The influence of the media on the state. The influence of the media on the social factor of a person There is another obstacle

If the influence of the state on the media is to some extent understandable even to a person who is not specifically interested in this topic, then the opposite influence is less obvious.

Firstly, the influence the media has on consumers of information depends on the model of the media and the focus of its activities.

Italian professor Paolo Mancini identifies three models of the existence of mass communications:

• 1. Liberal (North Atlantic). This system is used in the USA, Canada, Ireland and the UK. This system is characterized by an attitude towards the media as a tool for making money. The media market (the area of ​​audience coverage by the media) is, according to the state, no different from any other economic sector. Therefore, the press is designed for mass consumption, the goal of the media is to attract the widest possible segments of the population to its products. The media acts as an intermediary between the political elite and the ordinary person who does not understand politics but wants to stay informed. Now many countries are moving to this model in connection with the process of globalization, which is affecting the economy, and, accordingly, one of its industries - the media.
• 2. Polarized-pluralist (Mediterranean). Countries that adhere to this model include Italy, Portugal, Greece and Spain. This system is characterized by the close intertwining of the media sphere with politics. The state has a strong influence on mass communications; they are subject to the will of the government and are not usually considered by it as a means of obtaining economic benefits. Also a feature of the local system is the noticeable, in comparison with other Western media, backwardness and unpopularity of the printed press. The main media is television, and in the media market there are companies for which information activities are indirect. For example, in Italy there are two main television networks, owned by the state. Moreover, one of them (RAI) is owned by former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. According to sociological surveys, only 24% of Italians trust the information provided by television, preferring to receive information from the Internet.
• 3. Democratic-corporate (Northern European). It is represented by Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland and many Scandinavian countries. In addition to commercial media in these countries, there are socially oriented, that is, public, media. Although the state intervenes in the media market space, it does not use it to its own advantage. This is expressed in subsidizing independent media in order to maintain pluralism of opinions. The media in such countries have a relatively high level of freedom, and the population has a high interest in the information provided. Dedyukhina A. When neutrality is not for sale // Expert. 2006, No. 14. pp. 14-15.

If we talk about the nature of the influence of the media on the state, then:

• 1. In the first model, the role of the media and the degree of their influence on public policy is quite insignificant. With this model, the media is an intermediary between the government and society, and the intermediary is, as a rule, neutral. Here the media are third parties, conveying the decisions of political elites to the masses and vice versa.
• 2. The second model is characterized by active government intervention in the activities of the media; in such a situation, the media cannot play any significant role in the formation of government policy.
• 3. The third model is the most preferable and is used mainly in democratic states. The dialogue between public authorities and the public is carried out through the active work of the media in shaping public opinion.

So what does depend on the established form of relationship between the media and government structures in the country? A lot, and first of all the content of the media. In countries with a predominantly centralized mass communications market, they are more politicized and often biased by any party. Their main task is to justify state policy in the eyes of society.

But in states with a predominance of regional media over national ones, this usually does not happen; Such media have the power to influence the development of the state. This difference is considered to be a consequence of the limited number of publications in local markets. The information space of small markets is represented by a small number of publications that are monopolists in their field. Such publications cannot adhere to extreme political views, defending the interests of only one side. This would violate the principle of pluralism of opinions based on everyone’s constitutional right to freedom of speech, and a magazine with a deliberately biased position would hardly become commercially successful. And consumers of national media read them not because they have nothing to choose from, but because they share the same views as these media.

It is difficult to overestimate the role of the media in modern society. Their main task is to expand the political consciousness of the public. The media are the first to convey to the residents of a particular country information about the socio-political conflicts taking place in it and the world, allow society to develop a certain defensive line of behavior from the impending danger, and help convey to the authorities the desires of the masses.

The media are radically capable of changing the situation on the political playing field, establishing different relationships between classes of society. Based on this, the media are ideal, due to their openness, the speed of formulating positions and assessments, the ability to reflect the needs of various segments of the population, a political and social institution that shapes consciousness, as well as a means political participation for ordinary citizens.

From all of the above, we can conclude that the media themselves do not influence either society or the state. But, as an instrument in the hands of certain forces, be it government or public organizations, the media can have a similar influence. Also, mass communications often act as an advertising platform, but in this case the goal, as a rule, is to make a profit.

The forces in whose interests the media work are divided into governmental, independent, public and opposition.

There is also a group of small media outlets that reflect narrower interests (civil, commercial, professional, social-market, etc.).

Thus, the media influence the development of the state, its policies by carrying out a number of functions that meet the interests of various groups. These features include:

• 1. Educational function. With this function, mass communications are transmitted received from various sources, knowledge of mass audience. Thus forming it political consciousness, which directly affects the political situation in the country. Unfortunately, this function is often not protected from being used to deliberately distort the population’s ideas about the real state of affairs in state and world politics.
• 2. Function of political socialization. It is closely related to the previous function, but is not identical. The function of socialization involves the integration of the individual into the world of politics, the assimilation by him of certain political norms and patterns of behavior.
• 3. Criticism. This function meets both the interests of various opposition-minded forces and government organizations. The objects of this function are also different; political subjects and political decisions, the course of public policy, and even the media themselves are subject to criticism.
• 4. Control function (judgment). The media, carrying out this function, express public opinion, reflecting the real attitude of society to a particular event. Such control of society over events is characterized to a greater extent by a moral and ethical assessment of what is happening, rather than a legal one. Using this function as an example, we see how society, in interaction with the media, is able to influence public policy.
• 5. Articulation and integration functions. A function adjacent to the previous one. It is able to influence public policy through articulation, that is, the expression of public interests; integration of political subjects, that is, the unification of various socio-political groups, expression of their interests, their search for like-minded people.
• 6. Information function is without a doubt the most important function of the media. Its goal is to obtain and make public the information that is most important to a person. The media not only receive and objectively transmit information, but, as a rule, also comment on it, giving a subjective assessment of the situation. Such a subjective assessment often meets the political interests of certain persons who have influence on a particular means of communication. In addition, not all information transmitted by the media relates to political events. There are various kinds of entertainment programs, everyday programs, weather forecasts, etc. Political information includes those that have great socio-political significance and require attention from society and the state and have an impact on them. Based on the information received, a person forms an opinion about what the government, parties and other political groups are doing, as well as about the state of affairs in the economic and other sectors.

