@inproceedings{shabat-etal-2026-propaganda,
    title = "Propaganda Signals in {LLM}s: Perspectival Divergence and Narrative Framing in the {R}ussia-{U}kraine War",
    author = "Shabat, Ofir  and
      Guy, Ido  and
      Radinsky, Kira",
    editor = "Liakata, Maria  and
      Moreira, Viviane P.  and
      Zhang, Jiajun  and
      Jurgens, David",
    booktitle = "Findings of the {A}ssociation for {C}omputational {L}inguistics: {ACL} 2026",
    month = jul,
    year = "2026",
    address = "San Diego, California, United States",
    publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics",
    url = "https://preview.aclanthology.org/ingest-acl/2026.findings-acl.557/",
    pages = "11484--11501",
    ISBN = "979-8-89176-395-1",
    abstract = "Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to explain, summarize, and translate real-world events, including ongoing geopolitical conflicts. Yet it remains unclear whether they reproduce conflict-specific propaganda and, if so, how this appears in their outputs. We study this question for the Russia-Ukraine war through perspectival divergence, the extent to which model outputs align with competing narratives from different information ecosystems. We construct a conflict-aware evaluation set of neutral English event statements paired with Russian (RU)- and Ukrainian (UA)-oriented reference texts drawn from news outlets and Telegram channels. We then evaluate multiple LLMs under several prompting contexts using a reference-based semantic distance metric that measures directional proximity to RU- and UA-oriented references. To explain not only which side a model is closer to but also how that alignment is expressed, we further analyze outputs using five propaganda-relevant categories: Framing Narrative, Emotional Manipulation, Source Credibility, Social Pressure Identity, and Toponymy Naming. Across models, we find stable, model-specific leanings and technique profiles that persist across prompts and are not captured by standard factuality-oriented metrics. Our findings show that models that appear neutral under conventional evaluations can still encode systematic, conflict-specific propaganda patterns, underscoring the need for conflict-aware evaluation frameworks."
}