction of the “Other” in VOA’s coverage. In total, 124 statements were identified as reflecting the perception of the “Other.” Of these, 15 statements (12%) focus on the atrocities/crimes committed by ISIS, while 33 (26%) frame ISIS as a common enemy of civilization. A further 23 statements (18%) depict women as victims of ISIS, and 14 (11%) highlight ISIS’s mistreatment of women. The largest proportion, 39 statements (31%), emphasizes ISIS’s violation of international norms, constituting the core, meaning-based interpretive theme within this category.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Pie Chart 3.

Themes for “Other” on VOA.

Pie Chart 4 presents the distribution of themes related to the construction of the “Other” in Sputnik International’s coverage. In total, 134 statements were identified as reflecting the perception of the “Other.” Of these, 31 statements (23%) focus on the atrocities/crimes of Daesh, while 61 (46%) emphasize its pre-modernity, peculiarity and incompatibility as an enemy of civilization. In addition, 20 statements (15%) depict women as victims of Daesh, and 22 (16%) highlight foreign jihadists within Daesh as the core, meaning-based interpretive theme.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Pie Chart 4.

Themes for “Other” on Sputnik International.

Similar themes for framing “other”

Separate themes for framing “other”

Conclusion

This article conceptualizes the international framing competition between VOA and Sputnik International regarding the YPJ through the lens of the “Self” and “Other” framework, specifically accounting for the foreign policy priorities of the US and Russian governments in Syria. Accordingly, the study explains how VOA and Sputnik’s narratives competed in their presentation of the YPJ and identifies the specific themes these outlets utilized to influence their target audiences. A key finding of this research is that these media outlets compete either through divergent approaches to similar themes or through the introduction of entirely different thematic focuses. Our findings indicate both overlaps and discrepancies in the construction of “Self” and “Other.” Specifically, themes such as the bravery of the YPJ and Kurdish women, the perceived “Self” versus “Other” dichotomy, the presence of foreign volunteers, and the notion of fighting for a cause are shared themes used by both VOA and Sputnik to praise the “Self.” In contrast, the theme of the “trustful and effective ally” remains unique to VOA in representing the “Self,” serving as a core empirical demonstration of the political proximity between US administrations and the YPJ-YPG-SDF within the context of US military strategy against ISIS. Regarding the representation of the “Other,” both outlets employ common themes such as the atrocities of ISIS, the fight against a common enemy of civilization, and the depiction of women as victims of jihadists. However, VOA distinguishes its portrayal of the “Other” through themes of mistreatment of women and challenges to international norms, while Sputnik International focuses on the presence of foreign jihadists as a distinct thematic element in its blame-oriented framing.

This paper provides significant theoretical, methodological and conceptual contributions to the literature on international framing competition between diverse media systems. As a primary theoretical contribution, it develops a novel perspective by conceptualizing international framing competition through the lens of the “Self” and “Other” framework. This analysis builds upon the work of Knüpfer and Entman (2018), which explains how media outlets from different nation-states present information by prioritizing their respective political interests. While existing scholarship frequently employs Robert Entman’s (1993) four framing functions – defining problems, identifying responsible actors, suggesting solutions, and justifying those solutions – this study seeks to complement this tradition by introducing an alternative conceptual layer. Whereas previous research has often focused on specific functions, such as problem definition (Hammond, 2018), or the collective application of these functions (Demir and Doğan, 2025), this paper proposes that integrating the “Self” and “Other” framework can provide further nuance to our understanding of international framing patterns.

The methodological contribution of this study lies in the construction of thematic representations by VOA and Sputnik International concerning the YPJ, within the “Self” and “Other” framework. Specifically, the paper develops a refined approach for identifying, coding, and classifying statements associated with these two conceptual categories. This methodological framework is inspired by Robert Entman’s (1993) definition of framing and is operationalized through Braun and Clarke’s (2006) inductive thematic content analysis, further supported by statistical calculations for thematic construction. As a data-driven approach (Braun and Clarke, 2006: 83), inductive thematic analysis facilitates the coherent construction of themes by accounting for the foreign policy priorities of the US and Russian governments. This process captures core meanings to develop interpretive narratives rather than mere summaries of topics (Braun and Clarke, 2023: 3). Consequently, this paper offers a rigorous methodological framework that can be utilized in future research on international framing competition.

Finally, this paper offers significant conceptual contributions. By examining the attitudes of US and Russian public diplomacy tools in assessing the actions and characters of praised and blamed actors as “Self” and “Other,” this study develops several novel concepts such as political distance, ideological proximity, and ideological distance. While existing literature utilizes concepts such as political proximity (Sheafer et al., 2014: 150), as well as cultural proximity and cultural distance (Hanusch, 2008: 341), our findings expand this lexicon by developing the concept of political distance through two primary dimensions. First, it addresses the competing political interests and divergent foreign policy priorities of the US and Russian governments, as evidenced in the framing of the YPJ by VOA and Sputnik International. Second, it highlights the conflicting political interests between the framing agencies and the blamed actor, ISIS, while representing YPJ.

Furthermore, this paper introduces the concepts of ideological proximity and ideological distance. Ideological proximity refers to the ideological alignments between framing agencies and the actors they portray. In this case, while presenting the YPJ as the “Self” and competing with VOA, Sputnik International consistently highlights the YPJ’s ideological foundations, expressing sympathy towards the YPJ-YPG-PYD and the PKK. This affinity stems from the ideological links between these groups and the PKK’s historical embrace of Marxist-Leninist principles since the 1970s. In addition, the Russian government’s perception of Islamist groups, shaped by the Chechnya conflict, explains both Sputnik’s sympathy towards the YPJ-YPG-PYD and its ideological distance from Islamist entities. This leads to another crucial conceptual contribution: ideological distance, which accounts for the ideological disparities between VOA and Sputnik International when framing the “blamed actor,” ISIS. These new concepts provide a robust alternative framework for the conceptualization of international framing competition.