Functions such as innovation are often highlighted - political changes are carried out by attracting the attention of the public and authorities to various kinds of problems; operational - the work of the media in the interests of various parties and associations; function of forming public opinion; mobilization function - combines all of the above, is expressed in motivating people to various political actions, in involving a person in this industry. Konetskaya A. Sociology of communication. Ch. X// http://sbiblio.com:

But how exactly does the media influence politics? First of all, this influence is carried out through influence on the information process and, accordingly, influence on public opinion. This process includes steps such as:

• 1. Obtaining information is the process of direct collection of information by media workers;
• 2. Selection - at this stage of the information process, competent media workers sift out the least important information from the entire information flow and select the most necessary and relevant data for publication;
• 3. Dissection - detailed analysis and presentation of information in the right way;
• 4. Commenting is an expression of the subjective attitude towards the commented events of the author of a particular message, or the “customer” of this message;
• 5. Analysis - comprehensive analysis of data, clarification of the causes of events, circumstances and possible consequences;
• 6. Dissemination - a process aimed at obtaining information to an indefinite audience.

It is obvious that the media directly influence the information received by citizens, including politicians. The quantity and reliability of this information depends on how and for what purposes, in whose interests the information provided is selected and interpreted.

The media, moreover, are able to influence a person’s attitude not only to individual political events, but also to politics in general. The position taken by the media is directly reflected in the passivity or activity of the population regarding any issue. This influence is especially noticeable and great during periods of significant political changes in the country, transformation political regimes. After all, the only solid foundation for change is human consciousness, including political consciousness. Is it possible that the current passivity of Russians towards political issues is a consequence of the programmatic influence of fictitious media?

Citizens’ perception and formation in connection with it of their attitude to politics and political actions, and citizens’ understanding of their place in ongoing socio-political processes depend on the performance of the media’s functions and responsibilities.

From this we can conclude that the media are capable of influencing state policy and its development through destabilizing or, conversely, influence on the thoughts and feelings of citizens.

Russian media could largely provide economic
height. But they didn’t provide it. The media have not taken on the role they usually do
play in economically successful countries.

However, that's not all. Russian media have not only abandoned this role.
They actually acted as a negative economic force that impeded growth.

This may seem like a harsh judgment on the media. However, in defense of the media
I should point out that none of this was the fault of the media itself.

Who is to blame then? How did the media hinder economic growth?
What role could they realistically play in supporting the economy? And what changes are required for the media to continue to play a constructive economic role? I will try to answer these important questions.

Media as an economic sector

The most obvious economic role The media is what it is a sector
economy. Media companies hire people to work. They buy and sell goods and services. They even pay taxes.

However, the media is not a large sector of the economy in any country.
In the United States, the media industry accounts for just 5.7 percent of the gross domestic product.
product (according to media bank Veronis Suhler Stevenson).

How does this compare to other countries? Unfortunately, comparative data on the size of the media industry in different countries not always available.

Here is a table comparing the indicators of Russia and several Western countries
countries:

Indirect influence of the media

The World Bank recently released a book entitled "The Right to Speak -
the role of the media in economic development» (“The Right to Tell - The Role of Mass
Media in Economic Development”). It is not about direct impact
The media on the national economy, and their indirect influence is the influence they
provide by providing citizens with the information necessary to implement
control over the government.

In an interview with reporters, the book's editor, Roumeen Islam, said: "The message of the book is that independent media can support economic development by promoting good governance and empowering citizens."
In the book itself, she says: “It is clear that the media, as important providers of information, contribute more to economic activity than
better meet three conditions: the media are independent, provide information
good quality and widely distributed."

It is clear that this indirect influence is quite difficult to assess and even more difficult
measure. However, it must be taken into account if we want to understand how the media
can support the economy.

But, as Islam points out, for the media to have this positive impact, freedom of the press is required. The media must be free from economic dependence, which leads to distortion of information. To speak the truth, they must be strong and independent.

Media as economic intermediaries

While supporting real economic growth, the media also has a less obvious
but a more strategic role. It consists in the fact that the media brings together sellers
and buyers. This happens due to the advertising content of the media.

In the simplest economic situation, the meeting place for buyers and sellers is the physical marketplace. This is the place where sellers display
their products and where customers come when they need to buy something.
But when society's needs for various goods and services exceed the capacity of such a primitive market, the role of the media comes to the fore.

The media can also do a lot to stimulate the desire to buy.
In the physical market, this is only possible when the consumer has already arrived
to the market. If a consumer comes to the market to buy potatoes and already sees, for example, attractive tomatoes, he may also buy tomatoes, even if such a purchase was not originally his intention. Very
In a similar way, the media can stimulate the desire to buy - but among consumers who have not even left the threshold of their own home.

I realized early on how powerful an economic force the media can become.
my career as a business consultant for media organizations. A new one came to me
client who published a quarterly magazine in a highly specialized
construction field. This area of ​​business was experiencing an economic downturn. My
The client was looking for ways to cut costs to save their business.

However, my analysis of the current situation showed that the client’s problem
was not that he spends too much. The problem was that he
earns too little. Accordingly, I gave him recommendations on how to improve his magazine and how to sell advertising more effectively.
space. My plan worked, and for a very short term the small publishing company became profitable and began to grow.

The point of the story, however, is different. Something else started to happen. There was a turning point in the industry that this magazine served. The industry began to grow. What led to the fracture? The magazine has become important for buyers
and sellers in this area. He instilled hope and confidence in them about the industry as a whole. And this, in turn, led to its economic growth. As demand for advertising space increased, the magazine began to be published six times a year rather than four. And for the last few years it has been published monthly,
and every number is filled with advertising. And the publisher himself became a successful sponsor
two annual fairs.

The industry, which was in decline, is now thriving. What was the matter?
What was the industry missing when it was in decline? She needed a modern market square, that is, a place where buyers would converge
and sellers, in a place that generates positive expectations. When this missing link was provided, the positive forces of the marketplace were released and economic growth followed.

