Across Trump's first sixteen months, three Russian dailies stayed positive or neutral, turning negative in only four months when U.S. actions cut against Russian interests

How does a media-made myth of a prominent figure change after major political events, in an age when emotion moves public opinion more than fact? The study tracks the “nominations” (the names and labels) that Russian newspapers attached to Trump from his inauguration onward, to see whether the positive image found during the campaign survived.

Every text with Trump's name in the headline, subheading or lead was collected from three national dailies — the government's paper of record, a business broadsheet and a mass tabloid — between 20 January 2017 and 31 May 2018, from the Russian National Library and two media databases: 275 texts (216 in 2017, 59 in 2018). The texts were analysed for the nominations given to the subject, coded by theme and by tone, and checked against five hypotheses.

• Attention is not constant but spikes with events. The peaks were January and February 2017 (32 and 27 texts), May and June 2017 (24 and 21) and April 2018 (20); the low points were October 2017 and May 2018 with 6 each.
• The most covered theme was U.S. foreign policy touching Russian interests (Syria, Ukraine, Georgia, NATO) at 23.9%, then U.S. domestic politics 20.0%, other foreign policy 17.8%, Russia itself 17.5%, Trump's personality and family 13.9%, and the economy 6.9%.
• Overall tone was positive or neutral. On the Russia theme, positive texts outnumbered negative ones 35 to 4; on his personality, 28 to 9. The authors report all five hypotheses supported.
• The myth rests on two foundations: Trump is different from the rest of the U.S. establishment, and he wants to restore relations with Russia but his enemies will not let him. The key word in the narrative is “yet”.
• Tone dipped into negative territory in only four months, each matching a U.S. action against Russian interests: April 2017 (missile strike on a Syrian air base), September 2017 (threats to North Korea and the Paris climate withdrawal), December 2017 (a record military budget and the embassy move to Jerusalem) and April 2018 (new sanctions, a trade war and action in Syria). Even then the outlets avoided direct accusation, quoting U.S. media and opposition politicians instead, or casting Trump as a victim of circumstances that forced his hand.
• Each outlet told the side its readers wanted. The government and business papers stressed Russian-American relations; the tabloid stressed private life, family and scandal.
• The authors conclude there was no information campaign against Trump personally, but that the discourse remained propagandistic in the same way as during the campaign.

The study demonstrates a way to read foreign coverage: watch the names a person is given, not only the topics, and watch when the tone flips. Here the flips track the narrating country's interests rather than the subject's behaviour in general. For media-literacy teaching it is a clear example of an image built from “who he is not” (the previous administration) and “who is stopping him”.