Russia

This paper examines the epistemological tension between theological argumentation and rational medical discourse in Russian religious media during the COVID-19 pandemic. Drawing on documentary analysis of 115 religious media articles and 91 official religious documents from Russia and Belarus between 2020-2023, the study identifies a structural paradox: official religious communications exhibit systematic dominance of theological language, yet address societies with low theological literacy, producing a significant communicative gap. Religious media outlets, Orthodox platforms “Pravmir”, “Foma” and “Pravoslavie.ru” in particularly, functioned as interpretive intermediaries, selectively incorporating scientific discourse while maintaining theological primacy. The paper argues that the fides – ratio relationship in this context was characterized not by genuine epistemological dialogue but by instrumental appropriation: science was invoked to confirm decisions already taken on theological and political grounds. This dynamic reveals how religious institutions in post-Soviet contexts navigate competing epistemic authorities under conditions where science retains high symbolic capital yet operates within politically constrained public spheres.

The paper examines the strategies employed by religious institutions in Russia and Belarus during the on-going pandemic, analysing their arguments in official discourse and interactions with the governments. The results of the research indicate that, despite the stark contrast in governmental strategies for combating the pandemic (Russia’s approach being markedly stringent, while Belarus’ has been markedly lenient) shows how religions have called for compliance with government directives and have opposed conspiracy theories and dissident anti-vaccination activist movements. Minority religions also followed this approach. The necessity to conduct services online has provided a significant stimulus for the utilization of new digital technologies in predominantly conservative religious practices in both countries. The study revealed that the official documents under examination exhibited a clear predominance of theological elements over rational scientific elements in their argumentation. This finding highlights the inherent difficulties in the mediatisation of the Russian Orthodox Church narrative for the general public, which were already apparent but have become more pronounced during the pandemic.

The lack of understanding by journalists of the religious life complexity and sensitivity, the difference between profane and sacred leads to dysfunctions in the reporting on religions. Content analysis of the most popular Russian mainstream media discovered the marginalization of texts about religion in the general information agenda of Russian mass media, with the dominance of Orthodox Christianity in journalistic texts and the underexposure of religious minorities, while the popular presentation of doctrinal matters remains in media minimal. In addition, a “crisis of experts” in publications on religious topics has been detected: journalists prefer to seek comments from officials and public activists more often than from religious scholars. The “conflict of formats” in media and religions, the mismatch of mutual perceptions of the boundaries of permissible and acceptable in the secular media and religious communities remains an important characteristic of the current state of media-religion relations in Russia.

Analysing the history of journalistic genres, author discovers “question-answer” patterns and suggests them to be an immanent fundamental communicative pattern for transmitting the knowledge and mass information in media. Observing recent genres dynamics in Russian media, the author describes main trends in the media discourse – irrationalization and primitivization. Applying his theoretical frame to the empirical analysis of Russian media texts on religion, the author finds “question-answer” patterns in interviews, expert commentaries and analytical articles. He indicates journalists’ desire to clarify issues of audience’s interest about religious life through questions and answers