The economic role of this type for media is not limited to a single industry or economic segment. The media are capable of serving the national
the economy as a whole, bringing together buyers and sellers and instilling in them the confidence that leads to economic growth and development.

Multiplying money

This diagram shows the passage of advertising money through standard stages of the information cycle. This shows that when a company produces a product or service, it tries to advertise it in order to find consumers. At the same time, the company spends money to buy advertising space.
This money - along with income from other advertisers - is received by the newspaper. This allows the newspaper to develop the main content of the publication, i.e. the publishing product itself. The publication is distributed among people who
this content is interesting. While reading it, they also see advertisements.
In turn, they purchase advertised goods and services. As a result, an advertiser who spent 1,000 rubles on advertising can return 4,000 rubles
in business.

It follows that...

The media may themselves constitute a significant segment of the national economy.
They can indirectly help economic growth by promoting good
governance and expanding the rights of citizens.

They can be commercial intermediaries, connecting buyers and sellers through promotional content.

The role of the media in the economic development of Russia

Unfortunately, there is nothing like this in Russia, if we talk about the situation as a whole,
doesn't happen.

Who is to blame?

There are several reasons why the growth of the media sector in Russia has been delayed.

A significant reason was government policies that interfered with advertising.
In most developed countries, advertising is considered a legitimate business activity. But until recently, Russian laws did not recognize advertising
expenses are normal business expenses. Only a very small amount of advertising was exempt from taxes. This meant that advertising costs above this
amounts (equal to approximately two percent of turnover) were to be taxed on the same basis as profits. They were not exempt from taxes. This policy
served as a very serious obstacle to the development of advertising.

Given such a policy, is it any wonder that advertising expenditures in Russia constitute such a small percentage of GNP?

Fortunately, since July 2002, advertising expenses in Russia have ceased to be taxed. This change gives the advertising market the opportunity to develop normally for the first time. In turn, increased advertising costs in the media should
will lead to more intensive development Media as a sector of the economy.

Isn't the media themselves to blame?

There was no unfavorable government policy towards advertising
the only factor holding back the media's contribution to economic growth.
The media themselves also created obstacles to economic growth.

The main role here was played by the waste of the money that companies spent on
advertising. How did the media waste advertisers' money? They did this by letting
fees received from advertisers for the distribution of advertising mainly
among those who were unable to purchase advertised products and services.

Today in Russia - outside of Moscow and St. Petersburg - only about 25 percent of the population has free income. These people can really become
good consumers of advertisers. However, the remaining 75 percent cannot
afford it. Therefore, if, for example, a newspaper is distributed among this 75% segment of society, then the publishers are cheating their advertisers.

Some advertisers are too naive to realize that they are being scammed. Others understand the problem. But they can't do anything about it. Most media outlets stubbornly continue to distribute advertising to consumers,
without economic means. Advertisers willing to spend
money for advertising, opportunities are provided, one worse than the other.

Why don't they believe them? Because most news outlets are filled with stories that appear not because they deserve attention, but because they are paid for. Think about it. The newsroom's editorial role is to sift through hundreds and thousands of events, deciding which
them are important, and communicate these stories to consumers of the news publication. In fact, consumers hold media employees accountable for fulfilling
this function. When the media offers paid propaganda disguised as information, they are violating their duty.

Key Thesis Illustration

A good illustration of this principle is an experiment conducted two years ago by the International Center for Journalists. They
Conducted focus groups in ten Georgian cities. Researchers in every city
asked participants in the experiment to list what content or form of newspaper they preferred. After this, each group was given a pack of national and local newspapers, scissors and glue. They were asked to cut out articles from all the newspapers that together could make up their “ideal” newspaper.

The researchers then analyzed the content of the “ideal” newspapers
and compared it with wish lists. In these lists the first places were occupied by
investigative journalism, government coverage and op-eds
about corruption. But a comparison of “ideal” newspapers with wish lists showed
a colossal discrepancy. Those materials that respondents, according to them,
would like to see in the newspaper, were absent from the “ideal” newspaper.

When the researchers presented this unexpected result to the groups, the group members came up with an almost unanimous explanation: “They didn’t cut or
pasted such materials because materials of this type in existing newspapers are implausible or unreliable.” Georgians believed that
articles of this type are almost always commissioned or paid for by someone in the political
purposes and that they are factually inaccurate and dishonest.

Consumers confirmed that they want, but are not receiving, “news stories they can believe and trust.” Moreover, they even said that
although the economy is bad, "they don't buy more newspapers because
that they can’t afford it, but because in most newspapers they don’t see anything worth spending the money on.”

In Georgia, as in Russia, the media have earned a reputation for being dishonest. Either the articles are factually inaccurate or the publishers are being dishonest in selecting news to communicate to consumers.

To understand this, imagine for a moment that you are the owner of a store. Do you want to hire someone to go around town and tell people about your store?
and said that you sell good goods at a reasonable price. For this job
Two people are competing. One of them, Igor, has a reputation as a deceitful person.
When he walks down the street, people say, “Here comes the liar Igor.” Another person
Ivan is a former teacher. People respect him and believe that he did a useful job
for the community function. On the one hand, Igor, walking through the city, will say
people whatever you want, regardless of whether it's true or not. On the other hand, Ivan will tell only the truth about your business. Who will you hire?

In this simple example, it is easy to see that hiring Igor would bring little benefit,
because they don't trust him. However, in reality the media plays the role of Igor.
By their own actions they have created a disgraceful reputation for themselves. As a result, they have reduced their own value as advertisers to the limit.

What made the media behave this way?

Why did the media put themselves in such an unsightly position? Are they really
didn’t understand how destructive it was for themselves?

In fact, the root cause of this situation is not the media itself. Case
in government. Regulations have limited the amount of advertising that can be contained in the media. This restriction was not imposed as an absolute ban.
Tax policy was used as a limiter. For example, newspapers
in which advertising content exceeded 40 percent, lost tax benefits
on profit and VAT.

In the West, advertising in newspapers takes up an average of 58 percent. For newspaper
It's almost impossible to be profitable with a 40 percent advertising limit. Thus, through a limit on advertising content, the government
actually doomed the media to unprofitability.

