Where government communication in the early 20^th century fell under the umbrella term, "propaganda," the post-WWII era saw a paradigm fracture into public affairs for domestic audiences, public diplomacy for foreign audiences, and psychological operations for hostile audiences. The continued diffusion of the Internet, however, has blurred such distinctions, mending this fractured paradigm. Based on in-depth interviews, this study typologizes government communication to contextualize how various tactics functions within the 21^st century digital media ecology, through an "Information Intervention" taxonomy. In an age where state-sponsored disinformation and computational propaganda are tantamount threats, this paper elucidates the field's fundamental concepts by articulating who communicates with what audience, in what manner, with what intent, and with what desired outcomes.

The Amazon fires in summer 2019 triggered an incendiary Twitter debate between French president Emmanuel Macron and Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro that engaged political leaders, celebrities, and audiences worldwide. Currently, diplomats-in-chief connect to the global public through completely open debates, often without proper advice from foreign-affairs ministers, which may result in misunderstandings and conflicts among world leaders. Hence, this study argues that these interactions must be supported by Nicholas Cull's seven lessons in public diplomacy. The main topic on hand is presidential public diplomacy performed through digital means in cyberspace. Thus, after distinguishing cyberspace, digital diplomacy, and cyberdiplomacy, the literature review focuses on presidential public diplomacy, presidential diplomacy on Twitter, and Cull's seven lessons. Subsequently, the case study method provides a snapshot of the debate between Macron and Bolsonaro over the Amazon fires. This study concludes by answering the research question and indicating grist for the mill with regard to future developments.

Drawing on the theories of mediated public diplomacy, intermedia agenda-building, and homophily, this study aims to compare the effectiveness of the public diplomacy efforts made by the Saudi and Qatari governments during the Gulf diplomatic crisis. The study examines the respective international agenda-building influence of the state-sponsored media from the two competing Gulf states on the regional and international media's coverage of the crisis. Results show that, compared to Saudisponsored Al Arabiya, Qatari-sponsored Al Jazeera was more effective in shaping the agendas of the regional and international media. Whereas Al Arabiya has a weak first-level agenda-building influence and a moderate-to-strong influence at the second and the third levels, Al Jazeera demonstrates a strong agenda-building influence on the foreign media outlets at all of the three levels. We also analyze the impact of political proximity and the language of the media content (English or Arabic) on the agenda-building relationships. Still, the results suggest that, compared to Al Arabiya, Al Jazeera was more successful in shaping the agendas of the regional and international news media-no matter where they are based in the allied or the opposing countries. Also, we observe a higher level of consistency between Arabic- and English-language content in Al Jazeera.

Public diplomacy (PD) scholars tend to consider two main principals: the country or agent that conducts PD (Actor A), and target groups in the host country in which PD is conducted (Actor B). The field currently lacks theories of how communications between Actors A and B can be disrupted by a third party, such as a group of motivated trolls, an organised advocacy group, or a hostile country and its agents. The purpose of this article is to outline some theoretical considerations for how the PD research field might move away from a two-actor model of PD to one in which disruption is part of the discussion. The case study explores the activities of an interest group called Media Watchdogs of Sweden (MEWAS). MEWAS was a group of around 200 members who met in a hidden Facebook group to coordinate off-platform activities aimed at influencing perceptions of how the Swedish government handled the COVID-19 pandemic in the eyes of foreign governments, researchers, decision-makers, and media. Much critical news coverage in the international press has been linked to this group. Unpacking some of MEWAS' activities, which can be considered a quite typical mixture of legitimate and illegitimate communication techniques used by activist groups, can help to shed light on some difficult questions regarding disruption in PD.