UDC

373.167.1:316/070

Authors

Sidorov Viktor Aleksandrovich
Higher School of Journalism and Mass Communications, Saint Petersburg State University (St. Petersburg, Russia)
e-mail: vsidorov47@gmail.com

Abstract

Media interaction in a society is structured and personally expressed; it follows the established communication channels and is organized by problems and meanings. This is one of the mechanisms forming the public sphere which objectively determines and maintains socially significant discourses. The importance of discourses is constantly determined and maintained by their actors. Information interaction in a society is ambivalent: on the one hand, it is institutionally structured and on the other, personally coloured. Social discourses are specific in their inheriting historically developed algorithms/ models of forms and methods of formulating issues under discussion. A certain discourse is maintained, an important place being taken by the meanings which were once introduced into it and then have been slowly developing over time. To understand the specificity of media interaction in a society means to reveal/destroy some of the abstraction established in our minds and fettering them. Thus, the paper studies the stratification of journalism and its discourse at the current historical, cultural and epistemological levels. Seeing journalism as a layered object necessitates considering the mediasphere accordingly, as it is there that communication of social institutions takes place, ensuring publicity of social interaction. Publicity has always been a factor stimulating equality of discourse participants but never met the objective. Communicative interaction in a society is understood as a contact of values of different systems, institutions and individuals. A mediasphere is described as having communication dynamics and stratified organization. This is perceived as a media reality which acts as a special dimension of reality in a society, forming relationships of meaning translation and generation between them. In other words, in its own way media reality converts/transforms the reality of a society; that is why the “earthly” and the “media” are never the same and why in the media sphere the semantic tension between the parties of communication is not as high as in reality. Having performed a value analysis of mass media activation as a result of the nonconformist action by Pussy Riot, the author dwells on the nature of media interaction as a meeting point for conflicting values.

Keywords

journalism axiology, mediasphere, media interaction, communication dynamics

References

1. Klyukanov I.E. Kommunikativnyy universum [Communicative Universe]. Moscow, 2010.
   
2. Panfilova T.V. Mezhkul’turnoe vzaimodeystvie: tendentsii i perspektivy [Interculturality: Trends and Prospects]. Mirovaya politika: vzglyad iz budushchego: materialy V Konventa RAMI [World Politics: Looking from the Future: Proc. 5th RISA Convent]. Moscow, 2009.
   
3. Dijk T. van. Discourse and Power. Contributions to Critical Discourse Studies. Houndsmills, Palgrave MacMillan, 2008 (Russ. ed.: Deyk Ten van. Diskurs i vlast’. Reprezentatsiya dominirovaniya v yazyke i kommunikatsii. Moscow, 2013).
   
4. Žižek S. The Plague of Fantasies. London, 1997 (Russ. ed.: Zhizhek S. Chuma fantazii. Kharkov, 2014).
   
5. Kantor K.M. Istoriya protiv progressa [History versus Progress]. Moscow, 1992.
   
6. Nazarchuk A.V. Ideya kommunikatsii i novye filosofskie ponyatiya XX veka [The Idea of Communication and New Philosophical Concepts of the 20th Century]. Voprosy filosofii, 2011, no. 5, pp. 157–166.
   
7. Barthes R. La chambre claire: Note sur la photographie. Paris, 1980. 192 p. (Russ ed.: Bart R. Camera Lucida. Kommentariy k fotografii. Moscow, 2011).
   
8. Krastyn’ S.R. Teoreticheskaya ekspozitsiya ponyatiya “ontologicheskie osnovaniya kommunikatsii” [Theoretical Exposition of the Concept of “Ontological Basis of Communication”]. Missiya intellektuala v sovremennom obshchestve: sb. st. [An Intellectual’s Mission in Modern Society: Collected Papers]. St. Petersburg, 2008.
   
9. Habermas J. Der gespaltene Westen. Kleine politische Schriften. Frankfurt am Main, 2004 (Russ. ed.: Khabermas Yu. Raskolotyy Zapad. Moscow, 2008).
   
10. Zolotukhina E.V. Bytiynost’ tsennostey: sovremennyy poznavatel’nyy poisk [The True Essence of Values: A Modern Cognitive Research]. Tsennostnyy diskurs v naukakh i teologii [Value Discourse in Science and Theology]. Moscow, 2009, pp. 211–219.
    
11. Kasavin I.T. Tsennosti novoy tsivilizatsii: osnovaniya poiska i ikh kriticheskaya otsenka [Values of the New Civilization: Basis for Research and Its Critical Assessment]. Tsennostnyy diskurs v naukakh i teologii [Value Discourse in Science and Theology]. Moscow, 2009, pp. 9–21.
    
12. Akhiezer A.S. Sotsiokul’turnyy sub”ekt – perelom na rubezhe tysyacheletiy: prezumptsiya preodoleniya slozhnosti [Sociocultural Subject: a Critical Point at the Turn of the Millenium: Presumption of Overcoming Difficulty]. Sub”ekt vo vremeni sotsial’nogo bytiya: Istoricheskoe vypolnenie prostranstvenno-vremennogo kontinuuma sotsial’noy evolyutsii [A Subject at the Time of Social Existence: Historical Performance of the Space-Time Continuum of Social Evolution]. Moscow, 2006, pp. 377–400.
    
13. Meneghetti A. Sistema e personalità (Russ. ed.: Menegetti A. Sistema i lichnost’. Moscow, 2003).