How did newspapers survive in such a situation? How did they manage not to go broke?
To make up for their losses, they turned into paid propagandists for
“sponsors” - officials and companies. They take money in payment for distorting news or for placing paid propaganda (hidden advertising or “ordered advertising”) under the guise of news. Often such transactions are disguised as investment transactions or property relations. In any form, similar
the transaction creates financial dependence of an individual media outlet on some authority that wants to distort either the information itself or the editorial presentation of information.

The dominance of this system has given the media a bad reputation. It is remarkable that the same system is also responsible for the spread
advertising among those who are deprived of the financial ability to buy what is advertised. The fact is that “sponsors” want to have a broad influence on society. They want to appeal not to customers, but to voters. Respectively,
they encourage the media they sponsor to gain the widest possible
audience, whether readers or viewers are proper
addressees of advertisers.

There is a peculiar irony in the fact that the methods of sponsors and hidden advertisers are also ineffective ways of influencing consumers.
For example, typically “re-running” an advertisement increases its effectiveness. But how many times can a newspaper repeat false information? Typically, the effectiveness of an advertisement is directly proportional to its size. But in case
hidden advertising, consumers do not perceive its size. In the end,
that is why it is called “hidden”.

This is the government's mistake

So, the legislation predetermined the non-profitability of the media and sent
them into the arms of politicians, oligarchs, etc. to cover losses. This
led to several disastrous consequences for the economic
height:

• civil society could not develop normally, since citizens did not have access to undistorted information that helps make political choices;
• the growth of the advertising market was suppressed by tax policy;
• the development of the media sector was hampered by the lack of a healthy advertising market;
• the effectiveness of advertising spending was greatly reduced by the media's approach to building its audience and the fact that the media created distrust among consumers;
• Thus, the media were ineffective both in connecting buyers with sellers and in spreading economic confidence.

Ending the tragedy

How to stop this tragedy? What can be done to enable the media to fulfill
necessary role in supporting economic development?

Some believe the solution would be to pass laws that would end government sponsorship, subsidies and ownership of the media industry. But while I sympathize with the purpose of such a measure, I do not consider it necessary. In my opinion, the real solution is to create conditions under which
The media could honestly serve the needs of their natural support groups - consumers and advertisers. IN at the moment both of these groups can choose
only from bad alternatives. If good media do appear - that is, such
that serve the interests of consumers and advertisers, rather than sponsors, are
I'm sure the Russians are smart enough to prefer them to the sponsored, dishonest media.

But this means that media outlets need to achieve profitability based on circulation sales and advertising revenues. President Putin recognized the need for this.
In 2000, he stated: “...The economic inefficiency of a large part of
media makes them dependent on the commercial and political interests of the owners and sponsors of these media. Allows you to use the media to settle scores with competitors, and sometimes even turn them into media of disinformation, a means of fighting the state.
Therefore, we are obliged to guarantee journalists real, and not ostensible, freedom, and to create legal and economic conditions for a civilized information business in the country.”

What did he actually do for this? At this point have been done
two significant steps: 1) since July 2002, advertising costs were finally
completely exempt from taxes; 2) several months before the benefits
income tax, tied to the 40 percent limit on advertising content, were not extended.

These are very important steps towards establishing press freedom in Russia and creating conditions that would allow the media to perform a stimulating function
in economic growth.

Unfortunately, some remnants of the previous media-unfriendly
policies are retained. At the beginning of 2002, the Duma adopted and the President approved
extension of partial VAT benefits tied to advertising restrictions
content. Before this, Deputy Minister of Press Grigoriev told me that these benefits are not
will be extended. But, obviously, the administration did not want to enter into conflict
with the Duma on the eve of an election year.

Another problem is the services of post offices in subscription campaigns and newspaper delivery. Grigoriev told me that changes in the conditions under which the media use postal services are being considered. I then asked him several times to explain
whether the link to the 40% advertising limit will continue to be maintained. But he never did
responded to my requests. Obviously, the administration conceded on this issue as well.

There is another obstacle

Even if VAT and postal policies restricting advertising content remain, they are not, in my opinion, the key factors. First, partial VAT benefits are of relatively minor importance. Secondly,
publishers should abandon the poor quality services of the state postal service,
creating their own systems for acquiring subscribers and delivering newspapers.

This means that there is now no real interference for publications containing more than 40 percent advertising content. For the first time, they can achieve profitability without sponsors or subsidies.

However, there is one more obstacle. This is the stubborn reluctance of many media companies to abandon the current corrupt sponsorship system
and paid stories and honestly serve your consumers (readers,
viewers, listeners) and advertisers.

Indeed, forces are working to preserve the existing order of things
inertia. Media companies are happy with the current system. This system allowed them to survive. They know how it works. It is difficult to give up its conveniences for new ways of doing business, which for them are an unknown quantity.

Whenever I asked media managers to explain why they didn't want change, they came up with the following excuses.

• One manager who charges money for hidden advertising claims that, unlike Westerners, Russians respond better to texts than to explicit advertising materials. Of course, this is not confirmed by facts. On the contrary, there is every indication that Russians, when given the opportunity, respond normally to marketing methods that were prohibited during the Soviet era.
• One editor defends a front-page article describing discounts offered by a local department store. He argues that information about discounts benefits readers. In fact, this is a superficial justification for agreeing to exchange the independence of editorial opinion for several thousand rubles.
• Another media manager justifies running hidden advertisements disguised as news stories by saying that this is what his advertisers want and that he is simply responding to market demand. But what if this media manager advised his advertisers on more effective forms of advertising? This could lead to advertisers becoming richer and therefore more profitable clients for placing more advertisements!

But if inertia leads to the preservation of the existing order, what is needed?
what to do to stimulate change? A change is needed in the business culture of the media sector, new way so that both media companies and advertisers refuse
existing practices and mastered truly market approaches to managing
business.

Promoting such a change in business culture is the goal of the Russian Media Fund (www.publishinghelp.com/RussianMediaFund). This project is supported
International Center for Journalists and Center for Media Studies “Sreda” (Moscow). The Foundation has put together an extensive program to stimulate and support the transformation of media business culture. Major funding should come from Russia's largest consumer advertisers
market - companies that will receive direct financial profit in the event
the success of this project. Project presentations aimed at attracting
pilot funds were received with interest by the Soros and Eurasia foundations.
Until now, however, neither one nor the other has provided the necessary amounts. At the time of writing this article, The Russia Journal made the first
a step towards pilot funding. Let's hope other donors
will join in the near future.

It's time for change

All these circumstances give Russian media a chance to develop a new concept that has great potential for dramatically improving the media landscape. This
a good prospect for a media that has the strength and independence to tell the truth, the will to serve the interests of consumers and advertisers,
and the potential to promote overall economic growth.

Until now, this prospect existed only in dreams. Tax and advertising regulations have made it virtually impossible for media companies to exist independently. This made them dependent on financial tycoons, who compensated the media for losses, and in exchange received the opportunity to influence
on the nature of the information.

Recent regulatory changes have eliminated the need for such
submission. However, these changes did not lead to a radical change in the actions of the Russian media. The forces of inertia support the vicious business practices that have become the source of livelihood for the media.

However, these changes have created a testing ground - a place where the interplay of forces can shape positive change. If this testing ground is used wisely, if the media changes its business culture in a positive direction, then our time will go down in history as a glorious beginning
new Russian media - and as a significant milestone in the development of the Russian
economy!

Translation from English by Grigory Dashevsky.

Plan:

Introduction.

Determining public opinion and the media.

Methods of influencing human consciousness.

Semantic manipulation method.

Formation of stereotypes.

Conclusion.

References.

Introduction

Modern society can be characterized as an information society, the main wealth of which is information. An objective pattern of development of such a society has become the intensification of information processes: the speed of message transmission increases; the volume of transmitted information increases; its processing is accelerated. This process can have a negative impact on a person, leading to information overload, which in turn weakens the ability to think and reflect.

Of particular concern is the fact of the impact of modern media (hereinafter referred to as media) on the younger generation. The fact that this impact is largely negative today is no longer disputed by anyone. This is confirmed by existing research and the general situation in society. The wave of violence that has swept society, the growth of unmotivated aggression, the destruction of traditional universal values, the lack of moral guidelines and spiritual leaders among young people, the decrease in the threshold of sensitivity - all this is not least due to the modern state of mass communications.

This topic is especially relevant today when it comes to the lack of control over the media market, the uncontrolled supply of information to various audiences, which ultimately has a detrimental effect on the formation of moral values ​​of the younger generation.

In market conditions, the media have lost their once most important functions of human upbringing, personality formation, and enlightenment. Today's media is a business whose main goal is to make a profit. To achieve this goal, all means are used to attract a mass audience. Not to raise a person in his best manifestations, but to satisfy his momentary needs, not a civil institution, but a service sector - thus, the center of gravity has shifted.

Determining public opinion and the media

The media are institutions created for open, public transmission of various information to any persons using special technical tools - it is a relatively independent system characterized by a multiplicity of constituent elements: content, properties, forms, methods and certain levels of organization (in the country, in the region, in production). The distinctive features of the media are publicity, i.e. unlimited number of users; availability of special technical devices and equipment; inconsistent volume of audience, changing depending on the expressed interest in a particular program, message or article.

The concept of “mass media” should not be identified with the concept of “media of mass communication” (MSC). This is not entirely true, since the latter concept characterizes a wider range of mass media. Mass media include cinema, theater, circus, etc., all entertainment performances that are distinguished by regularity of appeal to a mass audience, as well as such technical means of mass communication as telephone, telegraph, teletype, etc.

Journalism itself is directly related to the use of developed technical means of communication - the press (means of disseminating information through printed reproduction of text and images), radio (transmission of sound information using electromagnetic waves) and television (transmission of sound and video information also using electromagnetic waves; for radio and television, the use of an appropriate receiver is mandatory).

Thanks to the use of these communication means, three media subsystems have emerged: print, radio and television, each of which consists of a huge number of channels - individual newspapers, magazines, almanacs, book products, radio and television programs, capable of being distributed both throughout the world and in small regions (regions, districts, districts). Each subsystem performs its share of journalism functions based on its specific characteristics.

Definition of public opinion. Public opinion is a specific manifestation of public consciousness, expressed in assessments (both oral and written) and characterizing the explicit attitude of large social groups (primarily the majority of the people) to current problems of reality that are of public interest. The fact is that public opinion does not exist in every society, since it is not simply the sum of those private opinions that people exchange in a narrow, private circle of family or friends.

The public is a group of people who, firstly, find themselves in a similar unresolved situation, secondly, are aware of the uncertainty and problematic nature of the situation, and, thirdly, react in a certain way to the created situation.

Public opinion is a state of public consciousness that is expressed publicly and influences the functioning of society and its political system. It is the possibility of open, public expression of the population on topical problems of public life and the influence of this publicly expressed position on the development of socio-political relations that reflects the essence of public opinion as a special social institution.

Attitude can be thought of as a person's assessment of a particular problem or issue. Attitude is determined by a number of factors:

1) personal - physical and emotional components of the individual, including age, social status, physical condition

2) cultural - the life style of a particular country (Russia, USA or Japan) or geographical area (urban or peripheral).

3) educational - the level and quality of a person’s education.

4) family - taking into account the origin of people. Children often acquire the ideological characteristics of their parents at an early age and retain them in the future.

5) social class - position in society. A change in people's social status entails a change in their relationships. So, students

institutions can change their attitude to social phenomena after entering the labor market and starting professional activities.

6) ethnicity as a lifestyle. The scientific tradition that connects the existence in society of the institution of public opinion with freedom in public life comes from Hegel, who, in particular, wrote in “Philosophy of Law”: “Formal subjective freedom, consisting in the fact that individual persons as such have and express their one’s own opinion, judgment about general affairs and giving advice regarding them, manifests itself in that compatibility called public opinion.” Such freedom arises only in a society in which there is a sphere of private (individual and group) interests independent of the state, i.e. the sphere of relations that make up civil society.

Public opinion in its modern meaning and understanding appeared with the development of the bourgeois system and the formation of civil society as a sphere of life, independent of political power. In the Middle Ages, a person’s belonging to one class or another had direct political significance and strictly determined his social position. With the emergence of bourgeois society, the estates were replaced by open classes consisting of formally free and independent individuals. The presence of such free individuals, independent of the state, individual owners (even if this is ownership only of their labor force) is a necessary prerequisite for the formation of civil society and public opinion as its special institution.

In a totalitarian regime, where all social relations are strictly politicized, where there is no civil society and the private individual as an independent subject, i.e. There is no and cannot be a public opinion that does not coincide with the stereotypes of the dominant ideology, a publicly expressed opinion. In this sense, our public opinion is a child of the era of glasnost, which has very little experience of existence by historical standards. During the years of perestroika, our society very quickly passed the path from ordered unanimity through the so-called openness and pluralism of opinions to real political pluralism and freedom of speech. During this period, a public opinion that was independent in its assessments and judgments was formed.

Methods of influencing human consciousness

Social consciousness is a reflection of the material attitude of people to each other and to nature in the process of people’s relationship to reality.* The media, through their impact on society as a whole, influence each person individually, forming certain identical emotions and actions. Thus, thanks to the media, public opinion is formed - a state of mass consciousness that contains the hidden or explicit attitude of various social communities to problems and events of reality.

For example, there is a clearly formulated public opinion regarding such global universal problems. How to prevent environmental disaster, thermonuclear, biological war, etc. Public opinion acts in expressive (control), advisory and directive functions.

The expressive function is the broadest in its meaning. Public opinion always takes a certain position in relation to various political systems, state power, or any global national or global problem. Thus, in this function, public opinion acts as a kind of controlling force in relation to the institutions of power, i.e. possesses moral power, but this power is also very effective, since the emerging processes of social discontent can lead to serious consequences, perhaps even to some kind of government changes.

The second function is advisory. Society expresses its point of view on any problem and thus can force government institutions to act in a certain way in relation to solving economic, ideological, and political problems. But this function will have an impact on the institutions of power only if the government listens to public opinion. The spread of public opinion is largely facilitated by the media, disseminating the opinions of some people.

The third function is directive, which manifests itself in the fact that the public makes decisions on certain problems of social life that are of an unconditional nature. For example, expressing popular opinion during elections - in this case, the people not only show a degree of trust in one or another candidate, but also express their opinion.

Public opinion largely determines social life and directs the activities of some social institutions, including the activities of the media. Since the media try to cover significant problems that are relevant to society and largely consider them from the point of view of public opinion, we can conclude that public opinion can determine the activities of the media. But public opinion itself is formed under the influence of various factors, in particular due to the spread of ideology and propaganda, which the media can also do.

In media practice today, methods of subconscious influence are widely used, when society’s attitude to certain phenomena of the surrounding world is formed with the help of stereotypical ideas that are introduced into the news flow, automatically causing in the mass consciousness either a negative or a positive reaction to a specific event.

The task of the press in the process of persuasion is to create a strong, sustainable attitude towards this phenomenon. Due to his biological nature, a person is susceptible to suggestion, imitation and contagion.

Suggestion is considered to be an influence on a person that leads to the appearance in a person, against his will and consciousness, of certain feelings and/or encourages a person to perform certain actions.*. While under the influence of suggestion, a person does not control the influence directed at him. The easiest way is to instill in a person what he is predisposed to due to his needs and interests. However, something can be suggested against his will, causing certain feelings and states that push him to commit an act that may not at all follow the norms and principles of behavior he accepts. The very activity of the media, which aims to instill something in society, is inhumane, since people cannot control the influence directed at them and, accordingly, find themselves powerless in the face of such suggestions.

At a certain point, the media “feeds” information that is often an outright lie. Firstly, disinformation is usually supplied from different sources and sinks into a person’s subconscious, and secondly, disinformation is used at the moment of making an important decision, and when the truth is known, the goal of disinformation will already be achieved. Thus, this method is quite effective. But the method of disinformation is frankly “crude” and is not often used in modern media. We can say that the most stable information is the one that is rationally comprehended and emotionally assimilated by a person.

UDC 323:070

MARKOV E.A. Government influence

in Russian media

The media is a complex institution of the political system of society, consisting of many organs and elements, designed to inform the population about ongoing events and phenomena. In addition, they can independently produce political information, influence political processes, and shape public opinion. That is why government structures seek to control the activities of the media by any means possible. In Russia, state influence in the production and dissemination of information is even more significant. And this phenomenon is quite natural.

Key words: freedom, political dependence of the media, economic dependence of the media, the role of the media in the “state - society” system.

According to researchers, in modern Russia there is not a single truly independent publication representing the interests of society before the authorities. Some belong to private capital and, therefore, will primarily defend its interests. The founders of others are federal or regional authorities (about 80 percent of the media, even those not established by government structures, are directly controlled by federal and regional government agencies). Even state media are strictly protected by officials, on whom the financial well-being of the press largely depends. Control may even include pre-screening of published materials and informal censorship1. As a result, society does not receive complete and objective information about ongoing events and phenomena.

Many domestic researchers note that modern media turned into just a tool for managing society, having lost such functions as the ability to express the interests of society, to be a means of public control over the activities of the authorities, to provide the authorities with objective information about the attitude of the population towards the authorities,

those. to be a mediator of society in relations with the authorities2.

But can the Russian press be an independent political institution, the influence and authority of which is considered by power and big capital? Or will the Russian mass media continue to be just a tool for the information influence of the authorities and big capital?

This state of affairs, when the Russian media are forced to operate under conditions of excessively strict control by officials, cannot be called favorable either for the development of democracy, or for the formation of civil society institutions, or for the socio-economic development of the country as a whole. But, studying the history of the development of Russian media in different periods, you begin to think that Russian media are distinguished by a genetic state nature (essence), and therefore they are doomed to be eternal assistants of the state. It is the state nature of the Russian media that determined, determines today and will determine in the future the development of information relations between the state, the media and society. And there are objective prerequisites for this.

The entire history of the creation and development of printed periodicals and book publishing

affairs in tsarist Russia were carried out according to the will and blessing of the monarchs who personified power. Actually, newspapers appeared in Russia thanks to Tsar Peter I, who founded the first official newspaper in 1702. Russian newspaper"Vedomosti". Starting from the time of Peter I, the state regulated and developed printing and book publishing, contributed to the education of the population, and the development of the media themselves. Promoting the development of printing, the monarchs either tightened state control over the production of printed materials, or briefly weakened it. As a result, under all the emperors, the domestic press and book publishing were under the vigilant eye of total censorship, which became a special state institution.

The end of the monarchical form of government in February 1917 allowed the establishment of freedom of the press. The Provisional Government (April 27, 1917) abolished censorship and granted the right to everyone who wished to publish a periodical or establish a printing house. But freedom of the press lasted only a few months in Russia. It was replaced at the end of 1917 by a new ideological and political dictatorship - the dictatorship of Soviet power, which lasted until 1990. In the totalitarian Soviet system, the media were built into the system of state propaganda and agitation. We can say that they were in the service of the state, which used the media as tools for direct influence on society. The state broadcast through this channel its will, its guidelines, its understanding of current events, which it often itself inspired.

At the end of the 80s of the last century, important and serious changes began in the USSR, called “perestroika” and “glasnost”. The media has gained the ability to get rid of addiction. In the early 90s. Russian media have transformed from a means of ideological influence of the CPSU into an independent political institution that actively participated in the processes of political and social change.

neniya. The Soviet and Russian “Law on Media” adopted in 1990, and in 1991, enshrined rights and freedoms in the activities of the media and abolished preliminary censorship in the form of such an organization as Glavlit (Main Directorate for Literature and Publishing) .

But Soviet and then Russian media collided at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries. with the most difficult task of finding and determining one’s place in the reformed state, since the previous historical experience of coexistence of the media and government bodies was not suitable for use in the new conditions.

The transformations that had begun set in motion new political forces that activated mechanisms aimed at gradually updating the political elite that did not meet modern ideas and requirements. In the modernized political and economic system, representatives of the new elite have opportunities to gain access to power and the resources it has. As a result of the process of glasnost, begun by M. Gorbachev, there was an information explosion of freedom of opinion and the appearance in the free media of new information that was previously inaccessible to the general population under the conditions of the totalitarian regime. It would seem that the Russian media have found their place in the reforming system and have become that important social institution that significantly influences the formation of public ideas and views and whose opinions society certainly listened to and whose assessments it trusted? But the processes of so-called glasnost, which caused an information explosion, became possible only because the interests of the new political elite that came to power and the interests of the media community, which was striving to gain independence and gain freedom of speech, coincided for some time. This coincidence of interests and joining of efforts largely determines

It was the success of the activities of representatives of new political forces and at the same time the future of the Russian media.

At first, unnoticeable, but gradually growing political dependence of the media on the new political elite developed and deepened, subsequently transforming into economic dependence. That is, the Russian media again began to gradually lose their independence, although for some time the media community had no idea about this. The media fulfilled their role by facilitating the rise to power of representatives of the new elite and giving this process the necessary legitimacy. With the beginning of economic transformations, the essence of which boiled down to the introduction of market relations in the economy, the Russian media were unable to maintain their function as objective sources of information directly involved in the formation of public opinion. They were not ready to operate in the new conditions. Due to the sharply increased financial costs of maintenance, the Russian media first fell into economic, and a little later, political dependence either on the authorities, which retained their participation in the media market, or on business, which took over the press for its maintenance and assigned it the role of a guide. and defender of their interests. Only a few media outlets have remained independent players in the country’s information market, but at the same time they have largely lost their social weight and significance, turning into specialized informational commercial publications.

Thus, in modern Russian media, the genetic (state) nature of their essence has prevailed, expressed in the acceptance of subordination and dependence - political or economic.

Do Russian media have the prospect of liberation from the political and economic dependence established by the authorities? Let us say right away that this process, even if it is supported “from above,” will be evolutionary, not revolutionary. This is due to the fact that today Russia is in the most difficult

social, political and economic situation trying to respond to challenges and threats modern world. The country's leadership declares its desire to modernize the economy and political system, provide the population with minimum social standards, develop democratic institutions of society in order to build a state that meets modern requirements, capable of successfully competing with the most developed countries. And Russia must carry out these reforms in order to show and prove its viability in the context of the struggle of the world's leading countries for the current and future use and distribution of world resources.

But in the context of the development of Russia as a strong and independent state, which is also forced to play the role of a center for protecting the interests of a number of countries, the role and importance of the use of information resources, including the media, will significantly increase. The authorities will not be able to solve the most important strategic tasks without using the capabilities of the mass media. Because, firstly, the media are not only a source of information, but also an important communication channel between the government and society. And secondly, the media will have to once again become, to some extent, a means of ideological influence, tirelessly and daily participating in the preparation of public consciousness to solve a generally significant task - the implementation of a survival strategy, which consists in the need to develop the country as a strong state. This means that state influence in the activities of the press will remain. True, if in tsarist and Soviet times the press operated in conditions of complete dependence on the authorities (represented by censorship bodies or ideological services), then at present the dependence of the press on the authorities is not so unambiguous, but more complex, multi-layered and sometimes imperceptible, but still equally stable. In short, the state will not let go of its leverage over the press, expressed in the system

material support; providing information to “trustworthy” media outlets, etc. After all, the essence of power, after all, is “... the ability of a subject to influence an object. If the subject does not have this ability, he does not have power. The ability to influence an object is an obligatory element of power, one of its specific properties”3.

Under these conditions, can the Russian mass media express not only the interests of the authorities, but also the interests of the majority of the population? Of course, those media owned by private capital will primarily defend the interests of their owners. But state media, receiving financial support from budget funds generated by taxpayers, must defend the interests of not only officials, but the entire society and individual citizens. Ideally, this is how it should be. After all, it is the state that should be interested in ensuring that the media carry out their activities for the benefit of the state and in the interests of the entire society, while complying with current legislation. And the media themselves cannot be absolutely independent from their state, from their civil society, from defending the interests of their country, from fulfilling the provisions of the Constitution, which guarantees the protection of the rights and freedoms of citizens.

And yet, the authorities have an urgent need to organize communication and information interaction with society with the direct participation of the media. To accomplish this most important task, it is necessary to create conditions for the activities of media of different affiliations, expressing the totality of social and political

interests reflecting the struggle of opinions, ideas and points of view existing in society. After all, the higher the degree of information competition, the higher the level of development of democracy and civil society institutions. In turn, the lack of information competition leads to the emergence of information barriers that make it difficult to move along the path of socio-economic development. This means that the state must regulate information processes by implementing a certain information policy. But not only officials, but also representatives of political parties, professional organizations, trade unions, public organizations, scientific institutions and citizens who have their own proposals in this regard.

In a word, directive management of the information sphere of activity must give way to a policy of coordinating the interests of all its participants; the media in these conditions can provide society with the opportunity to communicate with government structures on all socially significant issues, providing equal opportunities for participation to representatives of various social and political forces.

1 Report on the activities of the Commissioner for Human Rights in the Russian Federation in 2000. M.: Publishing house "Legal Literature", 2001. P. 123-124.

2 See: Mysterious journalism of the XXI century // Arguments of the week. 2007. No. 39 (73); Lukyanova I.A. So after all: manipulation or cooperation? // Materials of the seminar of the National Press Institute. Samara, 2000; Konovchenko S.B., Kiselev A.G. Information policy in Russia. Monograph. M.: RAGS, 2004.

3 V. G. Ledyaev. Power: conceptual analysis // Polis. 2000. No. 1.

Of course, the power of information determines the level of human development: the higher a person rises in his development, the greater the need for further possession of information. It is the possession of information that determines the attitude of the authorities towards the media. However, as a number of authors admit, society accepts the information that has taken root in the worldview of contemporaries. As for thoughts and ideas that have not yet been accepted by society, they will remain unnoticed and misunderstood.

The centuries-old history of mankind shows that restrictive measures applied first to the press and then to the media are not able to stop the process of spreading ideas that are negatively assessed by the authorities.

The media have the opportunity to gradually, methodically, and over a long period of time influence the opinion of each individual and society as a whole, preparing, consolidating and accelerating the process of accepting ideas.

Even the politicians of antiquity appreciated and used such media opportunities whenever possible. It is known that Ancient Egypt At the court of the pharaohs, “papyrus newspapers” were in circulation, defending the proto-Pharaonic platform, and opposition “newspapers”. Considerable efforts by the authorities of Ancient Rome during the late Republic and early Roman Empire were also aimed at informing the population about the activities of the government. Thus, the 500-year history of the development of the media indicates that the media are capable of influencing social development, but only within the framework of the level of development of society. And most importantly, they are able to shape public opinion. In modern conditions, the media, using special technologies, are able to manipulate public opinion, but also to certain limits. The enormous potential of the media to influence the authorities and the fact that they are one of the most capacious and effective channels of communication for government bodies and management with society, as well as society with the authorities, are largely explained by the wide range of functions that the media perform when interacting with environment. Let's highlight the main ones:

functions of articulating the interests of certain social groups, strata. Thus, the media contribute to strengthening society with authorities;

the function of aggregation of interests, as a result of which the variety and variety of interests existing in society are generalized and, to some extent, simplified;

the function of dissemination, transfer of political and other information between the authorities and the governed, as well as between different elements of the political system;

a function of political socialization that helps members of society internalize and recognize certain values, guidelines, and positions regarding the political system as acceptable to one degree or another.

Theoretically, the media play the role of an intermediary between the state and society. The mediating role of the media lies primarily in the fact that they represent the interests of society before the authorities, help society formulate and protect them, they themselves are the most important institution of civil society, without shying away from the role of a kind of transmission mechanism of impulses going from the state to society and back . However, filling this scheme with the real content of knowledge is more complex and riddled with many contradictions.

Firstly, it is necessary to take into account that in the recent past, during the time of the USSR, the state was the main, if not the only, producer of information and actually had a monopoly information resources countries. The media is essentially a state institution built into administrative system power, which is increasingly moving away from society. In this system, the media were assigned the role of, first of all, a link serving the ideological component of the all-party, national policy in one or another area of ​​society. And this link, we repeat, was clearly integrated into the overall system of power with all the relevant technologies for interaction between party and government bodies and the media. There were also corresponding “rules of behavior” that both sides adhered to. However, in conditions when the functions of information production have largely transferred from the state to information companies, to the media, which have gained, to one degree or another, independence from the state, the authorities that feel the need to influence the content and direction of information flows are not always able to are able to realize this need adequately to new conditions. One of the alarming trends characteristic of the relationship between government agencies and the media in recent years comes down to what can be called the secondary nationalization of the media. This happens primarily in the subjects of the Federation, in administrative-territorial entities, where “administrative capital” appropriates local media and controls their political behavior. At the same time, large resources of influence on the processes and the environment in which the media operate are still concentrated in the hands of Go. But they are not always effective.

Secondly, it is still too early to say that society has its own line of behavior in relation to the authorities. In a situation where - as is happening in Russia - society has very little ability to influence power, including information power (the fourth estate), it cannot build its own line of more or less constructive behavior in relation to each of the branches of power . In such conditions, society quickly turns away from power. Evidence of this is the low level of trust in both government bodies and the media, as mentioned above.

Thirdly, the real location of the media system in the triad “power - media - society” is significantly influenced by such a feature of Russian political and economic reality as an extremely high degree of politicization of capital. The media, having quite limited opportunities adapt to the constantly changing economic environment, they cannot always resist the aggression of both politicized capital and “administrative capital”. In this case, the media cease to be a structure of the information business and become a means of influence, a structure serving certain political interests and ambitions of certain political and economic authors. It can be assumed that, although not to the same extent as was observed in Soviet times, the propaganda component of the functioning of the Russian media will be strong for quite some time. It is known that the competitiveness of a publication (competitive with its political and economic behavior) depends on the growth of the manufacturer’s ability to adapt to the influence of environmental factors. The more such factors are controlled by the manufacturer, the greater the chances of the product being competitive. However, when the “rules of the game” on the economic field are dictated by monopolies, both state and non-state, and when the instability of these rules is aggravated by acute political struggle, the number of factors that production can influence is not so large and its position, in particular in the market The media are very vulnerable, just as the principle of competition is generally vulnerable.